The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Jay Pan ROKK:

Many more multicultural nations have faced civil wars. See: The Balkan states. See: Sudan. SEe: Rwanda.

Well, these places were not ruled by modern international politics and diplomacy.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Of course we have ways of knowing. Number one, their uniquely preserved language. Number two, their uniquely preserved primitive Indo-Aryan religion. Number three, their unique genetics (a number of studies have been done on them). Number four, their unique phenotypes. Etcetera and so forth ... this doesn't mean you get a determinate answer, but it's not inherently unknowable. Irish may have thought they were Scythians, but the Irish never spoke Indo-Iranian and worshiped Vedic gods. Plus genetics show that they are worlds apart. So you could test the Irish claim and easily refute it, while the Kalash claim has been substantially strengthened under testing.

Now it's complicated if you want to try and compare "ancient Greeks," since modern Greeks are so different genetically from ancient Hellenes. But the Kalash are, by every indication -- linguistic, religious, and genetic -- an astoundingly isolated and distinct group. There are actually genetic studies that have been done to determine if there's any Greek component, and the current conclusion is that there might be a tiny bit of admixture with one group of the Kalash, but not much.

European Journal of Human Genetics - Y-chromosomal evidence for a limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of Pakistan

Wait- which claim? The claim that they came from Greeks or the claim that they are Indo-Iranian? The Greek claim is tenuous, but possible, which is what I said to begin with. The Indo-Iranian claim is also tenuous, because "their uniquely preserved language" isn't irrefutably Indo-Iranian. As far as I know their language is grouped in with Dardic, which is a a sub-grouping of Proto-Indo-Iranian, meaning it split even before Vedic and say, Avestan broke off (Dardic itself is a pretty tenuous language family, and poses a lot of problems in disentangling borrowed elements from original ones, very much like Armenian). Also, while the religion shares more similarities with Aryan religion than it does Greek, I wouldn't go so far as you in saying they worship "Vedic Gods"; Indra is in there and some festivals/rituals are related, but there's a more isolated deities than related ones and a lot of what they do is totally original. It also has elements more archaic than what we can attest for Indo-Iranian, and has had a history influenced by a couple thousand years of being smack dab in the middle of successive waves of East and West Iranian cultures, Indian cultures and of course a few runs of Greeks, too (from the same article):

There has been no known Greek admixture within the last few generations, but in addition to Alexander's armies, the possibility of admixture between the Greek slaves who were brought to this region by Xerxes around one hundred and fifty years before Alexander's arrival, and the local population, cannot be discounted. At that time Afghanistan and present day Pakistan were part of the Persian Empire.1 Nevertheless, Alexander's army of 25 000–30 000 mercenary foot soldiers from Persia and West Asia and 5000–7000 Macedonian cavalry29 perhaps provides a more likely explanation because of their elite status and substantial political impact on the region.

I'd throw in to that a sub argument that there is a likelihood of more than just Greek 'slaves' in that area prior to this. Studies in ancient Greek culture now tend to include more than just the usual Attica,Peloponnese,Ionian Coast and Cretan models. Aside from the fact that these areas were populated and repopulated time and time again by different waves of Greeks (Mycenaeans, Doric, and many more), the model fails to include a substantial spread of "Greek" cultures up and around the Black Sea (not just the Pontic Greeks we know of but also many speculated colonies as well) and possibly right into Bactria, which Thomas McEvilley and others argue for fairly convincingly. So getting a good line on what "Greek" is can be difficult enough, and that's without trying to discern which ones might have been in that particular area.

Anyways, for me, the linguistic and religio-cultural evidence is not necessarily very clear or convincing one way or another. I'd lean away from saying they were descendants of Greeks but I wouldn't go so far as to say they haven't ever mixed with them. I also don't see them as being distinctly Indo-Aryan, as it seems they stem more from a sister culture, commonly descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (in the same way that the Hittite language is related not to Indo-European but PIE), which can mean a very different thing. Also, I stand by my argument that any number of nomadic groups and empires could have influenced their cultural, linguistic or genetic makeup (they're not as strange as people are making them out to be, there's groups in Afghanistan and Iran that stand out in much the same way). As for phenotypes, it's definitely not my area, but I don't think that kind of evidence should be used as an end all to discussion; you'd have to catalog way more than 950 people in a region and have a very detailed summary of their ancestry and cultural history before you could really be sure of what you're saying. It's a good tool, but it's fairly useless without a framework of solid archeology and where possible historical and linguistic methodologies as well.

[Leagon]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Jay Pan Rokk:

There is no need to. We only need to retain the notion of a nation state based on a nation, I.E., a people. This also means abandoning most elements of globalization and returning a sense of patriotism to the culture.

I would go out on a limb and say that most people would be relatively comfortable living in homogeny if given the chance. To prove this, I point to naturally segregated neighbourhoods.

You really do make a good point, but you have to also consider that culture is extremely detrimental to progress.

The most cultural people in the world live in Africa. When people are allowed to retain their culture, they end up like the Kalash; living in a world that is 2000 years ahead of them. Now, in many ways, that's a better alternative to the destructive technological superpowers existent today, but it is the ability to absorb and adapt foreign forces that creates progress.

Liken it to the idea of an alien ship landing in the U.S. If we ignore it and go about our ways, our culture and society will remain the same. However, if we open and examine it, we open an entire new world of technology that we couldn't imagine before. But we also release alien bacteria into the atmosphere.

Multiculturalism has its pros and cons, as does hegemony. Mankind will never fulfill its potential with the latter, but we may potentially destroy ourselves with the former.

[DrSatanDracula]

Jay Pan ROKK:

Well, these places were not ruled by modern international politics and diplomacy.

Modern international politics and diplomacy have done nothing to stop them, though.

The UN is ineffectual and diplomacy is largely the same.

[DrSatanDracula]

Leagon:

You really do make a good point, but you have to also consider that culture is extremely detrimental to progress.

The most cultural people in the world live in Africa. When people are allowed to retain their culture, they end up like the Kalash; living in a world that is 2000 years ahead of them. Now, in many ways, that's a better alternative to the destructive technological superpowers existent today, but it is the ability to absorb and adapt foreign forces that creates progress.

You make a good point as well, my good man. However, I must disagree n part.

Whereas I shall admit that primitivism has been clung to by many "traditional cultures" let us call them, it is also worthy to note the "traditional cultures" of Europe sure industrialized fine (and indeed created the notion of industrialization). Progress is not a priori linked to backwardness. Primitivism results directly from cultural values, location, and genetic handicaps in more or less equal amounts.

One must also realize that only one civilization (compose dof many nations and cultures) really created modernization, I.E. Europeans of the early modern period. It is not surprising that those who went untouched by modernization would retain their ways that have gone u ntouched for thousands of years.

Progress is good. But one does not need to destroy culture to achieve this, as evidenced by European culture. Furthermore, one can even adapt to modernization and retain one's unique identity, see: Japan.

Liken it to the idea of an alien ship landing in the U.S. If we ignore it and go about our ways, our culture and society will remain the same. However, if we open and examine it, we open an entire new world of technology that we couldn't imagine before. But we also release alien bacteria into the atmosphere.

Multiculturalism has its pros and cons, as does hegemony. Mankind will never fulfill its potential with the latter, but we may potentially destroy ourselves with the former.

Agreed. There are pros and cons to either.

But perhaps an analogy to a neighbourhood might be nice:

In a neighbourhood, we all live as a community. We work together, live together, interact, talk, enjoy one's company. But when we go home, we have a space to ourselves, a place where only our ways are, where usually there are even fences (picketted and white, of course) to separate us from one another. Perhaps if we can "neighbourhoodize" the world, we can keep some benefits of globalization and cosmopolitanism, without destroying culture at the same time.

[Leagon]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Leagon:

You make a good point as well, my good man. However, I must disagree n part.

Whereas I shall admit that primitivism has been clung to by many "traditional cultures" let us call them, it is also worthy to note the "traditional cultures" of Europe sure industrialized fine (and indeed created the notion of industrialization). Progress is not a priori linked to backwardness. Primitivism results directly from cultural values, location, and genetic handicaps in more or less equal amounts.

True. But we have to look at the road Europe took to get to modernization.

I'd say it looks as if cultures ride a rollercoaster to advancement, but its inevitable that they stagnate unless they are dissolved, as you state beneath in the case of Japan, adapted. The empires in Africa rose long before the European ones and were rapidly progressing until they hit a cultural roadblock of slavery and superstition that halted them.

The Europeans began advancing when they gained a global perspective. They created a culture of no culture. They allowed their ways to be influenced by foreign invaders and rivals. They saw how formidable the Egyptian chariots were, so they built their own.

Europe also happened upon good fortune in that there were many powerful factions near each other. Asia had the mongol empire, but was too far from the Middle East. Japan was isolated. The northern African empires were limited in expansion by the Sahara and though I don't know of any empires in Southern Africa (as they don't have much of a written history), they would be equally limited due to the Sahara. Europe was in a perfect position to allow competition to help advancement.

As you said, location, genentics and other such things play a key role. But no culture has foresight. There'd be no reason for Egyptians to think the British barbarians had anything to offer yet today we see that an integrated society yields gains in a variety of gains. The cultural precepts we hold today will eventually hit a wall that will break progress.

One must also realize that only one civilization (compose dof many nations and cultures) really created modernization, I.E. Europeans of the early modern period. It is not surprising that those who went untouched by modernization would retain their ways that have gone u ntouched for thousands of years.

True.

Progress is good. But one does not need to destroy culture to achieve this, as evidenced by European culture. Furthermore, one can even adapt to modernization and retain one's unique identity, see: Japan.

An excellent example that I'd planned on mentioning in my other post.

I've always looked at Japan at the perfect example of culture blended with modernity. Unlike Europe and America, they've retained much of their cultural identity, but unlike Africa and the Middle East, they've managed to figure out which part of culture prevent progress.

I think the Japanese are very aware of this fact as well. They're unique. However, at some point, even Japan will join the global community. In the same way that the different Japanese factions broke their own hegemony and inter-mingled, so will the Japanese eventually join with the rest of the world's cultures. I think its inevitable. They've just done an excellent job of pacing themselves.

Agreed. There are pros and cons to either.

But perhaps an analogy to a neighbourhood might be nice:

In a neighbourhood, we all live as a community. We work together, live together, interact, talk, enjoy one's company. But when we go home, we have a space to ourselves, a place where only our ways are, where usually there are even fences (picketted and white, of course) to separate us from one another. Perhaps if we can "neighbourhoodize" the world, we can keep some benefits of globalization and cosmopolitanism, without destroying culture at the same time.

A very good analogy.

I can't say I really disagree with what you propose. Its all about finding a balance, I guess, between keeping your doors unlocked at all times and never even opening the shades.

However, I don't believe most nations will be able to find that balance. Some will withdraw too much and stagnate, and others will overreach and have their culture diluted. Which is kinda what we have now, isn't it?

[sleepwalk]

As soon as I saw their eyes, I was reminded of the Afghan woman from the cover of National Geographic.

[adren@line]

The vast majority of people who look European in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan are so not due to any "Aryan invasion", but due to invasions by northerners such as the Greeks, who settled over much of south asia and intermarried some 3000 - 1000 years ago.

One can easily see this even in India in states such as Punjabi and Kashmir. The claim that it is due to some "Aryan" connection is false and a misnomer, as those migrations supposedly happened close to 4000 years ago.

There is no definitive proof of any "aryan gene" or "aryan look". Thats all propaganda spurred on by the Nazi adoption of the term. Further, Indo-Iranian is not synonymous with Aryan, as the Aryans were a specific group of Indo-Iranians who existed in South Asia/Central Asia, possibly the earliest (other than proto-Indo-Iranian culture as seen in Andronova).

If one reads the Vedas, the oldest definitive Aryan text (Aryan referring to culture, language, and religion) then one will see that other Indo-Iranian tribes are described as non-Aryan.

As far as DNA and genetics, yes tests have been done but these tests point to migration either some 2000 years ago (long after the supposed Aryan migrations), or to migrations from around 10,000 plus years ago from central asia (long before the Aryan migrations).

To use Aryan in any racial or genetic sense is a misnomer and a lie, one that is unfortunately perpetuated by both Indians and Iranians themselves.

[DrSatanDracula]

Leagon:

I'd say it looks as if cultures ride a rollercoaster to advancement, but its inevitable that they stagnate unless they are dissolved, as you state beneath in the case of Japan, adapted. The empires in Africa rose long before the European ones and were rapidly progressing until they hit a cultural roadblock of slavery and superstition that halted them.

This is true. Societies can reach a roadblock which leads to their collapse or stagnation. The African kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, Sangay, et cetera, are prime examples, as you mentioned. And of course, there are some cultures that simply never got out of the stone age, or the bronze age, or the iron age.

The Europeans began advancing when they gained a global perspective. They created a culture of no culture. They allowed their ways to be influenced by foreign invaders and rivals. They saw how formidable the Egyptian chariots were, so they built their own.

You are correct in affirming that Europe has permitted influence and adaptation.

Europe also happened upon good fortune in that there were many powerful factions near each other. Asia had the mongol empire, but was too far from the Middle East. Japan was isolated. The northern African empires were limited in expansion by the Sahara and though I don't know of any empires in Southern Africa (as they don't have much of a written history), they would be equally limited due to the Sahara. Europe was in a perfect position to allow competition to help advancement.

To an extent, yes, you are correct. Europe had good location, but also saw strong mega-states. Rome didn't really have any counter-states to balance it until the end of its period. Persia wasn't much in a way of a cultural powerhouse and Rome was in many ways superior to it.

But yes, Europe at the time of modernization was a group of small states which competed actively with one another and which valued certain things which were well adapted for domination. Rome could have theoretically had the same advantage 1600 years earlier if it didn't fall.

As you said, location, genentics and other such things play a key role. But no culture has foresight. There'd be no reason for Egyptians to think the British barbarians had anything to offer yet today we see that an integrated society yields gains in a variety of gains. The cultural precepts we hold today will eventually hit a wall that will break progress.

I concur. This century's barbarians are next millennia's world dominators. And cultures can and often do break against the wall of progress and collapse.

I've always looked at Japan at the perfect example of culture blended with modernity. Unlike Europe and America, they've retained much of their cultural identity, but unlike Africa and the Middle East, they've managed to figure out which part of culture prevent progress.

I think the Japanese are very aware of this fact as well. They're unique. However, at some point, even Japan will join the global community. In the same way that the different Japanese factions broke their own hegemony and inter-mingled, so will the Japanese eventually join with the rest of the world's cultures. I think its inevitable. They've just done an excellent job of pacing themselves.

I am not so sure that Japan will do so, owing to a certain degree of "health". The only problem may be the Western curse of forgetting to breed, which is a direct relation to globalization's awful influence on the economic power of Western and Western-esque nations.

What Western civilization faces today is a two-pronged assault:

1. Economic. Globalization has impoverished the middle-class in all Western nations. Life is getting worse today than it was a half century beforehand. This must somehow be changed. I'd argue paleoconservative returns to nationalistic capitalist systems, with higher tariffs, a focus on good jobs and such, et cetera.

2. Ideological. Feminism is a big civilization-destroyer, as is many other doctrines and dogmas. Those must be counter-balanced by anti-movements which seek to gain widespread public acceptance.

I can't say I really disagree with what you propose. Its all about finding a balance, I guess, between keeping your doors unlocked at all times and never even opening the shades.

However, I don't believe most nations will be able to find that balance. Some will withdraw too much and stagnate, and others will overreach and have their culture diluted. Which is kinda what we have now, isn't it?

I think the Japanese model which we briefly touched upon is perhaps the closest we have to a "neighbourhood" approach.

But yes, I agree that today we're seeing the results of cultures failing to attain that balance. The next hundred years will really tell us a lot about the fate of the next thousand.

"Straight and narrow is the way" between stagnation and dillution, it seems.

[DrSatanDracula]

Also:

I was pissed the hell off. I couldn't get me the book Zankou recommended me at the Barnes and Nobles after Indy 4...

I gotta call up another store to order it or go into the city to buy it. The bastids.