[Orion]

(07-17-2016 03:01 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

My point was, it's difficult to remove the political aspect from the debate, so one must be careful in drawing hard conclusions with limited data.

Yes, but one must not be afraid to pursue it either.

Quote:

I agree with the essence of the argument, especially the extreme political bias in modern day anthropology. I also think it's important to understand our origins and how it ties in to our identity.

I still think you're being rather optimistic that we can get an extremely clear picture of historical societies from thousands of years ago. I believe that often we can get a pretty good picture at fairly high probability, but that it's relatively easy to form inaccurate conclusions with incomplete data. Particularly when political motivations help to obscure dispassionate analysis of history.

Personally, i was always more interested in spiritual, rather than purely biological aspects of "Indoeuropeanism". However, omitting biological aspect would leave us without complete picture.

When it comes to what is available today, it's nothing but a lose picture. But even the loose concept of our identity is here and there, denied to us. But even though it is loose, some things are quite exact, and have great importance. I'm speaking here about myths that are present in geographically distant cultures, but that have common concepts. They need not have been transferred only through biological breeding, such thing would be silly to consider. But transfer through other kind of exchanges, implies proximity of said cultures. For examples, East Asians, of racially different stock than Hindus, accepted Buddhist teachings. So we can already speak here even of "spiritual" race.

Quote:

For instance, I'd agree that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Brahmins who wrote the Vedas and founded the Indus Valley civilization probably came from the Black Sea region or the Caucuses. Many Brahmins have the R1a Y-haplogroup which is also prevalent in parts of Europe, particularly Germany.

That would be an example where haplogroup techniques were used as they were intended to be used - as an auxiliary technique, not an explanatory science. However, thanks to it's abuse, we have nothing but confusing maps that are shared online and giving people silly ideas.

Quote:

However, it would be inaccurate for your average European to associate the Indus valley civilization as part of their cultural heritage.

Absolutely. Specific interest in it stems from what i said earlier - from interest in origins of Indoeuropeans, and particularly - their proto traditions - cultural, linguistic, spiritual, etc. Sanskrit is an object of fascination for example, for all Indoeuropeanist linguists.

Quote:

The majority of Western Europeans and Scandanavians (who are haplogroups R1b and I1, respectively) share zero genetic relationship to the R1a Brahmins. It would be more fair for most Germans, Eastern Europeans, and Levite Jews (all mostly R1a) to claim the Indus Valley culture as part of their heritage, but that may be a stretch as the groups diverged many thousands of years ago, and the various groups are now much different in terms of their cultural values.

It would be easy to conclude that Northern Europeans are among whitest people in the world, because of combination of factors, among which climate (but not only climate) is important. There is no need for us to scratch our heads and wonder why Greeks for example, are not blond. Or Brahmins. Does it mean Nordic men are the best stock to use to examine ourselves and our origins ? Not really, when most of Nordic men practice Protestant religion, which is as far as one can take a set of beliefs from what is of Indoeuropean origins. But we can use a Nordic man to examine physical traits of lets say, Hyperborean people. And we can use ancient Nordic tales to examine how religious views developed in Northern Europe, and only then we can make connection to other dots. Then you would be fascinated how distant and at first glance very distinct cultures have much in common. And then you start to explore further.

Remember, we are talking here about grand scheme of things. In my culture, we have many superstitious folk style village beliefs. Of what significance are they for our topic ? None obviously. These are residual values which are only ever documented for reasons of curiosity. If we used that as a starting point, we would reach conclusion that half of Europe has spiritual origins in Africa, with all the village witchcraft and superstitions.

That is why we look for evidence in those distant places. They help us construct, deconstruct, reexamine and complete the picture.

Quote:

Asking to assign relative value to the various groups is not tantamount to fatalism. In many societies it's not necessary as they were homogenous, but in others, it's an interesting question to ponder. Who deserves more credit for their historical impact, the rulers of the early Islamic Caliphates, or the Indian mathematicians they ruled over?

Or Perhaps Persians, who pretty much shaped the entire image of Islamic Caliphate we have today, which was specifically Arab in it's early stages. One could also poke and explore early Islamic thought, and see whether there was in Islam something that was continuation, or a reaction to previously present beliefs, etc.

Quote:

Agreed, but by saying "as long as societies in their assertions are not invasive or destructive" is kind of like saying "I don't mind letting a wild Bear into my house, as long as it doesn't attack me." Just because some examples can meet the criteria doesn't mean it's the norm.

I meant i don't agree with destroying cultural heritage. But who can forbid anyone to write his own history. We have our method, and our curiosity. If someone lacks these and constructs fairy tales, then so be it. After all, that's what we do for last 100 years.