General Discussion

Just another site

What is the race of the ‘Aryans’?

leave a comment »

The western thinkers, thought of the race of the ‘Aryans’, perhaps keeping in mind, India. If the Aryans were European,(and later became Indianised, for that matter), then where has the culture of the Aryan’s, disappeared in Europe? The Aryan’s are not supposed to be Aryan’s on account of their origins in Europe. Then, all of Europe would be united, and call themselves Aryan’s. There is a culture in India, which calls India, ‘Aryavarta’, which means, land of the Aryan’s, perhaps. (That is what we were taught in school). Why are the light skinned people of India, supposed to be the decendants of those of European origin? Kashmiri people in the north of India, perhaps, were not supposed to be descended from Europeans. What is the secret of the differing demography of India? Can it be possible, that the Indian sub-continent, had dark skinned, and light skinned people from the earliest times? Why not so?

If one looks at the African sub-continent, then all African people are not alike. There are many not so subtle differences between the people hailing from the different regions of Africa. The Egyptians do not, perhaps, belong to the heartland of Africa. Why was there no mass migration in ancient times, into Africa? I mean, before the Egyptian Empire? Now, the Jewish tribes, belonged to the Middle East. They were weak, in comparison to the Egyptian Empire, hence, the Jewish tribes speak of persecution endured. In the Middle East, and in Europe, people tried to gain influence, by inviting people into their fold. The greater the identification in numbers, the more security, there is. The ancient Egyptians did not need to follow this method of identification. Perhaps, they tried to stop the Jewish tribes, from propagating their culture, and making the Egyptians assimilate their culture. Perhaps, the Egyptians, had a strong cultural identity, which the Jewish tribes, saw as undermining their identity. The Jews, during the times of Egypt, were not known for their cultural achievements, then. The Egyptians had a larger sense of identity,  than did the Jewish tribes, in terms of numbers. When there is a feeling of weakness, then one acts for survival. When there is a feeling of security, then one acts for progress. The Jewish tribes, too, developed a sense of identity,  later,  which enhanced their cultural achievements. Once the Jewish Tribes developed a sense of identity, then they developed their culture, even when they were not in touch with other elements of the diaspora. The culture of the Middle East, was developed in a manner, which was considered. If one looks at the Muslim culture, then that too, is a culture, which originated from a consideration, of what culture should be. I am presuming all that I have surmised.

In India, what is presumed to be ‘culture’, was a result entirely, of spirituality(I presume). Later, people identified who they were, by the culture they practiced. This happened, after the invasion’s of the Mohammadan’s, and the British. I mean, people called themselves ‘Hindu’s after the Muslims, and Europeans made their presence felt.  Also, the Hindu’s, had a peculiar attitude to culture. The Jews of the Malabar, did not want to propagate their religion, and the ‘Hindu’s also, made the culture of the Jew’s welcome.  What then, of those the Hindu’s considered not to belong to their culture, also living in India? What is unfortunate is, that the attitude of the Hindu’s towards their own culture, did not encourage these ‘non-Hindu’s, from developing their own culture. In India, apparently, there was no need for security in numbers. the Brahmin’s were the smallest in number, in proportion to all the castes in Hinduism. Those whom they called non-Hindu’s, were perhaps, among the most sizeable number. Hinduism came to be identified, with rituals, and the higher castes identified their caste with the trappings of culture. The Hindu religion propagated, in the beginning, not perhaps, because of a need of identity, but because of like minded people associating. For some reason, those considered non-Hindu’s did not associate with the Hindu’s in the early stages of Hinduism.

Is Hinduism a religion, which developed, or develops? I prefer to think not. Hinduism is one of the most ancient cultures in the world, but I like to think of Hinduism, as not having changed, over the ages. Hinduism, in my opinion, remains eternally, the same, though I believe, that people are interpreting Hinduism, according to the moment, or according to the changing times. This leads to confusion, and I am glad, that these people who interpret their religion, according to their whims, do not represent the voices of those who practice Hinduism at large. Previously, in the West, the Holy Church was said  to be manipulating the people. I have nothing to say about the allegations.  Now, in the world, governments manipulate, whether the governments are democratic, or otherwise. The manipulations of the democratic governments are very transparent to the ordinary person, and so people just feel scorn for these manipulations, but let them be.


Written by discussionofviews

July 28, 2010 at 8:40 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: