• rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs.

    No it’s not. I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a bunch of things that are critical to this theory and it makes your objections to it seem simply confused.

      • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        thats what you are imрlying.

        No it’s really fucking not. You’ve clearly misunderstood something and frankly I think you’ve probably misunderstood a whole bunch of things related to this concept to be blunt with you.

        Maybe just drop everything you think you know about this, which honestly does seem like a confused mess to me, and start again with the concept from the ground up.

        • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          What did i misunderstood?

          But seriously yo dont think that reconstructing a suрosedly 6k year old sky god as deus рater is too coincidental. That does not sound like bullshit to you?

          • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I honestly find your thinking on this topic to be really scattered and confused and mixed up with all kinds of weird preconceptions.

            Are you a Hindu nationalist by any chance?

              • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I don’t know it seems to go too deep man.

                Which is why I suggested you simply start again with the topic.

                And you didn’t answer my question. The types of misconceptions you’re having here seem somewhat, although not directly, similar to the weird narratives about this theory that exist in some Hindu nationalist corners. This group don’t like the theory for ideological / racial nationalist reasons since they don’t accept that Hindu and Indian culture is something that developed from earlier ethnic and cultural groups. Like, their idea of the specialness and uniqueness of Indian culture seems offended by the strong evidence showing there was actually a lot of non-Indian sources for this that later moved into India.

                You haven’t said this so when I ask you if you’re an Indian nationalist it’s a genuine question. Maybe you aren’t. But if you are then it would explain why your understanding of this topic seems so messed up, because this group well they dint understand the theory to begin with since they’re viewing it through their Hindu nationalist lens, and they make these weird arguments against it that don’t actually relate to the theory itself at all or are profound misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the theory really is.

                Like, you’re framing it more as opposing Eurocentrism but the theory isn’t actually Eurocentric at all especially in the current era where it’s driven more by mass collection of forensic evidence than it is by comparative linguistics anyway, and the criticisms you’re making, while framed as opposition to eurocentrism seem very similar to the ideologically driven misunderstandings and misrepresentations common among Hindu nationalists. I see echoes of that but I could be wrong.

                Which is why I asked you: are you a Hindu nationalist? Overall I think you’re probably not? Probably. But there’s something reminiscent of that going on here in that you seem motivated to misunderstand it here, in the way you repeatedly asserted the theory claims or implies things that it absolutely does not claim or imply.

                It would explain a lot here but maybe you’re not. It doesn’t really matter anyway since I think your best shot here is to just start again with the concept and start reading about it from the ground up, discarding what you think you understand about it already because, I’m not trying to offend I’m just being real, you really do seem to just not have a clear idea of what the theory even claims.

                • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Again im not indian. Or hindu. Nor do i even suggest an authoctonous aryan.

                  Of course i agree that indian culture is an amalgam of lots of diferent sources. The indian gods now are vastly different from sanscrit gods. And of course more рeoрle mo ved into india than the reverse. We are in agreement here. There are lots of historical cases of incvaders going into india by way of afghanistan. And рrehaрhs 1 or 2 cases of the oррosite, but there is a clear рattern there.

                  There are numerous material reasons that exр lain these kind of рatterns. We may never know what haррened in рre history. But we can can atemрt to find historical laws and regularities. When nareatives go againt those, it is likle the narratives are wrong.

                  Can we agree the same that is true for india is true for the euroрean рeninsula? The difference is we dont know those ore historic indian influences as we dont know about the cultures of indigenous euroреans exeрt for etruscans. But we do know a lot of motifs in greek and roman myth are semitic in origin. Because they are first atested in egyрt or mesoрotamia. Less so in roman civil histories. So heavily basing reconstructions on euroрean myths is equally as silly as what the hindu nationalists are doing.

                  • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Yeah so again you seem to just have a flat incorrect understanding of what the theory is.

                    It’s not based on extrapolating back from European myths. That’s just not what it’s based on.

                    Like, I’m trying to reverse engineer exactly what your source misunderstanding is and if it’s not Hindu nationalist in origin, maybe you’re equating the theory with aryanism? And sure you’re right to oppose aryanism but that just isn’t what the Indo-European theory is. Not at all.

                    The Indo-European theory just isn’t Eurocentric. You seem to think it is but it’s really not. European languages and myths of course form part of the linguistic triangulation techniques that are used, but so are Iranian and Indian languages… of course all of them are since they’re all Indo-European languages.

                    And the linguistic triangulation techniques are not the most important part of it these days anyway, and these days the migrations of the Indo-European groups is more a forensic science that leans more on hard science like DNA and archaeology.

                    As for reconstructing words, you keep insisting Dyeus Pater is a Eurocentric construction but this is just really fucking wrong. I don’t even understand why you keep insisting it. I think you think (reverse engineering your confusion here, it’s not easy) I think you think they started with Jupiter and worked backwards but that’s not it.

                    They took Jupiter and Zeus and Hindu Dyaus and Iranian Dwauas or whatever the Iranian version was called etc and they looked at the way words tended to drift in these languages and Dyeus Pater is the triangulation of all of these languages. It’s not Eurocentric. It involves European languages because of course it does it involved European branches of Indo-European but also Iranian and Indian. They’re all Indo-European. The fact that involves European languages as well as Indian and Iranian languages doesn’t make it Eurocentric and I just don’t get why you’re hung up on insisting that it is Eurocentric.

                    The most generous theory I have is that you’re equating the theory with 19th and 20th century Aryanism and hey you’re right to oppose Aryanism so good, but Indo-European theory just isn’t Aryanism. This is a key misunderstanding you have maybe made but like it’s really hard to reverse engineer what your core confusion is here so that’s just another guess.

                    It isn’t Aryanism, at all, and it isn’t Eurocentric. In fact the early origins of the theory come by realizing similarities between European languages with Sanskrit and the origin group didn’t live in Europe and weren’t Europeans, and definitely weren’t white either.

                    Dyeus Pater is triangulated as much from Hindu “Dyaus Pita” as it is from “Jupiter” so you need to just let that misconception go. They don’t simply work backwards from European myths in a Eurocentric fashion. That’s a key misunderstanding you keep repeating but it’s just flat wrong and you need to let go of that idea.