2
   

Scandinavia Vikings make have taken revenge on the R1a and R1b Aryans.

 
 
talk72000
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 07:28 pm
@Setanta,
You just can't take it that the English drove the Celts out of England. It is after all it is their homeland. The Celtic homeland is in Arya. Besides it was the Romans who destroyed the Celtic hold on Central Europe not the Vikings. Fellow R1b, Julius Caesar massacred the Druids that is why the number of R1b in Autria is low. If you have problems with Eupedia you could enter their forum and argue with them and show your expertise. I am not too impressed with yours and find out if they will be impressed.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 08:33 am
@talk72000,
Leaving aside that there's no such place as "Arya," no one drove the Kelts out of "England." England, of course, did not exist until after the invasion and settlement by Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Danes. The Kelts were driven far to the west, but they weren't driven out. They became the Welsh and the Cornish. Why you would be so stupid as to think i'd get upset by something that happened almost 1500 years ago is beyond me, but it's a matter of indifference to em.

Caesar did not massacre Druids. The Romans did indeed attempt to extirpate the Druids, but Caesar was long dead by then. It appears that your thesis is based around this R1b hapol-group, but your bullshit is so diffuse and disjointed that it makes no sense. I've never heard of "Autria," but if you meant Austria, that is hundreds of miles to the east of England, and neither had any historical impact on the other until more than a thousand years after Ceasar died.

You display an astounding ignorance of history and geography. I can see no good reason to take you seriously. Your quotes from and links to Europedia do not support the silly horseshit you are attempting to peddle. It's roughly equivalent to someone acknowledging the existance of the sun, at which point you say: "See, it old you aliens invaded the earth." You're a loon, besides being a hateful bigot and racist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 08:49 am
Here, dipshit, educate yourself. The word Aryan was invented by linguists to give a name to the people who spoke what was once believed to the the root language of all Indo-European languages. It derives from aryu, a Sanskrit word meaning noble, and adopted because it was then beleived that the "Aryans" had invaded northern India 2000 years ago.

From the Free Online Dictionary and Dictionary-dot-com

Quote:
Ary·an adj.
Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *rya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian rn (ahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of r, "Iranian"). The variant *rya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus "Aryan" came to be synonymous with "Indo-European," and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the "true Aryan" Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.


[url=
From Merriam-Webster's free online dictionary[/url]

Quote:
1 : indo-european
2
a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : nordic c —used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians usually having Nordic features
3
: of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers
Origin of ARYAN
Sanskrit ārya noble, belonging to an ancient people of northern India speaking an Indo-European dialect
First Known Use: 1839


Given your history of totally insane racist and particularly anti-semitic remarks, i suspect that you've bought the Nazi bullshit hook, line and sinker.

The Wikipedia article on Aryan

You are so pathetic.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 09:46 am
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
If you have problems with Eupedia you could enter their forum


it's a forum, not a source of historical and geographic information

educate yourself
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 07:28 pm
Quote:
Iran

Ancient Iranians used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language. Darius the Great, King of Persia (521 - 486 BC), in an inscription in Naqsh-e-Rostam (near Shiraz in Iran), proclaims: "I am Darius the great King... A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage...". The name Iran is a modern cognate of Aryan meaning the Land of Aryans. The term has become a term of art in the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Zoroastrian religions.

The Aryan tribes in the Indian subcontinent called their land Arya varta or Aryan expanse / Aryan land. When the ancient Persians lived in the Inner Asian Steppes and moved south into today's Iran, they named the place Airyanem Vaejah, or The Iranian Expanse, and today the word survives as Iran. Many present day Iranian boy and girl names reflect this ancient relation: names like Aryana, Iran-dokht (Aryan Daughter), Arayn, Aryan-Pur, Aryaramne, ...


Arya is the ancient name for Iran.
http://www.worldinanutshell.com/Iran-Aryan.htm
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 08:10 pm
Quote:
It is widely known that when the Celts invaded Ireland there were people already here. Man is first believed to have arrived on Irish shores about 9,000 years ago – the earliest-known archeological evidence for human habitation dates to 7,000BC.


http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/an-afro-asiatic-connection-to-celtic-languages/

I have relatives who are half Irish, half Danish and half African.

The Romans were mistaken to assume the Huns were of Eastern origin as there is no indication of Haplogroup O3, the East Asian identifier. So the Huns never came from the East but from Siberia as there is Haplogroup Q and N in parts of Europe and they are the Siberian indicators.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 04:58 am
@talk72000,
Why should anyone believe that Amanda Roraback is an authority on anything? How do you claim that this is evidence that the homeland of the Kelts was "Arya?" Leaving aside that Amanda Roraback doesn't say anything to support your idiotic claim that "Arya" was the homeland of the Kelts, the drivel she's peddling there is a mishmash of reasonable descriptions of the term "Aryan" and Nazi race propaganda.

Either you're incredibly stupid, or you think other people are. Posting a link to a web site (in this case, a web site maintained by someone whose "about us" link doesn't work, and which hasn't been maintained in almost four years) which coincidentally has some of the same words you're ranting about is not evidence of anything.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:01 am
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

I have relatives who are half Irish, half Danish and half African.



In 2011, isn't their a notion that once someone is less than 100% of anything, being a percentage of the original is a non-sequitor? That's how we get Americans, I thought.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:04 am
It's no surprise to me to see that Foofie is as stupid as Talk, who believes that his ancestors were 150% of something. This is just incredible.
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:19 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

It's no surprise to me to see that Foofie is as stupid as Talk, who believes that his ancestors were 150% of something. This is just incredible.


Well, you prefer to subscribe to the belief that people can be a percentage of this or that, and in effect, maintain that respective identity to some degree.

Others do not subscribe to that, since it is just an artificial construct.

You do seem, in my opinion, to rail against many of those that say anything that might not coincide to your belief system. And, so much here is just a belief system.

What is interesting is that while you have repeatedly explained you care less what I think, you comment on what I post?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:37 am
@Foofie,
You really are slow on the uptake. Our current resident anti-semite, Talk, wrote:

Quote:
I have relatives who are half Irish, half Danish and half African.


OK, i'll go really slow here. Half Irish (50%), half Danish (50%) and half African (505), which means 150%. You don't see the error there? You must be much more dense than i had previously thought. That a unitary thing, including one's ancestry, cannot be more than 100% of antying is not my belief, it's the sense of everyone who speaks the langauge--everyone, that is, who is not a completely clueless idiot. I'm not railing against this bigoted racist, i'm ridiculing him. And you, too, of course . . .
talk72000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 07:18 pm
@Foofie,
The percentage mean the 50 of 100 or 50% are so and so. They sampled 100 people and 30 are Haplogroup I1 so 30%, 28 are Haplogroup R1a so 28% and 24 are R1b so 24% and the remaining are other Haplogroup such as Q Haplogroup and so on. It is the Mitochondria that is a mix as most of our genes are in the X chromosome. The Haplogroup IJ split into I and J so Jews are J1 and thus Jews are closely related to Haplogroup I.

The Aryans R1a and R1b split from Haplogroup NOP. The NO group is the Siberian Haplogroup and from them O split to form the East Asian Haplogroup O3. Q split form NO to form Q another Siberian group.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/haplogroups-timeline.gif
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 07:20 pm
@talk72000,
You lose. Your math sucks as bad as your English, although not as bad as your almost non-existant knowledge of history.
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 12:12 am
@talk72000,
Interesting read, Talk, but what about the high Finnish percentage of a particular "L" Y haplotype subclave (I believe the Finns are considered the source for this one)? Considering that Finland was deservedly declared "the best place in the world to live" by Newsweek in December, 2010, and that the Finns have scored #1 across the board (three different skill areas) in recent international education/intelligence tests for college age students, would you not think their gene-pool demands serious consideration?! BTW: I have no relationship whatsoever with Finland or the Finns -- I just can't help but admire peoples who exhibit, en masse, exceptional abilities, and I'm always a little curious about their genetic makeup. rebecca
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 01:48 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

And of course, your English sucks, too. Just what do you think "intellectual hefty" means?


Sounds like someone who works for Tony Soprano.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 02:22 am
@Setanta,
This just seems to be aimed at stirring up hatred and division, although I do find it galling that some gobshite who clearly knows nothing about my country can pontificate so arrogantly about it.

Setanta is right, first the Anglo-Saxons, and then the Danes pushed the Celts/Romano British to the extremes, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. The Industrial Revolution, and the confiscation of common land brought them back. All English are mongrols with elements of all the races within.

The only people so interested in these groups were the Nazis, and only to support their pseudo-science, carefully ignoring anything that didn't fit in with their theories. Aren't we all supposed to be African at the end of the day? We should be looking at what unites us, and not following the Nazis in focusing on differences.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 03:11 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
you think the "Vikings" crossed the English Channel?


Weren't the Normans (north men) who invaded England in 1066 originally a Viking colony in Northern France?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 03:14 am
@Setanta,

Quote:
you should go **** yourself


I used this line on a ticket collector on a German train once, also calling him a Nazi pig.
He didn't like it, but I had no further trouble from him.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 03:57 am
The mention of Nazis among the last few posts is significant. That's where this joker is going with all of this. He wants to establish some kind of genetic basis for making allegations about "Aryans," and about Jews. This member is well known to be fanatically anti-semitic. Of course, he is so clueless about history and geography (and apprently even simple addition) as to make the effort ridiculous--but there is no wasted effort combating bigots and their racist screeds.

*****************************************

McT, more 150 years after Rollo pledged feudal allegiance to King Charles, i doubbt that the Normans were entitled to be considcered Vikings. At any event, although William built his army around the core of his household troops, he also brought troops from Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Brittany, Picardy and Flanders. There was a scattering of mercenaries from all over western Europe and he brought the Beauvais archers, too. Hardly what one could call a viking raid.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 08:46 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Hardly what one could call a viking raid.


What about Harald Hardrada and the battle of Stamford bridge?
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 05:00:05