I'm not sure, but thank you. In any case, it's definitely worth a look in a debate that has not been public enough. The mainstream version for sure has glaring weaknesses, but then, I have never seen definitive arguments on the other side. On balance, however, the version that argues for massive genocide certainly makes sense on the face of it. It simply is how invaders have always behaved, and then rewriting history to make themselves look good. In "pre-empiricist" times (and that's most of it since empiricism dates back only to the 1800s), "looking good" meant turning historical events into myth, which is another thing we've seen again and again in human history.
--- coulsong2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Here is a site that argues for the idea that the > Aryan > > invasions were genocidal. > > > > > http://www.light1998.com/The-Bible-of-Aryan-Invasions/bibai1.html > > > > Here is a site that debunks the idea: > > > > > http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html > > > > There was a book on Amazon which goes into detail > on > > both those views, but I can't find it any more and > > don't remember its title or author. All I > remember is > > that it was 99 bucks. If anyone has information > about > > this, I'd appreciate it. > > Angela, > > Was it this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_for_the_Origins_of_Vedic_Culture > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
