Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 9 hours ago, Texy said: Kareena is the worst thing to come out of "kapoor" family Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Muloghonto said: That is mostly a false narrative actually. Genetic data shows that there is no significant migration into the Indian subcontinent in the last 12-15 thousand years, except for haplotype J, that originates in west Asia (found at 1-5% prevalence rate) Even so, the popular perception/belief is that the Aryans displaced the original residents of North Western-Northern India. The question here is of intent, not what some genome study project throws up. Would you, for example, name your son Aryan knowing that these very tribes have allegedly driven away many Indians. Would you name your son Ashok? Edited December 21, 2016 by Mariyam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Why would one take seriously what an actor/actress names their children? They're professionals and are not expected to have a deep knowledge of country's cultural past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, MechEng said: Why would one take seriously what an actor/actress names their children? They're professionals and are not expected to have a deep knowledge of country's cultural past. Probably because standing in judgement of the choices others make and then calling them names is quite easy and in vogue these days. Edited December 21, 2016 by Mariyam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Even so, the popular perception/belief is that the Aryans displaced the original residents of North Western-Northern India. The question here is of intent, not what some genome study project throws up. Would you, for example, name your son Aryan knowing that these very tribes have allegedly driven away many Indians. Would you name your son Ashok? I don't think its a popular perception at all. You still forget, the bulk majority of Indian educated people, let alone the illiterates don't know this whole Aryan invasion and other stuff in the first place. And there is a strong cultural affiliation, thanks to Ramayana & mahabharata, where the term is used as 'noble' and thats the context 90% of Indians know the word 'Arya' or its derivates. As per Ashok- its a pretty common name in India- you surely know that. PS: Aryan is a little odd but we have plenty of arya-suffixed names. Aryaman, Aryaveer, AryaPreet- these are names i've come across personally from long, long time before the internet exited and anyone but a handful of Indian historians even knew of this Aryan invasion crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 Yes, Ashoka killed a lot of indians and later repented it and became a monk. Timur killed 17 million people and then wrote about it in great sadistic detail. Yes, they are the same. diga and Ironhide 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 29 minutes ago, MechEng said: Why would one take seriously what an actor/actress names their children? They're professionals and are not expected to have a deep knowledge of country's cultural past. Because of the limelight they share, they are scrutinized for showing their stupidity. Egs: - Aamir Khan wanted to emigrate out of the country - SRK crying whenever he goes to USA and gets delayed by airport security - Salman crying about Yakub's death - Hritik being insensitive about flying in economy class out of Turkey Saifeena's baby name-calling is up there with the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Even so, the popular perception/belief is that the Aryans displaced the original residents of North Western-Northern India. The question here is of intent, not what some genome study project throws up. Would you, for example, name your son Aryan knowing that these very tribes have allegedly driven away many Indians. Would you name your son Ashok? Their is one thing having a belief and another thing which is reality, the guy made towers of head and caused destruction of Delhi so much so, that it took delhi a whole century to be normal, only Genghis Khan seige of Baghdad comes close to it, not a nice guy to be named after I am afraid. Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Yes, Ashoka killed a lot of indians and later repented it and became a monk. Timur killed 17 million people and then wrote about it in great sadistic detail. Yes, they are the same. So killing a lot of Indians and then saying 'oops' and renouncing worldy pleasures definitely weighs over the fact that emperor Ashok was a mass murderer. A 'get out of jail free' in the history books? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. That its okay for someone to name their kid 'Ashok' because he said sorry and not 'Taimur' because he was stupid/articulate enough to have his attrocities documented? Do I understand you right? We digress anyways. The point here is that neither you , nor anyone else can say with any degree of certainity that Saifeena named the kid after the conqueror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) @Muloghonto Yes I am aware that Ashok is a popular name. Just like Osama or Jack. And probably like the name 'Mohammad' the name 'Ashok' garnered mass appeal only on the backs of the historical figure. My question was rhetorical. Highlighting more the hypocrisy at display here. What works for Peter should also work for Paul. Re: The aryans I'm regurgitating what I learnt in school. That is what schools here teach. Ask your parents/relatives whoever have studied in India, in case you do not take my word. Edited December 21, 2016 by Mariyam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mariyam said: So killing a lot of Indians and then saying 'oops' and renouncing worldy pleasures definitely weighs over the fact that emperor Ashok was a mass murderer. A 'get out of jail free' in the history books? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. That its okay for someone to name their kid 'Ashok' because he said sorry and not 'Taimur' because he was stupid/articulate enough to have his attrocities documented? Do I understand you right? We digress anyways. The point here is that neither you , nor anyone else can say with any degree of certainity that Saifeena named the kid after the conqueror. A lot of emperors are accused of being mass-murderers . even the likes of Akbar, Tipu etc. But none have been as stupid/fundamental as Timur. Ashoka never killed people because they were not of the same religion/race. This dude did it. I am just pointing out the difference between the two and your argument is wrong. Agree, there is no proof (other than Kareena's airhead remarks about Saif being a historian!) that Saifeena named the kid after timur. But my point is why would they name him even after knowing (just google) that he is a mass-murderer. That is so stupid and calling for attention unnecessarily. Edited December 21, 2016 by coffee_rules Ironhide and beetle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Coffee sahab Lets just agree to disagree here. I do not think mass killing for avarice is any lesser a crime than killing for race/religion/ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 Ji Mohatarma. Ashoka's conflict in the Kalinga war has been written umpteen number of times. I don't seem to read anything about Timur, except that he was an enforcer of Islam , just like ISIS is doing now. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help it. Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, Mariyam said: @Muloghonto Yes I am aware that Ashok is a popular name. Just like Osama or Jack. And probably like the name 'Mohammad' the name 'Ashok' garnered mass appeal only on the backs of the historical figure. My question was rhetorical. Highlighting more the hypocrisy at display here. What works for Peter should also work for Paul. Re: The aryans I'm regurgitating what I learnt in school. That is what schools here teach. Ask your parents/relatives whoever have studied in India, in case you do not take my word. How is it hypocritical ? Is there no difference between a mass murderer and a guy who started a religion or a guy who did some of the greatest feats of nation-building ? Equating Ashok with Tamerlane now ? Seriously ? Dude who killed half his family, then spent 40 years building up his own nation is just as 'heroic' as a guy who killed off 5-10% of entire humanity, due to incessant war, reduced his own kingdom to poverty with incessant taxation & brutal crushing of rebellions ? PS: I studied grade 10 in India. I know what Indian education system is. I am not talking about your precious ICSE/CBSE medium schools. Go check if Bihar State board school/WB/UP etc are teaching 'aryan invasion theory'. They are not. And as i said, even if it were, the idea of 'aryan' in mass Indian consciousness is that of a nobleman, thanks to liberal usage of the word 'arya/aryavar/aryaputra/aryaputri' in the Mahabharata. Go to any Hindi-Bengali etc. speaking city/village & throw around the word 'arya' and people will think you are pompous (coz that word is gradually falling out of use) but know you mean nobleman- either virtuous or class, depending on people. So how is naming someone 'Aryan' going against the grain & picking a controversial choice by Indain psyche ? Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Coffee sahab Lets just agree to disagree here. I do not think mass killing for avarice is any lesser a crime than killing for race/religion/ideology. Eh ?! Ashoka waged a war. Its his fault that Kalinga fought tooth-n-nail ? There is a huge difference between someone who beats an army, then goes and kills & rapes innocent civilians, versus someone who doggedly fights a war to the very last enemy soldier but doesn't commit war crimes. People who show up to fight a bloody battle, are fair game. That is the difference between the likes of Julius Caeasar/Ashoka and the likes of Tamerlane/Nadir Shah. Atleast Nadir Shah was a brilliant general to go along with his genocidal nature. Then there is the matter of scale. Ashoka put down a couple of rebellions & defeated one kingdom. What was it- 10 years of his reign ? Tamerlane was on a never-ending killing spree for the last 45 years of his life...amounting to 5% of humanity. To give you a scale/idea, Ashoka beat an army. Tamerlane killed what would be equivalent to killing USA +Canada combined. Like...seriously comparable ?! Edited December 21, 2016 by Muloghonto maniac, Ironhide, beetle and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Ji Mohatarma. Ashoka's conflict in the Kalinga war has been written umpteen number of times. I don't seem to read anything about Timur, except that he was an enforcer of Islam , just like ISIS is doing now. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help it. . Edited December 21, 2016 by Mariyam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 2 hours ago, MechEng said: Why would one take seriously what an actor/actress names their children? They're professionals and are not expected to have a deep knowledge of country's cultural past. As if marrying Saif wasnt proof enough. Love Jihad. Ironhide and tweaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, coffee_rules said: There are very few in history who did barbaric acts and relished it writing about it. Such peoples' acts are still relevant today. On one hand , it is ok to hate Ghazni, but the same acts done by this dude , his name has a spiritual significance? We have a exec named Adolfo and other one Hitler. It is so odd to address them in meetings and emails. Saifeena might have named their kid in all reverance to it's spiritual significance, but others can take offense or make fun of it. Thats the point of the OP. In one of the Seinfeld episode, they show how odd it can be, if one's name sounds like a serial killer's name. (Joel Rifkin). As I said, it is hard to judge deeds performed in very distant histroy through today's lens. By today's standards the likes of Alexander, Ceaser, Napolean, etc., would be tyrants More importantly, the British ruled Ind for over 200 years inflicting numerous atritocities And let's not forget the cruel aspect of slavery / slave trade Coming back to Mongols, they ruled China (through Qing dynasty iirc) and Ind (through Mughals). The Japanese occupiation of China and other parts was brutal. USA has probably killed more ppl than any other country / tyrant to fuel its military-industrial complex Also read up on what the Islamic Calipate did in Africa and Europe My point is more about looking at history through the norms of the respective time vs through today's lens Edited December 21, 2016 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mariyam said: C2 seems to be an inference you've made. The ruling class of Delhi during the years of the Sultanate were of Turkic origin and spoke the Turkic languages. It is very likely some of them were named Taimur before this specific Taimur was in the picture. On the back of what data do you make the claim that the name arrived with the conqueror? If they were indeed of Turkic origin, then that doesn't really change that they were invaders. Proving the non-existence of a foreign name from a foreign language that long ago is impossible on my end. If you can prove that it existed, more power to you, but it is likely impossible for you as well. If neither of us can prove that one existed, then the safe assumption is that it didn't exist. If the name did exist, how does it satisfy criteria B? The name must have a historical significance for it to satisfy being something significant to a historian. Edited December 21, 2016 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Ji Mohatarma. Ashoka's conflict in the Kalinga war has been written umpteen number of times. I don't seem to read anything about Timur, except that he was an enforcer of Islam , just like ISIS is doing now. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help it. People name their kid Ashok for his deeds post Kalinga. randomGuy, Ironhide and maniac 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts