Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Here
and to think that all this racial divide got set in stone by the defunct theory of aryan and dravidian races peddled alongside a bunch of pseudo-sciences like racial profiling from nose structures and so on ! 
|
i may be wrong, but the only people i've heard debunking the indo-european theory were hindutva proponents claiming that it was self deprecating to think that indian culture had a "white" hand behind the scenes.
of course we know that there is greater variation, physically speaking, within a race than between races. for example, bengalis come in practically all colors. i myself, often get mistaken for being of african descent (even by black people!). there are bengalis on the streets of dhaka, who look much more negroid than me. but then we also have bengalis who look eastern european with their white skin, dark hair, and light eyes. and who can forget, the asian looking bengalis, the bengalis who you swear are really arabs, and the ones that look "indian", and then the bengalis who can tell from a mile and a half away that they're bengali.
but, the interesting thing is that within the languages of north india, versus the south/sri lanka. they bear striking resemblence to one another and with far off european languages for the indo-european theory to not be "true".
there are many words in hindi/urdu/bengali which are uncannily similar to indo-european words: one example would be the word "rock". pathor (bengali), paththor (hindi/urdu), pierre (french), petra (greek) from which we get words like "petrification".
there are many other examples if one looks long enough...