we don't understand the causes and consequently can't make predictions; you can't take this seriously. however, the exceedingly weak maximum we're falling from right now does suggest that we can expect another five or six years of cold weather in the northern hemisphere. that's a long way from predicting an ice age. but it's absolutely an annoyance that the mainstream models need to come to terms with, and this is consequently worth listening to - even with that caveat. it's not as simple as to say more sun = more hot (otherwise mercury would be hotter than venus, right...), even though it comes off that way if you're standing in eastern north america, but the reality is that the strength of the sun seems to have a historical effect on the path the jetstream takes over the great lakes, and that that is and will continue to be a far more dominant weather occurrence than any kind of radiative process.......
if the sun rebounds in the next cycle, the result could be massive and almost sudden warning in a way that could be flat out catastrophic. and, while it didn't happen, i was hoping that the little bump at the maximum was going to be enough to save us from the worst of it for at least this winter.
but, for now, it seems like the medium term forecast in eastern north america is going to be very cold for the next several years. as the rest of the world warms...
as others have pointed out,
the elamites had nothing to do with the kurds. there's almost two
thousand years of history separating the decline of the elamites (and
rise of the persians) and the first mention of the kurds in the arab
invasions.
the kurds were probably merely displaced persians, fleeing the arab invasion. they have no history before that point in time.
the
elamites would have been the westward extent of the indus valley
civilization, rather than a euphrates-tigris one. the elamites are also
your "black persians", but they would have been of indian rather than
african background.
Murşil Manavis
İranians are Elamite origin.Kurds are Assyrian origin.Stop lying!
Murşil Manavis +Pedram
Mir What is real?Actually situation more complicated.Answers to your
questions is perhaps in this!
bznn +Murşil Manavis kurds are not assyrian in origin. you stop lying .
deathtokoals +Murşil
Manavis kurds are definitely not assyrians. there's actually a very sad
history here, in kurdish responsibility for the assyrian genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
the kurds are not an ancient people. the name translates to something
like "wanderers" and only first appears in the arab invasions. they were
probably persian refugees from that period, who were kicked out of iraq
by colonizing arabs.
bznn +deathtokoalas
kurds dosen't have a history. historian are trying to find but. I will
gurantee you its useless. you cannot trace back their ancestors. they
might of been here before anyone. point is you wil never. and I say
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER find their linage. PERIOD. Stop looking !!
"they were probably persian refugees from that period, who were kicked out of iraq by colonizing arabs."
"Proabably" is not enough. I tell you this as facts...you have better chance finding aliens, than find where they come from.
they have no relation dna to elam, medes or persian empire. Murşil Manavis
Please read carefully my link!
bznn +Murşil
Manavis you have no real proof like many historians. just thoeries. I
have better argument. I'm gonna say kurds are gentically enginered by
aliens. you can prove me wrong? NO. becuase you don't know where kurds
come from. its just thoeries you have found. someone who has no history
and have no forfathers meaning no direct dna. meaning my argument will
stand for 1000 years or more. becasue you will never find their linage
lol.
they are untraceable like the perfect murder !
Murşil Manavis +bznn dude this is science.
deathtokoalas
well,
it's more than probably. it's extremely likely. arabs move in, kick the
persian-speaking people out, leaving them as "tent dwellers" to their
north.
what is absolutely clear is that they are a
product of the islamic invasion of sassanid persia. there isn't really
another way to make sense of that fact.
the dna has to
be interpreted very carefully, given that their ethnogenesis appears to
be around the year 800 CE. with a date that late, in that area of the
world, it's more or less useless in coming to much of any kind of
conclusion other than that they're from that area of the world. there
are exceptions like jews and assyrians, based on religion, but kurds
don't fit the exclusionary exception. so, it's not going to help much.
i
mean, what your link says is that there exists a genetic substratum
under the iranian invasion. that doesn't say anything of origins. it
just points out that when the iranians got there, they had sex with the
people who already lived there.
bznn +deathtokoalas
they have no relation to persians from culture to language. medes,
elam and the perisan empire is as far as it goes for iranic and
perisans.
deathtokoalas +bznn well, they rather clearly do. and the elamites were not persians..
bznn
the oldest cave in the kurdish area is 60000 BC.
deathtokoalas +Murşil
Manavis i don't know what "true aryan" means, but i stopped reading
that article when i noticed it cited the charlatan colin renfrew.
well, ok, i read it...
i'd
be hesitant to connect the movement of dravidian into india via
farming. i'm sure there were population movements with the spread of
farming, and that looks like the right direction. but that seems too
late for dravidian. renfrew's influence here has not been positive.
when
you said "true aryan", and i saw renfrew, i was expecting the usual
noah's ark nonsense, but, thankfully, this article actually reads sforza
correctly and upholds gimbutas on the matter, creating the proper
invasion route around the caspian.
so, i don't know
what you're talking about, what "true aryan" means or why you cited the
article in support of that. the article upholds the standard kurgan
dispersal theory, while being a little less informed about the age of
dravidian.
bznn +deathtokoalas
it means pure race. by that meaning langauge and culture. not not skinn
color. by that defination, they had to be green or purple. cuz
black,yellow, brown and white is taken lol.
deathtokoalas +bznn
i think most experts would agree that the closest thing to a pure
"indo-european" culture were the balts, pre-christianization. latvians,
lithuanians.
the article says nothing about anything of
the sort. it just speaks of the well understood indo-iranian invasions
from the caspian, presents genetic evidence of a movement of people from
iran to india during the neolithic and entirely speciously connects
that to a movement of dravidian languages.
bznn +deathtokoalas the cloest they have got to their origin is the zagros mountain. this is the earliest foundings of kurds.
deathtokoalas +bznn
that is correct. but it's a little silly to notice that the kurds
showed up exactly when the arabs invaded, note the large population
displacements that occurred and then not draw conclusions.
bznn
just their luck ? :P
Elam and assyrians and came first . to interrupt their way of living.
invasions
by the armies of every nation that ever acquired fame and name in the
Eastern world’s history-Assyrian, Parthian, Greek, Roman, Persian, the
Arabs under Muhammad, and the Mongols- the fine stability of the race
stand out, for among all the people of these lands they, the Kurds,
alone have withstood every army, and retained pure their language and
blood, and claim with a pride of race to which none can grudge
admiration, that they are the pure Aryan, the “holders of the hills and
possessors of the tongue.”
they have been the first (indigious) in zagros and antollia. both were parts of mesopotamia.
deathtokoalas
the
indigenous peoples of these regions are not iranian. the iranians are
invaders from the north. in very ancient times, this area would have
been a conflict zone between insular caucasus mountain peoples to the
north and more warlike semites to the south.
bznn +deathtokoalas Again kurds are not Iranian. Get that through your head lol!
Later,
the out-of-Medes theory of the Kurds was made popular worldwide by the
Russian Orientalist Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky (1877-1966).
Kurds
are traditionally regarded as Iranians and of Iranian origin, and
therefore as Indo-Europeans, mainly, because they speak Iranian. This
hypothesis is largely based on linguistic considerations and was
predominantly developed by linguists. In contrast to such believes,
newest DNA-research of advanced Human Anthropology indicates, that in
earliest traceable origins, forefathers of Kurds were obviously
descendants of indigenous (first) Neolithic Northern Fertile Crescent
aborigines, geographically mainly from outside and northwest of what is
Iran of today in Near East and Eurasia. Oldest ancestral forefathers of
Kurds were millennia later linguistically Iranianized in several waves
by militarily organized elites of (R1a1) immigrants from Central Asia.
These new findings lead to the understanding, that neither were
aborigine Northern Fertile Crescent Eurasian Kurds and ancient
Old-Iranian speaker (R1a1) immigrants from Asia one and the same people,
nor represent the later, R1a1 dominated migrating early
Old-Iranian-speaker elites from Asia, oldest traceable ancestors of
Kurds. Rather, constitute both historically completely different
populations and layers of Kurdish forefathers, each with own distinct
genetic, ethnical, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. These new
insights indicate first inter-disciplinary findings in co-op- eration
with two international leading experts in their disciplines, Iranologist
Gernot L. Windfuhr, Ann Arbor, and DNA Genealogist Anatole A. Klyosov,
Boston, USA.
deathtokoalas +bznn and, as i've pointed out, the article is incoherent in terms of defining ethnicity.
the
kurds speak an iranian language, follow iranian customs and identify as
an iranian people. the iranian government views them as displaced
persians. the genetic evidence indicates that there's been some mixing,
but it doesn't say anything else. it's not correct to suggest that the
people that lived in the zagros mountains before the islamic invasion
were kurds, whether one can construct some kind of genetic continuity or
not.
stated a second time: what that article states is
that invading iranians had sex with the indigenous people of the region
(semites) and the result is what we today call kurds.
but,
putting aside the fact that you're not understanding the article, the
genetic argument is simply weak in terms of defining culture.
genetically,
palestinians are not arabs, but jews. that is, they are the arabized
descendants of the indigenous jewish inhabitants of the region, who have
intermixed with arab colonizers. but, nobody is going to look at their
dna and say "you are not arabs".
one could also look at
spain and france. genetically, the people of the region are mostly
celts. but, they are the cultural descendants of romans. nobody is going
to argue that they are celts, not romans.
bznn +deathtokoalas Exactly, We have no prove what they were before. But they were Iraniazed. Thats why they are related now.
Here is the story that goes...
They
were from southside of Mesopotamia and got invaded by the assyrians
from north. They fleed to Zagros mountian. There they got invaded and
mixed up with the Medes. There the Medes invaded Assyria and conquered
them.
deathtokoalas +bznn i don't think there's any evidence of such a thing. we can tell stories all day, but it's not worthwhile.
nor
is there any evidence of a kurdish people through the lengthy
roman-persian wars. if they existed in antiquity, we would expect them
to exist in roman records. they simply don't.
the kurdish dialect is also relatively recent.
perhaps it's as simple as it appears: perhaps there were no kurds before the arabs created them through displacement.
bznn +deathtokoalas
have it ever occured to you that he kurds legacy got wiped out of
history? like ISIS are doing right now with babel and assyrians?
deathtokoalas +bznn this is not a grounded argument.
but,
i'm arguing that the kurds were probably the iranians (or iranized
mesopotamians) that occupied the area now called iraq before they were
driven out by arab settlers. that wasn't documented well; very little of
the consequences of the population movements that accompanied the
spread of islam were documented well, because the colonizers simply
didn't care. they didn't do body counts...
so, sort of. but i don't want to get stuck in the conspiracy theory view of history, here.
bznn +deathtokoalas
Most of the kurdish legacy wiped out this is no consipracy. Or you
could say the real iranians who lives in Iran today are not the real
persians. The ones who lived in Iran and Turkey are Imposters. The owner
of that land belonged to Kurds. Just like the real Europeans were black
not white like you. You are an imposter and cave dweller lol.
deathtokoalas +bznn
...or maybe the history doesn't exist because the kurds are not an
ancient people, but one arising from events in the historical period.
i think we've hit an impasse, here.
bznn +deathtokoalas And what do you define as ancient?
deathtokoalas +bznn do you recognize the foreign policy implications of the view that iran "belongs to the kurds"?
i'm
a canadian of mixed ancestry, part of it localized to the middle east
and almost none of it from western europe (my winter whiteness is
actually mostly finnish/uralic - north asian - and i get downright brown
in the summer.). i wouldn't know what a real european is or identify
with being one. but i do recognize that the inhabitants of much (not
all) of europe before the kurgan invasions where likely mostly of olive
complexion.
bznn +deathtokoalas
Europeans are liars and thives. They have way of stealing history. Did
you know bethoven was black. Thoven Bey was his real name. Socrates was
black also. The Jews in the freaking Bible was black. The Americans and
the Canadians are Europeans in origin. European also the reason why
Kurds have no land. Read about world war 1. All you can do is steal
history. Egyptian also black. Did you know you are subhuman? you are a
pale face devil, and you will pay for your ancestors did. the fact is
you have no history of your own. you are a cave bitch commimg from the
mount caucus. you are a Causcasian. A so called White. an imposter of
land. Your real home is back in the cave. Read your history. Canada was
never the land of your caucus ancestors. So technically you have no
right living there. you also didn't answer my question earlier . You
said Kurds are not ancient people. So I am asking you again. WHAT DO YOU
DEFINE AS ACIENT PEOPLE ?? And I don't even know if you are a girl.
And that person in the pic looks like a tranny lol !
deathtokoalas +bznn *plonk*
horse dreamer
No the Elamites are Ahwaz nothing to do with Kurds or iranies
deathtokoalas
it's not clear, really, exactly where they came from or exactly
what they looked like, but elam seems to have been some kind of meeting
point between the pre-semite inhabitants of mesopotamia (sumerians) and
the indigenous inhabitants of india (dravidians). it makes more sense
to me to think that they probable expanded from the harappans, rather
than the other way around, given the dates involved and the directions
of influence; the sumerians seem to have come down from the caucasus
mountains, whereas the elamites seem to have more in common with ancient
india. but, barring some remarkable discovery, this is unlikely to ever
really truly be settled..
horse dreamer
Maybe,
but the Ahwaz I spoke to said they are, they also speak like iraqies,
there accent, there just arabozied and yeah there Semitic, some of them
are still sabian mandians and speak the old language, same thing in Iraq
deathtokoalas
one of the very few things we can be certain about the elamites
is that they were neither semitic nor iranian, which is partly why
they're so hard to place in any kind of system. we have elamite scripts,
and they don't fit into any language group very well, but they seem to
have enough similarity to tamil that some fringe theories have
developed. the dravidian connection really seems almost inescapable,
through a crude process of elimination.
but, to me, the
stronger arguments have to do with the extensive trading networks that
existed between elam and india, indicating that they seem to have seen
themselves as culturally similar. we're talking about cultural trading -
pottery, for example. when you see that, it usually indicates a
cultural continuity. further, we're pretty sure that the elamites were
probably mostly dark skinned (as in indian dark skinned), whereas we
have enough evidence in the form of old statues to conclude that the
sumerians looked vaguely like russians. they were white.
the
agricultural theory i referenced above wants to argue that the spread
of farming brought the movement of peoples in an eastward direction, but
the ethnic and economic relationships i pointed out are not at all
consistent with this idea. if the movement of farming spread any kind of
language or ethnicity from west to east during the neolithic, that
movement had clearly been undone by the rise of urbanization. renfrew is
basically pushing a noah's ark story, and it simply doesn't add up with
the facts.
if your friends look like arabized
persians, they probably are. if they look more like balochis or
pakistanis or tamils, they may have a deeper genetic history in the
region.
horse dreamer
As
u said we don't know that much, maybe Iran should let us go and study
them in Ahwaz, they don't look Persians, they look like iraqies a lot ,
some blush call them selves Arabs lol
deathtokoalas
yeah. well, there was certainly a lot of arab immigration into
persia after about the year 700 ce. but, these people would be as far
removed (probably more removed...) from elam as english settlers in
north america are from the indigenous population. we're talking at least
a thousand years before present for the arab migration - and well over a
thousand years before that since the fall of elam. and, of course,
there's a very large iranian migration in between these things.
you're
really simply not going to find elamites or descendants of elamites in
today's world. the closest thing is probably the balochis, who today
speak an iranian language.
Azari Parsian
Todays persians in Iran are descendants of Elamites and Northern
Mesopotamians. Barely any of them have Iranian ancestry.
deathtokoalas
there are plenty of ethnic iranians left in iran, which is seen
mostly in their lighter coloured skin, which is very prevalent, but the
most recent population movement into the region was turkic and
mongolian. large parts of iran, today, historical and modern, are
primarily turkic.
we can't really define what an
elamite is, but they probably looked like modern baluchis and what is
left of them is probably there.
there were never a significant amount of "mesopotamians" in iran, and there is virtually no trace of them there, today.
to get your head around the turkicization of historical iran (which
includes most of central asia), you have to understand just how brutal
the mongolian invasions truly were.
entire cities were
razed to the ground. millions of people were slaughtered. there was mass
depopulation. this was followed by mass rapes by the thousands, which
repopulated the cities. it was a real ethnic replacement in just about
the most brutal terms imaginable.
over time, the turks
adopted the iranian language and customs. and, you'll see plenty of
iranian markers in the modern population.
but, a broad
genetic survey of iran identifies a very large percentage of the
population as genetic descendants of turks - regardless of the language
they speak.
Murşil Manavis +deathtokoalas this was done genetic studies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707643523
Azari Parsian +Murşil Manavis I highly doubt the elamites were indian origin. You have evidence showing this? Murşil Manavis +Azari Parsian http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707641081
Azari Parsian +Murşil Manavis Interesting i found this too http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/elamites.html
deathtokoalas +Murşil
Manavis i still don't like the direction of dravidian suggested in both
these articles (i think it had to come from the east to the west much
later than the neolithic diffusion), but what i'm saying is consistent
with that study. mtdna is female. so, it traces the flow of genetic
information from mother to daughter, down many generations.
the turkicization of iran would be something that happened in the y-dna, on the male side.
the
historical records tell us that modern iran was repopulated by turkish
men raping iranian women. what you're seeing in this study is what you
would expect to see if that history was accurate, at least on the female
side.
Murşil Manavis
reasonable but no references.
Azari Parsian +Murşil Manavis although, i do agree the Dravidian languages originated in the zagros mountains.
deathtokoalas +Murşil
Manavis i find the historical sources more convincing, and will tend to
reject the dna studies when they don't conform to the history. it's
easy to measure dna, but it's much harder to make sense of it.
i
mean, i'm not suggesting that iran is entirely turkish (and turk,
itself, is hard to define in terms of y dna, as it's a mix itself -
you've got r, q and others in there, because central asia was a place
where nomads met and intermingled, rather than a place where lineages
settled and branched out. the best guess is probably that what we call
turks were mostly the result of white men intermingling with asian
women, creating white y dna attached to asian features). you're going to
find substantial indigenous iranian (r - but not discernible from the
turkish r) and arab (j) in there, too. and, it's all easy enough to
understand. but, i hope i've gotten across that the diversity in iran
really creates a hell of a problem in trying to disentangle it.
you
can really work this out well enough using phenotypes. historical
iranians and sumerians are pasty, european white. semitic people are
darker skinned. we don't know for sure what elamites looked like, but we
think they probably looked like indians. turkish people are light but
not white and have vaguely asian features - likely as a result of them
being a mix of white and asian peoples. because they tend to carry r, it
was probably mostly male white intermixing with female asian that
spawned turkic.
white iranians exist, but are a
minority. most have light but not quite white skin and vaguely eastern
features, indicating very strong turkish and arabic admixture. but you
can't truly separate one r from the other. the asian features increase
in numbers as one moves eastward and northwards from tehran and into
central asia - where r (iranian/turkic) remains dominant and j (arab)
begins to disappear.
Murşil Manavis +deathtokoalas
but most of Anatolian Turks are indigenous people of Anatolia.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X08003661 and
Iranians are hybrid.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080673
Azari Parsian +Murşil Manavis also same with most persians of iran,
deathtokoalas +Murşil
Manavis i agree that a good guess is that most anatolian turks are
basically greeks and most iranians are hybrids, but what i'm saying is
that it's very hard to correlate the genetic markers well.
to summarize what i said in the last post is this:
-
there were plenty of arabs (j) in iran before the mongol invasions.
but, the majority white iranians would have no doubt been r.
-
when the turks invaded, they brought a bunch of stuff - c, q, n. but,
they were also primarily r, because they were themselves a mix of
iranians and mongolians.
so, there was an iranian r
before the mongols. then, the mongols brought an iranian r. the dna
cannot tell you who was there before the slaughter and who wasn't
because it's the same y-dna haplotype.
you'd have to
find some other marker, like a marker connected with "asian eyes". but,
we don't do these studies because we like studies related to direct
paternal (y-dna) or maternal (mtdna) descent, because we think this is
more useful.
until we do these other studies, we're
really better off relying on (1) the written history we have and (2) the
phenotypes we can observe that uphold that history.
btw, that study on iran is again on mtdna. you really need to find one for y-dna to see what i'm saying.
the achaemenids would have actually been much lighter-skinned than most of the current iranian population, even keeping in mind that the current iranian population is actually much lighter-skinned than is presented in popular media.
darius would have looked sort of russian.
i was a civ player when i was young, and they were usually pretty good at this. there's a fringe group of people that want to argue that the persians were from east africa, but it's a ridiculous argument [and that's coming from somebody that readily accepts arguments of a black egypt, or at least a black egypt up until about 1000 bce]. ridiculous with a capital r. on the same level as lizard people. zero chance of accuracy. there were likely some coloured people of roughly "indian" descent in the areas under persian rule, and the persians were in control of pockets of both india and africa so there would have been coloured people in the empire in a variety of contexts. but the persians' closest living relatives would be the slavic groups of eastern europe. and their ruling elite would have been white. not arab olive. not turkic tanned. pasty fucking white.
so, you have to wonder if it's some kind of joke. black aryans. right...
are there any rap songs about successful rappers investing some of their profits into their communities?
so, to get your head around canadian real estate, you have to understand that it's not a free market. canada did not go through the round of deregulation that the united states went through in the 80s and 90s. there's actually somewhat of a government regulatory monopoly at the top of things called the canada mortgage and housing corporation that can do things like eat debt.
so, you get people yelling "it's a bubble! it's going to burst!". well, sure - if you're using the rules of the american housing market, yeah. no other outcome is possible. but, it's not those set of rules that are in play.
the reality is that canada can let this bubble grow just about as big as it wants and let it sit there for just about as long as it wants it to sit there for.
there are some market pressures, related to an aging population trying to sell forty years of inflation to a generation that has seen forty years of decreases in real wages. that's going to force a correction, but it's not a consequence of bad lending.
so, there are some problems with the canadian real estate market. but, if you're going to react, it's necessary to make sure that your research is conducted by canadians that understand the canadian system rather than americans making assumptions that nothing changes when you cross the border.
to state what he's saying in one line, it's merely this:
housing
inflation has risen faster than real wages (which have actually
decreased). that's unsustainable, and must eventually correct itself.
wages aren't going up, so, prices must come down.
solidarity!
get used to this, there's more of it coming. you can't build an economy on subsistence wages, and then blame people for not being astronauts when they revolt.