返回列表 回复 发帖


印度朋友说早在5000年前就有了印度国 中国朋友说中国是世界上历史最悠久的,因为他们仍在沿用4000年前的文字和传统 希腊朋友说他们的历史最长久,因为他们仍然在用希腊语。译文来源:
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
原帖地址:http://archive.worldhistoria.com ... pic13853_page1.html正文翻译:
My Indian friend say there was Indian state since 5000 years ago!
My Chinese friend say China has the world longest continuous history because they still write the same characters and practice many ancient traditions that their ancestors did in 4000 years ago.
My Iranian friend say they had the 1st great empire and was the oldest.
My Greek friend say they had longest history since they still speak and write Greek
....................and many people of different ethnicities claim their culture is greatest living fossil.
Everyone has bias toward their own heritage so it is better to have a poll or serious academic discussion on this issue.
CIA world fact book and many other international organization states China as the world longest living civilization.........but my Indian friend said China was conqueried by Mongols, Turks (???), and Mancurians. And even Mongolians today didnt belive they are part of Chinese history. But, again, if the Macedonians were considered as part of Greek history (Macedonians were considered by ancient Greeks as semi-barbarians), I guess Mongols could be interpreted as "Sinicized" tribe of China.
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
I've heard some Jews claim its Judism.
And on it goes.
Everyone wants their's to be the longest living, continiously existing, oldest, whatever, and they all have a carefully designed set of rules to swing it their way. Very predictable and lame.
Civilisation is essentialy a pattern of settlment, i can't think of many that have remianed totaly andf completly unchanged over the millennia. In fact, i can't think of any, peroid.
The Inuits! From the day they passed the Bering strait (some thousand years ago), untill now little have changed in their way of life.
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
If your going to play it that way, they i'd nominate the San of South Africa. Archeological records point to a fairly consistant existance going back 20,000+ years. But even there, we see a few changes as they adopt new technology and techniques.
Of course, they were semi-nomadic. No civis, no civilisation. Don't you just love the Roman world view?
Australian Aborigines are far older, they formed hunting societies 40000-50000 years ago in Australia.
And yes, I love the Roman world view.
Thats when they are supposed to have arrived there,, but they are not a consistant civilisation in the simplified sense, their lifestyles varied considerable depending on where in Oz they lived (climate and enviroment), not to mention changes, otherwise, yes, they are pretty damn old too, but African hunting societies are older still.
The question is, do we go with the Romano-Urban centric notion of Civilisation and exclude them, or do we try to take a more ethnicity/lifestyle group approach, in which case the Greek/Chinese/etc. come accross as relative babies compared to the likes of the San, and other African and Australian groups.
Generaly speaking, people put the Civis in Civilisation and exclude nomadic hunter types as 'tribal', and thus their often greater and easily traced continuity is ignored.
Indian culture, and Hinduism are thousands of years old (Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and its beginnings are unknown) however, there has never been one long-standing continuous Indian nation.
Indian and Chinese civilizations are two of the oldest in the world, and both have rich histories, but I recall learning in grammar school that the Egyptian civilization was the first great civilization on earth.
Also, bear in mind that "civilization" is described as beginning with the written word and that would make the Middle East - and specifically the Mesopotamia area or modern day Iraq - as the oldest civilization on earth.
I doubt that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, i'd reckon there are animist religions in Africa that are older.
I agree, but you can describe hinduism as the oldest organised religion.
Every religion has some type of organisation. What you mean by organised?
A caste of priests, significance of temples, prays, sacred artifacts and books and so on. In a few words a specific way of worshiping a deity
Temples, case of priests(shamans), prays and artifacts i think are part of all religions from animism to christianity. If you talking books probably the oldest then would be Zoroastrianism which was founded around 1200BC based on revealed scripture.
Originally posted by Cywr
I doubt that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, i'd reckon there are animist religions in Africa that are older.
Ask any religious studies or philosophy professor and they will tell you that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. In fact, it is so old that a date or founder cannot even be attributed to it.
It is the sister religion of Zoroastrianism, and the concept of the Holy Trinity in Christianity actually originated with Hinduism:
Christianity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
Hinduism: The Creator (Brahma) , the Perserver (Vishnu) , the Destroyer (Shiva).
Ponce de Leon:
I personally believe that the longest living civilization is yet to be percieved. My bets go on to the USA as being the longest living civilization....EVER!
The concept of a unitary god has been prevalent amongst the aboriginals for thousand of years as well.
Equally there is said to be more civility in the Indus civilization with a society base on equality than some others.(Although IVC is work in progress i admit.
It depends on what what concept of civilization you are using. For example, one can conider China as one continuous cvilization but can also think of China as 3 successive civilizations (Arnold Toynbee divides up Chinese history into the Hsia-Shang, Classical Sinic, and Buddho-Sinic civilizations). I happen to follow Toynbee's conception of a civilization, and So I consider the longest-lasting civilization ever to be Ancient Egypt (Around 3,500BC to around 500AD).
The oldest living civilization is Buddho-Sinic (originated around 300AD after the fall of the Han Dynasty) followed by Western and Orthodox Christendom (both originated around 600AD). The youngest civilization is Islamic, which started when the Abbasid Caliphate (which was the universal state of the preceding Syriac civilization) collapsed.
译注:阿诺德.约瑟夫.汤因比 Amold J.Toynbee (1889——1975)当代影响最大的英国史学家之一
Hinduism is the oldest RELIGION!!! How many times must I emphasize this? Shamanism and animism are NOT religions, rather, they are beliefs which vary from culture to culture.
The oldest civilization has to be the Middle East - primarily Mesopatamia (modern day Iraq) because "civilization" is measured by the FIRST WRITTEN WORD and the first traceable written records are attributed to the Middle East.
Sure, there may have been some peoples who developed agricultural societies, but there were no records written during that time!
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon
I personally believe that the longest living civilization is yet to be percieved. My bets go on to the USA as being the longest living civilization....EVER!
When 's it going to begin?
For another view:
"America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization" - Oscar Wilde.
“美国是第一个从野蛮走向衰落而没有一般文明中断时期的国家”——奥斯卡王尔德 。
"Hinduism is the oldest RELIGION!!!"
How about the proto-Indo-European religions? the Native People's religion? Japanese Shinto?
Come on, Hinduism isnt the oldest, but ONE of oldest.....
"The oldest civilization has to be the Middle East"
I agree. But, it isnt the LONGEST LIVING civilization; it certainly had the oldest civilizations but they were conquered and abosorbed by later empires and nomadic invaders, such as Arabs.
Originally posted by Kids
"Hinduism is the oldest RELIGION!!!"
How about the proto-Indo-European religions? the Native People's religion? Japanese Shinto?
Come on, Hinduism isnt the oldest, but ONE of oldest.....
Why don't you ask a religion studies, history, or philosophy professor BEFORE you post such nonsense?
HINDUISM, JAINISM, AND BUDDHISM are three of the oldest religions in the world (with Hinduism being the oldest) and all three originated in India! I think your disbelief that India contributed so much to human civilization, i.e. the numeral system, the number zero, etc., stems from the fact that you suffer from an inferiority complex.
I took a religion studies course and trust me - my Jewish professor stated in full confidence that Hinduism was the oldest religion in the world, as did every textbook on religion we went over.
"philosophy professor BEFORE you post such nonsense"
"I think your disbelief that India contributed so much to human civilization, i.e. the numeral system, the number zero, etc., stems from the fact that you suffer from an inferiority complex"
Watch your language! I got honor degree in Political Science from Univesity of Toronto, and philosophy and I dont need someone to criticize my intelligence.
Inferiority complex? When did I say Indians are inferior? Did you even read my first post? I mentioned that my INDIAN FRIEND told me that India has longest history. If I racist or Orientlaist, why would I have make friend from India origin?
You can provide evidences but offensive language or personal attack is unacceptable!
Beside, the post isnt about who has oldest religion, it is about the longest living civilization on earth. If you are so passion about Hinduism, go create another post.
I'm not passionate about Hinduism, I just merely stated historical facts. And as such, I have already stated that the Mesopatamian civilization is the oldest continuous civilization in the world.
Originally posted by Master_Blaster
It is the sister religion of Zoroastrianism...
What connection do you think Hinduism has with Zoroastrianism?
Hinduism conflates two traditions - the polytheism typical of all the original Indo-European peoples with the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation (which I've always felt the incoming Indo-Europeans probably picked up from the indigenous Indian cultures). Zoroastrianism doesn't have much to do with either and represents as much of a new start as Middle Eastern monotheism, even from the point of view of those who date it to the late 2nd millenium BCE, rather than the 6th century BCE.
On the other hand I think I would agree that Hinduism probably is the oldest still widely followed religion: I would take animism to be the name of a class of religions (like monotheism, polytheism, and so on) rather than a specific religion. Of the animist religions Shinto is the most widely spread (I would have thought), and it just may be older than Hinduism, but we don't really know. The origins of both are obscured.
(PS Oldest civilisation isnt the same thing as oldest religion.)
It is impossible to define civilization, and it is even more impossible to draw a line inbetween different civilizations, both in time and in space. Hence it is impossible to name the longest living civilization.
Originally posted by gcle2003
What connection do you think Hinduism has with Zoroastrianism?
Hinduism conflates two traditions - the polytheism typical of all the original Indo-European peoples with the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation ……
1. Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion. It is both a polytheistic and monotheistic faith.
2. Research Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and you will notice that both religions incorporate the histories of Indo-Iranian peoples.
3. I already stated multiple times that HINDUISM is the oldest religion and that the Mesopatamian civilization is the oldest continous civilization.
Originally posted by Master_Blaster
1. Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion. It is both a polytheistic and monotheistic faith.
Then it's polytheist, isn't it? Or are you saying it is not a religion but a faith, in which case I don't understand the distinction you are drawing?
2. Research Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and you will notice that both religions incorporate the histories of Indo-Iranian peoples.
Well, yes, since they're both Indo-European in origin (Hinduism in part). But by my question I meant what connections do they have religiously - i.e. in doctrine, beliefs, rituals....
3. I already stated multiple times that HINDUISM is the oldest religion and that the Mesopatamian civilization is the oldest continous civilization.
I said I agreed with you about Hinduism being the oldest extant, widely followed religion, except possibly for Shinto, about which I don't think we know enough to argue.
But your stating something doesn't make it true, no matter how often you state it. You need some argument to support the statement.
I'll give you one: Hinduism results from the merger of the beliefs of the incoming Indo-European migrants and those of the indigenous peoples. No other extant, widely followed religion can date its origin back further than that.
As for civilisations, the Mesopotamian ones died out an awful long time ago. They certainly had a long run, but I'd have thought the ancient Egyptian civilisation has any of the Mesopotamian ones beat.
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara ... oldest-religion.htm
Hinduism is widely regarded by historians as being the oldest religion in the world. It cannot be credited to a single founder or even a date to its' beginnings.
Shinto-ism is certainly not the world's oldest religion, in fact, from what I know, both Jainism and Buddhism (these two religions were also founded in India and derived from Hinduism) are many centuries older than Shinto-ism.
Here is an excerpt from this link:
"Hinduism has the oldest recorded roots in Dravidianism. Dravidianism was estimated to have been practised around 6000 to 3000BCE and as such predates Sumerian, Egyptian and Babylonian cultures."
I am not a Hindu and as such, I have no personal interest in propogating anything that would place Hinduism in a positive light. I am merely restating those facts which are widely accepted by the world's archeological community.
And as I have also stated in this section many times over, Mesopotamia is the world's oldest civilization.
The most common definition of civilization is “an advanced state of development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writing, and complex political and social institutions.”
Now, if you scroll up, you will notice that I stated much the same thing in my previous posts when I defined "civilization" as having begun with the "written word".
Essentially, Mesopotamia is the most decided upon answer to your question, based on archeological evidence and the above definition.
This is an excerpt from the same above link.
"Mesopotamia was one of the first, if not the first, place in the world where writing developed."
"This depends so much on how we define a civilization! The first permanent farming settlements were established in the Middle East in approximately 8000 B.C. By 6000 to 5500 B.C., irrigation has developed and the roots of the Mesopotamian civilization were in place. By 3300 the city of Uruk had two great temples, and its priests and accountants had developed cuneiform writing. Other early farming communities are India (7000 B.C.) and China (6500 B.C.), both of which led eventually to civilizations. The Indus state emerged in 2700 B.C., while the Xia dynasty in China developed in 2100 B.C."
I can find you other sources which state that India's civilization is much older than China's and some historians who claim that India's civilization is even older than that of Mesopotamia's - hence, making India's civilization the oldest in the world. However, since the earliest Indian civilizations (as well as Chinese civilizations) were farming communities, archeologists tend to regard Mesopotamian civilization as the oldest.
You are not a Hindu as such? Isn't a simple yes or no much easier? Plus, one does not need to be a Hindu to be a Indian nationalist. I've acquired a degree in political science and history and I'm familiar with Indian theories about civilisation "deriving from" India. About how the Indo-Europeans came from India and not the other way around. Are you one of those?
Plus, the Trinity has no roots in Hinduism. It is purely superficial and there is no semblance at all.
Consider this:
IN Christian Theology God is three persons, but each person is distinct and individual, but not separate. God does not manifest as three persons. But IS three persons. It is a self-sustaining relationship,
Krishna may manifest in many forms and that is different from the Trinitarian concept. Despite the fact that the "official" wording and description of the Trinitarian concept did happen till the around the time of the councils of Nicaea, it was merely a confirmation of existing beliefs, sort of like a final declaration or consolidation of what a large majority of the Church believed. No Hindu influence there though.
Unless of course, you also believe that Jesus went to India like some New Agers believe?
What would proving India as the oldest civilisation prove? That everything comes from India? Or just being proud of the fact?
You write as if I disagreed with you.
However, where do you get the information from about the origins of Shintoism?
And you keep ignoring the fact that the question refers to 'living' civilisations. The Mesopotamian civilisations, not matter how long ago they started, have been dead for a long time. They aren't 'living' civilisations. Much the same applies to the early Indian civilisations like that of Mohenjo Daru.
The other point at issue is the confusion between the Hindu religion and the original religions of the country, before the Indo-European migration, about which we know very little if anything. Vedic Hinduism, which seems to result from the merger of Indo-European beliefs with local ones, dates back probably no more than 1500 BCE, though it probably had been developing for some while before that.
Which would make it not so old as the ancient Egyptian religion, but of course it has lasted a lot longer. (Though it has changed considerably in recent historical times, especially with the feedback from Buddhism and Jainism. The monotheistic element is much stronger now that originally, probably due to the influence of the middle eastern religions.)
Inter alia it says "In Sanskrit, the original language of India, 'Sanatana' means Everlasting and 'Dharma', by a crude translation, means Religion."
Sanskrit is not the original language of India. Why trust anything else the site says?
This one confirms what I wrote.
http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara ... oldest-religion.htm
This one says "This is probably because Hinduism has the oldest recorded roots, which lie in Dravidianism. Dravidianism is estimated to have been practiced around 6,000 to 3,000 BCE and as such predates the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Babylonian cultures."
It makes exactly the mistake I described of confusing the indigenous religion, which he calls 'Dravidianism'. Dravidian is the term for the 'original' inhabitants, and i don't think we know anything about their religion. That Hinduism has 'roots' in the indigenous religion is a point I made: however it also has roots in the early Indo-European religions.
If you use its 'roots' as a criterion, then you have to admit Christianity has roots in Judaism and Judaism has roots in the tribal religions of the near east, and, in general, all religions have roots that go back into prehistory.On that basis they are all as old as one another.
Hinduism is widely regarded by historians as being the oldest religion in the world. It cannot be credited to a single founder or even a date to its' beginnings.
Shinto-ism is certainly not the world's oldest religion, in fact, from what I know, both Jainism and Buddhism (these two religions were also founded in India and derived from Hinduism) are many centuries older than Shinto-ism.
This one only addresses the question of which is the oldest of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It doesn't even mention Shinto.
Again, as far as I'm aware, we have no evidence relating to when Shinto originated (and little regarding when and where the Japanese people came from). Extremists will claim that it dates back to the Jomon period (perhaps as early as 10,000 BCE) which would make it earlier than anything else.
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com翻译:熊孩子+山间小客+trytrytry+Jonathan+duke99+Katherine等
You sounds arrogant and rude
Well, I am neither a Hindu nor an Indian nationalist. I do not believe everything originated in India, and I certainly do not refute the Aryan Invasion Theory. The Hindu nationalists who propagate such nonsense as India being the root of all great contributions to human civilization are absurd and irrational and I would never waste my time debating with such people regardless of their national origin.
You simply making a claim such as the "Trinity has no roots in Hinduism" does not make it true unless you can support such a claim with fact.
I am not Hindu so I am certainly not going to bother arguing Hindu theology with you. I only offered up the notion that Hinduism may have influenced the concept of the Christian Trinity. Perhaps I could have worded it less ambiguously by stating that the Aryan concepts, which were later, adopted into Hinduism are the same basis for the idea of the Christian Trinity. I certainly do not have any doubts that the Aryan peoples' beliefs influenced Judaism which in turn influenced Christianity.
No, I do certainly do not believe that. It is absurd for anyone to believe such a thing and I myself would think anyone who placed any emphasis on such a theory was lacking all rational.
I never stated that India was the oldest civilization in the world. I stated many times that the oldest civilization in the world, as accepted by the archaeologist community is that of Mesopotamia, if you want to argue that India is the oldest continuous civilization in the world, then all you need to do is scroll up to the links I provided which state that the earliest communities in India originated in 7,000 BC – a full 500 years before the Chinese civilization.
Also, I never stated that everything comes from India, but I did lend credence where it is due in that the modern numeral system we utilize today, and other concepts did in fact originate in ancient India.
Something to be proud of? I suppose if I were East Indian, then I would be proud of it, but as such, I only pointed it out as a known fact. I am getting the impression from you that you feel Indian civilization is inferior to your own and others which you have high regard for – is this a valid assumption?
I doubt that
Arrogant and rude
"你需要做的就是去看看我提供的链接…… "
First of all, being oldest doesnt mean most "advanced":
China was the master of technology in ancient time and only Roman empire was perhaps equal to its golory (read the National Geography's A Chinese Empire that rival Rome).
In fact, there has been numerous books that compared the Classical Age of China and Greece since China's experience was most comparable to Greece
The Cambridge University published the renowed scholar of Hellenic studies, Dr. G. E. R. Lioyd "The Ambitions of Curiosity: Understanding the World in Ancient Greece and China" in year 2002
Yale University also published "The Way and the World: Science and Medicien in Early China and Greece" by another renowned Classic scholars Geoggrey Lloyd and Nathan Sivin in year 2002
耶鲁大学也同样在2002年出版了另一位著名古典家Geogrey Lioyd和Nathan Sivin的《世界作风:古代中国和希腊的科学和医学》
The above books can be found in most of major libraries of North American university (UBC, Univeristy of Torono, University of Alberta, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, MIT....). There are actually more academic books from Oxford in comparsion of Chinese science and Greek approach to the natural world, but the list is too long.
If you ever took comparable history, scholars has been compared the achievements in science and technology between ancient Greece and China for two decades now.
I havnt heard any prominet Western scholars compared India and Greece or India and China in terms of technological and scientific achievements.
I understand your position in that there are multiple possibilities but until there is a consolidated effort amongst the archeologists, historians, and theologians to change the school curriculum, then I will continue to believe what we are taught in school.
For example, as Nestorian stated, there are consolidated efforts on the part of Hindu nationalists, and scholars of Indian thought, to debunk the Aryan Immigration Theory. I will admit that some of their reasoning does make one entertain their ideas but again, unless the Aryan Immigration Theory is completely rejected by the world community, I will still continue to believe it to be true. Similarly, Shinto-ism may or may not be older than Hinduism, but until the world community accepts this, I will continue to believe that the latter and not the former is the oldest religion in the world.
As far as I am aware, scholars accept that Hinduism originated around 1500 BC with the Aryan invasion of India, and Shinto-ism originated in 300 BC in Japan.
I offered a retort to this query in my response to Nestorian, and you can derive what my response would have been by the link I provided to you earlier in which it stated that Mesopotamia was the oldest civilization and that Indian civilization originated circa 7000 BC and Chinese civilization originated circa 6500 BC. That would make the Indian civilization the oldest continuous civilization in the world, and Chinese civilization, the second oldest.
You are correct, Vedic Hinduism does indeed have its origins in or around 1500 BC but this refers only to the Aryan concepts that were coupled with the beliefs of the conquered Dravidians. The history of the origins of Hinduism actually lies with the Dravidian peoples and this may actually be a lot further back than 1500 BC.
I agree with you here completely. Although a Hindu will be reluctant to admit it if you asked him, I too feel that it was with the introduction of Islam to India that great emphasis was placed on the monotheistic element in Hinduism.

Dharma does not mean religion, it is translated as DUTY, it may imply religion but I am not sure of this.
Sanskrit is the original language of India as accepted by the majority of scholars. Sanskrit is credited as being the mother language of all Indic languages. No doubt that Dravidian languages which were free of Indo-European terminology may have been the very first words spoken in the land now known as India, but by in large, Sanskrit is widely regarded and accepted as the original formulated language of India – just as Avestan is the original language of the Iranian peoples and the sister language of Sanskrit.

There is evidence, which suggests that the Dravidian peoples migrated through the Middle East, settled in the Iranian Plateau, and then made their way to India.
You are correct, Dravidians are the original peoples of India and today, they are largely confined to the Deccan Plateau in the southern Indian states of Kerala, Tamil, etc., but bear in mind that it was with the influx of the Aryan into India around 1500 BC and the adoption of Dravidian religious beliefs with that of the Aryans, which produced Vedic Hinduism. And that is why Hinduism is credited as having begun circa 1500 BC although the actual origins of Hinduism are thousands of years prior to that.
PS: Aryans introduced Indo-European language terminology and religious concepts to the Dravidians upon conquering the Indus River basin.
On that basis, then Hinduism would remain as the oldest religion in the world because it has its roots in pre-historical Dravidian beliefs. Look, you stated that Shinto-ism might be the oldest religion based on the concept of where its roots can be traced, right? In that case, I argued that Hinduism serves as the oldest. On the other hand, if you accept that Hinduism as we know it today originated in 1500 BC –then you must also accept that Shinto-ism is credited with having originated in 300 BC, a full 1200 years after Hinduism!
Shinto-ism was founded circa 300 BC.
Extremists in all societies are the root cause of nothing more than mistrust, animosity, hatred, and ethnocentrism. It is due to extremists that conflicts exist in Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, Ireland-England, etc. I do not put any credence into anything an extremist believes.
I enjoyed this debate very much, you are very knowledgeable.
I doubt that
Arrogant and rude
"你需要做的就是去看看我提供的链接…… "
耶鲁大学也同样在2002年出版了另一位著名古典家Geogrey Lioyd和Nathan Sivin的《世界作风:古代中国和希腊的科学和医学》
Your posts reap of anti-Indianism. I have no doubt that you view Indians with a sense of inferiority. I am not here to defend Hinduism or Indians, I simply stated what is widely regarded as fact.
Read India's contributions to human civilization - pay especially close attention to what Albert Einstein stated.
http://www.ayurvedahc.com/articl ... ibutions/Page1.html
You do realize that during the Mughal Empire's reign in India, the Mughal economy's annual revenues were 17 times more than what was in the English monarch's treasury, right? Are you familiar with this aspect of Indian history? When we in the West refer to billionnaires such as Donald Trump as "moguls" - it is directly derived from the Mughal emporers of India who were the richest rulers in the world during their day.
I suspected that you were a racist and now you have proven my point. Next time you do your taxes or any form of math - just remember that you are using the INDIAN NUMERAL SYSTEM!
India is one of the richest civilizations in the world, the only reason you compare Greece to anything is because you live in a Western society that was directly influenced by Greek democratic principles.
It's obvious to me you're a racist and a bigot. Please do not ever bother responding to me with any of your hate-filled nonsense -which you are so good at spewing in your lousy English.
"It's obvious to me you're a racist and a bigot. Please do not ever bother responding to me with any of your hate-filled nonsense -which you are so good at spewing in your lousy English."
What the hell is that? Its you who first attack me personally, and now you refers me as racist?
Proof your points with academic resources not with some online stuffs; i dont do my research papers with online wikipedia
If i am racist, then please check my first post and prove my post is an orientalist view
If I am racist, what would I bother to say China was advanced civilization?
Regarding of my Chinese technological superiority, I already list all the academic resources, not from some wikipedia stuffs. All my books are from prominent universities in North America.
And if you think i am racist, tell the administrater to ban me from the forum, otherwise stop this nonsense.
You obivous dont have respect for someone who raise questions about India even after I have said that my India friend claimed India is oldest.
Are you of Chinese descent? Do you feel that Chinese are superior to Indians? I'm trying to understand why you have such a negative view of Indian history. I do not need to prove anything as I have already provided you with multiple links and sources whereas all you have done is make some ludicrous claims in very bad English. I've never heard of ancient Chinese civilization being compared to Greek civilization.
Mind you my non-English speaking friend, that contributions to human civilization have been made by many peoples and no one civilization or people is inferior or superior to another.
"Mind you my non-English speaking friend"

No, I am a French-German descendent from Alberta, and I got honor degree in political science and philosophy form UT. Did I ever claim that you are racist? or inferior english-speaker? All my claim are from academic books that I listed above, and I dont think my reouces are less trustful than your online sources.
"I'm trying to understand why you have such a negative view of Indian history"
First of all, I didnt say anything abour inferiority about Indians or reject the view that India was older than China. My Chinese friend often claim they have 5000 years old, but my history class indicated that Chinese history had merely 3000 years old written history.
Of course Inidians had enourmous contributions to Mathemaics, and did I reject tha claim?
If Chinese didnt have such high technological development and philosophical discorse, why has many Classial scholars bother to compare it with Greece and Romans? and I already back up my claim with some academic books that you can check out.
I was angry because you attacked me personally without any evidences.
One last thing, if you think i am white racist, PLEASE TELL THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BAN ME FROM THIS FORUM!!!!!
互联网 www.ranhaer.org