It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by downisreallyup
Yet you fail to understand one.. ASIA I NOT INDIA is it?
Look.. be for you post me some more lame stuff please
Indian civilisation deserves its credit as being known amongst the most greatest civilisations of all time.
first line of the OP
then you have the balls to post this?
And, for your edification, here is an academic essay on the Asian Civilization:
sorry what part of ASIA is not india am i missing in your logic?
you do now asia is a contentent right and india is a name for a place that happens to be IN asia
you know like CHINA?
or shall i skool you in geogrophy?
Anyhow, I very much appreciate your bringing this to our attention. I have always been amazed at the accurate descriptions in the Vedas concerning nuclear holocaust... it seems that much revision has occurred to the historical accounts of man's ancient civilization.
Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.
The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (mature period 2600–1900 BCE) which centred mostly in the western part of the Indian Subcontinent or South Asia and flourished around the Indus river basin. Historically part of Ancient India, it is one of the world's earliest urban civilizations along with Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Primarily centered along the Indus and the Punjab region, the civilization extended into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley and the Ganges-Yamuna Doab, encompassing most of what is now Pakistan, as well as extending into the westernmost states of India, southeastern Afghanistan and the easternmost part of Balochistan, Iran. The mature phase of this civilization is known as the Harappan Civilization as the first of its cities to be unearthed was the one at Harappa, excavated in the 1920s in what was at the time the Punjab province of British India (now in Pakistan). Excavation of IVC sites have been ongoing since 1920, with important breakthroughs occurring as recently as 1999.
This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the modern political state comprising Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, see People's Republic of China. For the modern political state comprising Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation).
Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest hominids in China date from 250,000 to 2.24 million years ago. A cave in Zhoukoudian (near present-day Beijing) has fossils dated at somewhere between 300,000 to 780,000 years. The fossils are of Peking Man, an example of Homo erectus who used fire. The earliest evidence of a fully modern human in China comes from Liujiang County, Guangxi, where a cranium has been found and dated at approximately 67,000 years old. Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains, a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa, Japan has been dated to 16,600 to 18,250 years old, so modern humans probably reached China before that time.
Africa's written history starts with the rise of Egyptian civilization in the 4th millennium BC, and in succeeding centuries follows the development of the many diverse societies beyond the Nile Valley. From an early date this has involved critical interactions with non-African civilizations. These ranged from the Phoenicians, who established the merchant empire of Carthage, to the Romans, who colonised all of North Africa in the first century BC. Christianity began its spread through large areas of northern Africa at this time, reaching as far south as Kush and Ethiopia. In the late 7th century, North and East Africa were heavily influenced by the spread of Islam, which eventually led to the appearance of new cultures such as those of the Swahili people in East Africa, and powerful kingdoms including the Songhai Empire in the sub-saharan west. Farther south, Ghana, Oyo, and the Benin Empire developed with little influence from either Islam or Christianity. The rise of Islam led to an increase in the Arab slave trade that would culminate in the 19th century. This presaged the forced transport of African people and cultures to the New World in the Atlantic slave trade, and the beginning of the European scramble for Africa. The colonial period in much of Africa lasted from the late 1800s until the advent of African independence movements in 1951, when Libya became the first former colony to become independent. However Liberia can be considered the first post-colonial independent country, established 1847. Modern African history has been rife with revolutions as well as the growth of modern African economies and democratization across the continent.
Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by Indigo_Child
Im sorry i do have to dissagree here..
In other words based on this data we can clearly see in terms of economy and production the Indians were the dominant civilisations of this planet in the ancient world, even at the height of the Roman and Islamic empire. It is Western-centric history that teaches us the Romans were the most powerful force on this planet in the past, but the evidence shows that Asia was the most powerful.
This is a basic flaw.. I guess your of indian desent? or something.. i dunno but hey if your not thats cool
The roman empire was only second to khan who did in fact have more land mass "powerfull" than the romans and he was not indian he was tho from the continant "land mass of" asia ..
You are trying to connect a group of people "indians" with a landmass?
i dont see how that works? if that was the case you could include china? as they are on the very same land mass as india
If you want to talk about a people PLEASE use the right way to go about it and dont use wiki to justify your own missunderstand of what it is your trying to say ?
yes the indian people were a supper "power" in there own right but do not confuse that with asia as a place.
Indians are a mix of people from all over asia not just "indian"..
were did gun powder come from? CHINA is that india? No its not but its sure as hell is in asia..
you see what im trying to say? im not saying that your "premiss" for making this thread is wrong nore do i want to butcher you about it.
But your telling me things that are not true in ways i dont feel happy reading because i like histroy its great and i love civiliastion. but when you confuse the word with the meaning or interpritation is as bad as saying
THE WHITE RACE
thats grammitcaly what you are saying and its wrong because there is no such thing as a WHITE race of humans OR black.
civiliations is the human progression of knowladge not some retarded way to lable a contentent..
culture is the word to describe how other people work
please understand that or this topic is pointless be for its got going and myself like to read what you are intrested in saying "or making a point of" its nice to remind others how other cultures have shaped "civiliation"...
one word, we both agreed on that being humble part remember in the other thread?
its ok to be wrong.. its how you accept it then it becomes a problem
You are trying to force things into being because you know you have been proven wrong here, and yet your pride will not allow you to admit it. It's quite obvious here that you have a limited, naive, uneducated, non-academic view of English words.
you have a limited, naive, uneducated, non-academic view of English words