x
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 28, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**
The word Hindu is derived from the Sanskrit word sindhu (“river”—more specifically, the Indus); the Persians in the 5th century BC called the Hindus by that name, identifying them as the people of the land of the Indus. The Hindus define their community as “those who believe in the Vedas” (see Veda) or “those who follow the way (dharma) of the four classes (varnas) and stages of life (ashramas).”
As for descendents of Scythians being confined to Punjab and Rajputana, you make me laugh.
THe Scythians came down south as far as today's Andhra Pradesh, before the Andhras repelled them and established the Satavahana Dynasty.(Chronologically the successor to Muryan dynasty though not as big).
I will dig up the links if you want!!
**
[/quote]
1)The Sindhu and Hindu basically meant the same thing. Since that is not the case anymore hence, we can say confidently that "hindu and Hinduism" culture did come out from what is today india of which pakistan was not part. Varna, caste etc. were not the trait of the Vedic Iranian tribes. Including the fact the Vedas were written outside of what is today India.
2)The Macedonians dominated areas as far as Nile, phoenicia, mesopotamia, Persia, Arachosia, Gandharo-Bachtria, Sogdia and the Indus country.It does not mean that those Greek invaders swept everything before them and the local inhabitants disappeared and only Greeks spawned in those areas. The eatsern most branch of the original sun worshipping scythian tribe that came to south Asia, like the earlier Vedic Iranian tribes from their original home didnt just make everything disappear b4 them either-- they added to the mixture and their element became the dominant one. The eastern most scythic tribes, settled got mixed and in time were dissolved into the larger cultural fold and professed the elite culture of varna-jati thing( a clear example of one pagan people adopting another pagan cultural pattern out of necessity and natural tendency to endear themselves to the settled inhabitants). The rajasthanis are a clear example of a transitional race. Still the marking of scythian cultural symbolism and geneaology is found mostly in the northwest of southasia not the enitre sub continent of whereever they went. This same pattern is continued with the later Turko-Afghan period, they didnt sweep everything b4 them (although scythic arrival was more migration then invasion).
1947 restored the independance of the Indus country. Sindhu...the Real Indus.
Thus, spake the Sword...
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 28, 2002).]
Varna, caste etc. were not the trait of the Vedic Iranian tribes. Including the fact the Vedas were written outside of what is today India.<<
First of all, Vedic Aryans may not be Iranians , but Central Asians.
I say this because if you read Vedas you will find Aryans are nomadic cow herds who have a lot of contempt for city dwelling people like the ones in Indus Valley!!!
For example one of the names of Indra a Vedic God is ‘Purandara’ the destroyer of Forts.
At the same time, Iranians probably ARE city dwellers.
Further, I don’t think Iranians measured their wealth in Cows as Vedic Aryans apparently did!! Not too many cows in Iran are there ?
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
But TOMASSO is right. Sub-Continent has too much history and there are conflicting claims.
Like the ones about Scythians.
One thing for sure. ‘Indus’ valley Civilization is not confined to SIndh.
Settlements are found in Indian Gujrat.
Further there definitely have been migrations.
One theory is that Indus Valley people were DRavidians who were forced to migrate.
SOme of them stayed back.
Like, there is a tribe in Afghanistan who speak a Dravidian language, totally different from Indo-European languages.
Here’s a link from this very thread!!
There ARE south Indian languages spoken as far as Afghanistan!!
The Raisanis, numbering some 20,000, speak a Dravidian language of southern India – unlike the Turco-Iranian Baluchis and the Indo-Aryan Pashtoons, whose languages borrow heavily from Persian. <<
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.htm
So the sub-continent is inter connected and I can only pity the attempts of people who deny their own heritage and say what is today Pakistan and Afghanistan were always Aliens to India.
I mean if you want to separate it’s fine and want to ape the conquesror’s ways it’s fine too, but don’t make futile attempts, trying to rewrite History!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
: D
[x]
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 29, 2002).]
First of all, the vedic aryan tribes are more or less the same like the Iranian tribes, one of which branch came to be known as the Persians. Before, middle half of the 6th century BC, there is no mention of Persian empire or any thing of that sort. It was probably around 8th century BC or 7th century BC that the Persian tribe of the Iranian family emerged as an ethnic group having a sense of distinction and moved down south from their domain in afghanistan and northern steppe lands, avoiding the mighty Assyria and the Urban Medes as well as others like elamites who dominated the Iranian plateu to reach Fars or Pers.
It was somewhere around mid half of 7th century BC that persians moved from nomadism to more settled life style. And not until mid half of 6th century BC did the leather- helmeted Persians, ever yield any military power over other nations. Till then they were regarded as a primitive outpost of nomadic herders in the barren mountain of Fars. It was much later that the son of a Persian chief by name of Daiush would then unite his tribes and set out to sow the seed of Persian kingship. Vedas as we know were not written in or around 6th century or even 9th century BC, but somewhere around 2200-1500 BC.
The landscape of Iran is the same as afghanistn and Pakistan being mountanous and having rolling hills and nomadism has been central to the evolution of Iranian society.
Indus valley and its connection have been found all over Pakistan including kashmir and north west as far as asghabad in tajikistan and sumeria in mesopotamia, but its heart lies in Pakistan (the REAL indus country)in harrapa and moenjodaro cities and I am thankful for the rich heritage that has been Pakistan’s legacy. Perhaps of all the ancient cradles of civilizations, the Indus valley surpassed themm all in its sophistication and has given Pakistan (the Indus Land) an antiquity of 5000 years of glorious history.
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 29, 2002).]
There arnt any south indian labguage spoken in afghanistan. Raisanis are a tribe of the brahuis of balochistan and account for less than 1% of the population of Pakistan.
And that internetlink is Bullcrap like the entire stupid article. Balochis are not Turko-Iranian like Turkomans and azeris neither is their language Altaic, it is a parthian-pahlavi mix langauge boorwed words from semitic group. And Pashtuns are not indo-aryan (as if indo-aryan is a race
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/tongue.gif
) and linguistically pastho is easternIranian/Tokharian/sanskritic.
I agree there is no rigid Great wall of china type rigidity among regions: they have been fluid and so ofcourse their has been connection between pakistan/afghanistan and India. Just like their has been connection between Persia and Pakistan. No one is denying that. The problem however, would arise if suddenly Pakistanis start saying something like that Persian or Macedonain Empire (of which Pakistan was a part) were Pakistani empires/civilizations etc…
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/tongue.gif
or Iranians saying that abdali or Kushan empires were Persian empires.
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 29, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**
2.Nadir Shah was Persian.
**
[/quote]
Correction, Nadir Shah was iranian not Persian. Racially he was turkopersian. Persian after the fall of the last sassanian Shah Chosroe or Khowsrow Pervaiz, were ruled by others who became heavily persianized and well did essentially become Persian. It was not until the rise of reza khan pehlavi that persian suzeranity was restored. So it is better to use Iranian then persian.
And Pashtuns are not indo-aryan (as if indo-aryan is a race ) and linguistically pastho is easternIranian/Tokharian/sanskritic. <<
I think it is time you identfied YOUR ethnicity here SUltan Toora!!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
Pashtuns form a majority of Afghanistan and they claim to be Aryan. Infact they calles their country ‘Ariana’ at one time!! Even now their Air line is name dAriana!!
Also you can’t separate Aryans from Sanskrit atleast in the Sub-Continental context.
Anyway since you made these assertions
1.Who do you think Pashtuns ARE by ethnicity?
2.Where do you think Sanskrit language came from to the sub-continent.
Answer this one a bit carefully. It is universally accepted that the invading Aryans brought the Sanskrit language into the sub-continent.
I have my doubts about that though. If you believe Vedas are decribing Aryans and their way of life, it seems to me unlikely that Nomadic cowherds like Aryans would develop such a sophisticated language as Sanskrit.
ya indians also say that hindus settled arabia and iran.
[This message has been edited by reza khan (edited April 29, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**>>1.Who do you think Pashtuns ARE by ethnicity?
**
[/quote]
want proof? put a pashtun and an indian side by side and decide for urself.
[This message has been edited by reza khan (edited April 29, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by reza khan:
** want proof? put a pashtun and an indian side by side and decide for urself.
[This message has been edited by reza khan (edited April 29, 2002).]**
[/quote]
how many boxing titles phustuns won
on international sport?
I am a Pakhtun from the Isalmic Republic of Pakistan from my father side and a syed from my mother side. Almst entire life I have lived overseas in about 6 countries. It was not until I took a tour of Pakistan with my family when I was 10 that I got to know Paksitan better. And at 16 I spent 2 years in pakistan. My life got its direction when I fell in love with this country and its people. And it is now I have set out to discover the real country to which I have pledged my allegiance. And to my delight it is the country unlike any other…a cross roads…a melitng pot, a cradle of civilization
To answer your question…a distint ethnic group emerges when the people involved are so heavily mixed and have a very common bond of oneness and exclusivity. A sense of “us and them”. The sense of having a common ancestor is what usually defines an ethnic group along with a langauge. Pashtuns and their exact origins are obscure. The best way is to go with empirical research, evidence and conjectures: the scientific method. We do know that Afghanistan has been the cross roads of many civilizations and a focal point of migrations. So it is not inaccurate to say that Pakhtuns of modern day are a people who over ages have incorporated several elements into them. However, which element is so dominant in them which would set them apart?
When I said that Pakhto has sanskrit/iranian/tokharian elements. I meant that it has borrowed words from all three groups. The most dominant element in this language is Tokharian. However, tokharian language itself has very much common with the oldpersian. Hence, the classification of pashto based on its accent, syntax it is eastern Iranian.
Like Urdu which is 65% persian the rest being Arabic, Turkish and hindi. Although persian element is most strong in Urdu,but because of its accent and lexical similarity more to Indic langauges it is “classified” as a indic language not Iranian. So make things simple for you…Pashto is a language of Iranian branch. But has most elements (I beleive) of Tokharian and many from sanskrit.
To give you the example of the emergence of an ethnic group let me give you the example of Russians. Russian people as we know today are by all stretch a Slavic people and their language too is Slavic and they take immense pride in that fact. However, we do know that although slavic element among russians is most dominant by the time they emerged as a distint ethnic group they had incorporated many elements from other groups among them.
The most obvious fact pointing in this direction is that the word “Russian” itself comes from “RUS” a Scandinivian/Germanic Word! The legend has it that the russian tribes kept on fighting each other and could not forge a confederacy and were under chaos all the time as well as at war with other Baltic peoples. SO they invited a scandinivian prince named “rus” to come and rule over them (hence the word slavic slavelike?? we r not sure). Although the legend is inaccurate in its simplicity that Russians themselves invites the scandinivian etc…But the fact remains that anthropologists beleive that Russians as a ethnic people we know today are basically a mixture of Germanic/Baltic and slavonic people with the Slavic trait being most common among them.
Same goes for the Avars which invaded europe in and around late 5th centuryAD. Avars were a misture of Turkic/Hunnic/scythic people so intermingled that they could be regarded as one ethnic group whic emerged, but with the Juan-juan (a steppe people) trait being most common. (By the way, some say that Pakistanis Janjuas are the branch of Juan-Juan that enetered Pakistan in 5th century
Pakhtun ethnogenesis may have come into existance by the integration of 2 major groups which are ultimately intermigled anyways. That of the Kushan peoples and the second being that of the White Huns—another central Asian people that wreaked havoc on all parts they enetered and conquered and who probably were tokharian like their close cousins Kushans. Their shortlived empire was centered around what is now Afghanistan and one of their branches entered south Asia and wreaked havoc on the hindu Gupta empire based in India (of which Pakistan was not a part).
An interesting fact would be that the Black or Red Huns that enetered europe a century earlier i:e 4th century, to mark yet another era of crisis in the classical World were a confederation of several tribes including indo-eorupean and Turkic and recruited elements from all peoples they subjugated (slavonic, gothic etc). But historians mostly describe them as rugged ugly looking mongloid people.
WHile the White huns that came on the scene a century later were described as a white people implying that white huns or hephthalites were indo-european people and indicating that by that time around 5th century “Huns” was no longer a term used for any particular race but was more of a political entity.
Thence forth…the element of Tokharian that is WhiteHun-Kushan became most dominant and laid the foundation for the pakhtun ethnogenesis while still having other traits of earlier persian,indic and even greek.
As we know that Pakhtuns do have a sense of common ancestory.
Same goes for the Arabs who themsleves wre mentioned sometime around first millineum BC. And we know they do have a link of common ancestory, but it would go with out saying that the Arabs too have incorporated elements of several semitic groups. The word Arab" coming from “Arabha” (it is beleived) meaning desert dweller.
If you want more explanation I can help you out with it too.
2)“Aryan” is not a race. Aryan is a misnomer so came because of misuse by the Nazis. The peoper word is indo-european which would basically signify a linguistic group rather then any particular race just like semitic which has many sub ethnic group in itself, only 2 of which are arabs and jews. Aryana was name of vast region one of which would be afghanistan. Pakistan too has had several names assigned to her over periods of time. SaptaSindhva(7rivers) being its name during the Vedic period.
- As regards sanskrit. It was brought in by an indo-eoropean speaking peoples to the south asia the process of the migration being spread across many years. Protosanskrit being very identiical to avestan language. And language develops accoding to the life style of people. We know Arabic is perhaps the most deepest and rich language with multiple words for objects, and it does not assign genders as adjective unlike say urdu to objects. But Arabs were no romans at theri time. And the northwestern european peoples the franks, visigoths, vandals etc…were until only a millineum ago barbarians and primitive people. Today look at the wonders they have spawned in science and langauge and technology etc unparalleled in history…
Farsi poetry is so famous for its dephth and romance, until 6th century BC they were primitve barbarians, while other civilization centres have thrived since 3000 BC!. But persians did become civilized and their langauge (which is similar to dari ) does have literature acievements. Although the persians were called “mute” by the arabs who considered their langauge empty and hollow as compared to Arabic.
Thus, spake the Sword…
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 30, 2002).]
Thanks for the informative post.
You said..
The sense of having a common ancestor is what usually defines an ethnic group along with a langauge. Pashtuns and their exact origins are obscure<<
Well, Brahmins atleast ARE an ethnic group by your definition. TO this day Brahmins trace their origin back to a set of 24 'Rishis' (Considered Wise, Divine men today, but probably were Tribal chiefs in their day!!)
As for Pashtuns I have to disagree!!!
Since I am disagreeing with a Pashtun about their origin, let me explain.
Tribal divisions and identifications are most prevalent in Afghanistan in the sub-continent.
(For this discussion I am considering NWFP as part of Afghanistan.)
As a Pashtun you may give me more inside info.
BUt when I read about Afghan Tribes their rivalries and politics, I can only think of Caste System!!!
I don't mean to criticize or insult but facts are facts.
I mean a sense of 'Pashtun' identity is strong over there.
Granted their Origins are obsure.
My guess is Nomadic Central Asians( Caucasians included) developed Horse riding and started migrating.
It no doubt was a revolution like Steam Engine or AirPlane. It gave them extra mobility.
The migration was in waves as all migrations are till today.
It seems to me the difference is people didn't carry their identities with them. Theyt settled down and developed their identities.
Pashtuns could well be one of them.
To sum it up, I wonder how many Pashtuns agree with your assertion that Pashtuns are NOT an Ethnic group.
As for Sanskrit, I still think it is unlikely that ANY Nomadic COwHerds could develop such a sophisticated language.
Did Aryans carry it? Like rest of Europeans carried Latin?
I mean some Shangri-La like place that developed Sanskrit and they borrowed from it?
Get hold of Translations of Vedas. They are a good study in Anthropolgy.
I am not talking about literary sophistication or beauty of Sanskrit. That is Subjective.
I am talking about 'GRAMMAR and SYNTAX'.
That presupposes an Urban Civilization.
You are talking to a Brahmin Kid who learned Sanskrit for 10 years at school.
Believe me. It is NOT a living language.
It is like Latin. More a Mother of Languages than a language.
By the Way Please Leave the Nazi crap out when discussing 'Aryans'.
As a sub-continental you should know 'Aryan' is not a bad word for us.
Originally posted by Andhra:
**
Well, Brahmins atleast ARE an ethnic group by your definition. TO this day Brahmins trace their origin back to a set of 24 ‘Rishis’ (Considered Wise, Divine men today, but probably were Tribal chiefs in their day!!)**
Maybe Brahmans consider themselves an ethnic group according to whatever their culture was in India. But they donot have a common langauge neither are do they have some political unity. It is a cultural term that has come after the first indo-european speaking tribes reached the gangajamana doab and formed their culture. Brahman, is a rigid term for priest and a term not found in the indo-iranain tribes. Meaning it was coined after the indo-european migration into todays India. The term is applied to anyone bestowed that Status of a priest for political purposes, like kshtriya and vaishya these are not ethnic terms but cultural terms. Gujrati, tamil, marhatta etc can be ethnic terms since it has to do identification of the langaage. Most beleive that it was the interaction of the post-vedic migrators as they left Indus country to what is today northern India and the nativs interaction that has spawned over the time most of these langauges and transmitting of a more forceful culture and its adoption. There were other smaller migrations/invasions to be followed most of which would be principally be confined to the northwest. Another example of the ground work for the emergence of a future ethnic group could be the people that call themselves as Punjabi (the heartland majhi, the word punjabi itself coined by the muslim rulers in the late 16th century) which would include blood of various invaders scythians, whitehuns, kushans, turks, afghans that entered the region and got mixed with the settled inhabitants. Leave them be for a few centuries it is possible that they could all be classfied as a single ethnic group (for punjabimuslims this has happned more or less i think). So goes for the muhajirs. Although in modern age this hardly happens, unless one was living in Antartica in isolation. There is too much historical documentation and fluidity now pwahahahahahahaha!
P.S I meant to ask are vajpayee, dev goda, narsima rao etc.. also brahmans?
**As for Pashtuns I have to disagree!!!
Since I am disagreeing with a Pashtun about their origin, let me explain.
Tribal divisions and identifications are most prevalent in Afghanistan in the sub-continent.
(For this discussion I am considering NWFP as part of Afghanistan.)
As a Pashtun you may give me more inside info.
BUt when I read about Afghan Tribes their rivalries and politics, I can only think of Caste System!!!
I don’t mean to criticize or insult but facts are facts.
I mean a sense of ‘Pashtun’ identity is strong over there.**
I understand your handicap in thinking beyond your cultural box. However, tribal warfare as is going on now happens to be between not intratribal but interethnic or political. uzbeks are not pashtuns neither are hazaras. What does inter tribal war fare or inter ethnic warfare have to do with caste system? Was what happened in yugoslavia happen to be caste system? or the wars in europe happpen to be caste system? I fail to see the connection. Ofcourse their sense of pakhtun pride is strong. Like they say we dont take sh8 from anyone
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
Granted their Origins are obsure.
My guess is Nomadic Central Asians( Caucasians included) developed Horse riding and started migrating.
It no doubt was a revolution like Steam Engine or AirPlane. It gave them extra mobility.
The migration was in waves as all migrations are till today.
It seems to me the difference is people didn’t carry their identities with them. Theyt settled down and developed their identities.
Pashtuns could well be one of them.
To sum it up, I wonder how many Pashtuns agree with your assertion that Pashtuns are NOT an Ethnic group.
First of all pray tell me where I have said that pashtuns are not an ethnic group? They are a ethnic group by any strecth of imaginatiopn and anthropologically one of the most written about ones. I suggest you read my article again. You point about horse riding is agreeable. Horse was typical to the central asian steppes. And since beginngig people from the steppes migrated from their original homes to other places because of a vareity of reasons. Invasion of mongols most recentaly on the Islamic World was yet another of such patterns.
And not all migrations were in waves and they varied in their scale.
**As for Sanskrit, I still think it is unlikely that ANY Nomadic COwHerds could develop such a sophisticated language.
Did Aryans carry it? Like rest of Europeans carried Latin?
I mean some Shangri-La like place that developed Sanskrit and they borrowed from it?
Get hold of Translations of Vedas. They are a good study in Anthropolgy.**
Ofcourse! who else? It is usually the nomadic people who usually have the greatest oral traditions and develop a language that is suited for poetry legend telling etc..
look at the Arabs and their langauge, and the avesthan langauge. Both protosankrit and avesta langaues are indo-iranian languages. The Branch that eneterd southasia deviated and later came to be labelled as indo-aryan.
**I am not talking about literary sophistication or beauty of Sanskrit. That is Subjective.
I am talking about ‘GRAMMAR and SYNTAX’.
That presupposes an Urban Civilization.
You are talking to a Brahmin Kid who learned Sanskrit for 10 years at school.
Believe me. It is NOT a living language.
It is like Latin. More a Mother of Languages than a language.
By the Way Please Leave the Nazi crap out when discussing ‘Aryans’.
As a sub-continental you should know ‘Aryan’ is not a bad word for us.**
Sankrit is a dead language like most other langauges of antiquity includiang Bactrian and Tocharian. It is the progenitor of many languages, but itself is also a distinct language like protogreek, old norse, Avestan later Acheminain, Tocharian etc…Nothing in proto-sanskrit language denotes anyform of urban civilization elements necessarily.
As regards the Nazi “crap”, it is important to know their case as well. Indo-Germanic people like Indo-Iranian, Slvic, Latin peoples etc are also indo-european. Nazi claim was that of all the indo-european peoples Germanic people are the truest Aryan ( them assuming that Aryans were a racial group) and of the highest pedigree. Which is ofcourse as pathetic as say smelly Indians saying they are some true aryans and shunning objective reality of their ethnogenesis.
Thus, spake the Sword…
[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 30, 2002).]
sultan toora this is language classification
http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/oe/oe-ie.html
Yes thankyou,
Pashto like Is aid is more closely related to Avestan which itself was progenitor of oldpersian or Achaeminain. ANd the fact that pakhto has many Tokharian elements but still is classified as IRANIAN. Original Tokharian now being a dead language. Similarly, Urdu being 65% persian and rest being Arabic, Turkish and Hindi is still classfied as Indo-Aryan or Indic intead of IRANIAN.
I am surprised that they classifed Dardic languages as Indic too. the chart is not 100% accurate though. But thank you.
Thus, spake the Sword...
compare that with dravidian languages and orgin
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~cwinter/proto2.htm
rvikz thank you.
I see 'Telugu' my mother toungue and other south-Indian languages are missing.
No doubt they classified it as Dravidian.
Since it is my mother toungue I think I am qualified to speak on it
Telugu consists of
Telugu = Part Kannada + Sanskrit + Andhra Tribe's Language
It was deliberately thought of and the Grammar Rules laid down 1,000 years ago.
The only such language I know of.
As for the original Andhra Tribe, they were supposed to be driven out from North at the time of Mahabharata war.
Sulata Toora,
Yes, Nehru, Gandhi, PV are Brahmins. The rest of them are not.
So you can say top rulers of India were Brahmins mostly.
Though they lost power at the state level and are being driven out of Government.
Glad you say Pashtun is an Ethnic term. I misunderstood you.
As for Afghan TRibalism and Europen/ Balkan rascism and rivalries being Caste rooted, that's what they are right?
It is just that Hindus asserted group based identity and prejudice openly and called it a Caste System.
If Pashtuns organize themselves among different tribes, send their elders to 'Loya Jirga', have unspoken rules about mixing with other other tribes, what the hell do you call it except a Caste System?
As for Nazis and Aryan theories, I don't think they have a 'Case' as you put it.
The Nazi Partei got it's ethnic superiority mumbo jumbo from at least two specious sources. One was a globe trotting occultic philosopher named Madame Blavatsky. The other was a professor, traveller and foreign serviceman, Karl Haushoffer. Blavatsky had a theory of ancient civilizations that had the element of hierarchy or racial caste. Hitler bought into this, as the Nordics and the Aryans were claimed by this Russian occultist as the most superior. The fact is historically made that the Indo-Europeans did venture west, contributing to language and culture well into Europe. Prof. Haushoffer went to the northern region of South Asia during the 30's and 40's to conduct archeological expeditions for Nazi purposes. BTW, why is Canada named Canada in North America? Anyone know?