Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 31st, 2017, 07:50 AM   #11
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: Hosur
Posts: 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naima View Post
Hello,

It is very difficult to generalize when i know many dark skinned brahmins and fair skinned dalits.

Last edited by maratha; December 31st, 2017 at 07:56 AM.
maratha is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 31st, 2017, 08:46 AM   #12

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,206
Blog Entries: 2

As I understand it there has been a correlation between wealth and fairness though the fairness is relative to its own context not on some universal scale. Wealthier people, by virtue of less exposure to the elements, will tend to over time generate somewhat fairer hues. This is a general tendency which means numerous individuals can be found defying it. And ofcourse specific contexts such as a family with deep military ties will also defy the general idea.

In the caste system a larger proportion of upper castes were wealthy in relation to the population in contrast to lower castes. So yes one would find degrees of fairness in the upper castes since they are liklier to be of wealthy sources. Exceptions will exist. A poor upper caste community is not as likely to have fairer individuals over time. Wealthy lower castes may well start becoming fairer.

Fairness however will be relative to its own context. India is a large territory and skin hues vary significantly across regions. Within a region skin hues also vary due to the differential make up of communities and differential origins. It would thus be entirely illogical to take a south Indian community and contrast them to Kashmiris. And again since this would be a general trend it is extremely easy to find any number of individuals who would defy said trend, especially if those individuals are decontextualized. Thus for instance a wealthy person may be extremely dark and defy the convention. But it might not defy the convention if only a generation ago his family existed in a higher degree of poverty. Caste would be irrelevant to this consideration.

Caste and fairness thus have an intermediary factor mediating their relation, which is wealth and social standing. Thus you could only make the barest of relations between caste and fairness unless you can account properly for wealth distribution. Thus in a specific localized community, which is generally racially homogenous, if the upper castes have tended to hegemonize wealth and/or power (I would imagine a combination would strengthen the likelihood of correlation) then it is likely, barring unknown influencing factors and assuming continuity of socio-economic hierarchies, that the upper castes will be fairer.

But one likely cannot make a pan subcontinental assumption of fairness and upper caste character being hand in hand. At best a tentative correlation could he assumed assuming homogenous societal and racial characters in other fronts. The level of assumptions required to even validate the correlation renders it useless in practical terms. Only if one were to do a through racialized statistical census could you even begin to approximate the actual observable validity of the presumed correlation. Ofcourse as the British discovered doing so creates it's own problems as there are no fixed notions of upper and lower caste unless the state assigns it specific meaning (which can render said assignment arbitrary especially on a pan national scale). Thus for instance a community might be a relatively low caste in some areas but of higher standing in others. A community might claim upper caste status (eg Bhumiars who assert they are Brahmins) but unless possessing political power may not be regarded as such by other communities. Might still have wealth though. Does the state define them as upper caste or lower? Still other communities might be generally considered lower caste but might nonetheless have political or military standing resulting in higher social standing perhaps even economic. The Mahars in early 19th century Madras Presidency (ie before the martial races theory led to the British pushing them out of military service and the attendant benefits) are such an example. Thus attempting a census to validate the principle will create it's own problems of validation and bias and definition.

All of this BTW predicated on a degree of rigidity in caste standing in a region across time. History however shows that even this is flawed since caste standing historically could be flawed. Since there's no objective measures of how long it takes to display fairness (melanin variation will be affected by climate and body types I suspect) or indeed any sort of internal scale of "fairness" quantifying such general correlations is even more problematic

Last edited by tornada; December 31st, 2017 at 08:54 AM.
tornada is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 10:55 AM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailas View Post
Sure, now an aboriginal wil tell me my history lol.

(Dont get angry nlw, as you are the one who called Aryans and Europeans Aboriginels many times before. Samudragupta even corrected you once. But you went on and om)
Good self description? Aryan Invaders into India were aboriginal tribals from Central Asia. India was a civilized place.

Last edited by kandal; December 31st, 2017 at 11:18 AM.
kandal is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 10:59 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailas View Post
Based on what i know South Of Vindhya and Narmada river is land of Drividians. While Parts of Gujarat, Maharashtra and chatisgadh but they are ethnically Drividians.

I have visited South few years ago on religious pilgrimage, and based on what i saw i belive they are overwhelmingly Austroloids with Munda admixture.
So is North India. I have been to North India several times. They look pretty much like the South Indians, but more mixed.

Last edited by kandal; December 31st, 2017 at 11:36 AM.
kandal is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:03 AM   #15
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

The Narmada river seems to be considered the border between North and South by many Dynasties in the past. For example the North Indian Emperor Harsha conquered much of northern India up to the Narmada river and called himslef lord of the North in the 7th century. When Harsha crossed the Narmada river to invade the South Harsha was decisively defeated by the south Indian Emperor Pulakesi of the Chalukya Dynasty. After the victory Pulakesi called himself protector and lord of the South whose Empire stretched up to the Narmada river.
Theseus is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:06 AM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
The Narmada river seems to be considered the border between North and South by many Dynasties in the past. For example the North Indian Emperor Harsha conquered much of northern India up to the Narmada river and called himslef lord of the North in the 7th century. When Harsha crossed the Narmada river to invade the South Harsha was decisively defeated by the south Indian Emperor Pulakesi of the Chalukya Dynasty. After the victory Pulakesi called himself protector and lord of the South whose Empire stretched up to the Narmada river.
Who were the people Harsha was conquering in much of Northern India?
kandal is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:23 AM   #17
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
Who were the people Harsha was conquering in much of Northern India?
After the collapse of the Gupta Dynasty in the early 6th century northern India was divided into several small kingdoms and petty chiefdoms. Harsha was able to conquer most of these kingdoms but he did not conquer whole northern India as Bengal was still under the rule of the Gaudas and the Punjab and the region of modern Pakistan was also not under the rule of Harsha. But Harsha still called himself Lord of the North. It seems that from this period onwards the Northwestern part of South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan) were not anymore considered part of Northern India because of the barbarian invasions like Scythians and Huns.
Theseus is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:51 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
After the collapse of the Gupta Dynasty in the early 6th century northern India was divided into several small kingdoms and petty chiefdoms. Harsha was able to conquer most of these kingdoms but he did not conquer whole northern India as Bengal was still under the rule of the Gaudas and the Punjab and the region of modern Pakistan was also not under the rule of Harsha. But Harsha still called himself Lord of the North. It seems that from this period onwards the Northwestern part of South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan) were not anymore considered part of Northern India because of the barbarian invasions like Scythians and Huns.
I understand. My question was more specific to what type of people were they? The point I was trying to make was that people north of the Vindya mountains were also Dravidians, but who got Aryanized linguistically.
kandal is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 02:14 PM   #19

Rajeev's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailas View Post
well i am a Vedic Kshatriya from Indo-Aryan Tribe Puru. I have pale skin and Green eyes and i have no Dardic blood in me. almost everyone in my family have Pale skin and Amber to Blue eyes.

Genereally people of North West India (where Aryans settled in large numbrs and actually changed demography of the region) have large number of people with light eyes, Pale skin and Pure Indo-Aryan Features.

interestingly, even those who belong to humble caste generally have same facial features as Central Indians.

Aryans who migrated from other parts of India (outside of NW) have mixed a little bit thus look little different from us. but you can still find those people who are from higher caste who look like higher castes of North West India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru_(Vedic_tribe)

There are no pure ethnic groups in India - not even the Purus.

If one cliams to be 'Puru' then descent from Satyavati, a fisher woman, stands established as per Mahabharat.

Gen-1: King Shantanu married Satyavati, a fisher woman.

Gen-2: Satyavati's son from above marriage were: Chitrangada and Vichitravirya, who died childless.

So she asked her son Vyasa, from prior marriage with Rishi Parashar, to mate with widow of Vichitravirya.

Gen-3: Dhritarashtra and Pandu were the sons from above mating.
Gen-4: Arjun
Gen-5: Abhimanyu
Gen-6: Parikshit

Gen-X: People claiming today to be belonging to Puru lineage.

So there is non-Aryan blood in Purus.

Frankly, are these discussions on skin-colour, caste. descent not futile?

Regards

Rajeev

Last edited by Rajeev; December 31st, 2017 at 02:21 PM.
Rajeev is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 02:17 PM   #20

Rajeev's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailas View Post
Based on what i know South Of Vindhya and Narmada river is land of Drividians. While Parts of Gujarat, Maharashtra and chatisgadh but they are ethnically Drividians.

I have visited South few years ago on religious pilgrimage, and based on what i saw i belive they are overwhelmingly Austroloids with Munda admixture.
Australoid and Mundas belong to same ethnic group. Former are speakers of 'Austro-asiatic' languages, while latter speak 'Mudari language which is an Austro-asiatic language.
Rajeev is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
castes, india



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failure of Islam in attracting Upper Castes of India. Chacha Ji Asian History 90 October 29th, 2017 06:44 PM
What are other Kshatriya sub-castes in Hinduism beside Rajputs? Azad67 Asian History 32 March 20th, 2017 05:55 AM
Why did western India and Bengal become Islamized while the rest of India did not? Futurist Asian History 77 August 23rd, 2016 11:22 AM
Flags of pre-British India.And a related question:why India chose a rectangular flag? Abhishek Asian History 8 July 24th, 2015 02:35 PM
Were Indian castes based on racism (skin color)? The Imperial Asian History 6 November 30th, 2010 05:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.