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


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 23rd, 2013, 01:01 AM   #21

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Indians are related because they are made up of two types of people. ANI and ASI in different frequencies. I doubt ASI spoke an Austroasiatic language.

You have probably never been to India to think of generalizing Indians so simplistically into two categories. I have grown up all over India and have been among diverse people. For example, people of UP/Bihar etc are mostly Austroasiatic (classic features of brown or copper skin, short stature etc), where as people of Punjab, Haryana etc are mostly Caucasians with fair skin, taller built etc.

Kashmiris are of mostly Huna origins as the region is referred to as "Hunapradesh" (Huna country) and many Rajpoots as far as Rajasthan still have the surname (or gotra) of "Hun/Huna". If you are categorizing ancient Indians as "ASI and ANI" then you have to specify what you mean by "ancient". Because in very ancient times only Austroasiatic and Dravidian/Elamite people inhabited the Haryana area, then came the Indo-Aryans who took over that region, then came the Indo-Scythians who took over the place and formed many Jat kingdoms, then the Afghans, Turks or Mughals/Mongols and British dominated the same region (while not displacing most of the native population). "Ancient North Indians" is a joke, it is too simple to take into account the various migrations of Caucasoid people into India.
Rakshasa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 23rd, 2013, 01:53 AM   #22
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 639

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Are you by chance one of those Indians who believe that Mahabharata happened 2.4 billion years ago and involved Nuclear bows and arrows? Because British are not the ones dividing Indians. They united an already divided India by creating a single entity of British India.

Like I said earlier, diverse racial differences among the Indians facilitated the formation of caste system. 2500 years ago during the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and Asvaghosha they were having to deal with Brahmin (Indo-Aryan) superiority complex (Asvaghosha wrote Vajrasuchi to refute their theory of caste system). About 1000 years later, the medieval saints like Kabir, Ravidas etc were again tackling with same superiority complex of the Indo-Aryans (Brahmins). Hell, even 1000 years later, the likes of Dr. Ambedkar, social revolutionaries etc had to tackle with the same superiority complex. I wonder why the Hindus want to brush this facet under the carpet and pretend that it has no significance whatsoever. If they (Indo-Aryans) have maintained the superiority of their race for more than 3 millennia, a huge time frame, then there is indeed substance in categorizing Indians according to their racial origins.

I contrast the earlier Indo-Aryan migrations with the migrations of the even purer Parsi (Iranian) Aryans who form a significant group in India. They also maintain the same strict code of keeping their separate identity pure and alive in India as the Indo-Aryans may have done. There is strict code among the Parsis to not intermarry with other races/castes. They also believe in the theory of Aryan race and have been believing so before any British set foot in India. Whats more, they have always won favours from rulers like Mughals, Britishers, etc - just like how earlier Indo-Aryan Brahmins did with native Indian kings - because of their "whiteness". I have heard that many British schools that were closed for Indians in general were still open for Parsi kids.

Lastly, when even the medieval Caucasians, with their technological and social advanced, were misled into believing that other darker races were inferior, how much more can you expect from an even primitive people 1000 years earlier than these Caucasians, when they met someone of darker color?

***************


Leaving the issue of Aryans aside, lets return to the topic of Caucasoids in India of non-Aryan origins. Do you have any doubts that the Jats and Gujjars are Caucasoids? Do you believe that they were a relatively late comer compared to Aryans? Do you know the area of Haryana was once dominated by Indo-Aryan Caucasians but is today dominated by Jats? Do you know that in places like Rajasthan Jats specially discriminate against lower castes by calling them "darkie" (kolta)? This is classic case of Caucasians racially discriminating against non-Caucasoids. But Hindus want to undermean this kind of racism along with their caste system. If you have been to places like Rajasthan, you would know that most people can identify each other's castes by the accent they use to speak their language? Or even the language itself because they are so diverse that people of one village wouldn't understand anything the other one speaks in a village a few km away.

Brother your obviously very angry, nothing will help you if you only strive for justice without acknowledging that justice entails slavery of the punished.

There is a difference between wanting freedom for people, and wanting to limit the actions of others. One is caused by wanting to right history, the other is wanting to right the future. What future are you advocating by using histories and names invented for the specific purpose of dividing Indians? Study history Brother, the British Divided a handful of Kingdoms across India into 600 small states. The federation of those states that agreed to become India was due to the work of an Indian, not the British.


If you want to discuss how we can deal with douchebags then I'm with you brother, and you'd be surprised at how many Indians and Non Indians will also be with you, but whats the point with all this racist nonsense. Have some Honor Brother, the Lion needs to eat, it doesn't need to hate the Deer.
beeh is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 02:34 AM   #23

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

beeh,

My only issue is that in India the pre-Aryan culture and people/race are completely neglected and sidelined in an effort by Aryan historians to portray everything Indian to be related to Vedas, Sanskrit, Brahmins etc. Furthermore, the pre-Aryan people are portrayed by them as primitive and barbaric who were "civilized" by Aryans when they imposed their culture onto them.

Are you going to tell me that caste system is non-existent in India? Are you going to tell me that every Hindu doesn't identify himself or herself as a caste first and as a nationality later, which is anyway an imposed concept over them?

Brahmins and Hindus in general have the right to glorify their culture, but they have no right to denigrate that of the natives.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 02:48 AM   #24

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

The same tendency of parochialism over other native cultures by Brahmins was also getting into the nerves of the Buddhists, which is why, even if they used the language of Buddhist Sanskrit (different from Brahmanic Sanskrit), they made sure that it merely an expedient to convey the underlying meaning.

Quote:
Vesna Wallace explains as follows:

The author of the Vimalaprabhā declares that his reason for elaborately describing the characteristics of the kālacakra‐maṇḍala in the abridged Kālacakratantra, as they were taught by Mañjuśrī in the Ādibuddhatantra, is to eliminate the self‐grasping (ahaṃkāra) of the sages who propound class discrimination (jāti‐vādin). The bearers of the Kālacakra tradition in India considered class prejudice as most intimately related to the Hindu doctrines of a personal god and creator (Īśvara) and of an independent, inherently existent Self (ātman). They also saw class prejudice as creating the linguistic bias of extolling the excellence of the Sanskrit language and showing disdain for vernacular languages. They were fully aware of the ways in which the Kālacakratantra's theoretical, practical, and linguistic features contradicted the cultural, religious, and social norms of the mainstream Brāhmaṇical tradition. The Kālacakra literature interprets those features not only in terms of their conversionary activity and the Kālacakratantra soteriology but also in terms of the Kālacakratantra's social theory. It explains the grammatical inaccuracies and lexical syncretism of the Sanskrit language of the Kālacakratantra as a: (1) skillful means of eradicating the conceit of those attached to their social class, knowledge, and proper words, and (2) skillful means of making the Buddhist tantric teachings accessible to a diverse audience, which speaks different languages and dialects. The Vimalaprabhā affirms that individuals who are overcome by a false sense of self‐identity grasp onto the “single, parochial Sanskrit language” and teach, as attested by the Mahābhārata, 6, 1, 84, that a single word well‐pronounced yields one's desires in heaven. It accuses the Brāhmaṇic sages of writing the Dharmas of the Bhagavadgīta, Siddhāntas, and Purāṇas in the Sanskrit language out of greed for material things. It asserts that Brāhmaṇas wrote these scriptures in Sanskrit in order to prevent the Vaiśyas, Śūdras, and other low social classes from reading their scriptures and gaining knowledge of their Dharma and various sciences. The Vimalaprabhā states further that the Brāhmaṇic author of these scriptures knew that if lower classes were to gain knowledge, they would stop revering the Brāhmaṇas for their special qualities. It contrasts the selfish motivation of the conceited Brāhmaṇic sages to the altruistic motivation of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, who are free of grasping onto social discrimination and linguistic bias. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas do not exclusively use the Sanskrit language to teach and redact the Buddhist teachings, for they also resort to the “omniscient language” (sarvajña‐bhāṣā), using the expressions of vernaculars and languages of different countries. Relying on the meaning of the teachings, they use different vernaculars and different grammars in order to bring others to spiritual awakening. Although this characterization of the Buddhas' universal language is also found in the writings of Mahāyāna, it is most emphasized in the Buddhist tantras.
The Paramādibuddhatantra also advocates the usage of a lexically syncretized language that would benefit people of all social classes, ethnic groups, and mental dispositions. According to the Paramādibuddhatantra, the Buddha himself expressed this sentiment in the following words:
When one understands the meaning from regional words, what is the use of technical terms?
On the earth, a jewel is called by different names from country to country, but there is no difference in the jewel itself.
Likewise, the various redactors of my pure Dharma use diverse terms in accordance with the dispositions of sentient beings.4
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 03:18 AM   #25
Just me
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: --
Posts: 6,242
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
beeh,

My only issue is that in India the pre-Aryan culture and people/race are completely neglected and sidelined in an effort by Aryan historians to portray everything Indian to be related to Vedas, Sanskrit, Brahmins etc. Furthermore, the pre-Aryan people are portrayed by them as primitive and barbaric who were "civilized" by Aryans when they imposed their culture onto them.
Could you give any examples of these "Aryan" historians?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
You have probably never been to India to think of generalizing Indians so simplistically into two categories. I have grown up all over India and have been among diverse people. For example, people of UP/Bihar etc are mostly Austroasiatic (classic features of brown or copper skin, short stature etc), where as people of Punjab, Haryana etc are mostly Caucasians with fair skin, taller built etc.
I'm rather ignorant about anthropology and racial classification and the associated terminology so just consider my question in good faith. You say Austroasiatics have a short stature comapred to Caucasians. Is this an inherent racial (or ethnic) feature or could this be just related to diet and nutrition? The jats of Haryana are rather stout and that state is largely vegetarian but their diet is rich in dairy products. The region around eastern UP and Bihar on the other hand has seen many famines over the past few hundred years and continues to be amongst the poorest in India today. Could this have something to do with their stunted growth? I'm asking cos according to one source, during the Industrial Revolution the average height in England saw a drop because of widespread poverty and under-nutrition. There's a big link between your diet and your overall build.

Another thing, Caucasian doesn't necessarily mean light-skinned. You could be very dark and still be classified as Caucasian.

"Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe"]Europe[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa"]North Africa[/ame], the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_of_Africa"]Horn of Africa[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Asia"]Western Asia[/ame]/[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East"]Middle East[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Minor"]Asia Minor[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia"]Central Asia[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia"]South Asia[/ame].[2] Historically, the term meant people from these regions, without regard necessarily to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_tone"]skin tone[/ame].[3]"

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race"]Caucasian race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Rosi is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 04:13 AM   #26

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Could you give any examples of these "Aryan" historians?
Thapar, Habib, Lal, etc. In fact, almost all the mainstream historians including those who write history textbooks for school syllabus. I dont know ANY historian of Indian origin who writes about the non-Aryan people. None.

Quote:
You say Austroasiatics have a short stature comapred to Caucasians. Is this an inherent racial (or ethnic) feature or could this be just related to diet and nutrition?
This is inherent, because of the region where Austroasiatics have "evolved" over the last few thousand years. The Caucasians, being from colder regions, were on an average taller compared to the natives of those living near equator.

Quote:
The jats of Haryana are rather stout and that state is largely vegetarian but their diet is rich in dairy products.
Jats are an agrarian people, which is why their culture is very simplistic compared to the complex culture that rose amongst the South Indians with their sophisticated temple complexes, architecture, beliefs etc. Take a Jat to Khajuraho caves, and he would laugh at them because it doesn't conform with HIS culture. Also, vegetarianism amongst Jat was adopted when Indo-Scythians settled in Northern India because they wanted to win over Brahmins who still dominated state policy and declared these Jats as "Sudras". This is also why they changed their basic clan culture into gotra culture imitating the Brahmin gotras. Jats have hundreds of Gotras/clans among them.
Quote:
The region around eastern UP and Bihar on the other hand has seen many famines over the past few hundred years and continues to be amongst the poorest in India today.
I am not talking only about the malnutrition among the Hindus in general. Anthropometric studies by Britishers during Colonial times also indicated that they were distinct from North-western Indians. Besides, you know very well that today the Austroasiatics are mainly found in the Chhotanagpur region, especially in the state of Chhattisgarh where they form almost 50% of the population. They were once spread all over the Gangetic plains and Southern India. But when the people of Gangetic plains adopted Aryan culture, they abandoned their original tribal identities (their tribe and clan names) and adopted Hindu castes to identify themselves. The royalty among them were converted as Brahma-Kshastra kings (Rajputs) by the Brahmins. So today they proudly proclaim to be Aryans (and even Caucasians) but they are ignorant about history.

Same happened in places like Orissa, Bengal etc, which were also dominated by Austroasiatic people, and even today many mainstream Hindus are direct descendants of these people, but this identity has come to be restricted to their brothers who continued to live in forests, secluded from mainstream Indians.

The people of Central India were largely Dravidians (Gonds especially). Many of the Rajputs of Chandel, Chauhan clans etc, also originated from the royalty of these Gonds. There is an inscription from 12th century from somewhere in Madhya Pradesh which records how Brahmins were assigning different Castes to different people. Before this happened, they were called Gonds. In fact, as I have observed while traveling to Jabalpur and surrounding areas, majority of the people there are dark skinned, although they do have good stature and physique.

Quote:
Could this have something to do with their stunted growth? I'm asking cos according to one source, during the Industrial Revolution the average height in England saw a drop because of widespread poverty and under-nutrition.

Point noted. But this is exactly what happened to the lower castes and continues to happen to them. As you know, majority of these people had restrictions on them over gaining property, resources etc. Many of them were not even allowed to drink water from a mainstream well or pond or even river. Some of them worked as slaves (bonded labour) in the fields of the Brahmins (Indo-Aryans) and Thakurs (White Hunas mostly). So it is natural that they gradually have become more diminutive in stature compared to the most prosperous high caste Hindus who were already Caucasians when they came as Scythians, Hepthalites (Hunas) or Aryans.


Quote:
Another thing, Caucasian doesn't necessarily mean light-skinned. You could be very dark and still be classified as Caucasian.
This applies to Dravidians who are Caucasians but are dark skinned, and often darker than the Austroasiatic copper/bronze colored people.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 05:04 AM   #27
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Wow its like stepping back in time to the 19th century. I also laughed at calling Thapar an "Aryan" historian. Also, I find it weird how you're singling out the Brahmins, I mean you realise that for a decent amount of Indian history that the twice born casts freely moved up and down, that varna (according to Thapar and Doniger) were ritual categories difference from jati and janah? Yes North Indians look different from the Southerners...but the country is huge. Its just weird, you're reading all this hostility that just doesn't seem to exist in the sources.

You have an odd chip on your shoulder, I don't really understand why. Perhaps you should go learn some of the Indian languages like Sanskrit? I mean you seem intrinsically hostile towards them but its a fan language with a lot of interesting literature.

Also I think you're over estimating "Brahmin" (are you sure these ever formed a singular group across all of diverse India?) influence, especially when so many kings were Buddhist (who incidentally listed the varnas as warrior - priest - merchant - labourer).
World Focker is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 06:42 AM   #28

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,646
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Austroasiatics who form the substratum of Indian genepool are completely ignored as if they do not even exist. They once existed as far South as Kerala (where they formed Chera dynasty) and as far North as the Himalayas (where they became "Hinduized" and are currently part of Hindu castes). Most of the Gangetic plains population shows the traces of Austroasiatic origin including many "high castes".
That was what I thought previously. That Austro-Asiatics had been wiped out from India - or at least heavily assimilated - by Dravidans, Indo-Aryans and others. Are these Austro-Asiatics mainly Mon-Khmer or what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Kalinga was also mostly inhabited by the Austroasiatics where they were dominant till as late as 14th century. Prajnatara, a Magadhan Buddhist monk of 14th century India, who later served as a court Buddhist advisor to Korean and Chinese kings, wrote in his travelogue of the people and the culture of the regions that he visited during his journey from Magadha to Lanka to East Asia. He mentions that the Austroasiatics formed the ruling kingdom in Kalinga (modern Orissa).
That's really amazing. I always thought Kalinga was a predominantly Dravidian land.
Dreamhunter is online now  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 07:07 AM   #29

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,646
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosi View Post
I'm rather ignorant about anthropology and racial classification and the associated terminology so just consider my question in good faith. You say Austroasiatics have a short stature comapred to Caucasians. Is this an inherent racial (or ethnic) feature or could this be just related to diet and nutrition?
I believe both genetics and nutrition play important roles. One's genes decide what maximum height one could reach, say 6 ft. But whether one actually reaches that genetic potential (i.e. 6 ft) or not would depend on one's nutrition, not only from birth, but actually all the way from conception. Because a mother's diet could affect her child's birth weight and size.

The implications of nutrition could then continue to the next generation, then on and on. If that guy with genetic 6 ft potential actually reaches 6 ft, he would marry a woman around at least 5 ft 8 in., say. So their children would then pick up both their parents' genes for reasonable height.

But if that guy with genetic 6 ft potential only reached 5 ft. 6 in. - due to severely inadequate nutrition from childhood - he would likely marry a woman around 5 ft. 2 in., say (either one who actually had genetic 5 ft. 2 in potential - which would mean short genes - or one who was also stunted due to deficient nutrition). So, their children would part-inherit the genes of a short mother, even if their father had tall genes originally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosi View Post
The jats of Haryana are rather stout and that state is largely vegetarian but their diet is rich in dairy products. The region around eastern UP and Bihar on the other hand has seen many famines over the past few hundred years and continues to be amongst the poorest in India today. Could this have something to do with their stunted growth? I'm asking cos according to one source, during the Industrial Revolution the average height in England saw a drop because of widespread poverty and under-nutrition. There's a big link between your diet and your overall build.
Post WWII kids born in Europe to undernourished mothers also had low birth weight, which - combined with their own inadequate nutrition in later years - would have seriously affected their chances of reaching their own genetic height potential.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; March 23rd, 2013 at 07:10 AM.
Dreamhunter is online now  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 07:23 AM   #30

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Quote:
Whats more, they have always won favours from rulers like Mughals, Britishers, etc - just like how earlier Indo-Aryan Brahmins did with native Indian kings - because of their "whiteness".
I dont know about the British and Mughals whatever, but there was no colorism in ancient India like in Bollywood India like you make it out to be.

You can see how they painted princes/ruling classes in Ajanta caves.

Click the image to open in full size.

2nd-1st BC

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

4th-6th AD


They look like a bunch of people that dont give a **** about "whiteness".


Only thing white you will see in all of those paintings are of those of outside diplomats. And that's limited to a small piece of the ceiling decoration.

Click the image to open in full size.

Quote:
As far as Indo-Greeks are concerned, many of them migrated along with Alexander and settled in North-western India. Considering that the differences between Caucasian Aryans and pre-Aryan non-Caucasoids were more pronounced in the past when they had not mixed, all Caucasians (Indo-Greeks too) naturally were invited into Aryan societies as opposed to the darker-skinned natives.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

If there was color still on these relief images of the ruling class of ancient India, I would bet you they were "dark skinned".

Last edited by Aberc; March 23rd, 2013 at 08:10 AM.
Aberc is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
caucasoids, india, indoaryans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Aryans? Mohammed the Persian General History 66 January 1st, 2017 06:28 PM
Indo-Aryans and Semites Disciple Middle Eastern and African History 30 February 15th, 2014 05:06 PM
The First Indo-China War The Amyclae Asian History 13 December 24th, 2012 09:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.