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 April 2nd, 2013, 11:20 AM   #61

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

Quote:
Indians are indeed a mix/hybridization of ANI(caucasoid) and ASI(pre-pre-pre-historical)

Even the people high on top of the caste will have tribal genes.
ANI and ASI is a wrong classification. This categorization doesn't include various Australoid and Mongoloid tribes of India like the Mundas, Oraon, Maria, Bhil, Gonds etc and Nagas, Manipuris etc.

If there was any truth in ANI and ASI, then there would be no tribes like austroasiatic language speaking people in India today.
Quote:
Even the archaic tribals who were Independent from empires from the Mauryas to the Mughals who stayed in forests and aren't a part of the caste system or society are mixed.
Tribes did not always live in "forests". Nor were they primitive. The Mundas had knowledge of iron to manufacture basic weapons and tools. They also had the knowledge of agriculture. It is believed that rice cultivation was first discovered by austroasiatic people. Please do not put them in the same bucket as the undiscovered tribes of South America who still survive by hunting. Our Indian tribes are as much tribal as the tribes in Afghanistan.

This is from a researcher of Tulu people and language in Southern India:

Quote:
When Early Tulu tribes migrating from Pirak region came and settled in Karavali (coastal tract) of present Karnataka around 750 -600 BC, they found the coastal tract was already inhabited by civilized people living in village type settlements with agricultural, farming and pastoral occupations. The whole of southern India, especially all hospitable river banks and estuaries were inhabited by proto-Munda tribes.
TuLu Studies: 52. Munda aborigines of Karavali

Quote:
how can you tell that , most indians have long head and pointy nose even in south india including the guy in picture you showed
I have lived in Delhi, Bangalore, Pune, Port Blair (Andaman Islands), and been to places like Srinagar, Jabalpur, Uttarakhand etc. Most of the Indians do NOT have pointed nose. You have only socialized with your own kind - not with the vast majority of common Indians. In any case, having pointed nose is not the defining feature of Caucasians. There are many white people who do not have pointed nose. Even the hairiness of the body of men is a better indication than the pointedness of nose to infer if the person is of Caucasian ancestry or of native ancestry.

You could make these people look like Caucasians by coloring them white, but they are austroasiatic:


Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.



This is a more Indian looking type nose


Click the image to open in full size.


And this person is NOT a Caucasian.

Last edited by Rakshasa; April 2nd, 2013 at 11:24 AM.
Rakshasa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:31 AM   #62

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

Quote:
Even the hairiness of the body of men is a better indication than the pointedness of nose to infer if the person is of Caucasian ancestry or of native ancestry.

This sounds just as retarded as looking at the nose, etc. This is all colonial non sense to begin with. Which you people constantly mix with morality, culture, etc of ancient India.

You have been saying non sense like Indian elites were caucasian. And Brahmins would pick out kings because of their "whiteness". This is all colonial garbage. Ancient Indians didnt give a damn about none of this stuff to begin with.

Last edited by Aberc; April 2nd, 2013 at 11:35 AM.
Aberc is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:32 AM   #63

anmol's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 1,757

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
ANI and ASI is a wrong classification. This categorization doesn't include various Australoid and Mongoloid tribes of India like the Mundas, Oraon, Maria, Bhil, Gonds etc and Nagas, Manipuris etc.

If there was any truth in ANI and ASI, then there would be no tribes like austroasiatic language speaking people in India today.
Tribes did not always live in "forests". Nor were they primitive. The Mundas had knowledge of iron to manufacture basic weapons and tools. They also had the knowledge of agriculture. It is believed that rice cultivation was first discovered by austroasiatic people. Please do not put them in the same bucket as the undiscovered tribes of South America who still survive by hunting. Our Indian tribes are as much tribal as the tribes in Afghanistan.

This is from a researcher of Tulu people and language in Southern India:

TuLu Studies: 52. Munda aborigines of Karavali

I have lived in Delhi, Bangalore, Pune, Port Blair (Andaman Islands), and been to places like Srinagar, Jabalpur, Uttarakhand etc. Most of the Indians do NOT have pointed nose. You have only socialized with your own kind - not with the vast majority of common Indians. In any case, having pointed nose is not the defining feature of Caucasians. There are many white people who do not have pointed nose. Even the hairiness of the body of men is a better indication than the pointedness of nose to infer if the person is of Caucasian ancestry or of native ancestry.

You could make these people look like Caucasians by coloring them white, but they are austroasiatic:


Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.



This is a more Indian looking type nose


Click the image to open in full size.


And this person is NOT a Caucasian.
there is no proof of indians across state lines beeing any different, 70 percent of indians are caucasian and distribution is pretty much similar across states. There very few people of my type really left( being a kashmiri pandit) by the way i don't have a pointy nose. I have had pretty much friends across all states, religion or caste, I have lived in punjab,delhi, kerela, mumbai, banglore for considerable time to notice that there is not much difference racial features across india. having hair or not having hair has nothing to do with being caucasian or not

Last edited by anmol; April 2nd, 2013 at 11:34 AM.
anmol is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:40 AM   #64

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

How many Caucasians do you identify here? Or they look more austroasiatic? They are the common people of India, not the Afghan and Turkic origin actors in Bollywood.


Click the image to open in full size.


Quote:
there is no proof of indians across state lines beeing any different,
"Different" is a relative term. I dont know what you mean by it, but there are people in India who more different than a Frenchman is to a Nigerian. It is a myth that most of the Indians are Caucasians. Indians want to raise their "breed" by associating themselves with Caucasians (it is no mystery that fairness is extremely valued in India), but the truth is that most of the Indians are NOT Caucasians. Having pointy nose means nothing at all. An average Brahmin from Gangetic plains is not even as Caucasian as a Libyan or a Roma gypsy in Europe. "Brown race" owes more to Austroasiatic people than to the Caucasians of Europe. That is a fact. In fact, most of the South East Asia was once inhabited by Austroasiatic people.


And you being a Kashmiri are closer to the Tartar (Central Asian Caucasian ethnicity) or a Balochi than to a Bhil or a Gond or a Bengali.

Last edited by Rakshasa; April 2nd, 2013 at 11:43 AM.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:41 AM   #65

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

Pretty much all of them are.

Quote:
And you being a Kashmiri are closer to the Tartar (Central Asian Caucasian ethnicity) or a Balochi than to a Bhil or a Gond or a Bengali.

Tatars are have a very mixed lineage.

Last edited by Aberc; April 2nd, 2013 at 11:46 AM.
Aberc is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:44 AM   #66

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Most of the Magadhans were austroasiatics.

Do you have any evidance to proove your claim?
Jinit is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:49 AM   #67

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberc View Post
This sounds just as retarded as looking at the nose, etc. This is all colonial non sense to begin with. Which you people constantly mix with morality, culture, etc of ancient India.

You have been saying non sense like Indian elites were caucasian. And Brahmins would pick out kings because of their "whiteness". This is all colonial garbage. Ancient Indians didnt give a damn about none of this stuff to begin with.

You are the one who is retarded if you still did not get my point. I never claimed that Indian elites are Caucasians or were Caucasians in ancient India. On the contrary, I have been consistently saying that majority of the Indians owe more to the Austroasiatics than to the Caucasians, including the monarchs of ancient India.

And you still have not explained where do the Austroasiatic language speaking and Tibeto-Burman language speaking people fit into the scheme of ANI and ASI which is complete crap. Do the Jats fit there? Do you even know their history?

Brahmins were a group of Caucasians (Risis were their priests - unlike perceived today, Rsis are not renunciates, they had wives and they lived in society; do not mix them up with Shramana renunciates who became more common later - do you find any Rishis these days?) who started migrating in India and started living like Zoroastrians lived in India in the medieval times. Due to the interest of the native Kings, they were appointed as advisors, teachers and even priests to the royalty. But they maintained purity of their breed - at least till some point in time in Indian history. Their opinion about Indian history is extremely biased. When they show that Indian society was divided into castes, it shows THEIR opinion and perception, instead of historical reality.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:52 AM   #68

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Do you have any evidance to proove your claim?

The first chapter of "Greater Magadha" by Johannes Bronkhorst gives various excerpts from Satapatha Brahmana and various other sources to support his claim. The source of all his evidence is referenced in the book.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:06 PM   #69

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

Quote:
Their opinion about Indian history is extremely biased. When they show that Indian society was divided into castes, it shows THEIR opinion and perception, instead of historical reality.

It's not their opinion. There was a social structure way back to the Mauryan times. The Greek ambassador to the Mauryan court mentions this.

Quote:
The first is formed by the collective body of the Philosophers, which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity preeminent over all. The philosopher who errs in his predictions incurs censure, and then observes silence for the rest of his life.

The second caste consists of the Husbandmen, who appear to be far more numerous than the others. They devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury.

The third caste consists of the Shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages, but live in tents.

The fourth caste consists of the Artizans. Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements that husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.

The fifth caste is the Military. It is well organized and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. The entire force--men-at-arms, war-horses, war-elephants, and all--are maintained at the king's expense.

The sixth caste consists of the Overseers. It is their province to inquire into and superintend all that goes on in India, and make report to the king, or, where there is not a king, to the magistrates.

The seventh caste consists of the Councillors and Assessors,--of those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class, looking to number, but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.

Quote:
And you still have not explained where do the Austroasiatic language speaking and Tibeto-Burman language speaking people fit into the scheme of ANI and ASI which is complete crap.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

Austroasiatics is associated with Haplogroup O-M95.

The places where this O-M95 is found is in the tribal regions of India. Not among majority of India.

Quote:
The data of our study along with the comparative data on 214 other relevant populations suggest that the haplogroup O-M95 is ubiquitously found in Southeast Asia, while in India it is restricted to the regions where Austro-Asiatic populations are found. This strongly suggests that Austro-Asiatic populations of India are not only linguistically linked to Southeast Asian populations but also genetically associated.
Figure 5: The isofrequency maps portraying spatial distribution of Haplogroups in... - Open-i

Last edited by Aberc; April 2nd, 2013 at 12:11 PM.
Aberc is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:08 PM   #70

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

Similarly the peoples speaking the Indo-European languages also carries the gene also.

Click the image to open in full size.
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.