The fact remains, as is clear, that there is a genetic diffference in origin between different castes- something obvious which I was pointing out, and which is clear to see
2- The 'climatic' theory of human appearance is hugely flawed- if climate determines appearance then why do the Inuit not have white skin and not the dark skin they have, human appearance is generally determined by human migrations and it takes a very long time for that to change unless there is some kind of radical or cataclysmic event
Genetic evidence is not fact, just go to North India and see for youself. Are they white skinned people there? There are small number of lighter complexions due to later invasions and mixing. But to somehow go on about how Bhramins are all light and other castes are not is frankly diabolical nonsense. My parents nor uncles nor friends never mentioned this light bhramin business because it does not exist, it all hocus pocus, and when u see the physicalities of people it will become crystal clear. e.g. look at the Indian, Pakstani, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi cricket teams, Sri Lankans are more dark because of their hotter climate, Indians mixed bag, Pakistanis with a few exceptions are less 'darker'- due to climate. North and South Europeans differ in skin tone, why? ans: climate. The later invaders who came acrss the Khyber pass were minute in number compared to the already existencing large Indian population. Goto Kashmir, which is a less warm climate and the people there are generally more lighter.
Stephen Oppenheimer concluded by genetic studies that people moved into India from Africa initially and rest of the world population were descendents of this group. University of Cambridge researchers Michael Petraglia and Hannah James came to the similar conclusion by analyzing fossils, artifacts, and genetic data. So if there was a migration, it was from India to Europe and not the other way. Does this prove that there was no Aryan Invasion/Migration?
While the above migrations happened about 85,000 years back, the theory of Aryan Invasion/Migration talks about what happened around 4000 years back. This is what Dr. Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, who has been excavating in the Indus city of Harappa has to say
The transition from one culture to the next was gradual as seen at Harappa, and there is no evidence for invasions by outside communities such as the so-called Indo-Aryans.
Although some scattered skeletons were discovered in the later levels, they do not represent warfare or raiding, and there is no evidence that the site came to a violent end. [Decline and Transformation]
Now the BBC has updated their page on the history of Hinduism to reflect this. So why are some people still holding onto the invasion theory? A good answer comes from Suhag A Shukla, who was the legal counsel for the Hindu American Foundation in the recent California textbook controversy. There is no evidence of any invasion or any war. Honestly, the people who have held onto the Aryan invasion theory, probably based their entire careers on that particular theory and have expounded that through their research, they have a vested interest in not seeing it disappear.['I am not
OK fair enough, but I was wondering why people from the lower castes who I have met all have dark and not light skin, and the photos of people I have seen in India confirm this fact.
Also, why did Ambedkar advise people to convert to Buddhism?
Why did they have to make it hard for people to convert in India?
PHAGWARA: As many as 1,300 Dalits of the region converted to Budhism at a congregation held at village Chak Hakee.
The mass conversion ceremony on Saturday called the Mool Niwasi Dharm Vapsi Sammelan (function for the return of the natives to their faith), was addressed by Dalit leaders like Charan Das Patwari, Gian Sheel and Satish Suman.
They asked the Dalit community to adopt Buddhism for fulfilling B R Ambedkar's dreams. Certificates were also issued to all those who adopted Buddhism.
So why do these people all want to convert to Buddhism?
Thats a separate issue, which was mentioned about class prejudice. Because even though this caste rubbish is illegal some folk still like to keep it going to preserve their superiority. Hence by converting they move out of hopefully.
It will take time to eliminate the number of prejudiced individuals, of which there are many, and they are being confronted.
OK fair enough, but I was wondering why people from the lower castes who I have met all have dark and not light skin, and the photos of people I have seen in India confirm this fact.
Not just an Hindu problem, check out the hotels, banks jewelry stores etc in the caribbean, anything that is customer facing generally has light skinned folk.
Dogra What about the fact that southern Indian langauages ar egenerally non Indo European, whereas northern and central ones are Indo European? Does this not suggest a movement from the north?
Originally posted by Mc1: Dogra What about the fact that southern Indian langauages ar egenerally non Indo European, whereas northern and central ones are Indo European? Does this not suggest a movement from the north?
No it does not. English was brought to India, there was no movement because of a language. Later invaders brought languages, languages change, generally people get on. Dont be fooled by the separatists thinking of some master aryan race, this has confined to the dustbin of human history as it is not based on fact. Just look at people from North India and the answers will reveal itself, common sense that the Himalayas is a natural barrier to the subcontinent. Yes there were passes, but how easy would it have been to traverse these in large numbers during those times let alone now. They still cant find Osama Bin laden yet, as he is more than likely to be there among the hindu kush mountain ranges, that is the Indiansubcontinents border.
Indigenous Indians have been there 100k years ago, whereas these invaders came 2-3 thousand years ago after Aryan supoposed invasions.
Originally posted by Mc1: Dogra What about the fact that southern Indian langauages ar egenerally non Indo European, whereas northern and central ones are Indo European? Does this not suggest a movement from the north?
Originally posted by Mc1: Dogra What about the fact that southern Indian langauages ar egenerally non Indo European, whereas northern and central ones are Indo European? Does this not suggest a movement from the north?
Few people are aware that India’s 160 million untouchables or Dalits are descendants of Africans who once ruled the Indus Valley. But caste discrimination affects all black people, who are regarded as untouchables, even in the US and UK.
It may seem ironic to many that India’s untouchable castes known as Dalits, who are despised and condemned in Hindu scriptures for the colour of their skin and who are oppressed and exploited are distant relations to Africans, who were dehumanised in order to justify their enslavement to enrich the West.
But two papers published by African scholar and physicist Cheikh Anta Diop in 1955 and 1967 were translated from French to English and published as : The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality in 1974. In this book, as well as establishing the African origins of Egypt, Diop also revealed that Africans known as Dravidians created the Indus Valley civilization.
Dravidians are a linguistic group under which many different groups fall, but many scholars aside from Diop, including: Chiek Tidiane N Diave, S R Santharam and U.Pupadhyaya Susheela O.Uphadyaya, have found both linguistic and cultural links between Dravidians and Africans.
Diop wrote: “…The Indo-Europeans never created a civilization in their own native lands: the Eurasian plains. The civilizations attributed to them are inevitably located in the heart of Negro countries in the southern part of the northern hemisphere: Egypt, Arabia, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Elam, India. In all those lands there were negro civilizations when the Indo-Europeans arrived as rough nomads during the second millennium.”
Diop described Dravidians as a type of the black race with: “Black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian.”
But the real irony of the caste system is that is that it is a corruption of a social system invented by the early African civilizations, according to a 19th century French anthropologist called Francois Lenormant, whom Diop refers to in his book: “The Aryas of India…adopted it, borrowed it from the Kushite populations.”
Today, the descendants of the Dravidians live under the scourge of what is often referred to as: “India’s hidden apartheid.” In a 1999 report by Human Rights Watch called: Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s Untouchables , the extent to which the caste system affects the lives of a population almost three times the size of the UK was revealed:
“Untouchables may not cross the line dividing their part of the village from that occupied by higher castes,” the report stated. But segregation is just the tip of the iceberg. As well as Dalits being forbidden to worship in the same temples as other castes, from using the same wells, and drinking from the same cups, they are denied land that is legally theirs, made to perform degrading tasks and are often subjected to violence, including the rape of Dalit women.
Horen Tudu was born in Bangledesh into the Santhal tribal group but grew up in the USA. He is a researcher and staunch Pan Africanist who has written extensively about African descendants in the Indian subcontinent. Asked whether Dalits are aware of their African heritage, he told Black Britain: “I do believe that they are starting to understand that the upper caste function from the paradigm of the Indo Europeans and that the Dalits and the tribals themselves are indigenous and that the proto Australoids are African.”
But aside from the Dalits, India’s tribal groups make up another 84 million of its population. Tudu told Black Britain: “When you come to the tribals there is absolutely no controversy regarding the race of these people. They are clearly, physically, Africoid, they are linguistically distinct, religiously distinct; you can connect their spiritual systems to the spiritual systems in Africa – there is no ambiguity there.”
In that case this chap should go to India and see the people and then this total separate race garbage will be put to rest,
At times people clutch at straws to justify their point of view, when the ground reality of looking at people reveals the answers are ignored. We have this Aryan invasion smashed to the dustbin of human history and now this babble about only Dalits being of a different race, well goto India and look at the people of these socalled 'dalits' and then speak.
The Dravidians are the indigenous peoples of India. In the North of the Indian subcontinent they mixed later, after the supposed Aryan nonsense, with invaders, who were far less in number than the indigenous people, by simply looking at the people all is revealed.
As reagrds the discrimination that exists and is being combatted by people but more needs doing.
Originally posted by Mc1: Dogra What about the fact that southern Indian langauages ar egenerally non Indo European, whereas northern and central ones are Indo European? Does this not suggest a movement from the north?
Kashmir is the place where you find 'white' Indians. I've never heard of this pale Brahmin/colour coded cast system stuff and my father is a hindu although I do know that in India fair skin is considered beautiful in women,hence all the successful fair-skinned bollywood actresses.
The fact remains, as is clear, that there is a genetic diffference in origin between different castes- something obvious which I was pointing out, and which is clear to see
2- The 'climatic' theory of human appearance is hugely flawed- if climate determines appearance then why do the Inuit not have white skin and not the dark skin they have, human appearance is generally determined by human migrations and it takes a very long time for that to change unless there is some kind of radical or cataclysmic event
Genetic evidence is not fact, just go to North India and see for youself. Are they white skinned people there? There are small number of lighter complexions due to later invasions and mixing. But to somehow go on about how Bhramins are all light and other castes are not is frankly diabolical nonsense. My parents nor uncles nor friends never mentioned this light bhramin business because it does not exist, it all hocus pocus, and when u see the physicalities of people it will become crystal clear. e.g. look at the Indian, Pakstani, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi cricket teams, Sri Lankans are more dark because of their hotter climate, Indians mixed bag, Pakistanis with a few exceptions are less 'darker'- due to climate. North and South Europeans differ in skin tone, why? ans: climate. The later invaders who came acrss the Khyber pass were minute in number compared to the already existencing large Indian population. Goto Kashmir, which is a less warm climate and the people there are generally more lighter.
The fact remains, as is clear, that there is a genetic diffference in origin between different castes- something obvious which I was pointing out, and which is clear to see
2- The 'climatic' theory of human appearance is hugely flawed- if climate determines appearance then why do the Inuit not have white skin and not the dark skin they have, human appearance is generally determined by human migrations and it takes a very long time for that to change unless there is some kind of radical or cataclysmic event
Genetic evidence is not fact, just go to North India and see for youself. Are they white skinned people there? There are small number of lighter complexions due to later invasions and mixing. But to somehow go on about how Bhramins are all light and other castes are not is frankly diabolical nonsense. My parents nor uncles nor friends never mentioned this light bhramin business because it does not exist, it all hocus pocus, and when u see the physicalities of people it will become crystal clear. e.g. look at the Indian, Pakstani, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi cricket teams, Sri Lankans are more dark because of their hotter climate, Indians mixed bag, Pakistanis with a few exceptions are less 'darker'- due to climate. North and South Europeans differ in skin tone, why? ans: climate. The later invaders who came acrss the Khyber pass were minute in number compared to the already existencing large Indian population. Goto Kashmir, which is a less warm climate and the people there are generally more lighter.
If you are alleging that race is not a biological fact but merely a `social construct` then how do you explain that different races who have lived side by side in the same part of the world over millenia have not altered their physical charecterists?
Originally posted by Dogra: Thats a separate issue, which was mentioned about class prejudice. Because even though this caste rubbish is illegal some folk still like to keep it going to preserve their superiority. Hence by converting they move out of hopefully.
It will take time to eliminate the number of prejudiced individuals, of which there are many, and they are being confronted.
If you are alleging that caste, ie varna is purely a matter of socio-economic class as we have it in the `west` then you are being disingenuous. Either that or you are not familiar with the evidence from the Rig Vedas, Laws of Manu et al.
Originally posted by Dogra: In that case this chap should go to India and see the people and then this total separate race garbage will be put to rest,
At times people clutch at straws to justify their point of view, when the ground reality of looking at people reveals the answers are ignored. We have this Aryan invasion smashed to the dustbin of human history and now this babble about only Dalits being of a different race, well goto India and look at the people of these socalled 'dalits' and then speak.
The Dravidians are the indigenous peoples of India. In the North of the Indian subcontinent they mixed later, after the supposed Aryan nonsense, with invaders, who were far less in number than the indigenous people, by simply looking at the people all is revealed.
As reagrds the discrimination that exists and is being combatted by people but more needs doing.
And it is this minority of Indo-European invaders who instituted the caste system to maintain a form of apartheid as a means to secure racial seperateness. The gradual breakdown and compromise of the caste system resulted in a dilution of the invading Aryan stock.
So the light skinned people are descended from the Aryan Europeans, and the dark skinned Dravids are descended from the Africans. So there is no indigenous Indian population???
Many people claim the Aryan Invasion theory was used by British imperialists to justify their own invasion.
, any info Rics?
