I'm not white, but I do sympathize with white Americans

[RoshanNair]

Adivasis are a diverse bunch themselfes. Some are mongoloid some are proto-australoid some are negrito etc. Are the adivasis of northeastern india who are mongoloid just as native as the adivasis who are proto-australoid somewhere in south india or are they different or all the same?

Adviasi is a blanket term, dummy. Adivasi tribes throughout various regions of India have rights as indigenous peoples which supersede that of non-Adivasis in the same region.

Ok I dont know how Indians refer to themselfes within their own society etc. I know they have positive discrimination for sheduled tribes and castes etc. Which is good.

How is that "good"? It actively undermines meritocracy and dumbs down society as a whole....

 

[Mortimer]

Adivasis are a diverse bunch themselfes. Some are mongoloid some are proto-australoid some are negrito etc. Are the adivasis of northeastern india who are mongoloid just as native as the adivasis who are proto-australoid somewhere in south india or are they different or all the same?

Adviasi is a blanket term, dummy. Adivasi tribes throughout various regions of India have rights as indigenous peoples which supersede that of non-Adivasis in the same region.

Ok I dont know how Indians refer to themselfes within their own society etc. I know they have positive discrimination for sheduled tribes and castes etc. Which is good.

How is that "good"? It actively undermines meritocracy and dumbs down society as a whole....

Not at all, It creates more social mobility.

 

[Asclepias]

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

 

[Mortimer]

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

 

[Asclepias]

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a Greek label. It stems from the term "Indos". "Indus" etc.

 

[Mortimer]

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

 

[RoshanNair]

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

 

[Asclepias]

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

 

[Mortimer]

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

I think the invaders became indianised incorporated into the melting pot. Like central asian turkic tribes became anatolian or hunnish tribes from steppes became hungarian and european. I think its a cultural and language shift, not so much a racial shift. And India had not only one invasion but many invasions. Aryans were only one of them. India is a center of human migration since dawn of time, since humans came out of africa. If indians persecute other indians they are stupid.

2.Indigenous means original inhabitant, if there is no original inhabitant there is no indigenous.

 

[RoshanNair]

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

Your hearsay doesn't count as a valid position, homie. I am upper-caste and I have never thought of myself as "white" lmao......neither do 10s of millions of light-skinned people in/from India.

And no, not all people in the country are mixed-race. There are communities which have practiced ethnic and caste endogamy for thousands upon thousands of years.

 

[Mortimer]

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

Your hearsay doesn't count as a valid position, homie. I am upper-caste and I have never thought of myself as "white" lmao......neither do 10s of millions of light-skinned people in/from India.

And no, not all people in the country are mixed-race. There are communities which have practiced ethnic and caste endogamy for thousands upon thousands of years.

Sorry man. I dont want to insult indians, I like them but you looked to be one of those upper castes, who thinks you are akin to whites etc. Why do you attacked "blacks ashkenazi jews and white liberals". I dont know about mixed race but all castes derrive ancestry from diverse populations the mixing probably occured before the establishment of the caste system.

 

[RoshanNair]

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

 

[Mortimer]

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

Man that was ten thousand years ago. Its a social construct, the whole caste system is a social construct. Indians cluster closer to eatch other as they cluster to any other race. There are some internal differences but they are genetically all on a cline and cluster together before they cluster with europeans or asians or blacks. You should inform yourself.

 

[Asclepias]

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

Pawnee, Cherokee, and Seminole arent any different from each other. They are genetically the same Asians that came over to the americas. India as a country may not have been around until 1947 but that has nothing to do with what I said about that area being a nation long before whites gave you rules about how you were to define your history and culture.

 

[RoshanNair]

The orginal inhabitants of India were Black people from Africa. They interbred with the Denosovians which resulted in the Austro types. We know this because of the people of the Andaman Islands.

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

Your hearsay doesn't count as a valid position, homie. I am upper-caste and I have never thought of myself as "white" lmao......neither do 10s of millions of light-skinned people in/from India.

And no, not all people in the country are mixed-race. There are communities which have practiced ethnic and caste endogamy for thousands upon thousands of years.

Sorry man. I dont want to insult indians, I like them but you looked to be one of those upper castes, who thinks you are akin to whites etc. Why do you attacked "blacks ashkenazi jews and white liberals". I dont know about mixed race but all castes derrive ancestry from diverse populations the mixing probably occured before the establishment of the caste system.

When have I claimed to be akin to "Whites"??

I attack Afrocentrist Blacks and Liberals because of their silly, parochial viewpoints.

I attack Jews because they are tantamount to human parasites.

 

[Mortimer]

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

Your hearsay doesn't count as a valid position, homie. I am upper-caste and I have never thought of myself as "white" lmao......neither do 10s of millions of light-skinned people in/from India.

And no, not all people in the country are mixed-race. There are communities which have practiced ethnic and caste endogamy for thousands upon thousands of years.

Sorry man. I dont want to insult indians, I like them but you looked to be one of those upper castes, who thinks you are akin to whites etc. Why do you attacked "blacks ashkenazi jews and white liberals". I dont know about mixed race but all castes derrive ancestry from diverse populations the mixing probably occured before the establishment of the caste system.

When have I claimed to be akin to "Whites"??

I attack Afrocentrist Blacks and Liberals because of their silly, parochial viewpoints.

I attack Jews because they are tantamount to human parasites.

What do you think of Roma, do you think they are parasites too? Romani people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

who are the "indians" then?

Its just a label. It stems from the term "Indo". "Indus" etc.

they divide themselfes i know upper castes think they are aryans and white, and that the others are black. but its far from true, they are bunch of mixed raced browns. all of them.

Your hearsay doesn't count as a valid position, homie. I am upper-caste and I have never thought of myself as "white" lmao......neither do 10s of millions of light-skinned people in/from India.

And no, not all people in the country are mixed-race. There are communities which have practiced ethnic and caste endogamy for thousands upon thousands of years.

Sorry man. I dont want to insult indians, I like them but you looked to be one of those upper castes, who thinks you are akin to whites etc. Why do you attacked "blacks ashkenazi jews and white liberals". I dont know about mixed race but all castes derrive ancestry from diverse populations the mixing probably occured before the establishment of the caste system.

When have I claimed to be akin to "Whites"??

I attack Afrocentrist Blacks and Liberals because of their silly, parochial viewpoints.

I attack Jews because they are tantamount to human parasites.

You dont have to claim something out loud for it to be obvious to everyone. You wish you were white.

 

[RoshanNair]

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

Man that was ten thousand years ago. Its a social construct, the whole caste system is a social construct. Indians cluster closer to eatch other as they cluster to any other race. There are some internal differences but they are genetically all on a cline and cluster together before they cluster with europeans or asians or blacks. You should inform yourself.

A social construct with strong racial and classist undertones.....contrary to your flawed notions of a region of the world you are not familiar with, there was never any large-scale mixing even prior to the establishment of caste precepts.

I don't cluster together with other Indians any more than I do Blacks, Asians, Whites, Juden, etc. Culture>Race.

 

[Mortimer]

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

Man that was ten thousand years ago. Its a social construct, the whole caste system is a social construct. Indians cluster closer to eatch other as they cluster to any other race. There are some internal differences but they are genetically all on a cline and cluster together before they cluster with europeans or asians or blacks. You should inform yourself.

A social construct with strong racial and classist undertones.....contrary to your flawed notions of a region of the world you are not familiar with, there was never any large-scale mixing even prior to the establishment of caste precepts.

I don't cluster together with other Indians any more than I do Blacks, Asians, Whites, Juden, etc. Culture>Race.

You probably never did a genetic test, and dont know it. I know a little bit about genetics. Well Indians are more or less all mixed race. What race do you think you are?

 

[Asclepias]

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

1) Archaelogical findings are slowly starting to complement the religious literature of Hinduism which speaks of the invasions of the subcontinent from Central Asia and the subsequent destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization etc.....and moving far beyond that, one only needs to see the oppression of Adivasis by the Indian state today. A recurring theme pertaining to all indigenous peoples, sadly.....

2) There is no such "original inhabitant" of India because India never existed as a singular national polity prior to 1947. It is the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse country in that regard....

Of course there were original inhabitants of india. White beliefs on what constitutes a nation is not even part of the discussion here.

No there were not.....there were/are original inhabitants of Gujarat, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, etc.....who are as different from one another are Pawnee are from Cherokee are from Seminole....

India as a country never existed before 1947.

Man that was ten thousand years ago. Its a social construct, the whole caste system is a social construct. Indians cluster closer to eatch other as they cluster to any other race. There are some internal differences but they are genetically all on a cline and cluster together before they cluster with europeans or asians or blacks. You should inform yourself.

A social construct with strong racial and classist undertones.....contrary to your flawed notions of a region of the world you are not familiar with, there was never any large-scale mixing even prior to the establishment of caste precepts.

I don't cluster together with other Indians any more than I do Blacks, Asians, Whites, Juden, etc. Culture>Race.

Some white people disagree with you.

Haq's Musings: Harvard Genetics Study Finds Most Indians Are Not Indigenous



""Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" confirms that North Indians ancestors started migrating to India from outside thousands of years before the advent of Islam. ANIs and ASIs routinely intermarried between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago until the imposition of strict segregation by the Hindu caste system, according to the study.