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

[RoshanNair]

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

They are not genetically the same, upper castes and northern indians are a little bit closer to europeans, but if you compare them to low castes vs. europeans they are still closer to low castes, there is something called PCA plot and southasians build a cluster, all southasian genetic groups. Maybe there are some outliers lilke the negritos and tibeto-burmese but 99% of indians are genetically similar. India was a cultural nation, they didnt had one empire rule but it was like greek city states, it was dominated by the same culture.

We were talking about the Seminoles, Cherokees etc regarding genetics. Indians are basically a mixed population now.

Indians should acknowledge their african roots and chocolate colour.

Lots of them do. You just dont hear about it. There are lots of Africans in India. Not only the indigenous ones but also the ones that came over later.

The Siddis are not indigenous to India. I dunno why the hell they still remain.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

 

[RoshanNair]

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?

Nah, I just don't obsess over stupid shit like racial markers. Only people who feel an intrinsic lack of self-worth/belonging do so.

you talked about the caste system being racist, that you are upper caste and a another race then others in the subcontinent etc. for you its very important to be white.

I did indeed say I was upper caste.

I didn't ever say I was of another race.

Accuse me of casteism, sure, but not racism.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

They are not genetically the same, upper castes and northern indians are a little bit closer to europeans, but if you compare them to low castes vs. europeans they are still closer to low castes, there is something called PCA plot and southasians build a cluster, all southasian genetic groups. Maybe there are some outliers lilke the negritos and tibeto-burmese but 99% of indians are genetically similar. India was a cultural nation, they didnt had one empire rule but it was like greek city states, it was dominated by the same culture.

We were talking about the Seminoles, Cherokees etc regarding genetics. Indians are basically a mixed population now.

Indians should acknowledge their african roots and chocolate colour.

Lots of them do. You just dont hear about it. There are lots of Africans in India. Not only the indigenous ones but also the ones that came over later.

The Siddis are not indigenous to India. I dunno why the hell they still remain.

Who said they were indigenous to India? Maybe they stay because they want to? They do have indian relatives.

 

[RoshanNair]

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.

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

 

[RoshanNair]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

 

[RoshanNair]

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

Adivasis is a cultural term, not a racial or genetic term. What exactly is your point?

 

[Asclepias]

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

 

[RoshanNair]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

Adivasis is a cultural term, not a racial or genetic term. What exactly is your point?

Adivasi is an umbrella term used to refer to the indigenous peoples. Dravidian merely denotes a cultural subset and the speakers of the Dravidian languages.

Dravidian identity is transient. Indigenous status is not.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

Adivasis is a cultural term, not a racial or genetic term. What exactly is your point?

Adivasi is an umbrella term used to refer to the indigenous peoples. Dravidian merely denotes a cultural subset and the speakers of the Dravidian languages.

Dravidian identity is transient. Indigenous status is not.

Which has nothing to do with my point.

 

[RoshanNair]

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

Lmao. You afrocentrist loons fall right into the trap laid by the WNs and supremacists.

Where does your ancestry trace back to in Sub-Saharan Africa? Which language did your ancestors speak? What constituted their cultural endeavors? Their political, social, military history? Mode of governance?

Like I thought.....you are an Afrocentrist desperately trying to hold on to artifices such as "Black Nation" because your unique sense of history and identity was decimated by the European slave master.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

Lmao. You afrocentrist loons fall right into the trap laid by the WNs and supremacists.

Where does your ancestry trace back to in Sub-Saharan Africa? Which language did your ancestors speak? What constituted their cultural endeavors? Their political, social, military history? Mode of governance?

Like I thought.....you are an Afrocentrist desperately trying to hold on to artifices such as "Black Nation" because your unique sense of history and identity was decimated by the European slave master.

My particular ancestry traces back to the region now called Senegal and ancient Mali. The dynasties of Mali are well known. You can google them to educate yourself about the specifics. Only an ignorant wanna be white guy Indian wouldnt know that.

 

[RoshanNair]

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

Lmao. You afrocentrist loons fall right into the trap laid by the WNs and supremacists.

Where does your ancestry trace back to in Sub-Saharan Africa? Which language did your ancestors speak? What constituted their cultural endeavors? Their political, social, military history? Mode of governance?

Like I thought.....you are an Afrocentrist desperately trying to hold on to artifices such as "Black Nation" because your unique sense of history and identity was decimated by the European slave master.

My particular ancestry traces back to the region now called Senegal and ancient Mali. The dynasties of Mali are well known. You can google them to educate yourself about the specifics. Only an ignorant wanna be white guy Indian wouldnt know that.

What tribe?

And pray tell, how am I supposed to be privy to your personal history, moron?

 

[Asclepias]

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

Lmao. You afrocentrist loons fall right into the trap laid by the WNs and supremacists.

Where does your ancestry trace back to in Sub-Saharan Africa? Which language did your ancestors speak? What constituted their cultural endeavors? Their political, social, military history? Mode of governance?

Like I thought.....you are an Afrocentrist desperately trying to hold on to artifices such as "Black Nation" because your unique sense of history and identity was decimated by the European slave master.

My particular ancestry traces back to the region now called Senegal and ancient Mali. The dynasties of Mali are well known. You can google them to educate yourself about the specifics. Only an ignorant wanna be white guy Indian wouldnt know that.

What tribe?

And pray tell, how am I supposed to be privy to your personal history, moron?

Thats not really any of your business. I got you close enough without informing you of my personal history. What did you ask for? Are you angry I know my history?

 

[Mortimer]

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.

India was never a nation. In fact prior to the English subjugation, most of the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of ethnic Marathis who were seen as foreigners in other parts of the land as much as White people.

Typical hyprocite Afrocentrist loon talk LMAO. So an African-American can determine that the Pawnee and Seminole are the same, but you take offense (and rightfully so) when non-Blacks essentialize Black people???

Of course it was a nation. Repeating white propaganda doesnt do much for me. I didnt determine they were the same. Genetics did that. No i dont take offense when someone says all Black people are genetically the same. Only people that want to be white like you get offended by such things.

Genetics don't determine nationhood you moron.

Dont call yourself a moron. Get educated instead.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

1. a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Maybe read the last part a little closely, moron. Lmao.

Which "particular" country was there in India- encompassing the entirety of modern day borders- before 1947?

India was the aftermath of a colonial blunder. It should've never been created.

Why should india not have been created dude india encompasses a cultural sphere like greek city states in antiquity or european union or united states nowadays not exactly but similar why do you hate india

 

[Mortimer]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

If you are not indigenous in india where is your homeland then

 

[Mortimer]

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.

Neither ANIs nor ASIs are identified as Adivasis. Show me, for example, proof of the invaders of the IVC copulating with the native inhabitants.

Yes ASI and Adivasis are both considered part of the Dravidian.

Dravidian is a cultural term, not racial or genetic.

I am culturally and linguistically a Dravidian. That doesn't make me indigenous to the subcontinent LOL.

Adivasis is a cultural term, not a racial or genetic term. What exactly is your point?

Adivasi is an umbrella term used to refer to the indigenous peoples. Dravidian merely denotes a cultural subset and the speakers of the Dravidian languages.

Dravidian identity is transient. Indigenous status is not.

Where is your homeland

 

[Mortimer]

What does that have to do with your claim that genetics doesnt determine a nation moron?

Read the first part.

"White people" are not a nation.

I did read the first part and yes white people are a nation. I am part of the Black nation and Black people live everywhere in the world.

Lmao. You afrocentrist loons fall right into the trap laid by the WNs and supremacists.

Where does your ancestry trace back to in Sub-Saharan Africa? Which language did your ancestors speak? What constituted their cultural endeavors? Their political, social, military history? Mode of governance?

Like I thought.....you are an Afrocentrist desperately trying to hold on to artifices such as "Black Nation" because your unique sense of history and identity was decimated by the European slave master.

My particular ancestry traces back to the region now called Senegal and ancient Mali. The dynasties of Mali are well known. You can google them to educate yourself about the specifics. Only an ignorant wanna be white guy Indian wouldnt know that.

What tribe?

And pray tell, how am I supposed to be privy to your personal history, moron?

He can identify how he wants live and let live