Paper Adds Support To Aryan..

Paper Adds Support to Aryan Invasion Theory | Beyond Highb...
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/paper-adds-sup...
Beyond Highbrow Robert

Lindsay
BY ROBERT LINDSAY | JULY 28, 2009 10:30 PM
Paper Adds Support to Aryan Invasion Theory

Note: Repost from the old blog.
The notion that an Aryan Invasion that occurred 3,500 years ago in India and subsequently shaped the physical and
religious landscape of the country is a controversial one, but it is steeped in Indian socio-cultural politics. Though it is
uncontroversial outside of India, a huge debate has heated up inside India.
On the one side are the Dalits and their allies. The Dalits claim that they were the original Indians and practiced some sort
of a nice, Utopian religion. I dont know if it was Goddess worship, but I guess it was something like that. The Dalits really
hate Hinduism, because Hindus have decided that Dalits are born and doomed through life to be lower than whale shit, and
thats at the bottom of the ocean.
So the Dalits say that these Aryans (White folks) invaded down from the steppes to the north and west (possibly Tajikistan
or around Iran) and conquered a large part of India. They brought with them Hinduism and caste. They made themselves
the lighter Brahmin caste and made the darker folks lower castes, and the darkest of all were made into Dalits. So the Aryan
invasion started the whole mess.
Hindu nationalists (Hindutvas) love their Hindu religion and feel that it can do no wrong, so they dislike this Aryan
invasion theory. Their whole line is that there was no Aryan invasion. Hinduism was native to India and was not some
wicked religion brought by evil lighter-skinned dudes. This theory is also very popular with Brahmins, almost all of whom
support caste, no matter what they tell you.
White nationalists, some high caste Indian racialists and Afrocentrists all support the Aryan invasion theory. White
nationalists feel that there are two races in India light-skinned cool guy Aryans in the north who are smart and get
everything done in India, to the extent that anything gets done there, and darker Dravidians, who are apparently inferior
muds or something.
In reality, there are just Indians of varying shades. The ones towards the northwest to tend to be more European-looking
and lighter, and the ones heading to the south and east from the northwest to tend to get darker and more Dravidian
looking. However, there are plenty of dark-skinned North Indians with varying degrees of Dravidian features, and in the
south, there are a lot of lighter folks with more European features.
The Aryans and Dravidians have gotten so mixed in over 3,500 years that these categories no longer make much sense,
except to idiots. In which case, they are encouraged to continue using them.
High caste Indian racialists go along with this, and hang out in White nationalist fora trying to convince White nationalists
that funny looking light-skinned Indians are really just White people too, albeit with patchouli oil and a taste for curry.
White nationalists are dubious about admitting wogs into their midst of their White purity.
Afrocentrists like this theory because they moronically think that Dravidians are Black folks. Except that they are not.
Actually, all Indians are pretty closely related and are very distant from Africans they are no closer to Africans than
1 of Print
54 to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
07-07-2014 15:43
anyone else on Earth. Any resemblance to Africans is just convergence, genetic drift or coincidence.
Well, India was populated by all these really cool Indian Black folks and then evil White dudes came in, brought an evil
White Supremacist religion called Hinduism, and cruelly imposed it on the darkies.
In the midst of all of this swarming intellectual idiocy, it falls to the scientists to add some sense to the discussion.
This interesting paper (available on this blog here) adds to the evidence for an Aryan invasion.
They did find that higher-caste folks tended to be lighter than lower-caste Indians, but that was just a trend. There are lightskinned low-caste Indians in the northwest and many of the Brahmins of South India are quite dark.
They also found a trend for lighter skin and more European features and genes towards the northwest and darker skin,
more indigenous features and more Asian genes and one moved to the south and east. The paper felt that they had
evidence for a large introgression of European-looking peoples maybe 3000-4000 years ago, though things have gotten
pretty mixed up since.
Other papers studying the genetics of India have concluded Indians have been evolving, more or less in situ without a lot of
outside inputs, for 15-20,000 years (call it 17,000 years). The result has been this endlessly varying type we call the East
Indian. And where did the Indian stock come from prior to 17,000 years ago?
The authors were not sure, but they felt that the seed for the stock that started to grow the modern Indian tree came from
the Middle East 17,000 years ago.
India, along with North Africa, the Caucasus and the Middle East, is also one of main staging grounds for the evolution of
Caucasians and proto-Caucasians from 39,000-52,000 years ago. In particular, there was a movement out of India to
North Africa 30,000 years ago which probably helped to create the Berbers.
There are also other, lesser known influences on the people of India and Pakistan. The Mohajirs in Uttar Pradesh are
heavily Persian and Arab. Former Pakistani President Musharaff is a Mohajir, so his background was mostly Arab and
Iranian.
Mohajirs are the Muslims that fled India to Pakistan during the bloody partition in 1947. They have since suffered a lot of
persecution in Pakistan and are not all that well-liked there. They have set up their own patronage system, along with
patronage political parties, that benefit them and only them.
We see an interesting thing in the far western states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Possibly 50% of the population of Haryana
and probably all of Rajasthan is related to Scythians from 1,500-2,000 yrs ago. The Scythians were probably the same as
the Ossetians of today. Long ago, the Ossetians were known as the Alans, horse-riding nomads of the Central Asian
steppes.
There are some theories that try to connect to the Alans to Japan, especially to the Caucasian-appearing Samurai caste, in
an invasion centuries years ago. This rests on similarities between Alan names and legends and those of the Samurai. At
present, the Alan-Japanese theory remains little more than a controversial hypothesis.
The Caucasian appearance of the Samurai class is probably due more to their Ainu roots than to any Alan invasion.
Even today, the Japanese ruling class looks different (some say, more Caucasian) than the rest of the Japanese, who are
closer to the Yayoi, rice-farmers from Korea who invaded 2,300 years ago and conquered the island, displacing the Ainu.
The Ainu, despite superficial Caucasian appearances, are actually anthropologically Australoids close to Aborigines.
Genetically, they are Asians.
References
2 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Bamshad M, Kivisild T, Watkins WS, Dixon ME, Ricker CE, Rao BB, Naidu JM, Prasad BV, Reddy PG,
Rasanayagam A, Papiha SS, Villems R, Redd AJ, Hammer MF, Nguyen SV, Carroll ML, Batzer MA, Jorde LB,
2001. Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations. Genome Res 11: 9941004. Download on this
blog here.
Share this:
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook 12
Twitter
Loading...
Related
More Out of India Idiocy
Rejection of the Aryan

Migration Theory Implies
Support for the Out of India
Theory
Just How Many Hindus Are

Not Hindutvas?
189 responses to Paper Adds Support to Aryan

Invasion Theory
Bettina
July 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Are the Christians of India higher caste, middle caste or lower caste people?
I have an Indian friend who is a Roman Catholic and she has a medium skin tone, very thin lips and a very long nose..
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM
I guess it just depends. Lately a lot of low castes are converting to Christianity. The problem is that in North India,
even low castes can be fairly light.
Reply
Uncle Milton
July 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
3 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Are the Christians of India higher caste, middle caste or lower caste people?
I have an Indian friend who is a Roman Catholic and she has a medium skin tone, very thin lips and a very long
nose..
My understanding is, for the most part, if they are Christian, they probably came from the lower castes. As for
light/dark skin color, I think it depends upon the region they came from. I know two Indian Christians from the
South of India who are quite dark. I know someone from Western India who is from the caste just above the Dalits
and he has about the same skin tone as a friend of mine who is Brahmin (the highest caste..)
One exception might be people from the area of Goa which was colonized by the Portuguese. Apparently quite a few
people from that area are not only light skinned but have light colored eyes. This could be from ongoing settlement
from places like Persia (the origin of the Parsis an ethnic group in India, predominantly around Mumbai/Bombay
who originally fled from Muslim persecution in Persiathe most famous Parsi was Freddy Mercury of the band
Queen.)
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM
In response to Uncle Milton
I have seen a lot of South Indian(Kerala) christians here in New Jersey and New york churches and most of them
very light colored(olive skinned).. Some of them were quite dark.. Some had medium skin tone.. Most of them were
very light and some were very pale. They were of Roman catholic and Malankara Catholic faith.
I dont think they are of the lower caste. If they were lower caste Christians, they wouldnt have the money to come
to USA in the first place.
Most of the Indians in the U.S belong to middle and high caste families..
If they were low caste, they would have looked like the typical dark dravidians. But, I didnt see that in those South
Indian christians..
There ARE lower caste christians in India. they are called the dalit christians and these people have seperate burial
grounds and everything since these dalits are not allowed to be buried along with the higher caste christians
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 4:44 PM
If your friend is from Goa or any other former Portuguese colony and is roman catholic she may be part Portuguese.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Thanks, I was looking for this post. The fact is upper caste people do tend to be lighter than their surrounding
4 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
populations. So in North India where the population is brown, upper castes are pale. In Kashmir where the average
person is pale, the Kashmiri pundits look like Euro. In south India where the common people are black, the upper caste
have the Indonesian copper colour. However throughout India you come across Brahmin populations (Chitpavan
Brahmins of Konkan, Maithili Brahmins of Bihar, Saraswat Brahmins of Karnataka which is in the south ) who look
very pale nearly like Northern Europeans. In Maharastra for example, we have Chitpavan (Kokanastha) Brahmins and
Deshastha Brahmins. The Chitpavans have a lot of Northern European facial features with light coloured eyes being
quite common. They tend to have pale skin. The Deshasthas have strong Caucasian facial features but have medium
skin colour.
As far as Christians are concerned, some Christians like the Syrian Malabar Christians, St. Thomas Christians of Kerala
were have upper caste as well as Jewish ancestry. Their population is small. Ironically a Christian saint, one of the 12
disciples called St. Thomas came to south India before Christianity reached England. Most other Christians are
predominantly lower caste as Christianity was a way to escape the caste system. These were converted by European
missionaries. However some of these new converts were upper and middle castes. But most Christians tend to be
darker and I guess they are lower caste.
However you cannot escape the caste system in India. It seems upper caste Christians have retained their snobbery and
only marry other upper caste Christians. They even have separate grave yards!
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 12:18 AM
So, what about South Indian(Kerala) Christians with this skin color? Are they upper caste, middle caste or lower
caste?
These are some pics of my friends who are Christians of Kerala origin but they live in the U.S.
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs094.snc1
/4959_1145032076763_1556340105_30371135_7628524_n.jpg
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v191/131/11/756483233/n756483233_303983_8873.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2669/223/47/579111416/n579111416_1980528_4745511.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v200/36/33/503826969/n503826969_966665_437.jpg
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs156.snc1
/5812_123518511339_726396339_3042746_3250651_n.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v353/89/60/571181784/n571181784_1030824_5526.jpg
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs003.snc1
/4405_1157401767708_1007661043_30484359_6649168_n.jpg
Most of the South Indian(Kerala) Christians I have seen have that skin tone.. I have seen darker skinned ones too..
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 12:44 AM
I know a fellow who is warrior caste (middle caste) and he converted out to Christianity anyway.
5 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Its sad but true that even after conversion, the Christians have developed their own caste system! Even the
Muslims in India have caste. I understand that even Sikh Punjabis have caste, though the ones in the US often say
its stupid. Unbelievably, caste persists even among Indian Maoists! The Maoists tried for a long time to wipe out
caste, but they could not get rid of it, and now the movement seems to have made some sort of peace with it.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 12:53 AM
It is like you just cannot get rid of the caste system in India. It reappears all the time even when eradicated.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Actually I may be wrong, but I think Sikhism is the only religion which has got rid of caste. Where Buddhism, Islam
and Christianity failed, Sikhism might have suceeded.
The reason why every Sikh has a surname of Singh was that no body could determine the persons caste. By
knowing a persons surname you can get an idea about what caste the person belongs to. So now since everybody is
Singh, problem solved.
However I may be wrong and the caste system might have crept back into Sikhism. I will not be surprised if that is
true. However most Sikhs tend to be fair, tall and have very strong Caucasian features. Most of the best soldiers in
India are Sikhs.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 8:30 AM
We have many Punjabis where I live. They are some of the finest people in my country! If all immigrants were like
these Punjabis, no one would have a problem with any immigrants. I have spoken to some of these Punjabis, and
they told me that there is casteism with Punjabi Sikhs, even though there is not supposed to be. Generally, they
thought that casteism was stupid.
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 4:51 PM
So if you can kind of tell what caste a person is by their last name; what caste does a person with the last name
Patel belong too?
It seems that 90% of every Indian I have ever come across in the US has that last name.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM
6 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Yes you can tell caste by last name in general. The Brahmins and people like that are experts on it and they know
100s of last names and have them figured out by caste, subcaste, all that. The caste system is insanely complex and
even though there are maybe 100s of castes, there are probably 1000s of subcastes or maybe even more.
I had a professor named Mistral and I asked my Brahmin friend about him, and he said its some working-class
caste, mostly carpenters.
Reply
James Schipper
July 29, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Dear Robert
Racial purity can be maintaned only if there is monogamy and very little non-marital relations between the races. That
was the case with, for instance, blacks and whites in the US. Were the Aryan invaders of India monogamous? If their
men could take several wives, then some of those wives would have to be non-Aryan.
Suppose that aristocrats in Europe had been polygamous ant that they had on average 4 wives, then about 75% of
aristocratic wives would have been of peasant stock. A ruling group can maintain its genetic distinctness only if it is
endogamous as well as monogamous. The non-marital sexual relations between a dominant group and a dominated
group insure that genes from the dominant group enter the gene pool of the dominated group, even though the
dominant group itself can remain pure.
What happened in India is probably that in the beginning the upper caste was racially quite different from the other
castes and also much lighter. However, non-marital sexual relations upper-caste men and women of the lower castes
insured that the lower classes became lighter and polygamy practiced by upper-caste men insured that the upper caste
became darker.
Regards. James
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Yes James, its actually rather humorous. Originally, sure, there was an Aryan Invasion of lighter skinned folks who
set up a caste system to preserve their priveleges. The high caste Brahmins were always said to be lighter skinned.
However, through some curious miracle, those light-skinned Brahmins have been somehow been getting darker
and darker over the centuries! Indian writers and scholars have noted this. Obviously, though the caste system set
up serious penalties for marrying out of caste (especially for high castes) somehow, these high castes, just got
darker and darker. Surely it was not that punishing Indian sun. What happened was more what you imply: despite
the serious strictures against marrying out of caste, esp for high castes, it apparently happened nevertheless.
The moral to the story, as you suggest: racial purity are awfully hard to maintain, even in as rigidly policed a system
as Indias. Human nature, the sex drive and the fact that we fall in love rather indiscriminately assure that most
racial purity schemes are doomed.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM
James, ancient India was not like South Africa but more like Mexico or Brazil. The Aryans who came (I believe they
7 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
looked like Eastern Europeans) were predominantly male with very few females. They married the native Indian
women but the native Indian males did not have access to the upper caste females and this process continued. This
explains why certain upper caste Y haplogroups have spread into the lower castes as they had a lot of sex with the
native women. So the process that took place in India 4000 years ago was what took place in like Brazil and Mexico
400 years ago except you can replace Spaniards with an Eastern European like population.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 1:49 AM
and darker over the centuries! Indian writers and scholars have noted this.
Hi Robert, I would like to know which Indian scholars and writers wrote about upper caste Indians becoming
darkier. Just out of interest.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 7:34 AM
I am not sure Ramesh, but its been noted that the Brahmins have been getting mysteriously darker down through
the centuries, despite the fact that they supposedly are not allowed to marry out to darker folks.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Yes, what you say is most probably true due to the extreme interbreeding between the invading males and local
females (Spanish males mating with blacks and Native American females sound similar).
However I was hoping to find some sources which say that the upper castes were becoming darker, out of interest.
Brahmins interbreeding with the lower caste women is very common in history. A lower caste women could marry a
upper caste woman and join the upper caste but a lower caste male could not do that. In the Hindu epic Ramayana,
King Jashrath could not get children. He and his brahmin priests had a yagna (fire worship and sacrifice to the fire)
where horses were sacrificed. Later the queens were sent to the Brahmins for the night (for a romp) and in nine
months Rama and his brothers were born. Rama is the hero of the epic and is an incarnation (avatar) of the Hindu
god Vishnu.
In Kerela there were some castes who gave some of their women to be impregnated by brahmins. My tamil brahmin
friend claims, that this process helped raise the IQ of those castes.
In India there was a system of devdasis where lower caste women were wed to a male deity in a temple and thus
became the property of the temple. In reality they became the sex-slaves of the priests.
The upper castes did not allow others to access their babes but actively went after the women of other castes.
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM
8 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
and darker over the centuries!
How do you know it wasnt the punishing Indian sun? A couple thousand years is easily enough time for some
adaptation to happen to light skinned Indians in the south. Indigenous people in sunny areas are darker for a
reason; it protects your skin.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Its generally conceded that the Brahmins have been getting darker due to intermarriage. There are many Indians
who are still very, very White, almost as White as I am. We have Punjabis around my town and a number of times I
mistook them for European Whites. True, they look kind of Med-like, but a number of them have skin that is quite
light.
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Human nature, the sex drive and the fact that we fall in love rather indiscriminately assure that most racial purity
schemes are doomed.
I agree about sex drive particularly in men. A man that has been deprived of sex long enough will mate with just
about any female regardless of attraction. In Brazil the men preferred Portuguese women over all else but since
their was a shortage they shacked up with the natives.
I disagree that love or attraction is indiscriminate. I watched a doc on the discovery channel and they did a study
that showed that both men and women are most attracted to members of their own race.
At the university I went to (tolerant and open like most universities nowadays) the vast majority of couples and
hook ups that I saw were between members of the same race.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM
If we are overwhelmingly attracted mostly to our own race, then there should be few problems with the race-mixing
that the White nationalists deplore, no?
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 10:17 PM
They deplore any amount of race mixing over zero percent. I think white nationalists exaggerate a lot in order to try
to help their movement.
9 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
I suppose it all depends on where you live, where I live it happens but at a low rate.
Look at the Roma in Europe. Yes, they are a little mixed but dont you think they would have been completely
assimilated into Europe at large by now if we are all just bound to mix? Same goes for all those small turkic groups
in Russia.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM
The Roma as I understand have extremely strong proscriptions against marrying non-Roma. They rival the Jews in
that regard. True, some groups have been able to resist outmarrying, but they do this by imposing a thing called
Culture on their group to prevent what would be otherwise heavy outmarrying. If humans really had little tendency
to outmarry, there would be no need to impose this Culture thing with its heavy penalties and whatnot.
In short, I find the notion that we are biologically opposed to outmarrying to be rather dubious. Were this the case,
there would be no need for harsh cultural proscriptions against it.
Reply
Tom
July 31, 2009 at 8:17 AM
I dont think culture was invented to guard against out marriage.
Historically in Europe most threats to culture were from other cultures of the same race. So racial preservation was
not a big issue in that sense.
Jews are not that much different looking then Europeans and so it is debated able if they are of different racial
stock. Im not sure about the Roma.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Culture was not invented to prevent outmarriage, but culture was used to prevent outmarriage, because genetic
tendencies alone were not up to snuff for doing the job.
The Roma are different. They are from India.
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Are Dravidians dark caucasoid people? What about the semites?
I read in a magazine that one german anthropologist placed dravidians as dark caucasoids and semites as black
caucasoids ! Is there any truth to it?
Print
10 of
54to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Yes, genetically, all of the Indians are Caucasoids except for the Asians of the NE. Surely by genes the Dravidians
are dark Caucasoids. They look so different from the rest of Caucasians possibly, in my opinion, because they are a
very ancient type of Caucasian. The Semites are obviously Caucasoids, except for a few of them who have lots of
Black blood, like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
However, if you go by skulls, at least some Dravidians are Australoids like Papuans and Melanesians.
Depends on how you want to divide people up.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Those Christians might be Syrian malabar Christians or Nasrani Christians who have jewish and brahmin ancestry.
Kerala is a very interesting state where arabs, jews and even Greeks and Chinese would come to trade in the past.
However Mallus (people from Kerela speak Malayalam hence we call them mallus) are very conservative when it
comes to inter-caste marriage.
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 1:20 AM
the reason why I asked this is that I am a Semite living in the U.S and most of my south Indian friends are very
olive/light skinned(they are lighter than me) and they dont look like the typical dark dravidians you see on the slums
or villages in South India. The weird thing is that all of my south Indian friends are Christians and they are from Kerala
but they live in the U.S
The Tamils that I see in the U.S do look like the typical dark dravidians.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Sorry posted in the wrong place.
Those Christians might be Syrian malabar Christians or Nasrani Christians who have jewish and brahmin ancestry.
Kerala is a very interesting state where arabs, jews and even Greeks and Chinese would come to trade in the past.
However Mallus (people from Kerela speak Malayalam hence we call them mallus) are very conservative when it
comes to inter-caste marriage.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 7:29 AM
11 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
They really dark Dravidian types are quite poor and are unlikely to come to the US.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Yup, you are right, the U.S.A tends to get the elites and middle classes.
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 1:22 AM
But my North Indian friends that live in the U.S are quite pale.
Reply
Ger
July 29, 2009 at 1:23 AM
I get the impression that the darker South Indian Aryan types are more mathematically competent than lighter Aryan
North Indians (who may be more literature-inclined).
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Yes you are talking about the south Indian Brahmins especially the Tamil Brahmins (Tambras) who make up only
anout 3% of the population of South India. Actually the literature inclined are the Eastern Indian Bengalis (A
Bengali Brahmin called rabindranath tagore became the first non-White to get a Nobel Prize for literature in 1913!).
North Indians are predominantly businessmen.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 7:31 AM
Actually this may be due to the fact that the South Indians may be more Asian in genes and the North Indians may
be more European in genes. Europeans are good at lit but not so good at math. With Asians its the opposite, better
at math but not so good at language skills. At least on IQ tests anyway.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 8:07 AM
Asians being extremely good in maths. Does that explain why China dominates the Maths olympiad?
12 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Yes, Asians are superior at math. In particular, if you look at their IQ scores, they are skewed in that they are
superior in V-S (math) and not as good in verbal (IOW, their math scores are quite a bit higher than their verbal
scores. Their overall IQ is superior to Whites, but that is only because they are so much better in V-S.
American Indians show this same skewing in their IQs whereby their V-S is much better than their verbal. This
makes sense since they are from Asia originally.
Reply
Ger
July 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Yeah, of course Ramanujan was a Tamil Brahmin. It would be interesting analyze stats from Indian states to see which
area is best at Mathematics Olympiads etc. Im not sure what cultural traditions and pressures have led to Tamil
mathematical skills.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 7:06 AM
I do not know for sure. I had a lot of friends from that group. one of my friend claims they faced similar pressures as
Ashkenazis. In Tamil state, they are a much smaller percentage of the whole population than the percentage of
Brahmins in other states. Due to affirmative action, they (and other upper castes like Nayars) got kicked out of the
government jobs and thus moved to the private sector leading to the software boom.
In North India, Brahmins (and other upper intellectual castes like Kayasthas) are a bigger percentage of the
population and thus could not be dislodged from the government sector. The upper caste talent is stuck in the
inefficient government sector and thus the north could not see the economic boom like the south. A child in south
India dreams to become a software engineer, a child in the cow belt (northern states of bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
chhattisgarh, utter pradesh, jharkhand) dreams of joining the Indian administration service and thus become a
government employee.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 7:27 AM
BTW all brahmins are closely related. All brahmins have only 4 gotras. Gotra means descent from a famous man, a
king or rishi (sages of India like the druids of the Celts). So if your gotra is Vishwamitra, it means your fathers
descent goes all the way to the sage Vishwamitra (means friend of the world) You cannot marry someone from
your gotra because that is inbreeding and is bad. Neither can you marry someone from a different caste or jati as
that is outbreeding and is bad too.
Since all brahmins have only 4 gotras it means they are a highly related group. North Indian brahmins and South
Indian brahmins (and Bengali, Maharastrian etc brahmins) are higly related. A typical non-Brahmin caste can
have 50 gotras.
13 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Finney
July 29, 2009 at 4:00 AM
To Ramesh- nope, they werent Syro Malabar or Nasrani Christians..
They were ALL roman catholic or simply catholics Christians and most of my roman catholic christian friends were
lighter than me
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 6:58 AM
Some of those of Syrian Malabar ancestry have gone to the Roman catholic side. I know few of them who have
joined Catholic, other Protestant, Mormons and Orthodox churches. Fair people are not impossible in the south.
This lady in the video is a tamil brahmin.
Her popular name is Hema Malini.

Reply
whodareswings
July 29, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Old Hindutva proverb Dont come to India for the drugs and yogis if youve never heard of Koenraad Elst.
Most Tamil nationalists have been spoonfed a particular version of the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT). In general, the
AIT claims that the Indo-Aryan (and Kafiri and Proto-Bangani) branches of the Indo-European language family were
brought into South Asia from the northwest. The Tamil nationalist variety claims moreover that the speakers of
Indo-Aryan languages including Sanskrit subdued and displaced the original population of the Indus-Saraswati
Civilization (ISC), and that the latter consisted of speakers of Dravidian, the language family of which Tamil is the
best-known member. There is in fact no proof for this Aryan invasion nor for the Dravidian character of the ISC
(which even pro-AIT scholars now deny), but this lack of proof is amply compensated for by the intensity of the theorys
Print
14 of
07-07-2014 15:43
political exploitation.
In Lanka, in the Tamil Tigers understanding, the Aryan-Dravidian confrontation of about 4,000 years ago is now being
re-enacted. The Indo-Aryan-speaking Sinhalese Buddhists have tried, since independence, to impose their language on
the whole country, trampling on the distinct identity of the Tamil minority. They managed to get Indias Prime Minister
Indira Gandhis co-operation for the repatriation of those Tamils whose parents had been settled in Lanka during
British rule. They tried to suppress the Tamil attempt to preserve their identity and freedom by setting up an
independent Tamil Eelam. And now they are militarily overrunning and dismantling that de facto Tamil state.
Contrary to international perception, this is not primarily a religious war. The Sinhalese resented the Tamil
overrepresentation in the civil service and the professions that had developed under colonial rule. Along with the
Indian Muslims, the Sikhs and particular Christian groups, the Tamils were the spoiled children of the British empire.
In the British scheme of the racial characteristics of their subject nations, the Buddhists in Lanka and Burma counted
as indolent, the Tamils as hard-working. Therefore, they transferred Tamil labour to Lanka and Burma, whence the
immigrants were again expelled in the 1960s, as well as to Malaysia, where they eke out a meagre existence as
dhimmi-s, and Singapore, where they thrive. Ethnic envy and mistrust is sufficient to explain the genesis of the TamilSinhalese conflict. The key event in its escalatioon was the declaration of Sinhalese as only national language.
more: http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/01/lanka-aryan-invasion-at-last.html
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
The Hindutvas are inveterate liars and Est is one of their most shameless shills. The Hindutvas hate the Aryan
Invasion theory because it makes high castes and Hindus out to be bad guys. Supposedly White folks from the West
came into India, subjugated the peace-loving native peoples, destroyed their loving religion and imposed evil
casteist Hinduism on them. This is the Dalit and South Indian meme.
Its easy to see why Hindus and high castes dislike a theory that makes them and their religion out to be bad guys
and a bad thing, but its probably true.
If you hear someone arguing strenuously against the Aryan Invasion theory, they are usually a high caste and a
Hindutva sympathizer (actually, almost all Brahmins are Hindutva sympathizers).
Reply
Pepperoncini
March 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Old thread but I saw the link on the right and clicked it.
Thanks Robert for not pussy footin around when it comes to criticism of Hindutva lies. Too many people try too
bloody hard to be diplomatic when speaking about current and past events.
Elst is a hindutva fellow traverller. Ditto for Frawley and Kazanas and all the other Westerners who support
Hindutva lies.
Nothing unusual that some Westerners will support Hindutva. a) due to outright hatred of Muslims and b) it
furthers Indo-European supremacy by abrogating the IVC for Indo-European culture.
In the colonial era, the West had a love affair with Indo-Aryan India, believing that Aryans were the civilizers
and creaters of everything and the non Aryans were savages. This view was in no small part aided by Brahmins.
But according to a Western history book I owned, there were some Westerners who cautioned against viewing
Print
15 of
07-07-2014 15:43
the non Aryans as culturally and technologically inferior . What really demolished this myth of Aryan culture as
civilizers was the discovery of IVC. Suddenly the Brahmin and other Hindu elite saw their cherished position as
civlizers/superior come crashing down. The truth started to come out, i.e. that far from Aryans being the
civilizers and non Aryans being the savages, the opposite was the truth.
BTW, If anyone refers to the Indus Valley Civilization as Indus Saraswati or Saraswati Sindhu or some version
which includes the name Saraswati, then they are Hindutva. Real academics and historians only call it IVC or
Harappan.
Thankfully there are Western academics and atleast 2 Indian ones I know of who oppose the Hindutva
rewritting of History.
Simply put, if you want to know about Indian history, read Western academics. Indians (and this is true for a lot
of Asia) are too racially/ethnically biased to make good historians. If Western Civ ends up being relegated to
inferior status by various Asian cultures, there will be a notable deteriation if not outright destruction of honest
scholarship (as it pertains to History,Culture, Religion,Language).
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Actually, almost all Brahmins are Hindutva sympathizers.
110% correct.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Ironically the Brahmins and Jain merchants were the engine of the anti-British congress party. The upper castes
who themselves came many years ago as invaders found the new invaders (the British) as competitors. The British
had banned certain Hindu practices like Sati, the devdasi system (where old senile Brahmin priests romped with
lower caste teenager babes), child marriage etc When some 11 years old girls died in Bombay province due to child
marriage, the British administration increased the marriageable age to 16. This pissed off Brahmin leaders like
lokmanya tilak. The industrial revolution introduced by the British made the feudal caste system obsolete in
function. A lower caste guy could go to college and become a barister or an engineer. One such lower caste person
Mr. Ambedkar became a barrister and designed the Indian constitution. Mr. Ambedkar is like a god to dalits and
lower castes. Earlier, in Hindu times, if a lower caste person was caught reading the vedas he was badly punished for
it (something like pouring molten silver in the ears for just hearing the slokas (Vedic hymns) being chanted).
Ironically the British rule was good for the Brahmins (and all Hindus) as it stopped Islamic oppression. And more
irony of all that is that lower caste leaders like Jyotiba Phule (http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Jyotirao_Phule)considered the British as benevolent. It is like the super exploited (lower castes) preferred
the big exploiter (British) to keep the smaller exploiters (upper castes) in check as the smaller exploiter was closer to
home.
This book by Jyotiba Phule is a must read
http://defeatpoverty.com/articles/Slavery%20Book/Slavery%20%20Intro.pdf
http://defeatpoverty.com/articles/Slavery%20Book/Slavery%20%20Preface.pdf
http://defeatpoverty.com/articles/Slavery%20Book/Slavery%20%20Part%201.pdf
Print
16 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
whodareswings
July 29, 2009 at 8:23 AM
A great book about the Great Book
The new book by Shrikant Talageri, claiming to present the final evidence on the Indo-European Homeland question,
goes a long way indeed in disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and establishing India as the land of origin of the
migrations that spread the Indo-European language family over half of the Eurasian continent, from Bengal to Portugal
and from Lanka to Norway.
The kinship between the languages spoken by most Indians and by most Europeans, jointly known as the
Indo-European (IE) language family, is usually explained through the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). The AIT holds that
in the mid-second millennium BC, a group of immigrants brought the Indo-Aryan branch of IE from Russia through
Central Asia into India and then imparted it to the natives. Alternatively, the Out-of-India Theory (OIT) holds that the
common homeland of IE was in India, whence some groups emigrated to Central and West Asia and Europe, where
their dialects mingled with local languages to become Greek, Slavic, Germanic, etc. Recent attempts to give a convincing
formulation to the OIT and buttress it with evidence were still clumsy or fragmentary, but now, the OIT has come of age
with Shrikant Talageris book: The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Evidence (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi).
more:
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-book-about-great-book.html
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM
Koenraad Elst is a great big liar. Hes a shill for Hindutva fascists, who are notorious liars. The IE out of India theory
is probably wrong. The homeland of the IE speakers was in an area from SE Ukraine east to S Kazakhstan and north
to the Lower Volga. Basically, between the Caspian and Black Seas north of the Caucasus.
In order for this theory to be correct, the oldest IE branches would be in India. They are not. They are in Anatolia.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
One major reason why Brahmins do not support the AIT is because this gives ammunition to lower caste activists
and revolutionaries (and Afrocentrists who are never taken seriously by anybody here) who can accuse the
Brahmins of being foreign exploiters. If the AIT is wrong then they are only native exploiters which is much better.
But this is rubbish; Brahmins today are as Indian as any. There has been too much interbreeding to say that
Brahmins are foreigners. Many lower caste people have the invader genes and nearly all Brahmins have local
genes. The Aryans were the conquistadors of India. It is like dark skinned mestizos telling todays more white
looking mestizos to leave Mexico because they are foreigners. Absurd.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
17 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
July 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM

This makes good sense, Ramesh.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I have never seen this but have heard that in Tamil Nadu state you see grafiti like Brahmins go home. Where are
they supposed to go? Iran? Ukraine? Russia? wtf. Maybe we should all go back to Africa. Then we should all go back
to the oceans where we originally came from. Brahmins have nowhere to go but stay in India.
Anyways most Brahmins (and other upper and middle castes) are leaving for the U.S.A anyways as they cannot
stand the indian style affirmative action. The cream of India are leaving for the U.S.A and the U.K. But you need not
feel sorry for them as deep inside most upper caste people (I am upper caste but not brahmin) have a belief in their
own superiority with respect to the lower castes (and probabaly the whole world).
Reply
DeadCult
July 29, 2009 at 8:34 AM
Bamshads 2001 study was refuted in 2006 here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full?ck=nck
What do you think of this?
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Ironically the Brahmins and Jain merchants were the engine of the anti-British congress party. The upper castes who
themselves came many years ago as invaders found the new invaders (the British) as competitors. The British had
banned certain Hindu practices like Sati, the devdasi system (where old senile Brahmin priests romped with lower caste
teenager babes), child marriage etc When some 11 years old girls died in Bombay province due to child marriage, the
British administration increased the marriageable age to 16. This pissed off Brahmin leaders like lokmanya tilak. The
industrial revolution introduced by the British made the feudal caste system obsolete in function. A lower caste guy
could go to college and become a barister or an engineer. One such lower caste person Mr. Ambedkar became a barrister
and designed the Indian constitution. Mr. Ambedkar is like a god to dalits and lower castes. Earlier, in Hindu times, if a
lower caste person was caught reading the vedas he was badly punished for it (something like pouring molten silver in
the ears for just hearing the slokas (Vedic hymns) being chanted). Ironically the British rule was good for the Brahmins
(and all Hindus) as it stopped Islamic oppression. And more irony of all that is that lower caste leaders like Jyotiba
Phule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyotirao_Phule)considered the British as benevolent. It is like the super exploited
(lower castes) preferred the big exploiter (British) to keep the smaller exploiters (upper castes) in check as the smaller
exploiter was closer to home.
Reply
18 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Yes, I always thought this. I told this to a Brahmin I know who supports the Hindutvas and he was outraged and
furious and refused to believe it. As a general rule, the Brahmins that I know, really, really, really HATE the British
and British colonization. They refuse to see any good at all to come out of it. Most of them recite this line about how
India was the leader of the whole world until they got colonized by the Brits, and how colonization reduced them to
3rd world status.
They are also often VERY hostile to Whites, which is a reflection of their rage at being colonized. The rage is all
about these Europeans coming in, telling them their civilization was inferior and trying to enlighten them.
I recall that in the 1800s at one point the British just chucked a lot of Indian science because so much of it was just
flat out wrong and even violated modern scientific principles that are not controversial. They redid the science
curriculum and brought in all British science texts with the latest European science state of the knowledge.
The Brahmins are to this day FURIOUS about this affront to their glorious Indian science which sadly had gotten
some stuff all wrong.
The practice of suttee is denied and caste is glossed over or they just refuse to discuss it. Most of them support it to
one degree or another. Others simply say that caste is dead in India and is not an issue anymore. The only issue is
reverse discrimination against Brahmins!
One guy denounces all of Western medicine as garbage and even refuses to go to hospitals where it is practiced
because he feels so insulted that Western medicine has supplanted his Ayurvedic stuff. I dont know about
Ayurvedic, there may be something to it, but I would not toss Western medicine.
Whats going on is simple. These guys feel humiliated. We came in and replaced their science and medicine with
more modernized principles and that was so humiliating that they refuse to accept it.
None of these guys will admit to being Hindutvas either, and one says he hates them. But when you talk to them,
they keep repeating these same Hindutva talking points over and over.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Ayurveda has some effective stuff but no, it cannot western medicine, that is for sure. I know people who have been
cured by Ayurveda. One guy I know got rid of his stammering through Ayurveda. But on the other hand I know of
idiots (always Brahmins) who would have nothing to do with western medicine (only our great Ayurveda for me)
only to reach a critical stage in some disease and it is western science (usually an operation) which saves them.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Print
19 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM
And also these chapters
Reply
Juliette
July 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I dont think Brahmins are becoming dark skinned..
In the beginning of the video, you can see a South Indian Brahmin lady and she is quite pale.
(Just ignore the language they are speaking because its from some south indian movie)..
Reply
WS
Print
20 of
07-07-2014 15:43
July 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

RL:So the Dalits say that these Aryans (White folks) invaded down from the steppes to the north and west (possibly
Tajikistan or around Iran) and conquered a large part of India.
Tajikistan/Iran is much too far east and south to be the origin of the Aryans, I think.
I think it more likely that the Aryans invaded the area thats now NW India/Pakistan slowly and incrementally from
places as far north and west as what is now northwestern Ukraine or even from areas closer to the central and eastern
Baltic Sea.
Note that mtDNA Haplogroup T shows up in decent amounts among high-caste (i.e., Whiter) Indians and Pakistanis,
and mtDNA-HG-T is also still found in Europe Haplogroup T is thought to have originated in Mesopotamia/the
Fertile Crescent approximately 10,000-12,000 years ago, and then moved northwest into Europe and east as far as
modern Pakistan and India Haplogroup T is currently found with high concentrations around the eastern Baltic Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_(mtDNA)
Reply
artritico
July 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
The Aryan invasion was not straight from the IE homeland. First an IE group migrated into Central Asia and
evolved into Aryans. Then a group of Aryans invaded India, while others went all over the Middle East (these were
the Mittani, who were Indic in language according with what was attested).
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM
That makes a lot of sense. Haplogroup T originated in Iraq 11,000 years ago and moved east to northern Pakistan
and India. This must be the Aryan invasion thing. The same group then moved northwest into Europe and ended
up in high amounts around the Baltics. After 11,000 years, we would not expect much similarity to be left and
indeed Latvians look much different from Punjabis.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM
The Aryan invasion was not straight from the IE homeland. First an IE group migrated into Central Asia and
evolved into Aryans.
The IE homeland being in southern Russia north of the Caucasus 8000 years ago, a group split off maybe 6000
YBP. These were the Indo-Iranians. Now we need to locate the homeland of the proto-Indo-Iranians.
Then a group of Aryans invaded India,
Ok, this group left the Indo-Iranian homeland and west east to India. This makes sense.
while others went all over the Middle East (these were the Mittani, who were Indic in language according with what
was attested).
21 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
This is very interesting. I have never heard of these people. Yours is one of the best analyses yet, but it figures, as
youre one of the best commenters!
Reply
WS
July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Remesh:Anyways most Brahmins (and other upper and middle castes) are leaving for the U.S.A anyways as they
cannot stand the indian style affirmative action. The cream of India are leaving for the U.S.A and the U.K.
Thats REAL bad news Rameshjust more evidence showing that extremely multiracial/multiethnic nations are utter
FAILURES.
As the cream or best people of India continue to abandon the country for the USA, UK, or other White nations, the
country will of course just get even worse as the low-caste morons continue to take over. Dont you intelligent Indians
have any sense of nationalism or social responsibility toward your fellow Indians, even if they are low-caste? Why are
so many of you high-castes cowardly abandoning the Indian nation when you are of course the people most capable of
fixing it? Dont you realize that as more and more of you elite high-caste Indians keep leaving (AKA ABANDONING)
the country it will of course just keep getting even worse as the idiotic lower-castes keep taking over everything and
thus ruining it further?
Reply
artritico
July 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Errrr.the lower cast morons are the people responsible for Harappan civilization
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM
WS is a White nationalist. He really doesnt care about people abandoning their country. Hes just against Indians,
who he considers to be non-Whites, immigrating to the US, because he thinks that only European Whites should
be able to come to the US.
Thats REAL bad news Rameshjust more evidence showing that extremely multiracial/multiethnic nations are
utter FAILURES.
The problem with this theory is that all Indians are pretty much just one race. The ones in the North, the ones in the
South, its really all one group. Theres about as much variation among them as there is among Europeans. The
castes are like classes.
Your analysis is like saying that East Coast Brahmins like Pappy Bush and Arkansas White Trash are two different
races. They are not. They are different classes in the same race. One is upper class and another is lower class. Caste
is pretty much just the same its a class distinction rather than a racial one.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
Print
22 of
07-07-2014 15:43
July 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Yes, the Harappan civilization was probably a Dravidian one.
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I guess it it simple as one can make more money in America and life is quite good. The USA is over all a much
friendlier nation than say Japan which is rich too. English is the language spoken in the U.S.A so that helps.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM
I love these Punjabi Sikhs here who live near me. I wish all immigrants to the US were as good as these people. They
are a model immigrant group.
Reply
Ramesh
July 30, 2009 at 6:26 AM
Actually Sikhs would make one of the best migrants from India. They get along well with westerners even though
they are patriotic towards India. I guess one reason of this is they are small in numbers for a religion of about 20
million followed by 100s of millions of Hindus and Muslims. During the 1847 mutiny, the Sikhs supported to the
British East India Company against the others. The muslims are aggressive while Hindus are snobs. The Brits were
atleast neutral outsiders. They fought the Brits like lions but once conquered they stuck to them (same with the
Gurkhas). Indeed Sikhism came out as a reaction to Islam. Non-muslims or dimmis were forced to have shorter
beards than Muslims. So they have big beards, indeed men never cut their hair. Dimmis could not carry weapons
only, muslims could thus Sikhs are told by their religion to carry the sharp bomerang disk weapon in defiance.
Muslims ate halal, Sikhs are prohibited from eating halal (and kosher too).
Most of the jokes in India are made on Sikhs as they have a reputaion of being stupid but more honest and brave.
Personally I believe they one of the best people in India.
I think you can say the same thing about the mongoloid Nepali Gurkhas (there are many Gurkhas in India as well).
They are just like Sikhs in everything (brave, honest, friendly) except that they are shorter. Indeed even the British
National Party in the U.K do not mind immigration of Gurkhas and supported them recently for their right to stay in
the U.K!
Reply
Ramesh
July 30, 2009 at 6:32 AM
Besides Sikhs on average tend to have stronger Caucasian features and are taller than average in India.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=Sikhs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Hindus have a reputation of being sneaky short dark cowards among both Muslims and Sikhs but Sikhs always side
with hindus against muslims.
Print
23 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Ramesh
July 30, 2009 at 6:38 AM
This will give you an idea of how small a group they are in the subcontinent.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Sikhs_buddhists_jains_percent1909.jpg
Reply
Metal Gear
July 29, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I dont believe in the aryan invasion theory.
I believe South Asians crossed the mountain ranges by Iraq in ancient times.
Reply
Sitara
July 29, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Why do some South Indian brahmins look kinda asian?
I saw this video posted by Juliette and that Brahmin lady at the beginning of the video looks kinda asian..
I also have a South Indian brahmin friend here in the U.S and she also looks kinda asian and she is quite pale. Besides,
I am North Indian.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Those light-skinned North Indians often show around 15% Asian genes on genetics tests. I think the Asian genes
Print
24 of
07-07-2014 15:43
are something like Kazakh, Tajik, Uzbek, Tibetan or something like that from the southeastern range of the
Mongoloids on the steppes. You can see it in their eyes a lot of the time. North Indians sometimes have a bit of an
Asian type eye fold, but not much.
Your average East Indian shows around 10% Asian or Mongoloid genes.
Reply
Sitara
July 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM
But, that lady in the video is South Indian. I guess she is a Kerala Brahmin or a Tamil Brahmin. I searched her on
wikipedia.
Reply
DK
July 29, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I enjoyed this post tremendously. Did Ambedkar create the Aryan invasion theory in whole or part, or did he just
promote it heavily?
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Nobody created the theory. Various researchers came to the comclusion independently
Reply
Ramesh
July 29, 2009 at 10:17 PM
There are two facts I know which support the invasion theory.
The first is Somaruss. Soma is a medicianl herb and it was fermented to make Somaruss, a drink. The Vedas dedicate
several poems in praise of this Somaruss. The early Aryans seemed to enjoy it. However if I am not mistaken, Somaruss
never grows in India but in Central Asia with Afghanistan being the southernmost point where Soma is found.
The second is the word for the tribals in the North Indian languages. It is adivasi. If you analyse the roots of this word,
adi means before or earlier while vasi means to someone who lives in a place. So the translation is someone who lived
here before us in other words aboriginal.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 29, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Yes, I think they came from Central Asia. The Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was probably somewhere in Central
Asia.
Print
25 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Thats some good evidence there.

Reply
Garcia
July 30, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Based on my observation, Indian people look mixed with European and Asian because I notice some Mexicans who are
mixed with Red Indians (American Indian) and Spanish look similar to the Indians in my workplace.
Mexicans(that are mixed with native american and spanish) and Indians look very much alike.
Reply
Tom
July 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM
There is a whole range of what Indian people look like. The Indians that you work with may not at all be
representative of the country and all its castes as a whole.
Reply
Garcia
July 30, 2009 at 2:31 AM
but the brown skin tone of some Indians can be attributed to the fact that India is close to the equator and hot climate.
One of my friends have been to India and he said India is scorching hot. When he got back to the US after his visit in
India, he was like 3 shades darker than his original skin tone.
According to my observation, Indians have caucasian facial structures and most of the Indians I have seen very deep set
big eyes and prominent noses.
Reply
fx
July 30, 2009 at 6:46 AM
Robert Lindsay : Yes, I think they came from Central Asia. The Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was probably
somewhere in Central Asia.
Well, recently, there has been more info that stregthens the Kurgan theory.
Im thinking of this : http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/fulltext.pdf
Its to be noted that peoples with the kind of phenotypes described in the study are found through the whole part of
Asia where indo-european languages have been or were.
Reply
artritico
July 30, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Print
26 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Kurgan doesnt rule out a Central Asian homeland for Indo-Iranian, rather implies it
Reply
cursed
July 30, 2009 at 6:48 AM
A pleasurable tour de force of the sub continent.
Reply
Cassandra
July 30, 2009 at 6:54 AM
I think that Low caste Dravidians are not pure dravidians. They are obviously mixed with australoids.
The middle class and upper class dravidians are the pure dravidians since they have the round face, prominent nose,
deep set eyes and everything. I read that the dravidians are known as dark caucasoids but they can come in different
shades.
These are pics of Low caste, Middle caste and High caste dravidians.
Low caste Dravidian: http://media.photobucket.com/image/low%20caste/hazarika/bhaisahab/tri.jpg
Middle class Dravidian: http://www.sajaforum.org/images/anil_with_hat.jpg
High class Dravidian: http://photomoto.cn/images.php/i132_AishwaryaRai30.JPG
If you compare low caste dravidians to australoids, they have the same nose, facial structure etc.
Picture of an australoid: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/070507-aboriginesdna_big.jpg
But if you compare middle and upper class dravidians, they have the same round facial structures, same nose, lips, eyes
etc.
So, I think that the middle and upper caste dravidians are the pure dravidians.
Low caste dravidians are obviously mixed with australoids. So, they lack caucasoid facial structures, lips, nose etc.
In case of aryans(North Indians), they all look the same regardless of caste.
Reply
Cassandra
July 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Upper and Middle class dravidians have caucasoid facial structures, lips, eyes and nose but the Low caste dravidians
look very much like australoids.
Reply
Print
27 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Cassandra
July 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Here are some other pics of low caste, Middle class and upper class dravidians..
Low caste dravidian: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/caste_woman.jpg
Middle caste dravidian: http://www.simplymarry.com/timesmatri/faces/images/telugu_girl.jpg
High caste dravidian(Brahmin): http://justonbollywood.com/images/deepika-padukone-lima.jpg
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Higher the caste, on average lighter the skin and sharper the nose.
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 6:39 AM
This is a very good book on India, indeed it is a gem. It is the Imperial Gazeteer of India written under the British India
government. No one studied India in such detail as the British Imperial administration.
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/
In that check out this
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?volume=1&objectid=DS405.1.I34_V01_313.gif
and this
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V01_477.gif
(Do not forget to go to the next page by clicking the arrows.)
Very interesting read.
Reply
Aryan
July 31, 2009 at 7:57 AM
What do you mean by Mediterranean?
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/India-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html
According to the link above, it says that the dark complexioned dravidians in the South are a mix of mediterranean
caucasians and australoids..
What does Mediterranean caucasian mean? Where do they come from?
Thanks !
Print
28 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Traditionally, the Northern Aryan types were seen as a type of the Mediterranean race, a subrace of Caucasians
traditionally including Southern Europeans, Berbers and Arabs. I think it is a reach to include Indians in that group
and I dont agree with Aryans as Meds. Clearly they are Caucasians though.
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 8:45 AM
What is strange is that many Mongoloid- Cucasoids look like north Indians.
Many north Indians look like Cucasoids with a slight mongoloid touch with very less Australoid.
Check these Uyghur pop babes from China. They are a mix of Caucasians (Persians, extinct Tocharans, Russians) and
Mongoloids. The girl in green and the girl in red can pass as north Indians easy. Indeed I have seen north Indian girls
who look like these two. Hell, the girl in red could even pass as a upper caste South Indian. The girl in blue is too
Mongoloid and will pass as the mongoloid Indians like Ladhakis.
Ironically these Uyghurs are closely related to the Mughals who ruled India for about 500 years before the British. The
Mughal culture of India was just Uyghur-Mongol culture transplanted to India.
Check the Pakistani cricket legend Imran Khan
http://www.topnews.in/files/KHAN_narrowweb__300x384,0.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/sports/files/Imran-Khan53.jpg
North Indians are more similar to Pakistanis than they are to South Indians. Similarly Indian Bengalis are more similar
to Bangladeshis than they are to other Indians. Just like how the Flemish of Belgium are more similar to the Dutch
than they are to the Belgiun Waloons.
And check out the Indian beauty legend and queen of Jaipur, Gayatri Devi
http://lifestyle.indianetzone.com/fashion/images/Fashion_001.jpg
Print
29 of
07-07-2014 15:43
She has a combo of Caucasian and Mongoloid features.

Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 8:52 AM
If the Aryans did originally come from Northern Kazakhstan, it should not be so surprising that they have some
Mongoloid features. I have seen studies showing that N Indians have 15% Mongoloid genes.
Reply
Aryan
July 31, 2009 at 9:00 AM
the girl in red looks like this middle caste South Indian girl from Kerala:
http://www.masala.com/images/tmp/thumb/272ahmdxbdiary_1_thumb.jpg
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Yup, aryan that is true. If you picture that red dressed girl in a traditional south Indian dress walking in a street in
Madhurai, she would just fit in and everybody would guess she is brahmin from her looks.
If that girl in green were to wear a Punjabi dress (salwar kameez) and were to walk the streets of Amritsar she would
just fit in. Nobody would guess that she is not a punjabi.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Even more than that, I would say that that Kerala mid caste woman looks like a European! I look at her and I
wonder how some of these idiots can say that Indians are not White. Some Indians at least on phenotype are very
much White people.
I consider White to mean at the very least someone who has a broadly European like phenotype. That includes
White Turks, Armenians, Azeris, Iranians, Georgians, the Caucasus, White Arabs, White Berbers, Pashtuns, and
White North Pakistanis and Northeast Afghans, including the Kalash.
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Talking of Tocharians, they were a Aryan tribe speaking a Indo-European language (Most European languages,
Persian, Dari, North Indian languages including Sanskrit and Sinhalese belong to this group.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians
I am sure they were related to the Aryans who came to India fro Persia. Recently they found mummies of Tocharians in
Print
30 of
07-07-2014 15:43
the Tarim basin of China.

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-1362674044731979808&ei=Qy9mSr_dC52G2wL83eg0&
q=tarim+mummies&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1374891.php
/National_Geographic_presents_the_blue-eyed_blonde_Chinese_mummies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies
http://www.therightperspective.org/2008/11/29/2700-year-old-blond-haired-blue-eyed-mummy-found-in-china/
Some say that the Uyghurs got their Caucasian looks from these Tocharians who were overwhelmed by Mongoloid
peoples later forming the Uyghurs.
Since most Indo-Aryans burned their bodies, there was very little trace of them. Except these.
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Anyway you guys have to agree, in some ways atleast my country is one of the most interesting in the world.
Reply
Aryan
July 31, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Hey, Ramesh. Are you North or South Indian?
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I am a Northie (Mathur). My ancestors came from Mathura in North India as my surname suggests.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Yes, I almost dont even want to get into studying India too much because it is a whole universe in and of itself and
my brain is already full of enough information.
BTW Ramesh, welcome to the blog! And thx for being on good behavior here. Some Indians (Hindutvas) have not
been so helpful. Youre one of my best commenters right now.
Reply
Ramesh
July 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Thanks, and this is a great blog. I have learnt a lot here.
Reply
31 ofPrint
07-07-2014 15:43
Aryan
July 31, 2009 at 9:45 AM
There are brown skinned middle caste South Indians(Kerala) too like this one:
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v213/151/110/1556340105/n1556340105_30014662_648.jpg
but their facial structures tend to very caucasian looking..
Another pic of a middle caste South Indian: http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v199/95/102/503298347
/n503298347_433608_4994.jpg
Higher caste South Indians tend to be lighter like this lady: http://wallpapers.oneindia.in/d/163988-3/asin05.jpg
That high caste Kerala lady is a Syrian Christian and Syrian christians are upper caste Christians in Kerala.
About 93% of Kerala Christians are Syrian Christians..
the rest 7% Christians in Kerala are the dalits aka untocuhables.
Reply
Anonymous
August 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM
yeah, those brown skinned middle caste south Indians do have caucasoid facial features.
I knew that 93% of Keralites are Syrian christians..
The Christians in kerala are really light skinned and they have caucasian facial features like that lady above.
Syrian christians are upper class christians.
Reply
Aryan
July 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM
This lady from Karnataka also looks very european/middle eastern. She is a Kshatriya(high caste):
http://xxfactor.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/c56540aishwarya-rai-posters.jpg
This lady from Kerala looks very Turkish/Iranian looking.
http://img229.imageshack.us/i/20051209004sm6.jpg/
Reply
Shaniqua
July 31, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Is long nose a Caucasoid trait? Because I have seen many Indians/Pakistanis/Middle easterners with long noses and its
very prominent at the tip..
Print
32 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Robert Lindsay
July 31, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Yes, a long nose is very Caucasian. No other race has it, I dont think.
Reply
Shaniqua
August 1, 2009 at 2:39 AM
I thought Indians were black. I am african american and I am not an afrocentrist
If Indians are caucasian, Why do Indians have negroid facial features?
Here are some pics of Indians with negroid facial features.
http://bollywoodbuzz.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bipsss.jpg
http://thehindimusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/amritarao.jpg
http://bzupages.com/attachments/3313d1232595244-mix-indian-girls-2-.jpg
http://i.peperonity.com/c/1E3C31/670294/ssc3/home/067/sanj4u
/146912225.jpg_320_320_0_9223372036854775000_0_1_0.jpg
http://fashioninsider.us/dat/atlantanow/Photo_7_69de481b495f393d622be743778f7dbc.JPG
http://lh5.ggpht.com/callravi/R12ahjl9hLI/AAAAAAAAExI/0raAb5sYp9s/kareena.jpg
http://www.cafeboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/shriya-saran.JPG
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3445584188_84b87b6e7b.jpg
Just admit it.. Indians are BLACK.. Israelis, Egyptians, Celts, Romanians, Filipinos are BLACK..
No one can deny it !
Reply
Robert Lindsay
Look Shaniqua, if you cant settle down, Im going to have to ban you, ok?
Romanians are a largely Mediterranean White type related to the Dacians. The ancient Romans were a Romanian
group.
Reply
Shaniqua
Print
33 of
07-07-2014 15:43
If Indians are caucasians, Why do Indians have negroid facial structures?

Look at these Indian ladies. See for yourself.
http://bollywoodbuzz.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bipsss.jpg
http://itcoll.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/shreya-saran4.jpg
These South Indian women have the big booties and everything just because they are BLACK !
Israelis, Egyptians, Celts, Filipinos are ALL BLACK.
Reply
alpha unit
What is negroid about these womens facial features?
Reply
Ramesh
According to this afrocentrinut, she
and this women belong to the same race.
http://www.awapinc.org/images/mPic001.jpg
Need I say more. LOL.
I know we are not White, I never claimed we were but we definitely are not black.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
I think a lot of Indians really ARE White. The ones that have a very European looking phenotype are for all intents
and purposes White folks.
Reply
Emma
Caucasians and white are 2 different things..
Whites are from europe..
Caucasians are Middle easterners, North africans, Indians/pakistanis, Central asians and Europeans
Print
34 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Shaniqua
See other pics of South Indian women:
http://www.cafeboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anushka-cafeboys-06.jpg
http://nowrunning.com/wallpapers/main/Shobhana_1_800x600.jpg
http://www.koodal.com/cinema/gallery/actress/tamanna/tamanna_40_49200911055123.jpg
Reply
Shaniqua
North Indian women are BLACK too. they also have negroid facial structures and lips.
http://zalmoxis.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/karishma-kapoor.jpg
http://img1.moneycontrol.com/images/entitygame/big/Riya_Sen_300.jpg
http://www.withfriendship.com/user/images/487/madhuri.jpg
if Indians are not black, How come they have thick lips?
Reply
Robert Lindsay
No need to deal with Afrocentric crap on here, but
Black, or African, is defined by either:
a. genes
b. phenotype (skull).
The only Blacks on Earth are native to Africa. There are a few elsewhere but they only moved there in the last 500
years. There are some Black types or mixed types in Arabia.
Israelis, Egyptians, Celts, Filipinos
Israelis are White. Jews are White, either European, Berberid, Armenid, Caucasid, Iranid or Arabid types
(Caucasian). The only Black Jews are Ethiopians.
Most Egyptians are mostly White and only 9% Black. 9% doesnt count. There are some Egyptians that are more
Black but they are not the majority. Even those are only about 50% Black.
Celts are Whites from Northern Europe, Keltids.
Filipinos are Asians by genes and phenotype.
Print
35 of
07-07-2014 15:43
No humans in India are Black. There are no Black genes in India and no Indians have mostly Black genes. Further,
no Indians are Black on phenotype. This gets confusing because Indian Australoids appear similar to Blacks, but
the Australoid and African races have different phenotypes and genes. Australoids have large lips like Blacks and
have other features that superficially appear Black.
Thats the end of the discussion on this, Shaniqua. If you cant accept it and keep on posting, I am going to ban you.
Thanks.
Reply
Dinesh
Not sure if this page is still active but let me add a quick note here. Shaniquas claim has a bit of truth in it
though her intent and the proof seem quite misplaced.
Indians do have a small extent of black blood. There are both pure blooded blacks in India and mixed blooded
ones . Blacks made by at least one route, east Africa Middle-east- Western India route. The other plausible
one is probably before India separated from the African land mass. Pure blooded Africans in Andaman islands
are the prime example for this. Gujrat till date has pure blooded Africans whose customs and culture are a
mixture of surrounding practices and those that they brought with them but are racially African. The result of
black admixture with dravidians is visible in south. In fact I have a lower caste India friend who very much looks
like a light skinned African with afro hair, thick lips and round nose with thick bridge. See the links below with
pics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/africa_india0s_african_communities/html/1.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1077982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1035389.stm
Reply
Ramesh
Genetically Indians are very distant to black people. We are closer to Europeans and other Asians from East Asia
and Middle East.
I believe black people want to claim us because by doing this they can also claim our civilization. The fact is
afrocentrists have a dilemma, Africans far away from the Northern parts were savages until the 1850s. See,
Afrocentrists hardly write about the yaruba or hutus. They write about Egypt, India, China and even the Vikings! All
of them have nothing to do with blacks. They never discuss about sub-saharan africa much because they want to
cover up the painful and unpleasant fact that all the people there were savages. They are the most embarrassed
about their own ancestors. They could have promoted some of the good things that came out of sub-saharan Africa
(like African wisdom etc). But no it has to be about Egypt or Hannibal. So how do a people with such poor history
take on Whitey who have invented the modern world and have a rich heritage? Claim other civilizations as their
own.
Or blacks deep inside hate the fact that they are born black and take it as a curse. According to them, if we suffer
from the disadvantage (I so wish I was white) of being born black then why should others escape from this disease.
The way to cure this disease of afrocentrism is improving the self esteem of blacks. But I think it is an impossible
task.
Print
36 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Robert Lindsay
Blacks do not have a problem with self-esteem in general. They have higher self-esteem than Whites. That includes
both males and females. I think this is due to greater extroversion in Blacks since extroversion leads to higher
self-esteem and introversion leads to lower self-esteem in general.
I really doubt that Blacks deep down inside hate themselves. Afrocentrism for sure is a way for Blacks to promote
self-esteem among Blacks and a positive history.
Its true that Sub Saharan Africa did not accomplish much, but they were some of the first humans to develop
agriculture and later they developed full array agriculture with plantations, surplus, animal husbandry, etc. Africans
had agriculture way before Whites did.
Keep in mind that Sub Saharan Africans were smelting iron far before most Whites were. SSAs were some of the
first people on Earth to smelt iron.
In short, while SSAs did not achieve a high civilizational level, its wrong to call them savages. I dont like the term,
but really it means hunter gatherers. Think Amerindians.
Afrocentrism is ridiculous. US Blacks today are a very advanced people. Blacks ought to build on that and move on.
Reply
WP
Great points above Ramesh.
I maintain that chattel slavery was actually mostly good for Sub-Saharan Blacks because it allowed them to spread
out and scatter their genes all across the New World (Western hemisphere), whereas if Black slavery would have
never happened they wouldve never moved beyond their Sub-Saharan habitat. I dont even think that Sub-Saharan
Blacks made it over to Madagascar before various seafaring Asiatic groups did even though it is a huge island not far
off the coast of Africa. Frankly, thats pathetic.
If Blacks would have never been enslaved, they would have of course continued to languish in utter barbarism and
obscurity in Sub-Saharan Africa (just as they still do today). Bringing Blacks to the Western hemisphere allowed
them to advance beyond the Stone Age, and now Blacks have MUCH more Black territory (in the Caribbean, in
South America, and in North America) than they would have never been able to have gained on their own because
of their innate Black barbarism and general idiocy.
Reply
WP
RL:US Blacks today are a very advanced people. Blacks ought to build on that and move on.
Yeah, only because so many of them are 25+% WHITE.
Face the cold, hard, brutal facts without some White genes, most of those Blacks would forever remain
Print
37 of
07-07-2014 15:43
anti-civilizational morons.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
Blacks appear to have made it to Madagascar a long time ago. The Mikea were already there when the Asians
showed up. Mikea were Black hunter gatherers.
Reply
alpha unit
How is innate White barbarism different from innate Black barbarism?
Reply
Robert Lindsay
US Blacks dont have enough White in them to but boost their IQs to about 73 or so from a 67 African base.
Their IQs are much higher than that, possibly because they have been breeding eugenically over here (selecting for
a more progressive phenotype and higher IQ Blacks to breed with) and also simply the positive effects of living here
in the US, an environment which is very good for your brain and civilizational skills.
Reply
Ramesh
I agree Robert that black people in general have higher self esteem. But deep inside (I suspect)
they hate themselves. Deep inside.
Well I take away the word savage. Sorry, my wrong. Hunter-gatherer it is. You just claimed that africans used iron
before Europeans. How many afrocentronuts have ever claimed this fact? Why do they never celebrate the
achievements of subsaharan african blacks? Why do they concentrate on Egypt and India and Native Americans
and China and Knights and Samurai and Vikings instead of celebrating the yaruba or xhosa? Why?
Reply
alpha unit
Where is Shaniqua to answer these and other pressing questions? Only an Afrocentrist can explain what motivates
Afrocentrists.
Reply
Print
38 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Tom
US black people are on average about 15% white. However, that number depends on what part of the country you
are in and class.
Black people in the deep south have a lot less white blood then black people in the cities (north and south). Im not
sure why.
Also, lighter skinned black people have traditionally made up the elite class of black people in the US specifically in
New Orleans.
Reply
WP
August 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Tom:Black people in the deep south have a lot less white blood then black people in the cities (north and south).
Im not sure why.
Its because we Southern Whites have healthier racial instincts than Northern Whites and would never
intentionally soil the White gene pool with inferior Black genes.
Its a little known fact that many urban Northern Blacks with so-called White blood are actually part-Jewish and
decidedly not part-White.
Even H. L. Gates (recently in the news) was surprised to find out later in his life that he had some Jewish blood:
Consider the story of Harvard Universitys Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an African American, who was both shocked
and bemused to learn that his DNA on his mothers side did not track back to the Yoruba people as he had long
thought. The Yoruba have a rich mythology and are believed to have been among the most culturally
sophisticated of the African cultures before the arrival of Europeans. A number of exact matches turned up,
Gates wrote, leading straight back to that African Kingdom called Northern Europe, to the genes of (among
others) a female Ashkenazi Jew. Maybe it was time to start listening to My Yiddishe Mama, he quipped.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/10-questions-for-jon-entine.php
We all know that Blacks generally arent too bright, and thus a shot of Ashkenazi Jewish blood can help to bring
their lagging Black intellects up to decent/normal/modern levels.
Since American Ashkenazi Jews seem to want to help Blacks so much, I propose that the American Ashkenazi
community start breeding wholesale with American Blacks in order to bring the Black intellect up to normalized
levels. The Black IQ in the USA is around 85, and the Jewish IQ is about 115thus if they start breeding en-masse
youll eventually have a bunch of Black/Jew crossbreeds with an average IQ of around 100. Sounds like a great plan,
right? Come on yallI just want to help the Blacks live better lives, and this is clearly the best way to do it.
I think that ALL of the precious JAP daughters of ALL the far-leftist anti-racist Jewish professors in the USA
should kick-off this new and exciting Jewish/Black genetic alliance.
You first, Jews!
Reply
Print
39 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Tom
August 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Its because we Southern Whites have healthier racial instincts than Northern Whites and would never
intentionally soil the White gene pool with inferior Black genes.
The problem with that argument is that the black people in the cities have part white blood that dates back to the
days of slavery in the south. It isnt recent racial mixing.
US blacks have white blood in them because slave owners and/or overseers had sex with the female black slaves.
The offspring would still be enslaved but was given house work and treated better.
Reply
Ramesh
August 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM
I believe the White (and probably Native American) infusion into blacks of the Americas (Caribbean, Latin America,
North America) is much more than many people think. Indeed a substantial minority of black people do not look
like West Africans anymore. Their combination of dark skin and European-native American features means some
of them look like Asian Indians. Hence the claim by many afrocentrinuts that Indians are blacks. Anybody who sees
non-horn (non Ethiopian, non Somali) black Africans will realise that Asian Indians are nothing like them. But
African Americans are different.
Reply
Tom
August 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Ive seen DNA studies that state that African Americans are about 15 percent white. Some have more white blood
then that but in the deep south the amount of white blood is lower then 15 percent.
I dont know where you live but most of the African Americans I have seen do not look like Asian Indians. They look
like black Africans except they are dark brown instead of black.
Of course it all depends on geography; a city like New Orleans has a mulatto aristocracy on top of the black masses.
Reply
Shaniqua
This south Indian lady has thick lips because Indians are black.. caucasians cant have big lips..
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1407/223/47/579111416/n579111416_1572808_4176.jpg
Reply
Golden Gopher
August 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Print
40 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Shaniqua, Angelina Jolie has full lips so is she also African now? None of those pictures you posted look even
remotely African.
Reply
Shaniqua
This south Indian lady has big boobs because big boobs are negroid feature.. Caucasians cant have big boobs.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ThFsiAar9vU/SaE-LGXXKmI/AAAAAAAAAl8/Oe5y60OAlpY
/s320/Priyamani+Sexy+South+Indian+Actress+Bikini+Swim+Suit+Panty+Bra+Boobs+Massive+Cleavage+Wet+Naked.jpg
Reply
Emma
I am Norwegian and my lips are bigger than all of those Indian girls you posted..
and I dont have an inch of black blood in me..
Shut up and take your stupid afrocentrist crap elsewhere
Reply
alpha unit
So big boobs are negroid feature? Please continueShaniqua.
Reply
Ramesh
There are many pure White women who have bigger boobs than those. You are a joke. And what about the fact that
Indians do not have negroid hair. Thus we are not black.
Reply
Ger
The only Blacks on Earth are native to Africa. There are a few elsewhere but they only moved there in the last 500
years. . No humans in India are Black. There are no Black genes in India and no Indians have mostly Black genes.
Further, no Indians are Black on phenotype.
On the contrary, Siddis have been in India for maybe a thousand years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddi
Print
41 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Reply
Anonymous
Siddis are the only blacks that exist in India..
the rest of the Indians are caucasians except for some tamils and low caste dalits because they are australoid in
phenotype.
The slums of India are filled with these low caste dalits aka untouchables.. They form like 25% of the whole Indian
population.
Reply
Ramesh
Siddis make up 0.00000001% of India. They are so rare, I or other Indians never see them in their lives. In
Pakistan there are black Makranis who make up only a tiny percentage of pakistans population. Ironically it were
the evil Whitey British who gave the makranis freedom from Islamic slavery after immediately conquering Sindh in
Pakistan.
Reply
Golden Gopher
August 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Ger, The Siddis are a very recent arrival (11th century) and you are right, they are Africans. They were brought over
to India by Arab traders as slaves but Ramesh is correct, they are almost negligible. I believe they number about
50,000 and in a pop. of more than 1B, it is insignificant.
Reply
fx
Print
42 of
07-07-2014 15:43
August 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

@ Robert Lindsay :
I think a lot of Indians really ARE White. The ones that have a very European looking phenotype are for all intents and
purposes White folks.
Indeed, and some persons of the indo-european speaking regions of Asia are strikingly Europoids.
There are pictures of such individuals here :
http://pastmist.wordpress.com/
They seem to match the description of the recent human genetics article I mentionned above, concerning south
Siberians/central Asians of bronze/Iron age (probably ancestors of the Indo-iranian speaking Scythians/Sakas and also
of the Aryans of India and Persia).
(excerpt here for the ones that didnt read the full article : http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/
)
Reply
Anonymous
August 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Do you have an english version of that link?
It is french and I cant understand what they really saying
Reply
Ramesh
August 1, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I had a Rajput friend (from the North Indian state of Rajasthan) who was related to some Rajput royalty. Rajputs
are the guys who live in the Indian desert state of Rajasthan. You know those maharaja guys you see on Indian
tourism programs who live in hill forts and opulent Indian palaces. They are brave in battle and were one of the
designated martial races in the British Indian empire. These people tend to come from a community called
Maheswaris and a few of them are very very fair by Indian standards but not quite Northern Euro white (may be
med).
Now when I was in London, I came across a Polish guy who looked typical Northern Euro but also looked exactly
like a fairer version of my friend. It makes sense as the Rajputs are the descendants of Scythians who came from
Crimea. Poland ruled Ukraine and possibly the Crimea and is related to that place. It is widely believed that the
Scythian (called Sakas by the ancient Indians) males married extremely dark skinned tribal females living in India
called Bhils to give rise to the Rajputs. It was like the Aryan invasion all over again. But this took place many
centuries after the Aryan invasion.
Reply
Ramesh
They had recently found a Scythian mummy in Mongolia!
Print
43 of
07-07-2014 15:43
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,433600,00.html
There is one similarity between Scythians and Aryans. Both invaded India-Persia and the edges of the Far East.
In India Persia both burnt their dead bodies (like the Romans, Anglo Saxons etc) and did not leave much of a
physical trace except in the genes of the people here. In the Far East-Central Asia buffer region, unlike Persia-India,
both of them hardly left any genetic heritage (and did not influence the culture much it seems) but they left many
mummies. Peculiar similarity many centuries apart.
Reply
Lucky
August 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM
It seems like there is an Aryan invasion every few hundred years into India. The last one being the British.
Reply
Anonymous
British people are not aryans.
Reply
fx
Do you have an english version of that link?
Nope, sorry. Anyway, that was more about the pictures.
Ramesh : It was like the Aryan invasion all over again. But this took place many centuries after the Aryan invasion.
Well, Basically everywhere there have been Indo-european languages (from India and Xinjiang to northwestern
Europe) we find the haplogroup ADN-Y R1a1, so we can logically conclude that there is very probably a link.
The ancient cultures related to the Kurgan ones (supposed to be the origin of the early indo-europeans), that spread in
time in central Asia (like the Andronovo one) and south Siberia
have human remains that have shown to be almost exclusively R1a1 and there are mtDNA haplogroups that seems to
be related to Europe as well (subclades of mtDNA H, HV, U2, U4, U5 subclades, subclades of T, some K subclades (all
also found in Europe)) as we can see in the more recent study.
R1a1 and those mtDNA haplogroups are found among population like Kalashas, Burusho, Tadjiks, and others etc
that often have the characteristics given by the study, and that seems to be the only haplogroups able to explain this
(except in India where the mtDNA haplogroups (women lineages) seem to be mainly of Dravidian origin).
The genetic study I talked of says that the remains of these bronze age/Iron age R1a1 were europoids generally with
light hair, light-colored eyes and pale skin. So we can assume that both Scythians (sakas) and original Aryans of
South Asia had that kind of phenotypes or at least many of them.
The ADN-Y R1 haplogroup descendants are the main component of the Europeans (R1b and R1a) so the link between
all these elements seems to be credible and clicking together.
Print
44 of
07-07-2014 15:43
And IIRC, one of the bones of the Krasnoyarsk region (In Russia roughly above the west of Mongolia) of a culture
apparently indo-european, had the same genetical signature that one of the Xinjiang europid mummy (Xinjiang is in
north-western China, in the Tarim Basin a region where europid characteristics are still found sometimes).
Reply
fx
The genetic study I talked of says that the remains of these bronze age/Iron age R1a1 were europoids generally with
light hair, light-colored eyes and pale skin.
Oops. What I meant is that the genetic study on these remains/bones, that were of the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1, have
reached the conclusion that a lot of them had that kind of characteristics (some genes allow to know it, like the HERC2
that gives information about eye color)
Sorry for my flawed english.
Reply
Anonymous
August 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Do Dravidians refer to all the people of South India or just the Tamils?
When I googled the word dravidian, it says they were the native dark skinned people living in South India.
If they are dark, How come there are a LOT of light skinned South Indians?
Most of the upper caste and middle caste South Indians are light skinned and the Christians of Kerala are very light too
since they are originally Brahmins who were converted to Christianity.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
August 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
The lighter skinned folks of the South are not the natives. They came later on. Dravidian is a type of person in India.
The Dravidians have mixed so much with the North Indians that it is often hard to tell where one ends and the other
begins. The pure Dravidian is more a type that does not look like a North Indian. Dravidians in general appear to be
Caucasians on phenotype, but some like the Tamils and some tribals seem to be Australoids on phenotype. It all
gets pretty confusing.
Reply
Emma
August 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Middle caste and Upper caste South Indians and Chrsitians of Kerala dont look like your typical dravidians..
If you compare Middle/Upper caste South Indians to pure dravidians, they look very different in facial structures
and eveything.
Print
45 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Middle caste South Indian: http://niralimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/lakshmi-menon-br.jpg

Higher caste South Indian: http://www.stat.colostate.edu/images/iyer.jpg
Pure Dravidian: http://www.aiouiuc.com/abhishek_iyer.jpg
Reply
deadcult
Emma: Middle caste and Upper caste South Indians and Chrsitians of Kerala dont look like your typical
dravidians..
If you compare Middle/Upper caste South Indians to pure dravidians, they look very different in facial structures
and eveything.
The persons in the 2nd and the 3rd pictures appear to have the same last name. I believe they are of the same caste.
Reply
Emma
August 1, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Majority of the christians in Kerala(especially Roman Catholics and Syrian Christians) are Brahmin converts. The other
christians in Kerala and other parts of South India were the dalits or the low caste.
Reply
Ramesh
Thats right.
Reply
Didem
WOW, Do Roman Catholics of Kerala really belong to the upper caste? Are we really Brahmin converts?
I am a roman catholic and My parents are from Kerala too.
I am yellow skinned and my mom is very pale and my father is light brown skinned. They are both Roman catholics.
I also have a very prominent nose and my lips are thinnish.
Reply
Emma
If North Indians have 15% mongoloid blood in them, How much percentage of mongoloid blood do South Indians
Print
46 of
07-07-2014 15:43
have?
Because I have this friend who is South Indian(he lives here in the U.S) and he looks very asian. He gets mistaken for
filipino all the time.. He looks like an asian person with light tan skin and his eyes are very filipino. I was shocked to
hear that he is South Indian. Specifically, He is from Kerala.
Reply
Anonymous
There are South Indians who look very caucasian like these South Indians:
http://www.regeti.com/2009/blogSanthiAnand09_01.jpg
http://images.taragana.com/2009/04/03/3227522102.jpg
I have seen south Indians who look very australoid especially in Tamilnadu.
Most of the South Indians I have seen in the U.S have caucasian facial features and some are quite dark.
I have never seen an asian looking South Indian.
Reply
Pingback: New Traffic Record On Robert Lindsay August 1 Robert Lindsay
Anand Rai
August 12, 2009 at 2:24 AM
Well I feel the author of this post know nothing about the content of Vedas (ancient Indian scriptures) which according
to Aryan invasion theory were written by Aryans . There is not even a single place in all 4 vedas where place outside
India is mentioned . Everything in the writings circulates around india and another big reason can be there is no other
place in the world where scriptures similar to Vedas are found nor there are any people who relate themselves to these.
Did 100% Aryans came to India leaving no clue where they came from. If Aryans wrote Vedas why there is no mention
of some foreign land anywhere in scriptures , why only bharat varsha (India) and its places and rivers. Above all
Nomadic people Aryans can never even have dreamt of writing such an advance scriptures which have mention of
powers 10 raise to 59. Max Muller, the inventor of this theory doubted his own finding (Six systems of Indian
philosophy by Max Muller) at the end of his life. Why so people think that nothing great can be done by Asians and all
came from Europe. Its just 50 years of Independence from 200 + 1000 years of slavery from moughals and british and
India has created 1000s of scientists. The core of Mathamatics came from India. Learn about Hindu Arabic number
system and contribution of Aryabhatta.
There is no dark or light skinned it all depends on the climatic condition. If there are 3 generations of south Indian
living in Kashmir, he will turn light skinned. Cast system is a creation of some stupid Brahmins, it was not like that
earlier. Please look at all aspects, one sided approach.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
August 12, 2009 at 2:32 AM
It has been conclusively proven that the Aryans have their origin in Northern Kazakhstan. Before that, in southern
Print
47 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Russia. They didnt really come from Europe at all they came from Eurasia and then from Asia.
There is no further debate about this matter, and the proof rests on anthropology and linguistics. The Vedas are not
a reputable source.
A South Indian will NOT genetically change their skin color in 3 generations in Kashmir, forget it.
Ethnic nationalism is all crap, and Indian ethnic nationalism is no less stupid and insane as any other variety.
Reply
Anonymous
August 12, 2009 at 8:37 AM
There is actually no aryan invasion.. It is actually bullshit made by british people to divide Indians into dravidians and
aryans so that they wont unify..
There is evidence here, Read this:
http://www.indoaryans.org/Aryan-Dravidian-Controversy.html
All Indians are the same member of the Mediterranean caucasian race..
Although the Tamils are mixed with australoid..
Reply
Anonymous
August 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Besides, the scientist who proved that Aryan invasion theory is a myth is NOT even Indian.. He is a European and
his name is David Frawley..
Click the link of that I gave you and he clearly proves there was no aryan invasion at all and Indians are all the
same race.. South Indians and North Indians are all members of the Mediterranean caucasian race..
Reply
Anonymous
August 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM
If you compare a North Indian to a South Indian, they look the same except for may be their skin color.. South India
is located near to the equator which makes the people living there brown.
Here is a North Indian: http://www.arts.ri.gov/images/kulkani.JPG
Here is a South Indian: http://www.southdreamz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shriya-saran.jpg
What difference is there between them?
There are dark North Indians and pale South Indians tooo.
Reply
Print
48 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Robert Lindsay
August 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM
I dont agree with this Indian nationalist crap at all.
Its a proven fact that Aryans came from Northern Kazakhstan and before that, from the Pontic Steppe. Thats why
they speak an Indo-European language. Thats why their genes are related to I-E speakers. We can trace their
movements both archeologically and linguistically.
I really dont want to argue about this anymore, thx.
Reply
anindian
August 23, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Some points to ponder upon:
1) Vedas are not everything in Hinduism, though they form some of the core. There are many books written in ancient
mathematics and science in the post-Vedic period which are as relevant to the history of Hindus, if not more than the
Vedas. Look at the books written by Bhaskara (there were two Bhaskaras recorded in history), Aryabhatta, Apastamba,
Baudhayana, Varahmihira and several other authors. Some of them have had their base south of the Vindhyas, which
indicates the migration of the culture of the Vedic people southward. i am guessing the actual migration of Vedic people
might also have taken place either before or after the completion of the writing of the Vedas.(500-1000 BCE). Read
about the myth of Agastya and his followers and the Vindhyas.
2) Skin color depends on the climate and gradually over generations (maynot be 3 but lets say about 30 generations) it
is sure to change.
3) People speaking different languages derived from a root language (or speaking the root language itself) need not
share genetic origins or race. For example, I am an Indian, if I speak or write in English, a Europe-originated language,
that does not make me European. I bet the same applies to speakers of Indo-European languages.
4) Based on several references in the Vedas against dark-skinned tribes, one cannot assume that all the scriptures of
the Hindus (the sruti and smriti) were written by the highly-advanced fair-skinned race-preserving cohort known as
Aryans who came down from central Asia and pushed the locals down south. One severe contradiction to this simplistic
theory is, how come there are references of lower-caste tribals getting upgraded to the higher caste of Brahmins (like
Valmiki, Vishwamitra) in the epics written by these same racially-finicky people(the Aryans) that was allowed to be
published without censorship. The racial references in the Vedas are at best ambigious. If the Aryans were the
vanguards of Hinduism and they were the creators of the scriptures , how did dark-skinned gods like Vishnu and Shiva
find their ways into the texts. More likely they should have been shown as demons given the benchmarks by which they
would have decided.
Given all these, there surely exists a possibility of a fair-skinned race coming down from Afghanistan or central Asia and
contribution to the creation of Hindu scriptures and merging with the locals, infact there could be several races of this
type migrating in at different points of time. But to say that they did this at the expense of a dark-skinned race or an
indigenous race is pure baloney, given the facts. Infact the genesis of Hindu scriptures could have come from different
parts (including the non-Indo-European parts which may include Sanskrit speakers of Dravidian origin) of the Indian
subcontinent. Likewise, tribes that had originally entered from the northern borders of India (one of them being the
Aryans) must have migrated all over the country giving an inseparable and indistinguishable genetic mixture that we
know as the people of India today. Also the caste system in ancient India upto a period must have been rather fluid and
based on occupation than ancestral as is the popular notion. Hinduism (atleast the history and references from
Hinduism) seems to have a much greater tolerance for skin color and caste than is touted to be.
Reply
Print
49 of
07-07-2014 15:43
Pingback: More On Hinduism, Race, Caste and the Aryan Invasion Robert Lindsay
fx
August 26, 2009 at 3:19 AM
A Rai : There is not even a single place in all 4 vedas where place outside India is mentioned
R Lindsay : The Vedas are not a reputable source
And anyway The Persian Avesta tradition and Zarathoustra, the Persian sage, said that the original home of the Aryan
(Aryanem Vaejah) was located in Central Asia (Sounds like the Andronovo culture to me, or its successor).
Heres an excerpt of a book by John Boardman (the archeologist) :
http://books.google.fr/books?id=nNDpPqeDjo0C&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=aryanem+vaejah&source=bl&
ots=TlHx-VIFBm&sig=WA8t5xzvnCdM_KKw98MeYkvnRhM&hl=fr&ei=yBSVSs7IE57bjQew26HrDQ&
sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=aryanem%20vaejah&f=false
Reminder : The Iranians can as much claim a filiation to the Aryans than the Indians.
The name Iran means etymologically Land of the Aryans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Name
Reply
Robert Lindsay
August 26, 2009 at 3:26 AM
Yes, I agree with you. The Persians are Aryans too. I believe that the Pashtuns are also.
Reply
Bikram
September 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Very amusing discussion. Please read the recent article in Nature (Sept 24, 09)Indian are a hybrid product of two
distinct gene pools that united more than 40000 years ago. Perhaps Indian are the root of asian, europeanand so you
see all kind of colors.
Reply
fx
September 30, 2009 at 4:25 AM
@ Bikram :
Oh, youre talking of that study that says that ancestral north Indians and Europeans are part of a same group ?
First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup.
Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian
language.
Print
50 of
07-07-2014 15:43
It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke Proto-Indo-European, which has been
reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for
ANI-ASI mixture
forms a clade = are a group
ANI = Ancestral North Indians
CEU = Utah Mormons of Northern and Western European descent. (European-type population sample for the study)
> David Reich et al., Reconstructing Indian population history, Nature 461, 489-494 (24 September 2009) |
doi:10.1038/nature08365
An Indo-iranian invasion from outside india is very likely.

Not much is left to the imagination.
During bronze age, Kazakhstan was the place of the Andronovo culture which is strongly believed to be an
indo-european culture (and more exactly, an Indo-iranian culture).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture#Ancient_DNA
A 2004 study also established that, during the bronze/iron age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan
(part of the Andronovo culture during bronze age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U,
H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth-seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European
lineages.
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1691686
And south Siberian population of Andronovo were found to be often fair-skinned, blue/green-eyed and light-haired.
Also, the y-DNA haplogroup R1a1 was by far majoritary in this population. This haplogroup is found from India
(especially the north) to north-western Europe. Big clue again.
Reply
Robert Lindsay
September 30, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Great comment fx, and thx for the links. Im basically in agreement here.
Reply
Neo
Hi,
I am Neo and a shudra by birth in Hindu religion which I deny to own. Kindly go through my comments in the other
link
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-on-hinduism-race-caste-and-the-aryan-invasion
/#comment-33754
Just wanted to share the link of the book written by the writer of Indian Constitution, the great Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar. It explains the religion of vedas and brahmins.
Print
51 of
07-07-2014 15:43
http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm
Reply
Neo
Few things about Rama and Krishna. From Ambedkars book
http://ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21C.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20III.htm#a08
Go ahead if you like reading read the complete book with more than 25 chapters. The complete Hinduism is fake.
Reply
Tejaswini Vemburia
March 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM
The most contentious issue in the world history is Aryan Invasion theory. The problem is that Indian sub continent is
unique in the sense that it notices everybody but it is not noticed by everybody. Indians have problem among
themselves but not with the rest of the world. But rest of the world is baffled by India due to existence of so many
colours, races languages etc. This is the problem with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chinese as well. Unfortunately it is
the dishonesty of the Indian intellegentia to understand this. The business class and labour class is pan Indian. There is
no language barrier even though they dont know local language yet they somehow manage. This is due to purely
understanding the nature of life belief in Karma and hope for elevation in the next birth which is the cornerstone of all
Indian religions. That is why when the Indian kings fought most bitter battles among themselves the vengence did not
spread to other communities but restricted to warriors only. With this background if we look into the history the racial
theory will become totally irrelevant. All the Dharma Sastras were enacted only to rule the masses. The caste is a loose
world. It is not hereditary but people themselves found it convenient to fit into the system. I put forth further
arguments in this regard: i)The Buddhist/jain sources are older to Puranas in Sanskrit. In Jainism there are only three
classes and no Brahmins but essential elements of Vaidik traditions viz.,chanting Gayathri manthra, Propiation of
Gods, ascetism, tonsure of head even by ladies observance of chaturmasya Vrata etc. ii) A large number of Brahmins
contributed to Buddhist theology. iii)In the absence of Arya Dasyu war in Jain/Buddhist literature what is the
interpretation of defeat of Indra in the hands of Bodhisatvas. In Jain literature the Vedic kings like Bharata went for dig
vijaya where there is no mention about Arya dasa war. Why is that there is complete absence of arya dasa war in those
literature. Even if we assume that Jainism is rebellion against Brahmin order why is that there is no mention about
Brahmins?iv)History starts in India only in Bihar ,Bengal and South India where there were kingdoms. Western and
Northern India did not have original kingdoms. The western kshatraps and kushans were foreigners while satavahanas
and Rashtrakutas were of Karnataka. The entire kingdoms of Deccan Chalukyas,Kadambas and Gangas were of
Gangetic origin.v)Here comes the crux of the problem. Even assuming Dasas are Dravidians then who were the
Dravidians. The entire Deccan people are from Himalayan plains as evidenced by spread of Buddhism in Godavari
Krishna basin all the dynasties starting from Ikshvakus to Kalachuris are from Ayodhya. In respect of Tamilnadu its
history ended with sack of Madurai by Malik Kafur. At present 40% of people in Tamil Nadu are of Telugu origin.
Keralas history is even more mysterious since there is not even an iota of trace of tamil but for Palghat Iyers though the
temples there were solemnised by Alwars. Thus in the absence of historical continuity and multiplicity of ethnic tribes
which cannot happen in aggresive atmosphere dominated by Aryan hegemony. Thus it is futile to go ahead with a
theory where there is no continuation or linked history chronologically .
Reply
Sekhmet
Print
52 of
07-07-2014 15:43
April 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Heres another point of view. Its possible that aryans were spawned from albinos and grouped together because of their
lack of pigment and sun sensitivity.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Indus_Valley_India_1.htm
One thing is for certain, those high levels of melanin have a superior pineal gland and those lacking melanin have a
high rate of calcified pineal glands. Apparently melanin is mother natures great equalizer
Reply
Pingback: The Aryan Controversy
vidyadhara
October 23, 2012 at 4:53 AM
I am a kangaroo and I must jump to conclusions. ha ha ha. This is the summary of the aryan invasion theory.
Somehow europeans must be included into an aryan invasion model for India. And it does not matter one bit how this
is done. The spectrum of theories that is offered just have one particular objective. Each aiming at the same end result
from a large variety of vantage points.
This is not science, perhaps it is reasonable battle strategy. For foisting upon the heathen a certain political philosophy.
Europe could not have had any significant human population until the end of the last ice age. Around 10000 BC. And
then not amounting to much even until well into the days of the roman empire.
Indias large native population would always be impossible to subdue let alone replace with a foreign population in
any significant measure. It is entirely inconceivable that in 3000 BC or even 1500 BC there could be a large scale
invasion by a foreign population from an icy waste land of europe, that is large enough to replace well developed local
society. And still not form any notable empire.
Was there anything even within Europe amounting to an empire? before 500 BC. And yet the first empires of europe
were from greece hardly european. The greeks themselves surely recent immigrants from central asia, following the
land as it was emerging from the ice ages.
There is absolutely no evidence offered about such an invasion into india. Not archaeological, not scriptural, not
genetic. Nothing.
Just vague speculation, claiming authority of scientific investigation. Just a pile of european colonialist mumbo
jumbo claiming legitimacy through invented indologist terminology.
Reply
Pingback: Blogging Notes | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay
super intelligent Bengali Brahmin

Lindsey,Bengali Kulin Brahmin with around half million population produced Tagore and IVF pioneer doctor both
which was later verified to be worth of Nobel prize200 yrs ago they created Bengal renaissanceand in US with less
than 10,000 population they have more than 250 US patents,Nobel laureate signature award winner,and one of
greatest biologist of last century(who has not won Nobel yet),2 Pulitzer,13 Grammyetc all within last couple of
Print
53 of
07-07-2014 15:43
decadehow its possible?

Reply
Pandey
October 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Rushton estimated the Brahmin IQ to be 110 on average which is close to Ashkenazi but in terms of intelligence Tamil
Brahmins,who have darker skin are very strong while Bengali Brahmin who have shown highest caucasian blood in
their genetics along with some East Asian blood(well Bengal is very close to Tibet) are probably one of the smartest in
the planet.Im a lighter skin Brahmin from UP but unfortunately we have not much achievements in science and art to
boast.Why only Bengali and Tamil Brahmins are so smart?Razib Khan has done a research on it and his theory tells
Tamil Brahmins are more similar with south -west people while Bengali Brahmins are most hybrid race with south
Asian,East Asian ,west Asians and estern European blood-all their famous names such as
Mukherjee,Tagore,statistician Mahalanobis,RavishankarJhumpa Lahiri etc had caucasian looksmay be they are pure
Aryan.
Reply
Tejaswini Vemburia
October 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM
The indo Aryan theory is the most stupid and intellectually dishonest theory. The reasons are: the supporters
conveniently take the word Aryan from Vedas but take Dravida from Buddhist literature after thousand years. The
actual theory should be Arya Dasa theory. Poor protagonists there is no word dasa or dasyu in Tamil. See the sequence
of events. There is clear case of backward integration. Take 326BC as the starting point. Link it with Buddhism. Take
sixteen janapadas from Buddhism. Then go to Jainism. Then go to Satapadabrahmana and lastly Rigveda. Is it
science?is it not ridiculous? One should hung his head in shame. First of all sixteen janapadas correspond to sixteen
provinces of DariusI. There was bitter animosity between followers of Gomata and Ahura Mazda and followers of
Gomata retreated to India as Jains. That is why we find that from the period of Darius I to Demetrius we find only
Jainism. But for Tamil there was no Literature for Hindus in Prakrit. It was only during Indo Bactrian kings worship of
Siva and Vishnu was encouraged with Rudradaman and Kadambas and lastly Guptas. Unlike in Tamil where in Sangam
literature where performance of sacrifices were described minutely why was it no king of North till Agnimithra never
performed any sacrifice or why was it not recorded. Take the case of growth of Sanskrit. It was western Kshatrapa
Rudradaman first introduced Sanskrit followed by Kadambas adopted by Vakatakas and Guptas who had matrimonial
alliances with Kadambas. Why was it the early poets Bhasa Bharavi hailed from South. The greatest puzzle is while
majority of South Indians are meat eaters the western India is completely vegetarians. This is not surprising since
DariusI and Demetrius shifted to vegetarianism. All the Vedic Gods Indira, Agni,Varuna,Surya.are all black. Even now
Pallars an SC Community call themselves Mallas and Devendrakula Vellalas and their rituals are Indo Aryans. Lastly
Unlike North South India is the most unstable region no community can boast of even five hundred years since after
the collapse of Chola empire and invasion of Malik Kafur there was complete breakdown of social set up and who ever
were fortunate adopted higher social hierarchy. There was no continuity in food habits or dress code. But for Temple
worship all other things change with efflux of time. Let the North Indian elite stop with Indo Aryan theory with Dasas
upto Narmada and leave South India as such and not introduce Dravidas not found either in Tamil or Vedas.
Reply
Print
54 of
07-07-2014 15:43

Paper Adds Support To Aryan..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Adds Support To Aryan..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Adds Support to Aryan Invasion Theory | Beyond Highb...

Beyond Highbrow Robert