posted
You guys are creating a heck of a reputation for yourselves around the globe. And unfortunately, some of it will spill over to decent, respectful African Americans. Afrocentrists are going out of their way insulting every indigenous group with their *culture vulturism* When will these people stop with the hijacking of other people's history?
An Indian woman responds to Runoko Rashidi's false claims on India -
posted
This guy below is weird, he thinks indians are more african than him because they live closer to africa and are darker than him, impressive logic.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: This guy below is weird,
LOL! This coming from a black self hating African refugee who surfs StormFront and makes up sh!t about a "Somalid" master race. LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yea! I remember that fool! He made a video about his native american ancestry. He decided to do the genetic ancestry test. Guess what the result was? EUROPEAN (LOL)!
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: This guy below is weird, he thinks indians are more african than him because they live closer to africa and are darker than him, impressive logic.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: This guy below is weird,
LOL! This coming from a black self hating African refugee who surfs StormFront and makes up sh!t about a "Somalid" master race. LOL!
He has the same twisted logic as you,can understand why you feel connected to his reasoning
"HOOW CAn an InDian whoo's blaackier than moiy be lees african than moiy when hies closer to Afriga than moiy" Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The caste system of India has been severely impacted by years of foreign migrations to India. Skin color was not a major factor in social stratification in India originally. However, as the Persians, Greeks, Muslims and then Europeans conquered India, they all had a tremendous impact on the system of social ranking based on color. If you look at ancient art and statues from India in the earliest periods, you can even see the foreign impact. Those areas which were part of the Greek domains had Hindu art and sculpture that depicted the Indians as almost Greek looking. Hindu art and sculpture from the South looked more Indian and definitely portrayed darker skinned people. Once the Muslims took over Indian art became more and more white washed, with figures portrayed in almost pure white tones which by any measure is totally unrealistic in the multi hued environment of India. This is because many of the invaders were lighter skinned and since they invaded and were able to take power, a lot of the upper "castes" became much more lighter than others. The British played up on this and expanded it during their rule in India, creating their own social and "racial" variations on the caste system, through their administration of the country. Some of the elite put in place by the British had British blood as a result of this period of their history, which was a way for the British to "legitimize" their rule over India. They also implemented the system of racial education and indoctrination that was common throughout the colonial world which had a lot to do with twisting the history of India to support the notions of white supremacy. All of this has played a part in the development of modern Indian ideas and perceptions about "race".
The best example of the overt racist and skin color based mindset of the foreign oriented elite is bollywood. Bollywood movies feature characters that are almost exclusively at the LIGHTEST end of the spectrum and looking as much like the European "ideal" as possible. Much of the modeling and entertainment industry follows the same pattern along with the beauty pageants. And all of this is due to British, European and other foreign influence in India.
However, that said, the current system of castes or social status, wealth and power is not certainly not strictly segregated along "racial" lines as in the US or Europe. There are light and dark skinned people at all levels of social status in India. So it is definitely not good to make generalizations. The issue though is that there seems to be the greatest majority of darker skinned Indians at the lower ends of the social ladder, even though all dark skinned Indians are certainly not poor or at the bottom of the social ladder in India.
Given all of that, the history of India is one in which various foreign elements, most recently European elements, have tried to usurp the history of India and put white skin at the forefront. This also plays a part in the development of anthropology on the population in India which was also impacted by racist foreign ideas. That is how the concept of the Aryan invasion theory became prominent. The fact is that ancient India built by native Indians many of whom were darker skinned. Likewise the biological fact is that the aboriginal populations of India like the rest of Asia are undeniably black. Therefore, any idea that blacks somehow had no role as other than simply low cast people throughout history is simply false, even if the forces of white supremacy have been playing a role in the Indian continent throughout its history.
And there is no denying that there are many issues of social justice that need to be dealt with in India. There are issues with treatment of women and children, especially among the lower classes.
As an example of the white skin craze in the media in India, note the difference in complexion between the people in the poster and the people on the street: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezee123/2270709976/
In fact, the images below are the typical of the white "ideal" seen in Indian media, which totally DOES NOT reflect the diverse features and complexions in the population.
Bottom line the idea that blacks somehow created the notions of RACISM on this planet is simply another example of the ENDLESS NONSENSE that is white supremacy. They cannot simply accept the facts for what they are and must LIE to not only DISTORT history but to cover up the fact that they are the biggest LIARS, DECEIVERS, THIEVES and MURDERERS to begin with.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Refugee, everyone in here knows you're the resident black African crackpot theorist. Your wacky theories are on the same level as those of Dirk et al. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to bust your bubble but i don't claim people as African just because they have dark skin. I will leave that to the Afronuts on this board.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: This guy below is weird,
LOL! This coming from a black self hating African refugee who surfs StormFront and makes up sh!t about a "Somalid" master race. LOL!
He has the same twisted logic as you,can understand why you feel connected to his reasoning
"HOOW CAn an InDian whoo's blaackier than moiy be lees african than moiy when hies closer to Afriga than moiy"
posted
Simply put, the idea that a country of so many dark and very dark people somehow CAME FROM WHITES or IS WHITE is simply the STUPID RIDICULOUS nonsense of WHITE RACISTS.
posted
Let's stay foccused here. Is any indian in the photos you provided African Black?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put, the idea that a country of so many dark and very dark people somehow CAME FROM WHITES or IS WHITE is simply the STUPID RIDICULOUS nonsense of WHITE RACISTS.
Refugee, everyone in here knows you're the resident black African crackpot theorist. Your wacky theories are on the same level as those of Dirk et al. lol
Care to explain how your fufu ass ended up in one of those carribean islands belonging to native indians?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M i think most of us know how indians look like and the physical diversity across the sub-continent. No need to always spam threads with your pics, you're not making any groundbraking revelations if that's what you think.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry to bust your bubble but i don't claim people as African just because they have dark skin. I will leave that to the Afronuts on this board.
Why can't you stop lying and making sh!t-up non on this board ever said dark-skinned equals African not even the proponents of race as a phenotype.for them a set of rules most follow such as features etc...and most contributers do not agree even when those combinations of features are present, I am going to respond to the Chinese thread in this one why you need two or three thread on the same basic issue Jaime is beyond me. The Black Mongols and the dignateries is a thread that I posted about African traders in Asia...if you read the thread carefully you would know I take pains to distinguish between the two Africans and Black Asians...and would it ease your trouble soul if all black people the world over start calling themselves dark?? how does that fix your phoebia Dirk..Oh I mean Afronutslayer,Jamie,Salassin.that move would just compound your problem don't you think??.....and just think about this, you posted a thread earlier this summer about Ponds racist cm in India right after I posted the same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnr2vN_9EU&feature=sub IF there are "BLACK FOLKS" all over the globe in seemingly out of the way places you think they should not be It's because "BLACK FOLKS " were the 1st Folks on the globe your impotent protest not-withstanding.
Marco Polo's Notes On India Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker’. No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow.
That's how ^ Indians used to roll
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to tell you guys that, if it loooks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It is most probable that it is a duck
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you serious Brada? Go speak to your buddy Clyde Winters and his ridicolous claim origina Chinese were Black Africans. On second though.... GO FVCK YOURSELF.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Non-Recovering Alcoholic
quote:Sorry to bust your bubble but i don't claim people as African just because they have dark skin. I will leave that to the Afronuts on this board.
Why can't you stop lying and making sh!t-up non on this board ever said dark-skinned equals African not even the proponents of race as a phenotype.for them a set of rules most follow such as features etc...and most contributers do not agree even when those combinations of features are present, I am going to respond to the Chinese thread in this one why you need two or three thread on the same basic issue Jaime is beyond me. The Black Mongols and the dignateries is a thread that I posted about African traders in Asia...if you read the thread carefully you would know I take pains to distinguish between the two Africans and Black Asians...and would it ease your trouble soul if all black people the world over start calling themselves dark?? how does that fix your phoebia Dirk..Oh I mean Afronutslayer,Jamie,Salassin.that move would just compound your problem don't you think??.....and just think about this, you posted a thread earlier this summer about Ponds racist cm in India right after I posted the same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnr2vN_9EU&feature=sub IF there are "BLACK FOLKS" all over the globe in seemingly out of the way places you think they should not be It's because "BLACK FOLKS " were the 1st Folks on the globe your impotent protest not-withstanding.
Marco Polo's Notes On India Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker’. No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow.
quote:Are you serious Brada? Go speak to your buddy Clyde Winters and his ridicolous claim origina Chinese were Black Africans. On second though.... GO FVCK YOURSELF.
Yes I am serious Marco Polo did note that!!..Dr Winters can handle his own bidness...his theories and thoughts are not my own... Why should I fu!ck me when yo mamma can suck me and make us both happy. faag!! yeah I edit the 1st draft too digusting even for me,
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The varieties of complexion prevailing among the Hindoos, who are Caucasians, are very noticeable. Bishop Heber was much struck, on his first arrival in Calcutta, by the great difference in colour between different natives. "Of the crowd by whom we were surrounded, some were black as Negroes, others merely copper colored, and others little darker than the Tunisians whom I have seen at Liverpool. Mr. Mill, the Principal of Bishop's College, who had come down to meet me, and who has seen more of India than most men, tells me that he cannot account for this difference, which is general throughout the country, and everywhere striking. It is not merely the difference of exposure, since this variety of tint is visible in the fishermen, who are all naked alike. Nor does it depend on caste, since very high caste Brahmins are sometimes black, while Pariahs are comparatively white.
posted
I think the high status that many Siddi had refutes the idea that Muslims brought some kind of color prejudice. The Romans were brutal too but they didn't need to create a strict racial system
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indian color prejudice goes back at least to teh time of the coming of Scytho-Indic peoples to the area of the Indi (along the Indus) several hundred years B.C..
There is also diversity in hair type.
Dravidan holy man
Bondo belong to the Sabara Kol(so-called Austric group)
Another Bondo woman
Woman of Dankariyya tribe another ("Austric" group)
posted
markellion - The White mans FEAR (not hatred) of the Black man, his numbers, and his capabilities, is well known and understood. No need for the grisly reminders of his barbarianism.
Rather, you should daily post reminders of his lies and deceit; to remind the weak-minded Negroes among us, those who were unable to maintain their sense of self, and withstand the psychological warfare waged against them since birth.
You younger ones should ask the older crew about how they were taught as children that Blacks couldn't be Quarterbacks, coaches, businessmen, etc. etc. because they lacked the mental capacity.
Some weak-minded Negroes believed them!
Now we see that not only can Blacks do these things, they are superior to Whites.
And THAT is what the lies and deceit were really all about - FEAR!
The fear that the Black man would one day re-gather himself and retake what was formerly his.
That's the whole point of the Afroidiots presence here; trying vainly to hold back the tide.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: You guys are creating a heck of a reputation for yourselves around the globe. And unfortunately, some of it will spill over to decent, respectful African Americans. Afrocentrists are going out of their way insulting every indigenous group with their *culture vulturism* When will these people stop with the hijacking of other people's history?
An Indian woman responds to Runoko Rashidi's false claims on India -
Myself, I prefer to go by genetic grouping of people. Indians do have an African connection in terms of M1 but by enlarge they are part of the European clade. Both their genes and language makes it clear that the predominant type of Indian is closely related to European people.
What I find interesting about Indians is that they do have a great deal of cultural similarities to us Africans. Obviously they have some phenotypical traits that are the same as well but its their music and dance that makes them seem very African.
I think the Black African phenotype connections probably comes from an aboriginal Melanesian population that existed their before they migrated further into Asia as well as in situ evolution.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone knows modern Indians have a largely Iranic or "Eurasiatic" connection.
As for the black populations sometimes it not about what we think. There is reason to believe a large part of the Austric speakers or Melanesian component originally had links to or origins in African populations since the neolithic.
Aside from biological connections which show Nilotic types made their way over to the Indus. There are also many cultural connections, a very tight linguistic connection and many deities that are clearly of African affiliation, including Murugan, Mangala, Amma, Taita to name a few. The dozens of cultural connections have been brought up by both Western and Dravidian scholars. Whole books have been written on this topic by the latter.
Many of the Gond, from which come the Parja and other Dravidic speakers are indistinguishable from Central Africans.
Gond woman
Gond young man
Gond bowmen
Dankariyyah of Orissa
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the first people of India, Iran and South Asia were black Aboriginal types. Some had the curly hair of the Negritoes and some had the straight hair of the Australian Aboriginal type. They all descend from Aboriginal Africans of various types. Trying to claim that the diversity of the various black populations of India is due to white "features" is simply nonsense, because the truth is the opposite is true. The features of whites is due to the diversity of aboriginal blacks world wide before they became white. Racial typologies based on features and hair types have no application when it comes to the aboriginal populations of the earth because they came in all shapes sizes and features..... THAT is the true lesson in OOA, which is that ALL FEATURES ultimately originate in Africa and among aboriginal blacks, except white skin of course.
Racism is simply an argument against nature and the facts of biology. Obviously you aren't going to fight against biology and nature and expect to win in the long run. Nature and biology represent infinite creation and diversity. Sticking to one aspect of that diversity as symbolic of all life or all nature is simply dumb and retarded. Such a concept of life will only lead to man's destruction of himself as he cannot accept himself and life for what it is. Obviously if this happens then it only means that man's brain, mind and consciousness were not able to adjust to the universe and nature as it is and therefore died out. That is the ultimate crucible or test against man's existence is going to be weighed against, as nature and the universe will continue creation as it has always has for infinity.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Everyone knows modern Indians have a largely Iranic or "Eurasiatic" connection.
As for the black populations sometimes it not about what we think. There is reason to believe a large part of the Austric speakers or Melanesian component originally had links to or origins in African populations since the neolithic.
Aside from biological connections which show Nilotic types made their way over to the Indus. There are also many cultural connections, a very tight linguistic connection and many deities that are clearly of African affiliation, including Murugan, Mangala, Amma, Taita to name a few. The dozens of cultural connections have been brought up by both Western and Dravidian scholars. Whole books have been written on this topic by the latter.
Many of the Gond, from which come the Parja and other Dravidic speakers are indistinguishable from Central Africans.
Gond woman
Gond young man
Gond bowmen
Dankariyyah of Orissa
Good points. If you want to know more about the Indo-Aryans of India check out my video
posted
Not for nothing but... That **** means fvcking nothing to Indians. You think they want some Negro telling them their forefathers were Africans? They'd look at you like a fool. Let's face it, the only as*holes concerned w/writing up that sort of pseudo history is your irresponsible, self hating, not content with their own history, hijackers of other's history Afronutcases.
Let us reason for a sec, dont you think this version of history promoted by Afrocentrists should be taught to the Indians? Yet the only people being taught this version of history are a specific target group of African Americans. What does that tell you? It sure tells me that that version of history is being used for political means. What in the world can an AA gain from a history dealing with Indians? Common sense tells me that ACs should be going to India and teaching this history to them. Ah! therein lies the deception; Afrocentrism, a pseudo-history and its racial-political agenda.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: You guys are creating a heck of a reputation for yourselves around the globe. And unfortunately, some of it will spill over to decent, respectful African Americans. Afrocentrists are going out of their way insulting every indigenous group with their *culture vulturism* When will these people stop with the hijacking of other people's history?
An Indian woman responds to Runoko Rashidi's false claims on India -
Myself, I prefer to go by genetic grouping of people. Indians do have an African connection in terms of M1 but by enlarge they are part of the European clade. Both their genes and language makes it clear that the predominant type of Indian is closely related to European people.
What I find interesting about Indians is that they do have a great deal of cultural similarities to us Africans. Obviously they have some phenotypical traits that are the same as well but its their music and dance that makes them seem very African.
I think the Black African phenotype connections probably comes from an aboriginal Melanesian population that existed their before they migrated further into Asia as well as in situ evolution.
quote:Mike 111 wrote: You younger ones should ask the older crew about how they were taught as children that Blacks couldn't be Quarterbacks, coaches, businessmen, etc. etc. because they lacked the mental capacity.
Is your screwed mentality a product of this?
No offence, but if the likes of Marc washington, You and Clyde winters are a symbol/representation of "the older crew" then i'm sure majority of sensibel people would agree that the characters of the new crew (like alTakruri, Evergreen, Explorer etc) are far more resourcefull, intelligent, dynamic and with greater potentials than the sad and rusty congregation of your reactionist old crew who produced not much of value other than the true meaning of "twisted logic"and "delusional" .
Me personally i've learned alot through the years from the new crew but nothing from the side of you and your ilks.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Modern Iranians and Indians are the closely related to Aryans not crackers. Blacks are the real Jews not crackers.
Black Elamites were the real Iranians that created the Iranian civilization not crackers.
Blacks were the real Olmecs not crackers.
Blacks established the xia dynasty of China not crackers. Blacks were the real Sumerians not crackers.
And Blacks ESTABLISHED Kemet not crackers.
Hay man it's a new day and a year can't you drop the arguewithanyone racist lingo atleast while visiting here..you can make your point without relying on terms such as cracker,nigger,wop,chink,etc,etc..especially if it's un-called for.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The name for the aboriginal black population of India is Adivasi. But this term is a subject of much speculation and controversy based on all the racial politics put forward in the last hundred years, especially by the British.
See how the wikipedia article below makes all sorts of absurd explanations of the name adivasi and its relationship to other Indian populations:
quote: Adivasi is an umbrella term for a heterogeneous set of ethnic and tribal groups believed to be the aboriginal population of India.[1][2][3] They comprise a substantial indigenous minority of the population of India.
Adivasi societies are particularly present in the Indian states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Mizoram and other northeastern states, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Many smaller tribal groups are quite sensitive to ecological degradation caused by modernization. Both commercial forestry and intensive agriculture have proved destructive to the forests that had endured swidden agriculture for many centuries[4]. Officially recognized by the Indian government as "Scheduled Tribes" in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, they are often grouped together with scheduled castes in the category "Scheduled Castes and Tribes", which is eligible for certain affirmative action measures. .... Although terms such as atavika (Sanskrit for forest dwellers), vanvasi or girijan (hill people)[5] are also used for the tribes of India, adivasi carries the specific meaning of being the original and autochthonous inhabitants of a given region, and was specifically coined for that purpose in the 1930s.[6] Over a period of time, unlike the terms "aborigines" or "tribes", the word "adivasi" has also developed a connotation of past autonomy which was disrupted during the British colonial period in India and has not been restored.[7] Opposition to usage of the term is varied, and it has been argued that the "original inhabitant" contention is based on dubious claims and that the adivasi - non adivasi divide that is created is artificial.[8] .... The Constitution of India, Article 366 (25) defines Scheduled Tribes as "such tribes or tribal communities or part of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to the scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purposes of this Constitution". In Article 342, the procedure to be followed for specification of a scheduled tribe is prescribed. However, it does not contain the criterion for the specification of any community as scheduled tribe. An often used criterion is based on attributes such as:-
* Geographical isolation - they live in cloistered, exclusive, remote and inhospitable areas such as hills and forests, * Backwardness - their livelihood is based on primitive agriculture, a low-value closed economy with a low level of technology which leads to their poverty. They have low levels of literacy and health. * Distinctive culture, language and religion - communities have developed their own distinctive culture, language and religion. * Shyness of contact – they have a marginal degree of contact with other cultures and people.[9] ... The Scheduled Tribe groups who were identified as more backward communities among the tribal population groups have been categorised as 'Primitive Tribal Groups' (PTGs) by the Government at the Centre in 1975. So far seventy−five tribal communities have been identified as 'primitive tribal groups' in different States of India. These hunting, food− gathering, and some agricultural communities, who have been identified as more backward communities among the tribal population groups need special programmes for their sustainable development. The primitive tribes are awakening and demanding their rights for special reservation quota for them.[10] .... There is a substantial list of Scheduled Tribes in India recognised as tribal under the Constitution of India. Tribal peoples constitute 8.2% of the nation's total population, over 84 million people according to the 2001 census. One concentration lives in a belt along the Himalayas stretching through Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand in the west, to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland in the northeast. In the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland, more than 90% of the population is tribal. However, in the remaining northeast states of Assam, Manipur, Sikkim, and Tripura, tribal peoples form between 20 and 30% of the population.
Another concentration lives in the hilly areas of central India (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and, to a lesser extent, Andhra Pradesh); in this belt, which is bounded by the Narmada River to the north and the Godavari River to the southeast, tribal peoples occupy the slopes of the region's mountains. Other tribals, including the Santals, live in Jharkhand and West Bengal. Central Indian states have the country's largest tribes, and, taken as a whole, roughly 75% of the total tribal population live there, although the tribal population there accounts for only around 10% of the region's total population.
There are smaller numbers of tribal people in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala in south India; in western India in Gujarat and Rajasthan, and in the union territories of Lakshadweep and the Andaman Islands and Nicobar Islands. About one percent of the populations of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are tribal, whereas about six percent in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are members of tribes. ... The concept of 'original inhabitant' is directly related to the initial peopling of India, which, due to the debate on topics such as the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, has been a contentious area of research and discourse.[11] Some anthropologists hypothesize that the region was settled by multiple human migrations over tens of millennia, which makes it even harder to select certain groups as being truly aboriginal.[12] One narrative, largely based on genetic research, describes Negritos, similar to the Andamanese adivasis of today, as the first humans to colonize India, likely 30-65 thousand years before present (kybp).[13][14] 60% of all Indians share the mtDNA haplogroup M, which is universal among Andamanese islander adivasis and might be a genetic legacy of the postulated first Indians.[15] Some anthropologists theorize that these settlers were displaced by invading Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people (who largely shared skin pigmentation and physiognomy with the Negritos, but had straight rather than kinky hair), and adivasi tribes such as the Irulas trace their origins to that displacement.[16][17] The Oraon adivasi tribe of eastern India and the Korku tribe of western India are considered to be examples of groups of Australoid origin.[18][19] Subsequent to the Australoids, some anthropologists and geneticists theorize that Caucasoids (including both Dravidians and Indo-Aryans) and Mongoloids (Sino-Tibetans) immigrated into India: the Dravidians possibly from Iran,[20][21][22] the Indo-Aryans possibly from the Central Asian steppes[21][23][24] and the Tibeto-Burmans possibly from the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent.[25] It should be noted that none of these hypotheses is free from debate and disagreement.
Ethnic origins and linguistic affiliations in India match only inexactly, however: while the Oraon adivasis are classified as an Australoid group, their language, called Kurukh, is Dravidian.[26] Khasis and Nicobarese are considered to be Mongoloid groups[27][28] and the Munda and Santals are Australoid groups,[29][30][31] but all four speak Austro-Asiatic languages.[27][28][29] The Bhils and Gonds are frequently classified as Australoid groups,[32] yet Bhil languages are Indo-European and the Gondi language is Dravidian.[26] Also, in post-colonial India, tribal languages suffered huge setbacks with the formation of linguistic states after 1956 under the States Reorganisation Act. For example, under state-sponsored educational pressure, Irula children are being taught Tamil and a sense of shame has begun to be associated with speaking the Irula language among some children and educated adults.[16] Similarly, the Santals are "gradually adopting languages of the areas inhabited, like Oriya in Orissa, Hindi in Bihar and Bengali in West Bengal."[30] ... Although considered uncivilized and primitive,[33] adivasis were usually not held to be intrinsically impure by surrounding (usually, caucasoid - Dravidian or Aryan) caste Hindu populations, unlike Dalits, who were.[6][34] Thus, the adivasi origins of Maharshi (Sanksrit: Great Sage) Valmiki, who composed the Ramayana Hindu religious epic, were acknowledged,[35] as were the origins of adivasi tribes such as the Grasia and Bhilala, which descended from mixed Rajput and Bhil marriages.[36][37] Unlike the subjugation of the dalits, the adivasis often enjoyed autonomy and, depending on region, evolved mixed hunter-gatherer and farming economies, controlling their lands as a joint patrimony of the tribe.[33][38][39] In some areas, securing adivasi approval and support was considered crucial by local rulers,[6][40] and larger adivasi groups were able to sustain their own kingdoms in central India.[6] The Gond Rajas of Garha-Mandla and Chanda are examples of an adivasi aristocracy that ruled in this region, and were "not only the hereditary leaders of their Gond subjects, but also held sway over substantial communities of non-tribals who recognized them as their feudal lords."[38][41]
This relative autonomy and collective ownership of adivasi land by adivasis was severely disrupted by the advent of the Mughals in the early 16th century. Similarly, the British beginning in the 18th century added to the consolidation of feudalism in India, first under the jagirdari system and then under the zamindari system.[42] Beginning with the Permanent Settlement imposed by the British in Bengal and Bihar, which later became the template for a deepening of feudalism throughout India, the older social and economic system in the country began to alter radically.[43][44] Land, both forest areas belonging to adivasis and settled farmland belonging to non-adivasi peasants, was rapidly made the legal property of British-designated zamindars (landlords), who in turn moved to extract the maximum economic benefit possible from their newfound property and subjects without regard to historical tenure or ownership.[45] Adivasi lands sometimes experienced an influx of non-local settlers, often brought from far away (as in the case of Muslims and Sikhs brought to Kol territory)[46] by the zamindars to better exploit local land, forest and labor.[42][43] Deprived of the forests and resources they traditionally depended on and sometimes coerced to pay taxes, many adivasis were forced to borrow at usurious rates from moneylenders, often the zamindars themselves.[47][48] When they were unable to pay, that forced them to become bonded laborers for the zamindars.[49] Often, far from paying off the principal of their debt, they were unable even to offset the compounding interest, and this was made the justification for their children working for the zamindar after the death of the initial borrower.[49] In the case of the Andamanese adivasis, long isolated from the outside world in autonomous societies, mere contact with outsiders was often sufficient to set off deadly epidemics in tribal populations,[50] and it is alleged that some sections of the British government directly attempted to destroy some tribes.[51]
Land dispossession and subjugation by British and zamindar interests resulted in a number of adivasi revolts in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, such as the Santal hul (or Santal revolt) of 1855-56.[52] Although these were suppressed ruthlessly by the governing British authority (the East India Company prior to 1858, and the British government after 1858), partial restoration of privileges to adivasi elites (e.g. to Mankis, the leaders of Munda tribes) and some leniency in tax burdens resulted in relative calm, despite continuing and widespread dispossession, from the late nineteenth century onwards.[46][53] The economic deprivation, in some cases, triggered internal adivasi migrations within India that would continue for another century, including as labor for the emerging tea plantations in Assam.[54]
Note how the article goes to great lengths to separate the aboriginal populations from the culture of India and attach it to "caucasoid" dravidians who look no different from the Adivasi. But this along with the nonsense of migrating whites who turned black (from Jablonski) is simply the continuation of the same old bull sh*t that whites have been propagating all along.
Again, a lot of the colorism in India relates back to recent invasions by the British, Mongols(Mughals) and Iranians. This is not ancient at all. And it is especially under the British that these people were dispossessed of their land and used as slave labor, while lighter skinned Indians (like Ghandi) were incorporated into the elite class of ruling educated politician castes. That has nothing to do with ancient Hindu castes outside of the influence of invaders who have manipulated it to suit their agenda, which includes the more RECENT movements of Iranians(Persians), the British and others.
posted
That Runoko Rashidi guy makes me sick to the stomach. I wish he stop going around the world claiming every dark face as an African or a descendant of Africans. He just give false superiority to inferior blacks and make superior blacks look bad. I wish he stop embarrassing proud AAs.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep these are type of Indians not seen in Bollywood movies,except in Slumdog Millionair..which was part British production.
And most defnately not her^ Karala painting dravidian art..and Harappan girl What's truly amazing is not some so-called Afrocentrist making trouble in India but the almost completely hidden folks such as the above almost invisiable from out siders,although they exist in the millions.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Betty Boo,you are saying that the folks above are not blacks...I for one am glad he is over there shaking things up..let there be more trouble making Blackmen in the world...maybe the world has gotten too comportable with it's anti black racism,and racism in general.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Betty Boo,you are saying that the folks above are not blacks...I for one am glad he is over there shaking things up..let there be more trouble making Blackmen in the world...maybe the world has gotten too comportable with it's anti black racism,and racism in general.
I never have said those 'dark' Indians aren't black.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Yep these are type of Indians not seen in Bollywood movies,except in Slumdog Millionair..which was part British production.
And most defnately not her^ Karala painting dravidian art..and Harappan girl What's truly amazing is not some so-called Afrocentrist making trouble in India but the almost completely hidden folks such as the above almost invisiable from out siders,although they exist in the millions.
Bollywood is a British financed propaganda engine that is run by a wealthy Iranian family named: Irani.
quote: "Our people were used like the tools in another's hand. We worked hard to motivate our fellow beings about the ill treatment faced by the community. I do not read much. All I learned is from my own experience. . My life taught me a lot. Always I like to be among our people work for them. I don't fear to fight for justice. I will be happy, even if I die in this struggle to provide justice to our brethren who have been oppressed and exploited for long long years." --- C. K. Janu Leader of Tribals in Kerala
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic