tHIS THREAD IS INSPIRED BY PARTS OF THIS THREAD:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005215
=================================================
The Indian as "Black White" and as "Nigger" By Francis C. Assisi on Indolink, Feb. 1, 2006
There is this essential contradiction in being a South Asian, or a person of Indian origin, in America: on one hand the South Asian is perceived as being black by the majority white population, and on the other the South Asian is eager to be categorized alongside whites, as Caucasians.
Brown on the outside, "white" on the inside, South Asians are mostly perceived in America as being too white to be black, and too black to be white. But with the increase in post 9/11 attacks against South Asians, at least some are being forced to come to grips with the myth that equates Indo-Aryan with Caucasian and with being white.
But for a hundred years South Asians have been harassed, intimidated, assaulted, humiliated, abused, and even killed because of what they represent through their color, their religion, their language, and their culture. And it continues to this day.
Take for example an incident from 1929: as a result of the humiliation that he received from U.S. immigration officials, the poet Rabindranath Tagore was forced to cancel his fourth lecture tour. That incident prompted the Nobel laureate to remark that if Jesus Christ himself were to come to America, he would be kicked out of the country - because he was an Asiatic.
Tagore explained his sentiments later by stating, "I arrived at Los Angeles, and I felt something in the air - a cultivated air of suspicion and general incivility towards Asiatics… I felt that I should not stay in a country on sufferance. It was not a question of personal grievance or of ill-treatment from some particular officer. I felt the insult was directed towards all Asiatics, and I made up my mind to leave a country where there was no welcome for ourselves… I have great regard for your people. But I have also my responsibility towards those whom you classify as colored people of whom I am one. I am a representative of Asiatic peoples and I could not remain in a country where Asiatics are not wanted."
Another Nobel laureate, astrophysicist Dr. S.Chandrashekar of the University of Chicago, confessed to biographer Kameshwar Wali that he was subjected to humiliating experiences in America because of the color of his skin. Chandrashekhar was born in India, educated in England, and lived all his professional life in the U.S until his death in 1991.
In the 1930s Chandrashekar taught, conducted research, and collaborated with the United States War Department on the atomic weapons research project. He became the first nonwhite person to be appointed to the faculty of the University of Chicago. According to Wali, the chairman of the physics department summarily opposed the appointment of Chandrashekhar to the faculty "because he was an Indian, and black". The dean, Henry G. Gale, also did not approve of the participation of the brilliant young Indian astronomer in teaching an elementary course in astronomy for precisely that reason. That objection was not lifted until the president of the university intervened.
Direct evidence of prejudice based on "race" or "color" may be scant. It has become bad taste for sure, to express such feelings openly. In the case of South Asians, moreover, there are so many other grounds, religious and cultural, for overt hostility that feelings about "color" or "race" could easily remain safely submerged. But as far as Euro-Americans are concerned, the skin color of the South Asian serves as a "label of primary potency," psychologist Gordon Allport's term for the most highly visible impression of a person or a people.
In some major respects, American color prejudice indiscriminately embraces everything non-"white." According to Harold Isaacs there are also shades of prejudice as various as the shades of color, and they flicker often according to place, person, and circumstance. And it is "black" - wherever it comes from - that sets the racial-color counters clicking the most violently. The South Asian, shading along a wide spectrum from fair to brown to black, arouses these reactions in varying measures.
For example, President Lyndon Johnson was reported to have said while canceling the visits of the heads of state from India and Pakistan in 1965: "After all, what would Jim Eastland (the conservative senator from Mississippi) say if I brought those two niggers over here." (Quoted in Richard Goodwin, "The War Within," The New York Times Magazine, 21 August 1988, P.3. It was reported that the American President decided to cancel the visits of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri of India and President Ayub Khan from Pakistan when the two countries expressed opposition to U.S. policies in Vietnam.)
In his path-breaking study of American images of Indians, MIT's Harold Isaacs reported one respondent who confessed: "skin color causes a certain tension in meetings with Indians." Another said explicitly: "in dealing with Indians you feel you're dealing with colored people, the same way you feel in the presence of Negroes…" A third, speaking of people in his circle of friends, said: "The Indian with his darker skin perhaps consciously or unconsciously suggests the Negro in the United States." A college professor in Texas expressed it openly when he declared: "They're just damn Niggers to me!" When the same professor was asked what he thought the American man-in-the-street might mentally associate with Indians, the reply was instantaneous: "Nigger!"
It took someone like Professor Sucheta Mazumder of Duke University to acknowledge that for most South Asian immigrants the myth of their Caucasian racial origin forms the basis of their identity and political mobilization. And that there are those Indians who really think of themselves as more 'white' than the 'whites,' indeed as descendants from that 'pure Aryan family' of prehistoric time.
According to Mazumder, South Asians invariably see themselves as "Aryan" and, therefore, as "Caucasian" and "white". This perception prevents the immigrants from making common cause with other people of color who were barred from citizenship on grounds of color or race. Thus, instead of challenging racism, the early Indian-American struggle for citizenship rights became an individualized and personalized mission to prove that he was of "pure-blood Aryan stock". Though victimized by white racism, which denied them citizenship, the South Asian response was equally racist, observes Mazumder. Instead of challenging the white man's racism, the Indian immigrant responds with "How dare you assume your air of Aryan superiority over me when I am just as Aryan as you, even more so!" This was the substance of the Indian claim in the courts back in the 1920s and it is still the substance of many an Indian response to American racism, asserts Mazumder.
This mythography of "Aryan origins" has wide currency among today's South Asian immigrants in America, says Mazumder, suggesting that this notion of white (Caucasian or Aryan) origin has led to a confused rejection of the color of their own skin.
This leads to an almost paranoid response to even being thought of as black. For example, Bharati Mukherjee, the noted Indian writer, complains: "I am less shocked, less outraged and shaken to my core, by a purse-snatching in New York City in which I lost all of my dowry gold- everything I'd been given by my mother in marriage- than I was by a simple question asked of me in the summer of 1978 by three high-school boys on the Rosedale subway station platform in Toronto. Their question was, 'Why don't you go back to Africa?'"
Meanwhile, one second-generation South Asian-American recalls: My father has said in anger, more than once, that he is black in his coworkers' and boss's eyes.
THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF COLOR
Color in itself is meaningless. Color is just color. It is a physical, spectroscopic fact. It ought to carry no compelling conclusions regarding a person's beliefs or his position in any social structure. It should be like height or weight. Yet, it attracts the mind; it is the focus of passionate sentiments and beliefs.
Sociologists have noted that oftentimes the issue of color in relation to South Asians in America rises in a setting of great mutual self-conscious sensitivity: South Asians watch for it to come up, Americans are embarrassed that it does. Currently, South Asians may not be a clear-cut case of "black" in US consciousness, but they are definitely "other," which is one reason why Mazumder, as well as other intellectuals, believe that only if South Asians develop a broader consciousness of themselves as people of color will they be able to participate in a genuine struggle for social justice. This consciousness is still in its formative phase, as we witness some second- and third-generation South Asians who are emerging as advocates for peace and social justice alongside people of color in America.
PS Mijn inzien begon de onterechte haternij tussen Afrikaanse Surinamers en Hindostanen pas goed toen Surinaamse politieke leiders, Hindostanen wilden assimileren. De Hindostaanse leiders kwamen in het geweer en gaven de Surinaamse Hindostanen een identiteit en een stem. Wij zien dat deze groep in andere Carabische landen hun hele cultuur kwijt zijn geraakt. Dat vind ik jammer, ook omdat ikzelf niet geassimileerd zou willen worden. Verder staat verdeel en heers ons in de weg, of wij nou in Suriname of Nederland wonen.
Egmond Codfried
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the thread asks are Indians "Blacks" ?
It's an impossible question to answer because the term "black" means differnt things to different people.
Some Indians have dark skin and have been subjected to prejudice due to it.
Should they be regarded as "black" ?
"Black" is a term that gets imposed on dark skinned people by some light skinned people. The dark skinned person then is faced with accepting the term or not. Some may say o.k. I accept the term "black" and hope they can ally with other people that get called "black" as a power base.
Many Indians have dark skin similar to Africans but they also have differences in appearance in many cases. So in recognizing that many have dark skin do they want to identify with Africans from Africa and people of African ancestry who live in other parts of the world?
There could be an advantage in doing this if it could add to a larger group of people to oppose a group that sometimes oppresses them on the basis of skin color.
However, there are more considerations involved in such alliances because once you make an alliance you have to cooperate and share resources in other areas when you are not actively engaged in countering racism. So the different groups will weigh the advantages and disadvantages in allying with another group.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Lioness some people.. for example some Indians called themselves Blks not based on oppression from lite-skinned folks but on what they think is cool your distaste for folks calling themselves Blks does not change this.. do we have to go over this again??..
"It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than those who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white..." Marco Polo.
First pic from Sri Lanka been there in person have friends there..the rest The Gondi (Gōndi) are a people in central India. The Gondi, or Gond people are spread over the states of Madhya Pradesh, eastern Maharashtra(Vidarbha), Chhattisgarh, northern Andhra Pradesh, and western Orissa. With over four million people, they are the largest tribe in Central India. http://www.shahamaasi.com/18.html Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the thread asks are Indians "Blacks" ?
It's an impossible question to answer because the term "black" means differnt things to different people.
Some Indians have dark skin and have been subjected to prejudice due to it.
Should they be regarded as "black" ?
"Black" is a term that gets imposed on dark skinned people by some light skinned people. The dark skinned person then is faced with accepting the term or not. Some may say o.k. I accept the term "black" and hope they can ally with other people that get called "black" as a power base.
Many Indians have dark skin similar to Africans but they also have differences in appearance in many cases. So in recognizing that many have dark skin do they want to identify with Africans from Africa and people of African ancestry who live in other parts of the world?
There could be an advantage in doing this if it could add to a larger group of people to oppose a group that sometimes oppresses them on the basis of skin color.
However, there are more considerations involved in such alliances because once you make an alliance you have to cooperate and share resources in other areas when you are not actively engaged in countering racism. So the different groups will weigh the advantages and disadvantages in allying with another group.
Either you are trying to be funny or you are a very silly and strange woman. Speak for yourself whatever you are, because you don't speak for any colored person including east Indians. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: ]Either you are trying to be funny or you are a very silly and strange woman. Speak for yourself whatever you are, because you don't speak for any colored person including east Indians. [/QB]
obviously you have not understood
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
They are Indian. Dark-skinned Indians are not accepted as White in America. Not even the tan complexioned ones. But most don't identify as Black. Some are even racist against people of African descent. I've read that even Gandhi had racist opinions of Blacks in South Africa.
I knew a man from Trinidad who looked like a dark-skinned Indian (dark brown skin, straight hair and narrow facial features). He considered himself to be a Black man of Indian descent no less Black than a dark-skinned person of African descent.
There is skin color prejudice in India amongst lighter and darker skinned Indians. It's fashionable among many in Indian to use skin lightening products.
I think the safe thing to say is that skin color discrimination is a reality and some people from India experience racism due to skin color. Some people in India are racist based on skin color.
Generally they tend to identify with their culture rather than their skin color.
I no longer have interest in putting people into boxes and labeling them one way or another.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Morpheus long time bro!! but check this out back in Marco Polo's time some Indians self Id as Blks,others may not have Id themselves as such..see above quote,yet others in modern times self Id as blacks because of well they are and want to link with the global communities based on similar system of oppression. http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=838 clik^ here and check-out the vid of a self Id Black from India addressing the AAs in a lecture.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
I was swooning away with Mr. Shahid Kapoors extremely charming looks. He looks like Tom Cruise, but superior. In India he was shown as fair, fair does not mean white, but in Europe he was quite brown. His dark lips forming a perfect heartshape: he was quite as pretty as the leading lady. Indan movies are today much about multi-culturalism, and cosmopolitanism. They played a Mozart piece in this movie, the actress was wearing an 18th century costume.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: They are Indian. Dark-skinned Indians are not accepted as White in America. Not even the tan complexioned ones. But most don't identify as Black. Some are even racist against people of African descent. I've read that even Gandhi had racist opinions of Blacks in South Africa.
I knew a man from Trinidad who looked like a dark-skinned Indian (dark brown skin, straight hair and narrow facial features). He considered himself to be a Black man of Indian descent no less Black than a dark-skinned person of African descent.
There is skin color prejudice in India amongst lighter and darker skinned Indians. It's fashionable among many in Indian to use skin lightening products.
I think the safe thing to say is that skin color discrimination is a reality and some people from India experience racism due to skin color. Some people in India are racist based on skin color.
Generally they tend to identify with their culture rather than their skin color.
I no longer have interest in putting people into boxes and labeling them one way or another.
The preference for lighter skin in India is primarily due to the influence of foreigners. I am not even talking about Aryans. The Greeks were one group, but they weren't that numerous to begin with. But with the Greeks began the history of "modern" India. Most history before that is blurred by myth, fantasy and mystery, with Harrappan civilization still not being fully understood. It was during the Persian era and then the Mughal era that light skin as a symbol of beauty really became predominant. Mughal art almost always shows people with features similar to themselves (IndoPersian and Mongol/Asian). After the Mughals came the British and the white skin preference became even more blatant and it was during British rule that movies and entertainment became standardized according to "British taste", which meant that actors and actresses are all light bright and trying to be white or European looking, Persian looking or sometimes even Asian looking, anything other than the natural dark brown that is predominant in India. And Gandhi was indeed racist in the sense that he didn't want to be lumped with blacks as a 3rd class citizen, but would accept 2nd class status under the British. Indians were often considered as some of the most loyal and trustworthy of the colonized peoples of the British and because of this the British often took them to many of their colonies around the world. This is what led to the rise of Indian populations in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. But they were always used as a buffer, meaning they were always placed above the natives as second class under the British and because of this came a feeling of superiority and resentment from the locals.
Now, some may feel a sense of Aryan superiority in India with their light skin, but the wheels come off the wagon when they go to Europe because no matter how light or "Aryan" they think they are, the British still don't consider them as "one of them" and look down on them because of the history of the British conquest of India. The fact is that British aren't Aryans, as Aryans are in reality populations in and between India and Iran and are not Europeans. But because European scholars trumped up Aryan supremacy as the basis for global European supremacy and based the colonial education system around it, a lot of Indians subscribed to it, not realizing that the British are not Aryans and are simply doing what they always do, making up stuff to justify their rule.
Traces of the Mughal and Persian communities are still found in India with names like "Khan" and features similar to old Mongol and Mughal paintings like joined eyebrows, but those features have absolutely nothing to do with Europe.
The fact is that the whole Aryan supremacy myth created by Europe is an attempt to put the basis of Indian culture in the hands of Europeans, by claiming some close relationship to the lighter skinned peoples of the Indo Iranian plateau, with Europe somehow an ancient homeland of these people. In other words, to turn history upside down. The truth is that Indo Europeans are a population partly derived from Indian, Asian and Aryan Persian stock and it is from this stock that the Indo European languages derive. In Hindi you say "Mera Nam es" in English you say "My name is". Sounds quite similar doesn't it, but of course I am no linguist.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Those who deny the Aryan invasion of India, need to explain the following:
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Those who deny the Aryan invasion of India, need to explain the following:
First of all,
R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
Second, how did whites became white?
Who is to deny? lol
Most Indians!!!
And Aryans are Iranians. Not Europeans by the way. lol
Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory
By Dr.Dinesh Agrawal
Aryan Race and Invasion Theory is not a subject of academic interest only, rather it conditions our perception of India's historical evolution, the sources of her ancient glorious heritage, and indigenous socio-economic-political institutions which have been developed over the millennia. Consequently, the validity or invalidity of this theory has an obvious and strong bearing on the contemporary Indian political and social landscape as well as the future of Indian nationalism. The subject matter is as relevant today as it was a hundred years ago when it was cleverly introduced in the school text books by British rulers.
Not only were the Aryans Iranians, but they were also descended from an even more ancient population of Indian folks who settled in the region. Hence, the strong linguistic ties between populations in Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia. Old Iranian (pre persian) languages are a branch of the Indo Iranian language family. Of course this is classed as a member of IndoEuropean but the European part of Indo European is a child of IndoIranian not the other way around. And there are still elements of the old IndoIranian folks in the western regions of Iran.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Aryan (Indo-European) homeland was in Anatolia, or the adjacent Black Sea region (e.g. Danube Valley or Balkans).
The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic, fair haired, long-skulled - a fact preserved in the Rig-Veda and other Indian texts.
The Aryan Gods in the Rig-Veda are described as having white skin and yellow hair, while the ''dasyu'' monsters (modeled on the dark skinned dravidians) are described as brown or black and ugly.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
The term "black" imparts a physical state of being which is fundamentally enhanced by the basic sheath of blackness; Melanin. Those with strong melanin subsystems, be they Indian, Australian, Native American, Asian, can physically be defined as "black". The further these people dilute themselves by mixing with Albinos, the further they are removing themselves from their Melanin heritage, blackness, and all the superior attributes associated with heavily melaniated people.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote: ^ blah..blah..blah...
The Aryan Gods in the Rig-Veda are described as having white skin and yellow hair, while the ''dasyu'' monsters (modeled on the dark skinned dravidians) are described as brown or black and ugly.
Iran is named after the term Aryan. Aryans Aryan is a reference to a language family and most of this association with North Central Europe(Andronovo) is largely based on speculation not actual linguistic evidence. Most of the association with Europe has to be put into context as the location of this mythical proto-indo Aryan population is far from western Europe and closer to Asia.
The fact is that the only populations most strongly associated with Indo Aryan languages are those of the Iranian plateau and India. The largest population of IndoAryan speakers is the Hindu population. These people, even the lightest of them, are not nordics in any sense of the term. In fact the home land of these so called proto-aryans is not even in Europe (not by today's standard). It is in the regions now known as Kazakhstan, Siberia and the Central Asian steppe. Again, not the home land of the nordics.
Nordic means northern, from the north, in other words north Eastern Eurasia, around Denmark. That is not the homeland of true Aryans. But again, this is mythology created by Europeans to put themselves into other people's history as the creators as opposed to the inheritors.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
Melanin means "Black" mainly because, the substance itself is one of the blackest substances known to man. Lack of Melanin means Albino, or as relabeled by Europeans; White.
If you adhere to the flawed, racist Albino European interpretation of color, then you will be incorrect and confused on fundamental elements of "true" human physiology.
These are the only true "races" of mankind:
Melanin Mel"a*nin, n. [Gr. me`las, me`lanos, black.]
Albino Al*bi"no (?; 277), n.; pl. Albinos. [Sp. or Pg. albino, orig. whitish, fr. albo white, L. albus.]
Mulatto Mu*lat"to, n.; pl. Mulattoes. [Sp. & Pg. mulato, masc., mulata, fem., of a mixed breed, fr. mulo mule, L. mulus. See Mule.]
The offspring of a Negress by a white man (Albino), or of a white woman (Albino) by a Negro, -- usually of a brownish yellow complexion. [1913 Webster]
The women Troll Patrol posted above show one woman on the left who is a mulatto, and one on the right who is black.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande
and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. ( Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b,1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic cultureand the growth of its population".
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh, Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race(RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26
can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote _________________________________________________________________ Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9). ________________________________________________________________________
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1 ) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.) _________________________________________________________________
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.
6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.
6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.
6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri 'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.
6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.
6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.
6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
code:
English Senegalese Dravidian body W. yaram uru head D. fuko,xoox kukk hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot' eye D. kil kan, khan mouth D. butum baayi, vaay lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu pup W. kuti kutti sheep W. xar 'ram' cow W. nag naku hoe W. konki bronze W. xanjar xancara blacksmith W. kamara skin dol tool mother W. yaay aayi child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.
The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.
Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.
This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.
Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.
Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981)
Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that if the Dravidians originated in Africa, they would share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara. The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
All Indians are not Black. You may be able to classify the Dravidian and Munda people as Black.
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
One of the principal groups to use millet in Africa are the Northern Mande speaking people (Winters, 1986). The Norther Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl (1985,1989) believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichitt site where millet was cultivated in the 2nd millenium B.C., were northern Mande speakers.
To test this theory we will compare Dravidian and Black African agricultural terms, especially Northern Mande. The linguistic evidence suggest that the Proto-Dravidians belonged to an ancient sedentary culture which exitsed in Saharan Africa. We will call the ancestor of this group Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:
code:
Kol sonna --- --- ----
Wolof (AF.) suna --- ---- ---
Malinke (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina ---
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä *kora
It is clear that the Dravidian and African terms for millet are very similar. The Proto-Dravidian terms *baraga and *tena have little if any affinity to the African terms for millet.
The Kol term for millet ‘sonna’, is very similar to the terms for millet used by the Wolof ‘suna’ ( a West Atlantic Language), and Mande ‘suna’ (a Mande language). The agreement of these terms in sound structure suggest that these terms may be related.
The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.
.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Bradaa were these Indians Christians?? Certainly "Gods and the Saints" means Christianity, or Shia Islam. I can't fathom Hindus makng such a claim..I take it the people Marco Polo met were Dalit Christians.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Lioness some people.. for example some Indians called themselves Blks not based on oppression from lite-skinned folks but on what they think is cool your distaste for folks calling themselves Blks does not change this.. do we have to go over this again??..
"It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than those who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white..." Marco Polo.
First pic from Sri Lanka been there in person have friends there..the rest The Gondi (Gōndi) are a people in central India. The Gondi, or Gond people are spread over the states of Madhya Pradesh, eastern Maharashtra(Vidarbha), Chhattisgarh, northern Andhra Pradesh, and western Orissa. With over four million people, they are the largest tribe in Central India. http://www.shahamaasi.com/18.html
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Aryan (Indo-European) homeland was in Anatolia, or the adjacent Black Sea region (e.g. Danube Valley or Balkans).
The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic, fair haired, long-skulled - a fact preserved in the Rig-Veda and other Indian texts.
The Aryan Gods in the Rig-Veda are described as having white skin and yellow hair, while the ''dasyu'' monsters (modeled on the dark skinned dravidians) are described as brown or black and ugly.
I beg to differ.
Go to an Indian forum and tell them this.
See how your white behind will get Booted!
Make sure you link that forum/ thread to this thread so we all can enjoy your severe nazi-clown beat down.
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote: ^ blah..blah..blah...
The Aryan Gods in the Rig-Veda are described as having white skin and yellow hair, while the ''dasyu'' monsters (modeled on the dark skinned dravidians) are described as brown or black and ugly.
Black God and the Ancient Mysteries: Or, why is Vishnu Blue?
The religious texts of the ancient East and India, i.e. the hieroglyphic writings of ancient Kemet (Egypt), the cuneiform writings of ancient Sumer (Chaldea/Mesopotamia), and the Sanskrit writings of ancient India, record the history of God as a divine Black man. According to these texts, God was originally a luminous, formless essence hidden within a primordial* substantive darkness called ‘waters’. At some point, this divine luminosity concentrated itself within the darkness and produced the atom or first particle of distinct matter, the ‘golden egg’ of ancient myth*. From this first atom there emerged many atoms, which the God used to build up his own luminous body. This body was anthropomorphic and thus this God was the first man in existence, a self-created man. This was a brilliantly luminous man, represented by the so-called ‘sun-gods’ of ancient myth. Indeed, the sun in the sky was said to be only a sign of the luminous anthropomorphic body of the creator-god.
This God’s initial attempts at creation proved unsuccessful, as the brilliant luminosity of the divine form scorched material creation. As a solution the God veiled his luminosity with a body made from that same primordial dark substance from which he initially emerged. This divine black body refracted the divine light as it passed through the hair pores covering the body. This black body is therefore referred to in later literature as God’s ‘shadow’ as it shades creation from the scorching heat of the ‘sun’ or luminous body of God. As the light passed through the hair pores of this divine black body it produced a dark-blue iridescence or glow. The ancients symbolized this visual effect by the semiprecious stone sapphire or lapis lazuli, which was a dark blue stone with golden speckles throughout. The God’s body at this stage was thus depicted dark blue and said to be made of sapphire/lapis lazuli. Veiled in this (blue-)black body, the God successfully produced the material cosmos. The creator-gods of ancient myth were thus often painted dark blue.
quote:Another Nobel laureate, astrophysicist Dr. S.Chandrashekar of the University of Chicago, confessed to biographer Kameshwar Wali that he was subjected to humiliating experiences in America because of the color of his skin. Chandrashekhar was born in India, educated in England, and lived all his professional life in the U.S until his death in 1991.
In the 1930s Chandrashekar taught, conducted research, and collaborated with the United States War Department on the atomic weapons research project. He became the first nonwhite person to be appointed to the faculty of the University of Chicago. According to Wali, the chairman of the physics department summarily opposed the appointment of Chandrashekhar to the faculty "because he was an Indian, and black". The dean, Henry G. Gale, also did not approve of the participation of the brilliant young Indian astronomer in teaching an elementary course in astronomy for precisely that reason. That objection was not lifted until the president of the university intervened.
Jesus was Indian
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
this actor is the face of Tom Cruise.
This should be a plagiarism of "top gun"
Racism in India is strong as in Brazil. In Brazil in the novels only have white players.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ha! Ha! Ha!. Leave it to this uneducated fool to get it wrong. 1. Aryan (Indo-European) homeland was in Anatolia – WRONG!! 2. The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic – WRONG 3. long-skulled – WRONG!!
This ass is a really stupid!!! Where does he get is BS????
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Aryan (Indo-European) homeland was in Anatolia, or the adjacent Black Sea region (e.g. Danube Valley or Balkans).
The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic, fair haired, long-skulled - a fact preserved in the Rig-Veda and other Indian texts.
The Aryan Gods in the Rig-Veda are described as having white skin and yellow hair, while the ''dasyu'' monsters (modeled on the dark skinned dravidians) are described as brown or black and ugly.
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Michael Jackson was indian
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Sir, this is not how you represent a case. This is far from acedemia.
It makes you look foolish.
And it's also an insulte to the posters here on our intellect. Do you think we go for stupidity, without thinking or verifying?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Lioness some people.. for example some Indians called themselves Blks not based on oppression from lite-skinned folks but on what they think is cool your distaste for folks calling themselves Blks does not change this.. do we have to go over this again??..
"It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than those who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white..." Marco Polo.
There is a difference between people who say their skin is brown from them saying they are "blacks" ("browns" being more accurate) as an identity.
Also the term "black" as it is used by average people America does not just mean a person of dark skin. As average people and the media and U.S. census use this term it is meant dark skin person of African descent .
Darker skinned Indian people in America sometimes experience racism based on their skin color but do they identify themselves as "black people" ? Don't ask me ask an Indian person. Also when there is a grocery store run by a dark skin Pakistani person would the average "black" person ("brown" more accurate) say the this person was black?
Also, historically, Africans did not categorize themselves by skin color, similarly Chinese and other Asians living today do not identify themsleves as a color. They might describe the complexion of their skin but they don't identify themselves as a category named by a color.
Of course "black" and "white" are not accurate skin color terms. Why is "black" even used when most people are "browns" anyway?
So are Indians black white or mulatto?
This question assume that these categories "black" "white" and "mulatto" are valid and are a three color method of categorizing people that people have always subscribed to.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic – WRONG
So why are all Gods of Indo-European myths described as blonde/red haired and white?
Why were all Indo-European kings, nobles etc also blonde?
Name a civilization - and i'll give you the ancient literature evidence.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Indian:
Black African:
Both are not the same race.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Indian:
Black African:
Both are not the same race.
Most Africans don't look like the woman from South Sudan. But what does your dumb white arse know?
Just the other minute you showed this picture.
You are a hilarious stupid meth addict.
What you Garrig, apparently still don't get is that you are not important and don't decide who's black or not. And all that pussy farting you're doing.
Get it through your thick dumb skull. Africans are most diverse.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Indo-Europeans were racially Nordic – WRONG
So why are all Gods of Indo-European myths described as blonde/red haired and white?
Why were all Indo-European kings, nobles etc also blonde?
Name a civilization - and i'll give you the ancient literature evidence.
Stop your idiocy.
I told you to go to an Indian forum, and tell them this. So they can boot you in your dumb nazi ass. And have a good laugh.
Propel your text in ancient sancrit. And make sure you link the thread/ forum to this forum.
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
It's a myth, got it.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Africans are most diverse =====
And look at the photo you pasted - all are dark haired and dark eyed.
True diversity only exists in Caucasoids who have all hair and eye shades.
Are you aware before Europeans colonised Sub-Sahara Africa, blacks didn't know what red or blonde hair was?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Africans are most diverse =====
And look at the photo you pasted - all are dark haired and dark eyed.
True diversity only exists in Caucasoids who have all hair and eye shades.
Are you aware before Europeans colonised Sub-Sahara Africa, blacks didn't know what red or blonde hair was?
You are too dumb to understand physical anthropology and the genotypes or even genetics.
I showed women similar in looks, but of different complexion with a purpose, dumbass.
The two (three) Indian women you showed also have dark hair and dark eyes.
Damn you're dumb.
Are you aware, that you're yapping nonsense out of your arse?
Whe have shown you traits and studies, on how to and why these traits do exist in Africa.
But you lack logic to comprehend all this. It is simply put too complex for you to grasp. So you're looking for excuses.
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. Stop confusing mythology with reality. lol
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Whe have shown you traits and studies, on how to and why these traits do exist in Africa.
But you lack logic to comprehend all this. It is simply put too complex for you to grasp. So you're looking for excuses. =======
According to the anthropological and genetic evidence East Africans cluster closer to Eurasians than Negroids.
This is why Somalis have straight hair and thinner noses.
Negroids (pure-blooded) don't have these features. But since virtually every negroid is a self-hater they can never admit this and it just goes round and round in circles.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
A quote from your fellow afrocentric buddy mike:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
THE "ONE" THING THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON, IS THAT THEY ARE ALL "HIGHLY" MELANINATED!
What they Don't "NORMALLY" have: EXCEPT in the case of Albinism.
Pale skin.
Red, Blond, Hair.
Blue, Green, Violet, Gray, Eyes.
Note how mike admits pale skin, red and blonde hair and light eyes don't appear in Blacks. He claims they are all mutations from albinos.
But these features are what make the white race the most phenotypically unique and special, it seperates us from the non-white races who are all dark haired and dark eyed.
Blacks don't have red or blonde hair or light eye shades. Your typical black is wooly haired, fat lipped, wide nosed and dark eyed. Blacks however hate these features which is why black woman spend money on green or light eye contacts so they can have light eyes like white woman.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
These are the only true "races" of mankind:
Melanin Mel"a*nin, n. [Gr. me`las, me`lanos, black.]
Albino Al*bi"no (?; 277), n.; pl. Albinos. [Sp. or Pg. albino, orig. whitish, fr. albo white, L. albus.]
Mulatto Mu*lat"to, n.; pl. Mulattoes. [Sp. & Pg. mulato, masc., mulata, fem., of a mixed breed, fr. mulo mule, L. mulus. See Mule.]
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Red hair occurs on approximately 1–2% of the human population. It occurs most frequently (2–6%) in people of northern or western European ancestry, and less frequently in other populations.
Who are the ''other'' populations?
(a) Ashkenazi Jews (who have European genes). (b) Berbers (who are Caucasoid). (c) Middle-easteners (such as modern Iranians who are of partial Aryan extraction). (d) Island of Hirado, Japan (Ainu).
Red hair appears most high in white north-western europeans, the highest among around 10-13% of Scottish people. It is also found among other Caucasoids, but not non-white races apart from the Ainu.
But since you are claiming redhaired negroids now exist, where are blacks who look like this then?:
Where are blacks with hair like this?
Stop the self-hate, its so sad reading that you can't even agree with what your race looks like...
No wonder...
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Whe have shown you traits and studies, on how to and why these traits do exist in Africa.
But you lack logic to comprehend all this. It is simply put too complex for you to grasp. So you're looking for excuses. =======
According to the anthropological and genetic evidence East Africans cluster closer to Eurasians than Negroids.
This is why Somalis have straight hair and thinner noses.
Negroids (pure-blooded) don't have these features. But since virtually every negroid is a self-hater they can never admit this and it just goes round and round in circles.
Really, are you really that stupid? lol
You keep babbling about Somalis as if your life depends on it.
I wonder do you actually know where East Africa is?
The traits you see like a thin nose small lips, thin hair are originally from East Africans, which by the way also can be found in West Africa as was shown to your dumb ass already. These East Africans migrated out of Africa to populate the world in several streams. This is why you have these traits not the other way around. You got them from African populations. This too was already shown to your dumb arse.
According to the anthropological and genetic evidence East Africans cluster closer to other Africans, and are also "Negroids", meaning black. This is why all Africans have the same basal clade.
This is why your classic Greeks and Romans spoke of Moors Ethiopians....
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Red hair occurs on approximately 1–2% of the human population. It occurs most frequently (2–6%) in people of northern or western European ancestry, and less frequently in other populations.
Who are the ''other'' populations?
(a) Ashkenazi Jews (who have European genes). (b) Berbers (who are Caucasoid). (c) Middle-easteners (such as modern Iranians who are of partial Aryan extraction). (d) Island of Hirado, Japan (Ainu).
Red hair appears most high in white north-western europeans, the highest among around 10-13% of Scottish people. It is also found among other Caucasoids, but not non-white races apart from the Ainu.
But since you are claiming redhaired negroids now exist, where are blacks who look like this then?:
Where are blacks with hair like this?
Stop the self-hate, its so sad reading that you can't even agree with what your race looks like...
No wonder...
This post by you shows, how dumb you actually are.
You can't out and in a critical point.
So you spam with the thread with stupidity and nonsense. Of some overweight person.
Pathetic individual you are. I truly pity you.
Has your arse already been torn apart at the Indian forum. Claiming mythology as facts?
Link it, so I can have a good laugh too.
Plus, you have seen the images of Africans with red hair. Like it or not. It doesn't matter.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: A quote from your fellow afrocentric buddy mike:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
THE "ONE" THING THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON, IS THAT THEY ARE ALL "HIGHLY" MELANINATED!
What they Don't "NORMALLY" have: EXCEPT in the case of Albinism.
Pale skin.
Red, Blond, Hair.
Blue, Green, Violet, Gray, Eyes.
Note how mike admits pale skin, red and blonde hair and light eyes don't appear in Blacks. He claims they are all mutations from albinos.
But these features are what make the white race the most phenotypically unique and special, it seperates us from the non-white races who are all dark haired and dark eyed.
Blacks don't have red or blonde hair or light eye shades. Your typical black is wooly haired, fat lipped, wide nosed and dark eyed. Blacks however hate these features which is why black woman spend money on green or light eye contacts so they can have light eyes like white woman.
First off all, do you actually know what the word mutation means? lol
And yes they are mutations.....plus I don't know what you keep ranting and raving about hating features? It's you who hates it and has a problem with it. Although you have seen different many times by now. lol
Blacks/ Africans differ in phenotype and genotype more than anyone else. Face it nazi boy.
1. The act or process of being altered or changed. 2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality. 3. Genetics a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome. c. A mutant.
Now it's up to you to explain what the conditions are to cause these mutations you keep parading with, while you wave your pompons..
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
cassiterides
Here is some advice Cassi, Listen to what Troll Patrol is telling you.
The reason why East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis are closer to Euros, is not because of there Features. It's because ALL People descend from East Africans.
Non Africans, are an subset of EA and In turn are linked with Ethiopians and Somalis. This does not mean that EA are not linked with the rest of Africa, far from it.
The PN2 clade links All Africans in the continent together. E1b1a and E1b1b are siblings that unites Light and Dark Africans as one family.
Hence the reason why many people claim that Africans are Thee most Diverse people in the World. There is more Diversity in an village in Africa, then the rest of the world combined.
Narrow Features and Wavy Hair does not make an EA less African, it just links people outside Africa, to Africans. Common Origin from the Creator.
Stop with the racist attacks and let Troll Patrol teach you truth.
Peace
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Has your arse already been torn apart at the Indian forum. Claiming mythology as facts? ========
THE “ARYAN COLOR” – THE RIG VEDA
The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9
It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18
RIG VEDA DESCRIBES ARYAN GODS AS BLONDS
Indra - X 23.4 - "With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."
Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^^^
Racial Affinities of Prehistoric East Africans
W.W. Howells' study of world craniometric variation is especially relevant to the racial affinity of East Africans before the expansion of Negroids into the region. Howells studied some 2,500+ skulls from 28 populations of recent Homo sapiens based on 57 metric variables [1], including skulls from the Teita tribe of East Africa. These recent Teita tribesmen (and women) clustered with other Sub-Saharan Africans, indicating that (as is obvious) recent Kenyans belong primarily to the Negroid race.
Howells then studied prehistoric East Africans and other humans from around the world to determine whether or not they show any affinities with living races [2]. He did this to examine whether the morphological complexes of modern races can be discerned in remote times. Using the same multivariate approach he studied the Elmenteita, Nakuru and Willey's Kopje skulls from Kenya. His conclusion was that there is no racial continuity between recent Negroid East African skulls and these prehistoric remains, as the following passage illustrates ([2, p. 41]:
(...) The DISPOP [Dienekes: DISPOP is Howells' program] results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have beeen changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.
[1] Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189. [2] Howells WW (1995) Who's Who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from measurements. Peabody Museum Papers 82:1-108.
=====
Prehistoric East Africans were not Negroid.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
The earliest crania of homo sapien sapiens in East Africa are ancestral to modern day Tutsis, Masai, Oromo, people,ie, Elongated East Africans who are "Negroid" Howells database lists as "African" only Dogon, Teita, and San, but NO Elongated East Africans.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^^^
Racial Affinities of Prehistoric East Africans
W.W. Howells' study of world craniometric variation is especially relevant to the racial affinity of East Africans before the expansion of Negroids into the region. Howells studied some 2,500+ skulls from 28 populations of recent Homo sapiens based on 57 metric variables [1], including skulls from the Teita tribe of East Africa. These recent Teita tribesmen (and women) clustered with other Sub-Saharan Africans, indicating that (as is obvious) recent Kenyans belong primarily to the Negroid race.
Howells then studied prehistoric East Africans and other humans from around the world to determine whether or not they show any affinities with living races [2]. He did this to examine whether the morphological complexes of modern races can be discerned in remote times. Using the same multivariate approach he studied the Elmenteita, Nakuru and Willey's Kopje skulls from Kenya. His conclusion was that there is no racial continuity between recent Negroid East African skulls and these prehistoric remains, as the following passage illustrates ([2, p. 41]:
(...) The DISPOP [Dienekes: DISPOP is Howells' program] results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have beeen changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.
[1] Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189. [2] Howells WW (1995) Who's Who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from measurements. Peabody Museum Papers 82:1-108.
=====
Prehistoric East Africans were not Negroid.
Paragroup E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
The limb portions of the people you try to claim is tropical adapted. Like other Africans it matches or is closer to them.
Now, if the so called negro skulls aren't as old as he claims and or continues.
Now, go cry me a river. (salt lake city)
Explain, why are Haplo A*, B* and D* carriers are the oldest amongst mankind. And human remains have been found where these same people still live?
So much for your pseudo logic.
Forget about all the nazi nonsense, ok!
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande
and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. ( Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b,1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic cultureand the growth of its population".
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh, Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race(RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande
and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. ( Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b,1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic cultureand the growth of its population".
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh, Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race(RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26
can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote _________________________________________________________________ Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9). ________________________________________________________________________
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1 ) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.) _________________________________________________________________
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.
6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.
6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.
6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri 'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.
6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.
6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.
6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
code:
English Senegalese Dravidian body W. yaram uru head D. fuko,xoox kukk hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot' eye D. kil kan, khan mouth D. butum baayi, vaay lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu pup W. kuti kutti sheep W. xar 'ram' cow W. nag naku hoe W. konki bronze W. xanjar xancara blacksmith W. kamara skin dol tool mother W. yaay aayi child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.
The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.
Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.
This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.
Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.
Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981)
Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that if the Dravidians originated in Africa, they would share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara. The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Has your arse already been torn apart at the Indian forum. Claiming mythology as facts? ========
THE “ARYAN COLOR” – THE RIG VEDA
The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9
It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18
RIG VEDA DESCRIBES ARYAN GODS AS BLONDS
Indra - X 23.4 - "With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."
Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."
Blah blah blah blah blah....
Go to the Indian forum, link it to this one so I can read the severe beating you will receive.
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
according to what you are saying most Indians would not call themselves "white" "black" or "mulatto"
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^^ You have yet to explain why North Indians look like White Southern Europeans.
Among the Aryan castes of India, are also found light eyes.
The anthropological evidence is clear of the Aryan invasion and who left their genetic mark. Too bad you reject history.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
A study headed by geneticist Z. Zhao et al. (2009) based on an analysis of "32 Y-chromosomal markers in 560 North Indian males collected from three higher caste groups (Brahmins, Chaturvedis and Bhargavas) and two Muslims groups (Shia and Sunni) were genotyped" found that "a substantial part of today's North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants.
Reich et al. (2009) indicates that the modern Indian population is a result of admixture between Indo-European (ANI) and Dravidian (ASI) populations. Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3500 to 1200 years ago.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
John Abraham
So we can check out his bodytype as well to look for blackness111
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ Egmond, pull the rest of that down
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Why are all afrocentrics here fags? Mike111 before was pasting nude black males, now egmond is posting very close naked white men.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not only were the Aryans Iranians, but they were also descended from an even more ancient population of Indian folks who settled in the region. Hence, the strong linguistic ties between populations in Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia. Old Iranian (pre persian) languages are a branch of the Indo Iranian language family. Of course this is classed as a member of IndoEuropean but the European part of Indo European is a child of IndoIranian not the other way around. And there are still elements of the old IndoIranian folks in the western regions of Iran.
Actually the Iranian speakers and Indic (Indian) speakers are two branches make up the Indo-Iranian subfamily along with a third recently identified branch of peole in Afghanistan and northeastern Pakistan called Nuri which includes the Kalash people. The Indo-Iranian subfamily is just one of the many sub-families of Indo-European is no more ancient than Baltic or Greek. Judging by the distribution of the languages the likely homeland for Indo-European languages is Russia.
This does NOT however mean there was an actual immigration let alone invasion of people in India who introduced IE language and culture. The evidence tends to point to a long process of acculturation among native peoples through chain of contact. For example Vedic Sanskrit was introduced by people native to northern India whose original language may have been the language isolate Burushaski or something similar. Later Sanskrit and Sanskrit derived languages hold Dravidian or other features. etc.
I have an Indian friend who even suggests the theory that Aryanization may perhaps be rooted in the spread of Vedic religion the same way Arabic took over the Arabian peninsula through Islam and perhaps Semitic religions before that.
quote: The preference for lighter skin in India is primarily due to the influence of foreigners. I am not even talking about Aryans. The Greeks were one group, but they weren't that numerous to begin with. But with the Greeks began the history of "modern" India. Most history before that is blurred by myth, fantasy and mystery, with Harrappan civilization still not being fully understood. It was during the Persian era and then the Mughal era that light skin as a symbol of beauty really became predominant. Mughal art almost always shows people with features similar to themselves (IndoPersian and Mongol/Asian). After the Mughals came the British and the white skin preference became even more blatant and it was during British rule that movies and entertainment became standardized according to "British taste", which meant that actors and actresses are all light bright and trying to be white or European looking, Persian looking or sometimes even Asian looking, anything other than the natural dark brown that is predominant in India. And Gandhi was indeed racist in the sense that he didn't want to be lumped with blacks as a 3rd class citizen, but would accept 2nd class status under the British. Indians were often considered as some of the most loyal and trustworthy of the colonized peoples of the British and because of this the British often took them to many of their colonies around the world. This is what led to the rise of Indian populations in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. But they were always used as a buffer, meaning they were always placed above the natives as second class under the British and because of this came a feeling of superiority and resentment from the locals.
Now, some may feel a sense of Aryan superiority in India with their light skin, but the wheels come off the wagon when they go to Europe because no matter how light or "Aryan" they think they are, the British still don't consider them as "one of them" and look down on them because of the history of the British conquest of India. The fact is that British aren't Aryans, as Aryans are in reality populations in and between India and Iran and are not Europeans. But because European scholars trumped up Aryan supremacy as the basis for global European supremacy and based the colonial education system around it, a lot of Indians subscribed to it, not realizing that the British are not Aryans and are simply doing what they always do, making up stuff to justify their rule.
Traces of the Mughal and Persian communities are still found in India with names like "Khan" and features similar to old Mongol and Mughal paintings like joined eyebrows, but those features have absolutely nothing to do with Europe.
The fact is that the whole Aryan supremacy myth created by Europe is an attempt to put the basis of Indian culture in the hands of Europeans, by claiming some close relationship to the lighter skinned peoples of the Indo Iranian plateau, with Europe somehow an ancient homeland of these people. In other words, to turn history upside down. The truth is that Indo Europeans are a population partly derived from Indian, Asian and Aryan Persian stock and it is from this stock that the Indo European languages derive. In Hindi you say "Mera Nam es" in English you say "My name is". Sounds quite similar doesn't it, but of course I am no linguist.
What's funny is that Bollywood only chooses the lightest people to be stars, and many of those people are not surprisingly of foreign ancestry. Even in the early years of Bollywood at least 80% of the actors were of northern Pakistani to Afghan descent. Today even many of the naturally light actors and and especially actresses use make up like fair-and-lovely to make themselves more fair to the point where they don't even look Indian anymore.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not only were the Aryans Iranians, but they were also descended from an even more ancient population of Indian folks who settled in the region. Hence, the strong linguistic ties between populations in Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia. Old Iranian (pre persian) languages are a branch of the Indo Iranian language family. Of course this is classed as a member of IndoEuropean but the European part of Indo European is a child of IndoIranian not the other way around. And there are still elements of the old IndoIranian folks in the western regions of Iran.
Actually the Iranian speakers and Indic (Indian) speakers are two branches make up the Indo-Iranian subfamily along with a third recently identified branch of peole in Afghanistan and northeastern Pakistan called Nuri which includes the Kalash people. The Indo-Iranian subfamily is just one of the many sub-families of Indo-European is no more ancient than Baltic or Greek. Judging by the distribution of the languages the likely homeland for Indo-European languages is Russia.
This does NOT however mean there was an actual immigration let alone invasion of people in India who introduced IE language and culture. The evidence tends to point to a long process of acculturation among native peoples through chain of contact. For example Vedic Sanskrit was introduced by people native to northern India whose original language may have been the language isolate Burushaski or something similar. Later Sanskrit and Sanskrit derived languages hold Dravidian or other features. etc.
I have an Indian friend who even suggests the theory that Aryanization may perhaps be rooted in the spread of Vedic religion the same way Arabic took over the Arabian peninsula through Islam and perhaps Semitic religions before that.
quote: The preference for lighter skin in India is primarily due to the influence of foreigners. I am not even talking about Aryans. The Greeks were one group, but they weren't that numerous to begin with. But with the Greeks began the history of "modern" India. Most history before that is blurred by myth, fantasy and mystery, with Harrappan civilization still not being fully understood. It was during the Persian era and then the Mughal era that light skin as a symbol of beauty really became predominant. Mughal art almost always shows people with features similar to themselves (IndoPersian and Mongol/Asian). After the Mughals came the British and the white skin preference became even more blatant and it was during British rule that movies and entertainment became standardized according to "British taste", which meant that actors and actresses are all light bright and trying to be white or European looking, Persian looking or sometimes even Asian looking, anything other than the natural dark brown that is predominant in India. And Gandhi was indeed racist in the sense that he didn't want to be lumped with blacks as a 3rd class citizen, but would accept 2nd class status under the British. Indians were often considered as some of the most loyal and trustworthy of the colonized peoples of the British and because of this the British often took them to many of their colonies around the world. This is what led to the rise of Indian populations in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. But they were always used as a buffer, meaning they were always placed above the natives as second class under the British and because of this came a feeling of superiority and resentment from the locals.
Now, some may feel a sense of Aryan superiority in India with their light skin, but the wheels come off the wagon when they go to Europe because no matter how light or "Aryan" they think they are, the British still don't consider them as "one of them" and look down on them because of the history of the British conquest of India. The fact is that British aren't Aryans, as Aryans are in reality populations in and between India and Iran and are not Europeans. But because European scholars trumped up Aryan supremacy as the basis for global European supremacy and based the colonial education system around it, a lot of Indians subscribed to it, not realizing that the British are not Aryans and are simply doing what they always do, making up stuff to justify their rule.
Traces of the Mughal and Persian communities are still found in India with names like "Khan" and features similar to old Mongol and Mughal paintings like joined eyebrows, but those features have absolutely nothing to do with Europe.
The fact is that the whole Aryan supremacy myth created by Europe is an attempt to put the basis of Indian culture in the hands of Europeans, by claiming some close relationship to the lighter skinned peoples of the Indo Iranian plateau, with Europe somehow an ancient homeland of these people. In other words, to turn history upside down. The truth is that Indo Europeans are a population partly derived from Indian, Asian and Aryan Persian stock and it is from this stock that the Indo European languages derive. In Hindi you say "Mera Nam es" in English you say "My name is". Sounds quite similar doesn't it, but of course I am no linguist.
What's funny is that Bollywood only chooses the lightest people to be stars, and many of those people are not surprisingly of foreign ancestry. Even in the early years of Bollywood at least 80% of the actors were of northern Pakistani to Afghan descent. Today even many of the naturally light actors and and especially actresses use make up like fair-and-lovely to make themselves more fair to the point where they don't even look Indian anymore.
The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure d nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.
The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.
Andronovo and the proposed birth place of Indo European is not in Europe it borders on the far East of Europe. Calling this "Europe" is a stretch to say the least. That is like calling Kazakhstan European.
Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.
My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.
A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense.
Yall remember Vonette Mcgee????
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
according to what you are saying most Indians would not call themselves "white" "black" or "mulatto"
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
according to what you are saying most Indians would not call themselves "white" "black" or "mulatto"
Correct. And objectively speaking, Indians could not be mulattoes since that denotes a mixed person of white and Negroid ancestry and the only Negroids in India are the approx. 20,000 Siddis who were brought over by the Arabs in the 11th cent.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^^ You have yet to explain why North Indians look like White Southern Europeans.
Among the Aryan castes of India, are also found light eyes.
The anthropological evidence is clear of the Aryan invasion and who left their genetic mark. Too bad you reject history.
But there are many South Indians aka Dravidians with light eyes, for e.g. Aishwarya Rai, Sneha Ullal or Aditi Gowitrikar. But you're correct that the further south one travels, the darker the people get.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
All Indians are not Black. You may be able to classify the Dravidian and Munda people as Black.
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.
See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and
Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;
Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.
.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.
See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and
Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;
Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.
.
I've got lots of South Indians in my extended family. Grew up in Chennai. Not one thinks he/she is of African descent.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Pandabear
quote:Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India.
But this is a global forum and yes some Indians and other South Asians do considered themselves Black weather they consider themselves Africans is another thing, and as I pointed out earlier some did so anciently, plus whatever one thinks of this guy's politics he considers himself not only black but related to Africans,no matter that geneticist said differently. http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=838 please klik and go to video.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.
See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and
Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;
Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.
.
I've got lots of South Indians in my extended family. Grew up in Chennai. Not one thinks he/she is of African descent.
maybe your family is unaware of their history. Since you are Indian you need to read these papers by Dr. Aravanan.
Have you ever read the Dravidian Encyclopedia?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: 'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
That's because the vast majority of black people in US have always been people of African descent. The label 'black' was originally a description of skin color only, however due to socio-political reasons it was expanded to include all peoples of African descent even if they are fair-skinned. This is why someone of mixed European and African ancestry like Halle Berry or Alicia Keys is considered 'black' even though they are half white and not dark-skinned. It was part of a ploy to give the false impression that whites are somehow 'pure' when they are obviously not. Mixture goes both ways.
quote:With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
True, but you can't deny that the Bollywood industry has an ideal that does not match with how the majority of Indians look like. Even the lightest Indian actresses must still wear make-up to make themselves even lighter etc.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.
Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.
With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.
See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and
Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;
Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.
.
I've got lots of South Indians in my extended family. Grew up in Chennai. Not one thinks he/she is of African descent.
All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa. It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.
Tamil girl
Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.
You speak as if there is truly a distinction between Europe and Asia when we know there is non either georgraphically or genetically. Europe is as much a subcontinent of Asia as is India, and European peoples are continuous to Asian peoples, hence the common use of 'Eurasia'. In many ways this is similar to the peoples of the Levant and Arabia being segregated to Asia only even though Africa is right beside it and the Semitic languages there are derived from Africa. As far as your opinion goes, I stick by linguistics. And linguistics shows that Vedic Sanskrit is about as old as Achaean Greek and that the Hittite language Nasili is slightly older than both. This along with the fact that Europe has the most diversity possessing most of the subfamilies while Indo-Iranian is the largest and most diverse sub-family with the most languages only points to an origin between these regions in the Russian steppes between Europe and west Central Asia is more likely. As for the Harappan language. Virtually all scholars agree that it is NOT an Indo-European langauge and possess many features alien to it. While the script has not been translated, language syntax programs suggest affinities with Dravidian languages more than anything else.
quote:The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.
Again, you assume that Harappan is Vedic culture when both archaeology and linguistics show that it isn't. As I stated the origin of Indo-European can be deduced from language distribution. The majority of brances are located in Europe while Indo-Iranian in Asia is the largest and most diverse of all the branches. The second largest and diverse branc after Indo-Iranian is Slavic. There was also an Anatolian branch spoken in the Near East such as Hittite and Armenian exists today as an isolate branch in the Caucasus. You are also assuming that Indo-European was the only language group in central Asia that existed. There is a total language isolate called Burushaski spoken in northern Pakistan that shows a subtle influence in Vedic Sanskrit and many scholars think was part of a more extensive family in Central Asia where the Andronovo culture later became dominant. There was even shown to be Burshaski influence in other IE languages in words for certain objects like the fruit apple. And again Harappan likely represents Dravidian since all the features of Harappan civilization are preserved more fully among Dravidian speakers and was unknown or alien to Vedic Sanskrit.
Correction. Andronovo is NOT the proposed birth place of Indo-European but of Indo-Iranian! The culture proposed to be the cradle of Indo-European is the earlier Yamnya Culture! As you can see the Yamnya is located in Russia and split into directions west, east, and even a small group south into the Caucasus.
quote:Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.
Yes scholars in the past have attempted to include Central Asia as prehistoric Europe, but that is besides the point. Indo-Iranic is one branch in Asia while most branches are in Europe. The same way all subfamilies of Afrasian are located in Africa with just one subfamily (Semitic) being located in Southwest Asia. Language distribution in both instances make it clear where each phylum originates. IE in Europe and Afrasian in Africa. Mohenjo Daro as the earliest and indigenous culture in India is irrelevant to IE languages.
quote:My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.
You're right that Harappa, Elam, and Sumer were all contemporaneous but what does that have to do with the introduction of IE languages. Indo-Iranian languages by the way were first known in Mesopotamia in the form of the Kassites and later in Syria among the Mitanni before it was known in India. The Andronovo culture contains more than just horses and chariots which by the way were unknown to Harappa and it contemporaries but Soma plant, certain styles of pottery and styles of weaponry as well.
Notice that right below the Andronovo are the later derived Yaz and Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complexes, and then after that the Swat culture in northeast Pakistan. This shows an obvious movement not of people but of culture. The earliest known center of Vedic culture by the way is located in Kashmir not long after the Swat culture. This supports the movement of Vedic culture from northeast to southwest as shown in the literature and not from from west to east as many Europeans once thought.
quote:A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurasian_continent.jpg
Of course it does not. But again this is besides the point that Andronovo is derived from the earlier Yamnya which is in Europe.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Dravidians are Caucasoid, not Negroid. However some have Veddoid (Australoid) admixture which is why they can be darker.
India is the eastern extremity of Caucasoid race, just further north of them were the Tocharians of western-China.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Kassites did not speak an IE language. The kassites were Kushites.
/
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
Ah, Castrated hide and Winters. Two erroneous sides of one rusted coin. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Sumerian seals have been unearthed across the Indus Valley, and Harappan seals have been discovered across Mesopotamia.
This occurred through trade, although there may have been a small colony of Sumerians in the Indus Valley
See following - On the So-Called Sumero-Indian Seals", George A. Barton, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 8, 1926 - 1927, pp. 79-95.
No idea where the Sumerian = Dravidian claim comes from. This seems to be another strange afrocentric piece of pseudo-history.
Posted by assumptions prove assumptions (Member # 19570) on :
as usual ( Dana marniche ) got all the answers . not only that she is sure about all her answers and keep distributing her assumptions everywhere she go . so for her everybody came from her continent ( Africa) .and always very carfull in selecting her pictures which use them some times to to prove her assumptions and doesn't matter if those pictures for some hybrid persons or races as much as are help her to distribute her assumptions and lies about human races???!!
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
The people who dominate this forum have a one track mind: it’s always about DNA and mtDNA. To me this is fantasy, mumbo jumbo. Because it means blackness can only be explained as a product of biology, biometry, craniometrical, etc. What about self-identification? Can blackness not be understood in terms of identity, culture, social affiliation, shared history, geographical movements, and social perception? The opening article hints at how Indians in the US are perceived and thus treated. And how they response to their new role as akin to niggers. There have always been classical African types in Indian movies, black men with frizzled hair. I read that some Blacks native in Pakistan used their looks to make a living as Michael Jackson imitators. Complaining about racism. But who has an easy live in Pakistan, anyway. Guyanes, bless them, are greatly mixed between Blacks and Indians. I remember looking at a beautiful Black women in Surinam who always carefully tied her head with a bright, diaphanous nylon shawl, like an Indian woman. She was Guyanese. In that great Gay Indian movie Dostana, where Abrahams struts his stuff; I saw two Black extra’s who did not look like any black I have ever seen: like they stepped out of a classical painting. They had small dreads, Nilotic looks, very dark, marvellous casting. This movie was all about multi-cultarism, cosmopolitanism and many literary references: one of the actors’ drinks from a cup with a Malcolm X image, while he researches gay stuff. Anyway, this thread was to invite people to look for more clues to blackness than stupid DNA.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ but Egmond we can't always define ourselves according to how other people opress us for whatever stupid reason they try to justify it with.
For many the concept of self identifying primarily by skin color is deeply ingrained to the point of never questioning it and taking it for granted as a good thing..
But many people in other parts of the world don't identify themselves primarily by skin color. Some choose nationality, religion, sexual preference, or philosophy as the primary self identifier
what do you think of this?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Sumerian seals have been unearthed across the Indus Valley, and Harappan seals have been discovered across Mesopotamia.
This occurred through trade, although there may have been a small colony of Sumerians in the Indus Valley
See following - On the So-Called Sumero-Indian Seals", George A. Barton, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 8, 1926 - 1927, pp. 79-95.
No idea where the Sumerian = Dravidian claim comes from. This seems to be another strange afrocentric piece of pseudo-history.
Few indus seals have been found in mesopotamia or sumerian sesls in india.
Dr. Loga has developed the Sumero-Tamil theory.This theory was developed by Tamil speaking Dravidians--not Afrocentric researchers. See:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.
You speak as if there is truly a distinction between Europe and Asia when we know there is non either georgraphically or genetically. Europe is as much a subcontinent of Asia as is India, and European peoples are continuous to Asian peoples, hence the common use of 'Eurasia'. In many ways this is similar to the peoples of the Levant and Arabia being segregated to Asia only even though Africa is right beside it and the Semitic languages there are derived from Africa. As far as your opinion goes, I stick by linguistics. And linguistics shows that Vedic Sanskrit is about as old as Achaean Greek and that the Hittite language Nasili is slightly older than both. This along with the fact that Europe has the most diversity possessing most of the subfamilies while Indo-Iranian is the largest and most diverse sub-family with the most languages only points to an origin between these regions in the Russian steppes between Europe and west Central Asia is more likely. As for the Harappan language. Virtually all scholars agree that it is NOT an Indo-European langauge and possess many features alien to it. While the script has not been translated, language syntax programs suggest affinities with Dravidian languages more than anything else.
quote:The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.
Again, you assume that Harappan is Vedic culture when both archaeology and linguistics show that it isn't. As I stated the origin of Indo-European can be deduced from language distribution. The majority of brances are located in Europe while Indo-Iranian in Asia is the largest and most diverse of all the branches. The second largest and diverse branc after Indo-Iranian is Slavic. There was also an Anatolian branch spoken in the Near East such as Hittite and Armenian exists today as an isolate branch in the Caucasus. You are also assuming that Indo-European was the only language group in central Asia that existed. There is a total language isolate called Burushaski spoken in northern Pakistan that shows a subtle influence in Vedic Sanskrit and many scholars think was part of a more extensive family in Central Asia where the Andronovo culture later became dominant. There was even shown to be Burshaski influence in other IE languages in words for certain objects like the fruit apple. And again Harappan likely represents Dravidian since all the features of Harappan civilization are preserved more fully among Dravidian speakers and was unknown or alien to Vedic Sanskrit.
Correction. Andronovo is NOT the proposed birth place of Indo-European but of Indo-Iranian! The culture proposed to be the cradle of Indo-European is the earlier Yamnya Culture! As you can see the Yamnya is located in Russia and split into directions west, east, and even a small group south into the Caucasus.
quote:Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.
Yes scholars in the past have attempted to include Central Asia as prehistoric Europe, but that is besides the point. Indo-Iranic is one branch in Asia while most branches are in Europe. The same way all subfamilies of Afrasian are located in Africa with just one subfamily (Semitic) being located in Southwest Asia. Language distribution in both instances make it clear where each phylum originates. IE in Europe and Afrasian in Africa. Mohenjo Daro as the earliest and indigenous culture in India is irrelevant to IE languages.
quote:My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.
You're right that Harappa, Elam, and Sumer were all contemporaneous but what does that have to do with the introduction of IE languages. Indo-Iranian languages by the way were first known in Mesopotamia in the form of the Kassites and later in Syria among the Mitanni before it was known in India. The Andronovo culture contains more than just horses and chariots which by the way were unknown to Harappa and it contemporaries but Soma plant, certain styles of pottery and styles of weaponry as well.
Notice that right below the Andronovo are the later derived Yaz and Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complexes, and then after that the Swat culture in northeast Pakistan. This shows an obvious movement not of people but of culture. The earliest known center of Vedic culture by the way is located in Kashmir not long after the Swat culture. This supports the movement of Vedic culture from northeast to southwest as shown in the literature and not from from west to east as many Europeans once thought.
quote:A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurasian_continent.jpg
Of course it does not. But again this is besides the point that Andronovo is derived from the earlier Yamnya which is in Europe.
I understand what you are talking about, which is the Kurgan hypothesis, but Andronovo or Yamnya is not the point. I never agreed with that theory and to me it is simply a rehashed Aryan invasion theory. Neither of these cultures a: have any close proximity to India or Ancient Indian culture or b: have any evidence of being linguistically ancestral to ancient Indo-Iranian language groups. It is all based on pure speculation and the desire of trying to put Europe first in the development of language. Yamna is certainly not part of any ancient origin of Indo-European languages. My personal opinion is that those cultures may have influenced later Indo-Iranian populations but this isn't the origin of such languages. Likewise, R1a1 is likely to have originate in India anyway. Looking at the map of Human migrations humans moved out of Africa around Europe into Asia and made a "left hook" into Eastern Europe and across. That left hook is especially important in the post glacial period as the basis of later European lineages.
So rather than a "sudden" appearance of "Indo-European' languages 5-6,000 years ago, I believe this is simply a continued evolution of the languages spoken by the original migrants out of Asia/Africa into Europe along that 'left hook' from India during the post glacial period.
Scholars call this the "paleolithic continuity" theory. I call it common sense. Indian populations are older than Europe and European populations partly derive from "Indo-Iranian/Asian and African populations not the other way around which is the old Aryan myth.
Like I said, the key to all of this is what language was spoken during the Harappan period in the Indus Valley and preceding cultures. I doubt very seriously that these languages were part of a different language family or that these languages were introduced from any part of Europe. But since it has not been deciphered, it is convenient to ignore and pretend it doesn't exist. And to me that is absolute pure nonsense. We know the people of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa spoke a language. If that language was a predecessor to and a variant of later Indo-European languages, then the whole theory of origins outside India is bunk. Like I said this whole concept is nothing but a rehash of the Aryan Invasion model where the populations of Harappa and the Indus Valley were suddenly disrupted by invading nomadic horse warriors who totally erased their language and culture and introduced another. That is pure B.S.
Again, some of the earliest swastikas are found in Harappa and these became a significant part of later Iranian and Indian Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
True, but you can't deny that the Bollywood industry has an ideal that does not match with how the majority of Indians look like. Even the lightest Indian actresses must still wear make-up to make themselves even lighter etc. [/QB][/QUOTE]
But that is true of all societies. Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt are not representative of the average white woman or man respectively; Halle Berry is not representative of the average African American. East Asian actresses routines have surgeries to remove the epicanthic fold. Black women straighten their hair or wear wigs or weaves. Why should Indian women be held to a different standard? Looks like most people want what they can't have naturally.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa. It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.
Tamil girl
Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African. [/QB]
Which geneticists are you talking about? All the Indian geneticists say otherwise. Also, that's not a picture of your "average" Tamilian. That would be like someone trying to pass of Aishwarya Rai as your average Tamilian. Neither extreme would be correct.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ but Egmond we can't always define ourselves according to how other people opress us for whatever stupid reason they try to justify it with.
For many the concept of self identifying primarily by skin color is deeply ingrained to the point of never questioning it and taking it for granted as a good thing..
But many people in other parts of the world don't identify themselves primarily by skin color. Some choose nationality, religion, sexual preference, or philosophy as the primary self identifier
what do you think of this?
Excellent point Lioness.
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Check out these videoes on dravidian origins;
Why would you think that we would be unaware of our history? My family's lineage in Tamil Nadu dates back to many millenia and we all read, write and speak Tamil fluently. I studied Thirukkural, Thiruppaavai, Sangam Lit., studied the history of the many dynasties such as the Cholas, Cheras, Pandavas, Pallavas, etc. and extending into the political and cultural aspects of modern TN.
Regarding Dr. Aravanan, his writings date back to the 60's & 70's, when genetics was in its infancy. Today we have the benefit of hundreds of genetic studies on the Indian population done by Indian geneticists and almost all I have seen say that India has not had a significant genetic input for at least 10,000 years.
Frankly, I also used to believe until about a year ago that Indians were dark because they were of recent African ancestry. But after reading many books by geneticists Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Spencer Wells, Stephen Oppenheimer, Bryan Sykes, etc., I started to think differently. Luca puts the genetic distance between North Indians and East Africans at .31, East Africans and South Indians at .33 and East Africans and tribal people at .34. I also read many genetic studies done by Indian geneticists like Lalji Singh, Sahoo, Chaubey, Tripathy, Sengupta, etc. who all come to somewhat the same conclusion which is that South Indians evolved from the early migration 60,000 years ago.
Anyway, not to go too much off tangent - in answer to Lioness as to whether Indians consider themselves black, I don't think most Indians did even when we didn't have these genetic studies.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa. It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.
Tamil girl
Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African.
Which geneticists are you talking about? All the Indian geneticists say otherwise. Also, that's not a picture of your "average" Tamilian. That would be like someone trying to pass of Aishwarya Rai as your average Tamilian. Neither extreme would be correct. [/QB]
you are absolutely right. your average Tamil living in the larg towns and cities are not pure Dravidians. There are very few people in India that are not genetically linked to other indians. nevertheless at one time they were all separate populations living in india as is obvious from the skeletal types found similar to those in other places - INCLUDING NUBIA.
And, I am really getting sick of people claiming for an argument genetic evidence proves that people either could not have been related or distinguishable two thousand years ago.
it is just silly and nonsensical.
A Tamil priest
Sorry but there are still large numbers of Dravidian speakers that retain the ancient Dravidian traits - there is also incontrovertible linguistic, archeological and cultural evidence.
"of the most remarkable findings related in some detail by Bernard Sergent, on the basis of independent studies... the multifarious kinship of the Dravidian language family with African languages of the Sahel belt, from Somalia to Senegal (Peul Wolof, Mande, Dyola). . …we have several separate studies by unrelated researchers, using different samples of languages in their observations, and that each of them lists large numbers of similarities, not just in vocabulary, but also in linguistic structure, even in its most intimate features..."
"To quite an extent, this evidence suggests that Dravidian and some of the African languages (the case has been made in most detail for the Senegalo-Guinean languages such as Wolof) have a common origin. At the distance involved, it is unlikely that the isoglosses noted are the effects of borrowing. Either way, Proto-Dravidian must have been geographically close to the ancestor-language of the Negro-African languages. Did it come from Africa, as Sergent concludes? Should we think of a lost Saharan culture which disappeared before the conquests of the desert?.... "
Indians did not emerge from a single population!
There are many Indians in the U.S. that don't look anything like the original American "Indians" here too. SO WHAT!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I understand what you are talking about, which is the Kurgan hypothesis, but Andronovo or Yamnya is not the point. I never agreed with that theory and to me it is simply a rehashed Aryan invasion theory. Neither of these cultures a: have any close proximity to India or Ancient Indian culture or b: have any evidence of being linguistically ancestral to ancient Indo-Iranian language groups. It is all based on pure speculation and the desire of trying to put Europe first in the development of language. Yamna is certainly not part of any ancient origin of Indo-European languages. My personal opinion is that those cultures may have influenced later Indo-Iranian populations but this isn't the origin of such languages. Likewise, R1a1 is likely to have originate in India anyway. Looking at the map of Human migrations humans moved out of Africa around Europe into Asia and made a "left hook" into Eastern Europe and across. That left hook is especially important in the post glacial period as the basis of later European lineages.
The Kurgan Hypothesis is the likely one supported by linguistic distribution as well as some archaeology. You were the one that first made reference to it with the Andronovo Culture. I merely showed you that the Yamnya culture is far older and is a precursor to it. You say these cultures are far from India yet the Andronovo is in Central Asia just north of it and the later Swat culture IS in India. Again the vast majority of IE languages are spoken in Europe instead of Asia. Indo-Iranic while being the most diverse branch is just ONE surviving branch in Asia, though there is evidence that members of that branch were also spoken in European Russia. I don't know what IE language origins have to do with 'Aryan invasion' as we are talking about language expansions and distribution NOT invading populations. The European origins of IE is no more about putting Europeans first than Afrisian origins are about putting Africans first. It is all a matter of the evidence of linguistic patterns as well as archaeology. You're right that Europeans have done much to create the impression of supremacy but insisting that IE is indigenous to India when all the evidence including ancient Indian texts does not help matters at all. Especially when you have truly indigenous Indian language families like Dravidian and Austrasian, and again there is a language isolate in Kashmir India and Jammu Pakistan that shows a substratum present in the Vedic language and even other IE languages that scholars are still mystified about. Also, I don't know what the origin of hg R1a has anything to do with it as its existence predates any known Eurasian language, European, Indian, or otherwise!
quote:So rather than a "sudden" appearance of "Indo-European' languages 5-6,000 years ago, I believe this is simply a continued evolution of the languages spoken by the original migrants out of Asia/Africa into Europe along that 'left hook' from India during the post glacial period.
Again this is your belief, but it doesn't hold up to linguistics. As far as "sudden" appearance, how so? You mean historically, because even the historical records shows a pattern of areas north of the Near East in Ukraine and European Russia.
quote:Scholars call this the "paleolithic continuity" theory. I call it common sense. Indian populations are older than Europe and European populations partly derive from "Indo-Iranian/Asian and African populations not the other way around which is the old Aryan myth.
If that's the case, then the same can be said for ALL European languages even the pre- IE ones that existed like Basque in Spain etc. Are you telling me that the Basque language is Indian too? LOL Note by the way that Basque actually has more Asiatic features like agglutination than IE languages. This makes it closer to Dravidian than Sanksrit! There is a big difference between saying the language phylum itself originated in Paleolithic Asia and saying that its ancestral precursors did in immemorial times!
quote:Like I said, the key to all of this is what language was spoken during the Harappan period in the Indus Valley and preceding cultures. I doubt very seriously that these languages were part of a different language family or that these languages were introduced from any part of Europe. But since it has not been deciphered, it is convenient to ignore and pretend it doesn't exist. And to me that is absolute pure nonsense. We know the people of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa spoke a language. If that language was a predecessor to and a variant of later Indo-European languages, then the whole theory of origins outside India is bunk. Like I said this whole concept is nothing but a rehash of the Aryan Invasion model where the populations of Harappa and the Indus Valley were suddenly disrupted by invading nomadic horse warriors who totally erased their language and culture and introduced another. That is pure B.S.
Did you not read any of what I wrote? Even though the Harappan script has not been deciphered, it has been studied enough to know that it is definitely not Indo-European! For one thing the script is read from left to right which is completely alien to IE languages. Here is one source on this matter.
Also, judging by Vedic texts, the Sanskrit language describes areas of northern India near the Hindu Kush and Ganges NOT the Indus Valley delta, and this is further supported by archaeology. In fact many features of Harappan Civilization like yoga and the linga are not mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit let alone other IE languages. If you can name something in Harappan culture that survives in IE languages, I'm happy to read it. Again, this has nothing to do with any Aryan invasion but the adoption and rise of a new culture after the decline of Harappa, since all archaeology shows that Harappan culture declined well before the presence of any culture indicative of 'Aryans'.
quote:Again, some of the earliest swastikas are found in Harappa and these became a significant part of later Iranian and Indian Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions.
Actually the oldest known example of the swastika comes from Europe-- the Ukraine to be exact!! It was carved onto an ivory figure of mammoth tusk dating 10,000 BCE! Now, I'm not saying that the symbol itself originated from Europe, but earlier you brought up Paleolithic Eurasian origins for the IE phylum which is ridiculous. However, evidence does suggest such origins for the swastika as it is found not only in eastern Europe, but India of course, Siberia as far east as Korea and even among Native Americans! Either the symbol had a common paleolithic origin OR by coincidence these peoples all happened to envision this basic geometric figure. By the way, the second oldest appearance of the swastika is found in the pre-Sumerian Samarran culture of Mesopotamia not India.
Again, I suggest you do more research on the subject matter Doug. You are a very intelligent and keen observer, however I notice when it comes to this topic and in particular that of IE as it relates to Europeans, your indignation towards Eurocentrism as correct as it may be, does appear to get in the way of proper assessment.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Djehuti wrote:
True, but you can't deny that the Bollywood industry has an ideal that does not match with how the majority of Indians look like. Even the lightest Indian actresses must still wear make-up to make themselves even lighter etc.
But that is true of all societies. Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt are not representative of the average white woman or man respectively; Halle Berry is not representative of the average African American. East Asian actresses routines have surgeries to remove the epicanthic fold. Black women straighten their hair or wear wigs or weaves. Why should Indian women be held to a different standard? Looks like most people want what they can't have naturally.
Correction. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do represent average white Americans in looks albeit in a quirky way in the case of Angelina. If this couple were not in make-up and definitely if they were not famous they would not stand out in a crowd of whites. In the case of Halle Berry however, while there are many biracial or mixed people of African descent in America, the fact that she is the main African American starlet in Hollywood is due to a long tradition of bias against African American women where WHITE is the ideal and black women had to measure up to that. This is only expected in a country where not only are whites the majority and blacks a minority, but that the white majority was traditionally chauvinist and oppressive to blacks. Why is it that in many African countries movie stars as beautiful as they are, still remain the same dark complexion as the average or general populace?? This is not to say no bias for light skin exists, as many countries in Africa were colonized by Europeans, however it is not as prevalent or great in degree as it is in America. As for east Asians removing the epicanthic fold, you're right that it is a growing trend, though a recent one. But again, mind you this happens in cultures that have much contact with Western nations. In the same nations where East Asian actresses do this, if you go to rural areas and especially among ethnic minorities they actually favor the eyefolds and shun round eyes as alien and in the case of some cultures demonic! Again, there is a pattern here that I'm trying to get you to see.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I'm rather confused by the claim that Indo-European incursions did not significantly impact India genetically. If that was the case, why are some Indians so fair-skinned? If Indians all over the subcontinent are descended primarily from the first immigrants 50,000 years ago, well before any modern humans moved into northern Eurasia and adapted to the high latitudes, then almost all Indians today should be quite dark and tropically adapted. How did light-skinned Indians come to exist?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I understand what you are talking about, which is the Kurgan hypothesis, but Andronovo or Yamnya is not the point. I never agreed with that theory and to me it is simply a rehashed Aryan invasion theory. Neither of these cultures a: have any close proximity to India or Ancient Indian culture or b: have any evidence of being linguistically ancestral to ancient Indo-Iranian language groups. It is all based on pure speculation and the desire of trying to put Europe first in the development of language. Yamna is certainly not part of any ancient origin of Indo-European languages. My personal opinion is that those cultures may have influenced later Indo-Iranian populations but this isn't the origin of such languages. Likewise, R1a1 is likely to have originate in India anyway. Looking at the map of Human migrations humans moved out of Africa around Europe into Asia and made a "left hook" into Eastern Europe and across. That left hook is especially important in the post glacial period as the basis of later European lineages.
The Kurgan Hypothesis is the likely one supported by linguistic distribution as well as some archaeology. You were the one that first made reference to it with the Andronovo Culture. I merely showed you that the Yamnya culture is far older and is a precursor to it. You say these cultures are far from India yet the Andronovo is in Central Asia just north of it and the later Swat culture IS in India. Again the vast majority of IE languages are spoken in Europe instead of Asia. Indo-Iranic while being the most diverse branch is just ONE surviving branch in Asia, though there is evidence that members of that branch were also spoken in European Russia. I don't know what IE language origins have to do with 'Aryan invasion' as we are talking about language expansions and distribution NOT invading populations. The European origins of IE is no more about putting Europeans first than Afrisian origins are about putting Africans first. It is all a matter of the evidence of linguistic patterns as well as archaeology. You're right that Europeans have done much to create the impression of supremacy but insisting that IE is indigenous to India when all the evidence including ancient Indian texts does not help matters at all. Especially when you have truly indigenous Indian language families like Dravidian and Austrasian, and again there is a language isolate in Kashmir India and Jammu Pakistan that shows a substratum present in the Vedic language and even other IE languages that scholars are still mystified about. Also, I don't know what the origin of hg R1a has anything to do with it as its existence predates any known Eurasian language, European, Indian, or otherwise!
Then you need to read some articles about the Kurgan hypothesis and the hypotheses about the spread of the "original" Indo Europeans which many claim is signified by R1a. I didn't say this. Suffice to say you haven't really taken time to read the various proponents of this theory. And yes the Kurgan hypothesis is a warmed over Aryan Invasion theory. The core of the theory is that horse warriors spread the language. If you don't believe me read the works of Marija Gimbutas. Secondly, it is based purely on archeological studies not any actual linguistic remains. Nobody actually knows what the Yamna culture spoke, they have no scripts and most of what remains is purely archeological artifacts. Hence, this is a theory based loosely on archaeological artifacts and extrapolation. So the fact that you believe in it is fine, but the critiques I have mentioned are not new and certainly everyone does not buy this theory, because it is a theory and not a proven fact.
quote:
quote:So rather than a "sudden" appearance of "Indo-European' languages 5-6,000 years ago, I believe this is simply a continued evolution of the languages spoken by the original migrants out of Asia/Africa into Europe along that 'left hook' from India during the post glacial period.
Again this is your belief, but it doesn't hold up to linguistics. As far as "sudden" appearance, how so? You mean historically, because even the historical records shows a pattern of areas north of the Near East in Ukraine and European Russia.
quote:Scholars call this the "paleolithic continuity" theory. I call it common sense. Indian populations are older than Europe and European populations partly derive from "Indo-Iranian/Asian and African populations not the other way around which is the old Aryan myth.
If that's the case, then the same can be said for ALL European languages even the pre- IE ones that existed like Basque in Spain etc. Are you telling me that the Basque language is Indian too? LOL Note by the way that Basque actually has more Asiatic features like agglutination than IE languages. This makes it closer to Dravidian than Sanksrit! There is a big difference between saying the language phylum itself originated in Paleolithic Asia and saying that its ancestral precursors did in immemorial times!
quote:Like I said, the key to all of this is what language was spoken during the Harappan period in the Indus Valley and preceding cultures. I doubt very seriously that these languages were part of a different language family or that these languages were introduced from any part of Europe. But since it has not been deciphered, it is convenient to ignore and pretend it doesn't exist. And to me that is absolute pure nonsense. We know the people of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa spoke a language. If that language was a predecessor to and a variant of later Indo-European languages, then the whole theory of origins outside India is bunk. Like I said this whole concept is nothing but a rehash of the Aryan Invasion model where the populations of Harappa and the Indus Valley were suddenly disrupted by invading nomadic horse warriors who totally erased their language and culture and introduced another. That is pure B.S.
Did you not read any of what I wrote? Even though the Harappan script has not been deciphered, it has been studied enough to know that it is definitely not Indo-European! For one thing the script is read from left to right which is completely alien to IE languages. Here is one source on this matter.
Also, judging by Vedic texts, the Sanskrit language describes areas of northern India near the Hindu Kush and Ganges NOT the Indus Valley delta, and this is further supported by archaeology. In fact many features of Harappan Civilization like yoga and the linga are not mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit let alone other IE languages. If you can name something in Harappan culture that survives in IE languages, I'm happy to read it. Again, this has nothing to do with any Aryan invasion but the adoption and rise of a new culture after the decline of Harappa, since all archaeology shows that Harappan culture declined well before the presence of any culture indicative of 'Aryans'.
quote:Again, some of the earliest swastikas are found in Harappa and these became a significant part of later Iranian and Indian Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions.
Actually the oldest known example of the swastika comes from Europe-- the Ukraine to be exact!! It was carved onto an ivory figure of mammoth tusk dating 10,000 BCE! Now, I'm not saying that the symbol itself originated from Europe, but earlier you brought up Paleolithic Eurasian origins for the IE phylum which is ridiculous. However, evidence does suggest such origins for the swastika as it is found not only in eastern Europe, but India of course, Siberia as far east as Korea and even among Native Americans! Either the symbol had a common paleolithic origin OR by coincidence these peoples all happened to envision this basic geometric figure. By the way, the second oldest appearance of the swastika is found in the pre-Sumerian Samarran culture of Mesopotamia not India.
Again, I suggest you do more research on the subject matter Doug. You are a very intelligent and keen observer, however I notice when it comes to this topic and in particular that of IE as it relates to Europeans, your indignation towards Eurocentrism as correct as it may be, does appear to get in the way of proper assessment.
Yes the Vedic and Sansrkrit languages are subject to linguistic analysis, but they came thousands of years after the Yamna and Kurgan cultures. The problem is that there is no linguistic evidence from those cultures to actually determine any relationship to Vedic languages or Sanskrit. So again, it is a theory primarily based around archaeological remains not linguistic evidence. Those things are core to the critiques against this theory and it is not new and not something I made up. And, likewise, Harrappan languages or scripts have not been deciphered or understood. Some people don't even believe there was a Harrappan script. But to the point of the Linga and Yoga, are you sure you understand what you are looking at? Yoga and Linga are core aspects of Hindu/Jain/Buddhist beliefs. And if they occur first in Harrappa, than is proof that much of what is called later Hindu culture was already in place and therefore not introduced from outside no matter what language they spoke. But since they were in place, the linguistics surrounding those things must have also been in place as well. Now some scholars have proposed that Harappan languages are Indo European. I did not make this up. But some others claim they are Australasian/Dravidian. The point is the Harappan languages are lost and undetermined so nobody knows their true relationship to later Indo-European languages. My point is that I doubt that Harappan languages were that much different from later Sanskrit or Vedic. But again, this implies that later Sanskrit and vedic are languages imposed by outsiders, hence the Aryan invasion theory all over again.
Also, I would like to see an image of that Swastika on a mammoth tusk if you have it. Again, if the swastika is found in Harappa before any certain date of Indo-Europeans being spoken in the region, then it has nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages. But it is an important symbol found in cultures throughout the region.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Indus Valley Seals
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Then you need to read some articles about the Kurgan hypothesis and the hypotheses about the spread of the "original" Indo Europeans which many claim is signified by R1a. I didn't say this. Suffice to say you haven't really taken time to read the various proponents of this theory. And yes the Kurgan hypothesis is a warmed over Aryan Invasion theory. The core of the theory is that horse warriors spread the language. If you don't believe me read the works of Marija Gimbutas. Secondly, it is based purely on archeological studies not any actual linguistic remains. Nobody actually knows what the Yamna culture spoke, they have no scripts and most of what remains is purely archeological artifacts. Hence, this is a theory based loosely on archaeological artifacts and extrapolation. So the fact that you believe in it is fine, but the critiques I have mentioned are not new and certainly everyone does not buy this theory, because it is a theory and not a proven fact.
You are confusing apples with oranges. The Kurgan theory is a hypothesis based on archaeology and linguistics. The archaeology shows a culture, the Yamnya. Of course we have no idea what language these people spoke, that it was proto IE is based on linguistics again both language distribution as well as age reconstruction. As far as genetics is concerned, R1a predates both proto-IE and the Yamnya culture so whatever claims made by some concerning that haplogroup is irrelevant. On the contrary language distribution does not support IE origins in India, and neither does the archaeology of Harappa support an IE speaking culture. The Kurgan hypothesis maybe a hypothesis but it has some weight to it unlike the Harappan origins hypothesis.
quote: Yes the Vedic and Sansrkrit languages are subject to linguistic analysis, but they came thousands of years after the Yamna and Kurgan cultures. The problem is that there is no linguistic evidence from those cultures to actually determine any relationship to Vedic languages or Sanskrit. So again, it is a theory primarily based around archaeological remains not linguistic evidence. Those things are core to the critiques against this theory and it is not new and not something I made up. And, likewise, Harrappan languages or scripts have not been deciphered or understood. Some people don't even believe there was a Harrappan script. But to the point of the Linga and Yoga, are you sure you understand what you are looking at? Yoga and Linga are core aspects of Hindu/Jain/Buddhist beliefs. And if they occur first in Harrappa, than is proof that much of what is called later Hindu culture was already in place and therefore not introduced from outside no matter what language they spoke. But since they were in place, the linguistics surrounding those things must have also been in place as well. Now some scholars have proposed that Harappan languages are Indo European. I did not make this up. But some others claim they are Australasian/Dravidian. The point is the Harappan languages are lost and undetermined so nobody knows their true relationship to later Indo-European languages. My point is that I doubt that Harappan languages were that much different from later Sanskrit or Vedic. But again, this implies that later Sanskrit and vedic are languages imposed by outsiders, hence the Aryan invasion theory all over again.
Okay, Vedic is a description of the time period or culture in which the ancient Vedas or Hindu holy books were first written. Sanskrit is the name of a language, the earliest known written language in India other than the Indus script. The Vedic period is estimated to be about 1700–1100 BCE. The Sanskrit language itself is estimated to be about 1500-1200 BCE diverging from the common ancestor as Iranian Avestan language. The Yamna Culture dates around 3600-2300 BCE. So of course the Yamna Culture predates both Vedic culture and Sanskrit language enough to be a suitable candidate for a possible ancestor. Again while we have no way of knowing what the Yamna people spoke, linguistics estimates the age of proto-IE to have arisen around 3,000-4,000 BCE and the way the languages are distributed shows European Russia to be a likely candidate. As to your point about the linga and yoga, I know these are features and themes in modern Hinduism. In fact I have already stated that there are actually more non-Vedic (non-Aryan) themes in Hinduism than there are Vedic ones, and all of these same themes can be found in more prevalent forms of the cultures of the non-IE speaking peoples of India like the Dravidians. The same can be said about ancient Greek religion which has many non IE features and deities. By the way, Dravidian and Austro-asiatic or Austrasian are two separate phyla. What you fail to understand is that European origins and diffusion of the language phylum does NOT equate to an invasion, let alone an imposition!! I don't know why you cannot comprehend this fact. The same can be said about the origins and spread of Afrasian languages. Just because most of the people in Southwest Asia, particularly the Levant and Arabia spoke Afrasian languages that originated in Africa does NOT mean that Africans simply invaded the region and imposed their language on the natives!! The process of acculturation and language adoption is far more complex and simplistic than a case of mere domination of one group over another!!
Also, I would like to see an image of that Swastika on a mammoth tusk if you have it. Again, if the swastika is found in Harappa before any certain date of Indo-Europeans being spoken in the region, then it has nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages. But it is an important symbol found in cultures throughout the region.
Here is one image of the ivory figure.
By the way, I never said the swastika has anything to do with the spread of IE languages. If you were comprehended what I said, I noted that the swastika not only predates Indo-European but the Harappan culture as well and is definitely a symbol paleolithic in origin!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I'm rather confused by the claim that Indo-European incursions did not significantly impact India genetically. If that was the case, why are some Indians so fair-skinned? If Indians all over the subcontinent are descended primarily from the first immigrants 50,000 years ago, well before any modern humans moved into northern Eurasia and adapted to the high latitudes, then almost all Indians today should be quite dark and tropically adapted. How did light-skinned Indians come to exist?
Fair skin in actually not as common as many people assume from Indian media and Bollywood. The majority of light skin Indians come from the north and is due to immigration and invasions but ones that post-date the Vedic age and so have nothing to do with alleged Aryan invaders.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Then you need to read some articles about the Kurgan hypothesis and the hypotheses about the spread of the "original" Indo Europeans which many claim is signified by R1a. I didn't say this. Suffice to say you haven't really taken time to read the various proponents of this theory. And yes the Kurgan hypothesis is a warmed over Aryan Invasion theory. The core of the theory is that horse warriors spread the language. If you don't believe me read the works of Marija Gimbutas. Secondly, it is based purely on archeological studies not any actual linguistic remains. Nobody actually knows what the Yamna culture spoke, they have no scripts and most of what remains is purely archeological artifacts. Hence, this is a theory based loosely on archaeological artifacts and extrapolation. So the fact that you believe in it is fine, but the critiques I have mentioned are not new and certainly everyone does not buy this theory, because it is a theory and not a proven fact.
You are confusing apples with oranges. The Kurgan theory is a hypothesis based on archaeology and linguistics. The archaeology shows a culture, the Yamnya. Of course we have no idea what language these people spoke, that it was proto IE is based on linguistics again both language distribution as well as age reconstruction. As far as genetics is concerned, R1a predates both proto-IE and the Yamnya culture so whatever claims made by some concerning that haplogroup is irrelevant. On the contrary language distribution does not support IE origins in India, and neither does the archaeology of Harappa support an IE speaking culture. The Kurgan hypothesis maybe a hypothesis but it has some weight to it unlike the Harappan origins hypothesis.
quote: Yes the Vedic and Sansrkrit languages are subject to linguistic analysis, but they came thousands of years after the Yamna and Kurgan cultures. The problem is that there is no linguistic evidence from those cultures to actually determine any relationship to Vedic languages or Sanskrit. So again, it is a theory primarily based around archaeological remains not linguistic evidence. Those things are core to the critiques against this theory and it is not new and not something I made up. And, likewise, Harrappan languages or scripts have not been deciphered or understood. Some people don't even believe there was a Harrappan script. But to the point of the Linga and Yoga, are you sure you understand what you are looking at? Yoga and Linga are core aspects of Hindu/Jain/Buddhist beliefs. And if they occur first in Harrappa, than is proof that much of what is called later Hindu culture was already in place and therefore not introduced from outside no matter what language they spoke. But since they were in place, the linguistics surrounding those things must have also been in place as well. Now some scholars have proposed that Harappan languages are Indo European. I did not make this up. But some others claim they are Australasian/Dravidian. The point is the Harappan languages are lost and undetermined so nobody knows their true relationship to later Indo-European languages. My point is that I doubt that Harappan languages were that much different from later Sanskrit or Vedic. But again, this implies that later Sanskrit and vedic are languages imposed by outsiders, hence the Aryan invasion theory all over again.
Okay, Vedic is a description of the time period or culture in which the ancient Vedas or Hindu holy books were first written. Sanskrit is the name of a language, the earliest known written language in India other than the Indus script. The Vedic period is estimated to be about 1700–1100 BCE. The Sanskrit language itself is estimated to be about 1500-1200 BCE diverging from the common ancestor as Iranian Avestan language. The Yamna Culture dates around 3600-2300 BCE. So of course the Yamna Culture predates both Vedic culture and Sanskrit language enough to be a suitable candidate for a possible ancestor. Again while we have no way of knowing what the Yamna people spoke, linguistics estimates the age of proto-IE to have arisen around 3,000-4,000 BCE and the way the languages are distributed shows European Russia to be a likely candidate. As to your point about the linga and yoga, I know these are features and themes in modern Hinduism. In fact I have already stated that there are actually more non-Vedic (non-Aryan) themes in Hinduism than there are Vedic ones, and all of these same themes can be found in more prevalent forms of the cultures of the non-IE speaking peoples of India like the Dravidians. The same can be said about ancient Greek religion which has many non IE features and deities. By the way, Dravidian and Austro-asiatic or Austrasian are two separate phyla. What you fail to understand is that European origins and diffusion of the language phylum does NOT equate to an invasion, let alone an imposition!! I don't know why you cannot comprehend this fact. The same can be said about the origins and spread of Afrasian languages. Just because most of the people in Southwest Asia, particularly the Levant and Arabia spoke Afrasian languages that originated in Africa does NOT mean that Africans simply invaded the region and imposed their language on the natives!! The process of acculturation and language adoption is far more complex and simplistic than a case of mere domination of one group over another!!
Also, I would like to see an image of that Swastika on a mammoth tusk if you have it. Again, if the swastika is found in Harappa before any certain date of Indo-Europeans being spoken in the region, then it has nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages. But it is an important symbol found in cultures throughout the region.
Here is one image of the ivory figure.
By the way, I never said the swastika has anything to do with the spread of IE languages. If you were comprehended what I said, I noted that the swastika not only predates Indo-European but the Harappan culture as well and is definitely a symbol paleolithic in origin!
The Kurgan theory is not based on linguistics Djehuti. I have posted my sources. Please read them. You keep saying this but provide no sources. The sources I read say the opposite. That is the basis of my disagreement and all the other stuff is really secondary. You claim it is based on linguistics but it isn't. Linguistics may have postulated there had to be an ancestor to Indo-European, but they don't have any actual scripts or evidence of who spoke what in what place and time to say for sure. So most of it is pure speculation. Yes, Indo-European is widespread in Europe but when did it become widespread? So again, were the people of Yamna and the Kurgans speaking a Indo-European language? And if they did are they the ones responsible for spreading it in Europe? There are multiple theories on this and the Kurgan theory is not the only one. I am not creating any new ideas on this but I don't believe in that one myself.
And if you don't believe that this is a warmed over Aryan invasion story, see the authors own words:
quote: Bringing together archaeological evidence, comparative mythology and folklore, and symbolic interpretations, Gimbutas's work asserts the existence in prehistoric Europe of a widespread culture centered on the Goddess, lifegiver and sustainer, as well as death-wielder. Through the examination of hundreds of Paleolithic and mostly Neolithic pieces, the author traces cross-cultural and cross-chronological symbolic parallels, some of which are quite broad and open to several types of inference. The central and venerated position of women in the unconscious of early European people seems probable; this order of things changed with the incursions by Kurgan groups (4300-2800 B.C.) and the European world moved "from matrilineal to patrilineal." Whether or not one agrees with these archaeomythological interpretations, Gimbutas offers a thought-provoking symbolic reading of hundreds of selected pieces, beautifully reproduced in this sizeable compendium.
quote: In the mid-1950s, Gimbutas combined her extensive background in linguistic palaeontology with archaeological evidence to locate the homeland of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speakers and to explain the rapid and extensive spread of Indo-European languages. This theory stimulated a renewed interest in the “Indo-European problem” resulting in a number of other homeland theories (see Mallory 1989:143-185; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1985:3-91; Makkay 1987; Renfrew 1987)5. In In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), James Mallory writes, “the Kurgan theory has been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total, and is the solution one encounters in Encyclopedia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse” (Mallory 1989, 185; see also Dergachev, 2002). The Kurgan theory continues to be critiqued and debated among a new generation of scholars (see, e.g., Manzura 1999; Stefanovich 2003; Nikolova 2003).
Gimbutas coined the term “Kurgan culture” to refer to the pastoral communities documented from the fifth millennium BC in the harsh environment of the Volga-Ural-Caspian region. These peoples, who are assumed to have spoken a Proto-Indo-European language6, appear to have gone through a long process of convergence that resulted in the consolidation of shared morphology and lexicon (Gimbutas 1997:307; Mallory 1989:195; Anthony 1991:196; Lehmann 1997). “This chronology does not represent the evolution of a single group, but of a number of various steppe peoples who shared a common tradition, extending over broad temporal and spatial parameters” (Gimbutas 1991:352). “As numerous historical instances testify, pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups” (Mallory 1989:260-261). Horse domestication, which provided a powerful means of transport, was most likely accomplished by 5000 BC or earlier between eastern Ukraine and northern Kazakhstan (Bökönyi 1987; Gimbutas 1991:353)7. Access to horse riding may have intensified the aggressive territoriality and warlike behavior that typify these increasingly mobile tribes.
The use of horses as mounts led to an expansion in the size of potential exploitative territories by a factor of five and therefore to conflicts over localized resources that had formerly been beyond effective reach (Anthony 1986:302)8.
As early as the first half of the fifth millennium BC in the lower Volga basin, male burials appear in pit graves covered by kurgans (round barrows). These graves contain prestige weapons indicating both the importance of warfare and the establishment of social hierarchy. The similarity of grave goods and evidence of a horse cult in burial sites separated by thousands of kilometers suggest the existence of phenomenal mobility and intertribal relations between peoples of the Caucasus and the North Pontic steppe.
While some scholars question the association of language with specific ethnic groups (Renfrew 1987; Anthony 1991:194-195; Makkay 1992:194), Gimbutas emphasized the connection between PIE speakers and an entire complex of traits found progressively from the Volga steppe to the Dnieper. The Kurgan culture is reconstructed according to a lexicon of PIE terminology verified by archaeological data and comparative Indo-European linguistics. This multidisciplinary investigation points to a pastoral economy with rudimentary agriculture, crude cord-impressed pottery with solar motifs, horse domestication, territorialism, warfare, and a patrilineal, patriarchal social system (Gimbutas 1991, 1997; Mallory 1989:123-124; Whittle 1996:137; Best 1989:337). Such elements were unknown west of the Black Sea before 4400 BC, but were spread throughout Europe accompanied by the appearance of Kurgan burials. The Kurgan Theory posits three infiltrations of Kurgan peoples into Europe resulting in the Indo-Europeanization of the continent over a two thousand year period (Gimbutas 1992:400-405)9.
And as for the swastika you posted, while it does look similar to the later swastika in Asia, does it really represent the same conscious symbolic function and continuity as the later Asian character? Whereas later swastikas can definitively be traced back to antecedents in the Near East, India and Asia.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the thread asks are Indians "Blacks" ?
It's an impossible question to answer because the term "black" means differnt things to different people.
Some Indians have dark skin and have been subjected to prejudice due to it.
Should they be regarded as "black" ?
"Black" is a term that gets imposed on dark skinned people by some light skinned people. The dark skinned person then is faced with accepting the term or not. Some may say o.k. I accept the term "black" and hope they can ally with other people that get called "black" as a power base.
^You come off very paranoid. If an Indian is dark or "black" and that is how he identify then he is black. I went to school with plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian where they identify as black and said they are black in their country. The aborigines of Australia identify as black as well. Who are we to tell these people that they aren't black because they are not African. Being black doesn't mean African and no black person from African descendant can deny these people their identity that they have to live with as blacks socially, culturally, ethnically, and economically, in their country and outside, just because they aren't African. Dark people don't call themselves black because light skin says so. They call themselves black because it is true, figuratively speaking color-wise, and it is a fact of life -- and it has "cursed" many black people throughout the world.
Who are you to dictate to other blacks outside Africa about them not being black. You are so afraid and paranoid about ALL blacks uniting under a common cause, and that is why so many anti-black people are trying to separate blacks based on skin color, features, hair, continent, region and everything else.
Are Iranians, Iraquis, Afghans, Croats, Serbs, Albanians white? If people argue that they aren't because some aren't European and others are too dark and "ethnic" looking, you will be the first one fighting them into white membership.
Why are you threaten by black people and what are you afraid of?
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: So in recognizing that many have dark skin do they want to identify with Africans from Africa and people of African ancestry who live in other parts of the world?
There could be an advantage in doing this if it could add to a larger group of people to oppose a group that sometimes oppresses them on the basis of skin color.
However, there are more considerations involved in such alliances because once you make an alliance you have to cooperate and share resources in other areas when you are not actively engaged in countering racism. So the different groups will weigh the advantages and disadvantages in allying with another group.
^ Girl you are showing your fear and paranoia. Who said anything about Indians wanting to or identifying as African? Who said blacks is confined to Africa and no where beyond? Who the fvck said forming alliance and having to share resource and living together? You are showing your inner fears. Now I see why you and others like you work so hard to separate ALL "black" people. Indians can stay in Indian and never ever need to identify as African, and it is better that they don't because they aren't. They can just be black but Indian or black but Asian or Indian but white or Indian and just Indian. Would Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis want to identify as white since they are from a different continent. Should the whites of the caucus identify or be white because they aren't European. Should those from southeastern Europe identify as white or mix because they look so differently from the true whites and they have admixture from darkskin groups from Africa and Asia?
Posted by Pandabear (Member # 19548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear:
quote:Djehuti wrote:
True, but you can't deny that the Bollywood industry has an ideal that does not match with how the majority of Indians look like. Even the lightest Indian actresses must still wear make-up to make themselves even lighter etc.
But that is true of all societies. Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt are not representative of the average white woman or man respectively; Halle Berry is not representative of the average African American. East Asian actresses routines have surgeries to remove the epicanthic fold. Black women straighten their hair or wear wigs or weaves. Why should Indian women be held to a different standard? Looks like most people want what they can't have naturally.
Correction. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do represent average white Americans in looks albeit in a quirky way in the case of Angelina. If this couple were not in make-up and definitely if they were not famous they would not stand out in a crowd of whites. In the case of Halle Berry however, while there are many biracial or mixed people of African descent in America, the fact that she is the main African American starlet in Hollywood is due to a long tradition of bias against African American women where WHITE is the ideal and black women had to measure up to that. This is only expected in a country where not only are whites the majority and blacks a minority, but that the white majority was traditionally chauvinist and oppressive to blacks. Why is it that in many African countries movie stars as beautiful as they are, still remain the same dark complexion as the average or general populace?? This is not to say no bias for light skin exists, as many countries in Africa were colonized by Europeans, however it is not as prevalent or great in degree as it is in America. As for east Asians removing the epicanthic fold, you're right that it is a growing trend, though a recent one. But again, mind you this happens in cultures that have much contact with Western nations. In the same nations where East Asian actresses do this, if you go to rural areas and especially among ethnic minorities they actually favor the eyefolds and shun round eyes as alien and in the case of some cultures demonic! Again, there is a pattern here that I'm trying to get you to see.
I don't think Jolie or Pitt are representative of the common man/woman on the street at all. They're much more attractive, more fit, etc. That's true of Bollywood as well. Second, the average man/woman on the streets of India is just not into grooming & styling as the average American or East Asian is. That is why the disparity seems so huge between Bollywood and the average man/woman on the street.
But I agree with you that the white standard of beauty is universal. Part of it is also that people always want what they can't have naturally.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the thread asks are Indians "Blacks" ?
It's an impossible question to answer because the term "black" means differnt things to different people.
Some Indians have dark skin and have been subjected to prejudice due to it.
Should they be regarded as "black" ?
"Black" is a term that gets imposed on dark skinned people by some light skinned people. The dark skinned person then is faced with accepting the term or not. Some may say o.k. I accept the term "black" and hope they can ally with other people that get called "black" as a power base.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You come off very paranoid. If an Indian is dark or "black" and that is how he identify then he is black.
many don't
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
I went to school with plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian where they identify as black and said they are black in their country. The aborigines of Australia identify as black as well. Who are we to tell these people that they aren't black because they are not African.
I'm not telling Indians they can't call themselves black but many who are bothe dark skinned or light skinned call themselves black. "Black" is a political term. It's not like people talking about their hair color.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Being black doesn't mean African and no black person from African descendant can deny these people their identity that they have to live with as blacks socially, culturally, ethnically, and economically, in their country and outside, just because they aren't African.
This is an odd statement. You are saying" I can't "deny what they have to live with" I assume you mean racism So in effect to are saying they have to live with how others label them. In many counties people do not use skin color as identitiy, they mighjt describe their skin if asked say "brown" but it doesn't have a meaning to them more special than the color of their eyes or hair.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Dark people don't call themselves black because light skin says so. They call themselves black because it is true, figuratively speaking color-wise, and it is a fact of life -- and it has "cursed" many black people throughout the world.
Another odd statement. The people that call themselves black are not in fact truly black they are brown. For example this man:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Who are you to dictate to other blacks outside Africa about them not being black. You are so afraid and paranoid about ALL blacks uniting under a common cause, and that is why so many anti-black people are trying to separate blacks based on skin color, features, hair, continent, region and everything else.
I'm not dictating anything only pointing out how people may or may not choose themselves to identify themselves. The man above is brown. You are saying he should identify himself by a color for political power and call himself black. That's up to him. He might prefer to identify himself as Bolivian or South American rather than by eye or skin color.
Here's another Bolivian:
Does he have to decalre himself an identity as a skin color?
What if he doesn't want to?
People may decide to identify themsleves in various different ways they think may be the most important factor overridding other factors So they might choose one of the following as the most important factor:
in no particular order:
religion nationality philosophy skin color profession culture sexual preferance hair color birth "defect" music preferance disability etc.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Are Iranians, Iraquis, Afghans, Croats, Serbs, Albanians white? If people argue that they aren't because some aren't European and others are too dark and "ethnic" looking, you will be the first one fighting them into white membership.
none of these people are white. Most are light beige. You think that sounds silly? How about the idea that they are the color of milk? That's even more silly, but the idea is so ingrained "black" and "white" that we accept these stereotypes not only as a superficial trait like hair of eye color but instead as something more important. So why is skin color more important than eye or hair color? I'll tell you why. It isn't. but people wish it was. It's like believing in magic.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Why are you threaten by black people and what are you afraid of? Girl you are showing your fear and paranoia. Who said anything about Indians wanting to or identifying as African? Who said blacks is confined to Africa and no where beyond?
I'm not afraid of anything. You want to draw a line between people and call them "black" or "white". If people choose to accept these terms as the most important thing about themsleves that's up to them. I use the words but only in casual identification of looks. If someone comes in and oppresses people based on these concepts as being intrinsic to who people are are we supposed to accept it?
In ancient times people did not get discriminated against on the basis of skin color. It was not any more important than eye or hair color. People were discriminated against by nationality. That some nationalities happened to look different than others, it was not physical appearance that was the important difference. The imprtant difference is that they had different cultures and territories.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Who the fvck said forming alliance and having to share resource and living together? You are showing your inner fears.
If brown skinned people identify as "Black" for politcial reasons then in doing so it forms an alliance with other dark skinned people. That's up to them if they feel that they want to group themslevs primarily according to darkness of skin rather than by one of the other factors such as I mentioned nationality, religion, profession etc.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Now I see why you and others like you work so hard to separate ALL "black" people. Indians can stay in Indian and never ever need to identify as African, and it is better that they don't because they aren't. They can just be black but Indian or black but Asian or Indian but white or Indian and just Indian. Would Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis want to identify as white since they are from a different continent. Should the whites of the caucus identify or be white because they aren't European. Should those from southeastern Europe identify as white or mix because they look so differently from the true whites and they have admixture from darkskin groups from Africa and Asia?
Ideally nobody should identify themsleves by skin color.
If people are opressing you on a skin color basis than you might decide to ally with other people in the same boat for more strength in numbers.
Some Indians are darker than others.
Indians might be in conflict with other people in various ways, by religion, class, sexual preferance, skin color, etc. They will decide for themsleves which alliance is most important for them to form, which has the most advantages for them. For example, Hindu or Muslim or "black". If somebody puts something like Muslim as primary then light skinned and dark skinned people are required to cooperate under Islam. If they but being dark skinned as first then it's a different alliance. If they happened to be Muslim then they would consider lighter skin Muslims less important or not important at all. And once you decide to organize and do things rather than just us talking theortically here alliances will include both teaming up and taking on burdens. So if things get serious and you actually do things together it's like a marriage. You get to split the bills. You share things, food and so on, it's cheaper, some things are easier people can to the tasks they are betsa at doing. But if the other person gets sick it's more work. So if you are looking for a mate and that person has ten twenty dollars of dental work to be done you have to weigh if your love is stronger than that.
Some Indian people:
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande
and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. ( Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b,1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic cultureand the growth of its population".
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh, Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race(RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
All Indians are not Black. You may be able to classify the Dravidian and Munda people as Black.
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the thread asks are Indians "Blacks" ?
It's an impossible question to answer because the term "black" means differnt things to different people.
Some Indians have dark skin and have been subjected to prejudice due to it.
Should they be regarded as "black" ?
"Black" is a term that gets imposed on dark skinned people by some light skinned people. The dark skinned person then is faced with accepting the term or not. Some may say o.k. I accept the term "black" and hope they can ally with other people that get called "black" as a power base.
^You come off very paranoid. If an Indian is dark or "black" and that is how he identify then he is black. I went to school with plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian where they identify as black and said they are black in their country. The aborigines of Australia identify as black as well. Who are we to tell these people that they aren't black because they are not African. Being black doesn't mean African and no black person from African descendant can deny these people their identity that they have to live with as blacks socially, culturally, ethnically, and economically, in their country and outside, just because they aren't African. Dark people don't call themselves black because light skin says so. They call themselves black because it is true, figuratively speaking color-wise, and it is a fact of life -- and it has "cursed" many black people throughout the world.
Who are you to dictate to other blacks outside Africa about them not being black. You are so afraid and paranoid about ALL blacks uniting under a common cause, and that is why so many anti-black people are trying to separate blacks based on skin color, features, hair, continent, region and everything else.
Are Iranians, Iraquis, Afghans, Croats, Serbs, Albanians white? If people argue that they aren't because some aren't European and others are too dark and "ethnic" looking, you will be the first one fighting them into white membership.
Why are you threaten by black people and what are you afraid of?
Just to clarify Bettyboo's crackpot racial clasification:
Black (everyone except blonde haired Scandinavians) White (blonde haired Scandinavians)
They are a clear troll. According to Bettyboo a brown or red haired Scandinavian is black because according to them only blondes are white.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
In the other thread Bettyboo claimed Pierce Brosnan is a black man because he has a tan -
As i said their racial classification is crackpot. If a white person has a lightly olive or tan - suddenly they are 'black'.
Now why would Bettyboo classify white men and woman as 'black'? Because obviously they are a self-hating Negro that they want to lump whites into their own racial category. Its bizarre.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Now I see why you and others like you work so hard to separate ALL "black" people. ========
Because they aren't black.
Australoids are not black. Indians are not black.
Black = Negroid/Negrid/Congoid (Sub-Saharan African)
Negroid -
However since every Negro self-hates being black they attempt to claim Indians etc are black.
Indian (Dravidian) -
Dravidians are Caucasoid.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
K.P. Aravanan, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University[/b]
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage. See:
Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27;
Aravanan KP. 1979. "Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India". J Tamil Studies 20–45.
Aravanan KP. 1980. Dravidians and Africans, Madras.
LOL. These Dravidians do not look like caucasoids. .
U. P. Upadhyaya and S.P. Upadhyaya
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
quote:
A Speaker of the Tulu Dravidian Language
2009
In a small discrete village of Majur, around three kilometres from Kaup on the road to Shirva, adjacent to 300 years old temple of Shri Durga Parameshwari, lives an elderly couple-Dr. Uliyar Padmanabha Upadhyaya (76 years) and Dr. Susheela P Upadhyaya (73 years). When i met them in mid-August they appeared to be frail, simple, unassuming, friendly and warm. After interacting with them for two hours, i had nothing but awe, admiration and reverence to this great couple whose scholarship in linguistics and folk culture especially that of the Tulunadu has been appreciated by scholars not only in India but also in Europe, America and Africa. Their monumental contribution to the Tulu language is the Tulu Lexicon (Tulu Nighantu) in six volumes, which they value the most as their labour of love and sacrifice. Besides, this significant work, their numerous research books and articles on the folk culture and literature of Tulunadu has enriched the Tuluva heritage.
.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The archaeological, anthropological, ethonographic and linguistic data make it clear that Dravidians came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26
can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote _________________________________________________________________ Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9). ________________________________________________________________________
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1 ) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.
Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.
This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.
Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.
Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981)
Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that if the Dravidians originated in Africa, they would share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara. The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.) _________________________________________________________________
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.
6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.
6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.
6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri 'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.
6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.
6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.
6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
code:
English Senegalese Dravidian body W. yaram uru head D. fuko,xoox kukk hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot' eye D. kil kan, khan mouth D. butum baayi, vaay lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu pup W. kuti kutti sheep W. xar 'ram' cow W. nag naku hoe W. konki bronze W. xanjar xancara blacksmith W. kamara skin dol tool mother W. yaay aayi child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.
Agricultural Evidence
One of the principal groups to use millet in Africa are the Northern Mande speaking people (Winters, 1986). The Norther Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl (1985,1989) believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichitt site where millet was cultivated in the 2nd millenium B.C., were northern Mande speakers.
To test this theory we will compare Dravidian and Black African agricultural terms, especially Northern Mande. The linguistic evidence suggest that the Proto-Dravidians belonged to an ancient sedentary culture which exitsed in Saharan Africa. We will call the ancestor of this group Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:
code:
Kol sonna --- --- ----
Wolof (AF.) suna --- ---- ---
Malinke (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina ---
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä *kora
It is clear that the Dravidian and African terms for millet are very similar. The Proto-Dravidian terms *baraga and *tena have little if any affinity to the African terms for millet.
The Kol term for millet ‘sonna’, is very similar to the terms for millet used by the Wolof ‘suna’ ( a West Atlantic Language), and Mande ‘suna’ (a Mande language). The agreement of these terms in sound structure suggest that these terms may be related.
The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.
African Millets Carried to India by Dravidian Speakers
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
This is the most valid remark. Afrocentrist have no business imposing a Black identity on people who themself give no such indication or abhorr the comparison. This research is about bringing white surpremacy down, and it's greatest victims and opponents are Blacks. Only Blacks do like Blacks...most of the time, at least. Others will not rejoice in the discovery of Black European Kings. A sooty black Surinam Indian, blacker then me, volunteered to tell me they are Caucasians. But his problems with the white Caucasians are no different then mine, my subnasal prognatism self. He pointed out that Indians do not have this facial structure, which is so goddam important. Why: because the goddam European nobility doted on this facial trait as proof of pure, blue blood.
We have no time to waste. At least the Blacks in Surinam have always been loud and brash about their blackness, shamelessy exposing their Africa derived Winti religion to the whole world. Shaking their huge asses and dancing Kawina, truly a very racy dance. Surinam blackness is extremely outgoing, in your face, loud and colourfull; never, ever considering shame, embarrasment or holding back. As the Dutch masters tried to convince us. We even embrace all bodyshapes, as we love to eat. Evenso that the Surinam Indians go to Black witch-doctors as their own do not cut it in the spirit world: go figure. Even the spirits obey the blackness of the Blacks. That should tell us something. I myself love the blackest of Indians.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by Pandabear: Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.
However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.
This is the most valid remark. Afrocentrist have no business imposing a Black identity on people who themself give no such indication or abhorr the comparison. This research is about bringing white surpremacy down, and it's greatest victims and opponents are Blacks. Only Blacks do like Blacks...most of the time, at least. Others will not rejoice in the discovery of Black European Kings. A sooty black Surinam Indian, blacker then me, volunteered to tell me they are Caucasians. But his problems with the white Caucasians are no different then mine, my subnasal prognatism self. He pointed out that Indians do not have this facial structure, which is so goddam important. Why: because the goddam European nobility doted on this facial trait as proof of pure, blue blood.
We have no time to waste. At least the Blacks in Surinam have always been loud and brash about their blackness, shamelessy exposing their Africa derived Winti religion to the whole world. Shaking their huge asses and dancing Kawina, truly a very racy dance. Surinam blackness is extremely outgoing, in your face, loud and colourfull; never, ever considering shame, embarrasment or holding back. As the Dutch masters tried to convince us. We even embrace all bodyshapes, as we love to eat. Evenso that the Surinam Indians go to Black witch-doctors as their own do not cut it in the spirit world: go figure. Even the spirits obey the blackness of the Blacks. That should tell us something. I myself love the blackest of Indians.
We are not imposing a Black identity on Indians, many Indians, like the Dalits, already accept such an identity.
.
Posted by Break-the-bull (Member # 19596) on :
A salient point, which reveals the reason behind Afrocentrism or Afrocentrists in their crusade to label all non-whites, "Black." It is all for contesting world domination by Whites. Blacks are impotent intellectually, technologically and militarily before Whites. Yet, the final frontier where Whites have not asserted full control and, they perceive to have a chance at winning, is the social and political arena. And so, they need to swell up their ranks to better bolster themselves to wage a war on those fronts.
Do not be deceived by the Afrocentrist-Trojan horse. "All that glitters is not gold" or better stated, not all dark-skin people are 'Black.'
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: There could be an advantage in doing this if it could add to a larger group of people to oppose a group that sometimes oppresses them on the basis of skin color.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
The majority of people on this world are of colour. Why should the pinks of Europe dominate? I for one have been looking at them for the past 32 years And I see just people, revoltingly exploited by their own kind, following some demented idea that Blacks and Muslims are their enemies. For strategic reasons I urge my fellow fighters not to waste time with people who do not jump up when they hear a Black drum, as my Black Surinamese are apt to do. Nobody has to explain to us that we are Blacks. We do not need headmeasurers, we would kick them to dead. We just love our Blackness, no matter what horrors whites, since 1848, have perpatrated on us.
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
bullshit! and a typical afrocentric response. Black is exclusive to specific dark skin people within a certain phenotype range. Stop your bullshit!
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Honey, I'm talking Black, while you are blabbering about black. It's not the same fu-cking thing, and if you do not know the difference you should get the hell out of my threads.
Blue blood is black blood is based on the need for change, because I'm vastly unhappy what I see about me and what is happening with my folks.
If you encounter a person who has no complaint on any of the **** we have to put up with, then pack your stuff and move on. You have ran into a goddam house nigger who will take his silverlings and do you in. Do not get bogged down with the housenigger, they are even worse then the pinks.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
You fool, all human flesh tones are a color -we are all "of color." Your statement is a contradiction reflecting your own self-contradiction (LOL)!
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: The majority of people on this world are of colour. Why should the pinks of Europe dominate? I for one have been looking at them for the past 32 years And I see just people, revoltingly exploited by their own kind, following some demented idea that Blacks and Muslims are their enemies. For strategic reasons I urge my fellow fighters not to waste time with people who do not jump up when they hear a Black drum, as my Black Surinamese are apt to do. Nobody has to explain to us that we are Blacks. We do not need headmeasurers, we would kick them to dead. We just love our Blackness, no matter what horrors whites, since 1848, have perpatrated on us.
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: bullshit! and a typical afrocentric response. Black is exclusive to specific dark skin people within a certain phenotype range. Stop your bullshit!
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
No its not Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
You dumb prick! that person is taking up your argument! RFLOL!!!!!!!!! You are such a fucking blundering sociopath, you can hardly see when someone is helping you out! MUHAHAHAHAHA!
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Honey, I'm talking Black, while you are blabbering about black. It's not the same fu-cking thing, and if you do not know the difference you should get the hell out of my threads.
Blue blood is black blood is based on the need for change, because I'm vastly unhappy what I see about me and what is happening with my folks.
If you encounter a person who has no complaint on any of the **** we have to put up with, then pack your stuff and move on. You have ran into a goddam house nigger who will take his silverlings and do you in. Do not get bogged down with the housenigger, they are even worse then the pinks.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Blacks are Blacks because they self-identify as Black. They are not Black because some eurocentric revisionist wanted to wipe out the Blacks from history who were oppressing and civilising the European whites, and using them for shoe leather: and he came up with some definition involving skull size, and portruding lips. As if Blacks are all about thick lips and big dicks. Lord have mercy.
Black
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Break-the-bull: A salient point, which reveals the reason behind Afrocentrism or Afrocentrists in their crusade to label all non-whites, "Black." It is all for contesting world domination by Whites. Blacks are impotent intellectually, technologically and militarily before Whites. Yet, the final frontier where Whites have not asserted full control and, they perceive to have a chance at winning, is the social and political arena. And so, they need to swell up their ranks to better bolster themselves to wage a war on those fronts.
Do not be deceived by the Afrocentrist-Trojan horse. "All that glitters is not gold" or better stated, not all dark-skin people are 'Black.'
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: There could be an advantage in doing this if it could add to a larger group of people to oppose a group that sometimes oppresses them on the basis of skin color.
LOL. Indians recognize their African/Black heritage.
The archaeological, anthropological, ethonographic and linguistic data make it clear that Dravidians came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26
can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote _________________________________________________________________ Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9). ________________________________________________________________________
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1 ) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.
Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.
This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.
Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.
Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981)
Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that if the Dravidians originated in Africa, they would share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara. The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements. The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.) _________________________________________________________________
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.
6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.
6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.
6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri 'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.
6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.
6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.
6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
code:
English Senegalese Dravidian body W. yaram uru head D. fuko,xoox kukk hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot' eye D. kil kan, khan mouth D. butum baayi, vaay lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu pup W. kuti kutti sheep W. xar 'ram' cow W. nag naku hoe W. konki bronze W. xanjar xancara blacksmith W. kamara skin dol tool mother W. yaay aayi child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.
Agricultural Evidence
One of the principal groups to use millet in Africa are the Northern Mande speaking people (Winters, 1986). The Norther Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl (1985,1989) believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichitt site where millet was cultivated in the 2nd millenium B.C., were northern Mande speakers.
To test this theory we will compare Dravidian and Black African agricultural terms, especially Northern Mande. The linguistic evidence suggest that the Proto-Dravidians belonged to an ancient sedentary culture which exitsed in Saharan Africa. We will call the ancestor of this group Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:
code:
Kol sonna --- --- ----
Wolof (AF.) suna --- ---- ---
Malinke (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina ---
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä *kora
It is clear that the Dravidian and African terms for millet are very similar. The Proto-Dravidian terms *baraga and *tena have little if any affinity to the African terms for millet.
The Kol term for millet ‘sonna’, is very similar to the terms for millet used by the Wolof ‘suna’ ( a West Atlantic Language), and Mande ‘suna’ (a Mande language). The agreement of these terms in sound structure suggest that these terms may be related.
The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.
African Millets Carried to India by Dravidian Speakers
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Honey, I'm talking Black, while you are blabbering about black. It's not the same fu-cking thing, and if you do not know the difference you should get the hell out of my threads.
Blue blood is black blood is based on the need for change, because I'm vastly unhappy what I see about me and what is happening with my folks.
If you encounter a person who has no complaint on any of the **** we have to put up with, then pack your stuff and move on. You have ran into a goddam house nigger who will take his silverlings and do you in. Do not get bogged down with the housenigger, they are even worse then the pinks.
I don't even think you know what your on about lol
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: bullshit! and a typical afrocentric response. Black is exclusive to specific dark skin people within a certain phenotype range. Stop your bullshit!
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^^MUHAHAHAHA!! That is YOUR fellow Afrocentrist! RFLOL!!
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[Portrait of an African man, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam: I believe it's Charles V Habsburg]
Dear Doctor Winters, I'm really not talking about the theoretical connection between Indians and Blacks. I'm talking about a practical way to end white supremacy, and if these people really see themselves like fellow Caucasians, there is no way in hell to make them take pride in Black ancestors. Indians are known for their skin-bleaching practices, to heighten their sacred Causcasionness, perhaps? They worship white skinned gods, most of the time, presented their dark skinned actors as extremely fair. Indians do not think our lips, hair and noses beautiful: so how the hell you gonna enlist them in the Black mans fight? Jeez, what's the matter with you people? You can speak with them about post colonialism, if their religions purity rules do not prevent them from talking to you, put they will never be enthousiastic about no goddam Black European King, period.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
Correct. Teach....
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Give me a fucking break, Clyde! I lost respect for you a long time ago when I peeped your M.O.. Sir, you fucking claim every damn DNA African when it suits you. Be gone! You sham!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: bullshit! and a typical afrocentric response. Black is exclusive to specific dark skin people within a certain phenotype range. Stop your bullshit!
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Most Indians are black, all black means is that you have dark skin, that is why the Greeks referred to India as eastern Ethiopia
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
so then if they DO NOT want to be Black, stop trying to fucking claim them already! Get it? No you dont! cause misery lovvvvveeeess company!
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Dear Doctor Winters, I'm really not talking about the theoretical connection between Indians and Blacks. I'm talking about a practical way to end white supremacy, and if these people really see themselves like fellow Caucasians, there is no way in hell to make them take pride in Black ancestors. Indians are known for their skin-bleaching practices, to heighten their sacred Causcasionness, perhaps? They worship white skinned gods, most of the time, presented their dark skinned actors as extremely fair. Indians do not think our lips, hair and noses beautiful: so how the hell you gonna enlist them in the Black mans fight? Jeez, what's the matter with you people? You can speak with them about post colonialism, if their religions purity rules do not prevent them from talking to you, put they will never be enthousiastic about no goddam Black European King, period.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Dear Doctor Winters, I'm really not talking about the theoretical connection between Indians and Blacks. I'm talking about a practical way to end white supremacy, and if these people really see themselves like fellow Caucasians, there is no way in hell to make them take pride in Black ancestors. Indians are known for their skin-bleaching practices, to heighten their sacred Causcasionness, perhaps? They worship white skinned gods, most of the time, presented their dark skinned actors as extremely fair. Indians do not think our lips, hair and noses beautiful: so how the hell you gonna enlist them in the Black mans fight? Jeez, what's the matter with you people? You can speak with them about post colonialism, if their religions purity rules do not prevent them from talking to you, put they will never be enthousiastic about no goddam Black European King, period.
Please be serious. Black Americans only recently stopped bleaching their skin.
Dravidians and Dalits in India are in the fight because they are fighting the white supremacy of the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalists of North India) who discriminate against them.
They are fighting the racist movie makers who refuse to put beautiful Black skinned Indians in their Films.
They are fighting the Hindutva who refuse to let Dalits attend certain Temples.
They are fighting the Hindutva who murder them at will.
You feel this anger toward Indians because of your experiences in Suriname where Indians were placed in a different category than the other Blacks so they could help Europeans dominate you.
Stop being prejudice. Learn world history so you won't be teaching such falsehood.
.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Surinam ladies dressed a la kotomissie dancing away, doing the Kawina dance, mashing ass to belly, and serious grinding as the circle halts. This is Blackness to me, they need no DNA proof to confince them they are Blacks. They rejoice in their Blackness. Just chuck out the revisionist B.S., get practical, we can win this thing.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: so then if they DO NOT want to be Black, stop trying to fucking claim them already! Get it? No you dont! cause misery lovvvvveeeess company!
LOL. It was Dravidians who acknowledge their Africaness through their writings and research.
K.P. Aravanan, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University[/b]
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage. See:
Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27;
Aravanan KP. 1979. "Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India". J Tamil Studies 20–45.
Aravanan KP. 1980. Dravidians and Africans, Madras.
LOL. These Dravidians do not look like caucasoids. .
U. P. Upadhyaya and S.P. Upadhyaya
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Dear Doctor Winters, I'm really not talking about the theoretical connection between Indians and Blacks. I'm talking about a practical way to end white supremacy, and if these people really see themselves like fellow Caucasians, there is no way in hell to make them take pride in Black ancestors. Indians are known for their skin-bleaching practices, to heighten their sacred Causcasionness, perhaps? They worship white skinned gods, most of the time, presented their dark skinned actors as extremely fair. Indians do not think our lips, hair and noses beautiful: so how the hell you gonna enlist them in the Black mans fight? Jeez, what's the matter with you people? You can speak with them about post colonialism, if their religions purity rules do not prevent them from talking to you, put they will never be enthousiastic about no goddam Black European King, period.
Please be serious. Black Americans only recently stopped bleaching their skin.
Dravidians and Dalits in India are in the fight because they are fighting the white supremacy of the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalists of North India) who discriminate against them.
They are fighting the racist movie makers who refuse to put beautiful Black skinned Indians in their Films.
They are fighting the Hindutva who refuse to let Dalits attend certain Temples.
They are fighting the Hindutva who murder them at will.
You feel this anger toward Indians because of your experiences in Suriname where Indians were placed in a different category than the other Blacks so they could help Europeans dominate you.
Stop being prejudice. Learn world history so you want be teaching such falsehood.
.
I do not hate Indians, you should have seen me the other day...I'm reporting what I have seen and heard. Please, let's end thus useless tug of war, attracting crazies to my thread, and show me one page where it says that Indians are presenting themselves as Blacks, citing African ancestors. I'm not talking about poor Dalits fighting the cast system, but Indians connecting themselves to the struggle of broadnosed, big lipped, big assed, frizzy haired honest to goodness Blacks. The way you make your statement you seem to have what I require at your fingerthings. Now, please deliver.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Dear Doctor Winters, I'm really not talking about the theoretical connection between Indians and Blacks. I'm talking about a practical way to end white supremacy, and if these people really see themselves like fellow Caucasians, there is no way in hell to make them take pride in Black ancestors. Indians are known for their skin-bleaching practices, to heighten their sacred Causcasionness, perhaps? They worship white skinned gods, most of the time, presented their dark skinned actors as extremely fair. Indians do not think our lips, hair and noses beautiful: so how the hell you gonna enlist them in the Black mans fight? Jeez, what's the matter with you people? You can speak with them about post colonialism, if their religions purity rules do not prevent them from talking to you, put they will never be enthousiastic about no goddam Black European King, period.
Please be serious. Black Americans only recently stopped bleaching their skin.
Dravidians and Dalits in India are in the fight because they are fighting the white supremacy of the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalists of North India) who discriminate against them.
They are fighting the racist movie makers who refuse to put beautiful Black skinned Indians in their Films.
They are fighting the Hindutva who refuse to let Dalits attend certain Temples.
They are fighting the Hindutva who murder them at will.
You feel this anger toward Indians because of your experiences in Suriname where Indians were placed in a different category than the other Blacks so they could help Europeans dominate you.
Stop being prejudice. Learn world history so you want be teaching such falsehood.
.
I do not hate Indians, you should have seen me the other day...I'm reporting what I have seen and heard. Please, let's end thus useless tug of war, attracting crazies to my thread, and show me one page where it says that Indians are presenting themselves as Blacks, citing African ancestors. I'm not talking about poor Dalits fighting the cast system, but Indians connecting themselves to the struggle of broadnosed, big lipped, big assed, frizzy haired honest to goodness Blacks. The way you make your statement you seem to have what I require at your fingerthings. Now, please deliver.
LOL. You sound silly. All Black people do no have frizzy hair.
LOL. If this was the case we would have to reject most of your work on the Blacks of Europe.
K.P. Aravanan, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage. See:
Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27;
Aravanan KP. 1979. "Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India". J Tamil Studies 20–45.
Aravanan KP. 1980. Dravidians and Africans, Madras.
LOL. These Dravidians do not look like caucasoids. .
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: so then if they DO NOT want to be Black, stop trying to fucking claim them already! Get it? No you dont! cause misery lovvvvveeeess company!
LOL. It was Dravidians who acknowledge their Africaness through their writings and research.
K.P. Aravanan, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University[/b]
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage. See:
Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27;
Aravanan KP. 1979. "Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India". J Tamil Studies 20–45.
Aravanan KP. 1980. Dravidians and Africans, Madras.
LOL. These Dravidians do not look like caucasoids. .
U. P. Upadhyaya and S.P. Upadhyaya
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
.
What is going on in the USA? Are they letting all the Bedlam inmates free? What's up with them in my thread?
This is interesting stuff, yet I sense a lot of theorist approaches, which are fine, but of no practical benefit to end white supremacy right now. And that is what we should be doing, right now.
The pain is in the history of Europe, the situation of Blacks today is influenced by what happened between 1100-1848. We need to open the eyes of young Blacks who are dissatisfied in the west. They study hard, they work hard; still they are shut out. Show them the white and black portraits of the same persone: open their eyes. Schools take our children to museums: churches of revisionism. Prepare them, tell them they will see fake images. Let them ask the curator if these are overpaints. Beat them at their own game. My Surinam Blacks need not to be told they are Black, they came out hollering their blackness.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
No, Clyde. It was self-hating Indians, influenced by Black [pseudo] intellects and thinkers. Just look at the year of their publications, right smack in the golden era of Afrocentrism.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: so then if they DO NOT want to be Black, stop trying to fucking claim them already! Get it? No you dont! cause misery lovvvvveeeess company!
LOL. It was Dravidians who acknowledge their Africaness through their writings and research.
K.P. Aravanan, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University[/b]
Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage. See:
Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27;
Aravanan KP. 1979. "Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India". J Tamil Studies 20–45.
Aravanan KP. 1980. Dravidians and Africans, Madras.
LOL. These Dravidians do not look like caucasoids. .
U. P. Upadhyaya and S.P. Upadhyaya
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: What is going on in the USA? Are they letting all the Bedlam inmates free? What's up with them in my thread?
This is interesting stuff, yet I sense a lot of theorist approaches, which are fine, but of no practical benefit to end white supremacy right now. And that is what we should be doing, right now.
The pain is in the history of Europe, the situation of Blacks today is influenced by what happened between 1100-1848. We need to open the eyes of young Blacks who are dissatisfied in the west. They study hard, they work hard; still they are shut out. Show them the white and black portraits of the same persone: open their eyes. Schools take our children to museums: churches of revisionism. Prepare them, tell them they will see fake images. Let them ask the curator if these are overpaints. Beat them at their own game. My Surinam Blacks need not to be told they are Black, they came out hollering their blackness.
If you’re so race conscious why do your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., Creole English of Surinam the word for a child is pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: What is going on in the USA? Are they letting all the Bedlam inmates free? What's up with them in my thread?
This is interesting stuff, yet I sense a lot of theorist approaches, which are fine, but of no practical benefit to end white supremacy right now. And that is what we should be doing, right now.
The pain is in the history of Europe, the situation of Blacks today is influenced by what happened between 1100-1848. We need to open the eyes of young Blacks who are dissatisfied in the west. They study hard, they work hard; still they are shut out. Show them the white and black portraits of the same persone: open their eyes. Schools take our children to museums: churches of revisionism. Prepare them, tell them they will see fake images. Let them ask the curator if these are overpaints. Beat them at their own game. My Surinam Blacks need not to be told they are Black, they came out hollering their blackness.
If you’re so race conscious why do your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., Creole English of Surinam the word for a child is pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
.
Now I feel you are attacking me like some common house nigger trash. First you made this extremely ignorant remark that I hate Indians while i almost every week see a Indian movie, the sole Black in a hall full of Indians, have been ananlysing them right here. Then you seem to think you know more about Surinam, then me?
I will next post images of Black young men who are right now fighting against this racist initiation called Sinterklaas. This is the fight I'm refering to. Their little action, standing about with printed t-shirts has already resulted in canada banning Pieterbaas that the Dutch in Canada parade about on the 5th of December. And in my Surinam, Pieterbaas is banned from the central Independence square. These are serious breaches in the racist conspiracy, and will breed more opposition. It will set the people thinking, that this whole sinterklaas bullshit might not be so innocent als the racist Dutch pretend.
When I was complaining about the crazies in my thread, it was not about you, as I have included you already in my list of people who accept Black European Kings and Nobles, thus people who matter to me. But now that you are coming at me with these truly unfounded attacks I have serious doubts about you. People who promote Atlantis are nuts, anyway. Yet I have always promoted pan-africanism so I will not pursue some fued with you.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
This little action has been very beneficial in our struggle against white supremacy, and shows that protests can pay off. The struggle has to be brought to the Young Urban Blacks in the West, who are educated and street wise: who reject the constant stigmatising of Blacks as off-spring of slaves. I heard the young lady, this brave martyr on the radio disputing the reporting of the police they were chanting slogans. She just stood with the other protesters quietly talking and were so brutally manhandled. I am happy to inform you all that even now they are holding meetings for the protests in november and december. We can beat this thing.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
As a Surinamese I have to accept that my Hindustani countrymen often act with impatience when Blacks state their discontent. Because of rampant Dutch racism all etnic groups in the Netherlands are seperated from each other, Black Surinamese are pitted against Africans, against Muslims. Muslims are divided. So I often feel the Surinam Indians in Holland do not respond to me as fellow Surinames should, or vice versa. But when we have commenced our struggle, we cannot waste time with people who regard themselves, inspite of coal-black skin, as Caucasians. We need to respect this, and move on. I know there are Blacks who hate Indians, they will open up to me, and I will set them straight. The Indians have their own little odd customs, and purity laws, which Surinam Blacks may find insulting. But in the light of freeing Surinam from colonialism I want us not to focus on these little matters. Apparently the Indians did not feel our opposition against Pieterbaas as keenly as we the Blacks feel it. This we need to accept as a fact of live, and move on with our struggle against white supremacy.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul:
This is a true person, presented as Diana? goddes of the hunt, so a hunting scene. The hunt was a privilege of the nobility, jealously guarded. such a painting was to inform visitors of the high nobility of the persons they visited. It's almost erotic, so much movement and expression.
As pale as she might look on this painting, this lady is shouting her blackness at us. So many Moors! Naked breast! This too much.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: What is going on in the USA? Are they letting all the Bedlam inmates free? What's up with them in my thread?
This is interesting stuff, yet I sense a lot of theorist approaches, which are fine, but of no practical benefit to end white supremacy right now. And that is what we should be doing, right now.
The pain is in the history of Europe, the situation of Blacks today is influenced by what happened between 1100-1848. We need to open the eyes of young Blacks who are dissatisfied in the west. They study hard, they work hard; still they are shut out. Show them the white and black portraits of the same persone: open their eyes. Schools take our children to museums: churches of revisionism. Prepare them, tell them they will see fake images. Let them ask the curator if these are overpaints. Beat them at their own game. My Surinam Blacks need not to be told they are Black, they came out hollering their blackness.
If you’re so race conscious why do your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., Creole English of Surinam the word for a child is pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
.
Now I feel you are attacking me like some common house nigger trash. First you made this extremely ignorant remark that I hate Indians while i almost every week see a Indian movie, the sole Black in a hall full of Indians, have been ananlysing them right here. Then you seem to think you know more about Surinam, then me?
I will next post images of Black young men who are right now fighting against this racist initiation called Sinterklaas. This is the fight I'm refering to. Their little action, standing about with printed t-shirts has already resulted in canada banning Pieterbaas that the Dutch in Canada parade about on the 5th of December. And in my Surinam, Pieterbaas is banned from the central Independence square. These are serious breaches in the racist conspiracy, and will breed more opposition. It will set the people thinking, that this whole sinterklaas bullshit might not be so innocent als the racist Dutch pretend.
When I was complaining about the crazies in my thread, it was not about you, as I have included you already in my list of people who accept Black European Kings and Nobles, thus people who matter to me. But now that you are coming at me with these truly unfounded attacks I have serious doubts about you. People who promote Atlantis are nuts, anyway. Yet I have always promoted pan-africanism so I will not pursue some fued with you.
I have serious doubts about you. You attack my work and ignore the fact that Dravidians in India accept their Blackness.
It is clear that you are an ignorant negro trying to make other people hate "all" Indians because of your experiences in Suriname.
Negro. I just questioned your contention that you're more "blacker than Afro-Americans, when in reality ,your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
It is fact you still refer to yourselves using derogatory names taught you by the European.This shows a lack of racial pride among you folk.
It is nice to know that some European royalty were Black. But these royals like most royals were not supportive of African people who were not part of their class and European.
You are ignorant and prejudice. On the one hand you say that when someone claims they are black in Europe--although they are reconized as white by other Europeans, they are Black. But when a Dravidian says his black , he is not black because Egmond defines who is or is not Black.
To me a Black is anyone who says they are Black or anthropologically classified as a black.
I now view you as a boot-licking, negro, kissing the behinds of dead black aristocrats, who just happen to be white. It is my opinion that you envy these powerful Blacks who enjoyed 'being' white because you really worship whites and view other Blacks as beneath you, like the black royals you admire.
Your hero David Hume was the first Euronut. Scottish philosopher David Hume said: "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences."
It is people like Hume you want us to admire. People like our African forebears who sold us into slavery and the Negro elites: ‘Blue Bloods’ that supported our mistreatment.
Yes I am proud to be a street brotha. You ain't nothing but an uppity negro like Hume and the rest of your Black Blue Bloods.
It probably hurt you when you got to Europe and the whites you admire rejected your black ass, instead of embrassing you since you see yourself as that special Negro.
It is your hope they will learn their error once they learn about the blacks who ruled them.
Fool, they know Blacks ruled them that's why they will do everything in their power to keep your black ass down.
.
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
"Apostles and Heresiarchs: Representations of Early Christianity in 16th - 17th Century India
25-26 April 2012
A major consequence of Vasco da Gama's expedition to India was the establishment of a new contact between the Roman Catholic Church and the Saint Thomas Christians in the Malabar region, an ancient and thriving community subject to the Eastern Syriac Patriarchate of the Church of the East, established in Mesopotamia. The arrival of the Portuguese meant also the beginning of Catholic missions in various regions of India. Our workshop aims to explore how the St Thomas Christians and the new Latin Christian communities of India were represented by European observers during the 16th and 17th century, by the means of analogies and evocations of the Christian origins. On the one hand it was widely believed that the conversion of Indian groups configured a new apostolic age; on the other hand, the early Christian heresy of Nestorianism was projected on the St Thomas Christians in order to establish a distance, impose otherness and enable reduction strategies. Both the apostles and the heresiarchs, the "heroes" and the "villains" of early Christianity, were active models in the European perception of early modern Indian Christianity. If early Christianity is an integral part of the classical tradition, then the history of its transmission to the modern world needs to include even India, as far and marginal it may appear to a Eurocentric perspective. "
Clyde I think I get what both of you are saying. Though there are Indians that are black and live and identify as black in their countries they are not one of us. Indians are welcoming of white supremacy especially if they feel it does not affect them. A lot of people around the world are black but they are not one of us, and we Afro-descendants need to make that discernment if we Afro-descendants want to fight against white racism. Your cause shouldn't be about "freeing" all blacks around the world but focused only on your branch. Other blacks aren't worthy of our time or might. Even the black as coal Indians normally question why Africans and Afro-descendants aren't compliant with the white racist system. Yes, there are many black Indians but they are not one of us. Their history, culture, ideology, heritage, and traditions differ than that of Africans and Afro-descendants. Nothing set a people apart more than the way they think. Just because there are black Indians doesn't mean they're one of us or our friends, and we shouldn't be lenient with them.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Clyde I think I get what both of you are saying. Though there are Indians that are black and live and identify as black in their countries they are not one of us. Indians are welcoming of white supremacy especially if they feel it does not affect them. A lot of people around the world are black but they are not one of us, and we Afro-descendants need to make that discernment if we Afro-descendants want to fight against white racism. Your cause shouldn't be about "freeing" all blacks around the world but focused only on your branch. Other blacks aren't worthy of our time or might. Even the black as coal Indians normally question why Africans and Afro-descendants aren't compliant with the white racist system. Yes, there are many black Indians but they are not one of us. Their history, culture, ideology, heritage, and traditions differ than that of Africans and Afro-descendants. Nothing set a people apart more than the way they think. Just because there are black Indians doesn't mean they're one of us or our friends, and we shouldn't be lenient with them.
Well, we are getting somewhere, though I will never condone anyone speaking in hateful tones against my Surinam Indians. I'm every week in that goddam cinema, since my early youth watching how lovely Indian actresses jiggle their round tits to the leading man. I love it, and nobody in the world will tell me I can't.
I guess that when these Indian Indians came out with their research about Indians coming from Africa, someone ran quickly to Surinam to tell the Surinam Indians that they were in fact whites: Caucasians. They are pure of blood and thus have no connection with Blacks. We know that Indian migrant women who were single were given Black husbands on arrival in Suriname. So they are not pure, not when they arrived, and sure as hell not pure after they settled in Surinam.
My point again is that when the pink Dutch Caucasian pours his **** over both Black Surinamese and Indian Surinamese, The Black protests, the Indians not. That's sad. They eat into the lie that Hindu's are exemplary migrants. Like hell they are. I live in The Hague and I see and know it all. Even they that have been kicked to dead by some racist neighboour who is a pink Caucasian, nobody cares about their black Caucasian ass. They are treated like any nigger.
Yet again, pitch-black, way up their ass-crack; them is Caucasian. So let them. You cannot enlist them in the immediate fight to end white supremacy, just like some other Black house nigger trash, on the loose on this very forum who sticks it to me in the back.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Clyde I think I get what both of you are saying. Though there are Indians that are black and live and identify as black in their countries they are not one of us. Indians are welcoming of white supremacy especially if they feel it does not affect them. A lot of people around the world are black but they are not one of us, and we Afro-descendants need to make that discernment if we Afro-descendants want to fight against white racism. Your cause shouldn't be about "freeing" all blacks around the world but focused only on your branch. Other blacks aren't worthy of our time or might. Even the black as coal Indians normally question why Africans and Afro-descendants aren't compliant with the white racist system. Yes, there are many black Indians but they are not one of us. Their history, culture, ideology, heritage, and traditions differ than that of Africans and Afro-descendants. Nothing set a people apart more than the way they think. Just because there are black Indians doesn't mean they're one of us or our friends, and we shouldn't be lenient with them.
Bettyboo your observations are welcome but they fail to reflect the divide in India between Dravidians and Indo-Aryan speaking Indians. These groups have different world views. The Dravidians love their Blackness. The indo-Aryans on the otherhand want to be caucasian and promote their heritage.
.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Clyde I think I get what both of you are saying. Though there are Indians that are black and live and identify as black in their countries they are not one of us. Indians are welcoming of white supremacy especially if they feel it does not affect them. A lot of people around the world are black but they are not one of us, and we Afro-descendants need to make that discernment if we Afro-descendants want to fight against white racism. Your cause shouldn't be about "freeing" all blacks around the world but focused only on your branch. Other blacks aren't worthy of our time or might. Even the black as coal Indians normally question why Africans and Afro-descendants aren't compliant with the white racist system. Yes, there are many black Indians but they are not one of us. Their history, culture, ideology, heritage, and traditions differ than that of Africans and Afro-descendants. Nothing set a people apart more than the way they think. Just because there are black Indians doesn't mean they're one of us or our friends, and we shouldn't be lenient with them.
A people can not be whole or complete if they do not know their history. Our complete story needs to be retold/rewritten based on well researched documentation. Only then will who we are as a people be fully understood. Africans ruled over India for a LONG time, and I believe Hinduism clearly shows strong africanisms. The cattle cult within it (which you see through out ancient African religions). The One supreme Deity whose emanations are studied in order to draw closer to Him (you see this in Yoruba, ancient Egypt and even Islam i.e. 99 names of Allah for example). The astrological bases behind much of the religion which you see in Kemet, among the Dogon and in many if not most of the secret societies in W. Africa, even in Islam, Christianity and Judaism you see astrological meanings which have been hidden. Once these things come to light, Africans can learn to appreciate themselves again, appreciate their heritage and will come to understand nothing we have done is backward, in fact it is the basis for civilization. So no, we shouldn't ignore Indians or any other society which we clearly had a hand in creating or which the diaspora is present.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RJxyiWSwpw&feature=player_embedded This was email to me by a friend interesting look at the history of Black Asians from their point of view please click the rest of the interview a meeting between African Americans and Dravidian Blacks Dr. Velu Annamalai
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: What is going on in the USA? Are they letting all the Bedlam inmates free? What's up with them in my thread?
This is interesting stuff, yet I sense a lot of theorist approaches, which are fine, but of no practical benefit to end white supremacy right now. And that is what we should be doing, right now.
The pain is in the history of Europe, the situation of Blacks today is influenced by what happened between 1100-1848. We need to open the eyes of young Blacks who are dissatisfied in the west. They study hard, they work hard; still they are shut out. Show them the white and black portraits of the same persone: open their eyes. Schools take our children to museums: churches of revisionism. Prepare them, tell them they will see fake images. Let them ask the curator if these are overpaints. Beat them at their own game. My Surinam Blacks need not to be told they are Black, they came out hollering their blackness.
If you’re so race conscious why do your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., Creole English of Surinam the word for a child is pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
.
Now I feel you are attacking me like some common house nigger trash. First you made this extremely ignorant remark that I hate Indians while i almost every week see a Indian movie, the sole Black in a hall full of Indians, have been ananlysing them right here. Then you seem to think you know more about Surinam, then me?
I will next post images of Black young men who are right now fighting against this racist initiation called Sinterklaas. This is the fight I'm refering to. Their little action, standing about with printed t-shirts has already resulted in canada banning Pieterbaas that the Dutch in Canada parade about on the 5th of December. And in my Surinam, Pieterbaas is banned from the central Independence square. These are serious breaches in the racist conspiracy, and will breed more opposition. It will set the people thinking, that this whole sinterklaas bullshit might not be so innocent als the racist Dutch pretend.
When I was complaining about the crazies in my thread, it was not about you, as I have included you already in my list of people who accept Black European Kings and Nobles, thus people who matter to me. But now that you are coming at me with these truly unfounded attacks I have serious doubts about you. People who promote Atlantis are nuts, anyway. Yet I have always promoted pan-africanism so I will not pursue some fued with you.
I have serious doubts about you. You attack my work and ignore the fact that Dravidians in India accept their Blackness.
It is clear that you are an ignorant negro trying to make other people hate "all" Indians because of your experiences in Suriname.
Negro. I just questioned your contention that you're more "blacker than Afro-Americans, when in reality ,your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
It is fact you still refer to yourselves using derogatory names taught you by the European.This shows a lack of racial pride among you folk.
It is nice to know that some European royalty were Black. But these royals like most royals were not supportive of African people who were not part of their class and European.
You are ignorant and prejudice. On the one hand you say that when someone claims they are black in Europe--although they are reconized as white by other Europeans, they are Black. But when a Dravidian says his black , he is not black because Egmond defines who is or is not Black.
To me a Black is anyone who says they are Black or anthropologically classified as a black.
I now view you as a boot-licking, negro, kissing the behinds of dead black aristocrats, who just happen to be white. It is my opinion that you envy these powerful Blacks who enjoyed 'being' white because you really worship whites and view other Blacks as beneath you, like the black royals you admire.
Your hero David Hume was the first Euronut. Scottish philosopher David Hume said: "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences."
It is people like Hume you want us to admire. People like our African forebears who sold us into slavery and the Negro elites: ‘Blue Bloods’ that supported our mistreatment.
Yes I am proud to be a street brotha. You ain't nothing but an uppity negro like Hume and the rest of your Black Blue Bloods.
It probably hurt you when you got to Europe and the whites you admire rejected your black ass, instead of embrassing you since you see yourself as that special Negro.
It is your hope they will learn their error once they learn about the blacks who ruled them.
Fool, they know Blacks ruled them that's why they will do everything in their power to keep your black ass down.
.
We can end ALL the debates now LOL. you hit the nail SQUARE on the head. THEY know their history. By they, I do not mean the ignorant American white with three teeth in his head, who uses Google and their imagination to support outlandish ideas. I mean those Europeans that have any real power, they know the truth. They know that most of US do not know the truth and hence they lie. And yes, they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep a strong Africa and a strong unity from ever forming between the diaspora and the continent. They are not going back to the caves LOL
Posted by mrth (Member # 16235) on :
quote:I have serious doubts about you. You attack my work and ignore the fact that Dravidians in India accept their Blackness.
It is clear that you are an ignorant negro trying to make other people hate "all" Indians because of your experiences in Suriname.
Negro. I just questioned your contention that you're more "blacker than Afro-Americans, when in reality ,your people continue to call their children Pickaninny? , i.e., pikin ningre (li. "small negro").
It is fact you still refer to yourselves using derogatory names taught you by the European.This shows a lack of racial pride among you folk.
It is nice to know that some European royalty were Black. But these royals like most royals were not supportive of African people who were not part of their class and European.
You are ignorant and prejudice. On the one hand you say that when someone claims they are black in Europe--although they are reconized as white by other Europeans, they are Black. But when a Dravidian says his black , he is not black because Egmond defines who is or is not Black.
To me a Black is anyone who says they are Black or anthropologically classified as a black.
I now view you as a boot-licking, negro, kissing the behinds of dead black aristocrats, who just happen to be white. It is my opinion that you envy these powerful Blacks who enjoyed 'being' white because you really worship whites and view other Blacks as beneath you, like the black royals you admire.
Your hero David Hume was the first Euronut. Scottish philosopher David Hume said: "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences."
It is people like Hume you want us to admire. People like our African forebears who sold us into slavery and the Negro elites: ‘Blue Bloods’ that supported our mistreatment.
Yes I am proud to be a street brotha. You ain't nothing but an uppity negro like Hume and the rest of your Black Blue Bloods.
It probably hurt you when you got to Europe and the whites you admire rejected your black ass, instead of embracing you since you see yourself as that special Negro.
It is your hope they will learn their error once they learn about the blacks who ruled them.
Yes! Egdumb Crackfried is always trying to kiss up to white people, so desperate to get some white to rub off on him, that he claims all these white nobles and such as black. Meanwhile these same 'nobles' are dissin black people.
Egdumb Crackfried
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
We can end ALL the debates now LOL. you hit the nail SQUARE on the head. THEY know their history. By they, I do not mean the ignorant American white with three teeth in his head, who uses Google and their imagination to support outlandish ideas. I mean those Europeans that have any real power, they know the truth. They know that most of US do not know the truth and hence they lie. And yes, they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep a strong Africa and a strong unity from ever forming between the diaspora and the continent. They are not going back to the caves LOL [/QUOTE]
Bless you. When the pink professors are not showing certain images, not exhibiting certain portraits, omitting certain information like over painted faces: one tends to think they have appraised them as 'Black.' Yet when talking to me, I'm being ridiculed.
I do not want to generalise but the smell off houseniggerism is often swirling around Black American writers. Even on this forum, and this is too bad.
It's interesting how the Black, and Black identified European elite who exploited African slaves were split on the issue whether these Africans were in fact their brothers. Some saw them as brethren, and were aware how this lowered the prestige of all Blacks, but others saw them as heathens and uncivilised. They said, they were actuallty helping these Africans to become christianized and civilised. These Africans should have been grateful to be abducted into slavery. This is what I get from Jane Austen and her Mansfield Park, protesting slavery.
Posted by Ponsford (Member # 20191) on :
In terms of genetics Indians are "close" to Blacks especially genetic diversity.The greater the genetic distance of any group from Africans{Blacks}the lesser the genetic diversity,e.g.Europeans.Genetic diversity refers to both genetic phenotype and genotype,Single Nucleotide Polymorphism,more Short Tandem Repeats,less Copy number variants.less Linkage Disequilibrium,less deleterious mutations.Genetic diversity thus impacts significantly on the immune system both the Major Histocompatiblity Complex and the Human Leucocyte Antigen Complex.Diversity within the immune system is the key in resisting Pathogenic microorganisms and other chemical antigens.The bacterium Y.Pestis causative agent for Bubonic Plague actually originated in Ancient Egypt where it encountered the greatest resistance thus lesser death toll, spread to India where the death toll was much higher.Finally spread to Europe where the death toll was massive.Europeans simply had no resistance to the Bubonic Plague.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: In terms of genetics Indians are "close" to Blacks especially genetic diversity.The greater the genetic distance of any group from Africans{Blacks}the lesser the genetic diversity,e.g.Europeans.Genetic diversity refers to both genetic phenotype and genotype,Single Nucleotide Polymorphism,more Short Tandem Repeats,less Copy number variants.less Linkage Disequilibrium,less deleterious mutations.Genetic diversity thus impacts significantly on the immune system both the Major Histocompatiblity Complex and the Human Leucocyte Antigen Complex.Diversity within the immune system is the key in resisting Pathogenic microorganisms and other chemical antigens.The bacterium Y.Pestis causative agent for Bubonic Plague actually originated in Ancient Egypt where it encountered the greatest resistance thus lesser death toll, spread to India where the death toll was much higher.Finally spread to Europe where the death toll was massive.Europeans simply had no resistance to the Bubonic Plague.
The Surinam Indians in The Netherlands do not seem to be bothered by the racism of Sinterklaas or the racism in general. I do not hear them. So beating them over the head with DNA proof that they are Blacks will not do the trick. They consider themselves Caucasians, and pure from any Black blood.
I nee to point out that my presence here is to eradicate white supremacy by direct action.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/QB]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
