Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
indians skin colour? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
Kashmiri 
Samurai 
Joined: 07-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 117 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: indians skin colour?Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 01:17 |
||
|
i really dont know, and these days in india most hindus probably also eat meat.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight 
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 20:15 |
||
I dont think vegetarianism plays a big role in skin color, i've seen vegetarian jains that are quite sturdy and fair.
"While meat is regarded as rajas (arousing passions/excitement/anger) in nature, wrestlers who eat meat tend to rationalize this. They argue that one can eat meat and to some extent avoid the consequences. The trick is to neutralize the rajas nature of meat by some form of counteractivity. Moreover, by virtue of their naturally aggressive military disposition, Rajputs are thought to thrive on meat. Some Rajput wrestlers argue that meat is good for them because they should, in a sense, eat what they are."
References:
The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India
Joseph S. Alter (p. 127)
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
mughal
Janissary 
Joined: 10-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 13:21 |
||
i think the reason is that orginal inhabitants of india even north were dravidians, who are dark skinned. so preety much the Dark skinned people in the north are decendants of the Dravidians which still make up majority of the people in north india. The light skinned people could be related to many different ethinicties that came to india.
|
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 18:14 |
||
|
Light skin is also the result of recessive genes. Brown eyes are dominant genes while blue are in the recessive, if 2 brown eyed parents produce an off-spring with recessive genes, the child will have blue eyes (eventhough the parents don't!)
Alot of mixing may have taken place in India, and today the genes are shuffled around producing a variety of features all over the place. India is quite complex...but very interesting.
|
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 20:14 |
||
If the majority of Indians today are still of Dravidian genetic makeup then how can there have been alot of mixing in India? On the contrary the melting pot of cultural and racial fusion was most of Pakistan and probably only the northern and western bordering parts of India since armies entered through the Khyber and didnt actually settle past the Punjab region in settlements.
UZ - PE - IN is where all the action was happening around pre 1500AD.
 Edited by Rajputana - 15-Apr-2007 at 20:15 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 01:46 |
||
|
Here is one Greek man's confession:
I have found Indians to be very inherently insecure people especially when it comes to the issue of colour, looks though I think this has more to do with religion than actual fact. I remember some of my indian co-workers were quite extatic when I told them I would be visiting their country for business, having hung around them for quite some time I felt comfortable. I then travelled to India & spent 6 weeks there, it was an
interesting trip but one that brought many surprises. For one, the endemic
poverty I saw was nothing like I had seen before(I had never seen people living
and dying on the streets before), but secondly I got to see a whole range of
what Indians look like as I travelled thru delhi, Kashmir, Hyderabad and the
Calcutta. I had seen posters for Indian movies before arriving but they looked
nothing like the indians I was seeing & I can tell u quite frankly, that
Indians rarely have any fair or coloured features suggestive of an Aryan legacy
infact many border on an african skin tone though retaining large eyes and
typical indian noses, so I think the analogy is more of a linguistic or cultural
one.
Infact, the majority of my co-workers who where sikhs(penjabi)
where fairer(so to speak) and taller then the bulk of what I saw on my entire
trip to India leading me to believe that only the those indians who fit the
criteria of being fair/tall were immigrating to the west!(I know this seems
extraordinary but this is what I honestly believed when I left India) I find it
odd that the few odd ball or atypical individuals who have colored eyes or fair
skin are taken as being 'normal' or representatice of/in India, which seems to
be a projection of the caste system still very much present in India today. I
was often quite surprised, when Indians would throw themselves at my feet as
they had never seen me(a whiteman) before. I found it to be the worst type of
degradation in human I had ever witnessed. Also, many times, I saw darker
individuals pushed aside by other individuals(who in my eyes where equally as
dark) because they felt themselves to be better? then when I joined the line, I
would be given first class treatment to the front of the line.
People should be content with their skin tone, looks, regardless of
wether its light or fair. To project themselves as being something else is
dishonest, misleading and most off all an inherent issue of self-esteem. As
some members in this thread keep stating that Indians are majority aryans(74%) i
find that to be highly irresponsible. If anything I would put it below 1-2% who
are Aryan, and thats assuming that they are hidden in some remote corner of
India as I didnt see them. This thread seems to be promoting an innacurate and
misleading assessment of India which is dishonest. There's no shame in being
Brown. In the summer time, I too turn quite a dark shade of brown :)
|
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 13:41 |
||
So he says of the over one billion person population of India 1%-2% 'Aryan' - where does this leave your 28% Aryan mix figure? Is he implying that 1%-2% of India is pure aryan? or is there a mix up between your figures and his? What was the source of your figures in the post dated March 31, 2007?
Northpakistani,
Does not this actually prove your previous above quoted statement to be incorrect? The Greek goes on to say "find it odd that the few odd ball or atypical individuals who have colored eyes or fair skin are taken as being 'normal' or representatice of/in India"; So doesn't this mean that majority of India is a homogenous group with similar charateristics as to eachother?
Like the haplo chart shows as proof - wouldnt it be more plausible that 'alot of mixing' had taken place on the borders of India and bulk of Pakistan since you'd find settlements of foreigner tribes settling to a large extent in and around pakistan and hardly any such settlements in India?
To sum it up I think the Dravidians extended as far west as well into Pakistan and these videos would prove the point.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 00:35 |
||
|
To sum it up I think the Dravidians extended as far west as well into Pakistan and these videos would prove the point.
That is correct Rajputana. I don't recall ever denying that, Pakistan, India, and every country I can think of is indeed a mixture. Siraiki is a place in pakistan where alot of Indian's have settled. Siraiki is comparatively a minority in Pakistan not a huge lot as the Punjabis and Balochis which are in the majority.
Regarding my post on March 31, 2007, it was a response to Rajput's statistics. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13035&PN=1
Rajput states that 72% are Indo-Aryans (in personality) rest are dravidian/mongoloids.
This statement is incorrect, because he should be referring to LANGUAGE not the personality.
According to many literatures online, it does not specify this percentage as a race, it means that majority of Indians speak Indo-Aryan languages.
|
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 00:59 |
||
Mongoloids are a minority in india, if we go by the #'s of that Greek person you quoted before then 1%-2% Aryan lets say another 2%-6% mongoloid and the rest of the 92% would be pure Dravidian no? Therefore India to a great extent would not be a mixture, would it?
Never knew that Siraiki was a place and moreover that it was one where alot of indians have settled, when did they settle here? I always thought Siraiki was a language spoken by roughly 10% of Pakistan's population and the 3rd most popular after Pashto and Punjabi? It would be #2 according to this map:
I agree with you on this but what is the source from where you got the 28% being aryan mixture? Rajput said 72% were aryan mixture but your statement was that rather its 28% are or were you being sarcastic?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 01:28 |
||
|
seraiki is not popular at all in Pakistan..what is the date of your map? Do you have recent figures? Pakistani people communicate with each other in urdu or punjabi, predominantly. Seraiki is still not common. They look like muhajirs. |
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 01:33 |
||
|
I agree with you on this but what is the source from where you got the 28% being aryan mixture? Rajput said 72% were aryan mixture but your statement was that rather its 28% are or were you being sarcastic?
Even after reading the Greek man's letter, everyone is stating that Aryan mixture is in the minority. When I replied to Rajput who stated that 72% is Indo-Aryan instead, I switched his numbers (supporting the theory that majority is non-indo aryan and minority is)...and concluded that his numbers should rather be switched around, because 72% is too high. If you go to India, 72% ppl do not look like that, so it should be the other way around (he got his statistics wrong) and 28% seemed more appropriate.
100-72=28%
|
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 13:10 |
||
Ofcourse, I'm with you 110% there buddy, if given some reference as to the source, even I will be forced to acknowledge that the Aryan mixture would more than likely be in a minority. But, what is our fellow Greek man's source for the 1%-2%, moreover who is this Greek man that you have quoted?
so 28% is a fictitious figure nonetheless, but to you it would seem more appropriate, but this was just a figment of your imagination was it not?So, at the end of the day we have a random % by one person who took the liberty of subtracting 100-72 and the other is a anonymous greek who we dont even know if he/she exists or not he comes up with 1%-2%....lol and we've wasted more than enough pages on this discussion over randomness.
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
northpakistani
Knight
Joined: 31-Mar-2007 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 63 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 01:29 |
||
|
28% is the real number according to Mr. Rajputs statistics. He found it ask him. I was reversing the numbers to tell him that its most likely the other way around. Don't take my words out of context.
The Greek man didn't literally mean that % according to what he witnessed in person, he said in his own words that it is very irresponsible for Indians to declare them a majority of this race, when almost everyone he saw with his own eyes all over the country looked nothing like it. Its a figure of speech, he is requesting India to fix its statistics correctly. He was an eye-witness who was shocked from his own experience. What more proof do you need? If ppl say those figures are wrong then...why don't you give us the right figures for India? Edited by northpakistani - 18-Apr-2007 at 01:34 |
|||
|
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
-- Albert Einstein |
|||
|
|||
|
Rajputana
Knight
Joined: 30-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 59 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 10:29 |
||
Mr.Rajput said 72% (Highly improbable) but then you go on to say 28%....did Mr. Rajput mention the 28% or was it you? And if it were you then where find you this figure....you say by subtracting 100-72=28. What led you to figuring this 'forumla' out to calculate this number?
People are saying those figures are wrong northpakistani because you're acknowledging the fact that those numbers are fictitious.
** I dont think you'll find the % of aryan peoples in India based on racial profiling - you will however find it based on linguistics.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
mughal
Janissary
Joined: 10-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:23 |
||
|
ok if aryans were light skinned, then certianally 90% of indians didn't get effected by them. Most indians still look very dravidian.
|
|||
|
|||
|
kshtriya-Mer
Knight
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 52 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 19:15 |
||
|
Can someone pleas tell me what is the big deal with the Aryan theory? I think their was no such invasion and even if their was it proves nuffing in terms of superiority. Even if the Indians are a mix of the so called Aryans and Dravidians that is not enirley a bad thing. The Dravidians are not a third class people. They pre date the Aryans in terms of culture and early society. Look at the Dravadians should not be looked down apon dont fall into this white propaganda the dravadians had one of if not the oldest civilisations on this earth and our are brothers. My brothers do not look upon each other as Aryan and Dravidian but look upon each other as Indians. The same people who genetically wrote great texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata the oldest and arguably the greatest texts in terms of philosophy. The same people that had great maharajas like Ahsoka the great. And the same people that created other international great religions like Buddhism and Jainism. After all the word Aryan was stolen from us and used to divide us. In our ancient vedic books all it meant as noble. Cheers Maher |
|||
|
|||
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl 
Joined: 06-Apr-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 287 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 22:23 |
||
|
In the so-called "Dravidian" literarutre, the "Dravidian women" have been white or "Maniram" and not black. So also men.
How then, our friends go on assert that "Dravidians" are black and so on?
Note, one member of AE after seeing my photo, has recorded that I am a Dravidian, but he did not give any rational or reasonable explanation.
So, if any argument is there, let us argue with evidences.
Moreover, it is better, if we know to whom we are discussing and debating with so that we can cite suitable references accoring to the nationality, language, location etc., to drive out the point to be made.
|
|||
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|||
|
|||
|
pathan
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 21-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Apr-2007 at 22:47 |
||
|
well in general most south indians are dark skinned and south indians are largely dravidians.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.
