East Asian, and Caucasion mixes Options

[User1]

^don't know what dravidians? the only real dark asians besides filipino negritos and indonesian papuans and other aboriginal peoples are dravidians and vedic people.

I think you're mixing up the pure Dravidian type with the Veddoid/Sudroid type. Actually, all the evidence suggest that Dravidians were a proto/paleo-Caucasian form widespread in the Middle East at an earlier age, and was reduced to southern India. They are later arrivals to India who absorbed the Veddoid/Sudroid (australoid) type. Humanity has a complicated history.
Veddoid/Sudroid (australoid) type, pure or close to pure... most Dravidians would look a bit lighter I think.
(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/photo_bucket_1/Races/Indian_Australoid.jpg)

This post has been edited by User1: Nov 24 2004, 03:56 PM

[cyanor]

^

The "aryan invasion theory" mentioned by user1 above is a crap. Both Aryans (Light skinned Indians residing in north India) and Dravidians are aboriginal to India. The Dravidians who live in south of India mostly have black skin coz they are close to the equator and consequently have a higher level of melanin.

I simply don't understand why you ppl here on AF give so much importance to baseless human classifications!

[User1]

^

The "aryan invasion theory" mentioned by user1 above is a crap. Both Aryans (Light skinned Indians residing in north India) and Dravidians are aboriginal to India. The Dravidians who live in south of India mostly have black skin coz they are close to the equator and consequently have a higher level of melanin.

I simply don't understand why you ppl here on AF give so much importance to baseless human classifications!

We're not even talking about Aryans. "Aryans" itself is a term meaning noble, implying Indo-Europeans are nobles and Dravidians and aboriginals are slaves. This is incorrect.

We're talking about Dravidians and pre-Dravidians peoples. And it's not crap... This is basic anthropology, history, archeology, and genetics...

Northern Indian languages (derived from Sanskrit) are Indo-European languages, related to Persian and European languages, while Dravidian languages are a different group.

The whole revisionism about whether a superior Aryan people invaded and made Indian culture what is it today is severely in question, but there was never a doubt among academia that Indo-Europeans slowly settled in Northern India, replacing and mixing with existing populations.

No one is saying anyone is superior or inferior. It's just facts. Put your ego aside.

This post has been edited by User1: Nov 25 2004, 12:48 PM

[Nadja]

It just depends. Some people look more Asian and some people look more white. In Korea everyone always knows I'm a honhyol (except this one time that these two Korean guys thought me and my sister were Japanese), but in America only Asians know I'm mixed (except this one Chinese guy that thought I was filipina) and everyone else just thinks I'm full Asian (never Korean, always Chinese or Japanese or filipina (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/confused.gif) ). I think I look very mixed. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm half Asian and half white. Sometimes I lean more towards Asian.

[flipcombatmedic]

[quote=cyanor,Nov 25 2004, 03:50 AM]
^

The "aryan invasion theory" mentioned by user1 above is a crap. Both Aryans (Light skinned Indians residing in north India) and Dravidians are aboriginal to India. The Dravidians who live in south of India mostly have black skin coz they are close to the equator and consequently have a higher level of melanin.

I simply don't understand why you ppl here on AF give so much importance to baseless human classifications!

[/quote
i agree. baseless human classifications. i only intended to say aboriginal indic peoples

[User1]

No, they're not baseless. Unlike some of the kooks and qwacks on here, I get my information directly from academic sources such from PDF publications directly out of Stanford. And I only brought it up because I'm interested in these fields.
If this Cyanor is offended, then he must have an inferiority complex to begin with. To trash academic knowledge is the tool of the weak-minded.

The aboriginals of India have been linked through Y-chromosome typing to Australian aboriginals. They are two separate peoples but for simplicity's sake I called them both "australoid" ... though the whole Coon and company classification of people into boxed races is outdated.

And North Indian languages are Indo-European, whereas Dravidian languages are a totally different group.

Dravidians were probably the founders of the Indus civilization because Dravidian languages in isolated pockects can still be found in Pakistan. A dead language seems to have linked Summerian with the Dravidian languages somewhat.

I dunno why I even bother elaborating this on AF... Most people are either ignorant or don't care.

This post has been edited by User1: Nov 26 2004, 11:59 AM

[flipcombatmedic]

i'm not saying its funded on air, like you said you got it somewhere, but what really different from us we all human.

and they're you go i started saying that vedic and dravidians aer teh only darkest people in asia second to papuans, that is why you said and called them both australoid as a matter of fact right.

[User1]

i'm not saying its funded on air, like you said you got it somewhere, but what really different from us we all human.

and they're you go i started saying that vedic and dravidians aer teh only darkest people in asia second to papuans, that is why you said and called them both australoid as a matter of fact right.

Actually, "australoid" is used, still, to designate these peoples by some athropologists, but it's out of date and I myself am uncomfortable with designating people into boxed categories, since genetics and paleo-anthropology have shown that modern populations are formed out of complex interactions in time. If you go around the world, there is never a clear cut line anywhere.
This is why I usually use parenthesis when I say "mongoloid" or "australoid"...
And I only use these terms on AF for sake of simplicity because people are more comfortable with solid concepts they understand.

Just to show you that I'm not pulling something out of my @$$ when I refer to aboriginals of India as australoid:

Wikipedia is an usually accurate but simplistic online encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid
Australoid describes the race of humans primarily from Australia, and was one of the four major races as recognized by 19th century racial theories. The group includes the Australian Aborigines, the Veddahs of Ceylon, the pre-Dravidian people of India, and perhaps the Negritos from Southeast Asia and the Ainu from Japan.

but what really different from us we all human

The wish to recognize diversity and preserve indgenous cultures is the celebration of being human. There are many Dravidians who feel inferior and wish to be assimilated into "Aryan" nationhood as quickly as possible by saying "what's the difference"... This is nothing more than self-hate.
Some twisted people on here classify out of some racialist delusions (not to mention that they know crumbs about genetics, ethnogenesis, anthropolgy, or history), but I do it simply out of interest.

This post has been edited by User1: Nov 26 2004, 12:38 PM

[flipcombatmedic]

you don't get what i'm saying my friend. first of all bra, i said that dravidians and vedic are the darkest next to proper negritos, that's all because some one who said that why aren't east asians black? well they're not black africans, but some like the negritos are dark complexion and same as south asian dravidians. that's all.

second of all. yes we are all human. there are no biological difference between all races. there are no races with two livers, or three eyes. aside from mutations. some dravidians feel inferior, but are they really? like you said they are probably the indus valley civilites. and the fact tha just cuz tehya er marginalized now int eh current times thats about it.

and i just hate classifying humans as different and actually putting us in families like we're just beasts. i like the observations, but it's kinda demeaning and dividing.

[User1]

you don't get what i'm saying my friend. first of all bra, i said that dravidians and vedic are the darkest next to proper negritos, that's all because some one who said that why aren't east asians black? well they're not black africans, but some like the negritos are dark complexion and same as south asian dravidians. that's all.

second of all. yes we are all human. there are no biological difference between all races. there are no races with two livers, or three eyes. aside from mutations. some dravidians feel inferior, but are they really? like you said they are probably the indus valley civilites. and the fact tha just cuz tehya er marginalized now int eh current times thats about it.

and i just hate classifying humans as different and actually putting us in families like we're just beasts. i like the observations, but it's kinda demeaning and dividing.

No, it's not demeaning once you take negative associations (wacko Nazis for example) out of it. It's perfectly academic.. anthropolgical genetics, paleo-anthropolgy are all prectly respected disciplines with departments in such places as Cambrige University and Stanford.

And I'm not even trying to lecture you. I just like to talk about this kind of stuff. But this is AF.. so I guess I overstepped.

[flipcombatmedic]

no it's fine man. nothings wrong with you. smart people always have their own opinions even outside science.

[cyanor]

Dear User1 I have no reason to feel inferior. First thing I don't entertain any such concept of 'superior race and inferior race' and secondly I am not a Dravidian but an Aryan. What am I taking about. There is no such race as "Aryans". The word Aryan is a compound 'Sanskrit' word and originally meant farmers. The pre 'Saraswati valley civilization" (Harappa-Mohenjodaro civ) was essentially based on agriculture. The word 'aryan' was latter-on used to address people, kind of like we use Mr. Yes in this respect, It means a noble/humble man. But by no means is it a race. It was Max Muller and party who intrepreted it thus it was they who divided the people of India into the two races viz Aryans and Dravidians.

What you called "Trashing academic knowledge" I call daring to challenge the existing beliefs in a rigrous search for truth. Even the holy hindu scriptures proclaims that irrespective of the source only that should be accepted as truth which is supported by rational reasonings. I can name like thousands of flaws in the "Aryan Invasion Theory". Understandably, I have no faith in it.

[User1]

Dear User1 I have no reason to feel inferior. First thing I don't entertain any such concept of 'superior race and inferior race' and secondly I am not a Dravidian but an Aryan. What am I taking about. There is no such race as "Aryans". The word Aryan is a compound 'Sanskrit' word and originally meant farmers. The pre 'Saraswati valley civilization" (Harappa-Mohenjodaro civ) was essentially based on agriculture. The word 'aryan' was latter-on used to address people, kind of like we use Mr. Yes in this respect, It means a noble/humble man. But by no means is it a race. It was Max Muller and party who intrepreted it thus it was they who divided the people of India into the two races viz Aryans and Dravidians.

What you called "Trashing academic knowledge" I call daring to challenge the existing beliefs in a rigrous search for truth. Even the holy hindu scriptures proclaims that irrespective of the source only that should be accepted as truth which is supported by rational reasonings. I can name like thousands of flaws in the "Aryan Invasion Theory". Understandably, I have no faith in it.

What is doubted now is not the "Aryan Invasion" but that this group was responsible for the end of the Indus/Harappan civilization and the creation of classical Indian civilization. Many scholars tend to think that Indus ended because the rivers ran dry in that region. The later arrival of "Indo-European" peoples into India was NEVER doubted by scholars.


1. I wan't even talking about Aryans in the first place..
2. And I never said Aryans were a race.. or Dravidians.. but as ethno-linguistic groups
3. It's obvious that India is a mixture of different types that ocnverged in history, so it's silly to deny.
4. Harappan civilization is most likely Dravidian.. that ended when the river of that region ran dry (and/or partially the "Indo-European" nomads contributed to it's demise).
5. I noted myself that "Aryan" means noble.. It is a root word found in not just Sanskrit but also in Persian, Greek, and Latin.
6. I never the "Aryan invasion" but it's a fact that Indo-European people moved down and pushed Dravidians south, or did north Indian languages just happen to turn into Indo-European languages suddenly?
7. Read and understand what I'm trying to say before you type, because you're not even talking about the samething and wasting your time on assumptions of what you think I mean. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

[cyanor]

^

Chillax dude! Don't take it so personally 'coz it is not my intension to counter-argument you. Believe me, I read every single word you typed and I am also very open to and willing to hear your views.

No, you never started the talk on Aryan invasion. I did, after flipcombatmedic used the word 'Dravidians'. I went offtopic and did so because it was pertinent as Dravidians are also aryans. But we'll end this discussion here and take it to http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23635. I invite you to come over and join me in a logical discussion of Human history and development of Indo-European linguistics.

See ya in the India chat!
Regards.

[Part Time Chink]

I think that an asian parent with strong features thats has a child with a white man that the child will look more asian...I mean features such as the eyes,the nose, and the skin color...but nobody knows what they'll turn out to look like.

[mndeg]

where is the option of alien?

[NitaKang]

To me they either look asian with more pinkish skin or a dark haired caucasian.

[Nadja]

People don't always lean towards one side. I have really pale skin that has a kind of golden-ish undertone. Not very pink. My hair and eyes are both very dark brown/almost black. I think most Eurasian people look mixed white and Asian, the ones that lean hard to one side are in the minority. Or maybe they just seem to be in the minority because everyone assumes they're the race they most look like...

[ndnboi]

Eurasians look eurasian. a mix of mongoloid and caucasoid features. None of them look full caucasian and none of them look full asian either. I may have a great eye or something but I never confuse eurasians for anything except for the south east asian and white mixes from the phillipines who look spanish.

Indian mixes are much harder to tell because they can look anything from northern european to brazilian and/or indian mainly because they already have caucasian features but with dark skin.

[Veronique88]

The same as on the thread about viet mixed with caucasian (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) ;

[/QUOTE]I`ll probably marry a viet, chinese, filipino or something..So, in some years I`ll tell you how my kids look like (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

I can`t say a viet mixed with caucasian looks more white or viet..I think they look both..I can easely see if a person is mixed with those two races..maybe because I know a lot viet people (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) [QUOTE]

The most norwegians can`t even tell the difference between a chinese and a filipino (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) They think they look all the same (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)
That`s why they probably won`t see it if a person is mixed either..They just look at the color of their scin..If the person is pale, yeah.then he/she is white..are the person yellowish..-asian..Are the person dark..then he/she is black..and so on..and for some reason they think that every person with slingish eyes are chinese (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Veronique88: Nov 28 2004, 05:46 PM