Indians are asians but genetically rather related to Middle Easterners

Even the very dark South Indians have their roots actually in the Middle East and they're supposed to be (linguistically) related to the ancient Elamites from Iraq..

North Indians are caucasoid and are skullwise of the Eastern Meditterranean stock..
Alot of northerners have the E19 gene marker which also occurs in people from Southern and Eastern Europe

The 'Indo-Aryan' languages are rather related to Old greek and Roman and certain Eastern European languages...


discuss..

Most of the middle east is in Asia.

this is correct but the middle eastern asian countries you do not find on this forum..
and generally speaking asians are regarded as oriental aren't they

Umm you do know that East Asians are genetically closer to South Asians than they are to Southeast Asians.
You should should also know that South Asians are culturally closest to the Southeast Asians

http://kennethomura.tripod.com/asian_genes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_classi...ndian_Americans

maybe so, but you I can't trust those huns and Northern Barbarians.

Read


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India

because there's not enough middle eastern people or people interested in such forum on this site...

middle easterns are crazy.. obsessed with religion and hate for israel. maybe genetically similar but indians are not fanatics

What's so funny about an image hosted by Tripod dude.

Indians are Asians:

Ofcourse and so are Russians.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2007/01/04/harevishnu.shtml

The term "Asian" in different countries is perceived to refer generally to different types of Asians (i.e. in the US it is often used to refer to East Asians, whilst in the UK it refers generally to South Asians).

Bear in mind that also the majority of Asia's population is South Asian.

Unfortunately that is not true however it may become true if we continue reproducing at present levels for a few more decades.

Some mod changed the name of my topic..

the original topic was

"Indians are asians but genetically more related to Middle Easterners"

some indians look like indians
some look like aboriginals
some look like chinese/burmese or whatever
so who cares

some look arab some look turkish some look afghan some look persian some look completely white some are white some look italian some look black

but most are caucasoid of an Aryan-Dravidian mix
(80%) the rest can be orientaloid and dravidian

if you look at facial features yes
body type and straight hair is same as asian, mostly

nope I have studied some anthropology....body type is purely europoid
and hair is also different from other asians

I thought u people were white???

And what makes you think that?

SOmething about indians being causcoid....LOL

Insteaed of saying that Indians look like this and that, why not say that Italians and Afghans look like Indians?


If you're talking about light-skinned Indians, I think the well-trained eye is able to spot them out instead of confusing them for something else.

www.geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.pdf
www.geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.xls

If you count Iran its true

Asia is a geographic region, hence the people of Western Asia (most of the Middle East) are also Asian. A majority of Indians probably are genetically closer to the Middle East, but there are also many in the Eastern/Northeastern regions of India who are genetically closer to East/Southeast Asia.


That could mean the influence of Buddhism/Hinduism spread to Eastern Europe in ancient times, or that there were Indian migrants/traders in Eastern Europe, which shouldn't be surprising considering the extensive contact between the Indian subcontinent and Greco-Roman world (although Russia wasn't really part of the Roman Empire).

there are Indians you will not recognize trust me





if these Punjabi kids were living abroad without the turban they could pass as southern european and you wouldnt recognize em..
Put 'em in Greece for instance dressed as a Greek..lol


and theres so many Indians that look like this

There are plenty of Indians who won't look out of place in Africa or Mongolia either.

Jagger Maju thinks the Vishnu may be a Turkic one.

- that's still a minority
- probably, a hitthite one or a southern russian one

even though he is not a classic aryan god such as mitra and surya who were known and worshipped by the ancient hitthites for example

Indians who look European are a smaller minority than Indian who look African or Mongolian.An overwhelming majority look Indian.


Maju thinks the Vishnu may be a Khazar one.

http://www.khazaria.com/

what?? nooooooooooo.

first off, southeast asia is a smorgasbord of different cultures, only some se-asians are close to indians culturally, some aren't at all!

also, genetically southeast asians and east asians are mongoloid, while south asians are caucasoid

i'm not some professional geneticist or whatnot so a lot of the stuff I read on that website I won't be able to comprehend (which btw, that site isn't a reliable source anyway, it's a personal tripod-made site that ive skimmed through and it's full of inaccuracies and racist drivel! (although some of it is backed up with sources, albeit outdated sources)) but regardless, ur claims are farfetched and sources unreliable!

the statement "east asians are genetically closer to south asians than se asians" just sounds absurd and it sounds like you're oversimplifying things, it reminds me of a discussion i read on wikipedia when someone put that in the wiki page for "mongoloid" and several other pages and claimed that it was from the "human species" book, but it was controversial and then removed because it gave a false impression based upon misleading contexualization.

from wiki discussions on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Mongoloid



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongoloi...tory.22_section



edit: wait a minute...omg I was reading through your past posts and I see that you once referenced a wiki page that made that very claim yourself (which was removed for a reason you know), as an oversimplification and misrepresentation of research. you've also constantly made these same claims repeatedly, with only that above site and wikipedia articles (where the info was removed anyway) as your source :P

Who is Maju? In ancient times, Buddhism was big in Central Asia. It's possible that it spread to Russia via Central Asia.

Maju is a Basque God.It also happens to be the net Identity of a Basque Netizen who knows a lot of history.

Indians do not look african
not even 1%
the do not have nappy hair
even the darkest ones are still caucasoid by skull

the mongoloid looking ones are mostly mixed

read something about anthropology

white ones like the sikh kids you can find all around north India theres plenty of families like that but they tend to stay in closed cummunities you wont find them alot 'in the streets'

Indians do not look african
not even 1%
the do not have nappy hair
even the darkest ones are still caucasoid by skull

the mongoloid looking ones are mostly mixed

read something about anthropology

the white ones like the sikh kids you can find all around north India theres plenty of families like that but they tend to stay in closed cummunities you wont find them alot 'in the streets'

Indians do not look african
not even 1%
the do not have nappy hair
even the darkest ones are still caucasoid by skull

the mongoloid looking ones are mostly mixed

read something about anthropology

white ones like the sikh kids you can find all around north India theres plenty of families like that but they tend to stay in closed cummunities you wont find them alot 'in the streets'

Thanx a lot for 3 identical posts.I've spent most of my life in North India so don't need any lesons on where to find whom.Thank you.

Indians do not look african
not even 1%
the do not have nappy hair

U sure all Africans have Nappy hair?

except for north africans and africans mixed with arabs maybe
even frizzy hair is not common amongst pure dravidians



information about the Indian race can be found at www.skadi.net
it's a stupid forum for dumb germans but it has alot of information

look at the caucasoid-mediterannoid section and read
topic is called Indic Med

there is anthropologist called Agrippa on that forum you can ask him questions about the Indic race

Interesting topic. I looking at photos of the different ethnic groups of people living in India and it was varied.
Of course, the majority of the folks or what is considered "typical" Indian seems to have the Caucasoid facial structure with varying skin complexions from North to South. Some of the more "atypical" or ethnic minority Indians seemed to be the ones living in the Himalayas and hill country bordering Burma. Also Sikkim, which used to be independent, and Kashmir. I also included photos from Bangladesh since it was also once part of India.
Here are some photos:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/129.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/347.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/364.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/332.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/332.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/314.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/314.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/434.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/449.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/461.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/461.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/157.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/157.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/325.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/113.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/321.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/321.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/321.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/281.../in/set-270904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasteve/281.../in/set-270904/


There are photos from Kashmir, Sikkim, S.India and Bangladesh and the people's physical features vary quite alot. Some of the people are definitely more East and S.E. Asian in appearance. I told my mom, and said if all those people were lined up in the immigration line at the airport in the U.S. holding Indian passports, I think the immigration officer would probably have a hard time believing they are all from India since they don't all look like the Bollywood actors.
I believe its great to have a single Nationality to unite all people in a country, but how do the ethnic minorities fair in India?
Also an off tangent question-are the Andaman Islands culturally part of India?
I ready a study that the Negritos (Aeta) in the Philppines, (Mani) of Thailand and (Semang) of Malaysia were descended from people off those islands.
On a tangent-since we're all Asians why can't we have an Asian Union in the same way there is a European Union?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/46162803...466b050.jpg?v=0

this is also a common type in punjab

The problem with an Asian Union is that Asia is a massive continent, and it would be very difficult to unite thousands of ethnic groups together in a single union.

Are you Hmong by the way?

Decent post. As for why Asians don't/can't have a union like the EU is much like Jagger said it's very big and very diverse, never mind how many unresolved issues there are between so many nations. It's a possibility in the long term future, but it will require slow development. Were two of the most powerful nations in Asia (India and China for example) were to develop their relationship and attempt to eventually merge economies, then they would have a very good start towards starting the Asian union, but right now that's little more than a dream.

I know there are extremities, but I'm just talking about on average. Some people like to say that light-skinned Indians look Arab or Turk, but I still think they have a distinct look.


The girl on the right has some noticeable facial structures found in everyday Indians(nose, lips, rounded visage, round big eyes). Paint her brown and she won't look any different. The boy's ears and features look typical too. It's just his skin and eye color that deceives the innocent eye.


For people in India, it's the other way around probably. They don't say "Indians look Southern European". They say Italians look like Indians. My mom also tells some Hispanics and Italians that they look Indian.

Agreed. The most we can hope for at this point in history is increasing cultural and economic exchange w/ China (and other nations in Asia). This isn't a small thing, btw - imutual respect and appreciation of culture between nations can go a very long way. This isn't something there is a lot of right now, unfortunately.
Anyways, I personally don't think we can say all South Asians are more related to FEA than they are to the Middle Easterners and Europeans. There is just too much diversity there, on the Subcontinent. For instance, one of my aunts has the same kind of East Asian eyes, and brown Indian skin. You'd think she was from Indonesia or something. And then there is my grand father, who has blue eyes. My 6-year old cousin has this sandy brown hair (which looks really weird on him). All this is just from one extended family in Punjab.
I really do think that Indians are Asians since their culture is more similar to other countries in Asia than it is to, say, the Middle East. 'Asian-ness', IMHO, should be based more on cultural similarity than anything else. For instance, if a European person took up residence in India, and adopted its culture, etc, then I would have no problem labeling him/her an Indian.

I think just about every South Asian I've met can say that about his or her extended family.

Oh, I'm not saying its unique to my family. Quite the opposite. It was just a personal example about how it is difficult to genetically classify all of South Asians.

I know what you mean, but it's just something that you would have to reiterate from time to time (especially to the non-South Asians on this chat trying to learn).

Rather incorrect. All of SE Asia sans Vietnam uses/used a syllabic alphabet that derived itself from Brāhmī, the original script used for Sanskrit. Thats linguistics, which is part of culture. Plus when these guys formed their scripts out of Brāhmī, the modified them so that they could still write in Sanskrit and Pāli. So sorry. Basically all of Southeast Asia has atleast some South Asian culture in them. They may all be different, but they are still pretty similar. Southeast Asians are closer to eachother than Chinese people are to Korean people. Also the only religions that ever made it to Southeast Asia came directly from Indians and not through a second hand carrier (ex. Buddhism got to Japan throught China and Korea). You might not have noticed this, but basically all of Southeast Asia had Hinduism as its majority and/or ruling religion some time in its history. Prior to the 13th Century, the Khmer Empire, which had dominated the Indochinese Peninsula, was ruled by Hindu Brahminist and Mahāyāna Buddhist rulers, until Sri Lanka exported Theravāda Buddhism. Southeast Asia was dominated by Indian culture. The Indians did far more than the Chinese to culture Southeast Asia. Go look up the names of some old Khmer, Indonesian, Lao, and Malaysian kings. Most of them are very South Asian (Eventually they reached a point where they became distinct though).
I am assuming you're Vietnmese based on the fact that the Vietnamese board is where you post most (correct me if I am wrong), but just because you come from the one part of Southeast Asia that picked up more EA culture than SA culture doesn't mean that the rest of SEA is not more SA than EA



The talk page you sent me to showed this link
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
If you take a look at it you can see that basically all the lines that go into Southeast Asia. Come from South Asia or Central Asia (Don't try to downplay the accuracy of National Geographic)
and BTW the tripod link I gave you did include Southern China with Southeast Asia.

I don't have an internet source for the next statement: (I got the information from the documentaries Dawn of Man and the Mitochondrial Eve)
According to the BBC and the Discovery Channel, the first modern humans (Homo sapiens (sapiens)) exited Africa by continually following the coast and found themselves into Australia and Southeast Asia. When they entered they began to adapt to the lands, but then there was a huge volcanic explosion that killed off many of them. When South Asians reentered many of the now Southeast Asians must have merged with them.

true

btw especially look at the Pamir Knot on https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

I never denied that India had a big influence on Asia in general, and yes there's a huge Indian influence in much of Southeast Asia, but my point is not all which if you're going to make a point, you should bring that up.



False. Cambodians, Laotians and Thais may be similar to each other culturally but are markedly different from say Indonesians and Malaysians, though there are similarities - but it's nowhere near the level of similarity between Koreans and Chinese.
All of those groups are also totally different from Vietnamese. Then you have Filipinos too who are very different due to Spanish influence. Southeast Asia has always been very culturally diverse, MUCH moreso than comparing between China and Korea. I never meant to downplay Indian influence, but like I said, you shouldn't generalize or exaggerate.



Mahayana Buddhism (what is practiced in Vietnam) came to Vietnam second hand as well actually thru China





Again, I never denied the huge Indian influence on much of Southeast Asia, but my point is that you should always note that it's not all.
In fact, I've always noted that Indians had huge influence in both Northeast and Southeast Asia, but I think you're always a bit overzealous in expressing yourself in this regard that you seem to exaggerate in order to prove something. And yes, maybe you're right, maybe my being Vietnamese does have something to do with it, but being a Southeast Asian myself - I don't like it when my culture is totally ignored, you wouldn't either, don't you think?




*my response to this taken out, read preydominator's response below instead * (i'm not qualified to confirm or debunk any of this)



that brings in another point - one of the members I've contacted brought up a point (that I often see) about how flawed some of the research is - is that it separates Southern Chinese from Northern Chinese, making them two totally separate groups when they're very very related. That would mean you're saying that a northern chinese is more genetically similar to an indian than a southern chinese... O_O;;; bizzare much?
Many people have commented on the unreliability of that research based on, and I quote "genetic distance calculation based on few genetic markers, which gives a very biased classification".



EDIT: Again, I am not an expert so refer to Preydominator's response below. on the "merging of s. asians and se asians" - I often hear Cambodian members claiming that there must be some significant amount of Indian mixing with Cambodian in the past, but rarely any other Southeast Asians referring to this. Definitely not Vietnamese, for one. You say many, but I can't agree or disagree unless I hear more specifics so I know what you're specifically referring to.

Also, I don't get what you're saying now - that South Asians have blood affinity with Southeast Asians because of apparent past mixing? I thought you just said earlier that East asians and South Asians were the ones that were more genetically similar... o_o

^Please excuse if I misunderstood this last part, I'm a bit confused

PS, I had earlier included an analogy of "I find it ridiculous that a Chinese person could be more related to an Indian person than a Laotian or Viet person" but I just realized that the nothern chinese-southern chinese analogy I mentioned above is even more mind boggling. Which is what you would be saying, that Northern Chinese are more related to Indians than they are to their southern brothers

I don't like Asian Christians.
They seem unnatural
I feel they sold out to white culture

I agree, where you from?

Click on the flash from the above NationalGeographic link. Go to genetic markers then M175 or Y-halogroup O. Do you know the majority of both East and SouthEast-Asian carries this marker or are descendants of them. It's an absurd to claim that EastAsians are genetic closer to South-Asians than Southeast-Asians.
Check the distribution of Y-halogroup O from this PDF: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf