I have heard of many Africans in Asia and how they relate with the locals. I would like to know if Africans are welcome in India

africans living in India

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRY6nbq424

Thats a good one

no..really thats in india

I know what I am saying

africans and indian interacting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKZzeJHT0aw...feature=related

Tropik would you welcome Africans to your country for trading?

depends what ur trading...maybe we could trade in india

Great to hear

there is a user called diepriy on youtube, he posts videos of his experience in india

They are great

Idiot they are native Indians....


I think Africans are good in India just as people from any other part of the world.

I wish people should be understanding as you are. No wonder India is doing well due to her focus

Here is an essay written by an African about India :

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.c...83/sec_id/52683

He really spoke his heart out.

there are some delusional ones that truly think that Indians are black just because they are dark.

No there aren't. Black isn't a race anyway (come from Blackonia? speak blackones?). Africans and Indians have too many ethnicities to be classified as one group.

You seem not to understand. Give us an example.

Africans are very much welcome in India, afterall, India was the first stop of Africans who came out of Africa in the early prehistoric human history. and the close proximity of the two made Africans and Indians the most harmonious relationship in the world.

-

Thats a Siddi woman. Not an "actual" Indian. Nice try.

Hi dear....well i think its better that if Africans are coming to know of indian culture so what kind of help i can do for you?? Waiting your reply...

Thanks
Regards

Why wouldn't they be? India already has a number of ethnic minorities of African origins, some descended from the earliest indigineous inhabitants of India many thousands of years ago (such as the Andaman people shown in the videos above), while others are descended from relatively more recent arrivals that came as Muslim slaves and traders from East Africa roughly one thousand years ago (such as the Siddi woman shown in the picture above).


If she is a Siddi, then she is an "Indian". Her distant East African ancestors arrived in India a thousand years ago, so that wouldn't make her any less Indian than the Parsis (who came from Persia a thousand years ago).

She would be an unfortunate descendant of Ethiopian slaves who were dragged all the way to India by Muslims. She or her ancestors didn't choose to be stolen out of their homeland and be sent to some far away region to be treated as a subhuman, kicked around at the disposal of some fat spoilt Sayyid.

Siddhis have clung on to the religion of their cruel slave masters and stuck to their own race despite several attempts by the Hindu community to assimilate them into their Hindu society. They are Afrjcans by blood, they see themselves as Africans and they want to go back to Africa.

Only a multiculturally brainwashed drone would harp about how "Indian" they are. When they don't a rats @$$ about Indian patriotism, as long as they are concerned if you don't look like them. You aren't one of them.

It wouldn't matter to them if Gandhi's tummy rumbled to have the "evil" British get out of India. Give them enough money, they will use it to gtfo India asap.

Good question. Go post that in the China chat. Tell them how as a brotha you love them Chinito Chiquitas. See how much love they show you.

You are partly wrong. While many of the Siddis are descended from African slaves, there are also many Siddis who are descended from African sailors, servants, merchants, and even soldiers that came with the early Muslim invaders.

Half of Africa's population follows Islam, therefore most the Siddi's ancestors were most likely already Muslims long before they arrived in India. And what makes the situation of the Siddis any different to that of African Americans? Siddis have been living in India for a lot longer than African Americans have in America, and yet most people would not even question whether or not African Amerians are "Americans".

"Indian" is a nationality. "Race" or "ethnicity" has nothing to do with it. Siddis are of Indian nationality, whether we like it or not. The same goes for the Parsis, Anglo-Indians, Northeast Indians, or any other Indian nationals who don't look like "typical" Indians.

Most Asians in the UK don't give a "rat's arse" about British patriotism either. That doesn't change the fact that they are British, whether they like it or not.

Booyah I don't give a sh*t about African Americans. Not in the sense with their relation to the situation being discussed, their history and dignity as humans I do.

African Americans earn their damn right to every ounce of modern American identification as do the the European(White) Americans. They shed their blood, tears and sweat in building the nation known know today as USA.

Siddhis just did the bidding of Sayyids/Sharifs/Sheikhs and other HIGH CASTE Muslims.


I so did not know that.


Race may not. Ethnicity does. Some people just "happened" to be born in India along with several of their ancestors and by that accident alone they are given the identity of being an Indian national. But I beg to differ, I believe those who passionately defend the region that compose of India have the rights to call themselves as Indian.

That easily excludes Muslims.

Siddis are of Indian nationality, whether we like it or not.

Nationality being a status based upon generations of ancestors being born in the region. Doesn't mean sh*t really.

Parsees don't look Indian?

Really? Looks Pakistani to me.


Did I said that weren't the case? Parsees clearly CHOSE to be Indians and so did Mongoloid North Eastern Indians.

In fact the progressivePalaMongolid/Sinid invaders from Southern China forced the EastWeddids into Bengal/Chotia Nagpur when they expanded in the North East from China and thereby breaking the once EastWeddid zone stretching from East India to South East Asia. In many instances they killed the Weddids and completely replaced them, same with some parts of South East Asia.

I do recognize North East Indians as wholly Indian as I do the Hindus.

In other words, your beef is actually with Muslims then?


If they're ancestors have lived in India for several generations, it means they are "Indian". End of. Patriotism (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.


Pakistani? I thought we were talking about Indians here?

By the way, I was referring to the fact that Parsis are of Persian/Iranian origins.


Have you forgotten about the fact that there are a lot of Northeast Indian seperatists who do not consider themselves Indian? And what about the Northeast Indians that are Christian/Buddhist/Tribal?

What are "PalaMongolid", "Sinid" or "Weddid" supposed to mean? Even racialist anthropologists don't use "racial" categories like that. I presume you were referring to what racialist anthropologists usually call "Mongoloid" and "Australoid", right? In that case, both of those types of people have been living in India long before the "Caucasoid" majority (including both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers) arrived.

Iranians have many similarities with Indians that the Siddhis do not. They are Indo Iranian; linguistically and culturally. Physically/genetically they are the closest to Indians/Pakistanis.

So between a Siddhi and an Iranian, the Iranian has much more in common with the Hindu.


Separatism being a recent phenomenon. Such an idea was never in the minds of the North East Indians. The Christian Maoist Naga leaders have conjured a false notion for their own personal pursuits. Everyone wants their own slice of the cake.

It won't take much effort to send troops marching into Nagaland, castrate all Naga males and force all Naga females into being comfort women.

And believe me their own "brothers", the Gurkhas, will be willing to do exactly that for us.



What about them? No problemo with Christianity at all. Christians make a sizeable chunk of Kerala and Goa, no fuss.

Buddhism is Hinduism.

Whats the deal with tribals? Adivasis are all over India.



Haha you almost got me there kid, Mongoloids entered India long after the earliest Caucasoids did.

In that case, between a Hindu Siddhi and a Muslim Iranian, which one would you say has more in common with the "Hindu"?


You're more twisted than I thought, man... So much for India's "democracy".

Besides, what makes you think Gurkhas would be willing to commit mass rapes for you?


So the only problems are Muslims and Maoists then?


Nope. The presence of Austro-Asiatic speakers (i.e. "Mongoloid" people) in India predates the arrival of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers (i.e. "Caucasoid" people).

First of all is there rapport between Africans and Indians in India? Can Africans conduct business freely with Indians?

India is a democracy. Of course they can.

I have a team of businessmen whom we shall be starting a business with in several countrie
in Asia. But I do not know why some people want to tarnish Indian people.

You have a business team? really? What do you do?

OT: Can anyone tell what the one indian language that has the horizontal line across all the letters is called?

That's not a language, it's a writing script. There are dozens of Indic scripts that have a horizontal line across the top of the letters. The most common one is the Devanagari script.

Pliz guys do not get out of topic

African, I agree with Jagger that you should look up Siddis regarding Africans in India. They are Afro-Indians. Meanwhile, Naidu isn't making any sense so I don't think his posts will help regarding this subject.

There is no question the Siddis are Indian just as much as all other Indians are. These people have lived in India almost 1,000 years now and probably do not have the faintest idea what Africa even looks like .

The Indians in the Caribbean are Guyanese, Trinidadian, Jamaican, not Indian, and they've only lived there for some 100 years. Ask and Guyanese whether he or she is Guyanese or Indian and they will tell you bluntly they are Guyanese. Why would they be Indian.

Its OK to cling on to Parsis as Indian but the Siddis or the Turks (Mughals) as not. Anti-Islam?

Even the Andamenese are Indian. Just because they are black does not mean they are not Indian

You're welcome!

Shapingo we deal with a wide variety but my side is for looking for market and diversification of services and markets.

Mr French our team will be sending some people for the business trip through the ministry of trade in Nairobi.

Mrs French.

Really? To where?

Sorry Mrs French,I thought you are a man, I have just visited your profile.

We shall start sending to Korea but I prefered India to start with though we must follow govts instructions.

Of Course the Northeast people are Indians. There may be some rebels in one or two states who are being influenced by China or by the Christian misisonaries in call for independence, most people in those states wish to be part of the Indian union. Only perhaps Nagaland is the one state in the region where call for indepence is quite relentless.

In any case, just because a person has very strong Mongoloid features does not mean they should be part of a different country. A multi-racial country can have several race groups and thousands of ethnicities like India does. The fact is, India has been mult-racial for thousands of years.

Also, race is not an easy to define term because there has been a lot of mixing in India and while a lot of peopel can look similar, there are subtle differences among people, apart from the obvious differences in people in certain parts of the country such as the Northeast or India's tribal people. For example, someone can have very caucasoid features while another person has caucasoid features but with slight Mongoloid features too; while another person might have very caucasoid features but hint of Austroloid features too; or, any combination of the three.

Also just because 72% of the country belongs to the Indo-Aryan language groups, does not mean 72% of the people are of caucasoid feautures. Do not confuse language groups with racial types. You can be a Mongoloid and belong to the Indo-Aryan language group because you happen to speak one of the Indo-Aryan languages, say, Hindi.

And, as scientific research shows, women in the lower and many in the middle castes are actually much closer genetically to East Asians than to the Caucaoid Eurasians while the higher castes and many in the middle caste are closer to Eurasian than East Asian.

Is that a fact?

"Mrs" French? Since when did you get married? o_0



Well said. Communities (regardless of their so-called "race") who have lived in India for many centuries are pretty much Indians by default. Western racialist ideas of a distinct "Indian race" have obviously had a strong influence on ultra-nationalists like Naidu. It's a good thing the Indian government doesn't classify its population according to "race".

Wow, you're behind.
Actually, the guy that posted right before you is my husband.

You mean Shabali?

Is it just me, or am I starting to feel a sense of jealousy?

Politics and all that trash aside, everyone is welcome in India; especially if you're doing business.