northwestern_student
Nov 25 2005, 12:32 AM
Some believe they are related to Australian aboriginals but other think they may be just tanned caucasoids no different from the Aryans who conquered them.
I've heard theories proposed by western linguists and ethnologists, but what are Indians' take on the issue?
jiggyiggy
Nov 25 2005, 01:03 AM
My take on it is that they are Indians. booyah. Aryan and Dravidan are lingual groups not racial groups.
kollision
Nov 25 2005, 02:34 AM
QUOTE(northwestern_student @ Nov 25 2005, 12:32 AM)
Some believe they are related to Australian aboriginals but other think they may be just tanned caucasoids no different from the Aryans who conquered them.
I've heard theories proposed by western linguists and ethnologists, but what are Indians' take on the issue?
Heres what I saw on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_raceQUOTE
Geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza maintained in his book The History and Geography of Human Genes that the proto-Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent were a Caucasoid people, preceded by an Australoid-type people whose linguistic origins remain unknown, and followed by Indo-European-speaking migrants sometime later.
Jagger
Nov 25 2005, 12:29 PM
That's right. Dravidians aren't much different to Northern Indians other than their darker skin and slightly more Australoid features. Although it's not known about whether or not Dravidians and Aryans are racially the same, the term Dravidian is used these days only to refer to the speakers of Dravidian languages (mostly South Indians), while Aryan is used to refer to the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages (mostly Northern Indians).
Tenjikuronin
Nov 25 2005, 06:56 PM
The actual Dravidians came from the lost continent of Kumari Kandam....
Jagger
Nov 26 2005, 08:49 PM
Well according to some Tamil legends, they came from Kumari Kandam but there isn't really any evidence to suggest whether or not its true.
However, some ancient underwater ruins have been discovered in Mahabalipuram (in Tamil Nadu, South India) after the Indian Ocean Tsunami last year, which left behind some evidence of this ancient city. They've only begun underwater excavations earlier this year, and it could be anything from 1500-8000 years old, since not much is known about it. Some believe it's the sunken city the Tamil legends could be referring to.
kollision
Nov 26 2005, 10:05 PM
QUOTE(Jagger @ Nov 26 2005, 08:49 PM)
Well according to some Tamil legends, they came from Kumari Kandam but there isn't really any evidence to suggest whether or not its true.
However, some ancient underwater ruins have been discovered in Mahabalipuram (in Tamil Nadu, South India) after the Indian Ocean Tsunami last year, which left behind some evidence of this ancient city. They've only begun underwater excavations earlier this year, and it could be anything from 1500-8000 years old, since not much is known about it. Some believe it's the sunken city the Tamil legends could be referring to.
O hey man, I saw a video of this HUGE bones and it looked wayyy bigger than a T Rex. Do you know if that was real? They said that it washed up to shore after the Tsunami, that thing was HUGE!
Tenjikuronin
Nov 27 2005, 12:12 AM
QUOTE(kollision @ Nov 26 2005, 07:05 PM)
O hey man, I saw a video of this HUGE bones and it looked wayyy bigger than a T Rex. Do you know if that was real? They said that it washed up to shore after the Tsunami, that thing was HUGE!
A lot of the animals/animal bones that were said to have come ashore after the tsunami were actually things that had been retrieved from a deep sea exploration expidition that had been conducted a month before.......
ExpressYourself
Nov 28 2005, 01:08 PM
QUOTE(Jagger @ Nov 25 2005, 12:29 PM)
That's right. Dravidians aren't much different to Northern Indians other than their darker skin and slightly more Australoid features. Although it's not known about whether or not Dravidians and Aryans are racially the same, the term Dravidian is used these days only to refer to the speakers of Dravidian languages (mostly South Indians), while Aryan is used to refer to the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages (mostly Northern Indians).
Can someone post a picture of what would be considered "Dravidian" looking? Some people say it's just an Indian that's extremely dark, and other people say that they have to have certain facial features....
jiggyiggy
Nov 28 2005, 11:34 PM
I've been getting in touch with my Dravidan roots, and reading up on the Self Respect Movement. I have come to the conclusion that we must destroy all aspects of Aryan culture that the Brahmins and their warrior cronies have shoved down our throats. We have become subjegated and marginalized. It's time for an overhaul. It's time to kill whitey. The darkies are on the move!
Tenjikuronin
Nov 29 2005, 12:51 AM
QUOTE(jiggyiggy @ Nov 28 2005, 08:34 PM)
I've been getting in touch with my Dravidan roots, and reading up on the Self Respect Movement. I have come to the conclusion that we must destroy all aspects of Aryan culture that the Brahmins and their warrior cronies have shoved down our throats. We have become subjegated and marginalized. It's time for an overhaul. It's time to kill whitey. The darkies are on the move!
^ Someone's been hitting the hookah one too many times.......
kkdkckrl
Nov 29 2005, 10:04 AM
QUOTE
I've been getting in touch with my Dravidan roots, and reading up on the Self Respect Movement. I have come to the conclusion that we must destroy all aspects of Aryan culture that the Brahmins and their warrior cronies have shoved down our throats. We have become subjegated and marginalized. It's time for an overhaul. It's time to kill whitey. The darkies are on the move!
JiggyJiggy aren't u gujrati? You can't get in touch with your Dravidian roots cuz YOU AREN'T DRAVIDIAN! STFU! I hope you are joking, cuz that is getting on my nerves. I am telugu and all your dravo-aryan $hit is getting on my nerves.
jiggyiggy
Nov 29 2005, 07:48 PM
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.