Tell me how convincing you think this is?

If you took a research methods class, you would know about the flaws and biases that are frequently evident in these studies. My professor told us to analyze the flaws of our senior thesis, because he knows it's impossible for a study to be perfectly generalizable. Just because something is documented on paper and was done by a researcher doesn't mean that it's the truth for everyone. Researchers are human beings, and they make mistakes. Don't forget that the Aryan Invasion theory was documented in history for a long time, but now people are refuting it.

Regarding non-Indian researchers doing studies on phenotypical variation--


How do these non-Indian researchers know for sure what ethnicity you belong to?

Has anybody ever thought about this?

1) Just because you live in Punjab doesn't mean you're a genuine Punjabi. What happens if a European researcher in Punjab examines a Bihari migrant by accident, and thinks that he's Punjabi?

2) What if a Sudra changes their last name, and poses as a high-caste person? The researcher is fooled into thinking that the Sudra is a legit high-caste person and will recruit him into the high-caste sample he's studying. The same thing can be applied to high-caste people changing their last names to get reserved seats.


3) What if a half-breed goes by their dad's ethnicity, and the researcher believes that this person is 100% of what the father is? The researcher wouldn't know that the person's maternal genes could have been a dominant factor in the half-breed's phenotype, because it's not culturally meaningful to mention what your mom is.

4) Don't forget that illegitimate affairs, divorce, and remarriage are taboo to talk about openly in Desi culture, so you could be in a situation pretending that you're something that you're not.

Different studies can yield different results

1) Someone could do a study on Indians today, and come up with totally different results from the studies conduced decades ago. What do you do then?

When people do studies on Indian states, they fail to mention what community someone belongs to.

1) There was a study that included Karnataka and Punjab, but everybody knows each Indian state is broken down into different communities. Did the people from Karnataka studied belong to Aishwarya Rai's community or were they members of a scheduled caste? Were the people in Punjab Jatts or Banias?


How large was the sample?

1) Out of the billion people in the sub-continent and the other Desis abroad, a sample size of 200 doesn't mean jack. Look at the sample sizes in these so-called "Indian racial sizes." The study concluding how high-caste people have more European blood had a sample size of 200 or 300 people.

2) It also depends on who you come across. Everybody has a different experience, and meets different people. What if that caste study came across that one lower-caste kkdcrkl mentioned, who are typically light-skinned?


There is no mention of the intentions of the researchers

1) What difference does it makes how Indians look like? What contribution is their study going to have? Are they secretly trying to divide Indians and cause quarrels? Think about it. You don't see Indian researchers coming to America or Europe to do studies on how white people look like.





Add more reasons if you would like. Let's own these b!tches

I agree completely! Non-Indians really don't know $hit about Indian history/culture and ethnicities, no matter how much they read. India is so vast and every part is unique and deserves the same amount of respect. But for Europeans grouping everyone into catergories was a must. You're either this or that etc.... But in India it doesn't work, because of the great amount of diversity. Indians need to stop letting white/non-Indians in general define who they are. We know who we are and we don't need whites to validate that. fu-k reseach, research means ! It doesn't in anyway define or change India. We need to start anew and rewrite our history from our perspective, not white Europeans.

British Raj

but .. if the arayans didnt invade india, how did their sanskrit langauge and script reach SE asia and was adopted by khmers, javanese, saimese, and lataians? how did their language influence the words we speak when we "speak the langauge of the gods" (sanskirt) and how come many words in khmer have sanskirt origins if not for them invading india?

There are different perspectives on the aryan invasion theory. Some say the invaders were Nordic whites. Some say they were Persians(Iranians). I personally believe that if there was an invasion than it would of been Persians, rather than Nordics. I'm kinda torn. I believe in the arayan invasion, but not the white nationalist/supremacist version. But at the end of the day there is no evidence for it so.....


P.S. If you think about it Tamils are found all over S.E. Asian, they exported Hindu culture to the world. Saivism(Shiva worship) was the main influence before Abrahamic faiths and even Buddhism.

Hindu Influence in Cambodia and much of SE Asia comes from the influence of a South India Tamil Dynasty called the Chola Dynasty. The Chola king Rajendra Chola I was the main instigator of this event in later Hindu influence in Kampuchea. Prior to the Chola Dynasty, Funan was the main source of Hindu influence, due to its obvious proximity and the fact that out of Funan came Chenla and so on.

I'm not denying any invasions, but I just don't believe the white supremacist version that Radha mentioned.


The "Indian race" didn't pop out from the sky. We're an accumulation of different things, but we're so mixed up that you can't talk like how some of these non-Indian researchers and anti-Indian Pakistanis talk. If anyone remembers the link allempires.com I posted, the Pakistani members do love to quote the AIT and these studies to prove that Indians have the worst physiques in the world and that Pakistanis have healthier bodies. That kind of junk is just gay.

fu-k 'em! If they want to talk $hit about Indians, than fine. As long as they remember, that before the Indo-Pak war, they were Indians too.

And besides, some of the stongest, most handsome, brave heroic men in the world, have been Indian. Krishna lifted a hill! I would grant you have to be strong to do that! Krishna was also one of the bravest warriors in history. He incouraged Arjun to be brave in the face of danger, and stand up for dharma. Even if it ment killing Karna, Krishna's cousin. That is true bravery. And exibits the utmost of strength. Besides who gives a $hit what whites believe, in a few more generations they won't exist. Our history is our own, and all of Asia's!

And Krisha was also a Yadav, and not a Kshatriya.


About them being Indians, they have their own theories on that. I'll post it from another forum later. Remember, the Balochis and Pathans of Pakistan aren't really Desi.

funan then chenla? i dont think so .. funanese were the late comers of SE asia and kept their traditional ancestorial worship religion, unlike chenla who were hindu at the time ..

Yeah, I know they're Iranian and not technically Desi. There are plenty of Indian muscular masculine men. Hrithick, John Abraham, Upen, Dinesh etc... Just look at male Bollywood stars. Some are even veggies!

oops sorry i meant the other way

yeah, but they teach this stuff as asian history and claims 'asians owe alot to the sanskirt who practicallly spoonfed their language, genetics, and culture" << not in my wording, but these types of claims are filitered through and pass as authentic "asian history" .. even my world history book says this .. .. we ought to let asains write their own history and not take from the white man, but asianse themselves cannot agree who came first out of africa and whatnot cause there's always tension between eachother .. for example::

there was a huge @$$ debate and flame-bait thread questioning "origins of the khmer" .. one side said southern china and another side said the kambuja tribe of the indic-arayan people from modernday northwestern india-pakstani border who traveled to southern india, sri lanka, and then started civilization in chenla .. < i believe that is true to some extent, but it contradicts the fact that intermarrage with the indigenious people of chenla occured generations after generations .. how can you start a civilization if there were already an indigenous people who already started one? this is why the debate goes on and on ... if they were from southern china why would people of that time decide to travel down south from prosperous china? and im sure if khmers are only about 2000 years or so in culture, the chinese would've caught on with sources that states "southern chinese folks migrating south to form chenla" since they recoreded things from 5000 years back ..

I think khmers were always indigenous with influenced from china and india, but mostly from the kambujah who came and changed the name ..

I was being sarcastic about the Pathans and Balochis! I've seen some Afghans online that don't even want to accept Paki Pathans as Afghan. They think they're fake or "diluted."

I don't know what to say on that, as I've seen Pathans and Balochis that looked very Desi to me. Some Pathans have green eyes, but they still have some stereotypical "Desi" traits.

There's a chance that some of them assimilated into the rest of the Desi population, while some have retained their "Iranian" and "Afghanness."

Um who cares? Really. I've noticed it's mostly non-Indians that are curious about this sort of stuff and keep on bantering about it.

i hear cambodians and indians are close. not like countries/people but heritage and all. ankor watt (sp? sorry) used to be a hindu temple in cambodia but is now a buddhist one.

go to afghan-web.com if you want to see what afghans think of pakistani's...they hate them.

anyways more power to you guys for staying true to your religion(s) and not being sellouts to other ones.

im seriously starting to belive korea sold itself out to be christian or whatever just to modernize ..

we did, and i hate admitting it. what koreans have done in the last 50 years so will end up being our largest mistake ever.

in this sense i have hope in north korea. i dont like kim jung but atleast he doesnt let christians spread and all, i believe buddhism is strong there though religion is banned/regulated to the max out there.

i wanna know why koreans just gave up all of a sudden, its not like we were dirt poor before.

i bet japanese people hella rub it in your faces about this huh?

yeah, but never to my face. not many where i live. but if you look on forums and stuff they do bash korea for this often.

can't blame them. we gave our heritage up in under 50 years..pathetic. theres always hope for buddhist revolution.

gawd my girl is Korean and she wants me to go to church with her. I wonder if she has any interest in Korean shamanism.

dont do it man. you're only appeasing the killers of korean culture.

thats pretty crazy though. i posted a similar problem about my girlfriend on these forums. she's fillipino and really wants me to go to church with her.

i will never do it though.

^^^ So is your who family buddhist?

yeah all my relatives as well. we used to have a huge place w/all my relatives living it in korea. that's what kept us all together as buddhists otherwise who knows what would have happened.

since then we've dispersed throughout the usa/europe. still all buddhist though.

my sister has been listening to american country music since forever and now .. she's christian .. Wierd ... all them talk about how god makes them happy and saving them through time of need .. and all that .. i guess i have every right to call her a sellout cuase she told me "look at all the christians and those who convert, you see how more well-off and successful they are?" i was like .. fu-kin retard .. whatever, be a god lover .. $hit they dont even pay much credit to their mother who pushed them out ....

^^^Wow, so in the 50s and 60s the elders in your family weren't enticed by missionaries?

what the heck?! thats crazy man. i can't imagine having a family member of another religion (hindu would be fine..but christian?! weird).

the sell-outs have it bad.

just look at africa. so much conversion there and they still live poor. same goes for the phillpines. central america. south america.

religion has nothing to do with wealth.

luckily you seem like a loyal Buddhist and i doubt you'd ever sell-out. i applaud you for that. i cant imagine a person turning christian without a missionary taking them step by step.

a khmer christian..that's just wrong. the majority of cambodians know the truth though.

Interesting view EY. I agree about researchers being humans who are capable of mistakes and you bring forward some interesting arguments.

Research topics can be very useful if done and used properly, but in many cases, they are done to try and cement arguments and rarely give the whole view.

Its similar to statistics, as they can be twisted to try and backup an argument, without always telling the whole truth.

Research topics are necessary to gain knowledge of what is around us, but it should be viewed at with perspective and taken into context, otherwise its just twisted facts that people use to try and follow up a theory.

haha, this discussion reminds me of a Southpark when the kids visited Africa. A missionary dude had a bowl of food in one hand and a Bible in the other and asked this Ethiopian guy "Hey, do you want this food? First, you got to read the Bible!"

I've heard there's been a spike in conversions in the tsunami affected regions of Asia. Why does humanitarian work from America have to come tandem with evangelism?

cambodians look like any other SE-Asians... they dont really look indian at all.
they culture is something diffrent.


does anybody know, what the real religion was in SEA, before they get influenced by hindus, buddhist, moslems and know christians...?

the theory is about invading india, not SE-Asia.

sanskrit get to SEA trough indians, who went there for trading and what else....i think the cholas.

ex. malayalam has alot of sanskrit words, but dat doesnt make them "aryans"....its just a influence of a few people, mainly brahmins.....

....same thing goes for khmer, or any other SEA language

Im thinking it was like the Pacific Cultures, this is long b4 Angkor Watt was ever built of course, but based on dress wear it's probably like those of the Dravidian and Lapita peoples. They believed in Gods and were found of the Ocean.

no, my parents were sponsored here in the US via the filippines in the early 80s .. missionaries did come to "help" but we never bought into any of that .. they do come to knock on our door and try to "inform" me .. gosh i just hate them soo much, they're so annoying and they never leave anyone alone..

Bengalis look like Bengalis to me...but some Bengali people do get mistaken for SE Asian.

If they can get mistaken for SE Asian, a Cambodian could get mistaken for an Indian Bengali.

LOL!! i so wanna be a MOD in this section!!

no one said, they cant get mistaken for an indian, but majority look SEA.
bengalis are mixed people, they can look like everyone...


some indians look like whites, but have u ever seen a white person looking indian? (no latins please)

if you still consider pakastanis to be indian, then yes, some of whites can pass as indian

i dont find itlians and spanish much diferent..most italian and spanish hoes attract indian customers by telling they are indian..

Man, they did that to my family too. Our parents were too Buddhist to convert. I know some Lao folks converted because they were getting free food and $hit.

ofcourse they are indians, the punjabi ones, are....but no, whites dont look like them