Does this story prove where white people come from?
- Thread starter theworldismine13
- Start date
GetInTheTruck
Member
The Andamanese are a people unto their own, they speak their own language and have chosen to live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on their island up until today. Saying that they are what all Indians used to look like prior to "mixing" is kinda just speaking out your ass. When did this mixing occur and how? Who were the parties involved?
More in relation to the thread, this is how I see it:
After humans migrated out of Africa in groups, India was one of their first destinations so it has always been home to a variety of people. The two dominant cultures that eventually came to dominate, Aryan and Dravidian, fused over time to give birth to Indian/Hindu civilization. "Aryan" isn't a race, anybody who gave authority to the Vedas and practiced it's culture was considered to be an Aryan. There were some people who didn't want to and those people were considered to be heretics and were eventually cast out of society and became the untouchables.
Those original members of the Aryan culture in India who decided to move west instead of remain where they were eventually became the Persians/Iranians. As you progress even more west into Europe the people get whiter and whiter but this explains the language similarities. The Aryans who became the Persians probably left due to some kind of dispute and that's why in ancient Persian religion the "Asuras" are the good guys ans the "Devas" are the bad guys while in Hinduism it's the other way around.
When cacs aka "indologists" started to figure this all out they got nervous and insecure about their history and made up this whole theory about how white skinned Aryans came through from some mysterious location in Europe into India and crushed the buildings with their superior culture
no evidence for any of that.
If you don't think that they Andamense are what ancient Indians looked like then Idk what to say. all of Asian looked that way before changes took place. The isolated parts of Asia remains looking that way, while the parts prone to invasion and mass trade changed after 10 of thousands of years.The Andamanese are a people unto their own, they speak their own language and have chosen to live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on their island up until today. Saying that they are what all Indians used to look like prior to "mixing" is kinda just speaking out your ass. When did this mixing occur and how? Who were the parties involved?
More in relation to the thread, this is how I see it:
After humans migrated out of Africa in groups, India was one of their first destinations so it has always been home to a variety of people. The two dominant cultures that eventually came to dominate, Aryan and Dravidian, fused over time to give birth to Indian/Hindu civilization. "Aryan" isn't a race, anybody who gave authority to the Vedas and practiced it's culture was considered to be an Aryan. There were some people who didn't want to and those people were considered to be heretics and were eventually cast out of society and became the untouchables.
Those original members of the Aryan culture in India who decided to move west instead of remain where they were eventually became the Persians/Iranians. As you progress even more west into Europe the people get whiter and whiter but this explains the language similarities. The Aryans who became the Persians probably left due to some kind of dispute and that's why in ancient Persian religion the "Asuras" are the good guys ans the "Devas" are the bad guys while in Hinduism it's the other way around.
When cacs aka "indologists" started to figure this all out they got nervous and insecure about their history and made up this whole theory about how white skinned Aryans came through from some mysterious location in Europe into India and crushed the buildings with their superior culture
We've already demonstrated that people didn't just magically turn lighter because they lived in the North.
Scientist have NO clue why lighter complexions would spread through natural selection. It was a mutant gene that cause Early humans to be anything but black. It wasn't until mating between early humans and modern humans- that we started to see all these mutations spread in Europe.
I think confusion is what causes this unnecessary defensiveness. I don't believe in the Aryan invasion theory of any of the other cac shyt... but what do you think you would look like 40K years ago? 8K years ago? There wasn't anything but black people on Earth 8K years ago. NTM most of those 'traits' originated in Africa. There are entire African and African American families that have socalled slanted eyes n shyt. All those traits were transferred to Asia.
I'm not sure why you think Naga, Tamil, Dravidian, and all the other ancient groups weren't black.
The only people who weren't mixed with Neanderthals were Africans. Europeans were mixed the most. The traits of Africans and African Americans who aren't as mixed with white are more similar to asians for a reason. NOT one trait came from ancient Asian Homo erectus....There aren't Mongolian features that aren't originated in AFrica less than 10k years ago. Those people died out and were replaced by black Africans. Science backs all this breh.
you look at everything in a 1+1 type of way.
The first population of African modern humans hardly share any traits and features that modern bandus, khoisan, or any groups we can think of who live in the area today. So how do you think that modern indians are even close to anything that was around in ancient india?
modern asians are adapted versions of african migrants. All uncontaminated and uncontacted Asian groups are refereed to as Afro Asian for a reason and are dark for a reason.
you mention language similarities... all of asia spoke afroasiatic languages for most of history. .. then eventually the ayran language came to southern asia.
And I'm not sure, but I think the eurasian mongol people causing terror on most of the world's population has something to do with why most asians look the way they do today. Chinese and other groups were most affected by 'neo mongol' terror so got most of the features.... while places like the philiphines, thailand, etc were less affected so kept more of there afro asiatic features, so called less cold adapted.. (when really it wasn't the cold)
I think you should take a trip to Madagascar. All those shades but those are the same people. I know a couple bishes from there who identify as black, but I doubt you would call them that. A bish whose family originates in Madagascar but looks asian has more bantu genes than the average african ameriacan.... just like Indians before very recent history.
I guess you can say that the ancient Indians weren't black but in that case most of the coli's black posters aren't either.
GetInTheTruck
Member
@Blackking, the fact that Australian Aborigines and Andamanese as well as other negrito tribes don't look alike aside from skin color is reason alone to dismiss what you're saying.
You're going to have to cite some references for your claims about how all of Asia used to speak an "Afro-Asiatic" language. Those languages are dominant in Africa and the Middle East. We are discussing the Indian sub-continent. Dravidian is indigenous to India and the origins of proto Indo-european are hotly debated....some people are of the opinion that it developed somewhere in southern Russia and spread in opposite directions, and some are of the opinion that it developed in India and spread north/west.
and we've been through this, you can call people black based on their skin color all you want...i'll even help you do that...but that's not the issue and you know it. If you want to play that game then based on my features and skin color I'm "blacker" than a lot of coli posters
You're going to have to cite some references for your claims about how all of Asia used to speak an "Afro-Asiatic" language. Those languages are dominant in Africa and the Middle East. We are discussing the Indian sub-continent. Dravidian is indigenous to India and the origins of proto Indo-european are hotly debated....some people are of the opinion that it developed somewhere in southern Russia and spread in opposite directions, and some are of the opinion that it developed in India and spread north/west.
and we've been through this, you can call people black based on their skin color all you want...i'll even help you do that...but that's not the issue and you know it. If you want to play that game then based on my features and skin color I'm "blacker" than a lot of coli posters
you can go to a library if you need to know more.@Blackking, the fact that Australian Aborigines and Andamanese as well as other negrito tribes don't look alike aside from skin color is reason alone to dismiss what you're saying.
You're going to have to cite some references for your claims about how all of Asia used to speak an "Afro-Asiatic" language. Those languages are dominant in Africa and the Middle East. We are discussing the Indian sub-continent. Dravidian is indigenous to India and the origins of proto Indo-european are hotly debated....some people are of the opinion that it developed somewhere in southern Russia and spread in opposite directions, and some are of the opinion that it developed in India and spread north/west.
and we've been through this, you can call people black based on their skin color all you want...i'll even help you do that...but that's not the issue and you know it. If you want to play that game then based on my features and skin color I'm "blacker" than a lot of coli posters
also, I'm not calling people black based on their skin color.
GetInTheTruck
Member
breh, you are in here talking about Afro-Asiatic languages in India 
I don't know why you keep insisting on pushing this nonsense. and that's exactly what you're doing. You and everybody else were calling anybody with dark skin and curly hair black in those other threads. It's so absurd it's comical.
i didn't call everyone black with curly hair black in any thread. I spoke on migration patterns, history, and ancient cultures. Mainly I stated the obvious. You mainly speak in terms of very modern history. You actually believe that Indians looked liked modern indians, in ancient times.
and that's exactly what you're doing. You and everybody else were calling anybody with dark skin and curly hair black in those other threads. It's so absurd it's comical.
And India isn't the only place in Asia... if I was talking about india, I would have singled it out - I said language similarities in "asia" - which is true. Realistically, you haven't shown anything I stated to be false...
who gives a fukk about any of this shyt? this is one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen in HL.
didnt read @Blackking post but im just gotta interpretate@Blackking, the fact that Australian Aborigines and Andamanese as well as other negrito tribes don't look alike aside from skin color is reason alone to dismiss what you're saying.
You're going to have to cite some references for your claims about how all of Asia used to speak an "Afro-Asiatic" language. Those languages are dominant in Africa and the Middle East. We are discussing the Indian sub-continent. Dravidian is indigenous to India and the origins of proto Indo-european are hotly debated....some people are of the opinion that it developed somewhere in southern Russia and spread in opposite directions, and some are of the opinion that it developed in India and spread north/west.
and we've been through this, you can call people black based on their skin color all you want...i'll even help you do that...but that's not the issue and you know it. If you want to play that game then based on my features and skin color I'm "blacker" than a lot of coli posters
and provide you with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15020799
quoted for emphasize. theres no denying it, white people are a genetic mutation. they only been around for the last 6,000yrs
/thread
even they are beginning to acknowledge this
Serious question, why do you consider this dumb, and why shouldn't anybody care about where people potentially come from? Does modern science not cosign some of these points? Or would you say its up for interpretation?
GetInTheTruck
Member
btw this is the original video mowgli posted on sohh
GetInTheTruck
Member
You are the same person who said that this broad looks black :
Funny shyt about it is she aint even 100% Indian, she's half white. This is proof that some people will just stretch the physical definitions of "blackness" to suit whatever agenda it is they are trying to push. It's delusional.
And we are talking about India, so why would you bring up other parts of Asia? It doesn't even matter because Afro-Asiatic languages are based mainly around the horn of Africa and the M.E. Asian languages are completely different.
As far as what ancient Indians looked like, it depends how far back you want to go. If you go back far enough everybody on the planet looked similar, which makes these debates pointless since we are all human beings.
If you are going to sit there and insist that all Indians used to look like the Andamanese negritos before "mixing" then you are going to have to tell us when this mixing occured, who they mixed with, and how India came to be a land of a BILLION people who have straight/wavy hair and light-dark brown skin and "caucasoid" features. You can't post garbage and then tell me to go to a "library" to qualify your bullshyt