Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced the origins of India's caste system

[GetInTheTruck]

I believe it is race based in it's ORIGINS. I said this since we started this conversation. The origins of it has effected what goes on to this day, but on the surface it's about profession. Notice I keep saying the same things but, for some reason you twist the way you say things thinking I'm going to give a different answer. Think what you want. Peace to you.

I'm looking at @Camile.Bidan now because he actually has info that has some type of credibility. That is what I'm about. Me, and you, can agree to disagree. You believe in religious teaching, I believe in what makes sense, and what can be proven. We are never going to agree because we have too much differences in how we think.

What have you proven though? If caste was based on race then that would be easily apparent within the Indian population, but it isn't.

North Indians are generally lighter skinned than south Indians, though that isn't an absolute, just a general observation...it also has nothing to do with race. South indian dravidians arw caucasoids just like north indian punjabis. Some of those white looking Indians up north did mix with people like Muslims and Persians which accounts for their appearance, but guess what...none of those people are Brahmins....most of them are from the merchant class or land owning common folk...they will have last names like Pervez, shah, etc.

Caste is a religious concept at it's core, like it or not, so you can't discuss the topic while ignoring Hindu theology....and you can't point me anywhere in any Hindu scripture that suggests that it is based on race or ethnicity.

 

[bouncy]

What have you proven though? If caste was based on race then that would be easily apparent within the Indian population, but it isn't.

North Indians are generally lighter skinned than south Indians, though that isn't an absolute, just a general observation...it also has nothing to do with race. South indian dravidians arw caucasoids just like north indian punjabis. Some of those white looking Indians up north did mix with people like Muslims and Persians which accounts for their appearance, but guess what...none of those people are Brahmins....most of them are from the merchant class or land owning common folk...they will have last names like Pervez, shah, etc.

Caste is a religious concept at it's core, like it or not, so you can't discuss the topic while ignoring Hindu theology....and you can't point me anywhere in any Hindu scripture that suggests that it is based on race or ethnicity.

OK buddy! It isn't apparent even though genetic studies show this

The more I find certain studies these past few hours, the more it all is starting to make sense. The Aryans brought Caucasian DNA to most of the Northern Indians, as well as most likely imposed the form of the caste system we know today. The Southern Indians have a more direct link to the rest of the Asians(thailand, china, etc.), as well as Africa due to the migration out of Africa. Northern Indians still have some of this DNA but, because they merged with the Aryans, their DNA is more European than the southern indians. The genetic study shown this. This would make sense if the Aryans had a need to keep the nobility, and stock from being diluted with the rest of southern asians which would have eventually phased them out. It was actually a smart system to maintain power. You can control what people believe, as well as keep getting money. It was the older version of Jim crow, and one drop rule that the U.S.A. had. Those were 2.0 versions. The problem is once the Aryans lost their power, the mixed breed continued the system to maintain the power they got from the system. It's also like how Christianity was used to separate blacks and whites. No where does the bible say anything about race but for hundreds of years, the pictures of whites being angelic or jesus, and the system of racism is what kept the bullshyt going. It is only recently that things are starting to change. That sounds just like the hindu use of the caste system from northern indians who have more Caucasian dna.

Let me say, I don't hate you for being brahmin, you were born into it, my problem is you playing games and using the text as your sole source for the beliefs you have as it pertains to this caste system.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

OK buddy!

The more I find certain studies these past few hours, the more it all is starting to make sense. The Aryans brought Caucasian DNA to most of the Northern Indians, as well as most likely imposed the form of the caste system we know today. The Southern Indians have a more direct link to the rest of the Asians(thailand, china, etc.), as well as Africa due to the migration out of Africa. Northern Indians still have some of this DNA but, because they merged with the Aryans, their DNA is more European. This would make sense if the Aryans had a need to keep the nobility, and stock from being diluted with the rest of southern asians. It was actually a smart system to maintain power. It was the older version of Jim crow, and one drop rule that the U.S.A. had. Those were 2.0 versions. It's also like how christianity was used to sepearate blacks and whites. No where does the bible say this but for hundreds of years, the pictures of whites being angelic or jesus, and the system of racism is what kept the bullshyt going. It is only recently that things are starting to change. That sounds just like the hindu use of the caste system.

Let me say, I don't hate you for being brahmin, you were born into it, my problem is you playing games and using the text as your sole source for the beliefs you have as it pertains to this caste system.

Where do south Indian Brahmins fit into this scenario? They really don't look drastically different from other south Indians. Why do you think this is?

 

[bouncy]

Where do south Indian Brahmins fit into this scenario? They really don't look drastically different from other south Indians. Why do you think this is?

We are constantly going back and forth with this so you know what, lets deal with the DNA, and other stuff I posted, that has been discovered. If we keep going by the looks, we would not solve anything because it's subjective. The DNA, and new found studies, is something we can have an equal ground on. If you go with that, let's go!

I will answer your question though. Its called fukkING! Most people who are close to each other will end up fukking each other, no matter how much segregation they experience. If slaves had babies from their masters, and that situation was HARSH, you know people who follow a religion will do the same thing. Especially when they can just have the child be raised in their system. It's not like here where a white person who has a child with a black person can't hide it. Some did but they were very few. This is why the one drop rule was created. You can hide it MUCH better in India.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

We are constantly going back and forth with this so you know what, lets deal with the DNA, and other stuff I posted, that has been discovered. If we keep going by the looks, we would not solve anything because it's subjective. The DNA, and new found studies, is something we can have an equal ground on. If you go with that, let's go!

Nobody was doing DNA tests thousands of years ago when the caste system was first established, so if you are going to cling to the race theory then physical appearance is crucial.

There are no racial differences between castes man, that's the crux of the matter here.

 

[bouncy]

Nobody was doing DNA tests thousands of years ago when the caste system was first established, so if you are going to cling to the race theory then physical appearance is crucial.

There are no racial differences between castes man, that's the crux of the matter here.

Read my post again. I answered your question but, I see you aren't answering anything without giving me shyt I can't disprove with pure facts. At least @Camile.Bidan use science for his beliefs. You just throw the shyt out of the window!

You just ignore certain things I post, and ask me questions that I have answered already if you read the post in its whole entirety.

 

[observe]

What?

Other Europeans invaded India before the brits!

central asian aryans went down to invade India starting the caste system then made their way across asia to europe conquering lands and people..dont know what the hell @Tommy Knocks is talmbout in this thread

 

[GetInTheTruck]

We are constantly going back and forth with this so you know what, lets deal with the DNA, and other stuff I posted, that has been discovered. If we keep going by the looks, we would not solve anything because it's subjective. The DNA, and new found studies, is something we can have an equal ground on. If you go with that, let's go!

I will answer your question though. Its called fukkING! Most people who are close to each other will end up fukking each other, no matter how much segregation they experience. If slaves had babies from their masters, and that situation was HARSH, you know people who follow a religion will do the same thing. Especially when they can just have the child be raised in their system. It's not like here where a white person who has a child with a black person can't hide it. Some did but they were very few. This is why the one drop rule was created. You can hide it MUCH better in India.

Brahmins have largely been fiercely endogamous throughout history, they don't mix. There is no way you can compare this to slavery.

 

[bouncy]

Brahmins have largely been fiercely endogamous throughout history, they don't mix. There is no way you can compare this to slavery.

So lets get this straight. Something that is so ingrained into us as sex, is going to be stopped because of something religious?



This situation is much better then slavery because everyone has closely similar traits. It's like a biracial mixing with blacks. He may look different from the rest but not so much that he can mix with whites. If all an Indian has to do is blend in with another group, that is not something hard to do. Once blended in, the DNA will go into the higher caste which is why you have a mix, and not a high purity like with whites in the U.S.A.

And when I say mix, I mean fukking on the sneak. In other words cheating and having mistresses. It would be easier for the woman because she can easily put the child onto the man she is married too. It has been done in the animal kingdom, and with humans. The average 20% of children born are not with the real fathers. What makes you think India is different?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

So lets get this straight. Something that is so ingrained into us as sex, is going to be stopped because of something religious?

The DNA tests that you are so eager to cite is proof that what Im saying is true.

Lower castes are more likely to mix a little bit, but Brahmins and kshatriyas are not. Brahmins have their own matrimonial sites and all that, in 2014. This is nothing new breh.

 

[bouncy]

The DNA tests that you are so eager to cite is proof that what Im saying is true.

Lower castes are more likely to mix a little bit, but Brahmins and kshatriyas are not. Brahmins have their own matrimonial sites and all that, in 2014. This is nothing new breh.

You just don't get it, DAMN. You asked me why are the looks not Homogenous, and I gave you a reason, then you tell me it cant happen because they are more strict in endogamy , which is bullshyt(they can still cheat), then you tell me the dna proves they don't mix when that isn't true. It says they have MORE dna in common with european males then the southern indians, not that they didn't have dna that the southern indians have

You LOVE twisting shyt, and turning a blind eye to reality, for real. DAMN!

Read my last post to learn about sex in humans, and pregnancy. I see you are an alien to this world.

 

[bouncy]

@GetInTheTruck Let me know what you think about this. I know for me I just took the idea that Buddha was from northern india as mostly truth but, I don't think it's true now. The reason for different faces of Buddha(one looking asian with kinky hair. The other a light skin northern indian man with straight hair, and more European like features) is because the story changed once it hit Northern india. This is the same as the Jesus story. Check it out, and tell me what you think. NO DISSING, just tell me what you think about it. Remember, this story I have read countless times just never paid it any real attention until this shyt started yesterday. All from a little joke! Life is the greatest teacher:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

"Buddha was born in the town of Lumbini in Nepal as the son of a king of the Shakya clan. He is generally accepted to have lived during 560-477 B.C. but has been shown to have been born in 1887 B.C. and died in 1807 B.C. Check the article Reestablishing the Date of Lord Buddha for more evidence of this.

His mother, Queen Mahamaya, before she conceived him, saw him in a dream descending from heaven and entering her womb as a white elephant. After his birth his father sheltered him from the problems of the world as much as possible. Later, Buddha married and had one son. It was during this time that he began to be disturbed by the problems life forced on everyone, especially after he had seen for the first time a man afflicted with disease, another man who was decrepit with age, a dead man being carried to the cremation grounds, and a monk who had dedicated himself to the pursuit of finding a release from the problems of life."

 

[GetInTheTruck]

@GetInTheTruck Let me know what you think about this. I know for me I just took the idea that Buddha was from northern india as mostly truth but, I don't think it's true now. The reason for different faces of Buddha(one looking asian with kinky hair. The other a light skin northern indian man with straight hair, and more European like features) is because the story changed once it hit Northern india. This is the same as the Jesus story. Check it out, and tell me what you think. NO DISSING, just tell me what you think about it. Remember, this story I have read countless times just never paid it any real attention until this shyt started yesterday. All from a little joke! Life is the greatest teacher:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

"Buddha was born in the town of Lumbini in Nepal as the son of a king of the Shakya clan. He is generally accepted to have lived during 560-477 B.C. but has been shown to have been born in 1887 B.C. and died in 1807 B.C. Check the article Reestablishing the Date of Lord Buddha for more evidence of this.

His mother, Queen Mahamaya, before she conceived him, saw him in a dream descending from heaven and entering her womb as a white elephant. After his birth his father sheltered him from the problems of the world as much as possible. Later, Buddha married and had one son. It was during this time that he began to be disturbed by the problems life forced on everyone, especially after he had seen for the first time a man afflicted with disease, another man who was decrepit with age, a dead man being carried to the cremation grounds, and a monk who had dedicated himself to the pursuit of finding a release from the problems of life."

Stephen Knapp isn't a scholar of anything, he's just another new age white guy obsessed with Indian culture postulating his own ideas on things.

As for depictions of the Buddha, you can google the images from the ajanta caves in India which are quite old...they are paintings of the Buddha during his princely life that depict him looking like a brown skinned Indian guy, which is probably most accurate. When Buddhism spread further east, it was only natural that those people depicted him to more resemble themselves. I don't see why this is hard to comprehend.

No offense, but you posting sources like this why I can't really take anything you say seriously.

 

[bouncy]

Stephen Knapp isn't a scholar of anything, he's just another new age white guy obsessed with Indian culture postulating his own ideas on things.

As for depictions of the Buddha, you can google the images from the ajanta caves in India which are quite old...they are paintings of the Buddha during his princely life that depict him looking like a brown skinned Indian guy, which is probably most accurate. When Buddhism spread further east, it was only natural that those people depicted him to more resemble themselves. I don't see why this is hard to comprehend.

No offense, but you posting sources like this why I can't really take anything you say seriously.

Yeah, we are done because you just totally ignore what I posted. I said I read the story MANY TIMES, I just never payed any real attention to it until now. How can you get that this guy is the only one saying this? I just saw it, and asked what you thought of it

Of course there would be pictures in caves or anywhere else because that is what people do, that is not what we are dealing with. But, the Buddha didn't have anything written about him until at least 400 years after his death! So how old are the paintings really. And, I just did a google image, and those pictures match up with the nepal pictures. The cave carvings. The paintings could have been added years later.

I have a feeling you don't really know about this stuff because after catching up with the other buddha version, i just realized he didn't go bald like you stated yesterday, he cut his hair, and then put the rest into a knot! You said he was bald headed after he became the buddha, and that was a cap he was wearing. I was spending time arguing with you about such a dumb statement that I forgot that the text says he just cut his hair, not that he went bald. Now that everything is coming together for me, I'm convinced you don't really know about this stuff but because your indian, you are tricking people into thinking you really know. And you are constantly being disingenuous because you keep twisting my words, and omitting things to make me look la certain way. Just like you left out that I read this story before, only to make it seem like this guy is the only person to say Buddha was born in Nepal.


Anjanta cave carvings with people with kinky hair, not what you claimed

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Yeah, we are done because you just totally ignore what I posted. I said I read the story MANY TIMES, I just never payed any real attention to it until now. How can you get that this guy is the only one saying this? I just saw it, and asked what you thought of it

Of course there would be pictures in caves or anywhere else because that is what people do, that is not what we are dealing with. But, the Buddha didn't have anything written about him until at least 400 years after his death! So how old are the paintings really. And, I just did a google image, and those pictures match up with the nepal pictures, where are you getting the stuff you say?

I have a feeling you don't really know about this stuff because after catching up with the other buddha version, i just realized he didn't go bald like you stated yesterday, he cut his hair, and then put the rest into a knot! You said he was blad headed after he became the buddha, and that was cap he was wearing. I was spending time arguing with you about such a dumb statement that I forgot that the text says he just cut his hair, not that he went bald. Now that everything is coming together for me, I'm convinced you don't really know about this stuff but because your indian, you are trikcing people into thinking you really know. And you are constantly being disingenuous because you keep twisting my words, and omitting things to make me look la certain way. Just like you left out that I read this story before, only to make it seem like this guy is the only person to say Buddha was born in Nepal.


Anjanta cave paintings with people with kinky hair, not what you claimed

That's not a painting.

I was talking about images like this:

this was buddha the young god.

as for the age of the paintings:

The Ajanta wall paintings are famous for their masterful line-work, the use of natural pigments, the artistry achieved with only primitive tools, the sensual forms, and the harmony of the overall composition. The end result, we must remember, would have been viewed in semi-darkness with perhaps just some weak oil lamps to help make out the figures. These masterpieces at Ajanta were executed more or less in two phases. An initial phase is made up primarily of the fragments in caves 9 & 10, from the second century B.C.

http://www.theglobaldispatches.com/articles/the-ajanta-cave-paintings

These paintings actually predate the sculptures in the image you posted by about 600 years, as per the article above....they are actually from some cave temples near by.

You're right though, I don't know much....but this isn't exactly earth shattering information.