Is India Racist?
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
VerbalIntercourse
Banned
People world-wide don't like black people.
It's easy to blame colonialism, but I seems like this disdain for Black people goes much further back into history. the Rigvedas, Ancient Chinese texts, and other ancient writings give me the impression that there was some hatred for "black people" that predates the colonial times.
I think it can all be traced back neolithic expansion out of central asia. As the temperate-acclimated people spread south, they encountered the "black belt" that extended from Africa, south Asia and south east Asia. The neolithic cultures ended up taking over the regions, and they imposed themselves on the native tropical people. They, the neolithic immigrants, felt superior, and they associated dark skin with the inferiority that they perceived in the tropical people that still practiced the hunter gather lifestyle. While there was no actual inferiority or superiority (there's nothing inferior about a hunter gatherer tribe that lives in harmony with nature), there probably was a significant difference in culture and perhaps a economic advantage in favor of the neolithic invaders led them to their distorted beliefs.
I think this meeting of the central Asians and the "Blacks" is what led to the creation of the South east asians, South Asians and middle easterners. There is definitely a ASI (ancestral south Indian) genetic signature in everyone from India to Japan, and these are also regions where the Y-dna marker of a postulated ancient black lineage is found in great frequency. This is relevant because South and South East Asia are regions were darkskin is frequently associated with something negative or ugly. Perhaps this social phenomena has a much older antecedent than european colonialism. Indo-ayran and austronesian cultures, which are/were the dominant cultures of those regions, were invader cultures. I suspect something horrendous had happened there as the invasion occurred because the native or "black" tongues and cultures of those regions are no longer spoken or practiced, and the majority of the descendants of those black lineages no longer resembled Black people. This means, to me at least, that they were raped and forced to speak Indo-aryan and Austronesian languages.
However, the vast majority of "Austronesians" and a significant minority of South Asians do no come from the "Invader" lineages. perhaps there was a acceptance of "cool" foreign culture and there wasn't any violience, rape and the associated mental complex that disdains darkskin.
It's easy to blame colonialism, but I seems like this disdain for Black people goes much further back into history. the Rigvedas, Ancient Chinese texts, and other ancient writings give me the impression that there was some hatred for "black people" that predates the colonial times.
I think it can all be traced back neolithic expansion out of central asia. As the temperate-acclimated people spread south, they encountered the "black belt" that extended from Africa, south Asia and south east Asia. The neolithic cultures ended up taking over the regions, and they imposed themselves on the native tropical people. They, the neolithic immigrants, felt superior, and they associated dark skin with the inferiority that they perceived in the tropical people that still practiced the hunter gather lifestyle. While there was no actual inferiority or superiority (there's nothing inferior about a hunter gatherer tribe that lives in harmony with nature), there probably was a significant difference in culture and perhaps a economic advantage in favor of the neolithic invaders led them to their distorted beliefs.
I think this meeting of the central Asians and the "Blacks" is what led to the creation of the South east asians, South Asians and middle easterners. There is definitely a ASI (ancestral south Indian) genetic signature in everyone from India to Japan, and these are also regions where the Y-dna marker of a postulated ancient black lineage is found in great frequency. This is relevant because South and South East Asia are regions were darkskin is frequently associated with something negative or ugly. Perhaps this social phenomena has a much older antecedent than european colonialism. Indo-ayran and austronesian cultures, which are/were the dominant cultures of those regions, were invader cultures. I suspect something horrendous had happened there as the invasion occurred because the native or "black" tongues and cultures of those regions are no longer spoken or practiced, and the majority of the descendants of those black lineages no longer resembled Black people. This means, to me at least, that they were raped and forced to speak Indo-aryan and Austronesian languages.
However, the vast majority of "Austronesians" and a significant minority of South Asians do no come from the "Invader" lineages. perhaps there was a acceptance of "cool" foreign culture and there wasn't any violience, rape and the associated mental complex that disdains darkskin.
shyt
Angel On The Rag
I'm bloody hungry!!
posts #3 & #4 are stand up worthy!!!
I do believe racism is alive in India, but not this type of racism. They are the type to hate from a distance. He might have been messing with someones sister or something and they beat that nikka down. I know a nikka who married a broad from India when he was studying out there, mashallah they are both muslim now.
Youre asking if a country where bleaching your skin is encouraged is prejudiced against black people?
Premeditated
MANDE KANG
honestly, why would any black person want to live in India? Honestly, what connections do we have with that country? What benefits do they have that other countries don't?
im saying why would any black person want to go there and dont even try say growing economy blah blah blah
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Maybe an individual found Indian culture, and/or music, and/or people, and/or its landscape beautiful.
for once I agree with you, lightskin bias in India is probably pre-European and pre-Mughal