So everything your stating is based off Indo-Aryan migration theories and fairytales about Buddha? I get that, but you are ignorant on the history.
Aryan migration "theory" is a genetic fact. You're confusing the migration with the "aryan invasion theory." They're not the same. The latter is a pseudoscientific, partially-Eurocentric lie, but the former explains a real phenomenon. The people who wrote the Vedas were not originally from India, and their culture was from the same substrate as those of the Vikings, Celts, Greeks, and Persians. They were the same people who created the caste system.
1They speak different languages today due to different ruling classes and conflicts.. not because the black people don't speak the same language today so they weren't from black cultures back then. I don't speak the same language as my ancestors either.
So how come none of the Black people speak dravidian languages today, and the people who do speak them are not Black? Sorry, but your theory simply doesn't square with reality here. For your theory to be true, at least some of the Black people should be speaking dravidian languages.
2The Dravidians today are like most Indians.. they look like indians dark and light... I was speaking of ancient Dravidians because we are speaking of ancient times... and you can deny they were black but then you would be clearly exposing yourself.
More speculation. We have no idea what race the dravidians were. You want them to be Black so badly that you're allowing yourself to speculate wildly.
Also, we should not that the original inhabitants of the subcontinent were Africans who remained black until the invasions. And I use the D just to give a name to the people.
Yes, they were, but they were not the dravidians. The "Negritos" migrated long before any dravidian civilization existed.
3It is likely that haplogroup M was brought to Asia from East Africa along the southern route by earliest migration wave 60,000 years ago. Despite the variations found within India, these populations stem from a limited number of founder lineages. These lineages were most likely introduced to the Indian subcontinent during the Middle Palaeolithic, before the peopling of Europe and perhaps the Old World in general.
4How exactly isn't this documented???
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...3BA5D71.d01t04
Again, this is from 60,000 years ago. The dravidians were the result of much later migrations, which is one of the few things we do know about them.
5. LOL, so now str8 hair means not black? My ex has red hair, Caucasian features and shes my complexion, every male in her family has blue or green eyes... They are all black. I don't have time to really explain all that to you so I will get back on subject.
I have no idea what you're getting at here. I think you're mixing social and anthropological definitions of race here.
6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India
One narrative, describes Negritos, similar to the Andamanese adivasis of today, as the first identifiable human population to colonize India, likely 30-65 thousand years before present -60% of all modern Indians share the mtDNA haplogroup M, which is universal among Andamanese islander adivasis and might be a genetic legacy of the postulated first Indians
Some anthropologists theorize that the original Negrito settlers of India were displaced by invading Austroasiatic-speaking Australoid people (who largely shared skin pigmentation and physiognomy with the Negritos, but had straight rather than kinky hair)
See what I already said on this matter.
, "The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,0004,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the caucasoid features of south Asians may best be considered pre-caucasoid that is, part of a diverse north or north east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago."
There was no Aryan invasion. There was a migration, in several waves, of Indo-European speakers who brought the Vedic culture to India, where it merged with already-existing cultures. The idea that western Eurasian mtDNA is "very low" in India isn't exactly true. It's everywhere in the subcontinent, and strongest in the Northwest, which is the direction they migrated from.
About the caste system..... that is just one of about 100 things you all have stated incorrect about The Buddah.. It's kinda disrespectful. You talking this feudal system talk when clearly those sources are from the oral tradition. Do you know what an oligarchy is? I know what it's not... its not a endogamy type of system like the caste system and it's actually what The Buddha lived in. He lived in a sub continent controlled by the caste system and Hinduism but that wasn't his personal community or reality. He condemned it, but he wasn't initially a part of it. Plus there is a difference in bring raised in a royal family and being a part of the Caste system.. they had small cities in Ancient india that didn't have the Hindu system.
The feudal system talk is from the same citation your claim is from. Also, the Buddha was clearly born into a Hindu society. That much is even confirmed by your own source. You're confusing the social orderof caste with political order. And how can his society have been an oligarchy if there was a royal family ruled by a single clan, which was the one he was born into?
And history, common sense and archeology link the Drav.. with Africa. I call the Ancient Africans who inhabited the region Dravidian- my term may be incorrect but the idea is right. We can read the aryan languages in the west, we can't read Indus script or anything related that came before it. History is lost or manipulated.. but we do have artifacts. Theories made by etymologist from Europe are not inline with the truth, yet somehow you are a proponent of every single one of them. But anyway I'm still forming my view on this.. but at least some of what I say is based in fact unlike you all..
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1623744/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory
Nah, there is absolutely no archaeology that links the dravidians to Africa. We have next to no info on these people, as you yourself admit, so "common sense" is not an indicator, either. That's just your wishful thinking. Which are these artifacts that bear African influences or similarities?
And please stop posting links to criticisms of the Aryan invasion theory. That's not what you're arguing against. No one believes it anymore, though I should add that those sources are biased as well- the anti-Aryan invasion theories come from Ambedkar and the anti-caste movement, who also used wishful thinking to form their theories. They claim that the Vedas are purely Indian, for example, which is obviously not true, and that Indo-European culture never came from outside India, which is also obviously not true.
