NON-AMERICAN YOUNG BLACK MEN WATCH THIS INDIAN MOB BEATING AFRICANS AND ...

[frankster]

Social indicators“Colour prejudice is an offshoot of the bigger evil of casteism in India,” says Udit Raj, leader of the Indian Justice Party, which represents Dalits or the oppressed tribes and castes in the traditional political system.

Indian Justice Party president
Udit Raj

“The hold of the caste system in India is deep, dark skin is the skin of the lowest castes, traditionally the subjugated people and, therefore, disagreeable,” he says.


The country's foreign rulers, whether Mughal or British, were also light-skinned. This, says the Dalit leader, has contributed to shaping social attitudes in India.

“Fair skin became a symbol of power and wealth and those who equate beauty with it are subconsciously hankering after a higher status; those who are shunning black are, perhaps, rejecting the slavery that it connotes whether in India or in the US.”

Religious influence

Ideally, the Hindu religion should have gifted the average Indian a great love for black, and not only because the most loved Hindu gods are this colour, says Baba Goswami, 78-year-old Hindu leader of a Krishna cult, the West Bengal-based Gaurang Ashram.

“While white is the colour of light and purity, black, like the night, connotes a dissolution of all form.” says Baba Goswami, who, however, agrees that such “profound interpretations” are beyond the average person’s understanding, which is why, “despite the deep hold of religion on the Indian mind there is colour prejudice in society.”

An Indian actor plays the role of
the demon king Ravana



Udit Raj, who, like many Dalits, converted to Buddhism, believes that Hindu religion has reinforced rather than removed racial prejudice in the country, mostly “through the evil of casteism.”

Besides, “only a few of the 33 million gods are dark, the rest are all fair,” he points out.

The story of Ramayana, the most popular Indian epic, he underlines, is “all about the victory of fair-skinned and noble Ram over the black and evil Ravana.”

Black is blemish in India





“kali mu vaaliya” one with black face and “bach gaya saala” the b*stard (brother-in-law) survived

 

[frankster]

CACMEDIA ARTICLE.

Looking to the same people that made the "Aryan illusion" for genetic evidence

But anyways.I quote your article



I said the only confirmed invasions would be Turco-persians ,or Turco-mongols
And turks are from West Eurasia

Here's a wiki source on what the so called "Aryans" aka Indo Iranians

The early Indo-Iranians are commonly identified with the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans known as the Sintashta culture and the subsequent Andronovo culture within the broader Andronovo horizon, and their homeland with an area of the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural River on the west, the Tian Shan on the east. Historical linguists broadly estimate that a continuum of Indo-Iranian languages probably began to diverge by 2000 BC, if not earlier,[9]:38–39 preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures

So your just confirming what I said and going off topic because I deflated your Aryan CaC theory with common sense.

There is no real border between Europe and Asia, that's why scientist just say Eurasia because the people are admixed between Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Not to mention the Eurasian Steppes stretch from Moscow to Mongolia.
They were inhabited by an amalgamation of Tribal Confederations like the
Xiongnu, Scythia, Cimmeria, Sarmatia,Hunnic Empire, Chorasmia, Transoxiana,Sogdiana, Xianbei, Mongols, and Göktürk Khaganate.

And these people ranged from fully Caucasian and fully Mongoloid then some in between. Basically the West Asia and.Eastern Europe inhabited by Turks and Iranid peoples. The East inhabited by the Tungusic peoples and Mongoloids

You should read up on some Steppe Nomadic history . They get gully

It seems you are dense.....let me repeat my position has never supported or denied the Aryan Invasion.
What I have stated and provided documentation of is that Two Groups of People came together....One light and One dark in relation to the other.
Possible of the same genotype but differ by phenotype.

 

[Kublai Khan]

It seems you are dense.....let me repeat my position has never supported or denied the Aryan Invasion.
What I have stated and provided documentation of is that Two Groups of People came together....One light and One dark in relation to the other.
Possible of the same genotype but differ by phenotype.

Your a idiot that is obviously indirectly supporting the Aryan Invasion theory. Which is still just a theory .

 

[frankster]

Your a idiot that is obviously indirectly supporting the Aryan Invasion theory. Which is still just a theory .

You seemed to be a little slow on the uptake.....here is what you say and I quote

"I said the only confirmed invasions would be Turco-persians ,or Turco-mongols
And turks are from West Eurasia" " Not to mention the Eurasian Steppes stretch from Moscow to Mongolia And these people ranged from fully Caucasian and fully Mongoloid then some in between. Basically the West Asia and.Eastern Europe inhabited by Turks and Iranid peoples."

Maybe you do not know....Persians and Iranians are the same people......Aryans is the old spelling for Iranians..
Hence if you are saying that a Turco-Persian people invaded India whom you say ranged from fully Caucasian to fully Mongolian.....
You are in effect supporting the VERY theory you so stridently denounce, which now makes all your rantings childish and laughable

 

[GetInTheTruck]

So are you knowing accepting the Britannica as scholarly and unbiased?

Only if their articles are written and/or backed by the editors themselves. The entry I posted was, yours wasn't.

Yeah and as I said Varna means color......black and white are colors
Manu Smriti mentions the Dravidians.....I said Vedic Scriptures you said Vedas.

I am glad you admitted they were white because that actual goes to prove my point.....they where formerly Kshatriyas

43. But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras;

44. (Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Kodas, the Dravidas, the Kambogas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas

If they were formerly kshatriyas and became sudras due to disobeying religious law then that goes to show that the varna system wasnt based on skin color. Unless they magically became darker as soon as they became sudras, is that what you're arguing? Lol.

Oh yes it did.....it show that there was a mixing or blending of Indians and Iranians in and out flows.....and to quote you "Yes Iranians are lighter than Dravidians in general. South India aligns with ethiopia below the tropic of cancer, it's not a mystery as to why they would be darker skinned."

Again, you are ignoring time frames to suit your narrative.

You still haven't explained why or how most Brahmins who migrated south and didnt mix with other southern groups are still dark skinned to this day.

So now you are providing a link that sympathetic to the Aryan Invasion theory??

I'm posting articles from scholarly sources which show that even those who are sympathetic to invasion or migration theory posit a linguistic argument rather than a racial argument which have been deemed outdated by modern research. I told you this multiple posts ago.

The article you link is not denying a influx (invasion/migration) of people in to India, just when and whether or not they were Indo-Europeans.
The Ancient Vedic Scriptures called these peoples Aryas, which is the old name for Iranians.....You have already stated that Iranians are of Lighter skin.
To quote your link
" Among the most surprising findings was that genetic differences between tribal and caste groups in Tamil Nadu seem to pre-date the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in the region by approximately 2,000 years." "Although non-tribal groups exhibited a slightly higher proportion of non-Indian paternal lineages than tribal populations"
So you see they are acknowledging a difference between the Tribal and caste groups genetically - the questions is when and who?

Tribal and non tribal doesn't correspond to dark skinned and light skinned.

They are Known to be Black or even dark but they are portrayed as light blue
It is more appropriate to see it as Colorism/Shadism than Racism.....even so years of miscegenation has confused that leaving preferences as a vestige.
So go check out the meanings of those terms.

Vishnu/Krishna isn't a tribal God, he's a vedic God. And he's described as black. You haven't explained why.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

You seemed to be a little slow on the uptake.....here is what you say and I quote
Maybe you do not know....Persians and Iranians are the same people......Aryans is the old spelling for Iranians..
Hence if you are saying that a Turco-Persian people invaded India whom you say ranged from fully Caucasian to fully Mongolian.....
You are in effect supporting the VERY theory you so stridently denounce, which now makes all your rantings childish and laughable

The invasions he's talking about took place well after the time period for the proposed aryan invasion / migration theory, and well after vedic brahminical civilization was in full flux. This was happening around the time of the Buddha and after, who himself came from a Kshatriya clan.

 

[Kublai Khan]

You seemed to be a little slow on the uptake.....here is what you say and I quote
Maybe you do not know....Persians and Iranians are the same people......Aryans is the old spelling for Iranians..
Hence if you are saying that a Turco-Persian people invaded India whom you say ranged from fully Caucasian to fully Mongolian.....
You are in effect supporting the VERY theory you so stridently denounce, which now makes all your rantings childish and laughable

Yea but CaCs are confused and think these people were pale European fukks


No they were not, they were probably more related to Indians than Europeans .

Indians do have Caucasoid features.

Turks and Persians probably descended from Indians actually lol.

Seeing as how the Indian Subcontinent was 1st place humans stopped after leaving Africa.

So its kind of reverse colonization because the people who lived in Present day India/Pakistan , were there before the Europeans.

Europeans came after so who cones first?
The chicken or the egg?


Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

Did you know the light skin gene and light eyes were inherited from a man in the Middle East 10,000 years ago?

So south Indians and middle easterbs have similar ancestry and could be called genetic forefathers to the pale Europeans

 

[frankster]

Only if their articles are written and/or backed by the editors themselves. The entry I posted was, yours wasn't.

Fair enough.....

Aryan, name originally given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, those probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism.

However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century “Aryan” was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family.

Aryan | people

So it is a given that Aryan invasion which I have never posited is reject by a growing number of scholars, so is a growing number of scholars rejecting Aryan as a Racial designation which I have never posited.....
It seems the scholars that rejected both theories above are saying that Aryan is a social designation and a branch of the Indo-European language family called Indo-Aryan Languages
So let me sum up what these scholars are saying:- A social class of Northern Migrants speaking their own Language - Indo Aryan Moved into India.
If you speak your own Language and live in a different region....you are no longer a social order or class
Would it then be fair to say a Group of People?

Please bear in mind I have always maintain two groups of people coming together.....
Who were these Northern Migrants??? who spoke the Indo-Iranian Languages.....seems to me its a group of people coming from the North(Iran/Aryan) and going South Asia(India)

If they were formerly kshatriyas and became sudras due to disobeying religious law then that goes to show that the varna system wasnt based on skin color. Unless they magically became darker as soon as they became sudras, is that what you're arguing? Lol.

No friend it goes to explain what I have been saying from the beginning - a form of Miscegenation. As it is obvious that these groups were not Shudra originally.

Again, you are ignoring time frames to suit your narrative.

You still haven't explained why or how most Brahmins who migrated south and didnt mix with other southern groups are still dark skinned to this day.

To say that people do not mix.....is to me laughable

I'm posting articles from scholarly sources which show that even those who are sympathetic to invasion or migration theory posit a linguistic argument rather than a racial argument which have been deemed outdated by modern research. I told you this multiple posts ago.

I never posited a racial or ethnic opinion on the matter all I said was that two groups of genetically similar people came together, as it appears they may have differed phenotypically.....one lighter and the other darker in relationship to the other.
Iranians and Indians are of almost the same genetic group due to countless yrs of crossbreeding.....but as you alluded regionalism may of cause a difference in shade or complexion.
Regionalism may also account for language and cultural diferences.

Tribal and non tribal doesn't correspond to dark skinned and light skinned.

One word - Miscengenation

Vishnu/Krishna isn't a tribal God, he's a vedic God. And he's described as black. You haven't explained why.

I have done so many times you just do not want to accept it .....that's your short comings.
Let me requote a earlier quote.....

Religious influence

Ideally, the Hindu religion should have gifted the average Indian a great love for black, and not only because the most loved Hindu gods are this colour, says Baba Goswami, 78-year-old Hindu leader of a Krishna cult, the West Bengal-based Gaurang Ashram.

“While white is the colour of light and purity, black, like the night, connotes a dissolution of all form.” says Baba Goswami, who, however, agrees that such “profound interpretations” are beyond the average person’s understanding, which is why, “despite the deep hold of religion on the Indian mind there is colour prejudice in society.”

Baba Goswami left it to a politician to make it understandable.

Udit Raj, who, like many Dalits, converted to Buddhism, believes that Hindu religion has reinforced rather than removed racial prejudice in the country, mostly “through the evil of casteism.”

Besides, “only a few of the 33 million gods are dark, the rest are all fair,” he points out.

The story of Ramayana, the most popular Indian epic, he underlines, is “all about the victory of fair-skinned and noble Ram over the black and evil Ravana.”

[/QUOTE]

 

[frankster]

The invasions he's talking about took place well after the time period for the proposed aryan invasion / migration theory, and well after vedic brahminical civilization was in full flux. This was happening around the time of the Buddha and after, who himself came from a Kshatriya clan.

For the last time I am not positing an Aryan invasion theory that you are trying to place on me.....
I now posit and proposed that Migration between India and her Neighbors are perpetual and ongoing from time immemorial to today

 

[frankster]

Yea but CaCs are confused and think these people were pale European fukks


No they were not, they were probably more related to Indians than Europeans .

Indians do have Caucasoid features.

Turks and Persians probably descended from Indians actually lol.

Seeing as how the Indian Subcontinent was 1st place humans stopped after leaving Africa.

So its kind of reverse colonization because the people who lived in Present day India/Pakistan , were there before the Europeans.

Europeans came after so who cones first?
The chicken or the egg?


Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

Did you know the light skin gene and light eyes were inherited from a man in the Middle East 10,000 years ago?

So south Indians and middle easterbs have similar ancestry and could be called genetic forefathers to the pale Europeans

You said they range from fully Caucasian to fully Mongolian....that means they are indeed as you say " these people were pale European fukks"
Maybe not all but some
Diet and region has a lot to due with how human mutate....not just descent.
According to current science everything goes back to Africa

 

[Turk]

Rasta breh just take this L

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Fair enough.....

Aryan | people

So it is a given that Aryan invasion which I have never posited is reject by a growing number of scholars, so is a growing number of scholars rejecting Aryan as a Racial designation which I have never posited.....
It seems the scholars that rejected both theories above are saying that Aryan is a social designation and a branch of the Indo-European language family called Indo-Aryan Languages
So let me sum up what these scholars are saying:- A social class of Northern Migrants speaking their own Language - Indo Aryan Moved into India.
If you speak your own Language and live in a different region....you are no longer a social order or class
Would it then be fair to say a Group of People?

Please bear in mind I have always maintain two groups of people coming together.....
Who were these Northern Migrants??? who spoke the Indo-Iranian Languages.....seems to me its a group of people coming from the North(Iran/Aryan) and going South Asia(India)

That article basically sums up what I've been saying. Linguistically you have one group in India who belong to a unique language family ( Dravidian ) and another group who speak languages that show a relation to languages spoken in Europe. Nobody really knows why, that's why the subject has split the academic community.

As for migrants, there's no evidence of any widespread foreign migration into south Asia prior to 500bc. That's what @Kublai Khan was trying to tell you. I favor the idea that Iranians are just Indians who went west.

No friend it goes to explain what I have been saying from the beginning - a form of Miscegenation. As it is obvious that these groups were not Shudra originally.

...but your whole argument in this thread revolves around the varna system being based on skin color. If they were not originally sudras do you think their skin got darker overnight or something?

To say that people do not mix.....is to me laughable

Then you don't know how the varna system works fam. Look up the term "gotra." Brahmins don't even marry other Brahmins of the same gotra. Of course there are exceptions but caste rigidity has been the norm in India for the past 2000 years at least.

I never posited a racial or ethnic opinion on the matter all I said was that two groups of genetically similar people came together, as it appears they may have differed phenotypically.....one lighter and the other darker in relationship to the other.
Iranians and Indians are of almost the same genetic group due to countless yrs of crossbreeding.....but as you alluded regionalism may of cause a difference in shade or complexion.
Regionalism may also account for language and cultural diferences.

Bruh I really don't know....you sound like a fairly intelligent guy, I don't understand how you can't see why saying that an institution as complex and ancient as the varna system in india is based on skin color is completely ridiculous.

One word - Miscengenation



I have done so many times you just do not want to accept it .....that's your short comings.
Let me requote a earlier quote.....


Baba Goswami left it to a politician to make it understandable.

That article was stupid. There are plenty of Brahmins just as dark as that clown or darker.

 

[Bugatti Biceps]

Caste has nothing to do with skin color or black people, this has been discussed here before.

There are Africans living and studying all over India, if the Indian attitude towards Africans were that bad they could easily refuse to accept them into the country. As a matter of fact it's probably easier these days for a gifted African to get accepted into a top technical school India than an average upper-caste Indian.

Top technical schools in India are trash because all of em cheated to get in there in the first place. I've worked with people from their "top" schools. I'll take a creative crackhead over them any day of the week.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Top technical schools in India are trash because all of em cheated to get in there in the first place. I've worked with people from their "top" schools. I'll take a creative crackhead over them any day of the week.

Oh aight

 

[frankster]

That article basically sums up what I've been saying. Linguistically you have one group in India who belong to a unique language family ( Dravidian ) and another group who speak languages that show a relation to languages spoken in Europe. Nobody really knows why, that's why the subject has split the academic community.

Now that you finally get what I have been saying from the jump.....let us look further into these two groupings of peoples.
According to the article linked the Northern Migrant Group speaking a Indo Aryan Language moved South....You have already conceded that

Yes Iranians are lighter than Dravidians in general. South India aligns with ethiopia below the tropic of cancer, it's not a mystery as to why they would be darker skinned

presumable where a southern Dravidian speaking Group lived.
agree, disagree or explain?

As for migrants, there's no evidence of any widespread foreign migration into south Asia prior to 500bc. That's what @Kublai Khan was trying to tell you. I favor the idea that Iranians are just Indians who went west.

Yes but the article from the Britannica"s editors speaks of a "Northern Migrant Group" speaking a "Indo-Aryan Language.....are you saying they are wrong?
I see as continuous and on going migration back and forth...between these peoples

...but your whole argument in this thread revolves around the varna system being based on skin color. If they were not originally sudras do you think their skin got darker overnight or something?

Yes my theory does revolves around the varna system being based on skin color Originally..... "ORIGINALLY" - vestiges of this is still seen in India society as a preference for light or fair complexion
The word Varna mean - Color Covering and or appearance as a classification of Man.

Then you don't know how the varna system works fam. Look up the term "gotra." Brahmins don't even marry other Brahmins of the same gotra. Of course there are exceptions but caste rigidity has been the norm in India for the past 2000 years at least.

I wont argue that point as it is fruitless and leads nowhere.........You are going to tell me a man is not going to be with a woman because of some rules or laws.....
Even Manu himself made exceptions for these inevitable consequences.

Bruh I really don't know....you sound like a fairly intelligent guy, I don't understand how you can't see why saying that an institution as complex and ancient as the varna system in india is based on skin color is completely ridiculous.

The truth is the truth....India still suffers from its ramifications today.
It was a system of oppression, Ambedkar and Buddha saw it for what it was and is Opressive.
Nothing Truly Spiritual is Oppressive.....Spirituality liberates
The fact that in its original form it was based on color is now being obfuscated by political correctness in academia

That article was stupid. There are plenty of Brahmins just as dark as that clown or darker.

If that's what you got from the article and from all I have been posting then you are a closed mind.
The politician represent an oppressed people and the guru gave a probable reason but all you can say is "I know darker Brahmin than that clown"....