You ever notice Indians that kinda look black?

[Swagnificent]

1. Untouchables are just dark Indians. So are South Indians.

2. There is a group called the Siddis which have black ancestors in India, whom were brought in by Indian, but this is a unique case in India's history and does not generalize to the rest of the people.

3. Dravidians are genetically no more black than whites are blacks.

and neither are the andamense islanders, yet they're arbuably the blackest and most nappy headed people on earth. phenotypically they are black to the nth degree. genetically they are as far from africans as the dravidians. are the andamense black? if so, how do you square that with arguing that the dravidians ain't black cause of their genes?

i personally don't care about genetics. race is about phenotypes. dravidians are in that gray area because they only have one of the 2 streotypically black features. that being dark skin. they don't have the second feature usually linked to blackness which is curled hair. to me its a toss-up. if they wanna be part of the black family, i'm down. but if they don't, i wouldn't consider it c00nin cause they are different.

 

[godkiller]

and neither are the andamense islanders, yet they're arbuably the blackest and most nappy headed people on earth. phenotypically they are black to the nth degree. genetically they are as far from africans as the dravidians. are the andamense black? if so, how do you square that with arguing that the dravidians ain't black cause of their genes?

i personally don't care about genetics. race is about phenotypes. dravidians are in that gray area because they only have one of the 2 streotypically black features. that being dark skin. they don't have the second feature usually linked to blackness which is curled hair. to me its a toss-up. if they wanna be part of the black family, i'm down. but if they don't, i wouldn't consider it c00nin cause they are different.

Before I answer the rest of your questions, do you have a measurement by which you can prove the statement that the andamese islanders are the "blackest and most nappy headed people on Earth"? The same genetic group also has loose blonde hair, if I remember correctly. You'll have to prove this statement before I answer any others in the next paragraph.

Moving onto your next paragraph, genotype (in other words, genetics) code for phenotype (in other words, appearance). Indians are genetically and phenotypically different to blacks. They have lighter bones, different muscle, different physiology, different hair, different noses, different proclivities, but of course similarities too. This is all coded by their different genes, same as any other group which is different to blacks. Hair and skin are just one part of the equation but which the most ignorant always point. You are a dumb light skin that doesn't actually know what black people are so debating with you on this subject is pointless. Blacks are more than just their dark skin like whites are more than just their light skin.

And no, they aren't black because you say so. Science already has a specific genetic, physiological and cognitive definition for black people. Blacks are unique and have specified haplogroups, profiles, talents, etic which the likes of the Australian Aborigines, Andamese, etc do not possess.

Besides, my home country actually has Indians. So I know 100% they are non-blacks with dark skin.

 

[godkiller]

theyre called drividians

what is black? you talk like a cacs
cacs see black as broad nose, full lips etc... the west African phenotype

but in reality "black" people can have straight hair and straight noses (eritreans, ethiopians)

All the people with dark skin from the four corners i,e, australian aborigines, papa new gunieans, people from the adaman islands etc all have african heritage. Not here to debate because it's a fact

Africans migrated to southern india

dont associate being of African descent as having to fit to the white stereotype of black features.

Go read a book. Black people are defined and Dravidians are not part of the group. Dravidians have Neanderthal ancestry; blacks, strictly speaking, do not. On this basis alone the likes of Aborigines, Papua New Guineas, etc are disqualified. They have no more measurable African ancestry than cacs.

Only people of African descent are black. This is already established in science. There are also indeed BLACK FEATURES. This is also established in science. Like I said: READ A BOOK

 

[Camile.Bidan]

They sort of solved this question a last year.

The original Aryan's where a group of central Asians that split away from the native Americans. They invaded Europe 5-8k years ago, which was the. occupied by dark skinned people with blue eyes and lighter hair ( people like this still exist in the pacific islands).

They Aryans also invaded India, which was occupied by blacks.

Google the "three tribes of Europe", "anciestrial north Eurasians", "onge tribe", "yamnaya tribe" , and "australoids" to find out more.

The greatest revelation is that the Indians (dots and feathers) have such close connections to the people who have caused them so much grief (Europeans).

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Go read a book. Black people are defined and Dravidians are not part of the group. Dravidians have Neanderthal ancestry; blacks, strictly speaking, do not. On this basis alone the likes of Aborigines, Papua New Guineas, etc are disqualified. They have no more measurable African ancestry than cacs.

Only people of African descent are black. This is already established in science. There are also indeed BLACK FEATURES. This is also established in science. Like I said: READ A BOOK

I am not sure that the andamanese have denisovan or Neanderthal Dna .

 

[Swagnificent]

Before I answer the rest of your questions, do you have a measurement by which you can prove the statement that the andamese islanders are the "blackest and most nappy headed people on Earth"? The same genetic group also has loose blonde hair, if I remember correctly. You'll have to prove this statement before I answer any others in the next paragraph.

ya they're called eyes.




these nikkas so black they almost blue.

Moving onto your next paragraph, genotype (in other words, genetics) code for phenotype (in other words, appearance). Indians are genetically and phenotypically different to blacks. They have lighter bones, different muscle, different physiology, different hair, different noses, different proclivities, but of course similarities too. This is all coded by their different genes, same as any other group which is different to blacks. Hair and skin are just one part of the equation but which the most ignorant always point. You are a dumb light skin that doesn't actually know what black people are so debating with you on this subject is pointless. Blacks are more than just their dark skin like whites are more than just their light skin.

And no, they aren't black because you say so. Science already has a specific genetic, physiological and cognitive definition for black people. Blacks are unique and have specified haplogroups, profiles, talents, etic which the likes of the Australian Aborigines, Andamese, etc do not possess.

Besides, my home country actually has Indians. So I know 100% they are non-blacks with dark skin.

"blacks" are genetically and phenotypically different from one another. an ethiopian oromo looks different and has different genes when compared to a sudanese dinka. same with a dinka vs. a san bushmen. same with a san bushmen vs. a igbo nigerian. race is almost entirely subjective. I could easily use your arguments to say an oromo, dinka, san bushmen, and igbo are 4 different races. they have different genes, different physiology, diferent noses, different hair, different muscles, and so on. the differences may not be as great as those with indians, but they are still differences. enough to argue that they can't all be the same if I'm supposed to believe race is something that can be measured and divided into discrete organized spaces.

if an oromo, igbo, dinka, and san bushman can be considered black then so can the andamese, aborgines, and pacific islanders like the vanuatu.

 

[Swagnificent]

Go read a book. Black people are defined and Dravidians are not part of the group. Dravidians have Neanderthal ancestry; blacks, strictly speaking, do not. On this basis alone the likes of Aborigines, Papua New Guineas, etc are disqualified. They have no more measurable African ancestry than cacs.

Only people of African descent are black. This is already established in science. There are also indeed BLACK FEATURES. This is also established in science. Like I said: READ A BOOK

please cite these scientific studies. and i hope your not going with carelton c00n and his eugenics disciples.

every respected modern scientist i've read has stated that race is but a social construct. that scientifically you can only prove there is one race. the HUMAN race. people like the andamanese and vanuatu islanders prove race can't be scientifically proven because they look "black" for all intents and purposes yet they have genes that are farther from africa than europeans.

you sound like a white supremacist with your insistence on being able to prove race thru science.

 

[WaveGang]

thats actually not true. most ethiopians are nappy headed. only a few have anything remotely close to straight hair and its because of the SIGNIFICANT non-african ancestry most ethiopians possess. curled hair (whether tight or loose) along with dark skin is the phenotype for what would commonly be referred to as "black".

i personally don't have a problem with including dravidians as black. but it would be a fallacy to try and argue that they are black because ethiopians or eritreans have straight hair. thats simply FALSE. it would be the equivalent of trying to say african americans can have straight hair and cite russell wilson. he has native american ancestry which explains the straight hair.

ethiopans non african ancestry? I couldn't give a fukk about a dravidian but truth is truth, they were one of the first groups to migragate from africa.



you sounding like a cac, africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. ethiopians and eritreans was just an example. Mauritania aswell have straight hair.

Cameroonians speak tamil in some areas. case closed

 

[WaveGang]

ya they're called eyes.




these nikkas so black they almost blue.

you cacs are the walking devil, I swear

they're not black. you can clearly see they're a dark shade of brown

 

[Swagnificent]

ethiopans non african ancestry? I couldn't give a fukk about a dravidian but truth is truth, they were one of the first groups to migragate from africa.



you sounding like a cac, africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. ethiopians and eritreans was just an example. Mauritania aswell have straight hair.

Cameroonians speak tamil in some areas. case closed

mauritanians have significant european ancestry like the north african berbers. nikka they've done DNA studies. ethiopians have on average about 25-50% non-african genes depending on the tribe. the tribes near the omo valley have less non-african ancestry than the habesha tribe for instance. and if you look at pictures of omo valley tribes and compare them to the habesha, you'll see the omo valley tribes have darker skin and nappier hair.

this ain't sounding like a cac. its called REALITY.

 

[Swagnificent]

you cacs are the walking devil, I swear

they're not black. you can clearly see they're a dark shade of brown

negro please. my black card is validated up and down this forum. u might wanna check the millions of other threads around. i'm one of the few nikkas who actually holds it down whenever the racist cacs come outta the woodwork to take credit from important BLACK figures in history (check out the thread on who the real arabs were and prophey muhammad).

and please stop with this bullshyt. black vs. dark brown. whatever. my main point still stands, which is thiese nikkas are quite possibly the DARKEST people on earth. and they are farther GENETICALLY from africans than europeans. hence genetics and race don't go hand in hand.

 

[Mr.Big Meat McGee]

Go read a book. Black people are defined and Dravidians are not part of the group. Dravidians have Neanderthal ancestry; blacks, strictly speaking, do not. On this basis alone the likes of Aborigines, Papua New Guineas, etc are disqualified. They have no more measurable African ancestry than cacs.

Only people of African descent are black. This is already established in science. There are also indeed BLACK FEATURES. This is also established in science. Like I said: READ A BOOK

Blacks do have Neanderthal DNA. East Africans have Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans don't.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

mauritanians have significant european ancestry like the north african berbers. nikka they've done DNA studies. ethiopians have on average about 25-50% non-african genes depending on the tribe. the tribes near the omo valley have less non-african ancestry than the habesha tribe for instance. and if you look at pictures of omo valley tribes and compare them to the habesha, you'll see the omo valley tribes have darker skin and nappier hair.

this ain't sounding like a cac. its called REALITY.

the Habesha is probably the only tribe, and mauritanians same thing, one or 2 tribes. Its like saying black americans aren't black because 5% are creole with significant french ancestry. you know that would be false.

 

[Grand Conde]

at this thread.

The world is a big place brehs, dark-skinned people do actually exist outside of Africa and the US. Incredible I know.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Blacks do have Neanderthal DNA. East Africans have Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans don't.

No they dont.