Talk:Australoid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Infraglabellar
2 "Black"
3 Dravidians
4 Dravidians aren't Australoids
5 Indians are a mix
6 Genetically least realted to negroids?
7 Caucasoid
8 Adding Feb

[edit] Infraglabellar

"(The glabella is the smooth area between the eyebrows just above the nose. Infa means below or beneath. So infraglabellar might mean either underneath it or inside the skull. It is not known since infraglabellar is not in the dictionary)"

Shouldn't this be removed from the article? – 84.48.54.134 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Black"

Is there any particular reason to refer to "Australoids" as being "black", seeing as how the article already references them as generally posessing dark skin? It's an ambiguous term which can have very different meanings depending on region. Ralphael 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Who in the living h*** is Carleton Coon or whatever his stupid name is. Ethiopians are not caucasian.!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Dravidians

How about Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent. They also belong to the Australoid race, don't they? Meursault2004 28 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)

I believe so, or at least Australoid-Caucasoid mixture. --JWB 29 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)

Dravidian is a language family, not a racial type. Both Indian Veddoids and South Indians (who are primarily Caucasoid) speak Dravidian languages.

Yes we know that. But often there is a correlation between these two. Meursault2004 07:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Veddoid peoples of Sri Lanka are of Australoid stock. The Dravidian-speaking peoples are mostly of Caucasoid descent-from the Mediterranean branch, to be specific. There is some Australoid admixture among people like the Tamils due to intermarriage with local tribals but ultimatley, the Dravidians are mostly Caucasoid. -posted by a Dravidian-speaker, of course.

A response: Dravidians/Tamils are black peoples

Southern Indians are not Caucasians. Dravidians and Tamils are the same people. Dravidians are most certainly not Caucasoid. (You're kidding -- right?) They are Veddoid-Australoid/Negroid peoples. Many politically progressive Tamil/Dravidian peoples have come to know their true history and consider themselves part of the global African community. This "Caucasian" business is ridiculous -- and just another example of wannabe-ism in India's disgusting racist, pigmentocracy. Google it, if you don't believe me. are examples of just a few entries

When geneticist Spencer Wells went looking for the migratory links between Africa and the rest of the world, his Y-chromosomnal DNA testing took him from the San Bushmen directly to Tamil Province, where he found the next link in a Tamil man. That wave of migration followed up the coastline across ancient land bridges at low sea levels to Australia. It has long been recognized by many scholars that the ancient Dravidians were black African peoples -- as black as any other Australoid peoples, and that includes Australian aboriginies and aboriginal New Guineans.

All this is not to say that the Australoids of Asia are not (like much of humanity) mixed with other ethnic/"racial" strains. However, "Australoids" commonly have alveolar and often maxillary prognathisms and dolichocephalic skulls -- both hallmarks of Negroid/Africoid peoples. Combined with presumed patterns of migration and DNA studies, when it comes to "racial" classification, they clearly are Negroid/Africoid, rather than Caucasoid.

I've edited the text, which for some reason starts out defining Australoids as essentially Australian Aborigines -- which is completely incorrect. The term is somewhat misleading in that it never referred strictly to Australians, but to a broad group of humanity considered essentially "Negroid" in phenotype, but with no clear/obvious (at the time) connection to the African continent. And that is why the term is commonly paired with "Negroid," as in "Australoid-Negroid." "Australoid" was used a general geographic qualifier, distinct from simply "Negroid."

In the 1960s, a family of children from Ceylon, as it was called back then, enrolled in my school. I was struck by the fact that they looked just like me and my family -- darker-skinned than some of us, even. I started reading and came upon text after text that referred to Mohenjo Daro as a black civilization. The link between the Dravidians and AFrica is all throughout the scholarly literature -- and not just in so-called "Afrocentrist" works. It's amazing that people are still so far behind the learning curve on matters such as this! I find it sad that so many peoples rush to deny their African heritage in the face of racism and color-based bias. deeceevoice 07:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Current conventional wisdom (Out-of-Africa model) is that all modern humans are of relatively recent African origin, including Europeans. None of the genetic results I've seen show that Europeans are any more distant from modern Africans than Indians, native Australians, Melanesians etc. are.

Phenotypically, some non-Africans, especially Melanesians and Negritos, look more African, but the genes responsible for these features are only a small part of the genome. Europeans and Asians may have evolved lighter skin color and other features in response to enviromental conditions, but this does not mean they are otherwise especially distant from Africans.

Political identification as Black does not guarantee a particular genetic relation. It is a response to similar social conditions in recent history. Even Northern Irish Catholics have identified with African-Americans.

Some of the links you list above use worthless evidence like resemblance of selected words in modern languages, or even the use of hoes and manure! Dolichocephaly was also considered a defining feature of the Nordic race. At least one of the sites seems to be motivated by white racism, arguing that Indians are blacker in order to distinguish Pakistanis as whiter.

Putting all dark-skinned peoples or even most non-Europeans in one bucket is not necessarily progressive; it's a classic white racist position, and many of the older sources that take this attitude reflect this. A less Eurocentric view would be that Europe is just a small part of the diversity on the planet.

--JWB 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Nordics certainly are dolichocephalic whites, but they are an exception to the rule when it comes to Caucasoid classification. Further, their geographic origin places them firmly within the Caucasoid classification. Negroid/Africoid peoples have more biodiversity among them than any other "racial" classification -- which itself is a curious construct. But the "Dravidian" poster claimed, as did others in this venue, that Dravidians are classified as "Caucasian." And that simply is not the case. They very clearly are Australoid-Negroids/Africoids, by virtue of their geographic/migratory origins, cultural connections and close conformity with the Africoid phenotype. There are, indeed, some Pakistanis who are more Caucasoid than Australoid-Negroid/Africoid, as there are some Indians who are more Caucasoid/Asian than Australoid-Africoid. Still, that does not change the fact that Dravidians/Tamils are Australoid-Africoid by any reasonable standard. deeceevoice 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what this have to do with vietnamese and cambodians, as they are genetically mongoloid and as for the soul sister part, who calls vietnamese and cambodians soul sisters? You need to understand that caucasoid, and mongoloid are closer to australoid because they are who the caucasoid/mongoloid evovle from.

Futher, you are correct about genetic similarities among the "races" of humankind -- and certainly this is true when it comes to Africans and Asians. DNA testing has shown that certain Australoid populations, like some of the Negrito aboriginals of Southeast Asia and some of the indigenous blacks of New Guinea, are closer genetically to their Asian cousins than to black Africans -- likely owing to the fact that certain populations later developed in isolation with Afro-Asian/Asian populations -- although phenotypically, they may appear clearly Africoid/Negroid. The earliest Asians were, in fact, aboriginal blacks, which is why, when black GIs went to Vietnam in the 1960s, they encountered people they said looked black -- and why Cambodian women frequently were referred to as "soul sisters." It is also why early buddhas in, say, Thailand, for example, look strikingly Africoid and why the earliest renderings of the Buddha show him with tightly coiled, nappy hair; he was, in fact, an Africoid Asiatic. It is no coincidence that the earliest Buddhist artifacts have been found in southeastern India -- just up the coast from -- where? Tamil Province, the land of Dravidian blacks. deeceevoice 12:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist art agrees with what I've read before, that anthropomorphic Buddha art started in Gandhara (ancient Kashmir) in the extreme north and was based on local or Greek models (Greco-Roman sculptures don't have straight hair either!), while the south resisted human representations for longer. South India is mentioned as a transmitter of Buddhist texts to Southeast Asia, but the article doesn't mention or show any South Indian Buddha imagery. Southeast Asian Buddhas' appearance probably reflects the local population, not South India.

India has significant genetic contributions from all of: local or Australoid peoples and Caucasoid and Mongoloid immigrants, with some variation by region, and there is no "pure race". I hope everyone can agree on that. I don't think we can get agreement on any more than that.

I still do not see why lumping all dark people as "Africoid" or other term is desirable, progressive or Afrocentric, instead of white-racist as it usually has been. If the genetic and other diversity is there, why not acknowledge it in the terminology. Saying the primary split is between Caucasians and all darker people is Eurocentric by definition.--JWB 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dravidians are different ethnically from the broader Indian population. Persian incursions didn't reach in the deep south of India -- indeed, that is where blacks retreated to escape them. As a result, they remain far less miscegenated than, say the average Hindu-speaking, northern Indians, who are mixed with Asian and Middle Eastern ("Caucasoid") peoples. "Eurocentric by definition"? No, I don't think so. I didn't introduce "Caucasian" into the discussion on the talk page; someone else did. And they got it wrong. I'm merely setting the record straight. In using terms of "racial" categorization, such as "Caucasian"/"Caucasoid", one accepts certain assumptions and enters the realm of formal racial classification. Upon doing so, one immediately must deal with the other, corresponding terms, "Negroid" and "Mongoloid." And "racially" speaking, Dravidians are Negroid peoples. That is how they're quite properly classified when one considers the standard phenotypical critera, as well as -- again -- their geographic origin and cultural characteristics. Funny how people don't balk at all about being called "Caucasoid," but when it comes to being called the "N-word," it's all of a sudden somehow improper; they freak. :p

Actually, the n-word is a racially explicit term. Negroid, african, or black are the correct terms, the n-word isn't. Caucasoid is not a racially explicit term, but I know a word that is! Negroid is the same as caucasoid, but the n-word isn't.

Further, with regard to old buddhas being modeled on Greek statuary, I'm afraid someone's been yankin' your chain. The Africoid features of the old buddhas of which I write are undeniable. They didn't get that from Greece -- though, admittedly, there was certainly a black, African presence there. (A couple of quick links)[ http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/201220012.htm], [1] And I'm talking tightly coiled hair; nappy, knotty hair here -- not curly little ringlets, not the curls of, say, something akin to Michelangelo's "David" -- in old Laotian and Thai buddhas, particularly.deeceevoice 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. "I still do not see why lumping all dark people as 'Africoid' or other term is desirable, progressive or Afrocentric, instead of white-racist as it usually has been." When one considers phenotypical similarities (upon which the concept of "race" is loosely based), the darker-skinned peoples of the world, such as those discussed in the article and on this discussion page, are certainly at least as similar to one another as, say, Nordics and Turks, who are both classified as Caucasoid -- and some would argue even more so. deeceevoice 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer with a quote from Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes (abridged paperback edition) p. 71: Accordingly, at the time the first genetic trees were produced, we also constructed a tree from anthropometric characters, including measurements of the whole body and skin color (Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards, 1964). This tree (fig. 2.2.3) showed marked differences from that obtained with genes; for instance, Australian Aborigines and Africans were closely associated, whereas with genes these populations are the farthest apart. It seemed clear to us that the sensitivity of many anthropometric characters to climate was likely to bias the reconstruction of phylogenetic history. It has been well known since Darwin that adaptive traits are frequently not satisfactory for reconstructing phylogeny, because they express similarities of environments more easily than those of phylogenetic history. We concluded that the lack of agreement between the two types of trees was no cause of alarm, and that genes were more likely to reflect phylogenetic history. In fact, Africans, Australian aborigines, and New Guineans have been exposed to tropical climates for a very long time and are presumably highly adapted to them. The characters available for this first anthropometric investigation were essentially connected with body surface, in particular skin color and size measurements, which are known to be correlated with climate.

The Australoid article should be about the traditional or accepted scientific definitions of the word, flawed as it is. Australoid-Negroid and Africoid are much less used terms (it could be argued that Africoid is a neologism, but I won't) and significant discussion of them should go in their own articles which can be linked from Australoid and others. Google:

about 20,100 for Australoid
about 461 for Australoid-Negroid
about 552 for Africoid
about 220,000 for Negroid

If there's a difference between genetic and anthropomorphic results, let's discuss both.

And if you are going to throw in cultural and historical resemblance, that is going beyond the scope of the -oid terms which properly refer to physical characteristics. Lengthy discussion of that belongs in Black (people) and other articles that include cultural and historic scope, which can be linked to.--JWB 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is about Dravidians -- not genetics. And since when did genetics have anything to do with race? Racial categories were developed long before genetics became a discipline. Race is unscientific; genetics is scientific. The two really have very little to do with one another. Dravidians have been classified historically as Negroids/Australoids. That isn't open to debate. It's simple fact. In my readings about Dravidians, the term "Australoid-Negroid" appears constantly, and that is the context in which the term here is used -- again, in a discussion on Dravidians. And, no. Africoid is most certainly not a neologism. Further, with regard to online searches, "Australoid Dravidian" turned up 456 results. "Negroid Dravidian" turned up 836. Booya! :p deeceevoice 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, and "caucasoid dravidian" returns 560. "australoid-negroid dravidian" got even less, 275. All very small numbers, and if you are going to judge "Australoid Dravidian" as insignificant on the basis of this comparison, then why are we discussing Dravidians in the Australoid article at all? If anywhere, it would seem to go in Dravidian. By the way, hit #1 for "negroid dravidian" mentions "Negroid" only to say that the idea of Dravidians being Negroid is European white racism.

Race in the social and historical sense is certainly not hard science, which is why it's discussed in articles like Race, Race (historical definitions), Black (people), White (people) etc. instead of articles on physical anthropological terms like *oid. Take a look at the scope-limiting section at the beginning of Caucasoid, which should go in the other *oid articles too.

If race is unscientific, anthropometry is scientific, and genetics is scientific, it would seem the latter two should be togeher, not the first two.--JWB 22:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Another response

Take a look at the photos in the following links. Then tell me the poeple of south India are "Caucasian." The very notion is absurd!

Claims of "Caucasian" identity are simply wannabe-ism -- in a nation with a history of brutal violence and oppression along race/color lines. India is rife with internalized values of white supremacy and self-loathing -- in short, wannabe-ism. No one who is aware of the true history of the Indian subcontinent would dispute the fact that the indigenous populations of India are black/Africans.

Aryan invasion theory and Dravidian race discuss the Hindu nationalist viewpoint that both claims of Caucasian and African identity are wannabe-ism or 19th century racist wishful thinking. On this question, Afrocentrism is agreeing with Eurocentrism against India-centrism.

Nobody here asserted Dravidians are Caucasian. Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian, and White is not identical with either. Same for Negroid or Africoid, Negro or African, and Black. It's plausible to view some Indians as both Black and Caucasoid.--JWB 20:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian...." WTF? I'd like to see you prove that. Talk about double-speak. That's just flat out nonsense! LMAO And then: "It's plausible to view some Indians as both Black and Caucasoid." Yessiree, Bob. It is -- and therein lies the fallacy of the Caucasoid racial classification of south Indians. There's no rhyme or reason for it. There, white folks get tripped up in their own "logic." Again, what sets the blacks of India apart from Caucasians is not only their skin color, but their facio-cranial characteristics, which place them firmly within the Negroid range. They are no less black than the blacks of Nubia or other Nilotics, some of whom have relatively narrow nasal indices and somewhat straight hair. And then there are those, such as the Tamils/Dravidians/Dalits/Jawara and other Adamantese peoples, many of whom have classic Australoid features and are virtually indistinguishable physically from Australian Aborigines. They are no less black than the other Australoids of Asia. They are clearly Negroid peoples. The "Caucasoid" classification is sheer nonsense. Again, the direct DNA link established by Spencer Wells from Africa to southern India/Tamil province (and then on to Australia), as found in the blood specimen of a contemporary Tamil/Dravidian man is incontrovertible. And, again, throughout the literature, Dravidian blacks are classifed as Australoid/Negroid peoples. deeceevoice 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Caucasoid vs. Caucasian: If they're identical, why are there two separate words? Here's a dictionary definition distinguishing them (and also noting they are not synonymous with white or European): [2]

Australoid-Negroid: I've never seen the term in modern references, or anywhere for that matter before the Googled websites (which after scanning the first 10-20 seem to be an unholy alliance of Western white racists, Pakistani white racists, and Afrocentrists). I'm guessing it had some currency in the scientific racism era pre-WWII, but not in later science.

Bartleby's AUSTRALOID NEGROID does not connect the two words, and gives geographic ranges that intersect only in Melanesia (neither of them contain India at all).
Cavalli-Sforza's book does not connect the two terms, and explicitly covers the question (p. 355-6) of whether Negritos, Veddoids, "pre-Dravidians" are intermediate between Africans and Australians, and finds they are not, but instead genetically close to their S and SE Asian neighbors. Also, on map Fig. 2.11.1 on p. 135, the strongest tendency (1st principal component) in Cavalli-Sforza's genetic data shows Europeans as most similar to Africans, and Asians and Americans as less similar to Africans, with Australians as least similar. The following weaker principal components show different but weaker splits of the world.
Spencer Wells suggests Australians split 60k years ago and South Indians 45k years ago. [3] This is similar to the time depth for the development of Europeans from Africans, so doesn't show Australians and South Indians are any more closely related to Europeans than Africans are. In [4] Wells says a first exodus at 60-50ky led to Australians, while a second exodus at 45ky led to Eurasians and Americans. This would mean Europeans and Indians are equally related to modern Africans, while Australian Aborigines are less related. In [5] Wells is quoted as listing a first migration from Africa east as far as Australia sometime after 60ky, giving rise to all non-Africans, with migration from India to Central Asia contributing to northern peoples. Again, all non-Africans are approximately equally related to Africans. --JWB 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You've obviously misunderstood the definition. I don't have to read the link to know that "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" when applied to people are synonymous terms. To say, as you have, that "Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian" is patently ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. And, duh. I never said "Caucasian" meant "white" -- merely that, applied to the blacks of India, it is a misnomer. They are clearly Negroid peoples by virtue of the same phenotypical criteria used to classify other peoples as Negroid. deeceevoice 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, I'm not constructing a family tree. Again, according to the phenotypical metrics established to discern one "race" from another, Australoids are clearly Negroid. And they commonly have been considered such. And Dravidians/Tamils are Australoid-Negroids. They are ethnically and "racially" distinct from the wider Hindu population farther north and long ago rejected the racist, color-based caste system of broader Indian society. deeceevoice 08:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza actually does show a tree based on anthropomorphics, and also one just based on skull shape. (p. 71-2) They do show Australians and New Guineans joining Africans for the first split, but then parting ways at the second split. Indians are not shown.

Tamil Nadu and the other southern states certainly do have a caste system about as strong as North India's. It also has had a strong backlash anti-caste movement, of which the African-identified section is only a small part. More commonly, opposition to the caste structure is expressed as socialism, or as demands for affirmative action, or by conversion from Hinduism to a less caste-based religion like Christianity, Buddhism or Islam. Finally, Southern Brahmin groups are as dark as the Southern population in general, so it is not a color issue unless you project color issues onto remote prehistory with the Aryan invasion theory.

Neither are the southern states oppressed within India. They are more prosperous than India in general and have very successfully achieved autonomy within the Indian federal system and preserved the four major Dravidian languages as official state languages.--JWB 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware that the southern states of India are actually more generally among the more prosperous of the nation. It is also clear that the Aryan invasion is more than a "theory." The Brahmin caste tries to deny it ever happened, but the history is clear -- archaeologically and insofar as the Vedic texts, which (as the references I've provided clearly document) provide graphic accounts of the horrors of the Aryan onslaught which forced Dravidians/Tamils south. With regard to Cavalli Sforza, Australoids are Australoids. They are classified together as a group for a reason. The Tamils/Dravidians are quite Australoid in appearance. The Veddoid blacks of India, commonly called "Caucasoid" because of their relatively narrow nasal index and relatively straight hair (despite their dark skin) are absolutely no different from Nubians, Ethiopians and other Cushitic/Nilotic peoples of the Nile Valley, who clearly are classified as Negroid -- for the very same reasons. And, no matter how you try to parse the language, "Caucasoid" and "Caucasian" are the same thing. One is simply an adjective, the other a noun. And to state that they are not is simply absurd. deeceevoice 09:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Caucasoid and Caucasian are both nouns and adjectives. The suffix -oid means "resembling" or "has a form like". When applied to a noun it usually means a broader or looser category than the original noun. For example, spheroid is broader than sphere and contains spheres as a subset, but not all spheroids are spheres.

Bartelby's on Caucasian and Caucasoid: These terms refer to a broad group of peoples indigenous to Europe, western Asia, northern Africa, and much of the Indian subcontinent. Caucasian and Caucasoid are in some ways the most problematic of the traditional racial terms, not so much for any offensive character as for their widespread misuse as a synonym for “white” or “European.” Many of the peoples traditionally included in this category, such as the Berbers of North Africa and the various Hindu and Muslim peoples of northern India, have skin color noticeably darker than most Europeans and as such are not usually considered to be white. Obviously they are not European either.

It is clear that there have been movements of lighter skinned people from the northwest into India at various periods in history, and that Indo-European languages entered India this way, but interpreting the Vedas as white-black conflict is problematic; see Aryan invasion theory#Racial interpretations of the Vedic Aryans, Indo-Aryan migration#Physical Anthropology, and Dasa#Etymology of Dasa and related terms. The Dravidian languages themselves are also suspected to have entered India from the northwest at an earlier date.

Yes. I'm aware of another theory, which is echoed in some Afrocentrist thought, that the Dravidians are the result of a north-down migration, of blacks who left the Nile Valley, who are referrred to in the old literature as Elamites. I recall reading several texts and at least one by a Dravidian who made such claims, and they are also credible. Regardless of the point of entry into India (it is certainly likely India was populated by blacks from both the north and the south), the ties with/affinities with black Africa are there, and the people are -- again -- no different from the Negroid Australoids of New Guinea and Southeast Asia and no different from the Negroid Nilotics, Cushite and Oromo peoples of North Africa. deeceevoice 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Elamo-Dravidian connection is based on the relation between the languages, though recently Sergei Starostin argued that Elamite and Dravidian are no more related to each other than they are to Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Uralic, and others.

Elam was in what is now southwestern Iran and I haven't encountered statements that the Elamites were black or had been traced to origins somewhere else.

Everyone now agrees Africans migrated to India and the rest of the world; the question is just the time scale. Speculation based on genetics suggests an initial migration 60k or so years ago, while some Afrocentric theories seem to postulate considerably later migrations in historic or legendary time.

On the other hand, with respect to non-African migrations to Africa or to other lands thought to have been African-populated, Afrocentric theories prefer very late dates after civilizations in these places were already flourishing, while genetically based speculation is more likely to talk about a reflux migration from the Middle East to Africa much earlier (I haven't seen dates but I'm guessing they're thinking 20k-30k years ago) providing some non-African genetic input to Eastern and Southern Africans, and/or migration 10k years ago or later associated with the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages.--JWB 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, back to discussion of the Australoid page itself.

Certainly the term Australoid refers to a resemblance between some South Asians and native Australians. This is the raison d'etre of the term. But it should be mentioned that a special relation between the two groups is debatable or limited in scope, for example they have been found to be not genetically close. A more conservative statement in the light of current knowledge would be that there are South Asians with physical traits that overlap with those of various races.

I am not sure why Pakistanis are specially mentioned. They probably have less Australoid traits than other South Asians.

I have no idea where the statement about Australoids in the Americas comes from. I have only seen statements that early American skulls show various traits that have some similarity to some modern races. I don't know of whole peoples who are known to be Australoid.

Negrito and Australoid are defined as contrasting physical types. While some sources go on to hypothesize a relationship between the two, to simply state that Negritos are a subset of Australoids is misleading. This should be presented as one POV on racial development, rather than a consensus statement about modern groups. Negritos of course physically resemble some Africans much more than they resemble Australian Aborigines.

Australoid-Negroid is not found in most modern references. It should be mentioned as a term that formerly had more currency, or that is still current among certain groups, and is based on resemblances in certain traits but not others.--JWB 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think when he talked about Austrailoids in the Americas, he might also have been referring to certain tribes in Baja California (that were wiped out from smallpox) and the Tiera del Fuego-ians.

I only ever see the australoid-negroid construction among Afrocentrists. Australoids may have retained more African characteristics by keeping closer to the equator, but having left sub-Saharan Africa before Caucasians and being quite genetically distinct, it makes no sense to call them the same race as Sub-Saharan Africans.

It is inaccurate to claim that Dravidians, as an ethnolinguistic/cultural group are "negroid/australoid", because this ignores the fact that intermixing in India for centuries (at least) has brought about Indo-Aryans who are indeed quite "negroid" and Dravidians who are quite white, like Aishwarya Rai [6]; and I also have known Dravidians, I went to school with one, and I met his family, and none of them were black (just for the sake of an independent example like yours, deeceevoice). However, it appears that historically, Dravidians have been fairly close to black East Africans phenotypically in some ways .although Arrian and Strabo claim that they are like the "Western Aethiopians" in color (the Dravidians were actually called "Aethiopian" by these travellers), but like the other Indians in features and hair (bringing up the sensitive topic of mixed Ethiopians and Somalians), and also don't support the "black Egyptian" fantasy by drawing parallels in appearance between North Indians and Egyptians (neither of whom are or ever were black), and distinguishing North Indians/Egyptians from the Ethiopians/"Western Aethiopians and Dravidians/"Eastern Aethiopians". This site also supports the notion that Brahmins throughout India have Aryan genes, giving credence not only to admixture in India, but also of an Aryan aristocracy based on lineage, originating with migrants from the Iranian plateau. Also, Siddhartha Gautama was not black/negroid/australoid/whatever, and the first portrayal of him did depict an Aryan in the Greco-Buddist artistic tradition, in contadiction to some of the sites you linked to above, deeceevoice. Siddartha was a high-caste Hindu, probably Kshatriya, from what is now Nepal, and the physical description of him in the Digha Nikaya is not that of a black person [7], claiming that he had a "long and prominent" nose, blue eyes even, and a "bright, golden" complection (this testament is also from his wife, supposedly), and these verses also claim that he was Aryan (which would explain this description), which would make sense since he was from the north, and a kshatriya or brahmin. There were buddhas (enlightened sages) after Siddartha, though, following in his footsteps, and some may have been negroid, which would explain these negroid busts of "buddhas". The Elamite/Dravidian connection is tedious as has been argued above, and it's safe to argue that the Elamites weren't black, as evidenced not only by their geographical location, but also by these:

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

But even if the Elamites/Dravidians are/were connected (although language doesn't account for common genetic origin for different people of itself), this says something about the Dravidians, especially in light of Arrian's and Strabo's comments, and that perhaps the negroid element came from somewhere else, like Africa or Australia, rather than the north, where the Elamites would have come from. --Jugbo

Guys, as far as I have read the Aryan Invasion Theory created the whole idea that the Southern Dravidian were a distinct other black race but this clearly is not true. Yes there are negroids in the South but it is a total myth everyone in South India is a totally different race. The reason why their skin is darker in the South is that any group of humans living closer to the equater will have that dark skin. But skin color does not detirmine race (the least detirminent in fact!). For more information check out this website;

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

"Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller. While we can speak of some racial differences between north and south Indian people, they are only secondary."

Again, I am not saying that there are not negroids in the South but like mongoloids in the North, they make up the minority. According to the CIA factbook on India;

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

Ethnic groups: Definition Field Listing Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)

Of course many South Asians and Southeast Asians may in fact have some Australoid in them long before caucasoids or mongoloids migrated to that area.

Zachorious 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dravidians aren't Australoids

You can't put tamils (dravidians), as australoids. Dravidians look quit different from aboriginies. And compare dravdians with negros is bullshit either, no tamil/malayali/telugu look like an african, they look like an average indian. the broad nose and thick lipp theory is outdated, myself as a tamil haven't seen any dravdians with negroid features. dravdians have straight hair wich is uncommen amongst austros and negros. And the skin color doesn't count for the classification, 'cause there are dark bengalis and gujaratis as well (who are considered as aryans). If north indians are considered caucasian, then you should put the south indians in the same category, 'cause there was a large intermixing amongst both folks.

I never heard a dravidian call himself African, where the f*** did you hear that? Don't trust this afrocentric bullshit, they even say that the first chinese king were african. And the Dravidians aren't a african community they are Indians.

and if you still want to put dravidians as austros, then please use the the term DRAVDIANS and NOT TAMILS (?cause tamil is not a race, it's a language) and dravdians includes Malayalis, Telugus, Kannadas and much more)

ŤÀΜÌĹ

If you find this Afrocentrism on Wikipedia offensive regarding who you are ethnically/racially, then become more active and vocal here to combat it; and get your friends to as well (assuming they feel the same way you do), because much of the postings here by Afrocentrists is tenuous and the "black Dravidian/Tamil" argument seems to be a main component of the movement. Stick around and talk, Tamil. --Jugbo 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

Again, I am not saying that there are not negroids in the South but like mongoloids in the North, they make up the minority. According to the CIA factbook on India;

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

Ethnic groups: Definition Field Listing Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)

Of course many South Asians and Southeast Asians may in fact have some Australoid in them long before caucasoids or mongoloids migrated to that area.

Zachorious 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indians are a mix

Based on genetic evidence, east Indians are an ancient mix of Australoids from Sri Lanka, Caucasoids from Pakistan and Mongoloids from western Asian countries, but according to their general skull shape, Indians are classified as Caucasoid. Some of you people must remember that racial classification isnt based on skin colour, its based on skull shape.

That may be but the majority of Indians look predominantly Caucasoid to me Digitalseal 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but that's mainly in the north. The farther south you go the more negroid/australoid they look.

[edit] Genetically least realted to negroids?

Is that true?

If we use "related" in the normal sense - relatively close ancestry - then yes, it is true, as far as we know. See the quotation from Cavalli-Sforza above. Paul B 10:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rediculous to say southern indians are australoid, much less negroid. Well, atleast full-blooded. It's a fact that people related to current australian aboriginal populations, following the same migration trail (if you follow the single-origin hypothesis), settled in India. It's a fact that there is heavy Australoid ancestry in modern India, in both north and south, but it's more prevalent in southern. Still, there's heavy admixture in India from populations of the middle east and various mongoloid populations. There's no denying the heavy australoid admixture in modern India, but there are no pure Australoids. None. Not even in Sri Lanka. -Anonymous

Not really, you might want to clarify that, becuase there are primitive tribes such as the Bonda, and the Veddahs, who are linked to Australoid groups. There also is a Jain society in Southern India with people linked to Australoid groups.

Well..... Yeah I'm being a bit harsh. I've seen those links before, I doubt there's any full-blooded Australoids left but in the past there were. I'm no fan of afro-centrist crackpots but this actually holds some serious ground. If you look at the Recent single-origin hypothesis, it shows how a human migration wave passed and settled in India, and guess where this migration wave ended up? Australia. There's no doubt to the Australoid/Black admixture in modern India, not at all. There's also this study: http://members.tripod.com/%7Etanmoy/bengal/races.html

I'm not sure why nobody's noticed this before. For once afro-centricism has been right. This is way different than saying Beethoven was black or Aristotle plagiarized Alexandria.

I think you all are getting past the point here. Dravidians and austroloid/negritos are not the same people but they definitely are descendants of them but in a different region which in this case is India. I think that it is rediculous to say that they are descendants of caucasians. That is an insult to me as a pure dravidian.

-Anonymous

"Dravidians" are people who speak Dravidian languages. Most are "Caucasoid" in the sense that they fit the criteria for this racial category, which was based on skull-shape. That is not the same as saying that they are "descendents of caucasians". India was probably one of the earliest inhabited of non-African locations, and it's probable that most people in South India are not descended from some post-Neolithic immigrant population. However, the Dravidian languages themselves may have originated in the Middle East with Neolithic expansions. See Elamo-Dravidian languages. But that's just a may. We don't know. The population of India has evolved its own characteristic just like all other populations. Saying that South Indians and Australians are descended from a wave of Africans is no more meaningful than saying that the Chinese and the Norwegians are descended from a wave of Africans. Paul B 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense. What are you talking about? Skull shape? How do Dravidians fit the category for being caucasians. They do indeed speak a dialect that may of originated in the middle east, because they have been influenced by the aryans who conquered them. The Ayrans do indeed have arab, europeon influences, because they originated from an area in Central Asia that was populated by Slavic, Mongol, Turkic, and Arab peoples. The dravidians on the other hand are direct descendants of the earliest humans who left africa and went to middle east, India, Europe and Australia. Besides, Chinese and Norwegians is an exaggeration on your part, but it does apply to the point about Dravidians being caucasians-which is not true! Anyway, the dravidians of today have been influenced by many asian cultures such as that of the aryans, including the arabs, that they appear to be caucasians, but they are not. They are descendants of an Negrito/australoid family, but because of the influences of arabs and aryans (who originate from Central Asia and Southern Russia) they appear to be caucasions, but they are'nt! --Bcr 10:59, 22 Semptember 2007

What are these weird edit summaries like (p) supposed to mean? You don't appear to understand. The origin of the Aryans is a wholly separate issue. I'm not talking about where Indo-Aryan languages originated, but where Dravidian languages did. That's why I linked Elamo-Dravidian. "Caucasoid" is a racial category defined primarily by skull-shape. Look it up. Whether it can any longer be considered a useful or worthwhile is another matter. The Arabs have no connection to Aryans whatever, any more than Turks or Mongols do, and Slavs didn't even exist as an ethnic group at the time. Everyone is a "direct descendent" of humans who left Africa. Being descended from the earliest ones makes you less related, not more related - just as I am less related to my grandfather than to my father. Paul B 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay now you are contradicting yourself. I already know humans come from Africa. Before you mentioned how the Dravidian are "caucasians" because of their skull shape, now you are talking about the origin of dravidian language. Well, if you think that the Dravidian language has Europeon influences, there is a reason. It is the Aryans. And yes, the Aryans do have a connection to the arabs and the europeans, because they originate from central asia and invaded India from the north. The reason why I mention aryans, is because they have had such an influence on the dravidians' culture. The aryans conquered the Dravidians from Central Asia (you need to look that up), and since then they have dominated much of the lifestyle of the dravidians, that their culture has changed greatly over the past thousands of years. Dravidian language or people have no connection to Europe at all. If the language has a connection, it is because of the aryans system of life imposed on the dravidians. You have to remember that the Aryans imposed the caste system on the dravidians and put them at the bottom to make them feel inferior, and that started in 2000 BC. Besides, I'm sure that the Dravidians had a culture that was much more different 3,000 years ago. Besides, you said that Draavidians fit the racial category of Europeons based on their skull shape. In other words, you said that they are direct caucasians. Then you said that Dravidians are not descended from Africa. Now all of a sudden, you contradict yourself and say everyone is a direct descendant of Africa. You don't need to say that because everyone already knows that, and if they don't believe it, they are wrong. Besides, I already mentioned how everyone is a descendant of the the African wave. The point here is that Dravidians have no connection to Caucasians, but they (like everone else) have a connection to Africa. If they do indeed have a connection to Caucasians, it would be because of how their culture has mingled with different cultures such as the arabs, ayrans, caucasians, chinese, and others. Let's not get away from the argument here. Besides, you already said it, "all humans come from Africa," but as a result there have been different physical patterns among peoples of the world that categorize them into differnt groups. That is why it is wrong to say that Dravidians are caucasians. Skull shape has nothing to do with anything. If you think they are, you need to explain to me why. It does not make any sense. When you look at their "some" dravidians who have dark skin (similar to aborigines), I can't see any connection to caucasians just because of their skull shape. The aryans are probably more associated with caucasians-they have ligther skin color. But then you have to understand that a lot of dravidians are not "full-blooded", because over the past, they have interrmarried with some aryans. So in this case, many might have had some ayrans genes-the same genes that come from Central Asia-the same genes linked to Arabs, Russians, Mongols, Turks, and Chinese.--Bcr 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

You are making no sense whatever. I am not "contradicting myself". As I said in my first comment "Dravidians are people who speak Dravidian languages. Most are Caucasoid in the sense that they fit the criteria for this racial category, which was based on skull-shape." So there is no "Before you mentioned how the Dravidian are "caucasians" because of their skull shape, now you are talking about the origin of dravidian language." I said in my first comment that 1. Dravidians is a linguistic category, not a racial one. 2. Most people who are native speakers of Dravidian languages fit the category of "Caucasoid". Whether we think this category is or is not useful is a separate question. The fact is that they fit it. If you don't understand this, read Caucasoid. It is nonsensical to speak of "full-blooded" Dravidians or "Aryan genes". As for the "Aryans imposed the caste system" argument - read up on the topic. We don't know the details of how Brahminical culture spread to the south. Skin colour is an adaptation to climate. In itself it tells us nothing about deep ancestry. Paul B 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well whatever the case is, Dravidians are not caucasian. PERIOD!! All these theories about skull shape are just point blank lies, and if you believe it, so what, because not everyone believes that crap anyway. Skull shape has nothing to do with anything about culture or ancestry! Anyway, I don't know if you are disagreeing by the fact that the Aryans imposed the caste system on the Dravidians 2,000 years ago, but they sure did and it still continues today. If anything, I already know everything about it. I lived it! You need to read upon the topic yourself!--Bcr 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

To repeat the point yet again, most South Asians, including speakers of Dravidian languages are Caucasoid, not Caucasians. Read the bleedin' article on the subject. Whether that concept of "Caucasoid" is very useful or not is a separate question. DNA vastly complicates these old models of race. Your idea of the meaning of "Caucasian" seems to derive from American cop dramas, in which it's used as a synonym for "white person". You don't even seem to recognise the difference between the -asoid and -asian endings. I rather doubt that you lived through the imposition "of the caste system on the Draividians 2,000 years ago". That is just one interpretation of Indian history. BTW, you might enjoy reading The Venus of Konpara by John Masters. It's a novel that puts forward exactly the view that you are expressing. It was written 40 years ago, which seems to be about when your ideas date from, or perhaps you treat the fantasies of Dalitstan as though they are indisputable truths. Paul B 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I did live it. Have you heard of the Killevanamani massacre. I was there. Plus, I think I now may undertstand what you are saying, but that still does not prove anything! Furthermore, the crap below is pushing it a little. Australoids related to Caucasoids is garbage. Where is the evidence. Just because Cooney or whatever his name is talks about Dravidians being "caucasoid" does not mean it is right. It's just a theory? remember? But anyway, I see what you are saying now, because I thought you were saying Dravidians are white this whole time, but they are not, they are just "caucasoid"(still does not make any sense). However, this is not necessarily true because you and Cooney or whatever believe it. It's just a theory. P.S.-The article isn't bleeding, it's LYING!.--Bcr 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

I have great difficulty in understanding just what you are complaining about. I had not heard of the Killevanamani massacre, but I am well aware of the history of Dravidianist and Dalit ideologies and of the brutality of some caste-obsessed groups. Why don't you create an article on the Killevanamani massacre? However, it has nothing much to do with the definition of "Australoid" which is a concept in physical anthropology. At one time it was believed that there was a distinctive Dravidian "race" and that they were linked to Gond and "Veddoid" populations who were closely related to a wider "Australoid" group. A theory emerged in the mid-twentieth century that Australoids were more closely related to Caucasoids than to Negroids - that they were a "archaic" version of the type that later evolved into Caucasoids. The assumption would be that proto-Australoids and proto-Caucasoids split off from one another before evolving into separate races. There's nothing inherently implausible or racist about these theories, they are just attempts to map the relatedness of human populations. Nevertherless there were often racist assumptions in the way these models developed (calling Australoids an "archaic" version of Caucasoids would be an example of that bias). Modern genetics calls into question the concept of an anthropometrically defined Australoid group, but it does support the idea that there was a distinctive population lineage from Africa through South Asia and Australasia. So we have to describe all these theories as they developed as fairly and comprehensively as we can. Paul B 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but once again, theories are still theories. One of the reasons why i keep arguing is that you make it seem like this theory is 100% true. Just because a few scientists talk about it does not mean that it is accurately right. Besides, everything I say seems to be unheard of to you! The Killevanamani massacre did indeed happen and I DO NOT need to make an article!! Why don't you look it up on GOOGLE-you'll see something. Besides, I was there. Anyway, theories are theories, and that is why this article was created. Nobody knows the truth? There are many things that are unexplained. Scientists up to this day are still making discoveries about the earliest humans. But anyway, you are right, and there was an idea about the lineage from South Asia and Africa, but the idea about the Dravidian-Caucasian lineage is just an idea that I don't understand or don't agree with. But on a broader perspective, theories are theories, so I have no right to dismiss the Dravidian-Caucasian linkage-it's just that it does not make any sense at all to me. I just happen to disagree-THAT'S All. I'm not completely dismisssing the scientists are anything, I just DON'T AGREE-that's why I have voiced my ideas in the first place. So it does not matter what you or I say, what matters is the truth, so in theoreticall terms, theories are not supposed to be 100% right, they are just ideas. Theories are like religions. People sat down and made religions. It does not mean that some of the "gods" that are mentioned in the religions are real-they are just theories and beliefs. --Bcr 10:59, 5 December 2007

The only event that you referred to of which I had not heard was the Killevanamani massacre. I suspect that very few people outside southern India have heard of it. And I already did google it - as soon as I read your comment. I am not sure what theory it is that I'm supposed to think is "100% true": the theory that the Australoid category is real in some way? Or the theory that South Indians are closely related to Australians? Or the theory that Caucasians are closely related to Australoids? Paul B 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. And once again I was there in the Killevanamani massacre, and thousands of people were killed. "THOUSANDS OF DRAVIDIANS WERE RAPED AND KILLED BY THE AYRANS." --Bcr 10:59, 3 January 2007

There is no evidence of this at all, but if you wish to discuss this, why are you doing so on a page devoted to Australoids! Go to any of the Aryan or Dravidian articles. Paul B 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You still want to argue for no reason. Pure Dravidians were still killed any way by the Ayrans, and the reason why there is no evidence, is becuase the indian government hid the evidence!!! Besides, this argument would not of started if the person above on the "Dravidians aren't Australoids" section did not bash the comparison between dravidians and africans. --Bcr 10:59, 6 January 2007

The reason is that your arguments are bizarre. How do you know there is evidence if it was hidden? The reason for "bashing" the "comparison between dravidians and Africans" is that - genetically - there is no useful comparison. Paul B 07:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't make any sense! There is a useful comparison genetically betweens Africans and Dravidians. How can you explain why Dravidians have a dark complexion like the Africans? By the way, your arguments are bizarre. I don't want to debate with you any more becuase you have zero common sense, you are a liar, and you don't make any sense. You can add another argument, but you still don't make any sense. --Bcr 10:59, 7 January 2007

[edit] Caucasoid

Since we are back on the Caucasoid track, I am vaguely aware that there was a theory at one time - I think in the 40s and 50s - that Australoids were closely related to Caucasoids, but I think a better source than something from Apologetics Press is required. If you look at their website it's clear that they are a quite unpleasantly extreme fundamentalist group. [13] Paul B 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one thing that you all need to understand is that our common ancestor is from Africa. Dravidians and Africans are not the same people, but Dravidians, Arabs, Europeans, and Aborigines share a common ancestor from Africa. Many Dravidians indeed do share physical characterisitics with Africans, because their ancestors are from Africa. When Africans migrated out of Africa and went to the middle east, they had slightly lighter skin because of the changing climate. When they went to Europe, they became white, because the climate was cold. Cold climate causes a light color, hot climate causes a dark color. The Africans who changed in the middle east next went to India and became darker (These are the ancestors of Dravidians). So in affect, Dravidians and Africans and Aborigines are not the same people, but bashing the comparison is the wrong thing to do. I think that it is critical that you all understand the nonsense that you all are engaging in. Is this the same nonsense found in the Caste System? Anyone who doubts that Dravidians have an african ancestry must hate dravidians for who they are, and might be the same ones discriminating against any "pure" dravidian they see, and this causes the caste system. Furthermore, I would like to mention that most Indians are a mixture and Aryans and Dravidians so they have a natural brown skin. On the other hand, there still are pure aryans and dravidians. Now, as I said, those who hate the comparisons of dravidians to Africa are not only ignorant, but they hate themselves, because our ancestors come from Africa. By the way, the nonsense about Dravidians having caucasian ancestry is something else! This seems like another stupid racist ideology! Now one thing that needs to be clear is that people at the bottom of the caste system are quite "different" from the general indian population! In fact, they are darker than the aryans of the "uppercaste" who are lighter. Are these the same people who we all are talking about? Or are you guys seemingly talking ignorantly of them. I think we need to hear the "unseeable" "dravidians" speak. Maybe there is something we don't know. Maybe those of the uppercastes shut them up and force them to feel inferior and thus be afraid to be proud of who they are as unique people. If this is the truth, then this has been going on for generations!! By the way, I would also like to mention that Indians are stupid, and it seems that they are trying to make the Dravidians unworthy or even wipe them out. Furthermore, they have all these stupid "Bollywood" movies with all these "light-skinned" Indians looking caucasian as if to discriminate against those people in India who are Black(No wonder why Indians say they like "Bollywood"). I guess the "aryan" indians are trying to make all the "pure" dravidians socially ruined, since they want them all to be unseeable. Furthermore, they want society to turn against them. Whatever the case is, the Dravidians will always be beautiful black asians and the aryans will always be racist bastards!!!! Besides, just because dravidians are beautiful, does not mean the racist Ayrans should be jealous of them. FUCK BOLLYWOOD, because all the actors look caucasian and "light-skinned" and a lot of people in India don't even look like that!!! -The Truth about Racist "Aryan-minded" India. --Bcr 10:59, 12 January 2007

I agree with u that most people in India dont look like Bollywood actors, so whats wrong with it? Do most AfricanAmericans look like Beyonce or like Halley Berry? Those Bollywood Actors look more "Indian" than "White". Its the same way why Japanese Actors are tall and have big round eyes, but u know what the majority of Japanese dont fit in that criteria. To be tall have light skin, sharp features is a beau ideal in India, north or south. Who the fuck are u to say fuck Bollywood. Movies are a part of Indian society. Because everyone in India is mixed, everyone will be offened by ur comments about Aryans, cause every one is Aryans as much asthey are Dravidian. I would also like to mention that Indians are stupid,,... what would u say if I said everyone in Africa is stupid.? And Dravidians are of Caucasian ancestry, THATS A FACT.Asian2duracell 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of real black African American actors such as Denzel Washington. African American actors have all kinds of looks and styles. However, Bollywood actors all look the same! Its no different from Nazi propaganda! As much as a racist you are, you can't avoid the truth! Besides, are there unseeable hindus in Bollywood? I don't think so? ..--Bcr 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

First of all, there are plenty of real black African American actors such as Denzel Washington. So what? Bollywood actors are real Indians. Some are Hindus some are Muslims some are Sikhs. Who cares about religion. However, Bollywood actors all look the same! thats what I call a Racist. No they dont. Just because u cant tell the diffrence between Indians, doesnt mean we look all the same. I know the truth. Ur still looking for it. I'm a Dravdian, hell u dont even know what that means, And I'm proud to be Brown. To add something we are Caucasoid, not Caucasian (white). And finally sign ur post.... ****Asian2duracell 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)****

First of all, I know the difference between Indians! That's why I made the argument in the first place, becuase I know that the way actors look in Bollywood is not the way ALL Indians look. I have read about many tribal indians who don't even speak hindi that don't even look the way the bollywood actors look. Basically, Bollywood is a hypocrisy, becuase it only portrays light-skinned and caucasian looking actors that don't represent ALL of INDIA. Besides, I have never seen an Indian with blue eyes like I have seen in Bollywood. And furthermore, many Indians have been trying to lighten their skin to imitate the bollywood actors, and as a result, real Indians are being destroyed by the nazi bollywood media. And by the way, if you are proud to be brown or black, why are you defending Bollywood if it doesn't even accept you for how you look? Bollywood actors don't look brown, they look white. Furthermore, the junk about Dravidians being caucasian or causcasoid or whatever does not make any sense. You need to explain that to me! - .--Bcr 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Bollywood does not represent all Indians. Iseebias

Okay but, ur not Dravdian. the way actors look in Bollywood is not the way ALL Indians look.. Ofcourse. Those are Actors they will look better. Bollywood is not Indian cinema, its Hindi/Urdu cinema. And represent North/Central-Indians, who are in generell fairer than Dravdians. There are other Cinemas aswell in India, like Tamil-, Telugu-, Bengali-Cinemas.

I have seen tribal indians who don't even speak any hindu language that don't even look the way the bollywood actors look..... there's no Language called Hindu. That shows, ur not Indian. Ur American (AfricanAmercian), why are u lying, are u ashamed of ur race? Basically, Bollywood is a hypocrisy, becuase it only portrays light-skinned and caucasian looking actors that don't represent ALL of INDIA. Allmost everyone in India looks caucasian. Some are dark some are fair skinned. It has nothing to do with race. Even in one family u can have dark parents and light kids. Or otherwise. And furthermore, many Indians have been trying to lighten their skin to imitate the bollywood actors, and as a result, real Indians are being destroyed by the nazi bollywood media.... So what if many Indians do lighten their skin? Its their problem, they have to handle the side effects. Evry Indian is a real Indian, actor or not. Bollywood actors don't look brown, they look white. Furthermore, the junk about Dravidians being caucasian or causcasoid or whatever does not make any sense. You need to explain that to me!...No they lokk Brown not White. They may have very light skin because of the illumination. But they arent white.--Bcr 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

I dont have to explain u why Dravdians are caucasoid. Its scientific and a proven fact. If u dont understand go research urself. As for Bollywood, go to Indiaglitz.com there u see some of the various Regional Indian Cinemas and some of their actors. U will see what I mean. Asian2duracell 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay now you are contradicting youself. First you made it look like Bollywood represents all Indians North and South and that Bollywood actors look like all Indians. Now you admit that Bollywood only represents certain people in INDIA, and that there are other cinemas such as Kollywood, Tollywood, Lollywood, and Dallywood. But even with these differences, they still are all the same. The truth is that whether for cosmetics or not, Indian media practices favoritism by portraying only light-skinned people and not portraying true Indian people. Besides, you may think I am ashamed, but you might be worse. You say that you are proud to be brown wherelse you stated that Bollywood actors look the way they look because they have to look better! In other words, you just said that light-skin is beautiful wherelse you said you are proud to be brown. I personally think that "real" indians look better than Bollywood actors. But on a side note, saying that Dravidians are caucasoid does not make any sense. You can't explain it, not because you are trying to argue with me, but you have no evidence! Where does that come from? Besides Indian media and cinema alike is still a hypocrisy. It still discriminates against real Indians much like the caste system!--Bcr 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

Hell no Im not contradicting myself. Those certain people are as much Indians as every Indian is. And they make up like 2/3 or more of the Indian population. Ofcourse they are all the same... Indians. Can u tell me which shade brown is? "light" is still brown. Actors look better in sense of physical fitness and face, hairstyle and so on. I may prefer fairer skin coulour or not, thats still my thing. But ur absolutly right that the Indian media portrays mostly fairskinned people. Some of the "real" Indians ( like u said) look better than those Bollywood actors fairer or darker. They are not actors because they dont want to be.

There are enough evidence to prove that Dravidians are caucasoid. Ur "it doesnt make sense for me" is not a argument to deny any facts. Discussing with u, I'm sorry but, is like discussing with a little child. U have to realise that not just things that "makes sense for you" are right or truth. At the End of the day we both agree that the caste system is discrimination. And that Indian media overhelming portrays fairskinned people. But for U as an African u should worry more about things that matter urself. And let others clear their problems themselve. And finally sign ur post man.Asian2duracell 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, with all said and done, explain this caucasoid/dravidian thing to me. Explain to me what you are talking about! Give me some evidence, because I have never heard anything like that.--Bcr 03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

Ok well I try it. Show me some pictures of "Dravdians" how u think they look alike. Post pics of about 6 or more people on that picture. No children just adult people. And I will show you some other pictures of how Dravidians look alike. Remember I said caucasoid not caucasian (whites). Whats ur full name, first and last name? And where were ur parents born? Asian2duracell 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to download pictures on Wikipedia, but check out these sites:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/zoom4.html--Bcr 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

I'm not interested in uploading pic by pic either. Thats why I made a link where u can download a bunch of pics. http://www.megaupload.com/de/?d=FJVMN2OU Please, this is about Dravdians in generell. Not Tribals and "Untouchables". Dont come with minorities, I dont want to say they aren't Dravidians because thats just a term for a group of languages. And never ever post again pics from afrocentric webpages.thx Asian2duracell 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the tribals and the "untouchables" are Dravidians. It's obvious that most dravidians are mixed with ayrans but the tribals and untouchables are the "real" dravidians. Dravidians were the original people of India, and so they had to look like Africans, because that's where they came from! End of discussion. Even if those are afrocentric articles, they prove that I am right!--Bcr 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

The original people of India are the Munda people. Who speak a AustroAsiatic language. Those people are the Tribals and "untauchables" YOU are talking about. And they are not releated to Dravdians. Dravidians are mixed themselve. Allmost everyone in India is a mix of Aryan-Dravidian. Most Darvidians are not Tribal or "Untouchable". So most Dravdians are not Africans. Actually not even 1% of Indians are African. Just few thousend living in Gujarat have African origin. The Real Dravidians once came from West-Iran and not Africa. But if u go back in history everyone is from Africa even the whitest European is African in that term. Look at the fukin pictures I posted. Those people are average Dravidians and noone of them looks "African", they all look pretty "Indian". U havnt proven shit. Why dont u print that picture of that kid on the Afrocentric website and go ask Indian people in the US, if they think that this kid looks Dravidian to them. Noone will say yes. I'm 100% sure, theyre going to say No.

Man sign ur post, is it that hard? Just use this sign without the dot in the middle (~~.~~). Asian2duracell 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever you say, I have proven one thing. And that is that most of the "untouchables" look black. And since untouchables and tribals are not respected by Indians because they look black, then I guess that India is a racist country. You still have not explained why all the bollywood actors look so light anyway!

--Bcr 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

Maybe India is a racist country. But I dont know all Indians to judge that. The exact number of pure "Original" inhabitants of early India is not known. Like I said most people in India are mixed, and so are the Tribals. Not every "Untouchable" is dark skinned, in that sense not all Brahmins are light skinned. But I would say most Indians, atleast the young ones, are against caste discrimination. The Bollywood actors are light skinned because the Indian cinema prefers light skinned people. At the beginning of Black/White Indian Cinema the actors were mostly fair skinned because they were more "visible" on the screen. Nowadays still fair skinned people are prefered. I dont know why but its the way it is. But India is not the only country which prefers light skinned actors. Most Asian and African countries do. Bollywood actors are not the fairest people in India there are many people who are much fairer ore even pale. Those actors will have skin colour like maybe Italians or Turks but not like AngloSaxons. Asian2duracell 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go with this mixed thing. What do you mean tribals are mixed! The tribal on the afrocentric website did not look mixed to me. Nor did the untouchable on the National Geographic site. By the way, you said that most actors in African Cinemas are light-skinned. How do you know? And if so, what African Countries? By the way, I have never seen a dark(black looking) brahmin at all, so all Brahmins are lightskinned. Besides, Bollywood actors are not the fairest people in India. They are the lightest people in India possible in General. There might be people in Northern India very pale, but that's because of their genetic background and history of invasions from Turks and Arabs and Greeks, but in general, most people in India are basically brown. Bollywood actors look "yellow!" If Indian actors look like Italians or Turks then that still is bad. That does not represent all of INDIA. Besides, the real issue here is this caste system thing. This racist system has been going on for 10,000 years! --Bcr 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

This person who always refuses to sign should be ignored!.You are certainly not an Indian leave alone Dravidian but you are pretenting to be.So please ignore this person and dont waste your time arguing with this very ignorent person.His only knowledge seems to be Indian/Bollywood cinema!.Ofcourse caste system is bad but nowadays people dont practice that in their day to day life.You are living in an illuminated world of yours and dont know about Indians or Indians lives.Morever what is the point inarguing about Indians in an Australoid page?.Can you pls tell me why on earth all the Blacks(africans) always try to strainghten their hair?.All the women like Operah winfray,Beyonce try to denegrofy themseleves??.Why dont You people be happy with your kinky hair and the black skin?.Certainly we are not bothered about that.Its up to each and every individual.So stop your nonsense and get out!. --Vandh 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, these arguments started on this Australoid page, becuase Dr. Coon(in this Australoid Article) believed that all or most Indians, including tribals and untouchables are caucasoid or related to caucasians and someone furthermore brought up the argument that Dravidians are also related to Caucasians, and I don't agree with that argument. If you read the article, you can see what Dr. Coon believed when it comes to all the people of the world. So here were are with a debate, and now you come......."YOU'RE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO GET OUT OF HERE"! You brought your racist self into this conversation. I was only having a simple debate with Asian2duracell. If we don't agree with certain things, fine, because at the end of the day, I'm sure we can learn from each other. What do you mean "blacks should be happy with kinky hair". Well East Indians need to be happy with themselves and not make people unseeable. I don't have to sign any post. I already have an account on Wikipedia. Besides, I am not ignorant, I'm just saying the truth. You East Indians have your so called racist caste system which is still practiced today. Since you have a message for blacks, then I have a message for East Indians. I'll tell you what you East Indians need to do. You East Indians need to stop the caste system and stop making people untouchable because they look black. And I have proof for this on this site: (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india4.html.) Any concerns? Besides, I've never seen a brahmin that looks black! They are all lightskinned and racist. --Bcr 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).---HAPPY NOW!

Thanks for a admitting that ur not "East"Indian. Ur not authentic anymore(u never was, u just proved it right now), because u first said ur Dravidian urself and now talk about "You" EastIndians. I think the discussion ends here.Asian2duracell 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only Brahmins but most of the Indians dont look black.You are proving your ignorance again and again.I feel sorry for you.Instead of reading only some afrocentric materials if you are that much interested pls take a flight and go to India and see it yourself.Youwill know if they look black or not!.Now your problem seems to be the caste system.FYI let me tell you that after Indepence 1947 the goverments gives more previleges(quota system) to the lower caste people and they are prospering more and more.(E.x)A lower caste person can get into a top Uni with 85% marks where as a upper caste person has to get 98%.This can also be called as reverse discrimination!.This applies to jobs as well.BTW No one in India treats a person based on the skin colour.This is the truth.In each and every family there is colour variations and it is very very common to have a dark skin sibbling and a very light skinned sibbling in the same family.You dont even know how a dravidians/Indian looks but you are saying that all brahmins are very light skinned.Again showing your ignorance.There are dark skinned bramins and there are light skinned lowe caste people.Except in some remote villages no one practices discrimination and it is not socially acceptable in India.There are upper casts other than brahmins.As you know Indian sub continent has a civilization running up to several million years and no one knows for sure which race they belong they have been mixing for thousand and thousand years.(You seems to be so keen on this race issue).I wasted my time here since I felt sorry for your ignorance. Anyway thanks for letting the cat out of the bag your self.You not an Indian( we are not east Indian but the Original Indian).indtead of wasting time here you better uplift your masses.--Vandh 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether I am Indian or not, what I said is still authentic. What I said is still the truth. And the conversation definitely does not end here, because I'm taking this out. And once again, the racist Vandh has something more to say: "Uplift the masses.".....The caste system is what needs to end, Asian2duracell, "not this conversation". I already proved why the caste system is racist based on the afrocentric site that I gave out above. Besides, the caste system still exists in many areas throughout India, so the Indian Government didn't really solve anything about the racist caste system. Furthermore, if you 2 are "original indians," then why are you defending east indians/ayrans. Aren't they the ones who enslaved you. According to the Ayran Invasion Theory, the first people in India were Dravidian/Santhal which are black people. Next the light-skinned people known as Ayrans(ancestors of East Indians) invaded and placed the Dravidans/Santhals at the bottom of the caste system as Untouchables and Unseeables. I have seen Indians three shades darker then me, and I think that is BLACK. Unfortunately, most of these dark people were made UNTOUCHABLE and UNSEEABLE by the Lighter skineed East Indians. By the way, you 2 are ignorant. And I definitely know what I am talking about. I'm not a dummy. I am a high honor student and I have been accepted to many universities in the United States, and I definitely have been uplifting my Black race which Mr. Vandh called "masses". Besides Vadh, you need to uplight your race and tell them to stop making people "unseeable." By the way, I hope you 2 understand that what you say will definitely dictate what I think about East Indians. I don't care what Vandh think about blacks, this conversation is about the racist Caste System. I have many ways to prove why I am right. All I need to do is show you some valid(real) sites: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/zoom4.html, http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india4.html. So try looking at these sites and understand that what you East Indians have done is an absolute abomination. By the way, even on Non-afrocentric articles, they prove that most people who are unseeable look black. And to be clear, I don't want to take a trip to India, Vandh, because it is a backward, ignorant, and racist country. If I go to India, the Indians might make me unseeable just for being black. If you are a so-called original indian(which I don't believe) you need to fight to end the caste system, that is, unless you are participating in it. --Bcr 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are unable to come out of your 'slave' mind.that is why you are thinking that lighter Indians have enslaved darker Indians.Did you know that south India is much more advanced than north India.South Indians will cut there bloody throat if you say that ligher Indians are superior to them.Dravidians have long established dynasty/civilization and they were not slaves to any.It is bloody insulting for me being a dravidian to say that we were enslaved. You are not only ignorant but also an idiot.Dravidians are not UNTOUCHABLES.Dravidians are not lower caste either.Did you get that you moron.You africans are the peple who were being enslaved not Dravidians.Dont bring your stupid Rcaist Ideas wit us.Keep it to yourself.You say you are a high achiving student but you yourself have proved that you area liar.My conversation end here since I dont want to contine with Liars and Idiots. --Vandh 08:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I not against Dravidians. I am FOR Dravidians. That's why I think India is RACIST, because it discriminates against people who look black in India. Dravidians, including Untouchable and Tribals are BLACK people. That's why I think that the "Caste system" is racist, becuase most of the people who are untouchable or unseeable look black, and this was caused by the racist lighter skinned indians. So don't try to alter what I am saying here. Look at the things I discussed above, you will discover that I am FOR the Dravidians, not against them. Why would I say that India is a racist country and turned around and say that Dravidians are inferior? I know well that the Dravidians built the Indus Valley Civilization and all the early Indian kingdoms, and they a were and are BLACK. --Bcr 10:59, 17 February 2007

Black People havent built any shit in India. Indians built the Indus Valley Civ. and not u Black people. Dont beg for recognition, and dont try to steal our culture, do something to get it. Why is it that Black people complaining about any thing but dont do shit.... Dont come with Dravdians are enslaved by Aryans. Dravdians are not slaves to anyone, and we never were. "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are of the same fuckin Race, if race mattters that much for you. Both are Mediterranean Caucasoid. Like Italians or Turks mentioned before, so its not wrong to look like a Italian for a Bollywood actor. You want to say that I'm of a different Race than my brother because I'm darker than him or otherwise? Indians have dark and light skinned siblings in allmost every family, UpperCast or LowerCast or even ur "Untouchables". You ignorant fuckin Racist bitch. Take a trip to India or talk to Indians than reffering to afrocentric shit. Just because ur accepted by many universities (which I doubt, by reading ur comments) doesnt mean U know everything about Indians. Asian2duracell 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all Paul B, you have no right to erase my text for abusive language, because Asian Duracell and Vandh have also used abusive language too! You just want to erase my stuff because you don't agree with my opinion. What about Asian Duracell, he called me a racist bitch. Isn't that abusive, Paul B. Besides, look at what they have said. They have been more abuseful than me. And Anyway, you don't own wikipedia. If you erase my text again, I will erase the text of Vandh and Asian Duracell, because they have been very abuseful in their language too! And Don't even try to act like you don't know that Asian Duracell and Vandh have been saying! Don't touch my shit again Paul B, becuase you're just disagreeing with my opinion. If you erase my shit, then erase what user:AsianDuracell and user:vandh talk about, because they also use abusive language and "racist" language. YOU ARE NOT BEING FAIR HERE! GET OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION! --Bcr 09:12, 17 February 2007

Long time ago that I have read such shit in one comment. So first of all HAAAHAAA!!! I dont have to care about black people, they can look for themselve. You should get off ur slave mentality,.... "oh the bad light skinned man, destroyed everything darker skinned did". Whats wrong with u? Thats racist, u judge people by their skin colour. Not every one with darker skin coulour get opressed by their lighter skinned counterparts. Just because u Black people get fucked by Whites. Hell how hard is that to understand that there was no Aryan invasion. What the fuck is an Aryan.. there is no such thing as an Aryan. Aryan means noble, everyone can be noble who lives noble. Do you want to deny that Arabs/Jews and Europeans are two different Races because they speak languages which are not related to each other. U know what, all of them fall into the "White" category in the US. Whats the big thing with who built the Indus Valley CIV. Noone in Inda cares about that. We INDIANS built that. Indians are Indians and not Dravidians or Aryans. Noone identifies himself as a Dravidian. If u were one u would know it. As much as noone identifies himself as an Aryan. "Aryans" are not racist towards "Dravidians" u stupid American. An "Aryan" would rather marry a "Dravidian" than a White or Black or Chinese person. Because we both share same culture, values and heritage. So would "Dravidians" rather marry an "Aryan" than a Black person. But what do we care about who marries who, let it be their problem. There are by far more "Untouchable" Aryans than there are "Untouchable" Dravidian in India. Ur not FOR Dravidians ur FOR BLACKS. And we are NOT Black people. Ur the one who is unsecure about his heritage. Yes u ARE Racist, because u say everyone with dark skin is Black (of African origin). And ur racist, calling India a racist country. U show how narrow minded Americans are. U people in the NewWorld should learn more about the world. I hope u know that the so called Dravidians are far more racist towards Black people than those Aryans u hate so much. I talk by experience, because I know my people.

I know many Dravidians who know that they are Black and know that their ancestors are from Africa ........ Am I supposed to believe that? How are those "Dravians" called? Jamal and Leroy or Shiquanda...haha. I know by far more Dravidians who call themselve Indians and see their "Aryan" cohabitor as the same people. U dont have to tell us who we are, we know that. Asian2duracell 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You people keep making racist comments towards black people. But go ahead, because you are only proving to me more and more that India is a racist country. If you have a problem with America, then why don't you come to the US and talk on "CNN"! As far as I am concerned, forget about Dravidians and Ayrans, all I know is that the caste system discriminates against people who have dark skin. If you along with your other stupid dravidians friends don't believe the caste system is racist, I DON'T CARE. I guess you 2 have low self esteem. And by the way, I don't care if you think you are black or not, and I don't care what low-self esteem Dravidians like you or racist ayrans think about their race or blacks, I'm just speaking the truth about how racist the Caste System is. India is RACIST, the CASTE SYSTEM is racist and that's all I have to say. If you 2 clowns along with your other stupid dravidian and ayran friends alike don't think that the original people of India were black, and don't believe that Caste System is prejudice, then forget you all. I'm just giving my opinion on the idea that most people who are untouchable look black. Even if Dravidians don't agree with me, then I still don't care anyway. I don't care what you say that dumb Dravidians or ayrans or Indians believe, it does not matter to me. Besides, the more crap you 2 say, the more you prove that I am right that India is once again a racist country.....especially when you 2 talk about Blacks. At least Blacks are proud of who they are. So let me make this clear, I not really for any Indian, Aryan or Dravidian anymore, I'm just voicing concern that the caste system is RACIST and therefore India is RACIST. As far as I am concerned, you 2 are slaves yourselves. All this junk you 2 say does not make any damn sense. Like I said a billion times, and as said in history books like encycyolpedias, Dravidians, along with santhals were the original people of India who built all those kingdoms that you racist Indians(dravidians or ayrans) don't care about. If I talked to a real black untouchable he or she would probably agree with me. But the only reason why you 2 kids keep getting mad is because you know that I am "RIGHT"! You 2 know DAMN WELL that I am telling the truth and therefore, I am shocking you. You guys are also getting mad, because you 2 yourselves discriminate against black untouchables. So keep talking about blacks, because you only prove that India is racist, because when you talk about Blacks, you are also talking about Untouchables and Unseeables and "some" dravidians. But overall, I have learned the plan of the stupid Dravidians and Ayrans alike. Their plan is the shut the untouchables and tribals up and make them inferior, but in the future, some things may change. Their plan is also to make them socially inadequate since they made them unseeable. INDIA IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN RACIST BECAUSE OF THE CASTE SYSTEM! --Bcr 7:56, 18 February 2007

I am certainly not against black or the untouchables.I was offended because someone tried to drag in Dravidians with blacks(africans) which they dont belong. No one likes to be called with someother name which they dont belong.Anyway I am happy that you have atlast come to know that Dravidians are not blacks. If you feel India is a Racist country then you are free to feel so.Caste system is very bad but as I have told you earlier except in some remote villages no one practises that now.If you are keen on this caste issue then go to the caste page and brag about it there.We certainly have gone off topic.BTW You are shouting as if caste system is only in India it is well and truely practised by you blacks see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_Africa Instead of clearing other peoples mess pls clear your mess. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste#Caste_system_among_Hindus and you will understand the misconception you have.Also see the caste system in Pakisthan and Srilanka and you will also know more. You must KNOW before you point your fingers at others.Anyway Lets stop This RACE thing. User:Vandh|Vandh]] 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally he get it.. Dravidians are Not black. The caste system is not racist, damn how hard is that to understand. Just read the second article and u will know it. Even though Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Its better than that afrocentric crap. I'm not against Black people, when did I said that. But u sure are against Indians, u call us all racist, dumb and whatever... now thats what I call a racist. Those "untouchable" are not of a different race. "Untouchables" in NorthIndia are "Aryans", and in SouthIndia are "Dravidians". Maybe some tribals are of a different race but they aint African they are of AustroAsitic heritage. Just the Siddhis in Gujarat are of direct EastAfrican heritage. And the Natives of Andaman & Nikobar are. Haha about the Tribals built the Kingdoms of ancient India, well why are they now Tribals if they once were so powerful? Just narrowminded people in some rural area treat people of a diffrent caste different. No one else cares about caste, or let me say, noone has time to care about nonesense. I dont even know how my own caste is called, now u know how much I care about that issue. But I'm sorry for the people who worry about others jatis. Ur right the caste system must be banned. But you should take care of urself then intervene in Indias issues. But I'm glad that u just get it that Dravidians are not Black. Asian2duracell 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean. I'M saying dravidians look black because of skin color. I'm not saying that they are african, I just saying that they are balck, because they share the same skin color with people in India. --Bcr 7:56, 19 February 2007

"Untouchables in North India are Aryans, and in South India are "Dravidians." What are you talking about Mr. Duracell? You 2, Mr. Vandh and Mr. Duracell, have never made any sense in this conversation. You guys make up everyting. I've never read in any almanac or dictionary or anywhere where it speaks of Untouchables in North India being Aryans or tribals of India being Austro-Asitic. What is that? Do you mean Austro-Asiatic? I did read that all humans originated from Africa and that the Untouchables and tribals, who were the first people of India were among the closest descendants of the Africans because of their skin pigmentation

Before we contine further can you explain us why Tutsis are massacaring Hutus?. why are you treating 'OSUS' as untouchables?.why are u blacks treating Jaam,Neenos as Sub-humans?.what is the problem with you BLACKS?.STOP THIS DISCRIMINATION ONCE AND FOR ALL YOU BLACKS!!!!.Why is that all your Black men go behind Non-black women???.Why do you Black Americans treat African blacks diffrently???. What is wrong with you people????.--Vandh 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone on making this page the winner of the Talkpage Most Totally Unrelated to the Topic of the Article award. Paul B 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who were watching this conversation. Asian2duracell 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not us, its you who makes no sense brother. Skin colour has nothing to do with race, u even explained it man. Skin colour is an adaption to climate. SouthIndians are generally darker than NorthIndians because SouthIndia is hotter. You dont understand the conception of Aryan and Dravidian. These notions are just linguistic. So Northern Untouchables are Aryan... because they speak an Aryan language. And Southerns are Dravidian, because they speak a Dravidian language. Dont refer to statements which were made in the colonial era. http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Freiherr_von_Eickstedt Here, now you can read about Mediterranean Caucasoids. Look at the map. I havnt made it.. So I'm not the only one who knows the truth. Dravidians are not out of one single race. Nor are Aryans. Those are just linguistic terms... get it, or stop discussing. Thats basic knowledge to talk about this issue. Dravidians are not a mix of Aryans and Natives. Dravidians have an independent migration. They once came from nowadays Western Iran. Some of those Proto-Dravidians mixed with Aryans some with Austro ASIATICS and some with Tibeto-Mongoloids. A Dravidian is not more or less related to Africans than an Aryan, an Asian or an European is. When I say BLACK, I look at it as the darkness of SKIN PIGMENTATION. Now you come with new difinitions. Black is someone who is of recently african descent. So Indians arent. Else half of the human population will be Black the others will be White. What if someone does category people with straight hairs as one race. Or if someone goes with the height, or whatever. A little bit immature ur deifnitions. In India today, the tribals are not a part of Hinduism and are not a part of Indian Society but they face discrimination. GO to India u dumb fucker. Those Untouchables have much more rights than i.e Brahmins, because goverment decided that way. Tribals are not that much part of Indian society because they wanted to keep their identity. Question... How much are Native Americans part of Christianity?

Ur an American, do u think we believe that u have knowledge of the history of another country, seriously? There are much more problems ur BLACK PEOPLE in africa have to resolve. Go care about UR PEOPLE, we take care of ours. Look at the fuckin caste system in Africa. Why do Blacks treat other Blacks so badly in some African countries?.. answer that. are they two different races? God damn its like talking to a little child....Asian2duracell 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You still have not explained to me why untouchables and unseeables are the darkest in skin color when compared to the rest of the Indian population! --Bcr 11:56, 20 February 2007

No that is not correct.Some Untouchables in the North India are lighter than the upper castes of the south.But if you still want to say they are 'darker' than the usual population then it is because of the Hard conditions they live in.They are the people who have toilied(for generations) in the hard/hot environment and naturally they become darker.(Undertsand that most of the Indian population is Brown not White!!!). Pls understand that "Race has a biological connotation whereas caste is a socio-cultural construct. It is obvious that like any other caste conglomeration, the dalits(Untouchables) of different regions of India cannot be seen as of one race". Even your famous Afrocentricts Rushidi has stated that

 "I’ve given the impression that Dalits are Black people.

Dalits, I now find, are a social and economic group, more than a racial group. the connections between Africans and Dalits “go beyond phenotype.”.

 The real essence of this kinship(Africans and Untouchables) is its social heritage of slavery; the discrimination and insult.

Beteille, who has made a significant contribution to the study of caste in India, told Frontline: "There is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity in the Indian population. That does not mean that there are moderately identifiable races in India. Attempts have been made in the past also to divide the Indian population on the basis of race but they have ended in total failure. Thus, there are no satisfactory arguments that race is relevant to India. The argument that there is racial diversity in India falls on its face on these grounds. I agree there is an enormous amount of class- and caste-based discrimination in India but it is wrong to say that there is racial discrimination." .I hope your doubts are cleared now!. --Vandh 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, before I go on with untouchables, I want to address the ignorant questions asked by Mr. Vandh. Mr Vandh says that Tutsis are massacering Hutus, wherelse its the other way around. Its the Hutus "Vandh" that are massacering the Tutsis. Hutu extremists tried to exterminate the Tutsis in 1994, so in return Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutu extremist government and decided to set up a new government to ensure peace between Hutus and Tutsis. Vandh asks why Black men go behind white women?! Well that is a racist comment on your behalf Vandh and you have proven how ignorant you are. But anyway, there will be no more talk about Africa in this conversation, because I talk about Africa on other articles Vandh. The only reason why I want to argue on this article is because of the belief Dr. Coon made that most Indians including untouchabeles and tribals, are related to Caucasians and are a part of the european family. I'm not concerned about other Indians, but I think that since most untouchables are dark in skin color, they may not necessarily be in the same category with caucasians. The tribals were the indigenous people of India who were dark skinned and who were subjected by lighter skinned Dravidians and Aryans that placed them at the bottom of a caste system. These subjected tribals later became the ancestors of the untouchables. That's why untouchables should be classified into a different race. Most untouchables or dalits "look" like Black people. I don't believe that black necessarily has to be associated with African, because although Mr. Duracell states that what I say about the Ayran Invasion theory is a concept of the colonial era, the idea of black being african is also a concept of the colonial era. And by the way, no more foul language Vandh and Duracell! Africa has no caste system. Africa just has ethnic divisions that were mostly caused by the Europeons like the Tutsi and Hutu. The tutsi and hutu once lived together in peace untill the Belgians colonized and divided them. But like I said, I don't want to discuss Africa. If you want to talk on the Rwanda article, you can, but stop trying to alter the direction of this conversation with nonsense. Why can't you just come out clear and say the truth? Why do you have to get upset if you know you are right? And why do you along with Mr. Duracell talk about things such as the racist comments that you made towards Black people that are totally unrelated to the ignorance of India's caste system? Are you trying to avoid talking about the Caste system?--Bcr 12:56, 22 February 2007

And you still have not answered the question why "most" of the people at the bottom of the caste system in India are dark in skin color. Even if you believe that untouchables are a part of the same race with Aryans and Dravidians, they still are darker in skin color and they still are at the bottom of the caste system. --Bcr 12:56, 22 February 2007

He answered ur question, why Dalits are darker than CastePeople. Because they were forced to do work under hot sun. For generations and hundreds of years. Because Intercaste marriage was not that common some generations ago, the descendant of the dalits inherited the darker skin. And the Uppercaste became fairer in skin colour. But there are various Dalits in North India who are fairer in skin colour than som uppercaste SouthIndians because the south is hotter. I dont think u know enough Indians to say that Dalits are darker tahn average Indians. They are at the bottom of the castesystem because they are "untouchables", which isbullshit anyway, but not because they were of a different race.Asian2duracell 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have explained to clearly in my last message.Anyway, FYI Nowadays there are so many polished well educated dalits and if you meet them you wont be able to find any diffrenece between them and other 'Caste ' Indians.B.R.Ambedkar is a well educated well known Dalit (Untouchable) and he has fought for there upliftment.Have a look at his pic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.R._Ambedkar and Srivas Ramanujam is a well known Mathamaticain who is a south Indian Brahmin and he is of dark complexion.Have a look at his photo here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan I dont need to explain to you more.The tribals or the forest dwellers that you watch in the National geographic channels have been isolated from the main stream.It is wrong to say all the untochables look like them.Caste system 'Class' based unlike Racisim. In Hinduhism the Supreme god of the Aryans is Lord Vishnu who is always depicted as Dark skinned.His avatahars(incarnations) like Rama,Krrishna are dark skinned with sharp features and long hair(dont try to claim him a black :)).In mahabartha and Ramanaya(Aryan epics) each family had dark sibblings as well as light skinned sibblings. Rama was dark his brother laksmana was light skinned.I think Ihave explained to you more than enough.--Vandh 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Vandh Duracell, if you say that Dalits "inherited" dark skin then why are they still untouchable? You make it seem like they started out light-skinned and that they came outside in the hot sun and were darker over many years.......That's rubbish! What you just said Vandh Durcacell is once again FALLACY. I can see the point that Vandh is making a little because most of the Indian population is indeed mixed because of the intermarrying between the indigenous people of India who were dark-skinned and the Indians who invaded India that were light-skinned. So naturally, some indians might have the dark-skinned genes in them to have light-skinned and dark skinned kids. Most of India's population is mixed and that is about 65%. However, there still are the tribals and the untouchables which are a small minority that retain features much like their dark ancestors 2,000 years ago. As I have now said trillions of times, and as proven in history books, the first people of India were dark-skinned tribals who built many civilizations. They were already dark Duracell. Its just just that they were subjected by the light-skinned Aryans. By the way, I disagree with the idea that Dravidians come from Western Iran or whatever you 2 said about them. There are many books that I have read such as the 2006 Almanac that have stated that Dravidians were the original people of India and were invaded by the Ayrans. But anyway, I'm not concerned about the dravidians. Before I said that Draividians were the same race with untouchables and tribals, but you guys kept cussing racist profanity against blacks so I stopped because I didn't want to have someone's feelings hurt because of your hatred for blacks. But for some reason, with some of the books that I have read "recently", it is becoming clear to me that I was, have been, and always will be right. You guys keep saying you hate blacks, but it is now clear to me that you two, whether it is regarding tribals, untouchables, or even dravidians; don't want admit that in India, some people look "black." I believe they are black, becuase it is my opinion that black does not mean African, but you guys have an opinion so we should not make that an issue. However, without my opinions on the black issue, I've read real history books such as Almanacs and Encyclopedias that have proven me to be correct when it comes to other "non-opinionated" things that I have discussed in this conversation with Vandh and Duracell who are probably the most impulsive and racist people in the world. I don't know what you guys have read, but I want one thing to happen: I want Duracell to show me the proof or provide an article or something that states that Dalits started out light skinned and became darker becuase of exposure to the hot sun. If you say that the Dalits were forced to do work under the hot sun Duracell, then who "forced" them to do it? Is it the Dalits? I think not! You prove me right on this topic Duracell, because if you say that the Dalits were forced to work hundreds of years ago, then it had to have been the light-skinned Aryans who invaded "hundreds of years ago" that were responsible.................There are sculptures in temples of gods in "Southern" India with "negro" features! Something is not right here, so Vandh Duracell, you 2 have officially not proven anything to me because you both are wrong "most" of the time and make up everything. I take my facts from "real" history books; you guys probably get your facts from racist articles or racist India extremists or maybe even "yourselves". With all these hate you 2 have for blacks, you 2 probably have the same hate for people who look black in India "too!" I may of given out the Afrocentric site, but even that site is valid becuase the former untouchable man on that article is "physically" speaking out against the racism of the Caste System. But then again, even without the Afrocentric Article, the Article that I had on National Geographic shows untouchables or dalits with dark complexions, so you guys are wrong? I'm sorry, but everything you 2 say is "mostly" made up. And once again Vandh Duracell had to cuss. Can't you 2 read the headlines at the top of this article? No more foul language. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! These are the articles once again:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/zoom4.html, http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india4.html. --Bcr 03:17, 24 February 2007--Bcr 11:56, 17 February 2007

Vandh and Duracell who are probably the most impulsive and racist people in the world..... wow u must live in a wonderful world if we both are the most racist people u came across.hahaaahaa

Well its not about ur definitions on who is black. Its about the inetrnationally accepted definitions. Which is, Black people are of recently Sub-Saharan African origin. I never said Dalits were light skinned. They may be "lighter" in skin colour and get darker. But what colour is light skinned? is Halle Barry light skinned, or is Nicole Kidman? Dalit were forced to do such work from UpperCaste Hindus, "Aryans" or "Dravidians". I dont know why they become untouchable, neither do you. Actually noone knows it exactly, there might be some theories but none of them are proven correctly. "Dravidians" are not indigenous people of the Subcontinent, neither were they black. Dravidians came from nowadays Western Iran. But that does not mean they are the same people ase the modern day Iranians. "Aryans" came from the same area but just some 1000 years later. Todays India is too much mixed to say who is how much Dravidian and who is how much Aryan. The mixture between Indians is not Black/White ore Black/Asian or White/Asian, it was an interasian mix. Aryans are WesternAsians and so are the Dravidians. So still most Indians are "Caucasoid", get of the conception of Caucasoid means European. Who says that the books u read are true. Afrocentric is not the "truth", its like Eurocentric absolutly bullshit.

There are sculptures in temples of gods in "Southern" India with "negro" features!..... well. I'm myself are a "Dravidian" because my mother tongue is Tamil. I cant remember of one of such sculptures. But I've been to several temples with sculptures with "Caucasoid" features. "Dravidians" are not indigenouse to India. Dravidians are one of the first "Invaders" of India. Get it. Or just visit India than talking nonesense. Even the so called Dalits will see u as Black and themselve as Indians. Some Dalits started calling themselve black out of the dalit liberation movement. But that doesnt mean they ARE black. Everyone is able to see the difference between Indians and Blacks, except of you. Why is it for you such a problem if Indians want to be Indians? Why do you talk about Dravidians even though u dont know what that term means? Do some serious researches if u want to discuss or let it be. U became more racist and ignorant by every comment u make. Asian2duracell 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, its my opinion, so don't make it an issue. I didn't say that some dravidians and some dalits look black as a way of saying that they are african, I'm saying they look black because some of them share a similar skin color with people from Africa. It just an opinion, not a fact from a book or something so stop trying to make it an issue because you seem to avoid other things that I talk about that I actually got from books. I want you to answer this question and provide evidence from a history book or almanac or encyclopedia. Give me the evidence where it says that Dalits started out light-skinned hundreds of years ago and became darker becuase they were forced to work in the hot sun. I want you two to show me evidence, give me a real history book or something. But anyway, on the original people of India issue, I have read countless books that say that the original people were darkskinned dravidians and the aryans, who invaded in 1500 B.C., conquered the Dravidians and forced many to Southern India where they are today. Apparently some of these Dravidians were subjected and made to be at the bottom of a caste system. Others retained their culture and were isolated and became the ancestors of tribals which are quite simply dravidians who resisted. Others just simply adopted India's culture. Don't ridicule what I say, becuase what I say comes from Almanac 2000 and Almanac 2006. I mean, there's a book in my own school library that says that Dravidians were the first people of India and they were dark-skinned and invaded by the the light-skinned Aryans. I took a whole course on Asian Studies that said had the same fact. You 2 still have not proven anything. And if you 2 want me to show you the evidence, I'll give you the book and the publishing company. And by the way, if I ever said anything to change my mind about this Dravidian black issue. I take that back. The bottom line is that the original people of India were dark-skinned Dravidians who built the Indus Valley Civilization. Some Dravidians resisted and became tribals. Others fled to Southern India where there are many there today. Others were subjected by the lighter skinned aryans and were placed at the bottom of the caste system as untouchables and unseeables. That's the truth, and I can prove that in many books. I say that I think that some dravidians, including untouchables and tribals are BLACK because some have dark skin color similar to people in Africa-that's all. I'm not directly saying they are african. Besides, after you 2 find evidence for my question, I still want to know why India mistreates people who have dark skin, becuase most of the untouchables have dark skin and most of the tribals banned from India also have dark skin. So I want to take back the statement I made that Dravidians are not black. I only said that because you 2 kept barking racial slurs against african-americans when I said that Dravidians are black in my opinion. What I said is my opinion and that is final. But answer those questions. --Bcr 01:59, 25 February 2007

You can say whatever you want for your own likes and dislikes!.But what is Correct and what is not correct matters.If you say all the dark skinned people are blacks then all the light skinned are 'Whites' that includes Chinese,Japanes,Koreans!!.Dont you think your statement is a bit of INSANE!!. FYI so many people belive that Blacks(Africans) are an intemediate between Apes and Humans.So since some believe like that you mean it should be accepted?. Caucosoids doesnt mean 'White' Skinned.Hope you get the correct definition for that.Many Dravidians/Indians do posses dark skinned so what??.That doesnt mean they are Blacks.That was all the argument was about but you still want to start from ZERO. Your statment There are sculptures in temples of gods in "Southern" India with "negro" features!..... HAHAHHAAH if you scroll up in this talk page there was another afrocentric like you who claimed Buddha was negroid!!!.What is wrong with you people?.The temple sulptures were engraved in 'karunkal' whichmeans 'BLACK ROCK '(black granite)in tamil.Which is very strong and cannot destryed by natural calamities.Just because it was engraved in a 'Black rock' you try to claim it Black.I have lived most of my life in south India and I havent seen ant sculptues with negorid featues.Without exception all the sculptues have Long Hair(you africans cant grow your hair for more thatn few centimeters NATURALLY!!!!) and all the sculptues have sharp nose,and thin lips(Dont know about the skin color).Even in anciant dravidians scriptures Lord Shiva's Long tresees (hair) swings when he does his cosmic dance.The dravidian god Murugan is said to have light skin with Thin pink lips.These are from very anciant scriptures!!!!.

I never said Untouchables possed light skinned and they became darker later.

I said they look darker beacuse of the Hard contions they were set to.The caste system originated based on the Occupation.People who did 'Dirty' jobs like cleaning the 'Night' soil,killing animals,Scavangers,Buried the dead were the people who were untouchables.In the anciant times people were able to switch the 'Caste' once they did'nt do these.I also know the 'History' that you have sited and it is true that Dravidans came before the Aryans.There were Austro-Asiatic(Austrloids) people also at that time.they were forest dwellers or Tribals. I dont think it was 'COLOR' based at that time since there are so mnay evidence to say that 'Dark' skinned people where placed in 'Higher' possisions during the very anciant times.Like I have mentioned Krishna,Vishnu.Even King Manu who is said have formed the Indian people is said to be a Dravdidian and the greatest (Aryan) worriar ARJUNA is said to posses Dark skin.So it is very wrong to say it was 'COLOR' biased like America!!!!.Even today people prefer light skinned(Not white but light brown) Only in a 'Beauty' aspect(Your bollywood problem!!)even in movie Industry south Indian film actress like Rekha who has darker complexion compared to other bollywood actrees was considered the most beautiful woman. People mistreating peoplle based on Skin color is ABSOLUTLY wrong.I have given enough evidence in my previous posts to show why it is very wrong.Finally dont start everything again from ZERO.If you think you can call any people with any term then it is expected that you should also Tolerate any one who calls you with any other term.Even it is right or wrong!!! --Vandh 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I forgot your statemnt Dravidians did'nt come from western Iran so where did the come from?.From Africa that is what you want to say.So did they take a Flight and landed staright in India? withount touching central Asia?.--Vandh 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I forgot one thing a foreigner is aslo considered and Untouchable in the caste system.In most temples they dont allow a foreigner to enter inside.Even a White is considered an untouchable and normally they are not allowed.You must be very happy now:).This is because they would have eaten non-veg food,whould'd have had a bath and wont follow the sanctity of the temple.--Vandh 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not about how u call people mister. Do call EastAsians, white? Or DO you call Light skinned Italians white and darker skinned italians Black? I guess No. So whats ur problem with Indians. Yes most Indians have darker skin colour. But most are not as dark as Afircans. The physical features are very different between Blacks and Indians. Indians are even closer in term of looks to SouthEastAsians than to Africans. Who told you that people with darker skin get treated worst in India? That Almanac? Do you think a mother will treat her darker child different than her lighter child? The Dravidian thing.... well why are u arguing if u havent even met one "Dravidian" in real life. Probably u've met many, but thought they were "Aryans". Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans, are all the same people. Even if they speak a Aryan or Dravidian Language. I'm myself Tamil (Dravidian). I was mistaken as one of each of this countrymen above. Bengalis thought I'm Bengali (Aryans), Pakis thaught I'm Pakistani (Aryans), Sri Lankans thought Im Lankan ( Aryans and Dravidians/ Singhalese and Tamil). But most people Asian, White or Black think I'm Indian. Most dont even know that there exist 2 main Languagefamilies ((in ur term Races)) in SouthAsia. But they see... we all look alike. ( Even if it sounds a little bit racist). There is an independent Indian identity, so we dont need UR BLACK Identity. People see us as Indians. And we see us as Indians and not as "Aryans" or "Dravidians". Asian2duracell 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is not a Race and Dravidian is not a Race.Black is a Race and White is Race Pls see http://www.indiaforum.org/india/hinduism/aryan/page18.html and you will know there is no such aryan/dravidian divide in India.It is you Black or White who is so keen to divide Not the Indians.So keep out your Racisits ideas once and for all.--Vandh 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in Sri Lanka, The Sinhalese are mistreating the tamils there. In general, the Tamils there are darker than the Sinhalese. So, the Sinhalese Government in Sri Lanka is very racist, and that's why some Tamils are fighting back. Overs the years, the Sinhalese Government has killed millions of Tamils. Apparently, India supports the racist Sinhalese Government, so that proves that the governments of India and Sri Lanka are racist. Furthermore, I still want to get the evidence from a historical book where it says that Dalits started out light-skinned and became darker because of exposure to the sun! And by the way, I would not say that Chinese and other East Asians are white, because these 2 groups are totally unrelated. I would not say that italians are black either. Are you blind? Becuase there are some people in India who live under hard conditions who have a dark complexion similar to blacks. I would say that Chinese are related to Vietnamese, and Italians and Greeks are related to Spaniards and arabs, but I'm not that stupid to say that Chinese are white. And by the way, you don't know anything about me. So I suggest you think before you talk! You keep trying to be nationalistic as if everyone in India is the same wherelse there are thousands of ethnic groups. India might be under one flag but there are some physical and cultural differences among the people in India. Besides, before the british came to India, India wasn't even one country. There were separate kingdoms in Southern India and Eastern and Northern India. The British made it one country by siding with some tribes and making them fight others. Eventually, with this technique, they were able to get all of India. You keep acting like a little boy with your racist statments and all the crap about what you think I would do about this or that! If a parent has a dark skinned and light skinned child, I don't don't give a damn or care what the fricken parent would do to either. It doesn't make a difference. What makes a difference is that you are lying about everything, you are not answering my questions, and you make racist comments. For all I care, you can join the damn KKK. To be honest with you, I don't give a damn. And I really am not going to remember everything you say because all you are doing is twisting this damn conversation! As far as I am concerned, I don't hate everyone. I am black, and I am proud to be black. I know that there are blacks in the world that are light-skinned and dark-skinned so don't try to say that I hate anything light-skinned. All I am saying is that India discriminates against people with darker complexions. You need to stop pulling in Africa into this conversation. At least blacks, whether light-skinned or dark, respect each other! They don't have any stupid caste system like Indians. There might be some conflicts like the Hutu and Tutsi but these 2 ethnic groups were divided because of the Europeans who made them fight each other. Otherwise, most tutsi and hutu live together in peace. But in case of India, the British never told India to have a racist caste system, because India has had it all along! If Blacks may engage themesleves in nonsense, the reason would be that some blacks simply have low self-esteem. However, this racist caste system in India is a social and physical handicapp. --Bcr 01:59, 28 February 2007

[edit] Adding Feb

Again and again you a showing your ignorance.What do you know about Srilankan problem to talk about it here?.Who said Singalese are lighter than the tamils?. You assumed that they are lighter because they speak an aryan language?. Singalese eventhough they speak a aryan language the generel population is darker than the general population of south India.This is a fact.Go and have a look if you want to.This is another classical exapmle of the people getting darker because of the geographical posoition.Here you can see the so called Aryans are darker than the So called dravidians!!!!.But darker or lighter singalese and tamils look the same. The problem in SL is NOT RACIAL it is just like your hutus and tutsis fighting each other.It is a ETHINICAL violance.It is Minority versus Majority!!!.Even during the civil war lots of tamils pretented as singales and vice versa to escape.They can only identify when they open their mouth.That is when they start talking!!!!.They speak 2 diffent languages thats all!!!!.Did'nt you see my earlier posts???.You are asking again and again why untouchables became darker from lighter.As I am telling for the 100th time that caste syatem was occupation based.may be people who were well off might have been able to choose good looking spouses! and where as the ones who did 'DIRTY' jobs could'nt do so!.You black americans look better than your counterparts in Africa.Why it is that?.You are living in better conditions than your counterparts in africa but both of you belong to the same race.If you want ask me again and agin scroll up the archive one and look into my earlier posts.--Vandh 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you must have this idiotic debate can you do so on a relevant page? Paul B 01:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry!.I got pissed off with this Bcr who always asks idiotic questions. Can you pls ask him to stop!.I dont know how many ignorant afroctrics I have to encounter in my Life!!!:(.yes I have had enough!!!--Vandh 01:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Brother Bcr I have given enough evidence to show that there is no color/race bias is Indian subcontinent but if you still feel otherwise then it is up to you!!!. Wish you all the best for a bright future.Looking at any person based on a racial term is very wrong thats what I feel at the end of the day.We are all but one race the Human race!!!.Anyway we have 'entertained' people like Paul B!!! --Vandh 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You still need to give me evidence from a history book or article where is says that Dalits started out light-skinned and were dark because they were exposed to the sun. By the way, I am not your brother. And I want the evidence not from your mouths but from a book or article. And don't try to talk about Africa to avoid the question. If not, then you guys have officially not influenced me! --Bcr 01:59, 29 February 2007

What are you talking about millions of tamils get murdered. Actually there are only 3 millions and "only" 60000 to 80000 people died in the Sri Lankan ethnic war. Who told you that Singhalese are in generall lighter? Singhalese and Tamils look all the same. Most people wont be able to tell who is Singhalese and who is Tamil, even most Sri Lankans cant. India didnt support the SL Gov. They first even supported the LTTE. But after Rajiv Ghandi was killed they turned down their support. Dont talk BS if u dont know anything about that Issue. Your ignorance is bloody. No one of us ever said that Dalits were once light skinned. They may be a few shades "lighter". But that doesnt mean they were light skinned.Asian2duracell 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Australoid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Infraglabellar

[edit] "Black"

[edit] Dravidians

[edit] Dravidians aren't Australoids

[edit] Indians are a mix

[edit] Genetically least realted to negroids?

[edit] Caucasoid

[edit] Adding Feb

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search