Posted: Sat 08 Mar 2008 09:45 Post subject: East Asians are ...
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
Posted: Fri 21 Mar 2008 12:04 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
msmochachina wrote:
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
Posted: Fri 21 Mar 2008 14:01 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
anonymouse wrote:
msmochachina wrote:
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
It is?
I don't know how the moderators missed this claim by msmochachina. It seems very strange. Msmochachina should please provide a source.
msmochachina if East Indians descend from Scandinavians, than why is it that from an eyeballing standpoint the phenotype of East Indians is easily distinguishable from that of Scandinavians ?
it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians
but she was probably just jesting!
It was probably a test but here is a link from The Hindu, an English language newspaper about a racist attack in Germany where Indians were chased by a gang of 50 Germans and beaten!
Maybe the German gang was expressing solidarity with their Nordic brethren from India! Just guessing here as I am just relying on the above statement assertion!
Posted: Fri 21 Mar 2008 21:20 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
msmochachina wrote:
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
Hi, it would help others to follow your train of thought if you hit the quote button, if replying to a particular individual. Other than that your making a general statement or that message is 'Do your homework' is directed at everyone.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sat 22 Mar 2008 19:07 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
msmochachina wrote:
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
Unless msmochachina stated this in jest (which I would ask her to admit to), I second Frank's request for a source. The claim of an Aryan invasion into India is controversial, but nowhere have I ever seen any claim that any invading peoples were Scandinavians.
Posted: Thu 18 Sep 2008 13:17 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
msmochachina wrote:
Are a member of the Caucasoid group. There are different groups in India (of course these groups won't say it, but they are mixed with other races), and it is a well known fact that East Indians are descended from Blonde-haired, Blue-eyed, Scandinavians. Do your homework.
this guy is Probably confusing "Aryan" with Scandinavian via hitlers usurpation of the term. Northern Indians decend from the same Aryan(read Irano-Afghan indo euro) backround as Iranian,Ossetians, & Afghans
Iranian
Pashtun
(Young Yosef Stalin, Who was of Ossetian origin, a persian people from the caucasus area)
Posted: Thu 18 Sep 2008 13:28 Post subject: Re: East Asians are ...
Jewcepticon wrote:
This guy is Probably confusing "Aryan" with Scandinavian via hitlers usurpation of the term. Northern Indians decend from the same Aryan(read Irano-Afghan indo euro) backround as Iranian,Ossetians, & Afghans.
Who knows what went through the person's mind? The claim was so bizarre that two moderators jumped all over it, and at least two members considered the possibility that the claim was a joke.
Personally, I found it hard to believe that any educated person would confuse the "Aryan" nuttiness of H.S. Chamberlain (and then the Nazis) with real population groups. I suspect that it was not a joke, but merely someone trying out a thesis from a White-supremacy group. They never defended the claim after being challenged.
It is a well accepted fact that a group of horse and chariot riding nomadic White people who spoke an indo European language moved into India, of this there is no question, whether it was invasion(which was highly likely) or some peaceful migration, it doesn't matter. They called themself aryans, had closely ties with europeans and settled in Iran, Central Asia and India(since indo-europeans).
These people mixed with locals and becomed today indians, iranians etc
It is a well accepted fact that a group of horse and chariot riding nomadic White people who spoke an indo European language moved into India, of this there is no question, whether it was invasion(which was highly likely) or some peaceful migration, it doesn't matter.
Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were "White." I suggest that no reputable source within the past half-century has made such a claim of "Whiteness," since the term is undefinable in this context.
sir alcal wrote:
They called themself aryans, had closely ties with europeans...
"Close ties with Europeans"? Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source that anyone calling themselves "Europeans" pre-existed the Indo-Aryan invasion. In fact, the Indo-Aryans were the cultural and linguistic ancestors of Europeans.
sir alcal wrote:
They aren't scandinavians or white anymore.
You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were Scandinavians. I suggest that no published source within the past half-century has made such a claim.
Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were "White." I suggest that no reputable source within the past half-century has made such a claim of "Whiteness," since the term is undefinable in this context.
There is also genetic evidence to back this up. Haplogroup R1a1 originated in Russia (the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans or Aryans). A map, which can be found at Wikipedia , shows the frequencies of R1a and R1b in pink and red, respectively. R1a is highest in Russians and Altaians and significant frequencies can be found in areas once dominated by Indo-Europeans speakers in central Asia, northwest China, and INDIA. Similar frequencies are found in Europe and it is least common in Spain. Since Y-Chromosome haplogroups are obviously transmitted from the father, this means that at least 1/3 of the population of north India is descended from a man carrying R1a1 genes. This sounds completely consistent with the Aryan Invasion Theory.
R1a1 is a Y DNA haplotype of european origin and europeans are white. With this i don't want to say all people with an european Y dna haplotype are white, but that their male ancestry goes back to europe and to white race. Just an example: a white man marry a black woman and they have a son. The son has an european Y Dna haplotype. He is not white, but you cannot deny he has took his european Ydna haplotype from an european white man somewhen.
fwsweet wrote:
"Close ties with Europeans"? Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source that anyone calling themselves "Europeans" pre-existed the Indo-Aryan invasion. In fact, the Indo-Aryans were the cultural and linguistic ancestors of Europeans.
None said they called themself europeans, scientists use the term "indo-europeans" to indicate the group of people speaking indo-european languages. The fact today european languages and indian-iranian ones are so similar, means there was once only language spook by a one people.
You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were Scandinavians. I suggest that no published source within the past half-century has made such a claim.
You've misunderstood me. The term Scandinavian doesn't mean aryans came from Scandinavia, but that they looked like today scandinavians.
Here some photos of afghan and central asian people.
I've took the majority of them from this american photographer
Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were "White." I suggest that no reputable source within the past half-century has made such a claim of "Whiteness," since the term is undefinable in this context.
... R1a1 is a Y DNA haplotype of european origin and europeans are white. ... their male ancestry goes back to europe and to white race.
That is not a source. That is simply a claim that R1a1 originated in Europe and that Europeans were White. Now you have to provide a source that R1a1 originated in Europe. (It originated 50 kya in Asia -- see Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003) 152). You must now also provide a source that our species had even reached Europe by 50 kya, much less had become White.
sir alcal wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
"Close ties with Europeans"? Nonsense. You have 24 hours to provide a source that anyone calling themselves "Europeans" pre-existed the Indo-Aryan invasion. In fact, the Indo-Aryans were the cultural and linguistic ancestors of Europeans.
None said they called themself europeans...
Correct. You said that they "had close ties with Europeans." We need a source that Europeans existed in any linguistic or cultural sense before the Indo-Aryan invasions of Europe. How could the Indo-Aryans have had "close ties" with them if they did not yet exist? Your claim is like saying that British colonists before the Revolution "had close ties" with Americans.
sir alcal wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
You have 24 hours to provide a source for the claim that the Indo-Aryans (whose language replaced Dravidian about 3,750 years ago) were Scandinavians. I suggest that no published source within the past half-century has made such a claim.
The term Scandinavian doesn't mean aryans came from Scandinavia, but that they looked like today scandinavians.
"Scandinavian" does not mean "from Scandinavia"? Give me a break. Okay, have it your way. Provide a source showing that the Indo-Aryans of 4 kya “looked like today's Scandinavians” (whatever that means).
You now must provide sources for the following eight implausible claims:
1. that the concept of “whiteness” existed 4 kya.
2. that Indo-Aryans of 4 kya were White.
3. that R1a1 originated in Europe.
4. that H. sapiens had reached Europe when R1a1 arose 50 kya.
5. that the hominid species inhabiting Europe 50 kya were White.
6. that "Europeans" in any cultural or linguistic sense existed before the Indo-Aryan invasions.
7. that "Europeans" had "close ties" with their own ancestors, the Indo-Aryans.
8. that Indo-Aryans of 4 kya "looked like today's Scandinavians" (whatever that means). [Please don't say that, like today's Scandinavians, they had one head, two arms, two ears, etc.]
For failure to provide a source for implausible claims in violation of 3.2, Sir Alcal's posting privilege is suspended until midnight September 27, 2008.
For failure to provide a source for implausible claims in violation of 3.2, Sir Alcal's posting privilege is suspended until midnight September 27, 2008.
I couldn't answer because my PC didn't work, thank you again for your patience (ok it's not a your fault).
fwsweet wrote:
1. that the concept of “whiteness” existed 4 kya.
2. that Indo-Aryans of 4 kya were White.8. that Indo-Aryans of 4 kya "looked like today's Scandinavians" (whatever that means). [Please don't say that, like today's Scandinavians, they had one head, two arms, two ears, etc.]
Yes it existed. They have even found some european looking mummies in Central Asia old of 4 kya.
Click on Genetic Markers, then to Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) (i cannot give you the direct link beacuse it's an adobe flash player website)
fwsweet wrote:
4. that H. sapiens had reached Europe when R1a1 arose 50 kya.
5. that the hominid species inhabiting Europe 50 kya were White.
Never said that. Read up.
fwsweet wrote:
6. that "Europeans" in any cultural or linguistic sense existed before the Indo-Aryan invasions.
7. that "Europeans" had "close ties" with their own ancestors, the Indo-Aryans.
I am not speaking Indo-Aryans, i'm speaking about indo-europeans and they are both the ancestors of modern europeans and Indians-Iranians.
[that the concept of “whiteness” existed 4 kya.]Yes it existed. They have even found some european looking mummies in Central Asia old of 4 kya.
You continue to miss the point. Many people agree that the Tarim mummies "look European" and a few even claim that some mummies even go back 3.8 kya. The problem is that the concept of "White" as a classification of humans dates only from the late 1600s. You may consider them "White" (because they look "White" to you) and someone writing in 1890 may consider them "White" (because they look "White" to her). But there is no shred of evidence that they considered themselves White. The very notion of "Whiteness" as a category of human did not exist.
Also, you have yet to provide a source that the Tarim mummies "looked like Scandinavians."The two sources you provided say that they looked "Caucasoid" (an obsolete term from craniofacial anthropometry that refers to skull type and has nothing to do with pigmentation). The term "caucasoid" was applied to everyone from Scandinavia to Southern India, including the natives of Chad, Burkina Faso, Somalia, and Ethiopia. The claim was made above that they had blonde hair and blue eyes. You defended this claim by saying that they "looked like Scandinavians." We still need a source for blonde hair and blue eyes among the Indo-Aryans, or an explanation of just what you mean by "looked like Scandinavians." (Recall that your original thesis was that they were Scandinavians, but you changed this by clarifying that when you say someone is Scandinavian you do not mean that they come from Scandinavia, but that they look Scandinavian.) As I understand it, your thesis is now, "The Indo-Aryans of 4000 kya looked Scandinavian." Please clarify precisely what you mean by "looked Scandinavian."
sir alcal wrote:
According to Genographic Project R1A1 originated in europe about 10.000 years ago, then it spreaded out with indo-european invasion.
Okay. You have provided a non-peer reviewed source that conflicts with the latest peer-reviewed source. You are off the hook on this point. Each reader must make up his/her own mind between a web page (10 kya Europe) and and a university-published textbook (50 kya Asia).
sir alcal wrote:
I am not speaking Indo-Aryans, i'm speaking about indo-europeans and they are both the ancestors of modern europeans and Indians-Iranians.
Indo-Aryans and Indo-Europeans are synonymous. Earlier, you seemed to be saying that modern Europeans co-existed with the Indo-Aryans or Indo-Europeans. If you are now saying that the latter are the ancestors of the former and that they therefore could not have co-existed, then there is no issue.
You continue to miss the point. Many people agree that the Tarim mummies "look European" and a few even claim that some mummies even go back 3.8 kya. The problem is that the concept of "White" as a classification of humans dates only from the late 1600s. You may consider them "White" (because they look "White" to you) and someone writing in 1890 may consider them "White" (because they look "White" to her). But there is no shred of evidence that they considered themselves White. The very notion of "Whiteness" as a category of human did not exist.
Then for you, "being white" is more a psychological/cultural thing than biologic one? Pfff.
I don't think "how they considered themself" has some importance and we will never know the truth. But this doesn't change they were biological white.
fwsweet wrote:
Also, you have yet to provide a source that the Tarim mummies "looked like Scandinavians."The two sources you provided say that they looked "Caucasoid" (an obsolete term from craniofacial anthropometry that refers to skull type and has nothing to do with pigmentation). The term "caucasoid" was applied to everyone from Scandinavia to Southern India, including the natives of Chad, Burkina Faso, Somalia, and Ethiopia. The claim was made above that they had blonde hair and blue eyes. You defended this claim by saying that they "looked like Scandinavians." We still need a source for blonde hair and blue eyes among the Indo-Aryans, or an explanation of just what you mean by "looked like Scandinavians." (Recall that your original thesis was that they were Scandinavians, but you changed this by clarifying that when you say someone is Scandinavian you do not mean that they come from Scandinavia, but that they look Scandinavian.) As I understand it, your thesis is now, "The Indo-Aryans of 4000 kya looked Scandinavian." Please clarify precisely what you mean by "looked Scandinavian."
Hey wake up man, the article never speak of only just caucasoid but about european-looking people dressed in European-looking clothes.
Quote:
In 1995, media reports brought to the public's attention astonishingly well-preserved remains of European-looking people, dressed in European-looking clothes, buried in the Tarim Basin between about 1800 B.C. and A.D. 500
P.S. As you can easily notice, i am not using the term scandinavian now and in the precedent post, i am just using the term "white".
fwsweet wrote:
Okay. You have provided a non-peer reviewed source that conflicts with the latest peer-reviewed source. You are off the hook on this point. Each reader must make up his/her own mind between a web page (10 kya Europe) and and a university-published textbook (50 kya Asia).
That "web page" is national geographic official website, not just a website as others. Give me proofs National Geographic is trash, and i will search another source.
P.S. I don't think we live still in dark middle ages, when books are the only good source of knowledge.
fwsweet wrote:
Indo-Aryans and Indo-Europeans are synonymous. Earlier, you seemed to be saying that modern Europeans co-existed with the Indo-Aryans or Indo-Europeans. If you are now saying that the latter are the ancestors of the former and that they therefore could not have co-existed, then there is no issue.
Then for you, "being white" is more a psychological/cultural thing than biologic one?
Absolutely. Yes, indeed. The default site-standard meaning of "White" is "a member of the endogamous U.S. community that checks off 'White' on the census."
sir alcal wrote:
I don't think "how they considered themself" has some importance and we will never know the truth. But this doesn't change they were biological white.
No. Someone claims that they "looked European" (whatever that means). If you want to refer to someone as "biological white" you must define what you mean by that. And if you say what you mean by "biological white" is "looks white" then you must define what you mean by "looks white." You are posting in the technical/scientific forum of a site with strict rules of intellectual clarity. By changing your thesis and refusing to define your terms objectively you are violating site rules. I understand that biological "Whiteness" is obvious to you, but it is not obvious to anyone else unless you can define it objectively. If you cannot do this, then you must either stop making claims about "biological whiteness" or you will be suspended again. If you mean Nordic skin-tone, say "Nordic skin-tone". If you mean Swedish language, say "Swedish language". If you mean blond hair, say "blond hair". If you mean blue eyes, say "blue eyes." The next time that you use the term "White" without defining it you will be suspended again.
sir alcal wrote:
Hey wake up man, the article never speak of only just caucasoid but about european-looking people dressed in European-looking clothes.
I understand. But there are two problems with that. First is the issue of factual reality. What precisely did the author mean by "European-looking people dressed in European-looking clothes"? The only semi-objective definition given was "caucasoid," a term that applies to many sub-Saharan Africans as well as the inhabitants of India and Sri Lanka." If the author did not really mean "caucasoid," then what was meant? Unless the author defines precisely what was meant by "European-looking," it is meaningless noise.
Second, your original claim was that they "were Scandinavians", a claim that you later modified to "looked like Scandinavians." You still have provided no source that says the Indo-Europeans "looked like Scandinavians". Since you have re-stated this claim, you now have 24 hours to either it back up or retract it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Iranian
Pashtun
(Young Yosef Stalin, Who was of Ossetian origin, a persian people from the caucasus area)
