|
Post by Farmer Moustachio on Jan 26, 2006 22:27:51 GMT -5
|
|
smc9
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by smc9 on Sept 14, 2007 9:55:18 GMT -5
I don't know if this has been mentioned I saw the beginning of the thread and noticed the obvious had been over-looked. Both Dutch and English trading companies had been visiting/trading with the East Indies since before 1600. In fact the English "Honourable East India Company" had a 21 year monopoly on trade there. Not to mention British Imperialism. Before Cornwallis was Governor-General, British troops openly socialised with the locals, sleeping with and marrying the locals. The children from these events evidentially brought Caucasian genes to the pool. It's as simple as that. The Caucasian genes might be more dominant simply because there's not the simple mix of one parent and another being from two separate gene pools. That's how appears to me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 14, 2007 10:39:41 GMT -5
North Indians look like people from the Middle East don't they?
so as all borders are human made, there would be a gradient of sorts from India onwards to the left.
going further upwards, it goes onwards to nepal, and then to China, which also makes sense, and to the right it goes to Bangladesh and then finally on to Myanmar (? not 100% certain), but it all makes sense from a gradience in racial terms (maybe?)
Of course there was mixing along the way, but more significantly, i think the Western Indians, and North-west indians look like people found in neighbouring middle eastern countries.
Maybe because of the caste system, there was not so much interbreeding amongst diff indian groups which has seen the narrowing down and finally expression of more recessive genes - thus the blue eyes etc, and in south eastern india, the same would have happened - the concentration of those particular features?
Im sure that the english et al. would have had some influence on indian racial make up, but doubt it would be overly influential in the grand scheme of things, again, i may be wrong, this is just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by DivaDancerLara on Sept 26, 2007 13:40:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cewek on Sept 26, 2007 18:56:31 GMT -5
When I first moved to Jakarta ( which has a sizable north indian population -and has set up one of the better schools called the Ghandi school) I had a fight with my husband because I wondered why he never bothered to tell me there were so many greek people in Jakarta..he was laughing at me for months.. :-) I musta missed the info about the big hindu influence in Indonesia since the dawn of time eh. I honestly moved there totally blind and unknowing.Haha ;D
spelling fixed
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Sept 27, 2007 11:27:22 GMT -5
So far as mixing between the Caucasian/Aryan stocks of Indians and the European whites go, I wouldn't consider their offsprings as Eurasians in the same sense as those with the white and East Asian/Mongoloid parents that make up the overwhelming majority here.
|
|
|
Post by avax on Sept 27, 2007 11:30:18 GMT -5
So technical.
I have eurasian baby friends mixed indian and chinese/white. And older ones who consider themselves eurasian. I wouldn't dare strip someone of a label they associate with. Slightly rude.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 27, 2007 12:33:02 GMT -5
Did some reading - and it seems Indians are Caucasians (the larger group) and the Aryan Race is a myth?
-> Aryan as Hitlers interpretation is definitely wrong.
However, seeing as how India is an Asian country, shouldnt they still be considered Asians - and thus a mix involving an Indian, be it North or South, and a European, would still be a Eurasian?
So are people who are half indian/half european considered eurasian? If not, what are they called?
I guess it leads to the larger question of whether or not being Eurasian is a cultural thing, or a genetic thing, or a combination of both?
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Sept 27, 2007 12:48:15 GMT -5
No, just being technical.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Sept 27, 2007 12:55:37 GMT -5
Did some reading - and it seems Indians are Caucasians (the larger group) and the Aryan Race is a myth? -> Aryan as Hitlers interpretation is definitely wrong. However, seeing as how India is an Asian country, shouldnt they still be considered Asians - and thus a mix involving an Indian, be it North or South, and a European, would still be a Eurasian? So are people who are half indian/half european considered eurasian? If not, what are they called? I would label them Indo-Europeans. Genetic. Otherwise, pure Asians, like me, who grew up and lived in the West should also be considered "Eurasian", because of acculturation or assimilation, which would clearly be a mislabel.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 27, 2007 13:02:15 GMT -5
Yes, i can understand what you are saying, and it makes sense seeing as how the place where Europe ends and Asia begins is purely abritrary, it could have been anywhere really, but GENETICALLY, the seperation should be around Nepal then?
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Sept 27, 2007 13:22:35 GMT -5
Yes, i can understand what you are saying, and it makes sense seeing as how the place where Europe ends and Asia begins is purely abritrary, it could have been anywhere really, but GENETICALLY, the seperation should be around Nepal then? First of all, Europe isn't even a separate continent, by definition. It's acyually a part of Asia, sometimes referred together as Eurasia by geographers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia I think the term "Europe" was based more on the desire of Caucasians to further distinguish themselves from the Mongoloids of Eurasia, partly due to their racial and cultural bigotries, of course. While there really isn't a clearly distinct geographical boundary that separates the two races of Eurasia, obviously the presence either race increases depending on whether one travels farther east or west. However, if Nepal comes closest to separating the two races genetically, then it would be a good de facto geographical boundary between the two regions, I think.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 27, 2007 13:28:49 GMT -5
^ Cool - thanks for that! All very interesting! ^
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Oct 25, 2007 13:31:51 GMT -5
Hello,
There seems to be a lot of confusion and debate on classifcation here. The fact is that India is like a microcosm of the world in terms of its diversity; religion, climate, and race. Racially, most Indians are Caucasian with many different sub-ethnic, racial backgrounds within that classification (as in Europe). Race has little to do with skin color and so the Caucasian or colloquially, "white" race technically embraces folks of darker skin ranging from S. Europeans to N. Africans, Arabs, Middle Easterners and most Indians. In India you also have other races and many mixtures. Mongolian races in the East, and Dravidian races all over, esp in the South. And then you have all sorts of tribal peoples that may be mixtures or "new" races. (I use Dravidian because again, here there are so many different types of races that fall under Dravidian--not Caucasian, not Negroid but peoples with dark skins and a range of features and "caucasian" hair.) Further in the caste system, the first 2-3 castes are generally accepted to be of Aryan stock, with lots of different mixtures of course.
So its not a great surprise that Indians look often like what we consider to be "European" and that kids of such unions look white..its in their genes.
India is a pretty complex place to deconstruct.
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Oct 25, 2007 13:35:32 GMT -5
Addendum: The beauty and uniqueness of India is all the different unique looks and backgrounds. Indians have descended from so many different groups: White Huns, Aryans, Central Asiatics, Pathans, Mongols, Dravidians, Sumerians, Chinese, Asiatic Mongols, Greeks, Sycthians, IndoIranians, Arabs, Austaliods, and many many more. There are so many influences its almost impossible to catalog them all.
|
|