01-06-2010, 07:01 AM
[quote name='Krishna' date='05 January 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1262701375' post='103353']
GSub,
A couple of objections to the statistics quoted above and the ( inferred ) interpretation. While it is true, that R1a correlates with upper castes broadly, the clustering of brahmins ( like all other castes ) has always been shown to be regional. In other words, Tamil brahmins cluster with other non tamil non brahmin castes ( but not tribals ).
In the south, some of the highest R1a % is found among Pallars, Chenchu, Vanniyar, and even Badaga, folks that can hardly be called upper castes and are more dalits and tribals. In other words, R1a ancestry does not linearly correlate with upper caste ( or brahmin ancestry ). And again for groups like Tamil Brahmins, that perhaps were originally founded my small groups that migrated from Gujarat , the founder effect becomes very important. If the founding group of brahmins had H haplogroup in North India ( as even NI Brahmin groups have some H % ) perhaps Tamil Brahmins would predominantly H as well.
( On a different note, the presence of R1a in India is being attributed to several older neolithic migrations, not just the arrival of IE settlers around 3000 BC. The presence of R1a in Chenchu's is an example. It is even possible the earlier R1as looked different than the later R1a's as the evolution of white skin
itself was a recent mutation not older than 9000 years )
And Spanish invasion of SA with Upper Caste domain over back ward caste in India are not comparable . Spanish men were from a completely different race, speaking a different language and more important of a different religion ( A proselytizing ( pardon my spelling ) Christianity ) and they had never met each other before the invasion. Spanish men ( General Cortez ) were basically conquerors that specifically came to conquer.
From the statement above, from what i could interpret , it appears as if Gsub is implying that unlike Spanish conquerors , Indian upper caste had a chance to rape but magnanimously chose not to do it.( or i could be wrong here though)
Upper caste and back ward caste divide is a relatively recent construct, with the racial differences being not so sharp. The caste system was more of a more harmonious ( or not so harmonious ) division of society into several professions, without any domineering or invasion for most part though, a system that became more rigid and hereditary in the last 1000 years or so. ( i am sure, there were several upper caste men that maintained wives from castes lower down the chain on the sly, but i am not sure if it was wide spread and openly encouraged ) .
Regds,
Krishna
[/quote]
Actually, Tambrams DNA aligns more with the Saurashtrian community than with the rest
What I was trying to say is that historically if the caste system had been oppressive,
one would expect to see the backward caste Y DNA match the forward caste Y DNA
Since this is not the case, large scale caste oppression as in rape, has not happened
GSub,
A couple of objections to the statistics quoted above and the ( inferred ) interpretation. While it is true, that R1a correlates with upper castes broadly, the clustering of brahmins ( like all other castes ) has always been shown to be regional. In other words, Tamil brahmins cluster with other non tamil non brahmin castes ( but not tribals ).
In the south, some of the highest R1a % is found among Pallars, Chenchu, Vanniyar, and even Badaga, folks that can hardly be called upper castes and are more dalits and tribals. In other words, R1a ancestry does not linearly correlate with upper caste ( or brahmin ancestry ). And again for groups like Tamil Brahmins, that perhaps were originally founded my small groups that migrated from Gujarat , the founder effect becomes very important. If the founding group of brahmins had H haplogroup in North India ( as even NI Brahmin groups have some H % ) perhaps Tamil Brahmins would predominantly H as well.
( On a different note, the presence of R1a in India is being attributed to several older neolithic migrations, not just the arrival of IE settlers around 3000 BC. The presence of R1a in Chenchu's is an example. It is even possible the earlier R1as looked different than the later R1a's as the evolution of white skin
itself was a recent mutation not older than 9000 years )
And Spanish invasion of SA with Upper Caste domain over back ward caste in India are not comparable . Spanish men were from a completely different race, speaking a different language and more important of a different religion ( A proselytizing ( pardon my spelling ) Christianity ) and they had never met each other before the invasion. Spanish men ( General Cortez ) were basically conquerors that specifically came to conquer.
From the statement above, from what i could interpret , it appears as if Gsub is implying that unlike Spanish conquerors , Indian upper caste had a chance to rape but magnanimously chose not to do it.( or i could be wrong here though)
Upper caste and back ward caste divide is a relatively recent construct, with the racial differences being not so sharp. The caste system was more of a more harmonious ( or not so harmonious ) division of society into several professions, without any domineering or invasion for most part though, a system that became more rigid and hereditary in the last 1000 years or so. ( i am sure, there were several upper caste men that maintained wives from castes lower down the chain on the sly, but i am not sure if it was wide spread and openly encouraged ) .
Regds,
Krishna
[/quote]
Actually, Tambrams DNA aligns more with the Saurashtrian community than with the rest
What I was trying to say is that historically if the caste system had been oppressive,
one would expect to see the backward caste Y DNA match the forward caste Y DNA
Since this is not the case, large scale caste oppression as in rape, has not happened