12-02-2005, 04:22 PM
Shashir,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And why is it that a large portion of the southern Indian population resemble features attributed to the Autroloid stock while the northern Indian populations are as a whole very similar in physical features to Mediterraneans, Iranians, and possibly Arabs? Could this mean that there were two large groups of different people (most people say two "races") who converged in the Indian peninsula?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do/did the Europeans treat the Jewish people like a different race, even though to me they look equally fair of appearance? Why don't they make it universally common knowledge that Arabic and Hebrew speaking people belong to a common overarching ethnic group called the Semites? Why are Arabian people ludicrously accused of anti-semitism, an impossibility - when what is obviously meant is anti-Judaism/anti-Israeli, a sad reality? These are greater mysteries to me than your questions. However, let's look at yours.
Have you been to South India? I have. And although they look somewhat different, even the most sun-browned person I've seen there has particularly Indian features, enough for me to recognise traits of my relatives in their genial faces. I suggest you visit the south after removing those tainted glasses you wear, given to you by our miserable education system which tell you that there are two or more distinct ethnicities in India.
Yes, many Iranians and Arabians look North-Indian. Could that be because the slave trade of Indians to Iran and Arabia was in size second only to that of the slave trade of the unfortunate Africans? Besides, Indians and Iranians have a common origin (just like the Arabian and Israeli people have a common origin, although the latter split more recently, over religion obviously).
Another significant factor is that North India is at around the same level as Iran and closer to that of the Mediterranean countries. South India and Sri Lanka, by comparison, are at the level of Sudan, Ethiopia, etc. The amount of open space vs shade and other conditions will also affect variances in appearance, of course, but it is only logical that the distribution of skin tone in India and elsewhere is as it is. There is no mysterious separate origin for lighter and darker people on this planet: all that's needed to explain this are the environmental factors and the length of time various people have remained settled in such places.
In a subtle way, this also conflicts with the AIT's racist connotations: if the supposed Dravidians had really been spread all over the Northern part of India and Pakistan (upto Afghanistan even, I've heard) and living there for say ten thousands of years until the AI happened 3500 BP, they should have been as light back then as one would expect people to be at that latitude. Therefore the mythical Aryan Invaders couldn't have chased them away "because of their dark skin colour". Also, 3500 years (~175 generations) spent in the South appears to be too short a time for those branded as Dravidians to change their appearance in such a drastic way as to match their latitude today.
It is possible that the Southern people were not of the same initial ethnic origin (even though my personal experiences have told me that the differences are rather minor and indicate a much stronger relation between N & S). But it does not follow that only one of the groups has to be indigenous. If there were two groups it is plausible - and in my opinion would be quite likely in a country with such a great gene pool as India - that both were indigenous. Also, the precepts of Hinduism managed to spread into Southeast Asia and even as far as China in the east without force, because the people there felt it made sense for them. It would be extremely likely that, in the consideration of possibly separate origins for N & S, the Indian religion and culture had permeated to the South (as well as influences going in the opposite direction) in a similar manner to them having been adopted in SE Asia.
But as I said, I'm not at all convinced of separate origins.
Finally, I've wondered for a time now:
Are the small number of Chinese who have fair hair (it's true!) of European origin? (Yet why have they then not inherited other common European features, and why is the fair hair still dominant among certain Chinese communities?) Or is the real reason for this phenomenon due to the fact those particular Chinese lived in the extremely cold and very northern parts of China, at a level with France, even Poland and Germany?
And what to think about the fair-haired among the Australian Aboriginals? Is fair hair always indicative of a European, particularly Germanic ancestry? Or can there be other reasons? Likewise, do darker shades of brown always imply a sub-Saharan African origin - independent of the original African origin of the other, lighter, variations? If so, this would effectively group together Australian Aboriginals, South Indians and some African groups only (yes, the lighter Soon/Sun/? clan of Africa must be excluded once again, to their misfortune) - and what an odd irreconcilable group they form, separated from the rest.
In short, such categorisation strategies are more in line with the race-centred 'naturalists' who classified people in the 19th century. It is time to move beyond their ignorance.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And why is it that a large portion of the southern Indian population resemble features attributed to the Autroloid stock while the northern Indian populations are as a whole very similar in physical features to Mediterraneans, Iranians, and possibly Arabs? Could this mean that there were two large groups of different people (most people say two "races") who converged in the Indian peninsula?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do/did the Europeans treat the Jewish people like a different race, even though to me they look equally fair of appearance? Why don't they make it universally common knowledge that Arabic and Hebrew speaking people belong to a common overarching ethnic group called the Semites? Why are Arabian people ludicrously accused of anti-semitism, an impossibility - when what is obviously meant is anti-Judaism/anti-Israeli, a sad reality? These are greater mysteries to me than your questions. However, let's look at yours.
Have you been to South India? I have. And although they look somewhat different, even the most sun-browned person I've seen there has particularly Indian features, enough for me to recognise traits of my relatives in their genial faces. I suggest you visit the south after removing those tainted glasses you wear, given to you by our miserable education system which tell you that there are two or more distinct ethnicities in India.
Yes, many Iranians and Arabians look North-Indian. Could that be because the slave trade of Indians to Iran and Arabia was in size second only to that of the slave trade of the unfortunate Africans? Besides, Indians and Iranians have a common origin (just like the Arabian and Israeli people have a common origin, although the latter split more recently, over religion obviously).
Another significant factor is that North India is at around the same level as Iran and closer to that of the Mediterranean countries. South India and Sri Lanka, by comparison, are at the level of Sudan, Ethiopia, etc. The amount of open space vs shade and other conditions will also affect variances in appearance, of course, but it is only logical that the distribution of skin tone in India and elsewhere is as it is. There is no mysterious separate origin for lighter and darker people on this planet: all that's needed to explain this are the environmental factors and the length of time various people have remained settled in such places.
In a subtle way, this also conflicts with the AIT's racist connotations: if the supposed Dravidians had really been spread all over the Northern part of India and Pakistan (upto Afghanistan even, I've heard) and living there for say ten thousands of years until the AI happened 3500 BP, they should have been as light back then as one would expect people to be at that latitude. Therefore the mythical Aryan Invaders couldn't have chased them away "because of their dark skin colour". Also, 3500 years (~175 generations) spent in the South appears to be too short a time for those branded as Dravidians to change their appearance in such a drastic way as to match their latitude today.
It is possible that the Southern people were not of the same initial ethnic origin (even though my personal experiences have told me that the differences are rather minor and indicate a much stronger relation between N & S). But it does not follow that only one of the groups has to be indigenous. If there were two groups it is plausible - and in my opinion would be quite likely in a country with such a great gene pool as India - that both were indigenous. Also, the precepts of Hinduism managed to spread into Southeast Asia and even as far as China in the east without force, because the people there felt it made sense for them. It would be extremely likely that, in the consideration of possibly separate origins for N & S, the Indian religion and culture had permeated to the South (as well as influences going in the opposite direction) in a similar manner to them having been adopted in SE Asia.
But as I said, I'm not at all convinced of separate origins.
Finally, I've wondered for a time now:
Are the small number of Chinese who have fair hair (it's true!) of European origin? (Yet why have they then not inherited other common European features, and why is the fair hair still dominant among certain Chinese communities?) Or is the real reason for this phenomenon due to the fact those particular Chinese lived in the extremely cold and very northern parts of China, at a level with France, even Poland and Germany?
And what to think about the fair-haired among the Australian Aboriginals? Is fair hair always indicative of a European, particularly Germanic ancestry? Or can there be other reasons? Likewise, do darker shades of brown always imply a sub-Saharan African origin - independent of the original African origin of the other, lighter, variations? If so, this would effectively group together Australian Aboriginals, South Indians and some African groups only (yes, the lighter Soon/Sun/? clan of Africa must be excluded once again, to their misfortune) - and what an odd irreconcilable group they form, separated from the rest.
In short, such categorisation strategies are more in line with the race-centred 'naturalists' who classified people in the 19th century. It is time to move beyond their ignorance.