Will take a long time to get to the point. The point is the material in the main quoteblock of this post (and its link).
Many months ago, indiafacts had an article about the islamaniac terrorism of one "Shahi Imam Barkati". It had a picture of the man: a brown individual with not just bright red hair but also curly bright red beard.
www.indiafacts.co.in/can-shahi-imam-n-r-barkati-tried-waging-war-india/
Since such bright red facial growth (especially the beard) does not at all suit such and darker skintones, I was forced to conclude that - unless he had 0 sense of aesthetics - he had not voluntarily coloured his hair AND beard. Also the fact that anyone would want to colour their beard red seemed to militate against the possibility. The option that remained was that he was born that way.
Can also search the web for Imam Barkati and look at the Images page to see more photos of the man with the tackily bright red beard.(Honestly, who in their right mind that looks like Barkati would choose to colour their hair red. Isn't it more likely that the tragically ugly dude was simply born that way?)
It had reminded me of a bit-part bollywho actor whose surname I remembered was Khan from the end credits (after seeing him in what was the 3rd and definitely last bollywho film I ever saw): I remembered his surname because I specfically looked him up in the end credits, since his hair was a curiosity. I didn't know any (native) Indian who naturally had red hair.
It was my search to find his full name that led to the material and the reason for this post. To get him out of the way:
His name is Razak Khan who played the "bird seller" - allegedly some comic relief - in "Kuch Naa Kaho". Googling for his pictures shows that he frequently has reddish hair, occasionally reddish brown. Not as brightly red as the Imam, but it may still be this Khan's real hair colour.
Coincidentally, if either Razak Khan or Barkati naturally has red hair rather than having coloured it, this then goes against the claim on an earlier-mentioned European genetics site which featured heavy discussion in the aftermath of the news on the genetically-Scandinavian Stone-Age European who had subsaharan African-skin colour yet blue eyes.
(Obviously European-origin) commenters at that Euro genetics site were arguing for the unlikelihood of an African skintone being found in combination with blue eyes - their point was that there must be an error in interpreting the genetic data of the Stone Age European's skintone being African - IIRC using as argument that red hair and fair skin seemed to always go together.
Obviously the Shahi Imam - see picture at the aforementioned indiafacts link - being rather brown-skinned yet with red hair and red beard, is an example for the countercase: that red hair need not imply fair skin.
In searching for the actor Khan's full name, my suspicions that such hair colour could perhaps be due to Mongolian input got confirmed. Not only because Razak Khan has the surname Khan, which is obviously exclusively a Mongolian surname (being in fact a kaffiri shamanistic surname), but when I searched the web hoping to find the actor's name using the terms "red hair" and "Khan" an ... unexpected avalanche was the result. (As it happened, I had to resort to searching imdb for the film title to therewith find the actor's name.)
When doing the web search, all the visible results I could find for the search terms "red hair" and "Khan" were about Genghis Khan, and how Genghis Khan was to have had red hair and light eyes (IIRC, green or blue or grey, depending on which historical account was proffered in evidence). But the search results showed that people were not content with that: sites owned by Europeans were all about how Genghis Khan was actually European and his achievements/his range of power was therefore a European achievement - with as windfall that any Genghis input into the European gene pool (which of course is significant) was no longer a miscegenation of "Caucasian" and "Mongoloid" but was ultimately just (pure) European etc etc.
Even the Turks of Turkey were in on it: Turks, usually said to be Mongolians from Mongolia (and presumably Turkmen too) declared that they were actually Europeans on account of Genghis Khan having red hair, fair skin and light eyes.
[I'm not sure why Turks have to stand on their heads to claim European antecedents for themselves: Turkey's Turkish inhabitants are significantly Greek (and even somewhat Roman), not only in Cyprus - making Turks quite European already - without having to reach out to arguments for Genghis Khan's sudden turn for Caucasian. Moreover, for the rest, Turkey's inhabitants seem to have significantly more Arabic input than even Mongolian - going by phenotype (e.g. occasionally, the curly hair specific to Arabs is seen in Turkish acquaintances). Especially noticeable when comparing Turkey to Afghanistan, where the Mongolian phenotype is not just readily apparent in many Afghans, but present in a rather large proportion of its current population. (Seen also in Afghan movies and in Iranian movies featuring Afghans.) That is to say, at the very least, modern Turkish people seem to exhibit more of the European and secondarily of the Arabian phenotype, while the Mongolian phenotype is seen more readily in Afghanistan than in Turkey, despite Turkey's inhabitants being designated as Turks and linked back to Turkmenistan and Mongolia.]
Understandably, not everyone in the world was ready to roll over and accept this latest attempt to claim anything and everything in history as "White": E Asians had more than a thing or two to say about the matter. Also seen in English-language discussions by Chinese persons like the Singaporeans in the following example:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?118316-Genghis-Khan-an-Oriental-with-green-eyes-and-red-hair
(A Singaporean forum, as far as I can make out)
The above post - on the linked "sammyboy.com" forum - is then followed with images of fair (in terms of hair, eye, skin) Mongolians, demonstrating that "Mongoloid" features co-exist with "Caucasoid" features in native Mongolians, and that therefore Genghis Khan and his men (etc) could easily have been red-haired and light-eyed *without* having to be lumped as Europeans.
There is also further discussion on the subject with others commenting in response etc.
[The statement about Shang dynasty skeletons that's highlighted in bold in the quoteblock above - and which is one of the reasons for this post - is relevant for the "AIT on China", since Mair and other such oryanists were trying to claim China's Shang dynasty as Oryan using their typical oryanist mangling of Chinese texts and artefacts, in order to claim that the origins of Chinese civilisation were owing to oryans and not the Chinese. But IIRC, after it turned out from hard sciences that the Shang dynasty were simply ethnically Chinese, the Oryanists resorted to saying that then only the Shang dynasty Kings and their priests would have been Oryan. I.e. all those most influential in constructing Chinese religion=civilisation including law etc were now claimed for Oryanism by the oryanists. The oryanists thereby tried to have their cake and eat it too: admitting that the masses of the Shang dynasty may have been Chinese, but that the creators and guiders of its civilisation and the composers of its religious materials were immigrant or imported Oryans. <- Compare with the Indian case of oryan argumentation: how - when the Oryanists no longer had data for largescale invasion or even any noticeable/definite "Oryan" genetic input into India that couldn't equally be argued away in reverse - the Oryanists (embarrassingly for them) decided to go back on their earlier edifice of argumentation by suddenly and desperately reasoning that now only the Oryan language must have been transferred to India but without the genes. This despite Oryanists' own earlier contention - back then made to support their larger argument, that the AIT on India must hold - that Oryan languages *could not* have been transferred to India without genetic transfer.]
ADDED:
About the Singaporean's reference - in the quoteblock above - to "white" Iranians:
Poor Iranians. Since when are they "white"? Not considering Iranic tribes outside Iran or India**, but many of the last few remaining pure Zoroastrians in Iran are still browner than all the mixed (muslim) Iranians in Iran*. Even the fair ones I've seen in pictures won't be mistaken for "white" by Europeans. But I suppose Asian populations who are dubbed "IE" getting lumped with "white" by far eastern Asians is an unavoidable fallout from oryanism.*** Then again, Iranians (incl in India) are even more Oryanism-Ra-Ra than Indians are. If you bought (into) it, it's yours.
*** Since the attempt to directly insinuate western populations as originating Chinese civilisation - such as by means of continental Celts - has failed, oryanism has had to resort to using ancient Central-Asian-Iranians and ancient Indians to claim Chinese civilisation as an oryan/"white" achievement. (Though of course E Asians are at the fairer end of the spectrum by far than ethnic Indians. So at least Indians are unlikely to be confused as "white" by E Asians any time soon.)
* Muslim Iranians don't count on the topic of what Iranians originally looked like, since islamised Iranians are heavily mixed: lots of Russian and other Southern European women were kidnapped into islamic harems, plus there were lots of Mamluks too (white slaves).
** As for non-Zoroastrian Iranians from outside Iran or Persia, I know of one Tajik example that was crowned Miss England a decade or so back. Her ancestry was a community of Tajikis settled in Afghanistan, i.e. not Afghan herself, and she looked Indian/Iranian-brown. Again, not "white" either. Which was why she was chosen: since the Miss contests were favouring "Indian" looks for a whole decade since about the mid-90s, every western country was sending Iranians or Indians. Even Ireland sent a half-Indian half-Irish woman as Miss Ireland at one point. Though Miss Tajikistan I mean the Tajiki Miss England doesn't count for much as an argument, being but one example of a Tajik, however I distinctly remember mistaking her for an Indian at first.
Here, her name is "Hammasa Kohistani":
viola.bz/hammasa-kohistani/
(I suppose the specific mention of her being a Persian Tajik is to distinguish the Iranian kind from the smaller number of Russian Tajiks.)
The above is a caption to a picture of the Tajiki Persian Hammasa standing next to a European man, presumably a Brit. The comparison makes it clearer still: she's clearly not "white", and her shade is moreover distinctly brown. Certainly looks like every bollywho actress from the mid-90s on. More Indian-looking than many a prominent Paki muslimah - if I'm allowed to say that on an Indian forum: most Paki muslimahs that Indian politicians were said to drool over (or that Karyakarta from the Rajeev2004 blog regularly pointed out as his Paki idols) look at least partially Arabic, like they were MBC-rejects (Middle-East Broadcasting Corporation). Anyway, the particular examples given always made me think that Indians would appreciate MBC: the Arabic channel had pretty female newsreaders back in the mid 90s when I used to tune in - back when the Arabic muslimahs on TV were never veiled, don't know how it is now on MBC. The men on there were a disappointment though.
Many months ago, indiafacts had an article about the islamaniac terrorism of one "Shahi Imam Barkati". It had a picture of the man: a brown individual with not just bright red hair but also curly bright red beard.
www.indiafacts.co.in/can-shahi-imam-n-r-barkati-tried-waging-war-india/
Since such bright red facial growth (especially the beard) does not at all suit such and darker skintones, I was forced to conclude that - unless he had 0 sense of aesthetics - he had not voluntarily coloured his hair AND beard. Also the fact that anyone would want to colour their beard red seemed to militate against the possibility. The option that remained was that he was born that way.
Can also search the web for Imam Barkati and look at the Images page to see more photos of the man with the tackily bright red beard.(Honestly, who in their right mind that looks like Barkati would choose to colour their hair red. Isn't it more likely that the tragically ugly dude was simply born that way?)
It had reminded me of a bit-part bollywho actor whose surname I remembered was Khan from the end credits (after seeing him in what was the 3rd and definitely last bollywho film I ever saw): I remembered his surname because I specfically looked him up in the end credits, since his hair was a curiosity. I didn't know any (native) Indian who naturally had red hair.
It was my search to find his full name that led to the material and the reason for this post. To get him out of the way:
His name is Razak Khan who played the "bird seller" - allegedly some comic relief - in "Kuch Naa Kaho". Googling for his pictures shows that he frequently has reddish hair, occasionally reddish brown. Not as brightly red as the Imam, but it may still be this Khan's real hair colour.
Coincidentally, if either Razak Khan or Barkati naturally has red hair rather than having coloured it, this then goes against the claim on an earlier-mentioned European genetics site which featured heavy discussion in the aftermath of the news on the genetically-Scandinavian Stone-Age European who had subsaharan African-skin colour yet blue eyes.
(Obviously European-origin) commenters at that Euro genetics site were arguing for the unlikelihood of an African skintone being found in combination with blue eyes - their point was that there must be an error in interpreting the genetic data of the Stone Age European's skintone being African - IIRC using as argument that red hair and fair skin seemed to always go together.
Obviously the Shahi Imam - see picture at the aforementioned indiafacts link - being rather brown-skinned yet with red hair and red beard, is an example for the countercase: that red hair need not imply fair skin.
In searching for the actor Khan's full name, my suspicions that such hair colour could perhaps be due to Mongolian input got confirmed. Not only because Razak Khan has the surname Khan, which is obviously exclusively a Mongolian surname (being in fact a kaffiri shamanistic surname), but when I searched the web hoping to find the actor's name using the terms "red hair" and "Khan" an ... unexpected avalanche was the result. (As it happened, I had to resort to searching imdb for the film title to therewith find the actor's name.)
When doing the web search, all the visible results I could find for the search terms "red hair" and "Khan" were about Genghis Khan, and how Genghis Khan was to have had red hair and light eyes (IIRC, green or blue or grey, depending on which historical account was proffered in evidence). But the search results showed that people were not content with that: sites owned by Europeans were all about how Genghis Khan was actually European and his achievements/his range of power was therefore a European achievement - with as windfall that any Genghis input into the European gene pool (which of course is significant) was no longer a miscegenation of "Caucasian" and "Mongoloid" but was ultimately just (pure) European etc etc.
Even the Turks of Turkey were in on it: Turks, usually said to be Mongolians from Mongolia (and presumably Turkmen too) declared that they were actually Europeans on account of Genghis Khan having red hair, fair skin and light eyes.
[I'm not sure why Turks have to stand on their heads to claim European antecedents for themselves: Turkey's Turkish inhabitants are significantly Greek (and even somewhat Roman), not only in Cyprus - making Turks quite European already - without having to reach out to arguments for Genghis Khan's sudden turn for Caucasian. Moreover, for the rest, Turkey's inhabitants seem to have significantly more Arabic input than even Mongolian - going by phenotype (e.g. occasionally, the curly hair specific to Arabs is seen in Turkish acquaintances). Especially noticeable when comparing Turkey to Afghanistan, where the Mongolian phenotype is not just readily apparent in many Afghans, but present in a rather large proportion of its current population. (Seen also in Afghan movies and in Iranian movies featuring Afghans.) That is to say, at the very least, modern Turkish people seem to exhibit more of the European and secondarily of the Arabian phenotype, while the Mongolian phenotype is seen more readily in Afghanistan than in Turkey, despite Turkey's inhabitants being designated as Turks and linked back to Turkmenistan and Mongolia.]
Understandably, not everyone in the world was ready to roll over and accept this latest attempt to claim anything and everything in history as "White": E Asians had more than a thing or two to say about the matter. Also seen in English-language discussions by Chinese persons like the Singaporeans in the following example:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?118316-Genghis-Khan-an-Oriental-with-green-eyes-and-red-hair
(A Singaporean forum, as far as I can make out)
Quote:24-05-2012, 05:08 AM #1
Mercury
Alfrescian
Genghis Khan an Oriental with green eyes and red hair
There was an very old thread and this white psycho claimed Mongol and Genghis Khan was white and European, please do not listen to these crazy white supremacists lies. European scientists even showed the paternal descendants of Genghis Khan haplogroup DNA is C3 which is an Tungustic marker. The Mongolians seem to be genetically Asian (at least 81-93%), their european admixture came from white females of Central Asia not Europe. Their DNA did not come from European of Europe but rather from the white females of Central Asia like Tocharians and other Central Asians. They were ruled by the Mongoloid of East Asia for 500 years. The Khitans, Tibetans, Han dynasty, Tang dynasty, and many Han kingdoms have ruled and controlled the Tocharians and white iranic people for 500 years. So there has been lots of Intermarriage in Central Asia and even in western Mongolia ( <---used to belong to Kazakhstan). He even claimed that white build Chinese civilization and the great wall of China yet these buffoons don't even know that East Turkistan is so damn far away from the real heartland of China Chinese civilization. The skeletons of the Shang dynasty reveal were all Mongoloids and like modern Chinese and Sino-Tibetan.
The Kazakhs and Hazara today are the result of Mongolian Men and White iranic women. mtDNA reveals Kazakhs have 41% european mtDNA and 82% Mongoloid Y-DNA. Hazara have 65% European mtDNA with 52% Mongoloid Y-DNA. And Mongolian themselves have 14.3% European mtDNA with 6% Caucasian Y-DNA. Uzbeks, Kyrgyz Uyghurs are mostly Caucasian iranic men and Siberian females. The Crimean tatars have about 20% Mongoloid Y-DNA and 100% West Eurasian mtDNA.
The above post - on the linked "sammyboy.com" forum - is then followed with images of fair (in terms of hair, eye, skin) Mongolians, demonstrating that "Mongoloid" features co-exist with "Caucasoid" features in native Mongolians, and that therefore Genghis Khan and his men (etc) could easily have been red-haired and light-eyed *without* having to be lumped as Europeans.
There is also further discussion on the subject with others commenting in response etc.
[The statement about Shang dynasty skeletons that's highlighted in bold in the quoteblock above - and which is one of the reasons for this post - is relevant for the "AIT on China", since Mair and other such oryanists were trying to claim China's Shang dynasty as Oryan using their typical oryanist mangling of Chinese texts and artefacts, in order to claim that the origins of Chinese civilisation were owing to oryans and not the Chinese. But IIRC, after it turned out from hard sciences that the Shang dynasty were simply ethnically Chinese, the Oryanists resorted to saying that then only the Shang dynasty Kings and their priests would have been Oryan. I.e. all those most influential in constructing Chinese religion=civilisation including law etc were now claimed for Oryanism by the oryanists. The oryanists thereby tried to have their cake and eat it too: admitting that the masses of the Shang dynasty may have been Chinese, but that the creators and guiders of its civilisation and the composers of its religious materials were immigrant or imported Oryans. <- Compare with the Indian case of oryan argumentation: how - when the Oryanists no longer had data for largescale invasion or even any noticeable/definite "Oryan" genetic input into India that couldn't equally be argued away in reverse - the Oryanists (embarrassingly for them) decided to go back on their earlier edifice of argumentation by suddenly and desperately reasoning that now only the Oryan language must have been transferred to India but without the genes. This despite Oryanists' own earlier contention - back then made to support their larger argument, that the AIT on India must hold - that Oryan languages *could not* have been transferred to India without genetic transfer.]
ADDED:
About the Singaporean's reference - in the quoteblock above - to "white" Iranians:
Poor Iranians. Since when are they "white"? Not considering Iranic tribes outside Iran or India**, but many of the last few remaining pure Zoroastrians in Iran are still browner than all the mixed (muslim) Iranians in Iran*. Even the fair ones I've seen in pictures won't be mistaken for "white" by Europeans. But I suppose Asian populations who are dubbed "IE" getting lumped with "white" by far eastern Asians is an unavoidable fallout from oryanism.*** Then again, Iranians (incl in India) are even more Oryanism-Ra-Ra than Indians are. If you bought (into) it, it's yours.
*** Since the attempt to directly insinuate western populations as originating Chinese civilisation - such as by means of continental Celts - has failed, oryanism has had to resort to using ancient Central-Asian-Iranians and ancient Indians to claim Chinese civilisation as an oryan/"white" achievement. (Though of course E Asians are at the fairer end of the spectrum by far than ethnic Indians. So at least Indians are unlikely to be confused as "white" by E Asians any time soon.)
* Muslim Iranians don't count on the topic of what Iranians originally looked like, since islamised Iranians are heavily mixed: lots of Russian and other Southern European women were kidnapped into islamic harems, plus there were lots of Mamluks too (white slaves).
** As for non-Zoroastrian Iranians from outside Iran or Persia, I know of one Tajik example that was crowned Miss England a decade or so back. Her ancestry was a community of Tajikis settled in Afghanistan, i.e. not Afghan herself, and she looked Indian/Iranian-brown. Again, not "white" either. Which was why she was chosen: since the Miss contests were favouring "Indian" looks for a whole decade since about the mid-90s, every western country was sending Iranians or Indians. Even Ireland sent a half-Indian half-Irish woman as Miss Ireland at one point. Though Miss Tajikistan I mean the Tajiki Miss England doesn't count for much as an argument, being but one example of a Tajik, however I distinctly remember mistaking her for an Indian at first.
Here, her name is "Hammasa Kohistani":
viola.bz/hammasa-kohistani/
Quote:Kohistani is of Tajik Persian ethnic background, she speaks six languages, including Russian, English, Persian
(I suppose the specific mention of her being a Persian Tajik is to distinguish the Iranian kind from the smaller number of Russian Tajiks.)
The above is a caption to a picture of the Tajiki Persian Hammasa standing next to a European man, presumably a Brit. The comparison makes it clearer still: she's clearly not "white", and her shade is moreover distinctly brown. Certainly looks like every bollywho actress from the mid-90s on. More Indian-looking than many a prominent Paki muslimah - if I'm allowed to say that on an Indian forum: most Paki muslimahs that Indian politicians were said to drool over (or that Karyakarta from the Rajeev2004 blog regularly pointed out as his Paki idols) look at least partially Arabic, like they were MBC-rejects (Middle-East Broadcasting Corporation). Anyway, the particular examples given always made me think that Indians would appreciate MBC: the Arabic channel had pretty female newsreaders back in the mid 90s when I used to tune in - back when the Arabic muslimahs on TV were never veiled, don't know how it is now on MBC. The men on there were a disappointment though.
Death to traitors.