|
|
Post by kkhon8 on Dec 21, 2003 0:37:17 GMT -5
I have'never stated Iranians are Semite,but at least they're partially, normal thing.There aren't any pure Aryans walking on earth in these times, everyone is mixed in some sort of way, didn't you know? Milky is the color of milk which is white-yellow-ish, hard isn't it?It's not white in the european sens in the word. I never called Punjabis white. I still did not call her names as you stated,namecalling is something diffrent then commenting 'lol'on a pic.I though you were so good at English like you said.I don't like the woman in the pic..SO WHAT! Obviously you can't handle that so why don't you call yourself a shrink or somethin' When you make up things like that you're indeed chatting from your a*shole..sorry. I have never talked about my high caste etc. I''m a Jatt so I thrace my ancestors back to Scythians I didn't really mention Dravidians.Who cares this website is not about me,some are interested and you're apparantly not,then don't reply!Cyrus the Iranian dude also makes posts only about Iranian Aryan culture..well let him!It's all about his and my personal interest mind your own business. You are clearly not an Indian. Jatts are not high caste. Theyare low caste. Also why would a Punjabi jatt call himself Hindi? It makes no sense. Punjabis don't speak Hindi. Jatt caste is only high amongst sikhs. |
|
Arawn
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by Arawn on Dec 21, 2003 9:39:59 GMT -5
Trust you? A joke right? Dutch humour has always eluded me.
I used to live in Southhall, really not that bad. Braford and Lecister are whole cities, you are really only talking about small areas of those cities. Newcastle? LMAO, you have no clue do you.
'No go' areas would be a few streets in Oldham, after the riots there a few years back, and some street in Leeds.
Wembly and and Southhall and Luton are those 'big areas' of London you speak of, only they are not very big (Luton strictly speaking isn't in London, its more like an external suburb).
Furthermore, to demonstrate how clueless you are, the areas of London where you find the highest concentrations (as a percentage of the district) are Brent and Ealing (for Indians, though to be fair, Brent is in the Wembly area), Waltham Forest (for Pakistanis) and Tower Hamlets (for Bangladeshis). The London Research centre has maps and tables of these sorts of things, i have copies of these maps in my text books from my Uni sociology course, you can try looking them up if you want a full true picture of life in the UK. My guess is you'd prefer your childish stereotypes.
AWAR is right, i shall bother no more from now on.
|
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 21, 2003 10:19:45 GMT -5
I'm part Hindu Jatt (Scythian) part Khatri (soldier caste)
Jatt is not neccisarily a Sikh caste, you get Sikh,Hindu and even muslim Jatts.As I am a Hindu I also speak fluently Hindi and Punjabi.
lol@Arawn you lived in Southall?Southall is now a place for poor immigrants from India,Pakistan and Bangladesh.Maybe you were on wellfare huh?lol
Don't think you can get a foot in Bradistan (Bradford) you'll get lynched.
You know us Desi's takin over rapidly,there's no stopping.
|
|
Arawn
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by Arawn on Dec 21, 2003 10:35:50 GMT -5
Southall is also a place for students (i wasa student back then) as well as other people.
And Bradford is an entire city, get your facts striaght.
|
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 21, 2003 10:59:23 GMT -5
That's why I was talking about the Bradistan part in Bradford which is not just a street.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 15:00:36 GMT -5
I'm part Hindu Jatt (Scythian) part Khatri (soldier caste) Jatt is not neccisarily a Sikh caste, you get Sikh,Hindu and even muslim Jatts.As I am a Hindu I also speak fluently Hindi and Punjabi. I found this on a forum, written by a Preet Mohan S Ahluwalia and answered by a Bik. S. Dhilton. It is far more consistent and explanotary than your posts so I'm including it below. It's discussing the origin of the Jatts: "The Indo-Scythian theory, associated with the names of some of the greatest scholars in the field of Indian History and Ethnology, has so long held the field and stifled doubt by the force of autho- rity. V. A. Smith, the last learned champion of this theory, says "When the numerous Bala, Indo-Scythian, Gujar, and Huna tribes of the 6th century horde settled, their princely houses were accepted as Rajput, while those who frankly took to agriculture became Jat." Elsewhere he remarks, "There is reason for believing that the Jats entered India later than the Gujars, rather about the same time." The following points may. however, be urged against this theory:- (1) Col. Tod's inscriptional evidence of the existence of a Jit ruling dynasty as old as 409 A.D. (2) The traditional enmity between the Rajput and the Jat makes it extremely doubtful that they had entered India-if they did it at all-at the same time as comrades, but had afterwards become divided into two hostile groups. Everywhere we find the earlier Jat occupant of the soil supplanted by the new Rajput immigrants. The Pramar displaced him in Malwa, and the Tunwar snatched away Delhi from him. The Rathor wrested Bikanir and the Bhatti imposed his rule upon him at Jaisalmir . (3) The Scythians who were very probably men with broad faces, and high cheek-bones, sturdy and short in stature, are little likely to have been the ancestors of a tall-statured and long-headed people like the Jats.(4) A great blunder committed by the enthusiastic exponents of the Indo-Scythian theory was to overlook the line of migration of the people who call themselves Jat to-day. The tradition of almost all the Jat clans of the Punjab (even including an apparently extra-Indian people, the Babbar Jats of Dera Ghazikhan), points to the east or south-east --Oudh, Rajputana and the Central Provinces - as their original home. If popular tradition counts for anything, it points to the view that they are an essentially Indo- Aryan people who have migrated from the east to the west, and not Indo-Scythians who Poured in from the Oxus Valley." This is Dhilton's reply: "Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh Preetmohan Singh, I have visited this site before and it appears to be a site constructed by Hindu Jats of Haryana. These Jats are eager to claim an Indian or Aryan origin for themselves as opposed to the Sikh Jats who claim a Scythian or non-indian origin for themselves. (my note: looks like it's all about *claim* I thought they'd have more solid things than that to be SURE about a certain thing)I find some of the points made in this article unsound. The Author knows that Jats are from outside India yet to make up for this he believes that those Jats were just immigrants to persia being forced back to their own land. Some Jats clans do have folk histories which place their original home sometimes in Sindh or sometimes in eastern India. But can such folk histories really be relied upon. The authors comments on the 'false' histories constructed by indian muslims in order the give themselves an arabian origin, yet because it suits his purpose totally believes the folk histories of the Jats. Could not the recent immigrant Jats have wanted to give themselves an Indian /Aryan origin just as the indian muslims try to create an Arabian origin for themselves.Between 100 AD and 750 AD there were a whole host of tribal invasions of northern India by various tribes and peoples. It was similar in fact to the tribal invasions of the Roman Empire, where whole tribes and peoples were displaced and new areas settled by different peoples. There have always been movements west to east in northern india but never the other way around. The Hindus settled to the east of the Punjab considered the Punjab to be unholy and peopled by barbarians who ate meat and drank liquor. The people of Punjab were considered violent and uncouth to the Hindus of the east. It is unlikely that individuals let alone whole tribes would venture into Punjab from the east.(my note: speaking of the barbarians.. It indeed recalls the saying "those living in glass houses.. Now it makes sense why you were getting all excited about saying "I'm not a Barbarian" when there wasn't even mention of it) I'm not claiming any knowledge on Indian history because, frankly, I was never interested in it above College Introductory Level. I did take classes on the subject talking about how the Indo-Aryans came they places themselves as Brahmins and ruled over the already existent Indian population. I did not know of the Schytian-Jatt relation; and apparently, it is not a "fact" as you try to make us believe. There are all sorts of different claims; and what would you expect about something that happened more than millenia ago? People to have kept records tracing their lineage? Let's get real. And what exactly is there to take pride in it? That Indians poured into the British Isles and took over the land? That you cannot even walk on the streets of your own country without being *lynched*? I can't believe you actually glorify this whole thing, whether it's a fact, or not (and I'm inclided to believe Arawn rather than you, who actually lives there and doesn't seem to have a stupid I-am-this-and-that-look-at-me agenda going on) Words of wisdom by a truly civilized individual. |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 15:47:35 GMT -5
I also found out about the Jatts being farmers in the caste system. Here's Ahluwalia again talking about the place of Jatts within the caste system: "I have posted enough material on this forum, from various sources, all of which acknowledge the low-caste status of Jatts. Jatts are shudras in the Hindu caste system. There is no reason to believe that Jatts "didn't care" what Brahmins felt. You have already shown how one Brahmin could control the destiny of several thousands of Jatts. It is also foolish to say that Jatts in Punjab villages are of different stock than Jatts from Haryana and elsewhere. There is no difference between Jatts of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, etc. They are from the same stock. The ONLY difference lies in Sikh philosophy which LIBERATED Jatts from their low-caste status and got them FREEDOM and EQUALITY. It is Sikhism that changed the destiny of your Jatt ancestors. Never forget this simple fact." Here's some excerpts from a rather lenghty document, for anyone who is interested in India's castes and caste relations I'm sure it'll be a wealthy resource: www.ambedkar.org/research/CasteDiscrimination.pdf"In India the condemnation can be quite severe, ranging from social ostracism to punitive violence. On August 6, 2001, in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, an upper-caste Brahmin boy and a lower-caste Jat girl were dragged to the roof of a house and publicly hanged by members of their own families as hundreds of spectators looked on. The public lynching was punishment for refusing to end an inter-caste relationship." (pg 11) Two questions arise: - Are you proud of this system where young people are hanged because one is of lower caste? And having pride in this (if you do) is it you condemning the Turks (or any others you do not like) as "barbarians" having "barbarian practices"? No wonder you keep talking about a lynching mob non-stop. - If you're proud of it, how come you present us the Jat caste as a "higher" caste? Just because there are not many Indians around, did you think we're dumb enough to swallow all you say? Just one search in Google and that's what I come up with, and I'm not claiming to be knowledgeable on the subject. But thank god I can read. Apparently the Jat caste is a lower caste by Hindu standarts which you're so proud to be. - Are you clinging onto your "Hindu and Indian" heritage? Are you for the caste system, which you serve in front of us all the time, when you're talking about the high-caste Indians being all Aryan? Then how come you are part Kshatri and part Jat? Clearly, there's no "trespassing" within the caste system, and if you're claiming your heritage basing it on the caste system itself; well, the question is, don't you see the irrelevance of your claims? If you're claiming to be "high caste" then you cannot be Jat; if you're claiming to be "Schytian" you cannot be high caste. Not to mention "The Schytian Theory" having major flaws in itself. I, for one, fail to see how you're consistent in your act. I say act, for it apparently has no real substance and you're some foreign born (or raised) Indian boy who's playing "Indian". Well, good for you and have fun with it. Drink mango lassi. From now on, I don't think I'd ever bother answering your fairy-tale claims any further, you ceased to be entertaining a while ago. And last, but not least; while calling everyone this and that, and posting megabytes of photos onto this forum; why not include your own little photo? Or have you still not found a suitable one from a less known Bollywood site to represent your Mediterranoid Indian self? |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 16:29:56 GMT -5
Milky is the color of milk which is white-yellow-ish, hard isn't it?It's not white in the european sens in the word. I never called Punjabis white. I couldn't miss this one. Milk, which is white-yellowish, eh? Boy, I don't know what kind of milk you are drinking but maybe it's the answer to your condition. Are you sure you're milking the right end of the cow? Or the bull? Milk, as an adjective is commonly used to mean "white" and is, white. It's not yellowish, it's not beige, it's white, blanc, bianco, bijel, beyaz. What kind of skin do you think the *Europeans* have, as if they all come out in the same pigmentation? Chalk? I leave you to live in your own imaginary land and rest my case. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Dec 21, 2003 16:54:44 GMT -5
I couldn't miss this one. Milk, which is white-yellowish, eh? Boy, I don't know what kind of milk you are drinking but maybe it's the answer to your condition. Are you sure you're milking the right end of the cow? Or the bull? Milk, as an adjective is commonly used to mean "white" and is, white. It's not yellowish, it's not beige, it's white, blanc, bianco, bijel, beyaz. What kind of skin do you think the *Europeans* have, as if they all come out in the same pigmentation? Chalk? I leave you to live in your own imaginary land and rest my case. Milk can actually have several colours: "milky-white", "pink", "greenish-white", and "light yellow". Obviously, the last three reffer to milk produced by sick cows. |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 17:31:54 GMT -5
Milk can actually have several colours: "milky-white", "pink", "greenish-white", and "light yellow". Obviously, the last three reffer to milk produced by sick cows. Well yes, as the use of an adjective though, milk is white, as it normally is. I'm sure there are many possibilities of color with our modern dairy techniques, as they tend to milk the cows with "greater efficiency" where sometimes blood is mixed to the milk itself.  "Milky skin", on the other hand, would refer to the proper color of milk, I believe; and not the one that sickly cows produce.  Or maybe it's the way he enjoys his milk and it's the way he chooses to define beautiful women, you get all kinds of people.. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Dec 21, 2003 19:22:04 GMT -5
The many possibilities of colour are related to the types of cows that have been selected for breeding. Modern cows are "super-cows" that produce 10x as much milk as the ones of the XIX century, but that are susceptible to all kinds of infections. The "pinkish-white" colour is indeed due to the presence of blood in the milk, the "greenish-white" is usually a sign of an infection by Streptococcus, and the "light yellow" can also be a sign of infection (although the yellowish colour can also have its cause in the concentration of fat in the milk). I obviously agree with you. Milky-white is the same colour as the white in xerox-paper sheets. When I think of milky-white, I think of someone with a skin-colour similar to yours (possibly somewhat paler) or similar to Amanda Peet's or Claire Forlani's. |
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 21, 2003 19:29:51 GMT -5
So, you're basically saying that we get MILK SHAKE from Cows that suffer PARKINSON's disease?  Edit: damn! |
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Dec 21, 2003 19:30:28 GMT -5
Punjabis, on average, look like these people: www.swmedcenter.com/physicians/images/gill_randy.jpgwww.tarksheel.freewebsites.com/photo.jpgwww.tarksheel.freewebsites.com/photo2.jpgwww.newsindia-times.com/2002/01/18/peace.jpgwww.ektaonline.org/~friendso/images/P1270444.jpgwww.sff.net/people/chiara/India991231RupalAndMomLookAtPunjabis75dpi.jpgAlso note, I look 100% Indian, but I have been mistaken for Turk, Iranian, Arabic, even by people from the aforementioned areas, not because I am light or anything, because on the contrary, my complexion is quite dark, but because of people's ignorance. A savvy feller can very easily distinguish the differences I have in phenotype to say, an Arab or a Turk. Of course people are going to speak to you in Turkic or Italian when you travel to these areas, because I doubt they speak English that well(not like they've been Anglicized like India and Indians have), and so, their only option is to speak in their native tongue to communicate with someone. Over at GNXP, our friend Godlesscapitalist claimed he was mistaken for a Sicilian when he visited that area. He posted his baby pic a while back, and boy oh boy, he looks more Indian than Atal Bihiari Vajpayee! Another thing is that, Indians generally are lighter as children than they are as adults..so it appears to me that our friend from GNXP was pulling things out of his backside...as is our friend Hindi here. Dienekes Pontikos once claimed he hasn't met even one Indian who could pass for a Southern European, or any other European for that matter. He's right, you know. Another opinion of mine: I don't think I am caucasoid, and I don't think Indians are caucasoids either. It's laughable that people so dark(generally) can be lumped up with the same group as Europeans, or heck, even Iranians or Arabs. I don't care what other people think. I am not caucasoid, and I don't want to be one. But classifying people as caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid is of course antiquated when we have DNA techniques that are better predictors of people's heritage/culture. And we all know Indians most often cluster seperately from Europeans. The only non-European ethnic group that's closer to Europe by genotype are Iranians of course. Those "light skinned" Bollywooders are so made up that it makes Michael Jackson look White. I have seen tons of pics of Bollywood stars photographed, when they're not cognizant of paperazzi(or whatever you call it) taking shots of them when they're "vulnerable", where they look much much different than what Bollywood likes to give the impression of what they really look like. Chocolate milk, although milk, doesn't look white to me. But it's "milky" is it not? Perhaps that's what our man Hindi is referring to, Chocolate milk?? The only people that look different in the subcontinent are Kashmiris, Pathans, Burushas, Hunzas, Gujjars, and any other groups in Northern Pakistan and India with Central Asian extraction. As simple as that, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by herrx on Dec 21, 2003 19:35:31 GMT -5
(although the yellowish colour can also have its cause in the concentration of fat in the milk). that's what i'd say. Some cow races have this higher concentration. Even concentrated milk has this minor yellow color, but we are not eskimos to differentiate it from the white. ;D But if you dehydrate it, you will be able to see it! |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 21, 2003 19:40:19 GMT -5
The only non-European ethnic group that's closer to Europe by genotype are Iranians of course. Am I the only person who thinks that the 'whiteness' of Iranians is being exaggerated? I think Levantine Arabs are lighter on average than Iranians. |
|
Or maybe it's the way he enjoys his milk and it's the way he chooses to define beautiful women, you get all kinds of people.. 
