|
Post by executiona9 on Mar 30, 2004 9:48:20 GMT -5
a few brief statements :
-There may be some Caucasian people in India and Pakistan, but the great majority of Indians and Pakistani are not fully Caucasian. I see a lot of mongoloid and even australoid traits in their appearances. The average Pakistani and Indian gives a Caucasian/Mongoloid/Australoid mixed impression to me.
-Iranians and Afghans on the other hand look fully Caucasian to me
Do people agree with me or disagree? Feel free to criticize my points
|
|
|
Post by sublime on Mar 30, 2004 10:15:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 30, 2004 10:18:25 GMT -5
Northwest Indians have never struck me as particularly Mongoloid, personally.
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Mar 30, 2004 10:21:40 GMT -5
sublime :
Most of the pictures of Iranians/Afghans you posted are Caucasians
Remember that Caucasian does not have to mean white. Not all Caucasians are white
|
|
|
Post by sublime on Mar 30, 2004 11:05:37 GMT -5
Although I understand that the term caucasian is not to be confused with the term white, I would still argue that if these people I have posted are considered caucasian, then IMO a significant proportion of people in Pakistan/ north India (punjabis included) are also caucasian.
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Mar 30, 2004 11:13:14 GMT -5
For example these people look full Caucasian This girl on the other hand is not fully Caucasian. She shows non-Caucasian admixture. She looks like a typical girl from India
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 30, 2004 13:59:46 GMT -5
Is this Rajput caucasian or not? Besides his sunburnt skin, what is there about him that's not caucasoid? You said he isn't, but what is the reason? "I see a lot of mongoloid and even australoid traits in their appearances" Stereotype. Genetic studies don't find Indians to have australoid admixture. We have proto-asian admixture, and proto asians might or might not have looked "mongoloid". Iranians on the other hand probably have direct mongoloid admixture.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 30, 2004 14:05:26 GMT -5
Executiona, you contradicted yourself. This is what you said earlier:
Now all of a sudden there may be caucasians in India? Dude, make up your mind already. Are you trying to rile us up???
|
|
Mast
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by Mast on Mar 30, 2004 14:16:57 GMT -5
Pic 2-5 look Iranian (although nr. 5 looks a bit.. strange..). Nr. 1 is a bit extreme, never seen any Iranians like that.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Mar 30, 2004 17:48:09 GMT -5
Stereotype. Genetic studies don't find Indians to have australoid admixture. We have proto-asian admixture, and proto asians might or might not have looked "mongoloid". Iranians on the other hand probably have direct mongoloid admixture. Coud you point to such studies? The Bamshad paper you linked to in the other thread about India doesn´t prove or disprove australoid admixture. It could be that these proto-asians were in fact australoid.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 30, 2004 19:05:09 GMT -5
Coud you point to such studies? The Bamshad paper you linked to in the other thread about India doesn´t prove or disprove australoid admixture. It could be that these proto-asians were in fact australoid. Well, I checked the Bamshad article one more time, and this is what he had to say: "Previous genetic studies have found evidence to support either a European or an Asian origin of Indian caste populations, with occasional indications of admixture with African or proto-Australoid populations (Chen et al. 1995; Mountain et al. 1995; Bamshad et al. 1996, 1997; Majumder et al. 1999; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes. This result appears to be owing to the amalgamation of two different patterns of sex-specific genetic variation. " This is the only passage where he mentions the term "proto-australoid", but what is obvious is that the two terms, "proto-asian" and "proto-australoid" are not equivalent, or for that matter interchangeable. There is a reason why most of these articles don't mention "australoid" elements among Indian caste populations. It is because Indians have none for virtually all purposes. Note that tribals or outcastes are different as they can be of Australoid origin. Here is a study done on Chenchu population(and also koya, plus many different caste populations) of Andhra Pradesh, who are described physically as "Australoids". hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdfIt says somewhere in that article that haplotypes found in Papauns and Australians were not found among Indians. Anywho, African admixture talked about in the first article(Bamshad) is found mostly in Siddhi populations, who are relatively quite recent imports to India. So, we are mostly proto-asian, with europeanness increasing as one climbs the caste ladder.
|
|
|
Post by cocacola on Mar 30, 2004 21:54:56 GMT -5
I disagree with what was said in the original thread. Pakistan has very tiny, if any australoid blood. I dont know about any substantial Iran is definitely not fully caucasoid b/c it also has mongloid blood. Iran also has semitic(not the language group) people and mongloid and dravidic people are also present. If they count as caucasian then sure, Iran is fully caucasian.
Pakistani people are almost all caucasian. Remember, having brown skin doesnt mean you are not caucasian. A lot of people in Pakistan and Iran look similar so including one and not the other isn't really logical. The same goes for northwest indians who besides having some mongoloids are basically caucasians.
BTW, I read a study that Persians and Jats(Punjabis) have similar origins. Does anyone have any views on this. The two populations do seem quite similar if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by cocacola on Mar 30, 2004 21:58:05 GMT -5
Is this Rajput caucasian or not? Besides his sunburnt skin, what is there about him that's not caucasoid? You said he isn't, but what is the reason? This man looks very caucasian(not necessarily white) and is very good looking, in a nongay way.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Mar 30, 2004 22:23:17 GMT -5
a few brief statements : -There may be some Caucasian people in India and Pakistan, but the great majority of Indians and Pakistani are not fully Caucasian. I see a lot of mongoloid and even australoid traits in their appearances. The average Pakistani and Indian gives a Caucasian/Mongoloid/Australoid mixed impression to me. Do people agree with me or disagree? Feel free to criticize my points I've seen many Indians in Chicago, Illinois, and none look Mongoloid. Some Pakistanis are lighter-pigmented and look slightly Middle Eastern/Arabic.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Mar 31, 2004 7:14:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. Well, Bamshad says he relies on previous studies to discard any affinity with Australoids, and he only uses Chinese, Japanese and Thai individuals in his Asian sample. He could have taken a second look. I´ll read the article on the Chenchu this afternoon and then I´ll comment further. Do you believe these proto-Asian genes are shared all along the Pacific Coast, from India to Japan? Well, I checked the Bamshad article one more time, and this is what he had to say: "Previous genetic studies have found evidence to support either a European or an Asian origin of Indian caste populations, with occasional indications of admixture with African or proto-Australoid populations (Chen et al. 1995; Mountain et al. 1995; Bamshad et al. 1996, 1997; Majumder et al. 1999; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes. This result appears to be owing to the amalgamation of two different patterns of sex-specific genetic variation. " This is the only passage where he mentions the term "proto-australoid", but what is obvious is that the two terms, "proto-asian" and "proto-australoid" are not equivalent, or for that matter interchangeable. There is a reason why most of these articles don't mention "australoid" elements among Indian caste populations. It is because Indians have none for virtually all purposes. Note that tribals or outcastes are different as they can be of Australoid origin. Here is a study done on Chenchu population(and also koya, plus many different caste populations) of Andhra Pradesh, who are described physically as "Australoids". hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdfIt says somewhere in that article that haplotypes found in Papauns and Australians were not found among Indians. Anywho, African admixture talked about in the first article(Bamshad) is found mostly in Siddhi populations, who are relatively quite recent imports to India. So, we are mostly proto-asian, with europeanness increasing as one climbs the caste ladder.
|
|