India: a shame for its ancestors

[Freixel]

What would the writers of the Bhagavad-Gita do if they saw that India had become a giant stinking ghetto full of rubble, garbage and feces?

Were the Aryans right when they said that the racial caste system had to be maintained?

Look what happened when only Negroids (australoids) were left

The same thing always happens in every country in the world, the more black people, the more destroyed and full of poop and garbage.

In the ghettos of Latin America that look like giant garbage dumps, it is almost impossible to find a Caucasoid, they are all mixed breeds of Amerindians and Negroids.

And I want to clarify something: There was already civilization in India before the arrival of the Aryans, but I am sure that they were not ethnically like the Indians of today either.

 

[Nowiff.Belgrade]

Yes, bad country.

 

[Freixel]

What would Krishna do if he came down to earth, exterminated his own people with a beam of incandescent light?

 

[Gengar]

They would be shocked to see that their once-glorious nation is now filled with shitskins.

 

[STAMPEDE]

People forget that whites just before 200 years ago were washing in human waste and poo and were walking around naked and living in caves. Only in the last 200 years whites became “civilized”

 

[Freixel]

People forget that whites just before 200 years ago were washing in human waste and poo and were walking around naked and living in caves. Only in the last 200 years whites became “civilized”

Who cares about white people, the mixes of Indo-Europeans with pre-Indo-Europeans from Greece and Rome had the best civilizations millennia ago

At least they got out of the shit

But did the Negroid ex-slaves achieve it? Will they get out of the shit? Or will they be condemned to wait for another superior civilization to chain them?

 

[BrownButNotaClown]

i hate indians but this is like showing downtown batltimore to claim america is third world. From what i understand the upper caste make up 4 percent of the pop, its not possible to build up a country when ur that low in numbers, many are leaving to the West.

 

[awpatheris]

Let me get this straight.

Firstly, the first migration came to the subcontinent from Africa into the subcontinent around 60k BC, east asia, southeast asia, etc. and after a couple thousand years, this group (Ancestral Indians) look completely different from the rest of the migrants around 20k BC. These are now "Veddids"

Second, a group of farmers from the Zagros mountains in Iran came down to South Asia around 8-10k years ago and mixed with the Veddids to create the Indus Valley Civilization later. These are Dravidians.

Third, around 5k BC , first Steppe migrants from Bactria/(Central Asia) migrate into the subcontinent and mix in with the 'Dravidians'.

Fourth, around 1.5k BC, the Indus Valley Civilization declines due to drought leading to migrations to the south and mixing with the original Veddid/Ancestral Indian people (leading to what is now South Indians)

Also around this time, Steppe pastorialists (Aryans) migrate into the subcontinent and form initially around what is now Pashtun Pakistan, and around 1k BC these Indo-Aryans that have mixed in with the Dravidians (leading to what is now North India) form city-states around the Indus to Ganges Rivers

After this, there were Greek, Turk, Arab, Persian, etc. migrations but this barely left a genetic impact onto South Asia

North India/Pakistan - Dravidians + Indo Aryans
South India - Dravidians + Veddids
The rest of the subcontinent & its periphery is about the same

It's ironic too considering that the south of India (the non 'aryan' part) has always been more developed and still is

 

[Freixel]

Let me get this straight.

Firstly, the first migration came to the subcontinent from Africa into the subcontinent around 60k BC, east asia, southeast asia, etc. and after a couple thousand years, this group (Ancestral Indians) look completely different from the rest of the migrants around 20k BC. These are now "Veddids"

Second, a group of farmers from the Zagros mountains in Iran came down to South Asia around 8-10k years ago and mixed with the Veddids to create the Indus Valley Civilization later. These are Dravidians.

Third, around 5k BC , first Steppe migrants from Bactria/(Central Asia) migrate into the subcontinent and mix in with the 'Dravidians'.

Fourth, around 1.5k BC, the Indus Valley Civilization declines due to drought leading to migrations to the south and mixing with the original Veddid/Ancestral Indian people (leading to what is now South Indians)

Also around this time, Steppe pastorialists (Aryans) migrate into the subcontinent and form initially around what is now Pashtun Pakistan, and around 1k BC these Indo-Aryans that have mixed in with the Dravidians (leading to what is now North India) form city-states around the Indus to Ganges Rivers

After this, there were Greek, Turk, Arab, Persian, etc. migrations but this barely left a genetic impact onto South Asia

North India/Pakistan - Dravidians + Indo Aryans
South India - Dravidians + Veddids
The rest of the subcontinent & its periphery is about the same

It's ironic too considering that the south of India has always been more developed and still is

Finally some High IQ on this forum

I believe that the racial basis of the pre-Indo-European Indians was basically Australoid, or Australoids mixed with Middle east populations

What are the "pure" Dravidians and Veddids really like?

What is the racial basis of these populations?

I think Australoids.

 

[awpatheris]

Finally some High IQ on this forum

From left to right is the Sintashta (steppe pastorialists, different from the browner Yamnaya people in Europe), Zagros (Iran neolithic farmers), Native Veddid People (Ancestral South Indian)

 

[DMVsheboon]

Second, a group of farmers from the Zagros mountains in Iran came down to South Asia around 8-10k years ago and mixed with the Veddids to create the Indus Valley Civilization later. These are Dravidians.

No. They came in around 4k BCE and they were responsible for IVC. IVC was not Dravidian but Indo- Aryan speaking.

Also around this time, Steppe pastorialists (Aryans) migrate into the subcontinent and form initially around what is now Pashtun Pakistan, and around 1k BC these Indo-Aryans that have mixed in with the Dravidians (leading to what is now North India) form city-states around the Indus to Ganges Rivers

No. Steppe Pastoralists were not Aryans as RV had been created already by 1.8 k BCE.

After this, there were Greek, Turk, Arab, Persian, etc. migrations but this barely left a genetic impact onto South Asia

actually it did. This is what makes up most of the "steppe" genome and scythians as well

 

[awpatheris]

No. They came in around 4k BCE and they were responsible for IVC. IVC was not Dravidian but Indo- Aryan speaking.


No. Steppe Pastoralists were not Aryans as RV had been created already by 1.8 k BCE.

actually it did. This is what makes up most of the "steppe" genome and scythians as well

What? There were migrations from the Zagros mountains way earlier, but the core part of the Indus Valley formed around that time, yes, and fell a few thousand years later mainly due to climate patterns. The Indus Valley was definitely not Aryan speaking.

What is RV? Steppe pastorialists are Indo-European or "Aryan"

Could you show proof that the later migrations impacted South Asian genome? I find this hard to believe, barely any samples I've seen show anything apart from the Big 3: AASI, Iran_N, and Steppe

 

[Deleted member 90265]

 

[Freixel]

From left to right is the Sintashta (steppe pastorialists, different from the browner Yamnaya people in Europe), Zagros (Iran neolithic farmers), Native Veddid People (Ancestral South Indian)

So the pre-Indo-European Indians were basically a mix of these populations of African origin + neolithic farmers (caucasoids of middle east > the same basis as the pre-Indo-European populations of southern Europe)

So basically the Indus Valley civilization looked ethnically like the Indians of today?

 

[DMVsheboon]

What? There were migrations from the Zagros mountains way earlier, but the core part of the Indus Valley formed around that time, yes, and fell a few thousand years later mainly due to climate patterns. The Indus Valley was definitely not Aryan speaking.

What is RV? Steppe pastorialists are Indo-European or "Aryan"

Could you show proof that the later migrations impacted South Asian genome? I find this hard to believe, barely any samples I've seen show anything apart from the Big 3: AASI, Iran_N, and Steppe

yeah sure

Steppe Ancestry definitely arrived in India post 1000 BCE - The Final Blow

The title says it all, no Ifs or Buts. I prove it here.

a-genetics.blogspot.com

The Southern Arc paper and it's data upends the Steppe Theory in multiple ways

What does this new paper and its samples mean for the spread of Indo European and Indo Iranian?

a-genetics.blogspot.com

R1a Explained

I explore the ancient and modern distribution of R1a subclades around the world, and explain how they relate to the Indian R1a subclades.

a-genetics.blogspot.com

The Archaeogenetics blog

Sharing and analyzing latest finds in the domain of archaeology and genetics

a-genetics.blogspot.com

 

[awpatheris]

So the pre-Indo-European Indians were basically a mix of these populations of African origin + neolithic farmers (caucasoids of middle east > the same basis as the preo-Indo-European populations of southern Europe)

Yeah, pretty much. The australoid people you were talking about are 'Veddids' or the first people that migrated. Dravidians = Iran neolithic farmers & Veddids

 

[awpatheris]

yeah sure

Steppe Ancestry definitely arrived in India post 1000 BCE - The Final Blow

The title says it all, no Ifs or Buts. I prove it here.

a-genetics.blogspot.com

The Southern Arc paper and it's data upends the Steppe Theory in multiple ways

What does this new paper and its samples mean for the spread of Indo European and Indo Iranian?

a-genetics.blogspot.com

R1a Explained

I explore the ancient and modern distribution of R1a subclades around the world, and explain how they relate to the Indian R1a subclades.

a-genetics.blogspot.com

The Archaeogenetics blog

Sharing and analyzing latest finds in the domain of archaeology and genetics

a-genetics.blogspot.com

These steppe pastorialists were not the same that created Indo-Aryan civilization. This was BMAC Oxus River Amu Darya and mainly centered around NW Pakistan/Afghanistan

Not the later migrations of Steppe pastorialists that formed around the Indus to Ganges forming the core of Indo Aryan kingdoms / mahajanapadas

 

[DMVsheboon]

These steppe pastorialists were not the same that created Indo-Aryan civilization. This was BMAC Oxus River Amu Darya and mainly centered around NW Pakistan/Afghanistan

there were no steppe pastoralists that created indo-Aryan civilsation . its explained in the last two links.

 

[greycel]

So the pre-Indo-European Indians were basically a mix of these populations of African origin + neolithic farmers (caucasoids of middle east > the same basis as the preo-Indo-European populations of southern Europe)

Nah they were Caucasoid Hunter Gatherers

 

[Freixel]

Yeah, pretty much. The australoid people you were talking about are 'Veddids' or the first people that migrated. Dravidians = Iran neolithic farmers & Veddids

I wonder what the average intellectually educated Indian thinks about this situation.

Do they detest what the Aryan dominion created in their nation, the subjugation of local populations?

They embrace the pre-Aryan ethnicities and cultures as their true identity?

What do the pajeets of this forum have to say?

 

[awpatheris]

there were no steppe pastoralists that created indo-Aryan civilsation . its explained in the last two links.

Well , if you mean that they mixed in with the IVC people and later created the Indo Aryan civilization , then yes

 

[awpatheris]

I wonder what the average intellectually educated Indian thinks about this situation.

Do they detest what the Aryan dominion created in their nation, the subjugation of local populations?

They embrace the pre-Aryan ethnicities and cultures as their true identity?

What do the pageets of this forum have to say?

In the south, they believe in the 'Aryan invasion' (Migration is the better term) and think they're the original people of the subcontinent
In the north, they believe in 'Out of India' or that Indo Europeans came out of India and into the rest of the world and show NW Indians as proof of this (flawed)

But most people don't care aside from jeet nationalists

I find history/anthropology to be interesting

Imo I don't think there was much of an 'invasion' or 'subjugation' as these groups pretty much mixed in with the IVC and later created Indo Aryan civilization, but it's clear that they were on top of the social hierarchy. This hierarchy apparently changed around 900 AD

 

[Freixel]

In the south, they believe in the 'Aryan invasion' (Migration is the better term) and think they're the original people of the subcontinent
In the north, they believe in 'Out of India' or that Indo Europeans came out of India and into the rest of the world and show NW Indians as proof of this (flawed)

But most people don't care aside from jeet nationalists

Well the south is right in this case

To me it would make sense that they identify with their pre-Aryan ethnoculture, taking into account that the Aryan blood is completely diluted and the majority of the population sees as a branch of populations of African origin.

Embracing this identity should correlate with wanting to abolish the caste system.

 

[DMVsheboon]

Well , if you mean that they mixed in with the IVC people and later created the Indo Aryan civilization , then yes

The entry of steppe genetics in India was far too late and arrived in succession rather than a single continuous movement that it doesnt explain genesis of Indo Aryan languages. The last link explains why that is. The time depth split chart for Indo- Iranain is much earlier than once thought. Steppe migration cannot explain it. Only choice left is IVC was already Indo Aryan speaking. The entry of steppe people did little to change their civilisation, although phenotypic differences would have arisen (lighter skin , eyes and hair in northern parts for eg. although Zagrosian farmers already carried the allele for light skin).

 

[awpatheris]

The entry of steppe genetics in India was far too late and arrived in succession rather than a single continuous movement that it doesnt explain genesis of Indo Aryan languages. The last link explains why that is. The time depth split chart for Indo- Iranain is much earlier than once thought. Steppe migration cannot explain it. Only choice left is IVC was already Indo Aryan speaking. The entry of steppe people did little to change their civilisation, although phenotypic differences would have arisen (lighter skin , eyes and hair in northern parts for eg. although Zagrosian farmers already carried the allele for light skin).

The succession you're talking about is the initial migrants from BMAC culture whose impact wasn't as large as the later Sintashta people. I agree the migration didn't happen suddenly but over thousands of years, but they MIXED in with the IVC to create Indo Aryan civilization. This can be proved because most North Indians have a Y haplogroup of R1a, and a literal google search would agree with me

IVC was definitely not Indo-Aryan speaking, as there's a clear linguistic difference between the Dravidian speaking peoples of South India and the Austro-Asiatic languages that tribal people of India speak. Another thing is that Southern Dravidian landowning castes are descendants of the IVC, which can also be proved with genetic testing

Another thing to consider is that Brahui, a language in Pakistan/Balochistan is also a Dravidian language.

Yes, zagrosian farmers did have alleles for light skin, green eyes, etc. but this was rare to have and only Dravidian landowning castes of South India have these usually.

Phenotype is a different story, as genotype =/= phenotype

 

[laaltin]

After this, there were Greek, Turk, Arab, Persian, etc. migrations but this barely left a genetic impact onto South Asia

The Scythians got absorbed in the wider population after their fall

 

[DMVsheboon]

The succession you're talking about is the initial migrants from BMAC culture whose impact wasn't as large as the later Sintashta people. I agree the migration didn't happen suddenly but over thousands of years, but they MIXED in with the IVC to create Indo Aryan civilization. This can be proved because most North Indians have a Y haplogroup of R1a, and a literal google search would agree with me

Refer to the third link, most R1A haplogroups in the Indian subcon are endemic to India, and R1Z93 associated with the sinthashta wave is actually paltry and shows almsot equal distrbiution between tribals and upper castes

IVC was definitely not Indo-Aryan speaking, as there's a clear linguistic difference between the Dravidian speaking peoples of South India and the Austro-Asiatic languages that tribal people of India speak. Another thing is that Southern Dravidian landowning castes are descendants of the IVC, which can also be proved with genetic testing

The question of what Harppans spoke is left open but there are multiple interpretations, one being Indo Aryan was already spoken there through Zagrosian farmers entering the subcon through gujarat and one branch going north while the other going south (to mix w the AASI aborigines). Tamil and Sanskrit evolved differently due to the north being Zagrosian dominant while the South being less so. Case in point tamil brahmins (who migrated from the north) are IVC dominant (70 percnet ivc 20 aasi 10 steppe) speak a special dialect of tamil with heavy use of sanskrit, in contrast to the tamils who are AASI dominant .