What's new

Attempts at dividing India: Study claims Malayali DNA similar to caucasian

Bull Sh1t..............This shows your desperation to show Malayali Down..........Thank for your love to Malayali...........
 
.
I just find it interesting that many Indian studies (like in the OP) are geared towards proving that Indians and white Europeans are connected.

Whereas Chinese will sometimes go to even absurd lengths to show that we are NOT connected to white Europeans in any way.

(One idiot Chinese professor even claimed that Chinese people had a separate ancestor from all other humans).




The main author of the study is European...not Indian...so you should ask them why they are so obsessed with us
 
.
Speaking of Han and east Asians, may be this would be of interest:
The China Beat · Sheep in Wolves
Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing? The Book the Han Nationalists Love to Loath

January 7, 2010 in Uncategorized by The China Beat | 1 comment
By James Leibold

“The publication of this book and its praise by famous personalities is actually preparing public opinion for the carrying out of racial genocide against the Han.”

–Zhao Fengnian (赵丰年) writing on Hanwang 汉网, 17 Dec 2008

What book could cause one Chinese netizen to “shiver with fear from head to toe” and others to suggest that the Han people might once again face genocide? Wolf Totem (狼图腾), the semi-autobiographical polemic of Han author Lü Jiamin 吕嘉民 (aka Jiang Rong 姜戎) and his confessional self-awakening about the beauty, strength and freedom of the Mongolian steppe and its lupine culture.

Despite the heated public debate this 2004 novel has generated on the Chinese mainland—with its estimated twenty million pirated and legal copies inviting comparison with Mao’s “Little Red Book”—Wolf Totem has generated surprisingly little academic analysis in the West. Here The China Beat has yet again proven a trailblazer, offering a number of thoughtful reviews and helpful links to other discussions on the Internet.

The book’s diverse themes (the struggle for freedom, ecological destruction, man versus nature, clash of cultures, and martial valor) help to explain, at least partially, its mass appeal and disparate interpretations, with the judging panel of the inaugural Man Asia Literary Prize, for example, praising Wolf Totem’s “passionate argument about the complex interrelationship between nomads and settlers, animals and human beings, nature and culture,” while the novel’s Chinese editor noted its attraction among “women who want their men to be more like wolves and MBA students who want to learn more wolfishness in business.”

In what follows, I seek to take the discussion in a slightly different direction by suggesting that the novel and its 50,000-character epilogue invite reconsideration of the place of Han identity (汉族, 汉民族, 汉人) within Chinese society and the increasing fragility of “multiculturalism with Chinese characteristics.” In the Anglophone world, Han is often used uncritically as a synonym for “Chinese,” while those who have studied the “nationalities question” (民族问题) in the West argue that “Han” functions as an “empty” or “residual” category for all those “Chinese” who are not one of the “backward” yet colorful, singing and dancing minorities.

MORE THAN AN EMPTY SIGNIFIER

But Wolf Totem and much of the Sinophone debate it has sparked is specifically related to the nature and scope of Han identity within Chinese society. Here, like the 1988 documentary River Elegy (河殇), Wolf Totem offers a scathing critique of the conservative and servile nature of sedentary Han culture, with several critics arguing they are essentially “brothers born of the same parents” (同胞兄弟). Yet Wolf Totem shifts the Han people’s succor from the dynamic “blue ocean” culture of the West to the wild, nomadic “wolf spirit” (狼性) of the steppe.

In his long and didactic epilogue, which was excluded from Howard Goldblatt’s Penguin translation, Lü Jiamin argues that a unique steppe-sown dialectic has propelled Chinese civilization forward over the last 5000 years, with the steppe’s nomadic races (Jurchens, Mongols, Manchus, etc.) providing the docile, insular, and sheep-like Han race with regular, re-invigorating “blood infusions” (输血) from the dynamic, martial, and democratic wolf spirit.

This highly essentialized re-imaging of Chinese history explicitly bifurcates “Chineseness” into a sedentary/Han/sheep versus nomadic/Mongol/wolf dyad, rendering any notion of shared national identity highly problematic. In fact, the author publically chastised Goldblatt for glossing Han as Chinese on the first page of his translated novel, for it pastes over the deep divisions of race and culture which are central to his iconoclastic re-construction of Chinese history and identity.

COAGULATED COHESION

Several commentators have rightly labeled Lü Jiamin’s narrative as “fascism” or “crypto-fascist.” But this blood and ecological based dialectic is deeply rooted in the mindset of modern Chinese intellectuals. Leading late Qing and Republican-era thinkers, including those as diverse as Sun Yat-sen 孫中山 and Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚, identified race mixing (or in Sun’s words the “smelting together in a single furnace”(融而入于一炉) as the ultimate solution to China’s lack of national cohesion.

The influential bilingual author Lin Yutang 林语堂, for example, argued that the strength and continuity of Chinese civilization was built on the periodic “infusion of new blood,” which, in his words, acted like “a kind of phylogentic monkey-gland grafting” and resulted in “a new bloom of culture after each introduction of new blood” as the civilized and comfortable lifestyle of the Han people “render them helpless at the hands of a fresher and more war-like race.”

Today, most Chinese intellectuals avoid any direct reference to blood or race, but the natural and non-violent process of “fusion” (融合) remains the touchstone of the CCP’s long-term solution to the nationalities question. As a sort of “coagulated-core” (凝聚核心) or rolling “snowball” (雪球), the magnetic Han majority and its magnanimous Confucian culture continue to draw the small and scattered minorities together into a harmonious whole—producing the unique “plurality and organic unity” (多元一体) of the Chinese nation/race (中华民族).

In fact, it is the relocation of this racial dynamism to the steppe and its nomadic races that renders Wolf Totem so highly controversial. It has lead to a healthy dose of criticism in mainstream academic and literary circles and even more heated vitriol in popular online forums.


Supporters of the Hanist movement in Shanghai wearing traditional “Han clothing” (汉服).
In particular, a small but increasingly vocal group of Han racial nationalists view Lü’s book as a sort of nomadic version of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”: a secret plot to handover power and authority in China to the Mongols, Manchus and other nomadic minorities, thereby undermining and eventually destroying the inherent superiority and centrality of the Han race and its 5000 year-old civilization.

Arguing that Han is more than an empty or meaningless category, the Hanists seek to revitalize “Han” culture and identity while redirecting patriotic anger towards the lurking “enemy within.” The “Han revivalist movement” (汉民族复兴运动) is a broad church, so to speak, attracting Chinese youth with a wide variety of interests and needs; yet the online campaign against Wolf Totem reveals some of the more extreme elements of this movement.

THE HOWL OF THE HAN SHEEP

Take, for example, the nearly 40,000-character reply to Lü Jiamin’s epilogue that has been widely circulated on the Chinese Internet. Entitled “A Han Person’s Howl: An Angry Critique of Wolf Totem’s 41 Fallacies,” this essay appears to have been first posted on the popular Hanwang portal under the pseudonym “The Fierce and Ambitious Flea Scratcher” (扪虱枭雄) in December 2008. This anonymous blogger provides a meticulous, and at times sophisticated (albeit highly repetitive), point-by-point critique to a previously circulated list of 41 reasons for the novel’s popularity.

Labeling Lü Jiamin as the unpatriotic “scum of the Han race” (汉人的败类), the blogger argues that the entire book is one long act of flattery to the nomadic races that does not hold up to rational scrutiny and a fact-based reading of Chinese history. Seeking to rouse his fellow Han netizens into action, the book’s dangers are personalized: “Han compatriots, we all have mothers. Our race is our common mother, and we absolutely cannot sit by and watch as our good and kind mother is insulted and defiled by others. We must rise in action and beat back the insults of these extreme racists. We must demand blood for blood and an eye for an eye.”

Replete with scathing and personal attacks on Lü Jiamin and his “dimwitted command of history,” the blogger seeks to demonstrate the scrounging and uncivilized nature of nomadic culture and how the repeated invasion of nomadic races sidetracked Han civilization from its natural path of progression. In this author’s own essentialized reading of history, Song China is depicted as the mainstream of human development and the world’s most advanced civilization, possessing 85% of global wealth and placing the Han on the doorstep of capitalism.

Rather than a life-saving transfusion of nomadic blood, the blogger argues that the Mongol empire’s thirtieth-century invasion of China was “a case of rape!” (那是强奸): “an unprecedented crime against humanity!” (空前的反人类罪行), which completely destroyed Han civilization and caused China to irrevocably fall behind the West. The Ming dynasty repaired some of the damage, but the Manchu Qing resumed the shameless pilfering of Han society while also opening the doors to foreign imperialism and further humiliation.

Nomadic races like the Mongols and the Manchus are parasites, a group of “weasels” (仓鼠), “crawling bugs” (爬虫) and “uncivilized barbarians” (未开化的野蛮人), incapable of creating any independent civilization and only able to survive on the periodic raping and pillaging of the highly creative and more humane Han civilization. Among the one hundred Chinese inventions identified by Arnold J. Toynbee, how many of them, the author asks, were created by the nomadic races?

In reply to Lü Jiamin’s suggestion that the Han people should compensate the indigenous inhabitants of the grasslands for destroying their fragile ecosystem, the blogger cries foul: rather the brutal and heartless natives should pay compensation to the Han for the savage massacre of 60 million Han people. This would amount to US$75 trillion if one used the minimum standard compensation of 10,000 yuan per person, and to a further US$87 trillion if one took into consideration the damages suffered by the Han economy and emotional pain and suffering caused by these repeated “blood transfusions.”

Yet the author repeatedly mocks the current weakness of the steppe nomads: “even if you placed every single blade of your grass, every head of livestock, every felt rug, each piece of animal dung, all your dry goods, every kilometer of your rivers, all the hawks flying in the sky, every wild rabbit, and of course, your most sacred wolves onto the auction table, you still couldn’t manage to pay this amount.”

Throughout this rambling polemic, the blogger makes repeated mention of the Han people’s “valiant spirit” (强悍精神) and “martial spirit” (尚武精神), offering several warnings to Lü Jiamin and the book’s supporters: “Remember, barbarians! I will remember my entire life, your peddling of this exceedingly humiliating theory, and insist that the next generation also remember. We did not instigate this racial hatred; rather you forced it upon us. If there comes a day when the flames of our indignant anger burns across the globe, don’t blame us! Rather you’re asking for it! China cannot be stopped from producing a second Ran Min 冉闵,” the fourth-century Han military leader who is praised by Han racial nationalists as a sort of “Hitler of Ancient East Asia” for his race-based attacks on the “five barbarian tribes” (五胡).

COLONIAL NECROPHILIA OR THE LUSTFUL BITE OF A WEREWOLF?

But how do the Han racial nationalists explain the vast popularity of Wolf Totem among Han readers? Doesn’t its massive Han readership validate Lü Jiamin’s national imaginary? In another posting on Hanwang entitled “What is the psychology behind those Han people who like Wolf Totem,” a blogger writing under the pseudonym “Iron” (铁) offers a short story to explain the novel’s popularity.

There was once an old palace eunuch who still had sexual desires even though he was no longer able to have sex. He confessed his desires to a beautiful young woman under his charge. The eunuch urged the woman to invite a young man back to her room for sex, and then hide next door and aroused himself by watching their lovemaking through a small peephole in the wall.

Those Han who read and enjoy Wolf Totem are no different from this randy eunuch. “What I fear most,” Iron writes, “is that those slavish [Han people] without a clue think the eunuch’s actions are completely normal, and instead label the other man’s erection as ‘Han chauvinism’, while taking pleasure in the treachery of the eunuch’s ‘peep show’.”

This author and other Han racial nationalists are tapping into the growing sense of cultural emptiness and social dislocation that has accompanied the rapid modernization and Westernization of Reform-era China. Several have noted how the commodification of minority cultures is increasingly driven by frontier exoticism and sex tourism with, in Nicole Barnes’ words, the “fear of emasculation driv[ing] Han men to their nation’s cultural frontier in an existential search for virility and assertiveness.”

This type of “internal Orientalism” is certainly not unique to China, where the love of colonized peoples and their exotic/erotic cultures functions as a form of “colonial necrophilia” in the words of Ghassan Hage. Yet, for the Han racial nationalists, this act of lovemaking threatens to render the Han race lifeless as the alluring yet poisonous bite of a werewolf ultimately proves fatal. Rather than harassing patriotic sites like Hanwang, the Hanists call on the authorities to act quickly in banning Wolf Totem and outlawing the type of “reverse racism” (逆向种族主义) that undermines national solidarity and harmony.

HAN CYBER-NATIONALISM

Despite the sheer lunacy associated with this idea of Han racial genocide, the online hate-speak generated by Wolf Totem and the growing resentment of minority privilege shows signs of spilling over onto Chinese streets, with the recent race riots in Lhasa, Shaoguan, and Ürümqi an important reminder of how Internet rage can whip the marginalized and socially disposed into bloody action. The authorities in China have thus far proven effective (if not ruthless) in cracking down on racial violence after the fact, but current legal regulations and their implementation fail to go far enough in outlawing and prosecuting cyber-racism. Current laws governing the use of Chinese cyberspace explicitly outlaw any communication that “injures national unity” or “provokes hatred and discrimination among nationalities and injures national solidarity”; yet one can still find numerous examples of minzu-based hate-speak on the Chinese Internet.

Li Minhui 李敏辉 (aka Li Li 李理) the 34 year-old co-founder and current administrator of Hanwang.
Hanwang and other Hanist sites were temporarily “harmonized” (被和谐, viz “closed down”) after the July 2009 Ürümqi Riots that left nearly 200 people dead. But this site and other web forums quickly reopened. Today, Hanwang boasts a thousand daily postings and over one hundred thousand registered members, making its community only slightly smaller than the leading White nationalist portal Stormfront.

In the absence of a frank, open and robust exchange on ethnic issues in the Chinese academy and media—where a variety of voices and different perspectives can be held up to rational public scrutiny—the influence of these extremist views are likely to increase. China’s Internet Revolution has certainly broadened the scope of public discourse, but not all forms of cyber-activism contribute to liberal thought and action. The dynamic nature of the Internet and the patchy coverage of the state’s censorship regime leave “dark corners” where the vitriolic howl of Han nationalists goes largely unanswered but not unheard.

Dr James Leibold is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Asian Studies at La Trobe University and the author of a forthcoming article on Han Racial Nationalism on the Chinese Internet that will be published in The China Quarterly.
 
.
Does this reopen the aryan invasion debate or is this unrelated?

Unrelated,firstly its just along western ghats and places east of that aren't and secondly those "aryans" could be traced back to traders,Arab immigrants and refugees than to any invaders.

I think they only tested Anglo Indians.

Anglo Indians aren't the only group.

Centuries of immigration and conversion history of Kerala in a nutshell

Arabs

Islam came to Kerala way before the Muslim invasions of Indian.As early as 7th century Arab traders used to visit the Malabar region.
Pepper_H_sp4_sidebar.jpg
Pepper_I_sp4_sidebar.jpg

Pepper_G_sp4_sidebar.jpg
Pepper_J_sp4_sidebar.jpg



★Many settled in Kerala giving rise to the Mappila community.Their missionary activities caused a number of natives to also embrace Islam. These new converts were also added to the Mappila community.Nair rulers of Calicut extended all facilities and protection to them.

★Marakkar are an other group.During the time of Prophet Muhammed, the Maharaja Cheraman Perumal went to Arabia and accepted Islam in Mecca. He died in Mecca and was buried there.He did sent a team of messengers in a ship to Kerala to preach the Islamic principles.The local rulers received them royally and the missionaries married women from the royal families and they settled down in different parts of Kerala.

★Kunjali Marakkars are Muslim naval chiefs of the Zamorin (Samoothiri) , Hindu king of Calicut, Kerala, during 16th century. Kunhalis played an important part in the Zamorin's naval wars with the Portuguese from 1520 to 1600.Samoothiri's had also allied with the Mamluk Egyptian/Turkish Navy for defeating the Portuguese.They had been given the powers and privileges of any Nair noble in the Samoothiri's service.

Syrians

consecration1.jpg
salmusa.jpg


After religious persecution, like the Parsees the Syrian Christians (called St. Thoma Christians) came as refugees to Kerala from Syria.

The Saint Thomas Christians trace their origins to the evangelical activity of Thomas the Apostle, said to have come to Kerala sometime in the 1st century.

Jews

H5138.jpg

7-109-23.synagogue.m.jpg


1000 B.C.,King Solomon traded with Ophir, a city on the Kerala coast: either it is Bepur near Kozhikode / Puvar near Thiruvananthapuram.

★ In 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon captured Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's Temple.Jews are said to have come to Kerala after Cyrus released them.

★Following the "Great Revolt" of the Jews against the Roman Empire, Roman troops destroyed the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To escape Roman rule, 10,000 Jews are said to have migrated to Kerala in 72 AD.

★Jews also came from Baghdad and the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) in the sixteenth century.The Cochin Jews had a higher status in the caste system than the Bene Israel Jews.

The Hindu King of Cochin gave the Jews protection.he generously provided a "jewish quarter" abutting his palace that exists to this day. Called "Jewtown" by modern Keralites, the king built the Cochin Jews a small (orthodox) synogogue, and allowed them to practice their businesses in their area without harrassment.Many of them have converted to other religions mainly Christianity, they are called Nasranis (from Nazarean/Nestorians). After the creation of Israel about 3,000 went to Israel.
 
.
^Syrian Christians and Mappila Muslims are still native to Bharat only. they don't look like Arabs or Israelites. They are a mixed population. Still South Indians only.
 
.
^Syrian Christians and Mappila Muslims are still native to Bharat only. they don't look like Arabs or Israelites. They are a mixed population. Still South Indians only.

They still look better than an average south Indians or most North Indians for that matter. Then there is a bunch of really "Aryan" looking people, who IMO look better than Arabs.They are fair, by fair I mean not the avg grayish yellow kind, they are more like "pink" with brownish hair and eyes.There are many more like them, ask any guy from Kerala.

I have a few relatives from my mothers side who look like that (and I am not), thats what got me interested in the whoe topic.
 
.
They still look better than an average south Indians or most North Indians for that matter. Then there is a bunch of really "Aryan" looking people, who IMO look better than Arabs.They are fair, by fair I mean not the avg grayish yellow kind, they are more like "pink" with brownish hair and eyes.There are many more like them, ask any guy from Kerala.

I have a few relatives from my mothers side who look like that (and I am not), thats what got me interested in the whoe topic.

Are you a Syrian Christian or Mapilla, if you don't mind me asking.
 
.
racist drivel

All this hatred, supported by a low ranked lecturer (not Professor) at a trash school, about how Han are sheep that get too comfortable that need to be controlled by warlike nomadic wolves? You need to see help, but not before changing your flag to India.

What kind of sick racial hatred do you have for Chinese that you have to drag such off topic things onto here?
 
.
Its not just the Muslims or Syrian Christians who migrated to Kerala but other communities like the Nairs and Ezhavas are also claimed to be migrants from central asia or N E India much before the Muslims and Christians. Even the Namboothiris who came from north settled in Kerala doesn't have any similarities with the Iyer communities in TN. Thats why malayalees are similar to Bengali rather than tamils. And its just a myth that malayalees are breakaway faction of tamil community and it is conspired by the tamils to claim our land.

Just have a read of this topic.

Historic Alleys: On the origin of Nairs

The Namboothiri Community - A History
 
. .
now they claiming martial race.:hang2:
:disagree: :disagree::disagree:

The allele frequency distribution in the tribal and nontribal communities when compared with the other world populations suggests that Malabar Muslims and Syrian Christians have greater influence from the Mediterranean gene pool based on the prevalence of alleles B*35 and Cw*04 in these populations.On the other hand, Hindu Nairs have been influenced by the western European gene pool based on high prevalence of alleles B*07 and Cw*07 in populations such as Belgium, Germany and Scotland. Other Hindu communities such as Ezhava and Namboothiris have features of European, central Asian and East Asian gene pools. Mitochondrial DNA studies also corroborate the presence of two distinct, eastern- and western-Eurasian specific lineage groups in India, suggesting that there were at least two separate migration events to India. It is evident from the HLA class I allelic and haplotypic frequencies that the Dravidian communities of Kerala have been influenced by the gene pools of different world populations during different time periods, giving rise to a unique and distinct population having crypto-Dravidian features.

Check this link for further details
http://www.freewebs.com/hmgrgcb/publication/TA Rasmi et al 2006.pdf
 
.
All this hatred, supported by a low ranked lecturer (not Professor) at a trash school, about how Han are sheep that get too comfortable that need to be controlled by warlike nomadic wolves? You need to see help, but not before changing your flag to India.

What kind of sick racial hatred do you have for Chinese that you have to drag such off topic things onto here?

You figured it out too? :lol:

These guys are so obvious.
 
. .
LOL, you must be joking. :lol:

Here are the DNA paths out of Africa:

350px-Map-of-human-migrations.jpg


The ancestors of Chinese people took the journey out of Africa through Central Asia, because the Himalayas were an impassable obstacle. Which is why many Central Asians today share some similarilities in appearance with East Asians.

The impassable Himalayas also explain why Chinese look so different from Indians despite being neighbours.

I am not able to understand anything from the picture, even after looking at it for sometime. Can you please explain the picture in little detail?

Thanks.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom