Indians shouldnt be divided But one thing is certain there are different racial elements in india. Its not about colour but about skull, facial expression etc.
Race Census [New Delhi]
India. -
I also wrote on a other forum
We have basically all 4 Races in India
-The Caucasian or White Race represented by the Caste Population both in South and North.
-The (Proto)Mongoloid represented by Tibeto-Burman Minorities [Adivasi]
-The (Proto)Australoid represented by Austro-Asiatic Minorities [Adivasi] and Untouchables who are of ancient stabilized Proto-Australoid/Caucasian [Indo-Melanid] Blend
-The Negroid Race represented by Ancient Black Slaves or Siddis
Summary by Indian Anthropological Census [Delhi]
http://www.athelstane.co.uk/tchodson..._ethn.htm#q024
Kashyap (2006)[11] designates 23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid, of which one speaks an Indo-European language (Dhangar of Maharashtra), 4 speak Austro-Asiatic languages (Kurmi of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Kurmi of Bihar, and Juang and Saora of Orissa), and 18 speak Dravidian languages. 7 populations were designated as Mongoloid, and the remaining 24 as Caucasoid. No Proto-Australoid category was used. Note: Some mislabeling of Balgir's categories has occurred. Proto-Australoid embraces Dravidian speakers, whereas Australoid differs from these latter two.
-Southindians were never Proto-Australoid and/or Negroid like White and Black Supremacists trying to proove, they were meditteranoid stock caucasians just with darker skin because southindia is sunheater than northindia --> adpation of skin colour to climate
The Proto-Australoids are a hypothesized group of ancient hunter-gather people descended from the first major wave of modern humans to leave sub-Saharan Africa ~100,000 years ago. This hypothesis of human migration was developed in the 1950s, but more recent scientific evidence suggests that the first still-extant wave of modern humans to leave sub-Saharan Africa did so ~65,000 years ago rather than ~100,000 years ago.
Proto-Australoids are characterised by gracile body types, and are thought to have had deep dark-brown skin color and wavy, curly or frizzy black hair. They are also thought to have had long heads and broad, flat noses.[1]
Southindians didnt had broad flat noses and frizzy hair.
Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
Tamil Actresses of an Caucasian Nordindid Racial Type
Posted Image
Conclusion:
-BOTH Ancestral Northindian as well as Ancestral Southindian were Caucasian White Race --> the White Race can have an darker skin tone due to climate adaption not every white person is actually white skinned just like not every non-white person is dark skinned [japanese, albinos, north chinese etc.].
-Caste Hindus are not Hybrids between White,Black and Yellow like claimed by various Non-Hindu Supremacists.
-Minorities do exist, but they are minorities not the bulk of the Population.
---
THANK YOU!
Pure ASI [Ancestral Southindian] are not australoids, and Onge are not ASI either.
once again:
The Reich et al paper had Nigerians-ASI distance at 1772, and Andaman-ASI distance at 1199
80,000-60,000 yrs BP (4,000 gens) split between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians
40,000-30,000 yrs BP (2,000 gens) split between Western and Eastern Eurasians
34,000-25,500 yrs BP (1,700 gens) proto-Indian-Andamanese Onge split.
8000-6000 yrs BP (400 gens) split of Europeans and Adygei
so basically, ASI are so distant from Onge and australoids in australia and papua that you cannot consider them related at all, unless you consider that caucasoids are related to mongoloids as well as negroids.
ASI are unique to South Asia and in their pure form they probably already had caucasoid facial features. Btw its possible that ANI originated in south asia as well and spread out into west asia and europe instead before mixing within south asia with the ASI took place.
consider these facts:
"Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recentlyour haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture."
AJHG - Page Not Found
so that means that ANI [Ancestral Northindian] must have been in south asia long before any theoretical invasion, so long in fact that you can consider those people as locals, and that means all the civilization and inventions associated with south asia where made by the locals, not invaders.
and like i said earlier, nothing has been confirmed yet so its very possible that ANI is indeginous to south asia as well, and spread out into west and central asia, as well as Europe before local mixing with ASI took place.
@Originally Posted by the User treopod on anthroscape
About ANI/ASI from Reicht et al
These results do not mean
that the Indian groups descend from mixtures of European and
Austro-Asiatic speakers, but only that they derive from at least two
different groups that are (distantly) related to CEU and Santhal.
---
THANK YOU
http://www.genome.duke.edu/seminars/...ature08365.pdf
-----
Im not sure anymore about the untouchables and dravidians, maybe only the austro-asiatic tribals like the munda people are proto-australoid, there are also yellow race/mongoloid in india