Busting the myth of "British Railway Gift" and other gifts to India

[Fattyacids]

Unfair comparison. IVC was an advanced civilization. It ended due to natural causes. For whatever reasons they could not start a new, as influential civilization again, might have to do with mingling with the new migrants.
Besides who said there was no civilization in India after 1900 BC, which didn't involved any new migrants in the region, that is, if wiki and certain historians are to be believed. For example:
There were Tamils and others. By 500 BC, there were pretty big empires down in the south.

It's completely valid. Regardless the advancement and climate change, the native people could have started their own, but they didn't. What's stopping them? Certainly, not mingling with new migrants.

3000-1000 BCE is parallel to IVC, newly discovered Tamil civilization? You know anyone can edit wiki right? Pls don't quote wiki for serious discussion.

Barrier, as in making the travel harder. I do not deny people coming in, they even had trade down south. But for people living in the subcontinent, those regions were not easily accessible. You read the accounts of people coming in India, but not so much of going out.
And no, before the Muslim invasions, there was no significant impact on Indian culture from outside. Not that I know of. Unfortunately my work doesn't permits me to read a lot on this, I would be happy if you point it out to me!

Hindu Kush lies in part of Afghan only, it was no barrier to anyone. There's a vast land that connects the West to Pakistan/Northern India. It's called Persian Plateau. Central asian and western China are accessible from the North Eastern side. Haven't you heard of Silk route? Please study geography.

You could do well to find out more about indo-Greek impact on the indian subcontinent.

Doesn't makes it easier. @American_Millennium gave a good reference, of using language. But if we are talking about prehistoric time, when people were mass migrating, would not a group which settled down in a place and started a civilization be called a Native? Compared to USA, where most of the world was already civilized and after a long period of settlement, people again started to move out and invade, 2000 BC was when people were migrating around to an extent.

Do not twist my words!! I said separating prehistoric period from historic. Intuitively, one would know I referred to historic period, because it denotes civilization, the people and culture. (Language is part of a civilization)

Simple. It's a matter of separating prehistoric from historic period. The first group of people with a common way of life are native.

The crux of the argument is, "when do you consider a group native." Time period is of no relevance so long we're within the context of native vs first foreigner. Native American are native, puritans the first foreigner. There're many earlier examples too, the Celtics were native, Anglo-Saxon migrated from Germany. And English was born.

 

[Speeder 2]

Well, if we are just speaking about language groups then it would be the Urheimat of the language group. The "Urheimat" is the origin of the language. The reason language groups are used to define races/ethnicities/pan-ethnicities (etc. etc.) that inhabited Earth during ancient times, is because each language was invented by a certain set of closely related (both culturally and genetically) people.

Basically true, but there’re some cases where an ethnic group speaks a (main) language other than their racial/ethnic own, because they were conquered at some point in history hence have started by force to speak the language of their conquerors who were not their racial kins. E.g. Both Hindi and English are spoken widely in India as 2 of many offical languages, yet both are Indo-European languages rather than indigenous Indian sub-continent one.

So the proto-PIE people are indigenous to Eastern Europe, the Semite peoples are indigenous to Western Asia, and Dravidian's are indigenous to Southern Asia. Notice that these are not racial designations like "White" or "Black", nor are they phenotypic designations like "Caucasoid/Caucasian", "Negroid", or "Mongoloid". They can be said to be a subgroup of phenotypic/racial designations, as PIE people were certainly European (and therefore Caucasoid/White) while proto-Turkic populations were certainly Northern Asian (and therefore Mongoloid), and proto-Dravidians were certainly South Asian (and therefore Australoid; closely related population to Negroids).

1. "Dark" Dravidians are NOT indigenous to Southern India! The only People indigenous to Southern India (a geographic term) are Australoid, while Davidians are a branch of Caucasoid with avg IQ about mid 80’s who came from Central Asia orginally and conquered the indigenous Australoid in Souhtern Indian sub continent before admixed with the latter to a certain degree.

2. No doubt that the PIE are Caucasoid but not all Caucasoid are Europeans or White. E.g. The entire Middle East and North Africa even including the "dark" Ethiopians are Caucasoid. But they are not Europeans /White.

3. again, Proto-Dravidians are NOT South Asian but Central Asian Caucasoid in origin. Nowadays a so-called "Dravidian" can be either a real "historical" Dravidian or a Dravidian-Australoid mix.

4. No, Australoid is actually VERY, but VERY distanced from Negroid genetically, despite their similar facial appearances, skin colour and avg IQ.

The reason Northern Indians tend to look more Caucasoid than Negroid/Australoid is because of the significant influence of Eastern European lineages in their DNA. If you go back as far as only 3,000 years, most Northern Indians have ancestors which inhabited Eastern Europe and had blue/green eyes and red/blonde/brown hair.

Gee , where did you pull those off?

Complete Rubbish!

The reason SOME of Northern Indians tend to look more Caucasoid than Negroid/Australoid is that they are Central Asian Caucasoid themselves by bloodline after all , while many others (perhaps even in the majority) of the North India are a mix of any 2, or all 3, of the following with varied ratios: Central-Asian Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid.

The modern day Indians have had jack to do with Eastern Europeans. If that were so, then the Korean must have a lot to do with the Irish or the Swede!

It remained the case even 3,000 years ago when some small but constant waves of “Aryan” invasions into the Sub-continent. Those “Aryans” groups were most likely the ancient Iranians (well before the Islamisation of Iran), with tiny, or even no, input from the East Europeans (either Slavs or Nordics such as from the current day Latvia area).

These “Aryans” left their genetic traces, though, on their way to conquer “India” (inhabitated by Dravidian Caucasoid , the indigenous Australoid, and the mix of these two, at a time), most notably in the current day Afghanistan and the nearby Central Asia “Stanlands” regions where you still can find the frequencies of fair body hair with light-coloured blue/green eyes perhaps 1,000X more than you can find in modern day India, both the South and the North.

 

[American_Millenium]

Basically true, but there’re some cases where an ethnic group speaks a (main) language other than their racial/ethnic own, because they were conquered at some point in history hence have started by force to speak the language of their conquerors who were not their racial kins. E.g. Both Hindi and English are spoken widely in India as 2 of many offical languages, yet both are Indo-European languages rather than indigenous Indian sub-continent one.

Who is that guy in your profile pic?

 

[American_Millenium]

Basically true, but there’re some cases where an ethnic group speaks a (main) language other than their racial/ethnic own, because they were conquered at some point in history hence have started by force to speak the language of their conquerors who were not their racial kins. E.g. Both Hindi and English are spoken widely in India as 2 of many offical languages, yet both are Indo-European languages rather than indigenous Indian sub-continent one.

The ancestor of Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages were spread by Indo-Aryan conquerors and; English is one example of a case where colonists spread the language but did not leave significant genetic imprint.

1: Again agreed. Yet Dravidians would be considered indigenous when compared to the newly-arrived Indo-Aryans. That's how these things work. Technically speaking, by your own example, Australoids would not be indigenous either since even they migrated as new arrivals to the subcontinent at one point.

2: Irrelevant. Genetic studies have confirmed that they were Eastern European. Do modern-day Russians look Middle-Eastern or Ethiopian? No. They are also confirmed to have a very high proportion of blue and green eyes; again, almost distinctly European.

3: And where is the evidence for this?

4. Not the Australoid's of South Asia... I know people like to reference Australian Aborigines, but South Asians are not Australian Aborigines. They are closer genetically than Europeans for example.

 

[Speeder 2]

Who is that guy in your profile pic?

A real German-Italian mix, unlike some self-claimed obvious false flaggers on this forum.

 

[Speeder 2]

The ancestor of Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages were spread by Indo-Aryan conquerors and; English is one example of a case where colonists spread the language but did not leave significant genetic imprint.

1: Again agreed. Yet Dravidians would be considered indigenous when compared to the newly-arrived Indo-Aryans. That's how these things work. Technically speaking, by your own example, Australoids would not be indigenous either since even they migrated as new arrivals to the subcontinent at one point.

2: Irrelevant. Genetic studies have confirmed that they were Eastern European. Do modern-day Russians look Middle-Eastern or Ethiopian? No. They are also confirmed to have a very high proportion of blue and green eyes; again, almost distinctly European.

3: And where is the evidence for this?

4. Not the Australoid's of South Asia... I know people like to reference Australian Aborigines, but South Asians are not Australian Aborigines. They are closer genetically than Europeans for example.

1. good so.

2. relevant. your prob is that you equate all caucasoid to european/whites.

3. it's historically evident that the invading dravidians interbreeded with australoid in southern india after they conquered the latter. so many modern day "dravidians" do have some australoid admixture.

4. genetically, the closest "cousins" of modern day australian aborigines are australoid, those so called "tribal villagers", from southern india indeed. new dna evidences have proved that a part of southern indian australoid population migrated to australia by sea route via south east asian lands such as indonesia 1000s of years ago becoming a part of modern day "australian aborigines ". So, very loosely speaking, modern indians from india do have some legit claim on australia in this sense.

And the so called "south asians" are a very very very loose term, since there are no standard "south asians" in terms of race, since they could be any 1, or 2, or 3, or all, genetic combinations of the following: central asian caucasoid (such as pure dravidians, ancient persians - the so-called "Aryans", arabs, etc), mongoloid (mogols, turks, tibetans , etc), australoid, neglitos( a branch closely related to Negroid, with a tiny population in indian sub-continent), and even some modern day Euro-Indian mix such as british- indians. But one can say that "south asians" only exist in the context where one means, correctly to a certain degree, that "people in indian sub-contienent are homogenous actually at the sub-continental level".

 

[American_Millenium]

A real German-Italian mix, unlike some self-claimed obvious false flaggers on this forum.

Is that why doing a quick Google Image search brings up a famous person?

 

[American_Millenium]

1. good so.

2. relevant. your prob is that you equate all caucasoid to european/whites.

3. it's historically evident that the invading dravidians interbreeded with australoid in southern india after they conquered the latter. so many modern day "dravidians" do have some australoid admixture.

4. genetically, the closest "cousins" of modern day australian aborigines are australoid, those so called "tribal villagers", from southern india indeed. new dna evidences have proved that a part of southern indian australoid population migrated to australia by sea route via south east asian lands such as indonesia 1000s of years ago becoming a part of modern day "australian aborigines ". So, very loosely speaking, modern indians from india do have some legit claim on australia in this sense.

And the so called "south asians" are a very very very loose term, since there are no standard "south asians" in terms of race, since they could be any 1, or 2, or 3, or all, genetic combinations of the following: central asian caucasoid (such as pure dravidians, ancient persians - the so-called "Aryans", arabs, etc), mongoloid (mogols, turks, tibetans , etc), australoid, neglitos( a branch closely related to Negroid, with a tiny population in indian sub-continent), and even some modern day Euro-Indian mix such as british- indians. But one can say that "south asians" only exist in the context where one means, correctly to a certain degree, that "people in indian sub-contienent are homogenous actually at the sub-continental level".

2. I'll try and say this again because it clearly flew right over your head. Genetic studies have confirmed that they were Eastern European. Do modern-day Russians look Middle-Eastern or Ethiopian? No. They are also confirmed to have a very high proportion of blue and green eyes; again, almost distinctly European. So yes, completely irrelevant, and I never mentioned or even implied that Caucasoids are distinctly European. You're just trying to prove that you're intelligent by referencing all of these sophisticated and random facts.

3. I asked where your evidence is that Proto-Dravidians are NOT South Asian but Central Asian Caucasoid in origin. Responding by telling me that Dravidian's have Australoid admixture doesn't change anything (and I already know that anyway). Where is the evidence that they were Central Asian Caucasians?

4. People in South Asia still form one coherent genetic cluster when compared to people from West Asia or North Africa or Europe or East Asia (and so on). That is, when compared to other regional populations and races, they form their own distinct cluster. That is what people in the genetics community mean when they refer to South Asians (specifically Indians) as a distinct group. Because this distinct group is less homogeneous than other distinct groups, some people want to say they don't form a distinct group; well they do.