What's new

Is Nepal a South Asian Mongoloid nation ? are the people not Mongoloid ?

.
Maurya lasted 130 years. From 185 BC to 1850, that's 2000 years , the subcontinent was made up of a myriad of different kingdoms, never one sovereign empire. It was the British who created this entity called India.
If it wernt for the Brits, there would be fragments of little countries
A classification of ethnicity according to a ManUnited fan boy :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Which class is Shinji Kagawa?? and Patrick Evra?

Wait you forgot park ji sung

..........yeah, yeah , maybe random ones.
lol @ you guys thinking Sinhalese and Tamils look drastically different from one another :lol:
 
.
If it wernt for the Brits, there would be fragments of little countries


Wait you forgot park ji sung


lol @ you guys thinking Sinhalese and Tamils look drastically different from one another :lol:

Exactly, without British, there would be no country called India. Yet you see so many delusional indians denying what is a common historical fact.

Aha, Park Ji Sung. Good one!
 
.
Exactly, without British, there would be no country called India. Yet you see so many delusional indians denying what is a common historical fact.

Aha, Park Ji Sung. Good one!

I guess to be fair there must have been a pan-south Asian identity. But lets be real, even when India was unified during the Ashok and Murya dynasties... do you think commoners from one end of the empire were aware/interacted with other end of India?
 
.
I guess to be fair there must have been a pan-south Asian identity. But lets be real, even when India was unified during the Ashok and Murya dynasties... do you think commoners from one end of the empire were aware/interacted with other end of India?

Yes, the entire south asia share a similar civilization and religion, but the subcontinent was never one empire. Of course, interaction was limited. The languages are different, cultures are different....it's like europe.
 
Last edited:
. .
The point is more than 90% Indian same with European although darker skin color,I mean compare with oriental. So no different whether Indian a whole one country or in many groups.
 
.
The point is more than 90% Indian same with European although darker skin color,I mean compare with oriental. So no different whether Indian a whole one country or in many groups.
Thats not really true. For starters, no one belongs to a "pure race". Certainly not Indians. Physical Anthropology is a joke and holds no scientific merit. IMHO South Asians are a race of their own.
 
.
lol @ you guys thinking Sinhalese and Tamils look drastically different from one another :lol:

Of course not, There isn't 180 degree difference but there is a some what difference. We Sinhalese believe our roots link to the subcontinent, that's the fact and no one deny that in here!

Genetic_admixture_of_Sinhalese_by_Papiha.PNG


source:Genetic studies on Sinhalese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Thats not really true. For starters, no one belongs to a "pure race". Certainly not Indians. Physical Anthropology is a joke and holds no scientific merit. IMHO South Asians are a race of their own.
But it really make sense that judging which main race you belong to by the features around your eyes.
 
. .
Do not like the heading of the thread.The whole thread is unnecessary.No such thing as a pure race-Nepal is a multi-ethnic society.
 
. .
I think a sizable population in Nepal looks mongoloid. Others look like North Indians.

In Pak, 90% look Persian
In BD, 99% look South Indian and only 1% look mongoloid (Tribal people and Buddhists).
 
.
Do not like the heading of the thread.The whole thread is unnecessary.No such thing as a pure race-Nepal is a multi-ethnic society.

You seem to get it. If they have mongoloids and north Indids existing in other mountainous states in India, and Pakistan why would Nepal be any different right? LOL I am from Nepal, I dont see how I look different from other desi people.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom