Category Archives: Anthropology

Four Major African Racial Types

Thinking Mouse: Its all Contingent on Africans having more genetic variance (that probably have less to do with physical traits as they all look the same) but less phenotypic variance than non-Africans. But with the existence of Bantus, Pygmies and Khoisans maybe what i said is irrelevant, or not.

  • 1. Negroids (Bantus and many others including Nilotics)
  • 2. Pygmies
  • 3. Khoisan
  • 4. Horners (barely even Africans technically halfway between Africans and Caucasians)

Pygmies are very ancient. Their genetic line appears to go back as long as 40-60,000 YBP. The Khoisan genetic line goes back 53,000 years and some think traces of it go back 93,000 years. The Negroids with whom we are most familiar as almost all Blacks you meet in the West are Negroid are a recent race.

The genetic variance within Africans is incredible. Keep in mind that there were forty huge genetic groups in Africa when they Out of Africa people left 70,000 YBP. All of the rest of us are related to only those two groups. Within the 40 existing groups, the genetic variance was immense. The remaining 38 huge genetic groups went on to become modern Africans.

I have been told that there is more genetic difference between two Nigerian tribes 25 miles away than between an Englishman and an Aborigine. If that is true then that is pretty incredible.

1 Comment

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Genetics, Khoisan, Physical, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

Alt Left: A Clue to Modern Black Behavior from Evolution

Negroids, the only African race with which most of us are familiar, developed only in the past 6-12,000 years in West Africa in the context of organized agriculture. They developed very strong bodies and high levels of aggression due to selection pressure in villages with a tribal chief-based system. The chief and his men often monopolized most of the women, leaving the rest of them with few women for themselves. In one tribe the other men were left with no women, and they engaged in homosexuality their whole lives.

The intense selection pressure resulted in the biggest and meanest men rising to the top and breeding with the most women. So they selected for sociopathy, narcissism, a womanizing mindset, cruelty and sadism, high levels of aggression, and very strong bodies.

If you look at Negroid men the world over, it’s pretty obvious that they have selected for these characteristics because they display them at higher levels than other races.

Black men are twice as likely to be psychopaths as Whites.

Personality tests have consistently shown higher levels of (healthy) narcissism in both Black man and women.

Both Black men and women have higher sex drives than Whites, and both Black men women have selected for extreme secondary sex characteristics such as large breasts and buttocks in the female and large penises in the male.

24 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Gender Studies, Narcissism, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex

Alt Left: The Concept of a Third Gender: Gay or Transsexual?

There has been a long tradition in many societies around the world of two-spirit people, Third Genders, etc. Many of these people were accepted in their societies under these societal doctrines. In recent years, the Trans Lobby has taken over this discussion and has decided that the two-spirit and Third Gender traditions were examples of how transgenderism has been accepted around the world for a very long time. But that’s true because the notion of two-spirit people and Third Genders generally did not apply to transsexuals.

As a good general rule, my understanding of two-spirit people, 3rd genders, etc. from my studying was that these people were generally just homosexuals.

A two-spirit Amerindian man would do woman’s chores, dress in women’s clothes, and live his life with the women. My understanding is that it was acceptable for a heterosexual Amerindian man to “marry” a two-spirit man and take him as his “wife.” No one much cared about this.

There were indeed two-spirit women also who were just lesbians. They wore men’s clothes, hunted, fished, did men’s chores, and lived their lives with the men. And a two-spirit woman might well take up with another such woman as a “wife.” They could live together as a couple.

There were quite a small number of these people, ~1-2%, so they were not much of a burden for the average tribe who regarded them as the occasional oddity which was strange but could be tolerated in small doses.

There was little to no recreational or choice homosexuality among Amerindians to my knowledge. This type of homosexuality or bisexuality is also rare among many of the more primitive groups the world round. In these societies, sex was generally freely available to both sexes from puberty on (look what Puritans we are now in comparison!), and this teenage sex never harmed a soul for thousands of years. Now suddenly it’s horribly destructive. Right.

Anyway, with free sex from puberty on more or less and marriage inevitable before 40 at least, most folks were satisfying their sexual needs, so there was no need for the sort of opportunistic homosexual behavior that arises due to lack of access to the opposite sex.

I don’t read a lot of gay writing, but I’ve still probably read more than most straights. There has been a tradition in gay historical writing dating back to the mid-19th Century of discussions about a third gender. The interpretation was always that the 3rd Gender people were simply homosexuals or gay and lesbian people. All of a sudden now this is being rewritten as these folks and the two-spirits as having always been trans, but that’s not the way I read the literature and followed the discussion.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Literature, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Sociology

Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.

Whites

A few things.

Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.

Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.

White Berbers are very White.

Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.

My position is that Arabs are Whites.

Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.

All native Europeans including Samis are White.

Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.

Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.

A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.

Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.

The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.

A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.

Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.

Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.

Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.

With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

Comments Off on Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

Filed under Afghans, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Black-White (Mulattos), Central Asians, East Indians, Egyptians, Europeans, Hispanics, Iranians, Italians, Jews, Kazakhs, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Moroccans, Near Easterners, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Pakistanis, Physical, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Russians, Siberians, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, Uighurs, Whites, Yemenis, Zambos

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.

I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Central Africa, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, East Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Europeans, History, Livestock Production, Near East, Nigeria, North Africa, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa, Tanzania, West Africa

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.

One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.

Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.

It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.

The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).

A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.

The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.

There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.

Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.

Not so fast now.

Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.

This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.

Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.

So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.

The cognates look like Chinese.

Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.

That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.

Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.

But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.

Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.

The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.

A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.

One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?

Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.

In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.

If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.

Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.

Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.

Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.

After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.

So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.

What do I think?

I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.

The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.

All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.

References

Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Austro-Tai, Austronesian, Cambodia, Cantonese, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, India, Language Families, Laos, Linguistics, Malaysia, Mon-Khmer, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, South Asia, Tai-Kadai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

You Can’t Fool People Forever

You can’t fool people forever.

You can fool people for a pretty long time, but sooner or later, people are going to catch on to the fact that you are screwing them over. Why is that? Because human beings, contrary to popular belief, are not stupid. Even a 100 IQ human is easily one of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, far more intelligent than most other animals.

Ordinary people aren’t as dumb as you think. People have a nose for being screwed over, and they don’t like it. Most humans are able to figure out who is scamming them, lying to them, and ripping them off after a while. As part of an instinct towards self-preservation, we have our antennas out all the time looking for enemy creatures and particularly, sneaky enemy creatures because those are the most dangerous people of all. Go visit some primitive tribe and stay with them for a while. Try to lie to them, scam them, and rip them off by devious means. See how far it gets you. Even those “idiots” and “low IQ tards” with war paint and spears will figure you out faster than you think, and the payback will not be pretty. You’ll be lucky to get out alive.

This is why con artists move around all the time. Like child molesters (who also move around a lot), after they have been in one place for a while, people start catching onto their cons and molestations, so they need to take off. Con artists are always in search of new victims and that means always finding “fresh blood” who are not onto them yet.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Philosophy, Psychology

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Societies

Research has shown that psychopaths are present in all human societies. Robert Hare, famous psychopath researcher, asked some Eskimos if they had psychopaths in their villages.

“Yes,” they said, “We have people like that. It’s usually a man. He refuses to hunt or do any work at all and simply lives off everyone else. He is charming and has a high sex drive and when the men go off hunting, he stays in the village and has sex with all of the other men’s wives. He steals and gets into a lot of fights with other man and lies almost constantly.”

“What do you do about someone like that?” Hare asked.

The Eskimos replied, “Well, after this behavior has gone on for some time, the men of the village will get together, tie up the psychopath, and paddle him out to an ice floe. They will drop him off on the ice floe and paddle back to shore.”

In case you don’t know about the Arctic, being left on an ice floe is a death sentence for a human being. So the Eskimos say that after putting up with the psychopath’s antics for some time, the men of the village rise up and all kill the psychopath.

American Indians were known for their kindness and charity. I did a lot of anthropological work on California Indians when I was working as a cultural anthropologist. Here in California, some Indians refused to work. However much the other Indians disliked this behavior, they continued to feed the parasite. He was allowed to survive. Obviously you can’t allow too many folks like this in your society or your tribe will go extinct. In primitive societies, if nobody works, nobody eats because work mostly consists of efforts to obtain food.

However, in doing research on the Indians of the Southwest, I found that some Indians who chronically engaged in bad behavior or broke group rules by committing adultery, stealing, getting into fights, or killing other members would typically simply be thrown out of the tribe. In tribal societies, this could well be a death sentence because while the tribe together knows how to hunt and gather to survive, an individual Indian may not be able to do it well enough to survive.

However these men often survived long enough. In addition, being thrown out of tribes for bad behavior was uncommon but not rare. At any given time, there were a number of  Indian loners roaming about who had been tossed out of their groups for bad behavior. It was common for these men to find each other, and they would then roam about in pairs, threesomes or even in small groups. There were enough of these men that they sometimes formed mini-tribes of their own – outcast tribes so to speak.

11 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, California, Cultural, Inuit, North America, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, West

Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

8ball writes: No, I’m telling you, the latest data shows the human genetic tree split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africans on one side, the rest on the other.

That is a fucking long time ago. For comparison Neanderthals split off from us about 600,000 years ago.

I am not aware of this new data. Someone needs to link me to some proof of this if it is even true at all, which I doubt. I don’t see how it’s true. All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

There were no Homo sapiens sapiens 250-300,000 YBP. Our species had not even been created yet. We were some prior form or Homo, I think Homo sapiens idaltu, but even he does not appear until 190,000 YBP. I have never heard that Blacks split off that early. Anyway, Negroids are a new race. They were only formed in the last 9,000 years. The oldest races are the Khoisan (52,000 years), and the Orang Asli in Thailand (72,000 years). Everybody else is way more recent. There are no human lines that go back 250-300,000 years and anyway back then we were not even the fully modern humans that we are today.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

32 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Asia, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Thailand

Race in India: An Anthropological View

I have had lots of East Indians coming to my site lately for some reason. They are looking at a few pieces, especially The Major and Minor Races of Man, The Peopling of India and The Birth of the Caucasian Race.

They’ve mostly been females, possibly young females. They are interested in a few questions. First, what race are East Indians? Caucasians (Whites), Africans (Blacks), Asians or Australoids? These are the four macro races of man, though honestly, there may be more than that. They’ve been subjected to a lot of Afrocentric propaganda that says that East Indians are Black people. Truth is, East Indians don’t have a speck of Black in them. Your average group of Germans has more Black in them than a group of East Indians.

There are some other theories about East Indians suggesting that they are Asians. In my work The Major and Minor Races of Man, which I worked on for many months, I dealt with this question a lot. True, some charts show East Indians just outside of Caucasians proper. But those same charts don’t really show them in Asians either. They are floating in between both groups.

But most other charts seem to show them in Caucasians. Truth is that even those charts show them right on the border of the two groups. But if we look at the charts from a great enough distance and look at the group as a whole, they are clearly in Caucasians. In these cases, we have to go by what they look like. Do East Indians look like Asians? Of course not.

East Indians are part of a cline running from Turkey up to the Chukchi Peninsula that rides right on the border between Asian and Caucasian. Some groups are almost literally 50-50. The cline includes Jews, Armenians, Turks, Iranians, people of the Caucasus, Kurds, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uighurs, Mongolians, Altai, Shor, Buryats, Koreans, East Indians, Punjabis, Pakistanis, NE Chinese, Manchus, up to the Chukchi. On one chart, the Chukchi, bizarrely enough, are over with Caucasians. But if you look at them, they look like Eskimos. So into Asians they go.

With East Indians, we go by appearance. What do they look like, Caucasians or Asians? All or almost all East Asians have an epicanthic eyefold, lacking in most Indians. What about Asian genes? Asian genes are found up to a maximum of 10-15% in NW Indians around Punjab.

They look like Caucasians, lack an eyefold, and have few Asian genes, so into Caucasians they go.

The fact that Caucasians are also referred to as Whites is confusing to some. Blacks get upset when Whites claim East Indians. “Those people are not White!” They exclaim angrily. White is just shorthand for Caucasians. A lot of White folks, or Caucasians, can have skins that are anywhere from slightly to very dark.

So genetically and based on simple appearance, we can put all East Indians into Caucasians. The problem arises in that a paper has found that Tamils have skulls that link them, phenotypically but not genetically, to the Australoid race. Who are the Australoids?

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

Phenotypically, they are Tamils and some other South Indians, Senoi (a tribe in Thailand that resemble Veddoids), Semang (a Negrito group in Thailand), Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines.

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

Hema Malini, a very White looking Indian. Caucasian by phenotype and genes. She could easily be a Spaniard or Italian.

The question arises about which South Indians are also Australoids phenotypically? So far, only Tamils have been proven to be Australoid by skulls. However, any other South Indian group that looks a lot like Tamils is probably also Australoid, such as the Telegu.

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

Bishop N John S D Raju, an Indian Christian and a classic Dravidian type. Possible Australoid phenotype.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

4 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Armenians, Asia, Asians, Caucasus, Chinese (Ethnic), East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Kazakhs, Koreans, Kurds, Melanesians, Mongolians, Near East, Near Easterners, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Pakistanis, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Tajiks, Turkey, Turks, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Whites