all 16 comments

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    organized and rational planning and execution

    Rational execution is the real weakness yes...as a race our strength is more in talking than doing. Which does count for something in the modern west seeing the rise of Indians over Chinese in the corporate realm.

    Put it would have to be with those with the most anciently Indian genes because India has been settled by outsiders several times.

    Indian language and culture mostly comes from the synthesis of two waves of outsiders (Iranics and Aryans), the coastal blacks mixed pretty thoroughly throughout withouth much cultural impact. Cursed jungle fever... Skull shape is very firmly caucasoid tho

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The lower caste ones, yes. The higher castes are partly descended from the Aryan invaders.

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    max 15% even in the highest castes

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You mean Aryans?

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes most of the caucasoid contribution in indians is not Aryan

    [–]8thmonitor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I was thinking about this a while ago. India can be divided into North India and South India. North India is mostly Indo-Aryan. South India is mostly Dravidian.

    On average, Dravidians are definitely darker and shorter than Indo-Aryans. But I think South India is also more developed compared to North India. That is why I don't think the Australoid claim is correct. But I don't know enough to say.

    [–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    But I think South India is also more developed compared to North India.

    Everything I’ve read points to the opposite. But I’m not Indian 🤷

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The local pakis are a biased source lmao. The South is economically much better and cleaner on average, though the megacities of the North are more liberal and have some fancier buildings.

    [–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Ah, TIL thanks

    [–]8thmonitor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What are you reading? A quick look at map of India shows that South India is overall more developed.

    I just searched:

    South India is also more developed compared to North India.

    in Google. The results are showing that South India is more developed than North India.

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Couple things- The majority of North Indians are dark skinned and short with the exceptions of a handful of castes, it's not black and white between the two (literally). Indian genetic makeup can be summarized as largely Iranic agriculturalists (non-Aryan caucasoids, ANE descent) who had dispersed throughout the subcontinent and mixed with coastal blacks who had migrated from Africa to Asia much earlier. Aryans mixed with this population as they invaded but their genetic impact is more significant in a small handful of high ranking caste groups.

    As for the higher development of South India it's not because it's more or less black, it's that their lower castes (which make up the vast majority of the population) are significantly higher IQ than the lower castes of the north. So even if the north has more Aryan DNA (still a tiny amount), the IQ is what drives differences here.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      while dravidian Indian are Negroid mixed with other race.

      There where Africans living in South Asia?

      I only know of the Siddi, but they where brought over by Arabs much later.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddi

      [–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      No, by ‘negroid’ he means the ancient black tribes that are scattered throughout South-East Asia. Look up “negritos” The descendants of previous migrations out of Africa… They’re not exactly the same people as modern Bantu Africans though & some have Aryan/Mongoloid admixture.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Coastal black tribes that boat hopped along beaches to get to the subcontinent like the other guy said.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The vast majority of South Asians have some of that black ancestry regardless of geographic area, phenotype and then caste is a better predictor of genetic makeup than geography or language.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      coastal blacks that were similar but not the same group as abos, for those largely composed of that group yes. depends who you're looking at since many especially in western immigrants tend to be olive skinned to fair.