|
Post by sttigray on Jun 22, 2010 19:18:59 GMT -5
I was wondering are Ancient Indians or India's original inhabitants are negroid in origin?
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Jun 22, 2010 20:59:10 GMT -5
You'd first have to define to term "Negroid"?
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Jun 25, 2010 13:35:40 GMT -5
You'd first have to define to term "Negroid"? Exactly. The "indigineous" people of India are the Andamanese. Some physical anthropologist have labeled them "negrito". They are said to be ancestors of the original group that left Africa and can trace their ancestry to South Asia (India) more than 60,000 years ago. Andamanese People
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 23, 2010 7:58:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 23, 2010 8:01:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 23, 2010 8:04:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 29, 2010 21:45:48 GMT -5
I was wondering are Ancient Indians or India's original inhabitants are negroid in origin?
Pheontypically- in terms of black skin, some facial features etc they are more like Africans than Europeans. DNA however links them more with an Asiatic bloc. I think you have to be careful with the term "negroid". It has little scientific validity, and invokes a narrow stereotypical type. In reality the people of Africa are the most diverse in the world whether measured by phenotype or DNA. Narrow noses for example have been around in Africa for millennia, and do not rely on any "Eurasian" race "mixes" to explain why they exist. "Negroid" can be a trap to box you in, or a ruse to deny African diversity. In reality it only refers to one localized variant of the range of Africans, and even within the so-called "Negroid" group, things like narrow noses and looser hair are not uncommon. Keita prefers the term 'Africoid' to incorporate all the diversity of Africa. I think he is right.
A better question to ask might be were they African or Africoid in origin? They would be, like all human populations outside Africa.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 30, 2010 22:46:50 GMT -5
I was wondering are Ancient Indians or India's original inhabitants are negroid in origin? Pheontypically- in terms of black skin, some facial features etc they are more like Africans than Europeans. DNA however links them more with an Asiatic bloc. I think you have to be careful with the term "negroid". It has little scientific validity, and invokes a narrow stereotypical type. In reality the people of Africa are the most diverse in the world whether measured by phenotype or DNA. Narrow noses for example have been around in Africa for millennia, and do not rely on any "Eurasian" race "mixes" to explain why they exist. "Negroid" can be a trap to box you in, or a ruse to deny African diversity. In reality it only refers to one localized variant of the range of Africans, and even within the so-called "Negroid" group, things like narrow noses and looser hair are not uncommon. Keita prefers the term 'Africoid' to incorporate all the diversity of Africa. I think he is right. A better question to ask might be were they African or Africoid in origin? They would be, like all human populations outside Africa. This not a good question. First of all you have to look at the evidence to determine a connection. Science is based on hypothesis testing. You make a hypothesis then you confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis with evidence. The evidence make it clear that the Munda people probably relate to an ancient migration to India, maybe associated with the OOA exit. The Munda people live in India. They are the mainland India negritos. The Dravidians on the otherhand speak languages genetically related to the Niger-Congo. The archaeology of Dravidian ancient settlements corresponds to that associated with the C-Group of Nubia. This leads to a single conclusion: the Dravidians recently entered India from Africa. Being labled a negro is not a trap. It differiates African/Blacks from Asians and Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 31, 2010 10:10:04 GMT -5
I was wondering are Ancient Indians or India's original inhabitants are negroid in origin? Pheontypically- in terms of black skin, some facial features etc they are more like Africans than Europeans. DNA however links them more with an Asiatic bloc. I think you have to be careful with the term "negroid". It has little scientific validity, and invokes a narrow stereotypical type. In reality the people of Africa are the most diverse in the world whether measured by phenotype or DNA. Narrow noses for example have been around in Africa for millennia, and do not rely on any "Eurasian" race "mixes" to explain why they exist. "Negroid" can be a trap to box you in, or a ruse to deny African diversity. In reality it only refers to one localized variant of the range of Africans, and even within the so-called "Negroid" group, things like narrow noses and looser hair are not uncommon. Keita prefers the term 'Africoid' to incorporate all the diversity of Africa. I think he is right. A better question to ask might be were they African or Africoid in origin? They would be, like all human populations outside Africa. This not a good question. First of all you have to look at the evidence to determine a connection. Science is based on hypothesis testing. You make a hypothesis then you confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis with evidence. The evidence make it clear that the Munda people probably relate to an ancient migration to India, maybe associated with the OOA exit. The Munda people live in India. They are the mainland India negritos. The Dravidians on the otherhand speak languages genetically related to the Niger-Congo. The archaeology of Dravidian ancient settlements corresponds to that associated with the C-Group of Nubia. This leads to a single conclusion: the Dravidians recently entered India from Africa. Being labled a negro is not a trap. It differiates African/Blacks from Asians and Europeans. What in god's name is a negro? Who came up with this erminology, why, who gave them the right to go running around the world putting labels on people and why are we still following it? I think a better question to ask would be whether or not there are any direct connections between Indians and people in Africa. Seeing as all humanity migrated out of Africa the quetion would be is there any evidence for migrations from Africa to India and how far back in history did this occur. Are the similarities in certain features between some Africans and Indians due to physical retentions or to local climactic adaptations and wether or not this can be varified by DNA evidence to suggest a close relationship between the two peoples?
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 31, 2010 19:01:51 GMT -5
lol, exactly what is negroid? What if they were dark and contained links to Africa? They're still Asian no matter how dark or "African" looking they are. Just like how light skin developed in Africa, you're going to argue they're "Asian"? No, there's a line there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Oct 12, 2011 20:57:46 GMT -5
The Dravidians on the otherhand speak languages genetically related to the Niger-Congo. The archaeology of Dravidian ancient settlements corresponds to that associated with the C-Group of Nubia. This leads to a single conclusion: the Dravidians recently entered India from Africa.
^Few credible modern scholars support this claim, and it has been debunked for years over at EgyptSearch.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Oct 13, 2011 22:57:46 GMT -5
The Dravidians on the otherhand speak languages genetically related to the Niger-Congo. The archaeology of Dravidian ancient settlements corresponds to that associated with the C-Group of Nubia. This leads to a single conclusion: the Dravidians recently entered India from Africa.^Few credible modern scholars support this claim, and it has been debunked for years over at EgyptSearch. Please cite these "credible modern scholars". Also cite the evidence which debunked the research of numerous Dravidian researchers. .
|
|