South Indians Are Basically Caucasians

A commenter writes:

It seems you are trying to force a connection between “South Indians” and Caucasians because many people especially from Kerala have very European features.
Kerala has witnessed a lot of migration from Syria and other places, because of the ancient civilization of peaceful people there who welcomed migrants that were probably ostracized from their previous communities because they adopted certain beliefs and practices that were exported by Dravidian spiritualists.
Whatever the reason for their migration, it is known that the western part of South India has seen a lot of migration of Caucasians since antiquity. But purebred Dravidians have no Caucasian connection except that they are a most ancient race closely linked with Negrito/Aboriginal peoples, therefore many of the races that were birthed later naturally carry that connection.
The branch gives birth to the fruit but the fruit doesn’t have much of the branch in it, if you know what I mean.
Tamils, who are often considered to be synonymous with the term “South Indians” have little or no Caucasian in them (in terms of later mixing through Caucasian/Aryan migration), likewise most Keralites have little or no Caucasian in them, except for those families who at some point mixed with Caucasian merchants or explorers that journeyed to South India for its spices and various other specialties.
The pictures you see of South Indian women with European-looking features are usually of models or actresses – those who are in professions where fair skin and European features are preferred whether due to bias or its more global appeal. But if you actually visit South India you will see how little resemblance there is to Caucasians and how much greater is their similarity to Negrito/Aboriginal people.
Yet, you resist the strongly evidenced connection between South Indians and Negroid peoples, while trying to force a connection between South Indians (Dravidians) and Caucasians. I smell a fish. 🙂
There is overwhelming evidence that out of Africa came the father of all the races, and so you can’t get too far by excluding any race from the African link. Anyway, I believe there is only one race…the human race. At least that we can be certain is not based on speculation but truth. Peace!

The truth is that even South Indians are part of the Caucasian race. This is clear on any genetic chart. Cavalli-Sforza’s charts make it clear that South Indians are Caucasians.
Other charts show Indians are partway between Asians and Caucasians, but closer to Caucasians. This is probably about right.
No genetic chart shows the South Indians as closer to Australoids. The only Australoids on genetic charts are Melanesians, Papuans and Aborigines, and South Indians are nowhere near any of those. Negritos do not appear on genetic charts in general as they tend to group with whomever they live with. Filipino Negritos group with Filipinos; Thai Negritos group with Thais, etc.
It is true that on skulls, Tamils do group with Australoids, but on genes, they are just typical South Indians, more or less Caucasoids. But most South Indians have Caucasoid skulls.
This commenter, an Afrocentrist, makes the typical mistake of conflating Caucasian with White or European. But there are many non-White or non-European Caucasoids out there.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

128 thoughts on “South Indians Are Basically Caucasians”

  1. “This commenter, an Afrocentrist, makes the typical mistake of conflating Caucasian with White or European. But there are many non-White or non-European Caucasoids out there.”
    Similarly I’ve seen some non-Indians conflate “dalit” with a South Indian ethnicity when “dalit” is a pan-India social class. Likewise, one of the current men I’m dating is an Afro-centrist who says that “dalits” are Africans in India and hence I’m “more african” than he is. They call if “afro-dalit”. There used to be a website who may have pimped this theory or maybe the afro-centrists were the ones to come up with it, who knows? That website was whack.
    Mallus FTW!

      1. Xera, re-read what I wrote. Dalit has nothing to do with South India. Its a social class found all over India. Don’t know from where non-Desis got the idea that “dalit” was a South Indian construct, but whoever first made this mistake, the idea stuck.

        1. The idea is that the lower classes at places in North India have less Aryan blood and more of that genetics found in South India commonly.

    1. If that’s the case, then you belong in the bottom % of women (looks-wise) in the Western world, so why would any sane or rational person listen what you have to say about women? The only men you can get are African American men who feel out of touch with society, and aren’t accepted but secretly loath Whites and can’t get other higher ranked women of other races.

    2. If we keep mixing sociopolitical constructs and pseudo-sciences developed by the Europeans that conquered our lands, exploited our differences, deemed us all as being inferior based on our very dark skin (as compared to their own) we will never be able to make any sense of the matters at hand.
      In today’s world, the terms India and Africa have more sociopolitical relevance than they have anything to do with the diversity and uniqueness of the people that inhabited those landmasses before European intervention.
      A “non-white or non-European Caucasoid” is almost an oxymoron, since the determiner of what is a “Caucasoid” is a relatively recent non-scientific racist social construct that was deeply flawed from its onset. The Europeans who postulated this idea did not have the people of India in mind when they construed this crude concept of “race” that supposedly defined the racial differences amongst humans. Based on the original design, “Caucasians” were solely white Europeans, and not even all “white Europeans” were to be considered to be worthy of being a part of this unique racial category!
      I find it interesting that Black and Brown people worldwide find it more becoming to identify with categories of “race” assigned exclusively to their former oppressors, than they find it becoming to adopt common identities in relation to each other. We don’t seem to have the gumption or initiative to develop our own common social constructs outside of that which has been applied to us.
      This is obviously more about divide and conquer than unity.
      In a 1950-ish exhaustive unabridged dictionary, the disparaging term for Black people, “nigger” included both, people of African descent and Indians!
      Though based on the Out of Africa theory, the people of India had to at onetime derive from Africa, yet the question of commonality doesn’t lie in what we call ourselves or how we define ourselves today, but in the variety of other sociopolitical and historical commonalities worth exploring outside the confines of post-colonial thought and the politics of neocolonialism.
      Whatever differences Indians have between each other, Africans have between each other, and Africans and Indians have between each other works more in favor of Western interest than any of the groups I’ve just cited above.

        1. Obviously your comment is merely a flippant remark, for every person on this earth has something in common with each other, and anthropology, ethnomusicology, and other sociocultural science easily prove that Africans and Indians both having long histories and great ancient civilizations that explored and interacted through trade routes and neither were landlocked do have something in common.

        2. I’ve dated several Africans, from Ethiopians to Egyptians to Morocans to Tunisians to Eritreans to Sudanese, and African Americans right in my own back yard and I’ve had something in common with all of them, even the Muzzies amongst thems.
          Shock! Gasp!

        3. That’s just on a basic commonality, every civilization did what you just described; however Africans have no genetic relation to Indians other then what you described.

      1. “I find it interesting that Black and Brown people worldwide find it more becoming to identify with categories of “race” assigned exclusively to their former oppressors, than they find it becoming to adopt common identities in relation to each other.”
        dubz, I get where you’re coming from but don’t agree entirely with it. As an individual I have things in common (or not) with other individuals. They could be brown, black, white, whatever. I’m also not a victim. Nobody oppresses me nor ever has.
        ” We don’t seem to have the gumption or initiative to develop our own common social constructs outside of that which has been applied to us. ”
        I agree with you that everyone should develop their own social construct. I disagree with group think however and the identity that many Desis construct for themselves is not appealing to me.

        1. Bhabiji, I don’t think the question or concern is directed at anyone oppressing you at this present time, however, within a historical context, I don’t think the British came and colonized India to spread goodwill. And a historical context is important, for it gives people within a certain geographical area whatever degree of collective sociocultural identity they may have in common. Modern India is a product of its past, both the good and the bad, which also includes colonization. To reference history correctly and truthfully is not giving into victimization.
          Also, rather than ‘group think’, I believe the world advances based upon alliances. Its just a matter of perspective, for if the European nations find commonality within the construct of Western civilization as defined, the European Union, NATO, or various other organizations that were built upon common goals and objectives, historical interactions, geography, and ideologies, this is more than just ‘group think’ in action, but the development of a plethora of catalyst to advance western European power.
          Europeans had to get over huge differences to stabilize their world dominance, differences akin to how we all now struggle with our own complex ethnic and cultural divides. At one time, many Northern Europeans viewed Southern Europeans, such as the Spanish, more so as being Africans culturally, than they were deemed to be a part of the white Northern European people, however these schisms along with centuries of divisions and wars never halted the ultimate goal of a more unified alliance in opposition to the rest of the world.

        2. Yes that is true, that Europeans realized they were only a part of the larger world and they had to figure out how to put down the rest of the world because they had the intelligence and self-reflection to do so. However some races/civilizations are better, and shit hole India and eternal shitty Indian culture is something I don’t want to live under, emulate, or deal with. Indians are the most hated and excluded group in possibly the entire world, they are more disliked then Blacks, Middle easterners, Mexicans and even Asians. America and the Western hemisphere is just proof of this, discounting the Aryan-looking ones, there is some sort of cultural/genetic failure that’s not compatible towards progress and ascending this planet which Indian culture seems to display.

    3. Anyone with eyes can see that South Indians are dark, but not even close to African. If the link with Australoids is legit, then they are about as far from Africa as any living human can possibly be.

    4. No you dumb cunt its because southern indians know their african history. Look up people called siddi’s they are african in india that have lived there for thousands of years but the white controlled internet will lie and tell you they were brought there as slaves. So i have another group who they cannot deny the legitmacy of, they are the andaman islanders look them up and tell me black people didnt populate india!!! White jack arses 🙂

      1. Fuckin retard, those black people WERE brought by kings into India to fight in wars and support the communities. And now they feel comfortable here and call themselves Indians. We should be proud to have a lot of diversity in our country from blacks to Europeans to Sino Tibetans. Fuck you for being disgusting. If you hate blacks or Tibetans living in your country, Go the fuck to Syria, everyone there is white, escpecialy near ISIS camps…please go there. You might be some use to them like some skin for their new boots…kys

        1. RAVIN Gora Indian
          You’re wrong about European influence: Anglo-Indians ARE nothing in India, particularly. I knew one old English soldier in Cochin whose son was a minor Kollywood actor and he had a farm but that was all.
          Unlike Spanish colonies, as soon as Britain left India Anglo-Indians became nothing and Brahmin returned to run the place.
          Portuguese-Indian people in Goa are famous for being lazy beach bums. Now I liked paying some of the women for sexual activity but I cannot say they were the pinnacle of Indian culture.
          Sikhs from the higher-caste who might be considered European-descended tribes of Scythian warriors from the Volga River are the butt of “dumb Sardar” jokes.
          Whites do not impress anybody in India. Jews were never anything in India.
          As for Brahmin being praised because of color-I don’t think so. They are just more cunning than low-caste Indians.
          Syrian Christians who came to Kerala for Lord Knows What Reason in the early middle ages have had a fair amount of cultural impact on Cochin.
          More than Africans, I would speculate.

    5. South Indians are of the Desi race. There are only five races in this world and they are Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, and Desi. Desis are a race unto themselves. South Indians are a mixed race between Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, and Negroid genes. The race mixture is so unique that collectively South Indians along with North Indians are known as the Desi race.

  2. Another thing that strikes me as odd with non-Indians is is the Indians that non-Desis will find attractive, such as Sarita Chaudhary of Mississippi Masala and Kama Sutra fame. In India or South Asia in general she would not be considered attractive, but the goras and kallus think she’s hot. I don’t get it.
    Bobby Ji, how would you rate her?,r:1,s:30,i:230

    1. “In India or South Asia in general she would not be considered attractive, but the goras and kallus think she’s hot. I don’t get it.”
      Once you travel a bit, you really grasp the concept of exoticness and the idea that beauty is up to an extent, culturally relative.
      In most AF-WM couplings that in East Asia for example, I observed that whites would go for the types of women who’d be considered butterfaces locally. Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Ming is a good celebrity example (although Priscilla isn’t as ugly as some of the women American sex tourists in Thailand hook up with). Perhaps men from the Anglo world seem to find angular and catty faces in women attractive, which would be considered too mannish by Eastern standards.
      If you look anything like the woman you linked above, then thats where your ‘sour grapes’ reaction towards desi men comes from.

      1. So really, we’re doing Asians a favor. Actually, I never thought Priscilla Ming was attractive. I assumed in the first place it was just two brainy but unattractive people from different gene pools finding each other.

  3. I think that commenter is also confusing phenotype with genotype. He kept talking about “looks” and “appearance”. It’s not about appearance, it’s about DNA. Even if 2 groups of people look very different, if their DNAs are similar then they are closely related.

  4. There is a great deal of erectine blood in the Indians.
    Homo erectus survived in the hills and forests of India until recent times – you’re looking for Bigfoot in the wrong places, Robert.
    The Veddahs of south India and Sri Lanka clearly show erctine features.

    1. I believe you are talking about the Keralites…They used to be the Hill people of India running around topless until 80 years ago and started covering up. Kerala is pretty under developed and non industrial jungle.

      1. That’s Nair community you are talking about of kerala.They were mercenary people who were hired by Cheras to fight as death squads.I have read that somewhere.

  5. @Xera
    I’m not one of those who are trying to make Indians ethnic Africans, however, there are obviously millions of people in India who obviously show some connection to their original African genetic origins, which is more obvious phenotypically than can be found amongst any other people who left Africa eons ago…
    Thank god I have eyes, ears, and a mind of my own and not blinded by Eurocentrism once taught in almost every public school that makes every Black and Brown people see more differences amongst themselves, yet we struggle a lifetime to find acceptance and some sort of commonality with white Europeans, and this is why bleaching cream is flying off the shelves in both India and Africa especially and throughout the Black and Brown world.
    Unless Indians come from Jupiter and Africans come from Saturn, both people have a lot in common genetically….

    1. If they were smart, those same people would just migrate to the nearest high altitude mountain range or any environment that resembles the Caucuses, the steppes of Russia, Central Asia, the Northern hemisphere, or Alaska and then wait for the supposed mutations to occur which wouldn’t be long since albinism occurs all the time and Indian albino’s seem to resemble Central Europeans. I mean that’s more plausible and much more smarter/more likely to cause skin color change then skin creams, however these people can’t seem to figure out the ludicrousness of this.
      Indians have as much a relationship with Africans as Russians/Greeks have a relationship with Africans.

      1. And so happen Alexander Pushkin, known as the greatest Russian poet that ever lived and the father of modern Russian literature was of African descent, which has been never been denied by either himself or Russian academia.
        And I wouldn’t give too much credence to the commonalities of even the Russians and Greeks themselves (both being supposedly “Caucasoid”), for whatever these two people ever had in common has been more recent than historical, if we view history beyond the limited confines of the infancy of the European mental awakening.
        Europeans forced the world and its history to bend to its will and lies, and its time for the rest of world to be just as bold in its defiance towards European hegemony.
        Nothing last forever, especially when its a genetic anomaly, and European history is not as congruent or as long as you may have been led to believe as compared to others.

        1. Ok well I’m just saying that Africans don’t have any relations with South Indians, besides the fact that they are both humans, kapeech?

    2. “every Black and Brown people see more differences amongst themselves, yet we struggle a lifetime to find acceptance and some sort of commonality with white Europeans”
      Yeah, I agree. That is weird. But I don’t agree that EVERY Black and Brown, or even most do this. In fact, a lot of the ones I know are the opposite and on some “people of color” ish against white people, which I’m not down with either.
      We have to take people as they come, as individuals. Not as colors.

      1. I agree that the term “every” may be a bit much, but when compared to white Europeans, we the ‘majority people’, which is the Black and Brown world, are very sociopolitically divided in ways that make our individual nations and people more easily exploitable by a minority of people from the European block.
        It seems to me that most “people of color” have accommodated white people well for generations and still do, and many times, regardless of how they themselves were being ill-treated or disrespected in return.
        Most of our indigenous landmasses have been forcibly subdivided, splintered, and nationalized by European colonist, which even divided people of the same language, ethnic, and cultural history.
        I also agree that on an individual bases, people come in all degrees of temperament and likability, but what is being explored here is the collective concepts people have of themselves as opposed to another group of Homo sapiens.
        The pressure to assimilate to European standards has been more than obvious historically and is still presently a part of this post-colonial world and in some cases neocolonialism.

  6. @Xera What you’re “just saying”, is just that, what you’re “just saying”…no facts or evidence involved…those days are over, the queen of England is just an old lady in a funny-looking dress and the empire saw its last days, and what’s left of the big lie is crumbling as we comment as Europe is imploding into destitution. ya’ dig?

    1. No it’s for a fact that South Indians are Caucasians and there is evidence for this except that they have no relationship with Africans except skin color.

      1. This is not a fact, Indians are not one monolithic genetic stock and are more bound by a national language, religion, various cultural constructs, and national boundaries that were imposed by European colonizers the same as Africans were, I wouldn’t be surprise that second only to Africa, India is one of the most genetically diverse nations in all of Asia. And how can you say Indians have no relationship to Africa when they were amongst the first groups of people to migrate out of Africa!
        “Caucasian” or “Caucasoid” is a made-up unscientific category that was constantly modified to accommodate the racist aspirations of certain Europeanist, and its authenticity has long been challenged by modern science and found to be worthless. Outside of hair texture, which is not a “racial” absolute even in Africa, I could post thousands of pictures of Indian people who look phenotypically sub-Saharan African and I can post thousands of Indian people who do not, from the lightest of complexion to the darkest on the planet earth. And you have Saharan and East Africans who resemble certain groups of people or phenotypes found in India.
        This idea of Africa being the dark continent and India being a land of backwards uncivilized people just waiting for the marauding Europeans to bring the light and expose us all to a world beyond the village’s edge is ridiculous, racist, and need to be discarded forever.
        The people of the Caucasus are not the primordial phenotypical prototype for the people of India, East Africans, or any place else, and I would hope that Black and Brown people of the world would understand this and stop using this make-believe racial category as a reference point, for this nothing but the vestiges of European mis-education, disinformation, hegemony and the revivalism of white supremacist. thinking.

      2. Some of them do look african or look mixed with african, but genetically they are far away from them. And also do you consider south indian features caucasian:
        Broad nose
        Big lips
        Dark skin
        Wavy to Curly Hair

  7. Thank you for that. I get so tired of arguing with racists and ethno-centrists that there are non-white caucasians, among them Indians. If the term white is to be used for all caucasians, then our friend Mohinder is white, Jethro. High melanin levels are not tied to negroid subsets exclusively.

      1. Well, there may be white folks who look like Indians, for the people of Indian were around long before the white Europeans were discovered, but I’ve never seen a white person tan like what’s in the pictures below and still be alive…LOL.,_Umaria_district,_M.P.,_India_-_cropped.jpg/378px-Farmer_adivasi_with_turban,_Umaria_district,_M.P.,_India_-_cropped.jpg

          Indians vary by location
          Many dravidians are just as black as Africans
          The farmer in your post is a Dravidian
          When humans left Africa, 80k years ago, they left by the Southern coastal route and their first stop was India, where many remained
          Some Tamils have the paternal M-168 marker, which is a marker of the 80k year old out of Africa exodus, but the genetic link with Africans is 80k years ago, just as long as Whites and Amerinds
          M168> M89 > M9 > M20
          M20 is Y-Paternal marker L and 50% of Dravidian South Indians have the M20 marker

        2. He doesnt look caucasian, His nose is way to wide and he has big cheekbones and huge browridges compared to caucasians due to australoid admixture

      2. I think its mainly the northern indians. Most central and southern indians including most brahmins in those areas are caucasoid-australoid mix.

    1. It’s not true. Show one single genetic chart anywhere that shows any links between South Indians and any known Australoid groups such as Papuans, Melanesians or Aborigines.

      1. It’s been stated that ASI (Ancestral South Indian) is not related to Australoids such as Papuans, Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines. Aren’t the vast majority of Indians Veddoids? I’m sure that the majority of Sri Lankans and Maldivians are Veddoids. Do the Vedda, Sinhalese, and Maldivians have Caucasoid skulls? Is it inaccurate to make Veddoid a subrace of Australoids? Is Veddoid its own race?

        1. ASI are indeed related to Australoids such as Papuans, Melanesians, etc. One of the principal components of Aborigines was said to be a people called Carpinterians who came from South India. They were more or less Veddoids. Veddoid types also became the Australoid Ainu. Tamil skulls plot with Australoid skulls. ASI are related to Andaman Islanders for sure, and those people are Australoids.

          1. Do you consider the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka more Australoid or Caucasoid? What are their skull shapes?

      2. Robert but didnt you say they plot halfway between australoids and caucasoids? And I think they do plot more closer to caucasoids, but its just hard for me to call myself a caucasoid because my facial features areaustraloid.

        1. Ok thanks for clearing it up! I think even they possess the skull shape per say, they have some distinct features like thinner noses from caucasoid admixture, more elongated skull compared to pure australoids like abos and papuans.

    2. Where does it say Southerners have Australoid ancestry? I looked at the paper linked in the Anthroscape forum and could not find it.
      Australoid is really a rather confusing term because it gives the impression a group is related to Australian Aborigines . There isn’t any cultural or genetic connection between India and Australia.
      What people term Australoid may just be Veddoid . The Veddas only exist as a distinct group in Sri Lanka , and there isn’t any cultural connection between them and Australia. The phenotypic similarity is also somewhat dubious but Vedda are mixed . Unless there is genetic similarity, I don’t see how one could say the Vedda and Aborigines are related.
      Indians and Pakistanis are mixed. Even cosmopolitan Pashtuns have something like 20% ASI . Pashtuns aside, Indic Pakistanis and Indians aren’t really Caucasoid since they have too much ASI.
      I would’t say South Indians are Caucasoid or Australoid, because Indians form their own cluster and South Indians have more indigenous ancestry than NorthWest Indians. NorthWest India has seen a lot of invaders , while the South was relatively untouched.
      West Asians like Syrians,Lebanese, many Gulf Arabs and Iraqis are Caucasoid since they have little to no admixture from races that can’t be termed Caucasoid.

  8. Indians are a mix of a West Eurasian derived element of different types and an ancient paleo-Indian element that in South India often manifests itself as “Australoid” looking which in the Reich study is called “ASI” (Ancestral Southern Indian). It will have differed in phenotype from place to place but in some places it must have had something resembling an Australoid type of look. Even Pakistanis have around 20-30% ASI and Iranians have just under 10%.

    1. DUBS:At one time, many Northern Europeans viewed Southern Europeans, such as the Spanish, more so as being Africans culturally, than they were deemed to be a part of the white Northern European people, however these schisms along with centuries of divisions and wars never halted the ultimate goal of a more unified alliance in opposition to the rest of the world.
      Typical afro-centric BS. Northern Euros are no “whiter” than Southern Euros in the ethno-racial sense of the word. They didin’t invite SE’s into northern European “whiteness”. Southern Europeans started the whole “white man” civilization and the Spanish and Poertuguese started European colonialism. The Spanish colonialists in Latin America were calling themselves “blancos” long before the Brirish colonialists in North America were calling themselves “white people”. Afro-centrists and their white liberal enablers have a clear agenda of diving/minimalising the white group. They do this primarily by exagerating differences in phenotype, pigmentation and racial admixture between different European ethnicities.

      1. This shows how little you really know about European history, and how the history of Europe and western civilization has been carefully crafted and constantly revised to satisfy the need for a myopic view of the world that has made Eurocentrism so effective.
        Though the quote “Africa begins at the Pyrenees” has been accredited to both Alexander Dumas and even Napoleon, as well as being a phrase once having commonplace amongst European citizenry, I’m going to offer this snippet from the web that points to the origin of this idea, though I could cite other references:
        Alexandre Dumas père is usually credited, which seems pretty unlikely since when Domingos António de Sousa Coutinho, Count of Funchal wrote in La guerre de la Péninsule sous son véritable point de vue (1816) that Dominique Dufour de Pradt “fait commencer l’Afrique aux Pyrenées” Dumas was only 14. A quick trawl doesn’t turn up any written record of M de Pradt having used the phrase, but his bestselling account of France’s dreadful experiences during the then recent Peninsular War, Mémoires historiques sur la révolution d’Espagne (1816), contains a sturdy exposition of the substance behind the slogan:

        “It is an error of geography to have assigned Spain to Europe; it belongs to Africa: blood, manners, language, the way of life and making war, in Spain everything is African. The two nations have been mixed up for too long–the Carthaginians who came from Africa to Spain, the Vandals who left Spain for Africa, the Moors who stayed in Spain for 700 years–for such a long cohabitation not to have confused the race and customs of the two countries. If the Spaniard were Mohammedan, he would be completely African; it is religion that has kept it in Europe.”

        Now if you want to make this “afrocentric” source to satisfy the virtues of ignorance and ones most cherished racist views, so be it, but this sentiment could at one time be found to various degrees throughout Europe as it related to Spain and other Southern European cultures and countries. And if you actually understood the dynamics of skin color xenophobia and race in this context, it would not be so strange that Southern Europeans would emphasize the “white” racial dynamic in a society that had a competing racial or darker “skin color” component. This is why some Black Africans or African Americans are treated better in Copenhagen than they are in Modern Egypt and other countries dominated by so-called Brown or Olive skin people…
        Let’s not forget that it was other white Europeans who called the Italians and Sicilians “guineas” Again, let’s source “white” etymologist (not afrocentrist) to see if they agree or disagree with what has been put forth here:

        “The Guinea hen (1570s) is a domestic fowl imported from there. Guinea “derogatory term for Italian” (1896) was originally Guinea Negro (1740s) and meant “black person, person of mixed ancestry.” It was applied to Italians c.1890 probably because of their dark complexions relative to northern Europeans, and after 1911 was occasionally applied to Hispanics and Pacific Islanders as well. New Guinea was so named 1546 by Spanish explorer Inigo Ortiz de Retes in reference to the natives’ dark skin and tightly curled hair.”

  9. It’s also true that ASI is not related to any group outside India, so it’s incorrect to call it Australoid. Indeed that term is no longer used by geneticists.

    1. True.Everyone except Brahmins.Even lighter skinned ones in kerala have African features.You are right.

      1. Yeah I am a south indian and even telugu middle to low castes like kammas,reddys and kapus, and baigas call themselves “High Caste” but they are low caste and resemble mixed africans and have african features, though some of them hate admitting it.

  10. Whatever the Color Type, I believe the Radiance a person exudes is a sign of Health, Charisma, and I believe there maybe very subtle/out-of-world properties associated with attractive people.
    My Boss was very pale, he looked Anemic, Too much White is also bad. I like Hamilton[actor] Bronze tone.
    I have a friend who has gone bald. I recently found that he paints his head black. From far of it looks like he has hair.

  11. Hello Bob!! I guess I’m leaving this comment on this particular forum, simply out of irony. I read your “Beyond Highbrow” article. Although very opinionated, i must admit, it was very well written. You sure know how to capitalize a letter at the beginning of a sentence, as well as put a punctuation at the end. I also noticed that you have a habit of using quotation marks and bolding words like “CLAIM”. I must say, very cute. You also made a comment stating that although Negritos ( which means little BLACK people),etc look black, they are NOT( cute emphasis on the capital “NOT” by the way) black. They are simply the descendants of the first group that left AFRICA. I TOTALLY ( see I can capitalize letters too, lol) get your point brother. I try to tell people all the time; although I was born in Ft. Lauderdale, have lived in Broward County my whole life, which means I still currently live in Broward County, I am NOT a Floridian. LOL. Being a “WHITE” (since you are obsessed with race) ex freemason, the FACT is this, the ONLY reason Whites want to mingle into Africa, make a division between the groups, and claim North Africa, is simply to claim hold of Egypt. Point blank PERIOD (man i just love this CAPS thing, it really emphasizes points. Thanks for teaching your strategy big guy.).SKULL EXPERIMENTS, are NOT accurate, and will NEVER be.What IS accurate is the different types of melanin. Type 2 (OCA2) melanin if found to be the basic component of melanin in ALL OF THE GROUPS THAT YOU “CLAIMED” AREN’T BLACK. But hey, since you already “done did the research my nigga”( I just love how you get cute with ‘Afro American’ Ebonics. PRICELESS), then guess you MUST be right. LOL. Keep playing with your skulls, and make sure to post more. And please make an article on how I’m NOT a Floridian, it’s SO annoying, lol.
    Now, as far as the irony. You said your father was sick back in 09. Well, being that this is near the end of 2013, I was wondering if he became worm food yet? If so, lets pull his SKULL out of the grave and figure out a way to link it with the negritos, eh? That should really annoy those Afro Centrist huh? Hey but first, make sure you apologize to the worms for interrupting their supper, or breakfast, skull fest, idk, whatever you call it.Um kay pumpkin? Judging by your past strategies, I’m assuming you might tell me that I am banned. I mean, who cares? Once I clear my cache, I wont even remember this forum. Then it will be off to trumping another idiot. LOL, putting somebody in checkmate and NEVER reading their response is the best. So I guess what I’m saying is, just because somebody’s NOT white, originate from AFRICA, are called NEGRITOS ( ‘NEGR’ from BLACK, and ‘ITOS’ denoting little people), doesn’t mean that they are white. It just doesn’t work like that. I TOE TOE TORRY 🙁

  12. The identification of Tamilians with Dravidians is the most bizarre aberration of contemporary history. There are certain issues which were wantonly omitted by historians. Let us look at Pugalur coins. The male and female figures match only with Rajputs of Rajasthan. The Pallava sculptures resemble Parthians while early Chola sculptures especially at Someswara temple Kumbakonam resembles Pugalur coins while sculptures and bronzes of Cholas upto Athirajendra resembles admixture of East Asian and Pugalur but later Cholas represent Andhras while Naik kings were very very ordinary. The people of Tamilnadu are dynamic and not static. The present population of Tamilnadu is derived from large scale migration from Andhra. Further the Vijayanagar kings encouraged certain sections of their own population including Brahmins to become Tamilised since the Pallava/Chola hegemony had laid such a strong foundation that any successor regime cannot manage without making their own clan as Tamilised. It is not surprising that even evangelists like Robert Nobili Vedanayagam Sasthriyar had to don the robe of Tamil Brahmin. The concept of Dravidinism and gene analysis is utter nonsense due to dubious role played by Vijayanagar kings in creating moles of pseudo Tamilians.

    1. For all Tamils and Tamils. Kerlaites are not Tamilians, and antire south indians are not Tamilians. Pls dnt mix up Tamils and Keralites. That is disgusting

      1. Reall, You made an amazing statement. Malayalam and Tamil are just dialects of each other with Malayalam having more Sanskrit content but having Old Sangam like Tamil constructs. So if you are hating Tamil speakers, you must be hating Malayalam speakers and essentially hating yourself! What a pity! Genetically, I doubt whether we are much different. To be honest, most Indians had been bastardized for so long since time immemorial even under casteistic endogenous populations like ours! I always wondered at people like you! If you take a DNA test, you may lose sleep for the rest of your life! It was all one country called Tamil country for a long time.

  13. “South Indians Are Basically Caucasians”
    Well no sh!t Sherlock! anyone with a 6/6 vision could tell you that.
    Most people forget that “Caucasian” is a cranial structure NOT a skin color,even though south Indians have a skin color which resembles aborigines and other tribal people their cranial structure is “Caucasoid” not “Australoid” or “negroid”..
    All Indians are technically a subset of Caucasians who probably didn’t interbreed with north indians for like a thousand years till Britishers came due to “Caste System” bullshit.
    My best guess is that all Indians are mostly the same but they never even left their villages for centuries because of their shitty social structure it will also explain why india has so many languages&traditions.

    1. Yes but some of the tribals and the very south Indians such as Tamils are actually Australoid by skull. Thank you for pointing out that Caucasoid is indeed a skull structure. On genes though, many Indians are midway between Caucasoid and Australoid.

      1. But most of those tribals are isolated and they hardly have the numbers to prevent themselves from being dissolved into the overwhelming majority..
        Indian Tamils almost almost look identical to Caucasians..
        Their nose, head shape, straight hair, body and facial hair all seem Caucasoid than Australoid,the only thing I see Australoid in them is their skin but that could be due to the fact that South India has the same altitude as Africa

        1. That group must be a group of tamil brahmins WHO ARE NOT a representative of south indians, and even then they show australoid admixture in their skin tone, facial features like in the nasal region, chin shape and lips. They even look like many black white mixed quadroons. They are like a 75-25% caucasoid-australoid mix. Their caucasoid features are prominent, but you can see influences in the wavy hair type, nasal area, and chin shape, and also skin tone. Some of these ppl have australoid influence and would not look white if colored light.

      2. I think the gene charts do support your statement robert because according to gene charts:
        North Indians are on average 80% caucasoid-20%australoid mix
        Central Indians are on average 65% caucasoid-35% australoid mix
        South Indians on average are a 55-60% caucasoid-40-45% australoid mix.
        Tribals on average are 60-80% australoid-5-10% mongoloid-10-35% caucasoid mix.

      3. Im still pretty curious as to why tamilians and HOA look so alike? When I remember meeting my ethiopian && somalian friends, They looked just like us south indians and I kind of saw my cousins in some of their faces. Is this because ethiopians are 60% caucasian and 40% negroid and the tamilians&&telugus are 60% caucasian and 40% australoid.

    2. South Indians don’t have the same skin color as Africans or Australoids lol. Have you ever visited Kerala and Karnataka? Most of them look the same as other Indians.

  14. I would have to respectfully disagree with the commenter quoted by Robert. I would say the vast majority of the peoples on the Subcontinent are mixed australoids. (I will not call them ‘Indians’ because such an identity doesn’t exist.) A few caucasoids might pop up here and there as throwbacks. Reminders of past peoples who ruled the Australoid mixes. For example, sometimes I see a white-skinned Persian-looking person appear in a family of mostly Australoids. Probably Indo-Aryan genes remain within the gene pool, so a few “Aryans” reappear every now and then. But they aren’t pure Aryans, they are mixed race people.
    Indians are not a pure race. They are not a race. They are mixed-race mongrels. They have no racial/ethnic identity. They are not a pure-blooded race like Europeans. Moral of the story: racial mixing destroys a bloodline. Once the bloodline is corrupted, the nation is dead. If pure-blooded Europeans want to preserve their race, they should avoid the racial mixing that led to the destruction of India.

    1. Dravidian, Go and spill your muddle headed args elsewhere fake creature. There’s nothing as such , that you have as your user name.

    2. Hi Dravidian, I think your thoughts / conclusion is same as David Duke after his visit to India. He was wondering aloud whether America will be able to assimilate the races and populations. For a third time in today’s posts, I have to say this: Yes, it seems to be very common even between siblings in TN, the skin color can be drastically different. So, “blood line” corruption is something which has happened long time ago. We are all mongrels.
      Yes, racial mixture can present very dominant problems to any country. For India, it could be pretty high. The only solution could be having extremely good set of laws and enforcement. It is not going to be easy. It is too late to split the country! It is a miracle that the country is surviving!

  15. Guys, I am a Mallu living in Kerala. Pls dnt have a misconception that we are Tamilians. Tamilnadu is a different state for those who speak Tamil; Keralites have our own language malayalam. ye there are tamil/mallu mix community here. Tamilnadu is different from Kerala as Punjab is different from Rajastan and Bihar from Uttarpradesh. Now about Caucasian race, all states have people from different races. I myself is sure that I have african traits and I dnt even look like a mallu I look more like a Sinhalese. Again Sinhalese and Srilankan Tamils are different people. I am married to a malayali man whose family has syrian blood. He looks like Aryan . Our kids is a mix of dravidian and aryan traits. But we are proud mallus, Kerala s not an industrial jungle and underdeveloped state as “Lord “. I doubt he/she has ever visited Kerala. Throughout the discussion I can see unwanted things are told about Mallus. which is not good. We are just like any other human race. Some Tamilians here get some pleasure in poking mallus, they are in fight with all, Keralites Kannadika, Andhra( old) , Goa. etc. Yes we do have our limitations like any other human race has. Again I remind you, Keralites are not Tamils. Kindly dont mix up. We are not intersted in such deprived comments. Our capital is Trivandrum. Our Chief Minister is Oommen Chandy, Our Language is malayalam and Our state is one of the most beautiful and clean place in India. Hope you get it. And we are not Tamils

    1. Robert Lindsay ……..Visit to their clean Plastron>> will be Great experience that “not only clean/also people is one of the most Amazing and clean Plastron in south India”

    2. Hmm. You seem to be a Sinhalese Sri Lankan carrying your hatred across! Difference between Tamil people and Malayalee people is very little linguistically, genetically, culturally and historically. As a matter of fact, my maternal grandfather was as pale as any other Indian could be and I highly doubt whether he traveled anything more than 50 KMs in all his life. We had all been bastardized for a very long time, even if the ancestors lived in the jungles and hill tops. That is the truth. You seem to be a hate filled person.
      It is not Trivandrum anymore; It is Thiruvananthapuram, can you get the idea as to what I said? As I said before, you may not sleep well for some time!

  16. Of course Dravidians are Caucasian, the proof is their facial features and long straight hair. Tamils for the most are actually Caucasoid by cranial measurements who have a bit of austroloid admixture. I remember reading a piece from Harvard a long time a go that both north and south Indians are related to each other and that both groups descended from Andamanian tribsalists from the andaman islands who made their way to mainland india about 40,00 years ago (if that was correct) which different phases of evolution and the climate influenced their facial features.
    I would also like to point out that northern indians are NOT aryans, they are just a heavy mixture of Dravidians, some iranian groups and austrolids who only happen to speak indo-european languages.

      1. Yeah even curly to sometimes kinky hair ive seen some south indians with nappy hair or intermediste mulatto hair texture. South indian men hair isnt always straight and if it is as they age the hair starts getting wavy to curly which is common. Nappy and straight can happen but wavy to curly is the most common.

  17. Interesting discussion going on here. If you will let me introduce myself. I am a Telugu living in Kerala where the predominant language spoken is Malayalam. The community I hail from migrated from what is present day Andhra Pradesh about 400 years ago during the reign of the Vijayanagaras. Our ancestors were deputed as generals in what is present day Tamil Nadu to take care of the provinces and new kingdoms annexed to the empire. It is only within the last 100 years that a part of the community migrated to Kerala. We still speak Telugu at home though it is corrupt with a lot of words from Tamil.
    I have spent many years in the two states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu and can tell you that both are ethnically mixed populations. In other words if I being a Telugu were to step out into the streets amongst Malayalees or Tamils, you couldn’t tell me apart from them. People here come in all shades of black to all shades of brown. Amongst the Malayalees however, there is a huge population with maxillary prognathism which is not seen in Tamils. Another point worth mention are the hill tribes. They are of short stature, dark skinned , have high cheek bones and have the bridge of their nose depressed.

    1. Yeah theres no distinction, although us telugus from the north kind of have admixture from north indians and south east asians kind of like ppl from kerala.

    1. Yeah paniya tribes are the original black ppl of india, then dravidians came and peacefully mixed with natives like the paniya and then the aryans came and made a caste system as these were the classes which corresponded to being more caucasian:
      Brahmins: 75 (South Indian Brahmins)-95% caucasoid and 5-25% australoid.
      Kshatriyas: 65-85% caucasoid and 15-35% australoid
      Vaisyas: 60-75% caucasoid and 25-40% australoid
      Shudras: 50-60% caucasoid and 40-50% australoid
      Dalits and Tribals: 60-75% australoid and 25-40% caucasoid.

  18. Until recently people here would marry within a village/town keeping the gene pool small but with road/air connectivity and the internet taking over, distance has ceased to be a problem leading to more families marrying their children off irrespective of the distance. I have a sloping forehead, prominent supra orbital ridges and a broad nose while my sister has a straight forehead with prominent cheekbones. The gene pool here is very wide with a lot of traits and I’m not even beginning to talk about skin colour.

  19. India is Mixed with three groups of people. Adi-Dravdians, Dravidians, and Aryans. (Adi-Dravidians-Austroloid Original owners of the Land) Early Immigrants were from the North were also Caucasians called Dravidian. There was an Era were Dravidian and Adi-Dravidian co-Mingled together in an age of prosperity and great Civilization. There was No caste system during this time. The Keralites Festival of Onam represent this era and a great Kingdom. The story of King Maveli. During that time there was mix relationships between Adi-Dravidians and Dravidians, and also keep in mind we are talking about at least 3000 yrs or may be more, people changed but the weather also have made the Dravidian darker over hundreds of years, this is also true with Brahmins in South India also can have very dark skin.
    I have seen a black Brahmin, so how do you explain that. In AD400 the Aryans arrive to India by migration, and takes control over the land, but at that time India had a population of Dravidians which is a Mix of Australoid (Adi-Dravidians), and Dravidians forming people with different skin tones. Aryans were pure white color, Like the Iranian people. They saw Dravidians as a different race (Australoid). There is also different breeds in Dravidian community, but you can see a stronger mixture of the ancient people of that land. How could you not? It was their Land. That racism towards those people who originally lived there and anyone who resembles them.
    There is this huge issue about the South Indian people, how they are far less closer to Europeans, and therefore North Indian people are better because they are from the North. This oppression by the Aryans is nothing new but this is been happening for a long time now. There is a lack of respect for the people who resided there. I admit that the Aryans knew a better way of living, and perhaps even stronger. They could have taught the people how to be like them, and helped them but they did not do that instead they made them slaves and created ways to torture and discriminate against people who are living in their own society. These are their rules and their ways, so you can Imagine how wicked these people were and they still are, and they are proud of their arrogance. They used trickery, Magic and Deceit to fool the people of the land.
    Now the people from North India are Aryans? but being from the north where it is colder (Himalayas). They are obviously have a different skin complexion than people in south where it is hotter and more tropical. Aryans are not very good people, and they shouldn’t be proud of what they did, It is an embarrassment of their cruelty, and Barbarism to humanity. Yet the average Indian who is proud of his Aryan heritage, even a 1% mix, he boasts that he is pure Aryan.
    Aryan people its time reflect. Your system did not work. India is a Mess, Unorganized, Unethical, Corrupted, and still poor. Caste still divide India and only creates problem and serves as a hindrance to the growth of India as developed country. Do you know its very good to live in a developed country like Japan, or US. That is what you want for you country and everyone who lives in it. Not wanting some caste recognition? Is that all you want in life you dumb fool.
    Who cares who is Aryan or who is not. What India needs more than anything is a better quality of life for its people like Japan or US. That is what you want. Better jobs, better schools, training, better Army, and better recognition in the world. These Aryans are not keeping up with the time, they have fallen behind, caught up in this caste system that have created and the benefits that they enjoyed because of that, and they don’t want to let go of it, even if it hinders the growth of India.

    1. Ha, You spoke like me. I consider myself as a Dravidian because I speak a Dravidian Language. Genetically, I care less, nobody knows exactly who they are whether one is a Dravidian or an Aryan. As I said in a reply to someone else that my maternal grand father was very pale and my paternal grand father was dark. How it happened nobody knows. In TN seeing a very drastic difference even between siblings is very common.
      Even though India is one country, I am not optimistic as you are. Everything bad you were sad about, I too feel the same way. Education is key. My parents had never been to school while I have come to America and my brother was a high official in Indian Navy. I am very thankful to the British who instituted a fair education system for everyone at some minimal cost.
      I am very sorry to say, I feel so negative about India. Firstly, we are divided as North Indians and South Indians. Then we are divided as Tamils and Kannadigas and Malayalees and Telugus. Then we are divided as per castes and sub castes. Then we have the problem of corruption, lawlessness, cutting the corners etc. Then we have very limited natural resources. Occasionally, I think we would be better off if we had been separate countries like North and South and operate as federations.
      The only solace is that the educational system is slowly wearing down the caste and religious boundaries at the seams. I hope we make progress.

  20. kerala has european mix , when british men came to kerala, they had sex with many concubines … hence genetic mix up…. There can be 3 groups in kerala australoid-negretoid mix ;; dravidian and migrant aryans who came to kerala during 7-12 century

  21. “South Indians Are Basically Caucasians” You are missing three words in this statement……… as of today

  22. Wow from the article to the comments I see everyone was going in. I actually did a google search trying to figure how how South Indians first came to
    africa. Trying to find a link being that I’m of African descendant but also have South Indian in my blood line. After reading these comments I realize I have a lot of research to do.

    1. I saw, on Henry Louis Gates Jr’s “Finding your Roots” one African-American (at least outwardly) man, had South East Asian (although not specifically South Indian) blood, through Madagascar. I’m sure it’s because Madagascar is closer to the region, but I’m not sure what the exact story is….

    2. What country are you from? If carribean that could explain it yet from what I read most indians there are from the western, eastern, or southern regions.
      However I did read of southern people from Malabar in south east Africa.

  23. I’m South Indian, I get annoyed when people say Dravidian– like I’m flipping Indian… Even if Indians have darker skin tone, the facial features are still similar to Caucasian.. example// both my parents are South Indian, my mom has dark skin my dad has pale skin, I came out very light brown. My cousins parents have light brown skin but both of them have dark skin..

  24. imagine the racial problem fishes might have ! we humans look so much alike. But what about fishes? They are a group..but have 1000s of varieties with huge differences. some tiny and some huge. and many of the fishes eat other fishes!

  25. A-MAN
    I apologize for not giving my opinion as your twitter page will not load with this connection.

    1. No problem! Thanks for telling doe! Btw i look very australoid for an indian in america. I have actually been mistaken as a half black-half white dude or a dominican, and sometimes HOA.

  26. A-MAN
    I knew a guy who’s father was a South Indian of the Warrior caste and who’s mother was a Northern European.
    He looked like a Greek…..White. For years I thought he was only 1/4 Indian.

    1. Yeah Caucasoid-Indian mixes do look more white because us indians ourselves are half caucasian, and plus that guy is of warrior caste so his dad was 75-80% caucasoid and his mom was 100% so no wonder that kid looked white, and maybe greek or North African because he is going to be 85-90% caucasoid and 10-15% australoid like some greeks and north africans who are white ppl with slight feature change due to 10-15% SSA admixture.

    2. And although indian genes are more dominant and some white-indian mixes look more indian, the opposite is more likely to happen due to the fact we indians have caucasoid genes in us. Its kind of like mixing a 75%white-25%black dude with a white person and the baby most likely comes out looking completely white due to the dominant caucasain admixture. The same thing applies when a high caste indian with 75-80% caucasian-20-25% australoid mix with 100% white person as the baby looks mostly caucasoid with minor australoid influences as it is 90% caucasoid-10% australoid.

  27. I believe south indians are probably the least Caucasian of all the Caucasoid groups and they have substantial Australoid in their genes and phenotype as well.

    1. Yeah they also like to deny their black australoid admixture. Like you can clearly see the black australoid admixture in their faces.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)