Australoids As the Base Race of Both Asia and the Americas

Real White Nationalist writes:

So are South Indians today basically Caucasoids with some Australoid genes? What percent of Australoid do they have?

Yes of course. On some charts, South Indians just plot Caucasoid, but on other charts if you compare them to say Andaman Islanders, you can see the Southerners plot pretty well. The North Indians will plot a lot less closer to Australoids. The South Indians are more Australoid and the North Indians are more Caucasoid. At this point, they are most Caucasoid on genes I THINK. It is another race that has transitioned Australoid -> like NE and SE Asians. Many Northerners are mostly Caucasoid, but in the North, they are also 1 Some Australoid transitions to modern races: In the Caucasus to Central Asia, the transition went Australoid (ancient Paleomongoloid Chinese Ainuid) + African (ancient African, possibly ancient Khoisanid -> Caucasoid (16-42,000 YBP in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Eurasia.) Probably no remaining unfinished types except possibly Mozabite Berberids in Algeria (very primitive Caucasoids) In NE Asia, the transition went Australoid -> NE Asian (9000 YBP) It is unfinished in Ainus. In SE Asia, the transition went Australoid -> SE Asian (2-2500 YBP). It may not have transitioned completely in Indonesians. It is unfinished in Melanesians, Papuans, Senoi and Negritos. In India, the transition went Australoid -> Caucasoid (7-8000 YBP). It is unfinished in Veddoids, Tamils and Sri Lankans. In the Americas, the transition went Australoid -> Amerindian (7-9000 YBP). No or few remaining unfinished groups, but some unfinished groups may have lingered until the 18th Century in Baja California.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

54 thoughts on “Australoids As the Base Race of Both Asia and the Americas”

  1. Australoids have been evolving away from Blacks the longest. Caucasoids only broke away from Blacks like 42,000 YBP. The first to break away from the Blacks are going to be the farthest apart from them genetically.
    Everyone is really far away from Blacks, but Australoids are the farthest.
    There is almost like 2 human races: BLACKS and EVERYONE ELSE. I am serious. There is probably more genetic distance between two Nigerians 20 miles away from each other than from the whole Caucasian race.
    I do not like to say Blacks are a subspecies or especially a species because it is insulting, but I can see why insensitive people want to say things like that.

    1. I like you articles, mostly well written. Bit confused here, you said above Caucasoids broke off from Blacks, then mention Australoids are the precusors of Caucasoids in Asia. So I dont get it, can you explain a bit please ? Also are European Caucasoids dervived from Asian Caucasoids in India ?

      1. Caucasoids were created 42,000 YBP in the Near East and Central Asia by a mix of 2/3 ancient Chinese and 1/3 ancient Africans.
        No, we are not derived from them exactly, but you may be onto something.
        From 42,000 YBP to today, the Caucasoid race has been being formed. North Africa, the Caucasus, the Middle East and India were the focal points of the development of the Caucasoids. There were many movements back and forth these ancient Caucasoid homelands back and forth over this period. Movement of ancient Indians to North Africa, North Africans to the Near East, etc etc.
        You can look at South Indians perhaps as some very ancient Caucasoids. Some of the Berberids are too, as are the Lapps and a few others. The Basques and the Sardinians are more recent but still pretty archaic.

        1. Hello Robert,
          Isn’t South Asia and the Middle East where all the major races collide? Becuase if you had to use a three race classification, they would be a mix of mongloid, negroid (abos and other australoif in indians who are black and africans in middle easterners), and caucasoids.
          Thank You,
          Akhil Tummala

        2. Plus geographically south asia and the middle east are between east asia,south east asia,central asia,europe,and africa.

      2. So you mean that the Caucasoids developed in multiple places from 2/3 ancient Chinese and 1/3 ancient Africans ? I dont think its very likely, more likely they all developed in one place, either in the Caucasus or India and migrated in various directions with further mutations. And most South Indians have fine features and look predominantly Caucasoid (like Middle-Eastern/Mediterranean types) despite the dark color though some are very Australoid looking as well. In fact Aishwayra Rai & many other Bollywood actress are from South India as well as Nobel Prize/Chess Winners, not to mention huge temple & monument constructions. I dont think its feasible for any Australoid to achieve this currently. Further R1a1a shows North Indians/Eastern European Caucasians are a bit separate from Western European Caucasians (R1b). I would group Caucasians as (Western European, Eastern European/North Indian, Middle-Eastern/North African, South Indian). Also I would plump that black Africans are much closer to Caucasoids than East Asians. While you are very much on the right track, there are also some important behavorial differences you have missed. I’ll email you about this, dont want to discuss it here.

      3. Cavalli-Sforza says that Caucasoids were created in the Caucasus from ancient Chinese + ancient Blacks 42,000 YBP. Another person said it happened in Central Asia. The Uighurs are a very ancient racial group.

    2. This didn’t answer the question. At least not correctly. According to this, asians would be the most distant. The truth is, many australoid groups stayed in isolated small numbers which artificially quickens divergence. But leaves the same phenotype. The most australoid indians only map as half australoid because of this when andaman islanders are used as reference.

    1. Well in my town, we have mostly Punjabis for northwest India, and I assure you that not only are the Caucasoids, but most of them are flat out White people. They sort of look like White folks who have been out in the sun for too long. I saw one with prominent Australoid features though.
      On some charts, South Indians plot closest to Caucasoids than any other race, but on the other hand, they outside of the main Caucasian race proper, moving away towards the Asians. If you want to call them Caucasoids, they are the most divergent Caucasoids of all.

      1. Punjabis are like 3 or 4 percent of the Indian population and most of them are far from white-skinned.
        Since according to you most Indians are white that must mean you believe that low caste and outcaste Hindus are also white, because only a small minority of Hindus are upper caste. Correct?

  2. “What race is the upper caste Gandhi?”
    Gandhi was a vaishya. That is a middle caste. Vaishyas are farmers and traders.
    “Caucasoids were created 42,000 YBP in the Near East and Central Asia by a mix of 2/3 ancient Chinese and 1/3 ancient Africans.”
    Sounds like elementary school sociology where they taught us that there are 3 “races” of humans;
    And that Indians (South Asians) were a mix of all 3 because they have negroid skin, caucasoid features, and mongoloid hair.
    Of course this is completely unscientific hogwash.
    Similarly if you take a person who is 2/3 Chinese and 1/3 African, say someone who was born to a Chinese father and a half Chinese/half African mother, that child will not look “caucasian” but will look like this;
    and this

    1. You can’t call me theories elementary school sociology. I will ban on that.
      42,000 YBP, there were only two races:
      The early Caucasoids were created via a mixture of paleo-Chinese Australoids who looked nothing like modern Chinese and instead looked more like the Ainu, and paleo-Africans, who may have resembled Khoisan or Bushman types. From this was created paleo-Caucasoids, who looked nothing at all like modern Caucasoids. In fact, they more resembled Khoisanids than anything else.

      1. Can you provide a reading list, or at least a few books or articles on the emergence of modern races or phenotypes to check this stuff out? Most mainstream popular paleoanthropology tiptoes around the question at best. I’m not doubting you, I’d just like to know more detail.

        1. Most of that comes from my online research. Cavalli-Sforza talked about the emergence of the Caucasian race. That Amerindians used to be Australoids is well known. You can look up the reconstruction of the face of the man found 35,000 YBP in Europe to see that he looks Khoisan. There is a cave in North China that shows transitions. Before 9000 YBP, the skulls look Australoid. Only after 9000 YBP does that modern NE Asian appear. Skulls 9000 YBP and older in India look like Aborigines. Vietnamese are Melanesian types until 2,3000 YBP. The basic type in Asia is the Negrito. It was widespread until recently.
          It is widely recognized that most modern races are new, not older than 15,000 YBP.

    2. Gandhi was a vaishya. That is a middle caste. Vaishyas are farmers and traders.
      Vaishyas are not farmers or peasants. That is a job for the low caste sudras. As a Vaishya Gandhi belonged to the twice-born or upper castes who are a small minority of Hindus.
      My question was: what race is Gandhi, a very typical Indian? He sure looks very far from whites to me.

      1. I suppose he is one of those Austaloid-Caucasoid mixes. But if you look at his skull or genes, he is going to cluster with Caucasoids, and the difference between him and a European in genetic distance will be much smaller than you think.

        1. He has australoid influence in his jaw,skin and nose, but most of his features are caucasoid. So i would say ghandi is a quadroon like a 75% caucasoid-25% australoid mix.

        2. Robert i know it will make other south asian users mad but ghandi has australoid admixture as i showed in the pic . Its time for us south asians to acknowledge our australoid/negrito roots.

  3. “You can’t call me theories elementary school sociology.”
    I just repeated what I learned in elementary sociology and said your theory sounded familiar/similar.
    What hard scientific evidence is your theory based on?

  4. “Vaishyas are not farmers or peasants. That is a job for the low caste sudras. As a Vaishya Gandhi belonged to the twice-born or upper castes who are a small minority of Hindus.”
    Vaishyas are agriculturalists, farmers, traders, bakers, etc. Shudras are generally unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, also farmers, artisans, crafts people, etc.
    Vaishyas, kshyatriyas and brahmins were known as twice born but not all of them become twice born (its a ritual samskara/ceremony called “upanayana”).
    Originally there were only 4 varnas. Varna cannot really be translated as caste as caste is not a traditional South Asian concept. Varna, jati, gotra, kula, etc are the way South Asians identified themselves. Caste was a later development and the easiest way for the British and European colonizers to categorize an entire region of the world that confused them greatly.
    Anyhow, things are not so black and white or cut and dry. Take for example the mixed vaishya-shudra castes. The mixed brahmin-ksyatriya castes. The mixed ksyatriya-vaishya castes. Or the hundreds, thousands even, of other sub-castes!
    It doesn’t matter. Many Indians don’t even know their caste. I wouldn’t ask either since for the modern and educated its considered a rude or ignorant/backwards sort of thing to ask.

    1. Why are you pretending to be Arab, when you are obviously an Indian Hindu?
      Your post is full of lies and nonsense. Peasants are not vaishyas. There are 4 castes or varnas in Hinduism, not hundreds or thousands. You are playing a dishonest game by conflating Varna with Jati.

      1. You must’ve missed my post where I said I am in fact Hindu, well, at least I practice Hinduism, though whether or not I am a “real Hindu” could be contested. Who cares?
        I am not Indian however. And neither are you, nor have you been to India nor do you associate with many Indians, otherwise you would know that vaisyas are in fact the agricultural and trading varna. Otherwise how do you think vaisyas ever made their living, ringing bells and asking for donations?
        Gandhi’s parents were baniyas for crying out loud.

        1. Trading caste yes, peasant caste no. You are bullshitting a lot. Ringing temple bells and asking for donations is what Brahmins do. Trading and business is what Vaishyas do. Physical labor whether agricultural or otherwise, is what sudras do.
          I doubt you are an Arab. Maybe you work in the Gulf like so many Indians.

    2. What class are kammas in? Are they high,middle or low caste? That’s what my parents said i was. And are they in sudra,vaishya,or kshatriya category?

  5. “Trading and business is what Vaishyas do. Physical labor whether agricultural or otherwise, is what sudras do.”
    You saw this while in India? Which particular area?

      1. In principle it is as I stated. Vaisyas were agriculturalists who worked the land and raised animals and traded what they grew and raised. The Hindu God Krishna, one of India’s most famous and beloved archetypes, was of the vaisya caste and is known as “Gopal” or protector of cows, because he and his family were cow-herders.

        1. Plus, Bhagavad Gita 18.44 clearly states “krsi” (farming) as one of the principle occupations of the vaisya varna. The verse along with 4 commentaries can be found here;

          The Bhagavat Purana also gives clear definitions for the four varnas and their occupations, as does several other ancient Hindu texts.
          Would you like to come on my autumn pilgrimage/tour to holy places in India this November? You’ll be able to experience all of this first hand.

  6. It appears there are two groups of humans, call them “races” if you will;
    1. those with no Neanderthal admixture – an extremely small minority and sub-set of sub-Saharan Africans who have not a single ancestor who has ever mixed with Neanderthal, and
    2. the rest of humanity.
    So there you go, 2 races!

      1. coward
        June 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM
        “Caucasoid, Bantu Negroid, and Mongoloid.”
        Nice mix. I have disciple who is part Chinese, part African, part Italian and he is very handsome.

      2. “Your disciple? Are you a religious leader?”
        I’m a guru.

  7. Not sure. The transition happened in NE Asia 9000 YBP, and then in SE Asia around 2200 YBP, but it had already been happening in SE Asia for some time. I suppose the new Mongoloids diffused down from NE Asia into SE Asia.
    South Indians looked Australoid until 9000 YBP when they started turning into Caucasoids probably under influence of Caucasoids from the Levant that moved into the area and 12-17,000 YBP and become the base of the Dravidian race. Dravidians looked Australoid until 9000 YBP when they started to turn Caucasoid.

    1. I dont think south indians are full caucasoids they look like a 50 percent negrito/australoid and 50 percent caucasoid mix.

      1. Wait but isnt australoid: negrito+med phenotypically and south indians got invaded by pure med so would they be 25-50 percent negrito and 50-75 percent caucasoid. Kinda similar to the mix in east africa between arab and black.

  8. So are caucasoids basically derived from a mixture of paleomongoloid and ancient african(khoisanid)? If it weren’t with the khoisanid mixture, will the ancient europeans instead transition into neomongoloids?

    1. I am not sure what they would have turned into. The ancient African wasn’t even Khoisanid. It was pre-Khoisanid or proto-Khoisanid. At any rate, they looked a lot different from modern Khoisans. Modern Khoisans only appeared in the last 10-15,000 years.

      1. I understand but I am kind of curious as to how caucasoids evolved the long nose? Like wouldn’t paleo australoids and africans have pretty wide noses. I do believe what you say robert but its kind of weird how caucasoids have long noses.

        1. A-MAN
          Cold: nose thinned to filter air through wind, snow and rain.
          Additionally, sexual selection occurred. Another words thin-nosed Caucasoid males with thin noses and broad shoulders were appealing so more shot loads in vaginas and their children were born.

  9. Amerindians are descendants of Mongoloids (or so called paleomongoloids) that crossed the Bering Straits like 20,000 years before Christ (or even more).
    But Australoids arrived to the Americas first, I do not know how the fuck. In South America there are / were some peoples with more “Australoid genes” than the rest, and all were from the south of the region. Also, all of them were Amerindians due to mixing, no one was Australoid anymore since many time, maybe thousands of years, but there were many more “Australoid genes” in native peoples of the south Pacific coast, and also some regions of the west of Argentina, than in the rest. Theories are based on the facial hair of some of these peoples, non-existent in 90% of Amerindians.
    What is a mystery is how some peoples of the Pacific coast (or near) of North America had Australoid genes, as apparently some native of California or even Olmecs. Because the strongest theory about Austrloid arrival to the Americas is that they came from the South, across the Pacific, and inhabited much of South America (perhaps in small quantities), but not Central America or North America.

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)