The Major Races of Man

The original title of this post was, Does a Caucasian Race Exist? but I changed it as I put the charts in. First we will look at the existence of a Caucasian race, then we will look at the major races of man.
Many non-Caucasians feel that there is no such thing as a Caucasian race, while still holding that African and maybe Asian are valid racial constructs.
However, Caucasian is as valid a construct as Asian, Australoid, or African, at least on genes. I have not studied skull charts very well.
It is pretty clear based on genetics that you can divide off a Caucasian race, an Asian race, an African race and an Australoid race. You may even be able to divide out an Amerindian race somewhere. But the four big splits are:
That is as clear as air, and I don’t see why it would be controversial.
On most of those charts, Indians would plot with Caucasians, but on some they look a little Australoid. Depends on the chart you look at.
On other charts, Indians are a race halfway between Caucasians and Asians. Also on that same chart, we can see a Horner race halfway between Caucasians and Africans.
Here are some charts of the major races:

This chart shows the incredible distance of Africans from all other human races. Africans are very different.
This chart shows the incredible distance of Africans from all other human races. Africans are very different.

Africans are so far from the other races that racists like to call them a separate subspecies of species, but I doubt if that is valid, and even if it were, it would not be right to go down that road.
Once again we see a very great distance between Africans and all other races on this chart, which divides humans dubiously into 9 separate races.
Once again we see a very great distance between Africans and all other races on this chart, which divides humans dubiously into 9 separate races.

However, I do feel that a 6 race theory based on this chart would be correct:
NE Asians/Arctic NE Asians
New Guinea/Australian
SE Asian/Pacific Islander
European Caucasian/Non European Caucasian
This chart also shows Africans as extreme outliers and divides humanity into 8 races.
This chart also shows Africans as extreme outliers and divides humanity into 8 races.

The races are the same as above:
NE Asians
Arctic NE Asians
New Guinea/Australian
SE Asian
Pacific Islander
except that NE Asians and Arctic NE Asians are separted (possibly a valid choice) and SE Asians and Pacific Islanders are separated (a similarly valid choice). Europeans and non-European Caucasians are subsumed into a single race because the differences between them are slight.
Very interesting chart shows a lot more flow between groups and shows some groups straddling borders of other groups.
Very interesting chart shows a lot more flow between groups and shows some groups straddling borders of other groups.

On this chart, you can see the divergence of East Indians, heading off towards SE Asians. We can also see a pretty dramatic separation between NE Asians and SE Asians, including different types of Chinese. The difference between say a Chukchi, a Samoyed and an Nganasan and a Thai or an Indonesian is quite dramatic.
We also see that “Gurkas,” possibly Nepalese, are separated off into SE Asians, which is interesting. They are on a sort of border between SE Asians and NE Asians.
In addition, the Northern Turkics (like the Altai and the Uighurs) very much straddle the border between Caucasians and NE Asians, falling barely into the Caucasian group. Uzbeks are also on the line, and Northern Chinese and the Chukchi are close to Caucasians. I have seen charts where the Chukchi were actually over into the Caucasian square!
A five race theory.
A five race theory.

This five race theory has:
Amerindians/Arctic NE Asians (Amerindians)
SE Asians/NE Asians/Pacific Islanders (Asians)
That chart is not as fine grained as the others, but it’s based on genetics like all the others are.
All of the above charts are based on genes, so clearly, genetically, we can split out an obvious Caucasian major race. I have a hard time why people do not wish to accept this concept.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

110 thoughts on “The Major Races of Man”

    1. I do not agree. They look Caucasoid on genes pretty much. A very divergent Caucasoid, but Caucasoid nonetheless. They don’t particularly cluster with anyone if you ask me.

        1. Oh, that wacky Razib…You do know that guy is both agenda driven and full of shit at the same time, right? He is not a scientists, and has some serious issues regarding his South Asian/Muslim background.

        2. The Indian case is located precisely in the real subjectivity of the human races. Human races are obviously but the boundaries between them, circumstantial, cultural and historical subjectivity precedence. So some frames happen as we treat the Lebanese Christians as white but not the Lebanese Muslims.
          Depending on how you manipulate the information available Indians may look more Caucasoid or non-Caucasoid…

      1. Who are modern day hindus? or indians?—They are hybrids
        Hindutva paints them as some unique group but they are not, they are slaves, immigrants and mostly settlers
        Hinduism is not some mythical old cult existing since 9000 years as some hindutvas paint, its a unique new cult, co-opting some buddhism and other traditional values
        The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a powerful organization founded on the belief that the Hindu religion is eternal and unvarying, that it has existed in India for thousands of years (the VHP’s chronological estimates vary between 8,000 and 50,000 years), and that its essence has never been affected by any foreign influence or borrowing. Hinduism is unique to India, and India is a uniquely Hindu country: such is the logic of the VHP. And yet, occasionally, the VHP is assailed by a sense of doubt. It is all very well to thunder at Muslims and Christians in self-congratulatory public meetings, its leaders say to themselves, but it would be nice to have some proof with which to fight off the scoffing scientists. And so, as documents recently made available to researchers reveal, the high command of the VHP decided to sponsor a time travel project, sending a fact-finder back to the glorious Vedic age to collect evidence of how the ancestors of the Hindus performed their rituals, worshipped their gods, and conceived of their relationship to the Divine.
        Thus a card-carrying member of the VHP, a Hindu of impeccable credentials, embarked on a pilgrimage through time, back to 1500 BCE. He must have been very excited at the prospect of seeing with his own eyes the Golden Age of his belief, when the tenets of Hinduism were still untainted by any alien influence. Landing on the banks of the Indus, he immediately sets out on a walk, eager to visit the temples of the area, to pay his respects to the gods, magnificently carved in stone, and to celebrate the sunset with the time-honoured ritual of the aarti. Our contemporary Hindu searches in vain. He encounters some herdsmen, but none of them has heard of his supreme god, Shiva. Vishnu does ring a bell, but only as one of the names of the sun god. He stumbles from one shock to another: the mention of the loving Krishna provokes anger, for Krishna, they tell him, is a cattle-raider, the enemy of their chief god, Indra. And when he asks about Ganesha, most popular of today’s deities, they nearly chase him away—that dangerous trouble-maker, they whisper, can only be appeased by tribal shamans from the forest on the far side of the river. Eager to mollify his new friends, the perplexed guest asks about their gods. The ancients rattle off a long list—Varuna, Mitra, Agni, Kubera and others—but to him these are vague names, shadowy figures, either forgotten or demoted, as in the case of Kubera, to goblin status.
        I will find consolation in a temple, our time-traveller thinks to himself, but the locals do not understand his request. The word ‘mandir’ is foreign to them, as is ‘murti’. Where the heck are you from? they ask with growing suspicion. Are you one of us at all? After much to and fro, they lead him to a temporary altar by the river, around which several men are seated. But he can make no sense of their shamanic rituals of purification and praise; he does not know the guardian spirits and fertility goddesses that they are worshipping. In great inner turmoil, he proceeds to a sacrificial clearing in the forest, hoping at least to come across a familiar idol. But alas, there is not a single one there, only strange totems: instead of the mighty Shiva, he encounters a cobra; instead of the regal Vishnu, he finds a fish, a tortoise and a boar. And when the sun begins to set, he is all alone, and the locals give no sign of gathering for the congregational evening prayer that has been his daily spiritual fare for as long as he can remember. But the locals are hospitable, and after dinner (of which the less said the better), they sit around the fire with him, struggling to make conversation.
        Seeking common ground, he narrates some of his most cherished myths as best as he can in his high-school Sanskrit, the story of Rama and Sita, the saga of the feuding Pandavas and Kauravas, the legend of the rival sisters Ganga and Parvati. His audience is entranced by such beautiful tales from foreign lands, not only because of his story-telling skills, but also because their ears have never been charmed by anything similar to this. Even the most central of Hindu concepts, which he idiomatically mentions in passing—the karma of his life—baffles his Vedic ‘ancestors’. But there is one comforting moment, when they invite him to a sacrifice: the yagna. With enormous relief he casts the mix of sesame, clarified butter and kindling wood into the fire, to the chanting of Vedic verse. But his relief is short-lived. He is scandalised that the priests hand around a brew they call soma, and shocked by the readiness with which both women and men drink it, transporting themselves into states of dream. He is eager to return home, for he might as well have landed on the moon.
        But the VHP does not give up so easily. OK, they exclaim, so we exaggerated by a millennium here and a millennium there, but that doesn’t prove anything. Our researcher must have missed the great Hindu unravelling by a sliver of time—we just have to send him out again. This second journey falls under a bad omen right from the start. Bereft of hopes and illusions, our Hindu is mortified by the thought of what else he might find in this most alien land of all—history. Travelling ahead in time from where he left off, he labours on desperately. His patience is sorely tested. He has to overcome oceans of strangeness, to hack his way through jungles of disorientation. The forms of worship that he comes upon shock him with their earthiness and their lack of inhibition: the snake and the penis, the gnomes and goblins. Well, he says to himself, the temples must have been made of timber and brick, although he can’t quite imagine such constructions living up to the proclaimed greatness of
        Ancient India. He reaches the 5th century BCE, the epoch of the great religious founders Gautama Buddha and Mahavira, who were born just a few miles apart in North India. The way he has been taught history, Buddhism and Jainism were offshoots of Hinduism, but he has not yet come across a Hinduism he can identify with, except for a few hymns and some rudimentary rituals. Branches without a trunk? He ponders over the puzzle, slipping further into the marsh of confusion when he realises that the very first monuments he stumbles upon—towards the 2nd century BCE—are Buddhist, the domed stupas of Bharhut and Sanchi. So if the Buddhists managed to build such impressive monuments in stone, why not the Hindus of that era? Soon after this, he comes across a glimmer of hope: a column, six majestic meters of sandstone, standing in Besnagar in Madhya Pradesh. It lacks any figural representation, but the eagle Garuda is perched on its top, a symbol of Vishnu, finally a sign that is known to our traveller. Reading the inscription he learns that the column is the gift of a prominent ‘Bhagvat’, a worshipper of Vasudeva. Vasudeva! That is, Vishnu, a properly Hindu monument at last. Our time-traveller exhales—he is home. Overcome by emotion, he bows down, and his eyes fall on the inscription. For God’s sake! The donor is a foreigner: Heliodoros, son of Dion. Our man sits down heavily, puts his head in his hands, and tries to understand this cruel blow of karma, this reversal of everything he has held holy. Apparently, this ambassador from the Greek kingdoms in the northwest (today’s Pakistan and Afghanistan) to the local court is the first documented Vaishnavite in history, the first known person to regard Vishnu as the Supreme God.
        Heliodoros’ is hardly the exceptional case of an eccentric convert, as is proven by the coins dug up in the surrounding region. They are minted by Agathokles, an Indo-Greek ruler, and also dedicated to Vasudeva, the very first known image of this deity. Meaning ‘the Radiant God’, Vasudeva is a new kid on the block, a recent composite welded together from Pan, Dionysos and Indra. But our traveller must traverse another two centuries before he finally encounters a Hindu iconic image of any kind: In Gudimallam, near today’s Madras, he stumbles upon a truly magnificent sculpture. One and a half meters high, this icon is widely regarded as the ‘earliest depiction of Shiva in Indian art’ (Michell 2000, 40). Our traveller is further perplexed: the lingam is not an abstract symbol, but a rather realistic gigantic penis. The deity does not stand independently but steps out of the lingam, at the same time standing on the shoulders of a yaksha (a nature spirit), holding a water-pot in his left and an antelope in his right hand, an axe resting on his shoulder. Even more confusing, the figure is devoid of any signs which usually identify this God: the trident in his hand, the river goddess Ganga in his locks, the snakes around his neck, and the bull Nandi behind him—in one word, a depiction sorely at odds with all later depictions. Even the dating (1 century BCE), though widely accepted by scholars, may be open to doubt.
        It emerges from the connoisseurial mystique of stylistic comparison, particularly imprecise when there is hardly anything to compare it to, conducted by T. A. G. Rao in 1914 (a period when even the datings recognised the prevailing nationalist necessities, and it wouldn’t have been patriotic to dispute a century or two). After some reflection, the traveller shakes his head in doubt. Is he really standing in front of Shiva? Only when he reaches the Kushan period, in the 1st century CE, does the time-travelling Hindu breathe a sigh of relief. In Gandhara he comes across an idol he can immediately accept as Shiva: he carries a trident and rides on the bull Nandi. In Mathura, he finds a sandstone sculpture of Vishnu; and in both Kushan centres he recognises Skanda, the war-god and son of Shiva, a popular divinity among the Indo-Greeks. In the icon of Govardhana-dhara—the young god bearing the mountain—he recognises his own Krishna at last! But for the most part, the images show Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, many of them with faces like firangis. He wonders if there is some malfunction in his time machine. Where has the rest of Hinduism gone? Is this really India, or has he been sent somewhere else by mistake, to some kind of Buddhistan? He wants to check with the VHP control centre, but the communication device has failed.
        In a Kushan royal shrine, for the first time, he sees the now-popular icon of the goddess Durga locked in combat with a demon. Why do I see the Devi for the first time on my journey? he asks the Kushan custodian of the shrine. Well, says the custodian, I don’t know what you mean, you look and sound like a foreigner; but if you really want to know, this is our war-goddess Nanaia. We brought her with us from Inner Asia, and now the locals are very happy with her. They bring her flowers; they sacrifice goats on her big feast day. We don’t discourage it. And although we would prefer her to be shown killing a bull, the local artists have been experimenting with a buffalo. And we say, why not, after all it is closer to their experience in this monsoon country, so let them sculpt her killing a buffalo-demon.
        Our present-day Hindu spends the rest of the day in a daze. He avoids entering the other shrines he sees, not knowing what further surprises lie in store for him. But never mind, he tells himself, he is the first living Hindu to have gone back to the past and seen what it was really like. He can make a career out of his stories. He relaxes a little at the prospect. When he finally makes it back to contemporary India, he presents his findings with great excitement to the VHP’s high command. He is promptly expelled from the organization and his papers are publicly burned. Not for telling things that are untrue—the VHP leadership can hardly assert this claim against his testimony—but because he has dared to state, openly, facts that cannot be tailored to suit the mythmachine. You do not have to be historically correct to be condemned as a traitor, but in today’s India, large parts of which are dominated by the ideology of Hindutva, it certainly helps.

      2. A Caucasion Race is bogus there is no there there, Blumenbach’s theory was wrong through and through. Here is where the so called Caucasion Race comes from.
        Degeneration theory[edit]
        Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon were believers in the “degeneration theory” of racial origins. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting—for instance, he claimed Negroid pigmentation arose because of the result of the heat of the tropical sun, while the cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos, and the Chinese were fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns protected from environmental factors. He believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man
        could revert to the original Caucasian race.[12]
        We know this is nonsense, there is no Caucasian Race, therefore Caucasoid is bogus too.

    2. I insist, i doubt Indians are closer to Europeans than Chinese are to Amerindians, Indians look somewhat different, you can tell apart, plus Indians or Arabs lack light eyes and hair, only 1% of them, and that 1% is likely from Russia from the Aryan era, the lack of that trait alone make the distance between the 2 soooo huge, Indians are more like Mongoloids and Africans in their hair and eye color, all the same Black color : P

  1. I think this map of genetic distances is really useful for distinguishing meaningful races. Europeans, East Asians, and Black Africans clearly have their own clusters. In this view, many of the Central Asian peoples as well as those in East-Central Africa can be seen as mixed races between Europeans and East Asians, and Europeans and Black Africans, respectively. Which makes sense as they’re on the frontier and all.
    Then you also have a clear group of Papuan/Melanesian, and a fifth one represented in the map by South American tribes.

  2. Dunno, Indians and Arabs look kinda different from other caucasians, just like Amerindians and Pacific Islanders look kinda different from other mongoloids. I feel they can be really another race 😉

    1. Ale but if this study says Indians and Arabs are closer to Europeans than Amerindians and Pacific Islanders are to East Asians, then it is, I as a White could appreciate more India and Arabia, a bit more, even if they suck, lately i did a deep reflection on my life, i realized White people are first place, i have always been aware of it, but i am finally very aware of how HUGE the gap is, i still respect East Asia above all non western cultures, they are a second place, no news, but a lot far, so i can’t keep this otaku identity, is not the same admiration as before, Japan may have Lexus, Nintendo or Naruto, but the West have Ferrari, Call of Duty, South Park and much more, only one can be first place in my heart, not two, for about 6 years and half i got a huge obsession with Asia (first about China for being a BRIC, then Japan for Anime, then Korea for the Korean Wave, and lately with Japan again for Anime). I don’t know if i am White why it still hurts me this, i am not mongoloid race, slowly and slowly i am more pro White, but i can’t believe this, is not that i am asian, why i would feel even a bit sad that asia is second place? is so weird,so this would be my last post as Naruto, Japan is very cool , but the West is even more, is time to accept it,so good bye. (PS. Ale please visit me again, i am waiting in the house 😉 ,i still can’t go outside the house too much ).

      1. I am here now 😉 …about it, i don’t care much what culture is the number one, you told me you got tired to see how East Asian popular culture had still a long way to be on par with western, you only stopped being a race traitor ’cause you got tired of waiting, and got tired of feeling frustrated ’cause of it 😉 if not, then you would be still asian obsessed, who knows, in the future China will grow much much more than United States, who knows 😉 i am mestiza mostly white, guess i should be damn happy too that White is still number one. 😉

        1. : P a part of me seriously miss being Japanophile, damn, i need mental help, maybe i am used to Anime too much, tomorrow will be my day of episodes and chapters ,i will watch more american stuff to get used to it, i really can’t put Japan or Asia in first place just because One Piece, Naruto or Bleach : S ,the power of pop culture is so strong, after all i have watched twice asian stuff in internet, once the american stuff catch up, i will see who win, right now there is a war inside me, i don’t know which choose, what is for sure is i can’t like in the same degree the 2, i will talk to you later Ale in Whatsapp.

        2. Ichigo, haha you Japanese chink, you want to be a white dont you?! Haha, this confirm stereotype, Asian chink want to be Aryans. You will never be a Aryan, you yellow slant eyes chink, only reason Hitler allies with Japanese is to use them. Japanese, Chinese, Mongol, all chinks want to be Aryan. Faggots, one day the Aryan kill all chink and nigger.

        3. I am White, but i got a deep asian fetish many time,i used to be in fact so European infatuated, i was explictly and consciously and specifically interested in Europe, until one day late at night i saw one tv program about economy that looked interesting and i was in shock because they referred to China as powerful and with potential (a BRIC country) until that time i always view China as poor, maybe the impact of that shock made me curious to read more,that was in 2005, my loyalty changed really quickly, though in my actual transition to the West again, the process is more slow and difficult, maybe the pop culture is the problem, i dismissed american pop culture because it wasn’t european (ignoring the fact that white americans are like europeans living in United States) so i felt like i never watched some european tv program, with Japan i will miss consciously Anime as first place in my heart.
          In this comeback ,i will accept United States as european, i was so ignorant of race factor that i put as separated rivals Europe from United States in the 2005, also Reading this blog, maybe i could include cultures like Turkey and Iran, because they are White.
          and you appreciate the yellow color in the hair of whites, as blonde, calling it color of gold yet you dismiss the yellow color in the skin of some asians, that is contradiction.

  3. Robert, on the third-to-last chart (genetic linkage tree), what does Southwest Asian refer to – Arabs?

  4. According the People’s Almanac (Irving Wallace & David Wallenchinsky), and a couple of Ethiopians I knew, they are a mixture of Semetic and sub-Saharan African.

  5. “All of the above charts are based on genes, so clearly, genetically, we can split out an obvious Caucasian major race. I have a hard time why people do not wish to accept this concept.”
    Me too. I guess they like the idea of ‘white’ being a race. But to me, Indian people look like a darker skinned version of us. When people say the difference between white and black people is just skin colour, obviously that is not true, but it is a lot more accurate when comparing say white British and Pakistanis. People from the whole Caucasian zone have basically the same type of facial features, when contrasted with east asians or Africans.
    btw Steve Hsu has some great pages about race realism.

      1. There is no Caucasian Race Robert, Blumenbach is the author of the Caucasian Race theory and he was wrong, are you now saying that he was right. If so, where is your proof?
        Degeneration theory[edit]
        Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon were believers in the “degeneration theory” of racial origins. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting—for instance, he claimed Negroid pigmentation arose because of the result of the heat of the tropical sun, while the cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos, and the Chinese were fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns protected from environmental factors. He believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper
        environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man
        could revert to the original Caucasian race.[12]
        Robert do you believe that?

      2. Of course I do not believe it. But just because Blumenbach was wrong, does not mean that there is no Caucasian race. It exists and can be proven by genetics and apparently by skulls too. It describes a diverse group of natives from Iceland to India.
        There is no degeneration theory. The major races exist, but they did not come about via Blumenbach’s reasoning. Instead, they evolved normally from each other.

        1. Why the term Caucasian if not from Blumenbach, where is the proof that the so called Caucasian lost his dark skin in the Caucasus mountains?
          I repeat there is no Caucasian Race the premise is entirely fallacious.

      3. hi Robert, I’m fine. We’re having nice weather in England for a change. how are you?
        I’ll link you a few Steve Hsu pages on race. You probably know the guy. He’s a physicist at Michigan State Uni who is involved with the Beijing Genomics institute research into the genetics of intelligence. Dude is super smart.
        You might also like ‘Shanghai from an Indian perspective’.

  6. Then you agree with me there is no logical reason to call the people who lost their dark skin in some part of Europe 15,000 YBP a Caucasian Race.

    1. Populations from NW Europe to South Asia cluster together genetically (and have very similar facial features). There are several major clusters which correspond to the continents or geographical zones that they evolved in relative isolation from each other. Genetic variation isn’t totally even and gradual around the world. It couldn’t possibly be, given human history and the geographical barriers (mountains, oceans and deserts) that separate people.
      Call it ‘race’ if you will. There is obviously some biological basis to that concept. A European white person will be more genetically similar to another random European white person than a random black African person if you examine enough gene locations. And you can identify a person’s continental ancestry if you examine their genes in enough detail, with close to 100% accuracy.
      I don’t see the point in denying reality.

      1. And by human history, I’m talking about the human migrations around the world and the way populations split off from each other. Groups that split off from each other more recently will be more genetically close, since they have had less time to evolve. Evolution is ongoing and as soon as groups split, they will start to diverge if they don’t have contact.

  7. In situ populations cluster together like the Italians are the Italians a race are the Greeks a race, are the Poles a race, how about the Jews?
    Blumenbach started racial classifications based on a false premise that no thinking person can deny, Out of this false premise emerges the Caucasian Race, The Caucasian Race concept is bogus.

  8. Hi robert, i find ur statmints on race and genes to be inacurite. We all share same gene, HUMAN GENE. We all come from africka and even white man is son of black man. The yellow and browns all come son of black in africka. Modurn white scientist admits this. I dont know why u have to speak of the diffurint skin color gene as race, we all come from mans with black skin. Everyone is sons of africkan black father man.

  9. robert, plz admit it that we are all human genes and human all sons of black skin. One gene skin color not make anothur race, but 99.9% same human genes. I watch white skin man scienctist admit on TV. Ur american leader Bill Clinton said it too. There is no race, just cepecsis.

  10. How can southeast asians be classed as closer to new guineans than east asians? Clearly Vietnamese and Thai people look more similar to Chinese people.

        1. SE Asians were the second major split in the chart, so it stands to reason that they might be fairly close to Australoids. Also they evolved out of Australoids fairly recently.

        2. I don’t think that’s correct according to most genetic analysis. SE asians are closest to NE asians. The closest to austroloids is Indian Dravidians because of several indiginous Indian migrations to Australia over the last 40 thousand years. This is apparent even from just looking at Indians who are high in dravidian admixture and australian aboriginals.
          Indians can be called caucasoids at this point, but they do also retain varying degrees of indiginous subcontinental ancestry, which is non caucasoid.

  11. so robert, u refuse to admit we r all human race sons of black africkan skins man. U r a racist son of bitch. Ur mother loved black sex. That is why all ur white womens go get tann at beach at risk of skin cancer, and have sexual intercurse with BLACKMEN, they admire our black skins. We are all the same beside color of the skins. I am black u r white and bruce lee is yellow but we r alll sons of original black africkans skins man. U racist piece of shit, u have internet balls and courage behind computur, u will shrink balls fast in the sight of black man.

  12. This race thing is an obsession of the Caucasians.
    The English tried to do race classifications for the Indians and it was a total failure. Thats why Max Muller came up with the bullshit sotry of the “Aryan Invasion” theory which has been sufficiently discredited.
    Indians do not think in terms of race… Indians only think in terms of sub cultures (or castes). This is one of the rason, white people are not necessarily look up as superior by the upper castes in India. Indian parents would rather their children marry a dark skinned person from another part of India over marrying a white person.

    1. “Indians are a race halfway between Caucasians and Asians”
      – I believe this might be correct, because some Hispanics look Indian, these type of Hispanic are clearly more Caucasian ,but they have something that makes them look Indian, the Caucasian side of Hispanics comes from European Spanish, so a really pure Caucasian Hispanic would look European ,not Indian, so the certain Hispanics that look Indian must have a Little Little of Amerindian, but not too much, because in that case they would look Filipino, so if in Hispanics, much European Spanish blood + tiny Amerindian blood = Indian look, that means Indians are a Little Asian, maybe in ancient India things were like: much European Aryan blood + tiny Asian blood = Indian look ;maybe Indians are not Caucasian at all.

  13. Caucasian/Aryan=blonde, tall, attractive, creative, brave, dilligent, intelligent, crafty, wealthy.
    Mongol/Chinese=ugly, stale, weak, pussy, ddeceptive, short, foul, copycat, complaining.
    Nigger/Porchmonkey=retarded, criminal, lying, theiving, hideous, smelly, sweaty, aggressive, thick headed, waste of life, AIDS bucket.

    1. most caucasians are ugly and fat, non creative, lazy, much less intelligent than other races, deceptive, and jealous of other more attractive people!

  14. Northern Caucasion=Aryan, pure, noble, creative, civilized. Founder of all human civilization, inventor of all tools, conqueror of all mankind.
    Mediterranean Caucasian=Servile, polluted, disgusting, drunkards. Rich in nigger blood. Stale and uncreative.
    Slavic Caucasion=Servile, cruel, barbaric, ugly. Rich in Mongul blood.
    Arab Hybrid= Half Nigger Half Aryan.
    Spick Hybrid=Half Redskin Injun Half Aryan
    Turkish Hybrid=Half Mongol Half Slavic

  15. Yes, A Caucasian race exists. About Indians, I consider the Northwest Indians White, but not the others.

  16. Real white nationalist; make sure to marry Aryan woman and have lots of Aryan kids. Tell your brothers and relatives the same.

    1. those who feel that whites are smarter need only read blazins wrighting. I’m mostly white and I’ve seen several dogs smarter than blazin. thanks for making us look bad. Please don’t breed.

  17. Robert lunsay,
    But I’ve seen some Indians with blue and green eyes.Are they an aberration or do they have some white admixture.Also most punjabies dont look white,I myself am a punjabi with olive skin.But thers a difference between most punjabies and other Indians.Why is this so?
    Why do some look like arabs?
    Please reply?

      1. What do you think of them?

        1. Punjabis and other Indians were spawned by niggers. Here we have another Indian nigger trying to look white.

        2. Upper caste Hindus look at white people as untouchables. They even clean their house of a white person enters their house.

        3. If Whites were viewed as untouchable, street-shitters wouldn’t be desperately dying to blend with them. Indian nationalists are like modern afrocentrists in that respect.

      2. Aryan is taken from the Sanskrit meaning honorable or nobleman it has nothing to do with a so called Aryan Race, the Aryan Race concept is as bogus as the Caucasian/ Caucasoid concept cut from the same cloth.
        Max Muller has been proven wrong with his Aryan invasion theory, Muller was aided and abetted by the Brits with spreading this nonsense.
        There is no archaeological evidence or genetic evidence of the bogus Aryan Race.
        New research debunks Aryan invasion theory
        Saturday, Dec 10, 2011, 10:30 IST | Place: Chennai | Agency: DNA
        In what could be a major setback to Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu, an inter-continental research in cellular molecular biology has debunked the Aryan invasion theory.
        “We have conclusively proved that there never existed any Aryans or Dravidians in the Indian sub continent. The Aryan-Dravidian classification was nothing but a misinformation campaign carried out by people with vested interests,” Prof Lalji Singh, vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, told DNA.
        “The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south Indians are Dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by Aryans who invaded North India,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.
        The findings of a three-year research by a team of scientists, including Prof Singh and others from various countries, has been published by
        American Journal of Human Genetics in its issue dated December 9.

    1. It is not good science. It is junk. Indo-European languages did not come out of India. They came to India from the steppes 3,500 years ago. The Aryan movement was not large. Some studies have found evidence of the Aryans. All we have to do is look at the NW Indians and see how Caucasian they look. They look very much like the people of Tajikistan, Iran, etc. That is because the Indo-Iranians moved out of the steppes 3,500 years ago and moved down into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and India.
      We can prove it by linguistics. And that’s all we need. Not all invasions leave a genetic trace. Some leave very little to none. Also there is archeology showing the Aryan movement into India and in Indian religious literature there are numerous recorded battles with the invaders. Furthermore, the religion that the Aryans brought with them is the same as the religion they practiced in the steppes. Also they brought horses and chariots with them. We can trace their movements from the steppes down into Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India via archeology.
      The entire world accepts the Aryan migration theory. The only people who don’t accept are garbage people called Indians who don’t even believe in science.
      These Indian scientists are just more garbage Indian Hindu monsters who are flat earthers and hate science. It is sad that this made it into a peer reviewed journal, but it doesn’t prove anything.
      I have many articles on the Aryan migration theory. It has been proved long ago. The argument is long since over.
      However, the Aryans probably did not push the Dravidians to the South. The Aryans conquered in the north and then they just married in with and blended in with the locals.

      1. When I visited Agra last, I looked at the people walking around..almost all the north Indians on the street look exactly like Dravidian Tamilians.

      1. No I am not Hindu, nor are humans dogs.
        “The entire world accepts the Aryan migration theory”
        The world is a large place Robert. More from the study.
        Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “that was based on low resolution genetic markers. this time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. the decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.
        According to Prof Singh, Dr Chaubey, and Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, another member of the team, the findings disprove the caste theory prevailing in India. interestingly, the team found that instead of aryan invasion, it was indians who moved from the subcontinent to europe. “That’s the reason behind the findings of the same genetic traits in eurasiain regions,” said Dr Thangaraj, senior scientist, CCMB.
        This study as I said before is peer reviewed can you find a reputable
        study that is peer reviewed that challenges this study?
        DNA does not lie.

        1. Are you an Indian? The whole world accepts this theory except for some Indian lunatics. The debate ended long, long ago.
          IE didn’t come out of India and move to Europe as this moron says. The Indo-European languages moved from the steppes to South and Central Asia and then from the Pontic Steppe into Europe.
          This lunatic is promoting the Out of India Theory for Indo-European.
          There is a guy named Michael Witzel who has written extensively on this. Anyway, it won’t be proven by genes as migrations often leave little to no markers. Yes there are similarities between NW Indians and Europeans. This is well known. Those similarities are not because NW Indians went to Europe and brought Indo-European with them!
          This debate ended a long time ago in the West. There is nothing more to discuss!

        2. Where do these jerk-offs get off saying that NW Indians moved to Eastern Europe, necessarily bringing language with them? How do they make that assumption. This bullshit turns everything we know about Indo-European on its head.
          The debate was solved by linguistics, not be anything else, and genes won’t tell us jack.

  18. Sanskritization: A New Model of Language Development
    By David Frawley (From the Rig Veda and the History of India, Aditya Prakshan 2001)
    The Current Indo-European Model: The Migration of the Proto-Indo-Europeans
    The primary model used today for explaining the close relationships that exist between Indo-European languages is a migration theory. It proposes a Proto-Indo-European people who spread their language by a process of migration from an original primitive homeland. According to this view, as the Indo-European people moved in different directions, their language changed in predictable ways that can be traced back to their parent tongue, native culture and original environment.
    The Proto-Indo-Europeans are usually defined racially as a European ethnic type, though not all scholars accept that they were of one race only. Their homeland—which is the subject of much debate—is placed in various regions including Eastern Europe, Anatolia, Central Asia and Western China, in short, at almost every point in the Indo-European world. From there, a migration is proposed over a period some centuries, if not millennia, to the parts of the world from India to Ireland where Indo-European languages came to be spoken by the first millennium BCE. The beginning of these migrations is proposed from as early as 7000-4000 BCE, reaching areas like India in 1500 BCE and Ireland as late as 500 BCE.
    Flaws of the Existing Model
    However, this migration model suffers from many flaws, of which I will mention the main ones.
    Of course, many problems arise from the different opinions about the timing or place of these migrations. The original homeland is proposed for diverse places throughout the Indo-European world many thousands of miles apart. The inability to find anything like a single homeland naturally makes the entire theory questionable. The date of the proposed migrations from it are also a matter of much debate and vary by centuries, if not millennia. How linguists can be certain about a language but not about its time, place, or origin certainly casts doubts on the theory. This means that the theory, though popular, is vague in many respects and that its details are either not clear or are unconfirmed.
    The attempts to connect Proto-Indo-European with a single race or ethnic group is particularly problematical given the spread of such languages through diverse ethnic groups by the first millennium BCE, particularly owing to the ethnic diversity of eastern Europe and Central Asia that are the main proposed homelands. However, I would like to raise more fundamental objections about the theory, including its linguistic basis.
    First, in the primitive state of civilization, the rule is one of language diversity not of language uniformity, with languages changing quickly from region to region, often over short distances. For some examples, the languages of the Native Americans and Native Africans are quite diverse and change every few miles. This is particularly true of nomadic peoples. Such Proto-Indo-Europeans would not have been different. Their language would have changed every few miles and could not have had the consistency required of it to endure even at its place of origin.
    Second, in the primitive state of language, languages change quickly over time as well, lacking a sophisticated culture or written traditions to sustain it. This process of time change would be faster for primitive groups that are migrating, whose travel exposes them to new cultural and environmental influences that require changes of vocabulary and which brings them into contact with other language groups. How such a Proto-Indo-European language could have maintained its continuity through the long time and vast migrations required is hard to explain.
    This is particularly true when we consider that the Indo-Europeans are credited with spreading their language to many cultures that were both more sophisticated in civilization and larger in population, especially their spread to the subcontinent of India. Such primitive migrants usually lose their language into the existing more developed culture, under the general rule that more advanced cultures will maintain their language over primitive groups that come into contact with them. This is what occurred historically in India where many different invaders have been absorbed into the indigenous culture throughout the centuries. Why it should have been different in the second millennium BCE, the proposed time of the Aryan migration into India, after India had a long indigenous tradition and large population, does not make sense.
    Mr Frawley is not Hindu, your beliefs may not be as wide spread as you think, There are many studies on the Aryan Myth, on my bookshelf is
    The Aryan Myth by Leon Poliakov also not a Hindu.

    1. Frawley has been known as a nutcase lunatic for a long time now. He is not taken seriously by academia, and he is laughed off as a crank.
      All of these people are nutballs. Poliakov too. Cranks, all cranks.
      What is your background? Are you an Indian? Where were you born? What is your nationality, ethnicity, religion?

      1. What does what and who I am have to do with the strength of my argument? Are all of the people who you disagree with nut balls and cranks?
        Here is another DNA study that may interest you.
        Aboriginal DNA dates Australian arrival
        Friday, 3 September 2011 Dani Cooper
        DNA sequencing of a 100-year-old lock of hair has established that Aboriginal Australians have a longer continuous association with the land than any other race of people.
        Sequencing of a West Australian Aboriginal man’s hair shows he was directly descended from a migration out of Africa into Asia that took place about 70,000 years ago.
        The finding, published today in Science , rewrites the history of the human species by confirming humans moved out of Africa in waves of migrations rather than one single out-of-Africa diaspora.
        The study is based on a lock of hair donated to British anthropologist Alfred Haddon by an Aboriginal man from the Goldfields region of Western Australia in the early 20th century.
        The genome, shown to have no genetic input from modern European Australians, reveals the ancestors of the Aboriginal man separated from the ancestors of other human populations some 64,000 to 75,000 years ago.
        Aboriginal Australians therefore descend directly from the earliest modern explorers — people who migrated into Asia before finally reaching Australia.
        Co-author Dr Joe Dortch, an archaeologist at the University of Western Australia, says the work is significant because it shows the timeline for people in Australia is more than 50,000 years.
        How does that effect your tree? Right out of Africa and into the Pacific Ocean about 60,000 years before the Europeans got the Compass from
        China, before the Compass Europeans could never lose sight of land.
        Imagine that.

        1. Listen man, you have a hostile tone and obviously you are an Indian. I am not going to sit here and debate your crazy unscientific bullshit with you endlessly. You can’t come to this blog and just sit here and argue with me all day. What that means, basically, is you don’t like me. If you don’t like me and it’s evident in your posts, that’s a Hostile Tone violation. You also can’t be “contrary” and just disagree with me on every little thing they say.
          We know very well that the OOA people went straight to Australia. What do you mean, “How does that affect my tree?” What are you on about.
          No, all the people who disagree with me are not nutballs and cranks, but everyone who rejects the Aryan Migration Theory is indeed a nutcase and a crank, or a Hindu.
          David Frawley is a Hindu IDIOT. He is an American Hindu bonehead, and that’s why he has taken up all this insane Hindutvadi bullshit.
          You come to my site and do nothing but push Hindutvadi bullshit, so obviously I am starting to think you are another one of these wacky Indians.

  19. I can assure you I am not an Indian, nor am i hostile toward you or anyone I only seek truth. For you to say that the Aryan invasion is settled when you cannot produce any, I mean not one piece of archaeological or genetic evidence. Just using Linguistics won’t cut it as Frawley and others point out . Without an invasion there is no there there and there is no proof.
    As for denoting Aryan as a race Muller himself came out against that in 1883.

    1. Look jerkoff, I do not want to have this fucking debate anymore. It’s through. I already responded to your latest bullshit “peer reviewed science” article with an extensive rejoinder from Michael Witzel.
      There is no point going over this debate endlessly and I will not debate this stupid subject with you. Furthermore, if you don’t stop ranting, “There was no Aryan invasion,” I am going to ban your anti-scientific ass.
      Frawley is not a linguist, and that Sanskritization article makes absolutely no sense at all. That is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read. What is trying to say anyway?
      Frawley is a proponent of the lunatic “indigenous Aryans” theory. This is all about high caste Indian Hindu politics, mostly pushed by Hindutvadis. It’s pushed as part of a political project.
      There are plenty of archeological remains of the Aryan movement fro the steppes to Punjab. We can plot them on a map and by date.
      Sanskrit was a newcomer to India. It only showed up 3,500 years ago along with Aryan religion and culture. Where the Hell did it come from? It’s an Indo-European language. Did it just pop up out of the blue or what?
      We can trace Sanskrit back to an Indo-Aryan language spoken on the steppes 4,500 years. There are borrowings from proto-Indo-Aryan into the very earliest Uralic languages dating back from this time. Then as they move south, there are more borrowings from the culture in what is now Turkmenistan. Obviously, Sanskrit and Aryan culture came from the steppes 4,000 years ago. That’s not up for debate at all. It was settled long ago.
      And why won’t you tell me your ethnicity?

    1. Look I am banning you.
      1. Hostile tone violation.
      2. “Contrary” violation. You can’t just come here only to fight with me and argue and disagree with everything I say. If that is why you are here, you need to go bye bye.

    2. Shut the fuck up, John! It’s Rboret Lindsay’s blog — did you hear? R-O-B-E-R-T L-I-N-D-S-A-Y’S. If you disagree with his (twisted) views, don’t come to his blog. He is an authority on whatever he writes, and when he is repeatedly telling you that all the published authors you mentioned are nutcases and are laughed at, why can’t you just bow and agree? What more proof do you need, other than his (holy) words?
      And have some regards, you asshole! Robert is crippled and is suffering from an incurable mental ailment. He is a therapist of the highest American standards, and yet he’s unable to get to the roots of his rare aliment. But still, he puts in so much effort bringing out the truth for us general public! If you can’t think of him on the lines of Stephen Hawking, you’re a retard. He will ban ban you if you don’t ( thinking that he can really ban someone lol)… but you have to feel like a banned reader. Remember it’s ROBERT LINDSAY ( the retard). See this and tremble you bumbass:
      Enough, fuck off now!
      P.S: Excuse me Robert, I saw this guy has been harassing you so I was compelled to take care of him. I love you after all.

    1. Slavic is European. Central Asians were related to Celts, Tocharians, Aryans, Persians, etc. They had haplogroup Q and Haplogroup F split into many groups, making them the Y-DNA ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, and of course Indians. This is where R1a originated, not in India.

  20. According to these charts, the SE Asians are more distant from NE Asians than Caucasians. These charts must be somewhat inaccurate, since it also places Indians closer to Negroids when Indians (Dravidians) are clearly closer to Mongoloids. Also, the Ainu should be much further removed from E. Asians and closer to Aborigines and Paupans.

    1. I agree, in Wikipedia i read this: “increasing numbers of American Hispanics converted to Islam. Many HISPANIC converts said that they often had been MISTAKEN as of being of PAKISTANI or Middle Eastern descent, due to their religion.”
      Not all Hispanics look Indian, Most Hispanics in Mexico look Amerindian or most Hispanics in Colombia look European, but there is a special group of Hispanics that look Indian or Arab, they are mostly Caucasian (from Europeans) with a mini bit of Amerindian, maybe Indians are an ancient mix of mostly European blood and a mini bit of Asian, is logic if the 2 resemble each other, and even genetically, Indians are a bit closer to Asians.

  21. Why the hell are the English and Danish closer to Mongolians and Koreans when Persians and Indians are the Caucasians closest to E. Asians and NW Europeans are the furthest? Clearly these charts must have inaccuracies. I still don’t get why SE Asians are further from NE Asians than Caucasians. I can’t picture a Viking being closer to a Mongol than a Shaolin monk.

  22. What are they using as markers? Y-DNA? mtDNA? Autosomes? X Chromosome? I heard a lot of them use blood groups. BTW, why the hell is this post full of Hindu spamming? This post has very little to do with India but all I can see is a bunch of fucking Hindus being Hindus.

  23. The first chart places the Bushmen as the furthest from OOA and Ethiopians as straddling the Asian border. This is faulty, Ethiopians straddle the Caucasian border and Bushmen are the closest to OOA. Where did you get these charts? Many sites can be misleading, especially with propaganda, a.k.a Hindus.

  24. During the Belgium rule, the Tutsis were favored over the Hutu. As the Tutsis were a minority, they were not opposed to this reaction. The Belgium rule created more division between the Tutsi and Hutu by labeling the Tutsi as more intelligent than the Hutu. Scientists were brought in to measure the head size of the two groups. The heads of the Tutsis were found to be larger than that of the Hutu and so the belief was that their brains were larger and therefore the Tutsi must be smarter. The Tutsi also tended to be taller and had lighter skin.
    This was seen to imply that the Tutsi might have some Caucasian ancestry. Because of these findings, the Tutsi were seen as superior and were given better access to education and jobs. To further cause division between the two groups, racial identification cards were issued stating whether a person was Tutsi or Hutu.

  25. Hi Robert,can you explain why Northern Chinese are closer to Caucasians than the Mongols are?Possible admixture or what?

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)