Exclusive Trailer Premiere For Toronto Selection MARGARITA, WITH A STRAW

Founder and Editor; Toronto, Canada (@AnarchistTodd)
Sign-In to Vote
Exclusive Trailer Premiere For Toronto Selection MARGARITA, WITH A STRAW
Soon to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Shonali Bose's Margarita, With A Straw promises to offer a little something different than we normally see from Indian film - even within the blossoming indie scene. A realistic, female focused coming of age story - something we actually don't see very much of coming from anywhere - here's how the festival pitches it:

In this inspirational love story, a Delhi university student and aspiring writer afflicted with cerebral palsy (Kalki Koechlin, Dev.D, That Girl in Yellow Boots) leaves India for New York University, where she falls for a fiery young activist.
We're pleased to share the first trailer for this film here at ScreenAnarchy, check it out below.

Sign-In to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.
indiamargarita with a strawShonali Bosetoronto film festivaltrailersNilesh ManiyarShonali Bose (story screenplay and dialogue)Atika ChohanKalki KoechlinRevathySayani GuptaHussain DalalDrama

More about Margarita With A Straw

  • simha

    hilarious that a white girl is playing an indian.

  • browneyes

    She is actually Indian (born and raised), of mixed French descent I think. Don't you remember her from Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara where she played Abhay Deol's irritating fiancee? She looked very Punjabi in that, so you may not have realised it. She's totally a desi girl, yaar, so don't get hyper.

    I look forward to seeing the film.

  • simha

    she's french.
    pure french, her parents are from france and settled down in chennai.

    exactly,desi
    not even indian.
    no need to rush to her aid white knight.
    don't get your panties in a wad over it.

    >She looked very Punjabi

    that doesn't go towards your point at all.
    lots of punjabis are barely indian.

  • browneyes

    Excuse me? Lots of Punjabis are barely Indian? Who are you to define what is and is not Indian. What is this supposed to mean? I think you are just biased against North Indians.

  • simha

    who am I?
    what difference does it make who I am?
    would my race or position or status or w/e have any bearing on reality?

    i've got nothing against north or south or east or west.
    I'm simply going by facts.
    if you look at punjab, you'll find many people barely pass for Indian. More Persian or other middle eastern than Indian.
    I consider all Indians Indians nationality wise.
    i'm simply saying racially speaking, you can't compare an Indian to,say a white person and say they're the same.

    i mean you said it yourself, a pure white french girl looked Punjabi to you.
    If that doesn't tell you how much different they are then i don't know what will.

  • browneyes

    I am Punjabi myself. Are you trying to tell me I am not Indian? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Punjabis are from the lands of the Indus, for which India is itself is named. Obviously, the country is heterogeneous. We have Irulas who look African and we have Dards who are sometimes even blond and we have Kukis who can look Japanese. All of us are in a spectrum between them.

    Someone who thinks Punjabis don't look Indian is hardly qualified to judge whether or not someone else does.

  • simha

    you literally confused a WHITE person w/ an Indian.

    Are you going to tell me these people are the same?

    i'm telling you that if there is a person who is indistinguishable from any other white person then he/she is white.

    the country is not really that heterogenous.

    maybe 3000~1500 years ago it was but the 2 groups of people Indo-Europeans and Indians mixed to form the modern day Indian.

    THe modern day Indian does not include blonde haired blue eyed person.

    Keep in mind, i'm not referring to nationality.

    anyone can be an indian nationlity wise, it's not a country built on race.

    i'm talking about the race of being Indian.

    a blond haired blue eyed guy is not an Indian racially speaking.

    Dards are a Persian people.

    Irulas do not look african.

    maybe you have never seen an african before nor an irula but they are quite distinguishable.

    Also Irulas are Australoids so of course they look different than mainstream Indians and that's fine.

    they're legit Indians since they were there first.

    i'll tell you who was NOT there first or last:white people.

    Yes it has sino-burmese people and they're legit Indians too since they've been there since the beginning.

    i'm literally telling you that the genetics of white people and Indians are separate.

    Those who exhibit phenotypes that are not Indian and belong to another race do so because guess wht:

    they're not INDIAN AND THEY BELONG TO ANOTHER RACE!!

    at the end of the day, let me ask you this:

    is a blond haired blue eyed person the same as an Indian race person?

    >Someone who thinks Punjabis don't look Indian is hardly qualified to judge whether or not someone else does.

    someone who confuses white people for Indians is not qualified to post at all about anything remotely Indian.
    i think i'll take anything you say w/ a block of salt.
    who are you to tell me what i'm qualified for or not?
    you're a person who literally cannot seem to tell the difference b/w an australoid and an african and more glaringly a blonde haired blue eyed white person and an indian.

  • browneyes

    I had a long response to you here, but on further reflection I realise that you are just a garden variety Dravidian extremist. Believe what you want. She looks Indian to me. I am Punjabi and I am Indian. She also looks Indian to almost everyone who saw ZNMD. Not one blessed thing you can do about any of those facts.

  • simha

    dravidian?
    dravidian are not a people and never were.
    that's some racist shit drummed up by the British.

    yea not surprised at all you believe in that.
    yea also not surprised that a pure white girl looks "Indian" to you.
    i don't know whether to laugh or cry.
    god damn racists, you're what's wrong w/ india.

  • browneyes

    --

  • simha

    i literally cannot believe that you think a blond haired blue eyed person can be indian.
    holy shit.
    please be trolling.

  • browneyes

    I have never seen a blond Indian though, yes, some Punjabis can have light hair. It is not the most common thing in the world but we do see it. Many (most?) Punjabi, Himachali and Kashmiri kids are born with grey or greyish eyes that become brown as they become older. My own grandmother had blue-grey eyes while my grandfather was dark-complexioned. So what? This girl has dark hair and dark eyes. There is also something about her face that looks Indian to me (and the majority of North Indians at least). But, yes, many Ethiopians also look very Indian to me - they also look stunningly beautiful to me (actually, I think Ethiopians might be the most beautiful/handsome people in the world - you will remember that in Delhi history, Razia Sultana famously fell in love with Yakut - People from the Horn of Africa are generally very good-looking but Ethiopia/Eritrea are exceptional even among them). What difference does it make? You have some stilted notion of Indianness which actually seems based on your specific region. There is no one "Indian" race. It is like someone from Mizoram saying you have to look East Asian to be Indian. You're nuts. India is a mix and our genetics shows it. Get used to it. Go look at Harappa DNA's site. All of us are mutts in varying mixtures. It is not surprising because India is on the coastal migration route from Africa (all the ancestors of Australian aborigines went via it) as well as connected to what is called the Eurasian highway.

  • simha

    that's my point.
    there are plenty of people in punjab w/ the features you mentioned.
    Punjab and Punjab alone (kashmir also but they're a Dardic people, not Indian).

    why Punjab?
    because Punjab is the entry way into India.That's where the scythians and kushans landed and ruled.
    hence you've got the least Indian Indians there.
    if you look at the genetic make up of those so called "indians" you'll find they have very very little Indian genes in them and mostly Central European genes.
    They're more Iranian and less Indian.
    now not all punjabis are non-indian. it's just that a higher percentage of that area was infiltrated by middle easterners.

    so this isn't even a matter of opinion, this is literally fact vs. fiction.
    not to mention: you LITERALLY MISTOOK A WHITE GIRL FOR AN INDIAN PERSON.
    that says everything bout this situation.
    also, dark hair and dark eyes?
    she's a brunette and her eyes are some sort of amber colour.
    what are you talking about dark hair and dark eyes?
    they're nowhere near indian person's look.

    Razia and Yakut:
    no i don't remember that and i'm not sure why it's relevant.
    you're talking about some arabs or some shit,what's that got to do w/ anything?
    what the fuck does ethiopia or eritrea have to do w/ anything?
    what are you smoking?
    again, i'm thinking this is just one big joke.

    i literally spelled it out for you;people in east india have been living there since mahabharata times.
    (they are specifically mentioned there).
    they are just as indian as anyone else though they may not be racially the same as mainstream indians.
    btw, that's exactly my point:my vision of an Indian isn't based on a region.
    It's based on an average of all of India w/ real Indians who share haplotypes.
    You'll find the same Indians from Kanyakumari to north india.
    take ajay devgan for example.
    normal Indian guy even though he is Punjabi.
    but then you have a guy like Neil Mukesh:pure white guy.
    nobody in India would even come close to considering him India.
    Hell he got stopped by airport security because even they couldn't believe he was "indian"(genetically he isn't;you don't get red hair and white skin from being indian. these are phenotype exclusive to white people)
    if you're interested in the genetics i'd be happy to link you more on the subject.

    i don't know what Harappa DNA's site is.
    Harappa is an ancient abandoned civilization. it has nothing to do w/ DNA. it's archaeology not genetics.

  • browneyes

    You are nuts.

    - Harappa DNA is the world's largest systematic attempt at understanding the genetic makeup of South Asians. Go visit their site and give them your DNA. Stop shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing of.

    - Neil Nitin Mukesh is the child of Nishi and Nitin Mukesh. You do not get more Indian than that. Punjabis and people like him have been Indian for 5000 years. At least all North Indians will consider him hardcore Indian.

    - Indians come in every complexion. You are making some sort of attempt at regionalization. Yes, *some* Southern Europeans do look Northern Indian. It is true. If they keep their mouths shut, they can pass-off as North Indians. Most cannot. Light brown eyes and brown hair are not unusual in Northwestern India at least. Kalki looks Indian to my eyes. And it is not Punjab and Punjab alone. There are people like this in Kutch, Rajasthan, West UP, Himachal, J&K. Basically the entire northwest. Even Sindhi Indians often look like this.

    - Dardic people are ancient Indians. There is no question about it at all. If Sanskrit and Hinduism are Indian, then Dards are definitely Indian.

    - Northern Indian men are about 40% R1a Y-chromosome haplotype. I am too. This is the most common haplotype for us. It extends in an arc from North India, into Central Asia, through Russia and then into Scandinavia. However, its maximum diversity is in India-Pakistan, which is indicative of Indian origin. I have been tested and I cluster with North Indians and Pakistanis. However, I am much closer to South Indians than I am to Europeans. So keep your crazy theories to yourself.

    - There is no "pure Indian race". If anyone is the Andamanese are and no-one else. Harappa shows that all Indians and Pakistanis (and even Afghans) carry traces of Onge (Andamanese) DNA in them. India is a bunch of gradients, like most places are. Almost all Indians are descended from immigrants over the past 5000-10000 years. If you do not look Andamanese, you are at some point not native to the subcontinent. I think five millennia is plenty of time for someone to "nativize".

  • simha

    let's keep the personal attacks aside.
    just because you disagree w/ the facts doesn't make me 'nuts'.

    harappa dna is a dude's blog.
    i'm not sure what you think the relevancy there is but there isn't any. it's a cool site and one i've actually visited before but it's not the final authority on the matter.
    he just reports findings.

    you cannot get less indian than mukesh.
    india did not even have indo-european migration 5000 years ago so you're full of it.
    he is the whites of the white.
    there are white people darker than him.
    i'm also not sure how you know his family history but just because some white people mgirated to india doesn't make them indian.
    by that logic, the mongols as well as the brits are Indian.

    indians don't come in every complexion.
    by your logic an african person as well as a white person are Indians.
    that's insane.
    we have races and no sane person will tell you that there is no difference.

    yes entire north west probably has those people.
    again that is the corridor into india from the middle east so it's not surprising at all.

    congratulation and welcome to indian hood.
    seriously,that's awesome you're 60% indian. that's probably rare in north india.
    not sure what 'crazy theory' you're talking about.
    i don't deal in theories, only facts.
    see the #s you posted? that's fact.

    yes and no .

    of course like all people, no one truly originated in their location, bet it europeans in europe,chinese in china etc.

    however there is an important distinction to be made there.
    the reason we call europeans europeans and chinese that is because these people developed as a unique people w/ the culture,genetics,language in those areas.
    so it's silly to say the reductionist line:we all come from Africa nonsense and no one is native to any place. differences exist.
    they're real,tangible.
    denying that is living in fantasy.

    now is it true that indians are a gradient?
    yes.
    does that gradient have a border?
    you bet your ass.
    that border is: a white person=/=indian person.
    ask any (sane) person what they think.

    i didn't say anything about purity so you can keep your insanity to yourself.
    forget harappa and let's focus on the facts.
    the genetic data shows that modern day indians are a mixture of 2 massive groups:ANI & ASI (ancestral south and north)
    (Btw i'm pretty sure i read that on harappa as well)
    this mixture happened circa 3000 years ago so there is no 'pure' ani or asi.
    there is only indian*.
    *for the most part;because of frequent incursions by arabs,turks,persians,greeks etc. you'll find a higher percentage of foreigners in north india.
    they've been living in india for a while, hundreds of years.
    that doesn't mean their blood changed.

  • browneyes

    You're the one that started using words like f- and sh-. What you're presenting is your personal racial fantasy. It has nothing to do with actual historical evolution. So I am going to address that purely here. This is far removed from what this article was about, but what the heck.

    R1a occurs massively in North Indians, Central Asians, Russians and Northern Europeans. It has a very low frequency in Iran and the Middle East. The only group in India that shares high Y-DNA haplotype frequency with Middle Easterners is South Indian Brahmins, with the J2 haplotype. This is very consistent with the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, which also neatly fits the Brahui within it. It is also consistent with the other finding that had flummoxed researchers: that the Dravidian speaking Brahui of Balochistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are actually closer to Georgians and people from the Caucuses than the surrounding Indo-European speaking Baloch people, who are closer to North Indians. It seems like there were actually two distinct Caucasoid flows into India: one was the Dravidian-speaking one from Iran, the other was the Indo-Aryan speaking one from Central Asia. Net result is that everyone from Pashtuns to Tamils is on the ASI-ANI cline. The percentage varies from 80-20 to 20-80. The more ANI you are, the more light skinned you are. But this "frontier" you talk about is only in your imagination - it doesn't exist in actual scientific fact. Only Andamanese have ASI without ANI. If you were pure ASI, you would probably look more African (but not actually be genetically close to Africans), though no one knows because there are no pure ASIs in the world.

    Just have a relative send your spit to America (like I did) and have it be tested with 23andme and then connect to North Indians and Pakistanis. You will find that they usually have much higher North European components than they do Middle Eastern ones. 23andme tells me that I am 4% Finnish. Actually what this really means is that there are a lot of Finns with Indian blood in them because R1a almost certainly has an Indian or India-proximate origin. There is nothing remotely Finnish about me or any of my ancestors. I suspect South Indians will be the other way around because they will show-up with Middle Eastern components. Just test it and see.

    There is another linkage here of Blood Group B. If you look at its distribution, one paper noted that it looks like a bomb went off in Northwestern India or Sindh/Gujarat and its ripples spread in concentric circles. It is completely absent in Southern Africans, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and extreme West Europeans. India and Pakistan are probably the only sizeable countries where B outnumbers A. Anyone in the world who has blood group B probably has a little bit of Indian in them. Apparently, A has slightly better resistance to Malaria, but B copes slightly better with colder conditions and may have evolved during the Ice Age when people found refuge near India.

  • simha

    you can say fuck and shit.
    the internet police won't come and arrest you.
    grow up.
    also,i didn't curse you..

    what are you talking about?
    everything i've listed is fact.
    what fantasy?
    the only fantasy here is you thinking white people=indian people.

    that's ludicrous.

    you've randomly listed a bunch of genes;toward what end i don't know but there is no coherency or logic to it.
    just a random list.
    btw,I looked up J2.
    the only people in India who have it are Shia Muslims which makes sense since they're probably arab descended.

    you've made some wild leaps and conclusion that somehow ASI=middle easterners.
    that's exact opposite of truth.
    there are no people in the world related to ASI.

    ...just..what?

    I never said there were pure ASI.In fact i said the opposite;there used to be ANI & ASI 3000 years ago.
    but they've mixed to the point that there developed an unique Indian haplotype and that modern day Indians fit into it.

    >There is nothing remotely Finnish about
    you sure?
    didn't you say your results said you were 40% white?

    blood group B?
    dude what..

    finally, you confused a pure WHITE girl w/ an Indian.

  • browneyes

    Nope, from Wikipedia (with references you can follow-up on - go check there):

    - "Haplogroup J2 reflects presence from neolithic period in the subcontinent.[18] J2 is almost absent from tribals, but occurs among some Austro-Asiatic tribals (11%). The frequency of J2 is higher in South Indian castes (19%) than in North Indian castes (11%) or Pakistan (12%).[33] J2 appears at 20% among the Yadavas of South India while among the Lodhas of West Bengal it is 32%.[citation needed] In Maldives, 22% of Maldivian population were found to be haplogroup J2 positive.[34]"

    - I don't think I am even 0.0001% white, so I never said that. I actually said the reverse. Many whites are actually partly Indian. I am definitely not any percent Finnish, but I am sure lots of Finns are partly descended from India or near-India people. It makes sense. India was a glacial refuge and a key stopping point in our journey out of Africa. R1a haplotype developed there. B blood group developed there.

    - ASI is definitely NOT middle eastern (I never said that, so no idea where you got it from). ASI were probably Negrito or Australoid-Negrito mix. They probably spoke Austro-Asiatic. Dravidians were Middle Eastern Caucasoids who entered the subcontinent from Iran. Iran's native language was Elamite, which has been linked to Dravidian (it's debated but if you are SI perhaps take a look at the cognate list and make-up your own mind?). I think what is confusing you is some linkage in your mind that ASI = Dravidian. That is wrong. The original Dravidians were ANI. They show a strong J2 component. This caused a language flip across India, though pockets of Austro-Asiatic and some isolates survive (Munda, Khasi, Nicobarese are AA, Nihali is an isolate).

    - Then the Indo-Europeans exploded out from India-proximate Central Asia / Steppes. They began branching out and you see a switch from non-IE to IE languages across the board. Iran: Elamite to Iranian, India: Dravidian to Indo-Aryan, Italy: Etruscan to Latin, Britain: Pictish to Celtic, Greece: Pelasgian to Ancient Greek, Spain: Iberian to Latin+Celtic, Germany: Pre-German to Germanic (German has clear features which are non-IE and indicative of a creolization). These people had a strong R1 component - R1a was the Eastern branch and R1b the Western one. All of extreme western Europe is strongly R1b: Ireland, Spain, Britain. R1a clearly shows a north-south axis from North India (40% of men) to Norway (30% of men). But it is lacking in east-west breadth - it is absent from the Middle East and very low in Western Europe (except in areas invaded by Vikings, which is why it is called the Viking marker among Europeans). These people are also lumped into the ANI bucket in Indian archaeogenetics.

    - You know why the Shia are high in J2? Because there is a strong element of them who are descended from Persian immigrants into India (Iran is Shia). You should just think of them genetically as yet another wave of South Indian Brahmins :-) There is actually a gulf between Eastern Iranians and Afghans (who are R1a high) and Western Iranians (who are more J2).

    - This is why all Indians are ANI-ASI blend. ANI immigration has been going on for a very long time. The only places Dravidians and Indo-Aryans both failed to reach was the Andamans and there you find people that only have ASI and no ANI. These are the earliest Indians.

    - What is a PURE white girl? She looks totally Indian to me. There are many purely Indian girls who are probably more stereotypically European looking than her. The blue-eyed Karishma Kapoor looks more European-like than Kalki (to me at least) and she is a Punjabi-Sindhi - though I have to strain myself to think this - Karishma also looks totally desi to me (she *is* totally desi - I don't think she has a drop of non-Indian blood). India is a spectrum of colours and genes. You are not going to be able to make it all look like one. Get used to it.

  • simha

    yes and on the J2 page there's no mention of Indian emergence except w/ Muslims.

    not sure where you didn't see that it's apparently present in North India and highest in Maldives-who are north Indian.

    a 6% difference doesn't mean shit, not sure what exactly yout you think it means.

    no it doesn't make sense.
    the current accepted theory is that whites originated somewhere in Russian steppes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    (see kurgan hypothesis)

    what happened,more than likely, is that a common acestor's kids branched off. 1 to south east to india and one to north to finland.

    so you've got some white in you,which is interesting as hell.

    where i got the idea is when you wrote:
    ". The only group in India that shares high Y-DNA haplotype frequency with Middle Easterners is South Indian Brahmins, with the J2 haplotype. This is very consistent with the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, which also neatly fits the Brahui within i..."

    "ASI were probably Negrito or Australoid-Negrito mix."

    they were not.

    The genetics shows that and the archaelogy shows that.

    where are you getting this bullshit information from?

    ASI are separate from negritos as well as Australoids.
    you can see the difference quite easily. (well most people can, maybe you cannot)

    Australoids were in India already.

    Then Indians(i'm using Indians here to distinguish b/w them and Indo-Europeans) came and displaced them (they've all but died out).

    take a look here:
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tnr...

    these are the Jawara people.

    i don't know what SI is.

    but here's an important part on the Elamite language wiki:

    "David McAlpin proposed an Elamo-Dravidian family connecting Elamite with theDravidian languages of India, but this has since been discredited."

    -that you seemed to have missed.

    of course it's lacking a citation but afaik, there's nothing concrete proving that theory.

    perhaps you can provide me w/ a cognate list.

    first of all let's stop using Dravidians.

    it's an racist and insulting word.

    Dravid is a sanskrutam word meaning Tamil.

    and as you may well know, Tamil are but ONE people in southern India.

    There are Telugus,Tamils,Kannadas,Malayalees and a bunch of other smaller groups that i don't even know.

    Let's just call them what they are: Indians.

    No one in the world believes original Indians-ANI.

    in fact, the accepted theory is that ASI and ASI 2 separate people that mixed. ASI was there originally and they absorbed in ASI and this led to creation of modern day Indian.

    you can start reading here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    middle easterners came well after Indians migrated to India.

    There's an excellent documentary:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    that i suggest you watch.

    middle easterners have nothing to do w/ Indians except that we're all humans and we're all ultimately related.

    11% is not a strong J2 component.

    and in fact the J2 they're talking about is not at all found on the j2 wiki page.
    I suspect that it's some other J2 that is not related to middle easterners or only distantly related.

    here's what really happened:

    Indians (ASI) prevalent throughout India.

    Indo-Europeans come in, mingle w/ ASI.

    in north India, ASI adopt the ANI language leading to a fundamental change in the way ANI languages are spoken making them distinct from other Indo-European languages. hence:

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

    While i appreciate that you've put some thought into your theory, the actual history is quite different.

    it's definitely true that indo-european popoulations displaced/absorbed native populations but you're weaving together some sort of combinatorial narrative.

    these things happened at different points in time.

    picts btw are an Indo-European people.

    Iberian language became extinct (xcept basque) in the 1st and 2nd centuries so your time lines are waaaay off.

    there's a huge flaw in your theory.

    Also, many of the Iberian languages are actually Indo-European.

    I know why the J2 component is in Muslims.

    I already wrote that they're descendents of mid. east invaders.

    Andaman are not ASI.

    Andaman are separate as i wrote already.

    also that goes against your theory that ASI are 'middle eastern caucasians'.

    i don't know if you've ever seen Andamanese but they are quite distinctly African American looking (although they are not African).

    here's an excerpt:

    "The Andamanese M2 contains two haplotypes, 16223T/16319A/16357C and 16223T/16319A/16344T/16357C (the former is presumed ancestral to the latter). Neither of the Andaman M2 variants is present in current Indian data sets, suggesting that the Andaman sequences represent novel members of M2 and an extension to its known geographical distribution"
    sourrce:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

    i'm also not sure why you said Dravidians failed to reach Andaman but then say that Andaman have ASI.

    Dravidian=ASI.

    but yes, they're definitely the most earliest Indians.

    (and unfortunately they're maltreated)

    "What is a PURE white girl?"
    She is a pure white girl.
    a girl w/ no indian background what so ever, FROM THE COUNTRY OF FRANCE.
    you literally mistook a WHITE person for an Indian.

    If you don't know i'm not sure i can answer that ? for you.
    what is white or black or brown or middle eastern:
    I'd have to sit down and explain haplotypes and clusters and what isolation does to phenotypes.
    i'd encourage you to read up on race and phenotypes and how they're created to understand that.

    "She looks totally Indian to me."

    then you don't know any indians.
    you know white people which is fine, but it's a mistake to call a white person Indian.
    these 2 are not the same thing and no Indian person would tell you otherwise.

    "There are many purely Indian girls who are probably more stereotypically European looking than her."

    again, you know white people, not Indians.

    i just looked up this karishma kapoor person and yes you're right she has blue eyes!!
    amazing! that means both of her parents are foreigners as well! (and by that i mean they do not have indian DNA, not that they are not Indian nationals)

    that's so interesting, but i guess it should come as no surprise.

    As i've said already, Punjabis are the most genetically foreign Indians.

    " Karishma also looks totally desi to me (s"

    i agree!

    she looks very desi, not Indian at all.
    i'd wager, she doesn't have a drop of Indian blood at all.
    (well nah, she probably has some incidental indian blood)

    "India is a spectrum of colours and genes."

    yes and no.
    India USED to be circa 3000-1500 years ago but after huge migration events, this spectrum joined together to create modern Indians.
    The people you see that are super white are more recent immigrants.
    of course we still have sino-burmese people in the east and andaman in the islands but the actual mainstream Indians are pretty streamlined.

    btw, so glad you pointed out Karishma and blue eyes.
    blue eyes are a distinctively european feature.
    they originated in Anataolia 6k-5k years ago and only European and European descendents have them.

    an indian person cannot have blue eyes by definition.
    you proved it yourself!
    that's how a race is defined.
    white skin,white people's hair, eye colour makes someone white.
    indian skin,black hair, brown eyes (sometimes lighter) -makes some1 indian.
    black skin,afro hair, etc. makes someone african.
    and so on.
    epicanthic folds, yellowish tint on skin,black hair, brown eyes -makes someone east asian.
    do you really not know what races are and how they are distinguished?

  • browneyes

    I find it ironic that you use the expression "by definition" while also effectively claiming "Indian is not Indo-European." It is Indo-European, for crying out loud. It means something that spans the area from India to Europe. By definition.

    White is not identical to Indo-European. Those two are intersecting sets, so don't confound two distinct concepts. The vast majority of white people were historically non-Indo-European speaking. Iberian languages were certainly not Indo-European. Not a single one of them. Please search for "Iberian languages." If anything, they were possibly related to Basque and Aquitanian (spoken in France). These are all (except Basque) extinct now due to IE. Spanish, Latin, German, Greek, French - these languages are all ultimately foreign to Europe, just as Sanskrit was ultimately foreign to India. I think the Kurgan hypothesis is probably correct, though the exact location can be debated. Definitely, the Indo-Europeans benefited from their location on the Eurasian highway (the steppes). Later they were unseated from their dominance here by Turco-Mongols, who replaced IE wholesale. Soghdian, Anatolian and many other IE languages died as they were replaced by Turkic languages. Once the Turks dominated the Eurasian highway, they spread really fast.

    There is evidence that blue eyes actually originated with dark skinned people and only later transferred to (and found greater frequency in) lighter-skinned people. There are a tonne of articles about this. The most ancient known occurrence: "First Ol’ Blue Eyes is 7,000 years old and was a caveman living in Spain - DNA analysis of the man’s tooth has also disclosed that he had the dark-skinned genes of an African" - just search around - there is a lot of stuff on this.

    J2 is present at about twice the level among Tamil Brahmins as it is among North Indian ones (19% to 11%). This is not open to question - it's too well documented. That section contains scientific pub links. Go look them up. Maldives is proximate to Lakshadweep, which is Dravidian (Malayalam) speaking. They received Buddhism from Sri Lanka and it is likely that Dhivehi developed from there. This seems like a place with a small population that switched to Indo-Aryan language at some point.

    Dravidian languages and ethno-linguistic grouping is established. I didn't make it up so I can't help you there. It is definitely not racist. If you feel it is, maybe you would like to take it up with DMK and AIADMK, which are the chief pro-Dravidian parties. If anything, Dravidian identity is a source of pride. Also, millions of Dravidians are not Indian, for example the Brahui, who are native to Balochistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Again, feel free to take it up with them.

    You are COMPLETELY wrong about Australoids being Ancestral South Indians. They are not and the paper takes great pains to clarify that no one in South India is without Ancestral North Indian blood. Infact, it is possible (but not certain) that Australoids do not look like Andamanese due to the fact that Australoids have ANI genes. BTW it is Jarawa, not Jawara (from Bihari Hindi - Jharawa, meaning of the Jhari, i.e. Jungle). Almost all Indians, including Pashtuns in Afghanistan, show Onge-related genes, i.e. Negrito genes. The most dominant maternal haplogroup in India and Pakistan is M, same as the Andamanese. Our M lineages are extremely ancient and could date to 50,000 years ago. This is almost certainly Negrito. If you are looking at archaeogenetics the most likely sequence is this: Negritos are the first Indians. Then Austro-Asiatic speaking Australoids come in. Then Dravidian-speaking Caucasoids from Iran. Then Indo-Aryan speaking Caucasoids from Central Asia. It is entirely likely that TamBrams are the mixed remnant of the J2-carrying Dravidian-speaking elite group that brought Dravidian languages to India. It is still debated but there are pointers to the existence of an Austro-Asiatic substrate in Indo-European, Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman speakers alike in India. Pockets like Khasi (Meghalaya), Santali (Bihar), Gutob (Andhra), Nicobarese are spread in India and further east. Khmer is AA also.

  • simha

    i'm not sure how else to make it clear to you.

    i'm using Indian here to distinguish b/w:

    Indian-as in, the native people living in India. That is to say ASI.
    Indo-Europeans-the people that originated in Caucusus region that migrated into India (as well as Europe).

    I'm using Indian in place of Dravidian,because Dravidian means Tamil and it's disrespectful to the unique identities that are there.

    "Not a single one of them".
    here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    you see the part labelled celtic?
    that's Indo-European.

    "these languages are all ultimately foreign to Europe,"
    nope.
    these languages, and the people who live there developed as individual entities IN that area leading to the descriptor European.

    Similarily Sanskrit is Indian.
    By your logic, no one is from any place since we're all from Africa.

    I have searched around.
    Perhaps you didn't understand the article but i suggest you read it again.

    It did not say that the man was African.
    There was even a rendering of what he would look like.
    It showed that 6k years ago, Europeans were much darker skinned w/ dark hair. Same facial features, just brown skin and dark hair.
    it doesn't show any Africans. did you even bother reading the articles?

    anyway, for sure we know for a FACT that ALL BLUE-EYED people originate from a single ancestor in Europe.
    If you've got blue eyes,then you've got European ancestry.
    There is nothing in anyway ambiguous about that.
    There's no discussion or argument about this. This is scientifically proven. You can search for the papers if you'd like.

    Nope. Maldivians are Indo-Aryan people. There was no language switch. I'm not sure why you think religion switch means language switch.
    that's not how it works.

    I'm not going to take it up w/ anyone. Injustice and ignorance happens in the world.Doesn't mean we have to follow it. I don't know what DMK or AIDMK is and i don't give a shit. They don't speak for everyone.it's this kind of reductionism that makes it hard for people to get along. there are differences in this world, get over it.

    "You are COMPLETELY wrong about Australoids being Ancestral South Indians."

    I would be had i said anything of the sort.
    i'm not trying to insult you here, but is english not your first language?
    i said they are the first inhabitants of India.

    i did not say they were ASI.
    ASI are separate from Negritos/Andamanese/Australoids.

    I posted a quote from a research paper belaboring that point.
    here it is again:
    " Neither of the Andaman M2 variants is present in current Indian data sets, suggesting that the Andaman sequences represent novel members of M2 and an extension to its known geographical distribution"

    do you understand what this part means?

    the people that live in Andaman are NOVEL (new) members and they are not related to any Indians.

    "They are not and the paper takes great pains to clarify that no one in South India is without Ancestral North Indian blood."

    i never disagreed w/ that.
    in fact i pointed that out multiple times when I said that ASI&ANI mixed THROUGHOUT India.

    YOu will not find any 'pure' ANI nor will you find any pure ASI in India.

    "hat Australoids do not look like Andamanese due to the fact that Australoids have ANI genes. B"

    ...wh.what in the world are you talking about?
    Australoids are a separate people entirely removed from Indians and they look like they do because they have been genetically and geographically isolated.

    "most all Indians, including Pashtuns in Afghanistan, show Onge-related gene"

    here's why this is wrong:
    "Male Onges and Jarawas almost exclusively belong toHaplogroup D-M174.[15] The clade is most common today in Tibet and Japan, with its highest frequencies worldwide in the Pumi population of northwestern China (70.2%).[16] Haplogroup D-M174 also occurs frequently among the Ainu.[17] On the Indian mainland, it has been observed at low frequencies.[15]"

    -this part right here:
    On the Indian mainland, it has been observed at low frequencies.[15]"
    -this is for the Y-DNA.

    here's the M-DNA:
    "Furthermore, on the Andamans, M4 occurs as a subtype also seen on the Indian mainland, whereas M2 occurs in two subgroups (M2 haplotypes 16344T and 16357C) that have not been observed on the mainland and are presumed unique to the Andamanese.[12] This implies a long history of the Andamanese on the islands, which would allow the time for insulated local genetic development. Since the M2 and M4 lineages diverged 60,000-30,000 years before present and both occur outside the Andamans, it is likely that the Andaman islands were originally colonized by bearers of the two different haplogroups.[12]"
    -source:wiki page on Onge
    so no.
    Indians, Afghanis, etc. are not related to Australoids.

    Of course we're all related by virtue of being human but these people are unique isolated genetic group.

    "Then Dravidian-speaking Caucasoids from Iran."
    there is no such thing.
    no one in the world, save you, has claimed it that i've ever heard of.
    we don't know what ASI looked like.

    "Then Indo-Aryan speaking Caucasoids from Central Asia."
    wrong.
    Indo-Aryan is what academics used to distinguish the variations of Indo-European speech/people developed in India.
    That would be languages like Hindi, Bengali etc.
    They were Indo-Europeans, that split off into Indo-Iranians that further split into Iranians and Indo-Aryans.
    The ones that came into India and mixed w/ the locals are Indian.
    The ones that didn't are Iranians,Tajiks, Pashtuns etc.
    but this is just being pedantic. about the usage of the word Indo-Aryan.
    Also, let's use Indo-European.
    That whole Aryan bullshit is bullshit.
    too much racism up in here.

    not sure what the Austro-asiatic substratum thing has to do w/ anything but cool.
    I don't think austro-asiatics and australoids are the same thing. but anyway that's beyond scope of this discussion.
    Point is, if you've got blue eyes, you're European.
    if you've got blonde,red,brown etc. hair you're european.
    these are features distinctively European.
    the very defining traits of europeans actually.
    not sure how much simpler than that it can get.

  • browneyes

    I am unsure now if you are deliberately obfuscating or just simply unclear on things.

    - Iberian languages are specific to the original languages of Iberia, which are all non-IE. This is a well-established nomenclature for that language family. To try to offer-up an article on "Languages of Iberia" instead of "Iberian languages" seems deliberately disingenuous. Similarly, Anatolian languages are extinct IE languages. Languages of Anatolia would include the modern-day Turkish.

    - Dravidian is absolutely not the same as Tamil. Just like Indo-European is absolutely not the same as Hindi. There are Turkmenistanis who are Dravidian-speakers, who have never had any connection with either India or the Tamil people.

    - Your contestation of North Indians and Afghans having Onge genes is just ridiculous and seems to be based on a simple misunderstanding of how sets work. Onge have no ANI + Pashtuns have ANI does not imply that Pashtuns have no Onge. They provably do.

    - Andamanese migrated through the Indian mainland, then through Burma, via the land-bridge (which sank after the end of the ice-age) into the Andamans. At that time one branch headed north into Tibet. Another continued on along the coast of China including into Taiwan and north into Japan. That is where D comes from. Remember that in Japan, it is found in the highest percentages in the Ainu, who predate the later Sinitic migrants from Korea and mainland China. It is absolutely not surprising that Andamanese related DNA will show up in most Indians. Of course, Andamanese have been diverging from everyone else for almost 35000 years, so it is inevitable there will be unique developments there. But M clearly developed before they reached the islands. Onge shows-up at pretty high percentage in many mainland Indians. 20% is not uncommon. But this stuff is still new, so those numbers could turn out to be different (but non-zero) later.

    - Blue eyes are not exclusively European by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have numbers, but I suspect that the majority of light-eyed people are not even European. Brown to Auburn hair is not at all uncommon among Northwest Indians and Pakistanis or Afghans or Iranians, so it is just bizarre to make this suggestion. This is YOUR hypothesis. I think you are taking your one region of India (south) and attempting to use that as the standard for all of India. This is just invalid.

    - There is no such thing as "Austro-Asiatic" as an ethnic group. Australoids most likely spoke Austro-Asiatic, and were the second major human wave into the subcontinent. They could have penetrated across India all the way to the east, into the Nicobars, and into Cambodia. Khmer, Munda, Khasi are all Austro-Asiatic. But there is an alternative hypothesis: that the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoids actually orginated in the East and came into India from that direction. Australoid-seeming skeletons have been found in Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Austro-Asiatic speakers are divided into two ethnic camps: Australoids and Mongoloids. The jury is out still, but one thing seems clear: Austro-Asiatic probably entered the country about 20000 years before Dravidian ever showed-up.

    - Dravidian languages almost certainly originated in Iran, but there is a chance they originated further west. From "The History and Geography of Human Genes" : Dravidian refers to languages spoken especially in southern India, but also farther north, that are believed to have once been spoken over a much larger area. They probably originated farther west and were suppressed in Iran and most of the northern and central Indian continent by Indo-European languages, whose speakers arrived later. Dravidian languages probably arrived first in Iran before moving to India with early farmers The original ASI were absolutely NOT speakers of Dravidian. Similarly, the original ANI were absolutely NOT speakers of Indo-European. In fact, in all likelihood, the original ANI wave were very likely speakers of Dravidian. Let me repeat that: it was probably the ANI who brought Dravidian languages into India. Pockets of these still exist outside India in Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan.

  • simha

    nothing disingenuous about it.
    you made an erroneous statement, i called you out on it.
    Iberia doesn't just have language isolates since Galician (for example) has been there quite long.

    I'm glad you agree. let's stop using Dravidian.
    but then:"There are Turkmenistanis who are Dravidian-speakers"

    so you do agree or disagree that Tamil=/=ASI language?

    Dravidian literally translates to Tamil.

    You understand that right?

    "Your contestation of North Indians and Afghans having Onge genes is just ridiculous and seems to be based on a simple misunderstanding of how sets work."

    i literally posted you the excerpt from the article.

    Your refusal to understand it doesn't change the facts.

    in fact here's another excerpt:

    ""MDS and Barrier analysis have identified a significant affinity between Pashtun, Tajik, North Indian, and West Indian populations, creating an Afghan-Indian population structure that excludes the Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the South Indian Dravidian speakers. In addition, gene flow to Afghanistan from India marked by Indian lineages, L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124, also seems to mostly involve Pashtuns and Tajiks. This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region's first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.""

    "Onge shows-up at pretty high percentage in many mainland Indians."

    except you know..that they don't:

    " On the Indian mainland, it has been observed at low frequencies.[1"

    "..in two subgroups (M2 haplotypes 16344T and 16357C) that have not been observed on the mainland and are presumed unique to the Andamanese."

    again, refusal.

    "Blue eyes are not exclusively European by any stretch of the imagination."

    it is quite literally European. It started IN Europe and it is predominant in Europe.

    It is exclusive to Europeans and their descendants.

    it started with ONE ancestor in Europe somewhere.

    "orthwest Indians and Pakistanis or Afghans or Iranians, so it is just bizarre to make this suggestion."

    yes because these people are foreigners.

    If you've got traits that show up only in white people, then that means you've got some white genes.

    it's not rocket science.

    seriously, there's nothing difficult to understand about this.

    "his is YOUR hypothesis."

    my opinions or hypothesese are irrelevant.

    I make no presumptions, unlike you who've been making crazy speculations.

    "I think you are taking your one region of India (south) and attempting to use that as the standard for all of India. T"

    we can use north as well i don't mind.
    Point is it doesn't matter where you come from, if you've got blonde hair and blue eyes, you're a white person not an Indian.

    In fact you've got a very weird view of the actual history.
    The reality is quite the opposite of what you've written.
    Of course we can't really say WHERE EXACTLY the langauge developed but to be sure we know that it was extant in India. ASI were Indian language speakers.
    ANI were Indo-Aryan speakers. Thn they mixed w/ ASI and spoke Indo-Aryan in the way that they would speak Indian.
    Remember ANI-Indo European.
    ASI-"Dravidian" (Indian).

  • browneyes

    - Now you are definitely being disingenuous. Iberian languages is not the same as Languages of Iberia. They have distinct articles in Wikipedia with crisp definitions, as they should. Iberian languages are non-Indo-European. Similarly, languages of Iran is distinct from Iranian languages. Pashto is an Iranian language. It is not spoken in Iran. Azeri is a language of Iran. It is not an Iranian language. Bodo is a Tibeto-Burman language. It is not spoken in Tibet or Burma.

    - The gist is this, so remember:
    ANI - Indo-Aryan wave = Indo-European language, Significant component of Modern North Indians
    ANI - Dravidian wave = Dravidian language, Significant component of Modern South Indians
    ASI - Australoid or Negrito = Austro-Asiatic and other languages, Substrate in all Indians, found without ANI only in Andamanese

    - Yes, I definitely disagree that Tamil (or any other Dravidian language) was the ASI language. Dravidian languages were spoken and introduced into India by ANI (Ancestral North Indians), who were Caucasoid. By your definition, Tamil would be a "European" language since it descends from the language family invented by people who were "white" (your definition, not mine).

    - On Onge, first of all, you are incorrect in your entire understanding of how haplogroups and genetic percentages work. Take an example: Dilip's mother has an Onge father and a Burmese mother. Dilip's father has an Onge mother and a Burmese father. For Dilip, both his maternal and paternal DNA haplogroups will be exclusively Burmese. Yet Dilip's genes will be 50% Onge and will show-up as such in any genetic typing. That said, you are also wrong in another aspect. The Andamanese-related M mtDNA actually accounts for 60% of all Indians and Pakistanis! Of course, mainlanders have been diverging from islanders for 35,000 years, so subclades are bound to be different - although even this is open to question as there is some evidence that mainland Indian DNA has been leaking southeastward for a long-time. Actually, this is more than even just human DNA. Canine Indian DNA has been showing up in Australian dogs as well.

    - Your whole "Dravidian translates to Tamil" is as meaningless as me saying "Indian translates to Indus-dwellers, i.e. Kashmiris, Punjabis, SIndhis and Pashtuns".

    - Of course, there's an Afghan-to-North-Indian grouping. Why wouldn't there be? Unsure what you are trying to say. North Indians inherit a lot from the Indo-Aryan wave, just as South Indians inherit a lot from the previous ANI wave of Dravidian-speaking Iranians. This is why R1a is high among Punjabis, West UP, Rajasthani, Pashtuns, Tajiks, etc. And why J2 is high among Eastern Arabs, Iranians, South Indian Brahmins, South Indian Yadavs, etc.

  • simha

    :ANI - Indo-Aryan wave = Indo-European language, Significant component of Modern North Indians
    ASI - Dravidian wave = Dravidian language, Significant component of Modern South Indians
    AASI* - Australoid or Negrito = Austro-Asiatic and other languages, Substrate in all Indians, found without ANI only in Andamanese .
    Not actually true.
    Substrate is not in any mainland Indian, these are unique isolated groups that don't share much with ASI or ANI.

    *not an actual term but just to clarify, the australoids are even older than ASI.
    they speak their own australoid languages which is not related to Dravidian.

    It's not an opinion to disagree with.These are literally languages that defined by scientists by their ethno-linguistic groups.
    Tamils are an ASI ethnic and linguistic group. You can say they are caucasoid since Tamils are just darker caucasians but undoubtedly they were separate from ANI and other white people.
    "By your definition, Tamil would be a "European" language since it descends from the language family invented by people who were "white" "
    these are not my words or my definition.
    these are your words.
    only a moron would say Tamils were white and even further only a retarded moron would say Tamil is a European language.
    what are you smoking?

    Not sure why you think his Onge part wouldn't show up at all. that's not how genetics works.half of your genes don't just disappear.

    " That said, you are also wrong in another aspect. "
    you're not arguing with me.you're arguing w/ an extract from a peer-reviewed scientific paper published on a site.

    so argue away, but it makes no difference. fact is fact.

    "- Your whole "Dravidian translates to Tamil" is as meaningless as me saying "Indian translates to Indus-dwellers, i.e. Kashmiris, Punjabis, SIndhis and Pashtuns".

    i have no idea what any of this means.
    the word Dravid comes from a Sanskrit word meaning Tamil. It's insulting to use it to mean people who aren't Tamil. Hence i don't use Dravid, i use Indian since these are original Indians (at least the 1s who are still alive).

    "just as South Indians inherit a lot from the previous ANI wave of Dravidian-speaking Iranians. "
    "south Indains" didn't exist before ASI(dravidians) came.
    So they didn't 'inherit' anything from ASI wave of Dravidian speaking Indians because nothing existed there.
    (Andamanese and other australoids were presumably already gone and living on the islands.)

    ASI=/=ANI.
    ANI=/=Dravidian.
    ANI=Indo-Aryan.
    ASI=Dravidian.
    Dravidians were not Sanskrit speakers. They spoke a Dravidian language called proto-Dravidian which is separate language family isolate, not related to any other language in the world.
    They are not related,either, to Australoid people like Jawara or Onge etc.

    this is literally historically accepted fact.
    would you like me to link you the wiki page?

    here's the history:
    first, australoids came.
    they either died out or moved along.
    either way, then ASI came.
    ASI came from africa into India and settled there. They speak a language family called Dravidian and are a genetic isolate.
    Then ANI come and mix w/ ASI.
    =modern day Indians.

    ANI who did not mix with ASI = Europeans and Iranians.
    get it?
    so if you have a blue eyed blonde hair person, that is a 'pure' white person as in, they are genetically isolated. if you have an Indian person, they will be dark, black hair, dark brown eyes (generally) etc. because they are not ANI and mixed w/ ASI and don't live in a cold region like Europe.

    R1a is high in north india due to waves and waves of western invaders. that is why they are barely Indian.
    That is why you have people w/ blue eyes (which is impossible if you're an Indian) coming from there.
    so blue eyes,blond hair-white.
    blue eyes,white skin-white.

    right?
    after all these are phenotypes we associate intimately w/ their race and that is how the concept of race is defined.

    As I mentioned, i found no mention of J2 being in India except w/ Muslims on the wiki page. Except for a small blurb on archaeogenetics page on wiki and again i doubt that it means anything other than that 50,000 years ago a small group split off and came into India which is fine and i agree w/ that but it doesn't mean that they are more closely related or anything.

  • browneyes

    Uh, Tamils being white is a direct implication of your own logic, so it is actually you who is saying that. I don't know about "retarded moron," but it is up to you to sport whatever identities you want for yourself. Don't start down this path with me, however, because it will not go to any happy places.

    ASIs are Australoid and Negrito, as far as geneticists can tell. Tamils definitely are Caucasoid. ASI were not. Dravidian was brought to India by Ancestral North Indians. "White people" by your definition. And talking about assertions being crazy, think about the implications of what you yourself say. 40% of North Indian males are R1a. 40% of Russians and 35% of Norwegians are also R1a. So, according to you 40% of 500 million people, i.e. 200 million Indians are part-white. Now, you think this is something any European would agree with?

    they speak their own australoid languages which is not related to Dravidian

    There is no such thing as "Australoid languages". Do you mean Austro-Asiatic languages?

    Tamils are an ASI ethnic and linguistic group

    Absolutely wrong. Tamils are ethnically a blend of ASI and ANI, like the vast majority of Indians. They are just a point on the cline. In terms of language, Tamils are almost pure ANI, because Dravidian languages were almost certainly brought to India by Ancestral North Indians. I said "almost pure" because all of us have some Austro-Asiatic substrate in our languages. In Hindi, words like chaval (rice), Ganga (Ganges) and Haldi (turmeric) are suspected to be from Munda (via Sanskrit).

    R1a is high in north india due to waves and waves of western invaders. that is why they are barely Indian. That is why you have people w/ blue eyes (which is impossible if you're an Indian)

    On the contrary, I think there is a pretty good chance that R1a originated in India first and radiated upwards, though it may have radiated back down at a later point as well. Diversity in R1a in India is indicative of this. Blue eyes can absolutely occur in Indians. They do all the time. They are not very common (grey or green or hazel are much more common). If you had called it a Caucasoid trait rather than European or white, I would have agreed with you. It is pretty likely that the original Dravidian speakers had a solid sprinkling of blue/light-eyed people as well.

  • simha

    lol, nice backtracking.
    oh it won't will it?
    where will it go? i'm curious to know brave keyboard warrior. lol get over yourself dude.

    "ASIs are Australoid and Negrito,"

    that is literally the opposite of what genetics tells.

    ASI is separate from them. you can read on the wiki pages yourself. (well apparently you refuse so what can i do.

    "Tamils definitely are Caucasoid. ASI were not."

    Tamils ARE ASI.

    BTW, R1a is not restricted to north India. It's also present in south though it tapers off.
    i'm not sure why this comes as a surprise. Indo-Europeans migrated into India and mixed w/ the native Dravidians.
    and there's a gradient since most of them stayed in the north so they have stronger r1a component..

    all indians are part indo-european though at that point in time, they were not exactly 'white'.
    we don't have any evidence showing their exact skin colour. and remember that white skin is a development restricted to europe since it is colder up there.
    so most likely they were brown.

    actually i mean andamanese language group:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "Tamils are ethnically a blend of ASI and ANI, like the vast majority of Indians."
    i don't disagree but you have to admit they have higher ASI component than ANI. Originaly Indians were ASI so Tamils (well at that point they hadn't yet distinguished into Tamil or Kannada) but south Indians are obviously ASI.

    "Tamils are almost pure ANI,"
    this is a gross dismissal of facts. in that case, they should exhibit little ASI.
    while the opposite is true.

    ". Blue eyes can absolutely occur in Indians."
    absolutely, because we have white people living in India. like Kapoor. Indian nationality,not Indian genetically.

    "It is pretty likely that the original Dravidian speakers had a solid sprinkling of blue/light-eyed people as well."
    lol.
    spoken like someone who has never seen an indian before...

  • browneyes

    "ASIs are Australoid and Negrito"
    that is literally the opposite of what genetics tells

    No, that is precisely what genetics tells us. The only people on the planet that have ASI but no ANI are Negritos. They are the *only* humans that meet that criteria. So, definitely, ASI is most likely a Negrito-Australoid combination.

    "Tamils definitely are Caucasoid. ASI were not."
    Tamils ARE ASI

    Tamils are no more ASI than Mexicans are Europeans, in that Tamils are partially ASI. Ancestral Dravidian speakers were likely full-blooded ANIs, so yes, Tamils speak an Ancestral North Indian developed language. So do Brahui.

    all indians are part indo-european though at that point in time, they were not exactly 'white'

    Talk about backtracking. This is the mother of all backtracks right here.

    we don't have any evidence showing their exact skin colour. and remember that white skin is a development restricted to europe since it is colder
    up there. so most likely they were brown.

    Whatever are you talking about? Many places in the HHK (Himalaya-HinduKush) zone are just as cold as Europe. Have you even been to Kashmir or Himachal? It's colder than many parts of Europe for crying out loud. So is Afghanistan. Dras in Ladakh, India is the second-coldest inhabited place on the planet after Siberia. In several parts of West Punjab it snows. In fact last year it even snowed briefly in East Punjab (search for "Pathankot Witnesses snowfall after 3 decades"), which is rare but it happens. J&K, Himachal, Uttarakhand, Balochistan, NWFP, West Punjab all experience snowfall. You do realise that all Hindu holy scriptures in the north were written on Bhurj Patra, i.e. parchment of the Birch Tree, which everyone thinks of as a European tree but is rampant in this area too. And in India-Pakistan, you can see clear correlations between skin colour and climate. Many northwestern people have lighter skin in this area. It is not surprising. You take any human group and put them here and, over some thousands of years, they will evolve light skin too. Raj Kapoor was blue-eyed and light-skinned because he is from this region. It has nothing to do with Europeans.

    "Tamils are almost pure ANI,"
    this is a gross dismissal of facts. in that case, they should exhibit little ASI.

    This is just desperate behaviour. What I clearly said was that: In terms of language, Tamils are almost pure ANI, because Dravidian languages were almost certainly brought to India by Ancestral North Indians.

    Look, if you want to worship some ossified theories that are crumbling in the face of modern evidence, best of luck to you. It's not sustainable though. You're just wrong.

  • simha

    "According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    the genetics tells us that ASI spoke a Dravidian language becase ASI=Dravidians.

    Even now, you'll find in south India, higher component of ASI and less component of ANI.
    conversely, in north india, w/in indo-european populations a high component of ANI.

    also

    "it was determined that Indians trace their ancestry to two major groups, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form)."

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2...

    i'm not sure which part of this peer reviewed scientific data you think is 'crumbling' but i'm exited to learn.

    i'm also not sure how you think acknowleding a scientific theory is 'worshipping' it but you know u r world seems to be insane where facts don't matter and the rules are made up.

    "Talk about backtracking. This is the mother of all backtracks right here."

    i'm not sure what you think is bck tracking about this.

    i've always maintained that ll indians share an indo-european component.
    it was also mentioned in several of the numerous links i posted which you've failed to read or fail to comprehend or both.

    it may have snowed but remember, all white people also come from a single ancestor w/ gene SLC45A2.

    so..yes,if you've got white skin, you're of european descent.
    also, snowing in a mountainous area =/= being in the northern hempishere where there is not enough sun light to sustain healthy vitamin D production. you should read up mor eon that, it's also a fascinating subject.
    for example the eskimo didn't develop super white skin since they got enough D from the food they ate.
    anyway, point is, you're thinking of just 1 factor but it was also diet and climate.
    both of which don't exist in the southern hemisphere to onset white skin.
    also failing to realize taht these places are beset by foreign invaders coming in from greece, turkey etc.

    i don't know who raj kapoor is but if he's got blue eyes and white skin then it's because he's a white man.

  • browneyes

    On the Brahui specifically, the surprise is now talked about quite a bit. Read Razib Khan's article "Brahui are something old, not new" which explains it well:

    - The old theory was simple. The subcontinent spoke Dravidian once. Indo-Europeans came bringing IE genes. Some Dravidian pockets survived, e.g. the Brahui, surrounded by IE-speakers, e.g. the Baloch.

    - The surprise: the Dravidian Brahui are MORE middle-eastern genetically than the surrounding Baloch, who are more Indian. The Afghan Pashtuns are closer genetically to Tamils than the Dravidian-speaking Brahui are.

    This is fascinating stuff and, were I a speaker of a South Indian language, I would definitely try to learn Brahui and do some comparative analysis of my own. And, if I spoke any Munda language, I would take a crack at deciphering the Harappan script: A recent study of mtDNA among southwestern Asians, Central Asians, and Pakistanis by Quintana-Merci and coworkers (2004) found the gene pool of the Dravidian-speaking Brahui of Pakistan to be more like that of Indo-Iranian speakers than Dravidian peakers of South India. These researchers interpret this evidence to support an external source for Dravidian populations and they identify this source as southwestern Iran. Drawing from the work of Witzel (1999), proponents of the Early Intrusion Model suggest that prior to the fifth millennium BC, inhabitants of much of the Indian subcontinent — including the Indus Valley — were speakers of proto-Mundic languages. Following McAlpin (1981) and others, they suggest proto-Elamo-Dravidian speakers entered the subcontinent from the northwest during the fifth millennium BC (Fairservis and Southworth 1989; Southworth 1995).

  • simha

    that makes no sense since ASI are not at all related to Iranians.
    It's more likely that the Brahui being so close to Iranians mixed w/ them and hence share DNA.

    Anyway, i don't much care just because i'm not entirely sure what this has to do w/ a pure white girl suddenly turning indian.

  • browneyes

    Your snapshot of the world as static populations is incorrect. The oldest-known blue eyed ancestor was non-white (same skin complexion as Africans). ASIs probably entered India through Iran. ASI were non-Dravidian speaking. Your explanations make no sense either. Baloch are in greater contact with Iranians. They speak an Iranian language for crying out loud. Yet the Brahui are more Iranian. It is because the Dravidian languages are actually more closely associated with historical Iranian ethnicities than the Iranian languages themselves (linguistic definition, not the same as 'languages of Iran').

    And Kalki looks Indian. Not just to me, but to millions upon millions of North Indians. Can't help you there. She just does.

  • simha

    "Your snapshot of the world as static populations is incorrect. "
    and your strawman is misleading and fradulent.
    i certainly never said the world was static but if you think so, then you're certainly wrong.

    "The oldest-known blue eyed ancestor was non-white "
    yes. that one person was not a pure white person like we see today.
    however, the ancestor to all modern day blue eyed people was white since that arose ~6k years ago.
    modern day blue eyed are not descendents of the man found in Spain.
    we don't you can google the answer yourself.
    All modern day blue eyed people are descendent from 1 ancestor from Europe. That person did not look African.

    ASI="Dravidian" (Indian).
    ASI spoke a "dravidian"(Indian) language. It originated in India. Their civilization may have extended as far as northwest India, borders of Iran but they were not Iranian.
    of course they migrated through Iran.
    It's on the way to India out of Africa.
    The genetic history video i linked earlier shows that.

    " Yet the Brahui are more Iranian. I"
    i'm not sure how you can quantify this.

    "t is because the Dravidian languages are actually more closely associated with historical Iranian ethnicities than the Iranian languages themselves"

    there is no such thing.
    Iranians are Indo-European people.
    There may have been some ASI living there but they are not of any significance as far as we can tell from the genes. And either they were wiped out,absorbed or moved. either way they don't show up on the genetic map.

    "And Kalki looks Indian"
    you are literally taking a pure white lady and saying she looks Indian.
    Ask any person with eyes if they would look at Brad pitt and say he is Indian.
    Likewise, a lady from France being considered as an Indian is a cringeworthy and laughable idea.
    i mean i can only wonder if you are colour blind.

    we have distinction of white and indian and black etc. in society.
    why do you think we have them if these distinctions don't exist?
    do you think people just make up random words to describe skin color that doesn't exist?
    are you really telling me a normal indian is no different than a british or french or russian white person?
    there's no distinguishable difference in your eyes?
    so brad pitt can be from Punjab?
    get outta here.
    you're trolling me at this point.

  • browneyes

    Completely wrong. ASI absolutely did NOT speak any Dravidian language. Dravidian was almost certainly invented by and brought to India by ANI from the Iran region. They displaced the previous languages and left their genetic signatures in Dravidian speaking communities, which are still discernable today.

    Likewise, a lady from France being considered as an Indian is a cringeworthy and laughable idea

    This sounds pejorative and somewhat racist. I would not have a cringe reaction no matter which human on the planet were perceived as Indian by other Indians. India is a mix. Get used to it. I see Ethiopians that look very Indian, Thai that look Indian, even some Japanese that look Indian, Arabs who look Indian, Spanish who look Indian, even some Irish people who look Indian. Even Sonia Gandhi borders on looking Indian, but there is something non-Indian about her face (to me). If she spoke without an accent and told me she was Indian, I would probably accept it, though I might still have some doubts. However, I am sure there must be some other Italians who look more Indian than her.

    You have some strange hang-ups which have nothing to do with scientific fact. You have an agenda here which has nothing to do with the reality of things in India. Yes, Kalki looks Indian. She looks so Indian that she was cast as an Indian in Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, which tens of millions of Indians watched without question. She looks so Indian that, in that very movie, Katrina Kaif (who is half-Indian and can sometimes look non-Indian) had to cast as a half-Indian but Kalki was cast as a full blooded Indian. She looks Indian. She could easily be Punjabi, Sindhi, Himachali or Kashmiri. Easily. None of those groups are white. They are pure full-blooded Indians who have lived in India for 5000 years at least.

    get outta here. you're trolling me at this point.

    Excuse me? You argue with half-baked ideology that is easily refuted with hundreds of references. You try to advance a world-view that is provably incorrect (and I have completely demolished it, pretty much). You try to project some non-existent racial purity model for India which the myriad hues of Indians put the lie to instantaneously. And I am trolling you? You are comprehensively defeated, because you've cocooned yourself in some third-rate belief system that cannot withstand two pricks of reality. If you want to have a tantrum about it, that's your issue. I am absolutely not going anywhere.

  • simha

    ASI=Dravidian.

    there is no distinction.

    only australoids existed before ASI and they are all but dead. Their language has nothing to do w/ mainstream indian languages.

    This is established fact, both linguistically and genetically.
    You are not arguing w/ me, you are arguing with scientific data.

    start reading:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "They displaced the previous languages and left their genetic signatures in Dravidian speaking communities,"
    They ARE the Dravidians. ASI=Dravidian.
    a simple google search will resolve this matter for you.As well as viewing the various links i posted previously. Im' not sure why you're refsuing to acknowledge this.

    "This sounds pejorative and somewhat racist. I"
    whatever personal hangups you have are your own. Don't put your own perspectives on me.
    Blacks,whites,indians,chinese etc. exist.No one is saying is above or below the other. Simply that there are markeable difference. If you refuse to acknowledge that, well good luck living in your fantasy world.
    Get over it. We're all different.

    ". I would not have a cringe reaction"
    you wouldn't have a cringe reaction when a person says something retarded? well, good for you.

    "I see Ethiopians that look very Indian, Thai that look Indian, even some Japanese that look Indian, Arabs who look Indian, Spanish who look Indian, even some Irish people who look Indian."

    holeee sheeit.
    i'm serious when i say, you may want to visit a doctor.
    i'm not trying to insult you here.
    i'm thinking the root of the issue here is a mixture of lack of comprehension of genetics as well as an inability to distinguish faces.

    it's an actual condition and i suspect that you may have it.

    i've asked you multiple times and you've actually replied 'yes, there's no difference for you b/w white and indian' and i guess it was me refusing to acknowledge that so my mistake.

    i guess no matter what evidence i provide to you, no matter how many photographs i show you, if you physically CANNOT SEE then it's not your fault.
    though i do still hold you responsible for wilfully ignoring the genetic data.

    "Even Sonia Gandhi borders on looking Indian"
    lol.
    seriously,lofuckingl!
    in fact even her husband looked white to me.(Not surprising since his father was Persian and his mother Kashmiri)

    " You have an agenda here which has nothing to do with the reality of things in India."
    yep.
    you got me;i've got an agenda.
    i'm trying to point out that there's a difference b/w indians and white people. it's nefarious, i know.
    ok police, lock me up and take me away.
    apparently i've done something bad.

    ". She looks so Indian that she was cast as an Indian"
    how about indians love white people and she was cast in it?
    do you know that we have brits,australians,other white people that are cast in Indian movies as native Indians as well?
    do you think they're cast that BECAUSE they look Indian? google Amy Jackson.
    about as white as you can get.
    you're naive if you think white people are cast in indian films because they're 'indian' looking.
    in that case why not hire an indian girl?
    what a silly line of logic.

    "Katrina Kaif (who is half-Indian and can sometimes look non-Indian"
    actually katrina is less than half Indian.her mother is a Khan so most likely she is Persian/Afghani. In NO picture did she EVER look REMOTELY Indian.
    middle eastern maybe.
    Indian?hell no.

    "She could easily be Punjabi, Sindhi, Himachali or Kashmiri. Easily."
    agreed. all the more reason those people are not genetically Indian.if you look like a white person, it's because you are.

    lol, i'm not sure how many X i can repeat this.

    " They are pure full-blooded Indians who have lived in India for 5000 years at least."
    try 500-600 years; after Muslim conquest and more recent migration.
    also, living in a country does not make them a native of that country. English lived in India for ~500 years, doesn't mean they became Indian does it?
    (lol,knowing you, probably in your opinion they are!)

    "You argue with half-baked ideology that is easily refuted with hundreds of references."
    so peer reviewed genetic data that shows a clear distinction as well as linguistic difference is 'half-baked'.
    NOT EVEN mentioning that you can PHYSICALLY SEE the difference if you're a normally functioning human being.

    " You try to project some non-existent racial purity model for India which the myriad hues of Indians put the lie to instantaneously."

    again you can put your own agenda where you like, just nowhere near me or my mouth.
    there is a racial 'uniformity' though not a purity in India.
    ASI+ANI=Indian.
    guess i should pack it up then.i don't know what iw as thinking, if physically differences did not jump out at you, i thought at least the scientific data would make you stop and think but somehow you've done some incredible mental gymnastics to arrive at your own contrived explanation that no else in the world agrees with.

  • browneyes

    Wrong. ASI is not the same as Dravidian. Never was. If anything, ancestral Dravidian is ANI. ASI were the inhabitants of India *before* the Dravidians. Of course, there is a cline in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan. The further NW you go the more ANI you see. The further SE you go, the more ASI you see. Modern North Indians have two layers of ANI: Dravidian and Indo-European. South Indians have one: Dravidian. North Indians are bound to be higher in ANI. The only guys with ASI that received no Dravidian ANI or Indo-European ANI were the Andamanese. So, they are the only people left in the world with ASI and no ANI.

    You are incorrect that "Australoid language" (incorrect term, likely Austro-Asiatic) has nothing to do with mainstream languages. Infact, there are several Austro-Asiatic languages around and Mundic words apparently proliferate our languages. Indeed, there is another piece of evidence that supports the north-to-south proliferation of Indo-Aryan ANIs vs the west-to-south proliferation of Dravidian ANIs. It seems like some Australoid/ASI influence survived in the northwest (Afghanistan region) where it was suppressed further south by Dravidian ANIs. If you look at the Rigveda, what shows-up first is Mundic influence on Vedic Sanskrit. And only then does Dravidian show-up significantly later as the Indo-Aryans encountered the previous Iranian ANI wave. I know this does not jive with your received wisdom but there it is. Andamanese is not the same as Australoid. They are an even earlier Negrito wave. Irula are considered to be Australoid. Remember, Australoids likely had straight (or straighter hair) which the Negritos do not.

blog comments powered by Disqus