CBS: Kathy Zhu stripped of Miss Michigan 2019 title after racist tweets surface

[PokerPacker]

5 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

Asian guys, it's a tough go to marry/date a white girl. Although all my Asian friends from high school are married to white girls. So that may not even be true anymore. Was there societal pressure to marry a white girl?

Maybe they just don't like you. 

[Going Commando]

41 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

You know, I do happen to notice this on the Bollywood scene. This Indian restaurant I go to has that stuff on all the time, and I was struck by how, like, all of the women and men were very light in their complexion. Many of the Indian people I've known could easily pass for black people, were it not for their hair. Just seemed odd. 

 

I played tennis with an Indian friend in High School.  He explained this to me.  He used to put on tons of sunscreen before practices and matches and he told me it was because he didn't want to get darker.  He said that I could tan but eventually my skin would go back to being pale while his would just get darker and darker, and he explained that their social rank was tied to the lightness of their skin.

 

I didn't know anything about India or Indians then, still don't know a lot, but what I can piece together is that South Indian ethnic groups from the Carnatic tend to be very dark and are often poorer and of lower status than Northern Indian ethnic groups.  I don't know, but I assumed this was because the historical nexus of Imperial power on the subcontinent has been in the Ganges and Indus valleys, and because the history of Middle Eastern trade on the Malabar coast and in Madras has led to ethnic and religious mixing between Arabs and Southern Indians in a way that has lowered their status.

[Fergasun]

"Hijab booth" is fine. This is America. Did the booth say, "don't drive if you wear this hijab" or other ridiculous point?

Is there some rule that you turn violently anti-American terrorist Muslim if you touch a hijab?

More like, "come over, break the ice and ask me about my religious choice." Especially on a college campus.

[redskins59]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I played tennis with an Indian friend in High School.  He explained this to me.  He used to put on tons of sunscreen before practices and matches and he told me it was because he didn't want to get darker.  He said that I could tan but eventually my skin would go back to being pale while his would just get darker and darker, and he explained that their social rank was tied to the lightness of their skin.

 

I didn't know anything about India or Indians then, still don't know a lot, but what I can piece together is that South Indian ethnic groups from the Carnatic tend to be very dark and are often poorer and of lower status than Northern Indian ethnic groups.  I don't know, but I assumed this was because the historical nexus of Imperial power on the subcontinent has been in the Ganges and Indus valleys, and because the history of Middle Eastern trade on the Malabar coast and in Madras has led to ethnic and religious mixing between Arabs and Southern Indians in a way that has lowered their status.

 

There is this cream called Fair and Lovely, which is extremely popular in the subcontinent.  My mom has used it a few times.  It did not help her for sure.  LOL.

 

South Indians in general tend to be darker than North Indians, but it is more complicated than that due to the caste system, which in reality is race-based.  The North Indian language is based on Sanskrit.  The most popular hypothesis today is that these North Indian languages came from somewhere North of the Black Sea (present day Ukraine).  So what you see, genetically speaking, is that the Brahmins (the highest caste in India) have the highest European ("steppe" is the correct word--it actually is Central Asian, but back then Upper Central Asia was European-like)  mix.  So the upper-castes in general tend to be lighter than people of lower caste background.  This occured around 1800 BC.  The infamous word "Aryan" actually derives from Sanskrit (and actually Iranian as well).  Swastika also has its origin in India.  Back in those days, the pseudoscientists in Europe belived that the Aryans who invaded South Asia were Northern European, which of course is not true.  Now, there is no point in denying that the North Indian language originated in Europe, but the location is probably around Ukraine.  

Bollywood tends to be dominated by Punjabis (Northwest India), and the ones that are South Indians  tend to be upper-castes.

 

 

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

It's more ignorant than racist. 

[Going Commando]

21 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

There is this cream called Fair and Lovely, which is extremely popular in the subcontinent.  My mom has used it a few times.  It did not help her for sure.  LOL. 

  

South Indians in general tend to be darker than North Indians, but it is more complicated than that due to the caste system, which in reality is race-based.  The North Indian language is based on Sanskrit.  The most popular hypothesis today is that these North Indian languages came from somewhere North of the Black Sea (present day Ukraine).  So what you see, genetically speaking, is that the Brahmins (the highest caste in India) have the highest European ("steppe" is the correct word--it actually is Central Asian, but back then Upper Central Asia was European-like)  mix.  So the upper-castes in general tend to be lighter than people of lower caste background.  This occured around 1800 BC.  The infamous word "Aryan" actually derives from Sanskrit (and actually Iranian as well).  Swastika also has its origin in India.  Back in those days, the pseudoscientists in Europe belived that the Aryans who invaded South Asia were Northern European, which of course is not true.  Now, there is no point in denying that the North Indian language originated in Europe, but the location is probably around Ukraine.   

Bollywood tends to be dominated by Punjabis (Northwest India), and the ones that are South Indians  tend to be upper-castes. 

 

 

So the Sanskrit-speaking people who migrated from the plains of Ukraine came to settle and politically dominate the Indo-Gangetic plain in 1800 B.C.  Does that mean the original inhabitants of the Indus valley are darker?  Are they still there today, but as the lower castes of this region?  Also, were the Mauryans a descendant people of the original Sanskrit-speaking migrants that formed a second wave of migration of Central Asia?  And also, are the ethnic groups of Central and Southern India the descendants of much older civilizations than the Sanskrit-speaking migrants?  When were Central and Southern India settled, and where did those people come from?

 

Sorry to barrage you with so many questions, I have always been very curious about the ancient history of India and about the migration patterns of the people who settled the region.

[redskins59]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

So the Sanskrit-speaking people who migrated from the plains of Ukraine came to settle and politically dominate the Indo-Gangetic plain in 1800 B.C.  Does that mean the original inhabitants of the Indus valley are darker?  Are they still there today, but as the lower castes of this region?  Also, were the Mauryans a descendant people of the original Sanskrit-speaking migrants that formed a second wave of migration of Central Asia?  And also, are the ethnic groups of Central and Southern India the descendants of much older civilizations than the Sanskrit-speaking migrants?  When were Central and Southern India settled, and where did those people come from?

 

Sorry to barrage you with so many questions, I have always been very curious about the ancient history of India and about the migration patterns of the people who settled the region.

Well, what happened was that the indo-european speaking people first migrated to Siberia, central asia, etc.  They migrated from this area to India.  Ultimately, the language came from around Ukraine.  Archaeology points to this.  So does genetics.  

This is my own speculation, but farming came from the middle east to India--so I would think that the original people of Indus Valley would be similar to modern day Sindhis (and Gujaratis/Punjabis).  So not necessarily dark per se, but darker than the early Sanskrit speakers.  The actual original inhabitants of India were probably hunter gatherers.  I say it went like this:

1.  Hunter gatherers migrated to India first (the out of Africa migration essentially).

2.  Then came the farmers from the middle east (modern day Iran)

3.  Finally came the Sanskrit speakers.

 

Sindhis and Balochis of Pakistan for example shift towards Iran, whereas Jatts of Punjab and Pashtuns of Pakistan/Afghanistan shift towards central Asia with major European admixture.  This is what I see when i look at genetic data.  The Brahmins also shift towards Central Asia/Europe.  Now, Reich calls central Asian admixture "steppe" admixture.  So in certain Brahmin groups of North India, it is around 25% according to the paper I read last year (I think it must still be in preprint--I can't find it).

The Mauryans are no doubt indo-european speakers, but they may not have been upper castes.

No question that central and south indians are descendants of older people (probably a mix of hunter gatherers and farmers).

 

Besides the Aryans, there were other essentially "White" groups that invaded India.  Scythians for example.  Now, the Scythians were Iranic-speaking, but the Iranian language came from Central Asia as well, so I would think a lot of them looked European (i.e. light hair, blue eyes, etc).

 

If you google Pamiri Tajiks, I would think they are probably the last remaining descendents of the ancient Aryans. Genetically speaking, they score more European than anybody else in that region.

Research is ongoing.  I have also read that the Aryans skipped the BMAC region (Southern central Asia) and headed directly to South Asia.  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

The most obvious development.

[LadySkinsFan]

Another useful idiot until no longer useful.

[Jumbo]

a new target for corey lewandowski