If original indoeuropeans were tan black eyed semitic looking, and blue eyes developed from nonPIE population...

Then why do people say that Iranians and Indians aren't white? The Indo part is still there.

Probably no ethnic group was predominantly light-haired or light-eyed as of the time of the IE expansions. Most of the frequency of light hair and eyes today is the product of selection over the course of the last 4000 years, selection that appears to have continued into the modern era. But the Yamna and Corded Ware remains we have show some of the highest frequencies of depigmentation alleles of any populations from their time.

persians have been mixing with arabs for hundreds of years and indians are just indo-europeans that mixed with dravidian peoples way longer ago than that

This. They were definitely pale.
Because theyre idiots. Iranians are basically white. They have arab mix though

because people are idiots

Shitskins are just going to have to learn to accept that we whites are slightly more related to all the awesomest people in history. Smd cucks!

Any source for this? From what I know about Zoroastrianism, Persians wouldn't marry outside their etho-religious group as you must be born in a Zoroastrianism family, much like Judaism. note that Persia did not become fully Islam until the Safavids so I'm keen to wonder how much mixing occured.

ITT: /pol/ tier memes

>From what I know about Zoroastrianism, Persians wouldn't marry outside their etho-religious group as you must be born in a Zoroastrianism family, much like Judaism. note that Persia did not become fully Islam until the Safavids so I'm keen to wonder how much mixing occured.
Is Iran a Zoroastrian country?

It's because the genes for light hair/eyes spread in all directions, not just Europe. Think of it as two waves who partially overlapped - the first IE migrations, the second the light hair/eyes spread.

IE are older than the mutations for light hair/eyes. So the original IE must've been black eyed and black haired.

By the time of the safavids, there was very little, if any Arab influence in Iran.

>The whole idea that "original Indo-Europeans weren't really white ;)" is absolute horseshit.
>implying it's not true
Fuck off anatolian farmer piece of shit

...

They are extremely mixed with non-Indo Europeans, unlike modern Europeans.

>The whole idea that "original Indo-Europeans weren't really white ;)" is absolute horseshit.
They were. And the fact that it's popular to claim otherwise is because of the current revisionist trend in historiography.

No, not really, they were darker than modern day Southern Europeans:
"o as it turns out, prehistoric North Pontic Steppe populations buried in Kurgan mounds are overwhelmingly dark pigmented (by modern Eurocentric standards). The populations of this area and time period are the most favored among linguists today to have been the speakers of the Proto Indo-European language (this hypothesis is known as the Kurgan hypothesis)."

"nother article released a year later basically revealed the same thing, although this study focused the pigmentation of many ancient European populations in comparison to modern ones including pre Neolithic Western Hunter Gatherers and early Neolithic Farmers in Europe. But the study did also include a sample set from the Yamnaya culture which is identified by most linguists as the speakers of the Proto Indo-European language on the eve of their great expansion. Only 11% of the Yamnaya in this sample from the Samar Oblast region carry alleles for light eyes, as they are noticeably darker pigmented in skin and eyes than contemporary Southern Europeans. See data below."

Holy crap this is good bait

sciencealert.com/the-origin-of-blue-eyes

It is true that the Yamnaya people (the very first IE speakers) were generally tan and had dark hair and eyes.

Why is fairness attractive again?

It was seen as pure like the bright light and a signal that the person was of nobility since they don't have to work outside and get tanned.

It signifies wealth

the damn near universal attraction to fairness(hair and skin) makes me doubt that shit. i mean, in almost all cultures prehistoric to pre-millenial. the wealth thing I feel is some historian's rationalization. there must be some genetic factors in play here.

It correlates decently now with the most recent, alternate, American beauty standards of having a tan.

In a society of excess, excess will be shunned.

And it's not a bad deduction so say that if somebody doesn't look tanned, they may not spend much time outside.

so when will the rest of the world follow suit? the brown NEETS of asia still masturbate to pale blonde white americans.

>Indo
it is like calling Spanish: Euro-American

Their language is neither Indian nor European, but once indigenous to central Asia. The Yamna spread their language to other people who adopted their language.

Similar to how Spanish went to Mexico and spread their language to the Aztecs.

indians are australoid and should be proud of their veddoid heritage

they do speak a non-australoid language and practice a non-australoid culture, thru cultural and linguistic diffusion of steppe horseman

much like native americans speak a IE language and practice IE culture, ie: costa ricans speaking spanish etc

They weren't Semitic looking. The first Aryan invaders in India likely resembled Slavic people as can be deduced from reading the Rigveda.

The Rig Veda doesnt mention what they look like

/pol/ thinks that a line in which a character is described with fair hair means that everyone was a blue eyed blonde scandinavian

Extreme newbie here:

How advanced was the Yamnaya culture?
How advanced was contemporary Egypt?
If a lot, how so?

When and where did the blue eyes/blonde hair happen?

Not Germanic or "Nordic" but speakers of satem languages do seem to have a affinity with eachother.

Who the fuck honestly cares about this that has a meaningful impact on society

The Yamnaya were not forming large states or engaging in high-density agriculture, but they were in contact with cultures that were, and had access to a reasonable range of current technologies. Most experts suspect that the Indo-European expansion was based on violent conquests (the genetic turnover, especially is male lineages, is just too high in a lot of areas for a peaceful expansion to make sense). We don't know exactly what enabled this, but it's generally suspected that it had something to do with improved use of horses.

The mutations for blonde and red hair and blue eyes originated in the Paleolithic and have seen a slow, steady increase in frequency. We don't know exactly what the selection pressure at work is.

It's pathetic how Crypro Arabs like Persians and literally Gypsy Indian belive that WE WUZ WHITE N SHIT

I am confused, if the origian lE were dark, like the Yamna people. Why were the Tocharians, Early Iranian groups like the Scythians and Corded Ware people described as fair?

Bump for interest

It's something about genetic drifts? I don't have a good understanding of that stuff but the Nuristanis are very isolated. Genetically they're pretty much South Asian, none of that Alexander the Great bullcrap that people believe.

Also I can post more pictures of these people if you guys want, I have plenty and they're quite interesting.

They weren't dark in the first place.

The proto-indo-europeans werent as white as Germans or Swedes, but they sure as hell werent dark. They had diverse hair and eye color and the reason that European Aryans are lighter in skin and eye color is because the people who were there before the Aryan conquest were. In fact, Finns are the blondest people on earth and they arent Aryan at all.

>if the origian lE were dark, like the Yamna people
they weren't. read upthread.

They were, you absolute retard, try to google what eye color were the Yamnaya people and you'll have your answer, I'm not even gonna bother to link the studies to such a retarded fuck who argues without even bothering to do any minimum research on the dubject but has just some vague notions on it.

Again they were dark, gotta love how you retards claim shit without bothering to even google it, do us a favor and leave the thread.

there are more people in india than just people of dravidian descent. there's no way you can look at some northern indians and say they came from australoids.

they weren't dark as in sub-saharan africa or southern india dark. they were just darker pigmented than most modern europeans. think of the kind of skin tone you see in the mediterranean.

They are a mix of course you mong, and Indians only have a minor abbo admixture, generically they're closer to middle easterners and Europeans

You're conflating language and ethnicity. You know very well people can speak more than one language, and you know very well cultural assimilation will likely mean one peoples' language will be replaced by another, or there is a fusion, as a creole.

Please stop associating a language someone speaks with eye color. It's making you not only look stupid, but come to stupid further conclusions.