so at lecture, professor discussed the australoid race and mentioned indians are part of this race. he discussed the fascinating history of the australoid race and origins in south asia.
many classmates had no prior knowledge of the australoid race and felt lost in the lecture.
why does society still ignore the history of the australoid race?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.cnki.com.cn
upload.wikimedia.org
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
robertlindsay.wordpress.com
nature.com
academic.oup.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Not much history.
It's pretty interesting how the Ainus from N Japan are genetically related being that far.
>the oldest race
>once thru out europe, asia, ameriva
>Not much history.
papuans lived in china until recently
Neolithic China was also ' Australoid '
en.cnki.com.cn
Archaeologist Peter Bellwood claims that the vast majority of people in South and east Asia, the region he calls the "clinal Mongoloid-Australoid zone", are Southern Mongoloids but have a high degree of Australoid admixture.[40]
NE Asians are also related to Australoids, since prior to 10,000 years ago, Australoid populations characterized the human settlements of all of NE and SE Asia, all of the Americas and India.
latinos from the same period hold astroloid heritage/characteristics when you go back far enough.
>indians as a single ethnic group
ugh
>why does society still ignore the history of the australoid race?
little interest of the human development of ships i guess
indeed, australoids were mistaken for caucasoids and australoid was once accepted as archaic caucasoid.
ainus, abos, and indians all have archaic caucasoid features but are australoid
They aren't Australoid you retard, they just have some ancient links to them.
I literally have no clue why people think North Indians think they are somehow different from South Indians. People act like they're different species even though they're the same. North Indians have the same medium brown complexion and abo features
linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/ainu.htm
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
robertlindsay.wordpress.com
>It is looking more and more like the proto-Asians or the pre-Mongoloid Asians were some sort of Australoid type. Evolution in Asia then went Australoid -> Mongoloid although it was not completed in certain places such as Melanesia, New Guinea, Australia and South India.
Learn to read, idiot. Ainu don't have anything to do with Papuans or some other modern Australoid population.
>Evolution in Asia then went Australoid -> Mongoloid although it was not completed in certain places
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's in one of the fucking links you posted, shit for brains. Ainu evolved from Australoids, but that's where the connection ends. It's like saying everyone is a nigger because modern humans originated in Africa.
>Ainu
>not proto-Asian
Learn to understand, idiot
A new study released in 2013 by Kanzawa-Kiriyama Hideaki shows that the Jomon population are genetically closer to Papuans and Melanesians, populations located in Oceania. The author also demonstrated that the Jomon have significant Denisovan admixture, which is also found among Papuans, Melanesians and some Negrito ethnic groups in the Philippines.
The study suggests that the Ainu and Ryukyuan populations of Japan retained much of their Jomon ancestry,
please improve your reading skills, Ainu are Australoid is the Title and the article supports that Title
>indianz wuz in complete n shyt
You are likely being a retard and misinterpreting the study. Let me see it. Post a link to it.
>Rosenberg
the study is referenced by the article, dont be lazy
nature.com
Is it this one? I don't see anything there supporting your claim at all.
no from 2013
I said related, learn to read faggot.
so indians are not caucasoid?
are ainus caucasoid?
Mixed race
Caucasoid + Australoid = Indians
Mongoloid + Australoid = Southeast asians (Filipinos, etc)
Southeast Asian here
My thic lips are proof of my austronesian blood
My mom is really brown too
Google Ancient genomic DNA analysis of Jomon people.
East Asians and Australasians share the same ancestors but the former isn't derivative of the later.
On the other hand,the Mamanwa have ancestry from both nodes.
academic.oup.com
>Google Ancient genomic DNA analysis of Jomon people
That study supports my claim 100%. Jomon/Ainu evolved from Australoids, but they are distinct populations today. The proper term for them is "Proto-Mongoloid", not Australoid.
>That study supports my claim 100%.
I mistook you for
Jomon are basal to modern East Asian genetic variation(not from the Australiasan branch) and may have split prior to Native Americans.
nature.com
Abos are indians that moved to australia.
Only recently did I begin to read about people of the world and I was surprised to find out that the Australian Abo are not Polynesians, despite I have read on and off about Polynesians.
But even though I felt like I have rediscovered a new world I can't go out show off my ignorance so I have to keep it to myself. Until now. Thanks anonymous history board.
Once I saw a thread on /tv/ talking about the uniqueness of Australian abos.
They were talking about a very very negative uniqueness. They went on to argue that they are a different species in commenting their looks and academic achievement.
...I can't say I disagree with them completely...
they are austronesians from taiwan. austronesians were once australoid, like
/pol/ has these threads debating the ugliest people and its always between the members of australoid race (indians or abos)
The general consensus in Australia about the origins of the Aboriginals is that they show the most genetic similarities to Papuans, who had migrated from other areas in the SEA region. You can see huge similarities between native papuans and the remaining natives in the Andaman islands for instance. They're largely ignored because they invented very little in the 50,000 to 60,000 years they inhabited Australia and are very diverse.
Related I get. But I was surprised because I thought Polynesians came to the region at the same time as them. I didn't know they came there much earlier.
It would be really interesting to argue their current language and society haven't changed much since stone age. Despite its unlikely so.
it's not much difference between north vs south, but there is great variety, and they're spread out throughout the country, you'll find the blackest almost africa looking indian to lighter almost italian looking indians and there is even quite mongol looking ones in the east
thats the same story with ethiopia, thailand or sina. shit even australian abos have superficial whites
the arabs as well as many other asians mixed with the original Australoid asians
Chimps have been chimps for longer than Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been having subdivisions of races. Doesn't mean that they have a lot of discussable history. What you and or OP mean is anthropology, not history.
why are you comparing australoids to apes?
the history of australoids is evident in india, brazil, east asia and old europe
so what are the Elamites?
are they Veddoids?
>oldest race
No, Pygmies and Khoisan are older.
I have no idea why find this fascinating, but I do.
What is the Melanesian connection? Is there one?
melanesians are taiwanese who mixed with papuans (australoids)
Solomon islanders are not Austronesian, coastal Papuans and Fijians are.
Melanesians are now accepted as the founding maritime peoples of the Southeast Asian Island region. To this day we see their genetics in Orang Laut and Malagasy maternal showing a genetic displacement of male populations
Are we actually still using 19th-century "-oid" classifications on this board?
Autists have a fascination with obsolete but absolutely minute categories.
Wtf do they still teach race theory in Universities? That's 30's level shit
Well it is a history board. You'll have to expect some LARPing.
They never recorded shit. The most we have are stories that are treated like a game of chinese whispers.
There are more than 500 aboriginal tribes where about 250 are considered distinct from other tribes, each with their own variations of everything from their mythos to their language. There are over 100 variations of their own language, so a lot of aborigines are unable to talk to one another.
Australians have logged all of this already. They've done their part in preserving it, but honestly, it's hard to express an interest in the history and culture of a race that doesn't understand one another and disagrees on their own history as a race.
Now the maori, there's a race you can take an interest in. They actively preserve their race on their own, but NZ also has done a bunch. In the past 10 years, they've gone from 30,000 of the population speaking Maori, to 125,000. There's 50 tribes or so, but even the tribes that don't live in New Zealand have more or less, exactly the same culture and language.
Then you've got all the tiny islands or Papa New Guina which you hear about even less than Australia or New Zealand.
I think the reason society ignores them all is that you hear jack shit about the southern hemisphere as it is, there's a mess of tribes down there, and so few of them have actually recorded anything. Plus, from what we do know, they didn't do much of anything. It's not like old britannia where there are kings vying for power, or fuedal japan with so much shit going on you can't really tell who is in charge. It's a bunch of fishing and wandering around for kangaroo and shit.