I know nothing about India. But how come North Indians are both lighter and looks diffetent than South Indians?
India
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Dravidians and Southeast Asians share a common genetic ancestor.
It's unknown what human subspecies this ancestor was, but it's believed that this common ancestor contributed to the dark skin and short height of Indians and Southeast Asians.
Eventually Mongoloids types migrated south into Southeast Asia and mixed. Persian types migrated east to India and mixed. Contributed to more height and lighter skin.
And /pol/yps how come South India which has most darkest peoples are more sucessfull then North?
/pol/ thread
/pol/ reply
Waves of migration into the North West from the Iranian plateau
Also social stratification thanks to BASED Indo-Aryans
Pakis tend to be fairer given their proximity to W Asia and Iran
Once you get to S India you're talking archaic abbo
Allegedly some of the people who used to inhabit the Indus Valley Civilization fled when the IE came and the ones that stayed mixed with them so they have more influence.
>Persian types migrated east to India and mixed.
As a generalization yes but it's not only Persians but a few other groups like the Hephtalites and Scythians. Most invaders would get stopped at the Punjab region and they'd settle there.
it's more noticeable for groups like Rajputs, Jatts and Gujars etc who are usually much taller and wider than most people.
Tbh South India has always been better than the North anyway, all dumb memes about looks aside.
And by the time the social stratification started everybody was already sort of mixed.
North Indians are gypsies
Aryans north vs Dravidians south
Nice meme
IE emmigration to the north of india
location on a crossroad of indian ocean trade routes maybe?
>meme
Melanin levels (color of the skin) is altered by the Sun over multiple generations.
what does sikkim being bright red signify?
both shit in the street.
You probably came up with that all by yourself, didn't you?
This is pathetic
You misspelled "accurate."
Because of arbitrary borders as the result of British colonialism lumping different groups together
My understanding of British India was that they mostly just took over existing states, they didn't do the shit that happened in Africa and the Middle East.
I also highly fucking doubt a few hundred years of British imperialism would make such a radical difference in appearance.
You actually don't know what you're talking about and don't even pretend to
Pretty much. A lot of territory they took in one way or another from the Mughals, some areas were straight-up conquests, others mostly autonomous princely states.
...
But they then lumped them altogether
Still superior.
It's almost like an entire (sub)continent has variations in phenotype between populations or something.
What is superior to what?
Tajikistan be like
South India>North India.
Both are garbage compared to Pakistan.
Butthurt Paki confirmed.
How would kazakhstan be like then?
its basically like how hawaii is for america, strateegically important and was an independent kingdom that just decided one day to join the federation
They are turks
The paler Indians had ancestors which were indoors like scholars and administrators and the darker one were daylabor. Southerners have more sun but there is still an interval of skin tones via both geographic and caste/pedigree.
What you know about aryan invasion?
Every single Paki I have ever met looks like a North Indian then.
Seriously, idk why Pakis sperg out when people say they are Indians. They're basically the same people.
t. Pajeet
Tajiks, beluji and pashtuns of pakistan =/ north indians
Panjabi = north indians
Because India isn't a massively homogenous nation state.
/thread
Do you think Pashtuns look like Indians?
actually gypsies originated in central india
>hawaii just decided one day to join
ALL Indians are gypsies.
what is this? eugenics for ants?!
/POL/ POL/ POL/ /POL/ OMG GUYS A THREAD I DON'T LIKE IT HAS TO BE /POL/ OH NO REPLIES TO THE OP GO BACK TO /POL/.!
/POL/ OH NOOOOO
Explain this
Gypsies are gypsies. They're mixed with Indian and European blood and are thus a special, integral part of European society.
Some of the ones I've met could pass as North Indians yes. But more specifically states like Punjab and Rajasthan
And how is it wrong?
And you are not real Dominican, he's not mentioning /pol/
South Indians are Dravidian and the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization. North Indians are descended from Aryan invaders. It's not that cut and dry; the country is filled with countless groups with varying degrees of mixture but that's the broad outline.
Interestingly enough, the Southerners seem more intelligent and civilized.
Migrants not invaders.
Could someone ban this nigga?
>gypsies and integral in the same sentence
>being too lazy/unskilled to draw a new character for Indians
>resorting stealing the Med one from /pol/
Embarrassing.
>implying it's not a /pol/ falseflag
>Aryans decided to invade everywhere else in the whole eurasian continent
>decide not to invade India
Yeah okay
It's probably a mix of both imo.
>subspecies
Homo sapiens sapiens. You know, modern humans. Stupid faggot.
This
Literally everyone in high school thought I was a Muslim, it was annoying as shit
Telling you this because I'm looking out for you m8. You should delete this ASAP.
50/50 what?
It's really funny whenever Muslims try to LARP as white
That's only self-hating diaspora. Most of us in our native home despise you wh*Te subhumans.
>T*rk trying to speak for Pakistanis
But I am Paki.
>inb4 we wuz
A lot of our actors look like us. That pic was probably made from some retarded diaspora.
t. Punjabi shitskin
Mad whitey.
So you admit Pathans are white, good!
>just decided one day to join the federation
Wrong. Extremely wrong and ignorant.
Read a textbook about Hawai'i
Pathans are based but they can pass off as anything from sometimes white to usually brown. Very diverse people desu.
...
really want a qt indian gf desu
Consider suicide instead
You making fun of >myancestor:) ?
no! i won't give up!
>South India has always been better than the North anyway
Not in this case
Wrong
True
Cringeworthy
True
Not really
Retardedly stupid
Not even remotely
This
>Indians haven't been selectively breeding themselves through the caste system
Backward caste butthurt detected
Brahmin privilege is a self fulfilling prophecy.
What? If you're some poondian don't even bother responding
Norther Indians are paler because less sunlight up north. However north and south Indians with the same vocations in their ancestry ie caste will be the paler if they are white collar or darker if they are blue collar compared to their own category. The responsive to sunlight is inherited and is more prevalent in the peasants outside getting tans.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read this year. Congratulations. Now go shit somewhere on the street.
>you
Nigga I'm fucking brown and I own it, it's just funny that they don't
aryan vs dravidian split. most of north is aryan, most of sort is dravidian. south is more successful because southern brahmins (aryans) are generally titans of industry and leaders of society, and are smarter than their northern counterparts. thats the simplified answer
>southern brahmins (aryans)
WE (????)
Why do all threads about India end up full of Pajeets shitting all over themselves?
Just take a look at any of the other threads, people at least offer a speck of historical evidence and scientific fact to bolster their arguments. With Pajeets its always stupid shit like
>south smarter than north
>south uglier than north
>sitting inside homes makes people fairer
What the fuck do they teach you guys in school? Jesus
How do you know he's indian?
It's true actually.
Not even a pajeet by most objective measures the Dravidian South is better than the Aryan North
Southern 'brahmins' aren't generally smarter than most people. Most of the great thinkers from there in the past few centuries have been common folk.
That could be true, in fact I'll even take you on your word. The thing that pisses me off is when Pajeets start babbling about the whys and wherefores, the "this caste is best", "dravid smarter than aryan" bullshit.
Anyway, isn't the capital of India in the North, and isn't the media, politics dominated by the North.
nah just brahmins who migrated south. there are no native southern brahmin sorry i didn't mean to imply this
nah im not indian. im australian, but my cousin married a pajeet and i spend a good summer learning abt this shit
look at gdp, quality of life, life expectancy and every other metric. south beats out the north in most ways.
capital is in the north, but northern media dominates north, and southern media dominates south. that is to say the cultures are different and much more localised and decentralised.
Jesus fuck, I'm not disputing any of that, I'm talking about the reasoning being put forward
i don't care about hawaii
>But how come North Europeans are both lighter and looks diffetent than South Europeans?
Gee, what do you think?
They're not that lighter. It's more caste based than geography based.
>They're not that lighter.
Depends on where you go. Where I'm from the first is kind of average for most girls here.
I'd say there are two gradients: one north-south, and one high caste-low caste. But the high caste-low caste one is more pronounced. It's not very hard to pick out upper castes in Tamil Nadu. It's harder to say if someone is from the north or the south.
Really? I and most people I know have no problem discerning which state somebody is from most of the time so that's new to me. Caste is a bit harder because dalits have a lot of upper caste blood so i guess >It's not that cut and dry; the country is filled with countless groups with varying degrees of mixture but that's the broad outline.
Is true to an extent.