Were the original Buddhists and Buddha himself white?

Why would he have been white?

And you poke fun at coons saying they were fucking Egyptian?

not buddha and the original buddhists themselves, but the earliest depictions of buddha were.

because he was European?

Proof?

YOU'RE
NOT
WHITE
TARA

Liar
eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/06/ancient-herders-from-pontic-caspian.html

t. other

Not that user put he's referring to the fact that the ruling class of India were all Indo-European's they would have been somewhat fairskinned, but not Nordic Ubermensch

>blogspot

Actually, the Buddha probably wasn't a Hindu at all. The Shakyas were culturally on the periphery of Vedic India, so there's no evidence that they practiced Hinduism at that point in time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya#Religion

Not an argument.

livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
>Though relationships between people of different social groups was once common, there was a "transformation where most groups now practice endogamy," or marry within their group, said study co-author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard University.
>Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that while class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago
>Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes

How do you know he wasn't mixed? Better yet how do we know he wasn't one of the many Asians that've resided in Nepal for millenium?

No, but the Tocharians who made this picture were Nordics...

AYO

Alt-Right: Every people have the right to be proud of their heritage.

Also Alt-Right: WE WUZ HINDUS/BUDDHAS/EGYPTIANS/PERSIANS N' SHEEEIT

Indo-Aryans in Tocharia weren't Nordic you fucking dropkick

He was Polish. Deal with it.

But we indeed wuz. Europeans creating India and Persia is a scientific mainstream you know.

You realize that unless you're Greek or Italian, your ancestors were savages literally until about 800 years ago, right?

>light-hair and light-eyed caucasoids
>not nordic
Are you both dumb? Tocharians were Nordics speaking in a Nordic-made Indo-European language...

They spoke and wrote in fucking Persian, when did the Jutes and Danes write in Persian? Kill yourself WUZZER

They had nothing to do with the Nordic countries.

The IE just created the cultural foundations. For Persia from the Achaemenid era and for India from the Mahajanapada period is where their history really begins, which is more than a millennia after.

>american education

>Light hair and light eyed are nordic exclusive traits

There is no original meaning to the word. It's made up.

Tocharians were Eastic if anything since they were the easternmost group of Indo-Europeans and linguistically an outgroup to all other ones except Southic Hittites.

Yes, it literally fucking is, it's 19th century race memeing by your WE WUZ forefathers

They were of Nordic racial type you retard, not Scandinavian.

Nordic racial type = blonde, blue-eyed dolicho/mesocephal. It was also the original race of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
They were racially Nordic.
Wrong. The Nordic Aryan people conquered both what we call now Northern India and Persia and created their civilizations there. The ultimate proof for that is a Nordic R1a haplogroup existing in the both of these countries.

Pic rel: Kurdish man of the Nordic racial type, who belongs to the archaic race of Proto-Indo-Europeans, even if light pigmentation is nowadays rare for his nation.

Dolicho/mesocephaly is also a Nordic trait, and all the Tocharian Caucasoid mumies found had Nordic cephalic index.

>Nordic racial type = blonde, blue-eyed dolicho/mesocephal
No you fucking dipshit, it means Nordic as in the Nordic countries

There is no Nordic race. The real race we're talking about is the steppic race which was a eneolithic fusion of EHG/CHG, thus not really a race to begin with. Nothing to do with Scandinavia.

Nope, he was born in what is now India

Wherever you find these traits you usually find Indo-European steppe admixture, and the original IE were white.

Nordic isnt a race, they are a group of germanic tribes, why you people dont learn their own history?

>and created their civilizations there
Again. The original Aryans didn't amount to much lol.
It's like modern day Bedouins taking credit for Egypt just because they're seemingly more related to the ancients.

>>The Indo-Europeans were Nordic.

Wrong:

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/16/nordicist-fantasies-the-myth-of-the-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-aryans-and-the-origins-of-the-indo-europeans/

They were Near Eastern.

We were.

HOL UP HOL UP HOL UP

If Buddha was Polish, why do Poles keep fish in bath tubs?
Shouldn't they respect all life?

What's more respectful than sharing water with them?

...

DELET
I do have Italo-Greek ancestry tho. 70CE best year of my life.
Also glad to have sacked Rome.

Funny how you make fun of blacks for WE WUZZING when you literally do the exact same thing.

>The real race we're talking about is the steppic race which was a eneolithic fusion of EHG/CHG,
Those types were rather swarthy though due to mixing with Caucasian women, they were nothing like the Corded Ware R1a carriers and their descendants.
Yamna had mixed with swarthy Caucasians, they were not the original Indo-Europeans.

eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/european-blond-hair-may-have-originated.html

In this context, Nordic is a race (general description of how the PIEs looked like).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race
The Nordic (Corded) race is indeed a mix of EHG and CHG phenotype. The main diffrence is that EHG were more broad-faced and primitive looking, while CHG were narrow-faced and more "mediterrenean" looking. A Nordic type is usually narrow-faced and gracile, but robust, wide-faced Nordids also exist.

Cherchen man is an example of a robust, EHG-dominated Nordid.
The original, Nordic Aryans, created India as we know it.
The main "argument" in this article is based on blind belief that Yamna peoples were the original PIEs, and they were not. They had mutation of R1b uncommon outside of Anatolia and Balkans, implying they were just late PIE, Caucasian-mixed culture.

>The original, Nordic Aryans, created India as we know it.
Looking at the Indus Valley Civilization it's obvious that India was going to prosper eitherway. I'd say the caste system and other politics fucked them up in the long run.

>Its principal proponent was Arthur de Gobineau in his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1855)[citation needed]. Though Gobineau did not equate Nordic peoples with Aryans, he argued that Germanic people were the best modern representatives of the Aryan race. Adapting the comments of Tacitus and other Roman writers, he argued that "pure" Northerners regenerated Europe after the Roman Empire declined due to racial "dilution" of its leadership
>Germanic people
Are you actively trying to sabotage your own argument?

topkek

"Additionally, the Indo-Aryans were not blonde Europeans. Blonde Europeans seem to have evolved in Europe in situ over the past 4,000 years due to the admixture of diverse threads, indigenous and exogenous. There are elements of European ancestry (particular EEF) which do not seem to be evident in West Asia or South Asia, suggesting that the origination of Indo-European was complex, and perhaps multi-faceted. The Indo-Aryans had an affinity to the peoples of Europe, but it is a rather circuitous connection. We haven’t unpacked all the details."

gnxp.nofe.me/2015/06/15/the-aryan-invasion-was-not-fantasy/

Ok you are trolling

WE

>persians were nordic
you realise you are literally no different than blacks who think they were ancient egyptians, right?

>Looking at the Indus Valley Civilization it's obvious that India was going to prosper eitherway.
Then why did it fall? Also Indus Valley-dominated India would be much diffrent from the Nordic-conquered Indo-European India.
OK, let's start from the beginning:
>Nordic Indo-Europeans go east and conquer India and what is now called "Xinjiang".
>They also go west and conquer Scandinavia
>Nordids in Xinjiang lose their racial purity
>Nordids in the North don't lose their racial purity.
That's the story, this is why we call Indo-European looking people "Nordics". They did not come from Scandinavia, but Scandinavian Germanics preserved their phenotype the best.
That theory of 4000 years is pathetic. Scythians and Tocharians were definitely blond, brown and red haired, because we have testified them. And if they were light-haired, the Indo-Europeans, their common ancestors, also had to be light-haired.

Let's see, who do I trust?

Geneticist
OR
/pol/tard WE WUZZER?

I mean the Iranic peoples, who became the elite. The common "Persian" people were indeed Middle-Eastern, and beared haplogroups J1 and J2 mostly.

>Mock black people whn they claim that ancient egyptians were black using doubtful evidence
>literally do the same shit

They weren't fucking Nordic you imbecile, the entire point of Nordicism is that Northern Europe was racially exceptional and pure considering the mixing that went on elsewhere, and even that falls on its face because they stopped writing in the Tocharian script when they got to Europe, you don't even know what you're talking about

Buddha wasn't Hindu

He quite clearly stated he was not. Hence, Buddhism.

Maybe trust your mind and try to figure out why were Scythians and Tocharians, a two Indo-European people cut from Europe, light pigmented? They spread before the supposed 3000 year blond hair mutation.
>WE WUZZER
Indo-European conquests are proven by archaeology, anthropology and genetics, and are scientific fact widely recognized. No wewuzzing here.

>They weren't fucking Nordic you imbecile
They were, because they had Nordic skulls and Nordic pigmentation (mostly).
And Scandinavia is indeed, the racially purest Indo-European region nowadays, even if their phenotype originated in Russia.

They conquered India and West/Central/East Europe all the same and mixed with locals.

Buddha wasn't 100% Yamna and Poles aren't either.

Indo-Europeans were neither Europeans nor Iranians nor Indo-Aryans. They were the common ancestor of all these peoples.

What the fuck is so complicated to understand about this?

>Then why did it fall?
Natural calamities .
>Also Indus Valley-dominated India would be much diffrent from the Nordic-conquered Indo-European India.
Yeah linguistically, culturally and genetically to the point where it'd be unimaginable. I'd still say they're worser off as they are now.

My point was that India had potential eitherway, with or without the Indo's. Whether it adapted Indo-European culture (culture doesn't equal civilization btw) or whether they developed their old culture.

this

Andronovo were half Sintashta and half Yamna.

>Indo-Europeans existed
>They became mixed
>Some European fags in the 19th century started WUZing about how they were exactly the same to make up for the fact they never accomplished anything until the fall of Rome
>They call this concept Nordicism
What exactly do you find so hard to understand here? Nordicism is bullshit for WUZers same as kangs

>They conquered India and West/Central/East Europe all the same and mixed with locals.
Yes, I know. That's what I've been saying all along. But before they mixed they were purely Nordid.
>Buddha wasn't 100% Yamna and Poles aren't either.
I've never said such thing, but Buddha was probably more Nordic-influenced, because he was of Noble blood, and the nobility of India was originally Nordic.
>My point was that India had potential eitherway, with or without the Indo's.
Maybe, but it was still the Nordics who created it.

shut the fuck up retard

WE

>What exactly do you find so hard to understand here?
I don't understand why do you deny that people with Nordic skulls, and Nordic pigmentation were not Nordic. We know their pigmentation from genetics and ancient sources on for an example Scythians. And we know their skulls based on... their skulls, which were Nordic.

Video with Indo-European skulls and reconstructions:
youtube.com/watch?v=JIE6Y7s1AOw
What's your problem? If you happen to be an Indian, then you have some percent of Nordic blood as well. This is why you are probably not purely Negroid (Dravidian) looking.

Nordic isn't an ethnicity, it's Indo-European

>Additionally, the Indo-Aryans were not blonde Europeans
But the Sintashta were, and they were the original Indo-Aryan culture. They also were genetically close to modern Europeans.

polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/badasses-of-bronze-age-analysis-of.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture
And Sintashta was a descendant of the blond and blue-eyed European Corded Ware culture, modern Northern Europeans are also approximately half Yamna.

No they weren't.

If you deny that creators of Persia were Nordid Indo-Europeans, then who created it otherwise in your opinion? Which ethnic group? And why does the R1a Nordid haplogroup still exist in Iran? And why did Ancient Persians speak a Nordic-made Indo-European language?
Nordic is a race, but it was the original race of Proto-Indo-Europeans.

No, it isn't a race, no one but retarded white nats believe it is

>No, it isn't a race, no one but retarded white nats believe it is
Race is a social construct for their general look.

"Nordic" is a shortcut for "light-eyed, light-haired, light-skinned, dolicho/mesocephalic tall individual".

And this is how the Proto-Indo-Europeans looked like.

>Vedic India, along with other Indo-Aryans, speaks a language and practices a religion with contemporaries throughout Europe
>we're fairly certain that the Vedic would have come from up North, at least to Ukraine if you take the most common accepted urheimat to the Indo-Europeans
>you can go there TODAY and see that North Indians are much more like Caucasian Persians than Dravidians
Yes, Buddha was white by a reasonable standard, probably not white enough for /int/, and it's nothing even remotely close to Egyptian WE WUZ.

>>Continue to post links to sites like "Polish genes" and "EuroGenes"
>>Expect us to take you seriously as an objective source.

Take your WE WUZZING back to /pol/. This isn't your safe space.

>"Nordic" is a shortcut for "light-eyed, light-haired, light-skinned, dolicho/mesocephalic tall individual"
No, it's a fucking meme from the 19th century focused solely on Northern European genetics, it ignores Slavic or South Europeans with the same features

>>Try to appeal to genetic studies
>>Call Dravidians "Negroid"

No.

Next question.

>safe space
Come now, you're the one denying known facts. Sintashta culture was an offshoot of the European Corded Ware culture, both genetically and culturally. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they looked like.

But you do realize polishgenes is citing the genetists like Haak, Keyser, Allentoft Mathieson?

So it is much better source than your "notpoliticallyincorrect.me"
>it ignores Slavic or South Europeans with the same features
It doesn't. Slavs are even more Nordic than for an example Germans, especially Russians.
What race are they then? I'm not an expert on Non-Whites and Non-Nordids, so I may be wrong on them.

They looked like a mixture of Yamna-Sredny Stog and Neolithic farmers.

>If you deny that creators of Persia were Nordid Indo-Europeans, then who created it otherwise in your opinion?
iranic peoples.

>And why does the R1a Nordid haplogroup still exist in Iran?
if R1a is nordic then why is its highest current concentration found in poland instead of in nordic countries?

>And why did Ancient Persians speak a Nordic-made Indo-European language?
>Nordic-made
lmao.

>>So it is much better source than your "notpoliticallyincorrect.me"

You realize all his sources are linked in the article proper, yes?

>>What race are they then?

Dravidians are an ancestral Caucasoid population.

They weren't any different from Corded Ware racially, explaining their closeness to modern Europeans.

>Maybe, but it was still the Nordics who created it.
Can the Egyptians say they created the West because Greeks copied their culture?

>iranic peoples.
And Iranian peoples were originally Nordic, just like Scythians, the UNMIXED IRANIAN PEOPLES.
>if R1a is nordic then why is its highest current concentration found in poland instead of in nordic countries?
Because Poland was historically Nordic, now it's mixed with races like "Alpine" and "Dinaric"., because of the process called "brachycephalization".

The most of Poles are still light-eyed, and light-haired tho, but they have diffrent skull shape (much shorter than the original Indo-Europeans had).
>Nordic-made
Yes, I've already given you some reconstructions of Proto-Indo-Europeans here: Pic rel: Polish woman of an unmixed Nordic type.