How come fair-featured Indo-European people have been traditionally associated with purity...

How come fair-featured Indo-European people have been traditionally associated with purity? Particularly in Persian and Dharmic cultures?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swayamvara
nature.com/articles/jhg20082
eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/european-blond-hair-may-have-originated.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

ah valmiki,krishna and draupadi, the whitest people with pure nordic genes

>"Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is a term meaning "noble", which was used as a self-designation by Indo-Iranian people.
>The word was used by the Indic people of the Vedic period in India as an ethnic label for themselves and to refer to the noble class as well as the geographic region known as Āryāvarta,

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

probably because it's some cultural relic from the migration period of I-E's into South Asia and Persia and they'd mingle with the borderline-black natives and so light skin literally meant being a part of the ruling class, which gets passed down and projected onto socioeconomic/beauty standards today

probably also some of the generic Asian line of thinking that dark skin= exposed to sun from working in the fields to and light skin = cushy, wealthy life

There's nothing about the upper class being fairer on average. It's baseless conjecture from Nordicist scum.

So since we’re on the topic can I ask a question?
Am I incorrect in thinking that Slavic people came from Indo-Iranian people (Scythians) that circled back into Europe?

Nah

Slavs are just weird Germanics mixed with Uralic and Iranic weirdos iirc in modern day Eastern Europe

They haven't, you just made that up. For example, in persia black hair was considered to be a sign of nobility.

Well, the original PIE were fair-featured, and they migrated South Asia and gave the people their religion, and the Aryan men and their mixed children became the new ruling class for a while.
Stormniggers will claim that this demonstrates the superiority of the Nordic man, but everywhere the Aryans developed a complex civilization, there was already a complex civilization before they arrived (cf. Minoan Crete, Etruria, Indus Valley Civilization). Note that the mountainous regions of Afghanistan, where haplogroup R1a appears at a rate as high as 50%, have basically no achievements to speak of, even though they are some of the most solidly Indo-European areas in South Asia according to genetics.
The Aryans weren't a particularly impressive people compared to the advanced civilizations they attacked or took control of. They were successful because they invented the chariot and probably horseback riding, they enshrined warfare and heroism, they had a hierarchical, patriarchal society where chieftains were allowed multiple wives, a surprisingly complex religion and set of oral traditions for a pre-literate people, and were probably vicious enough to kill or enslave most of the male population wherever they went (except maybe for some socially useful scribes or bureaucrats), so that they would have exclusive access to the women.

Why do East Asians share the belief that fairer skin = more pure/nobler/better then?

Slavs barely mixed with either, stop lying

I'm calling bullshit. how can a feature that 95% of human beings have be considered as a sign of nobility?

>snownigger thinks he would be called aryan
mlecchas out.

Nordics are just Danes and Scandi. Germans are literal mongrels.

I think you are confusing things here. The Achaemenid family's name in Old Persian has something to do with being called the "Black Hairs" but nothing to do with the denominator or description of black hair itself being noble. Most of the nobles were branch family members for Iranians relating from the locking Kavi, kinglets in the early years of Indo-Iranian migration into Iran.

Where is the proof?

>and the Aryan men and their mixed children became the new ruling class for a while.
This wouldn't be until an entire millennia afterwards. The caste system is just a degenerate form of varna.

Slavs are less mixed than Germanics.

East Asians are Nordicists, you racist. Indo Europeans are not associated with fair features at all. All those descriptions, genetic studies and burials dug up in Central Asia were conjured up by racist Nordicists who need to go back to /pol/.

because rich people staid indoors while poor people worked in the fields. There's a huge difference in skin color even today between chinese people who live in cities and chinese people who live in rural areas and work outdoors. The former are paler then whites and the latter are as dark as indians

>paler then whites
"No"

>This wouldn't be until an entire millennia afterwards
I very much doubt this, it can't be a coincidence that the highest caste is almost exclusively Indo-European in terms of Y-DNA

Chinks are yellow, they can't be as pale as whites

>Everybody was allowed to marry each other until it was officially banned later.
Probably not, otherwise the upper castes wouldn't be so disproportionately Indo-European.

>Probably not, otherwise the upper castes wouldn't be so disproportionately Indo-European.
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.

The IE did have an elevated position but the original varna was based around social classes and not really on keeping genetic 'purity'. Classes were determined by the work you had and wasn't necessarily determined by birth.

>disproportionately
The whole population is literally just a mix between the too. I doubt most foreigners could tell the difference between most.

>upper castes are a monolithic entity.
>jats and punjabis are more upper castes than a kulin brahmin.
jej

>but the original varna was based around social classes and not really on keeping genetic 'purity'.
Even if that was true the Indo-Europeans were very patriarchal so it would've only been high caste Indo-European males marrying women from other non-Indo-European castes.
>wasn't necessarily determined by birth.
Dravidian lies.
They are a monolith in the sense of having mostly Indo-European Y-DNA.

Yeah, how about you show proofs that upper castes have higher amounts of IE DNA than lower caste indians across the entire subcontinent instead of it being based geographically

>R1a1a1 is present among both higher (Brahmin) castes and lower castes, although the presence is substantially higher among Brahmin castes.[1][39]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

Huh? The Swayamvara involved the father inviting all eligible bachelors and the daughter being \ allowed to choose who would be her groom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swayamvara

Shudras could marry Brahmins and vice versa.

>In South Asia, R1a1a has often been observed with high frequency in a number of demographic groups.[38][37]

>In India, high frequencies of this haplogroup is observed in West Bengal Brahmins (72%)[37] to the east, Gurajat Lohanas (60%) [3] to the west, Khatris (67%)[3] in the north and Iyengar Brahmins (31%)[37] in the south. It has also been found in several South Indian Dravidian-speaking Adivasis including the Chenchu (26%) and the Valmikis of Andhra Pradesh and the Kallar of Tamil Nadu suggesting that R1a1a is widespread in Tribal Southern Indians.[11]

Besides these, studies show high percentages in regionally diverse groups such as Manipuris (50%)[3] to the extreme North East and among Punjabis (47%)[11] to the extreme North West.

>In Pakistan it is found at 71% among the Mohanna tribe in Sindh province to the south and 46% among the Baltis of Gilgit-Baltistan to the north.[3] Among the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka, 23% were found to be R1a1a (R-SRY1532) positive.[85] Hindus of Chitwan District in the Terai region Nepal show it at 69%.[86]

Its literally castes all over the spectrum you sperg. Apart from bengali brahmins who immigrated to bengal in the 11th century the percentages vary primarily by groups. The two groups of 60% ones based in gujarat are low caste traders.

Most Brahmins and high caste people are R1a though, whereas most low caste people are indigenous Dravidians. The pattern is obvious but some delusional people such as you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

>most
the survey specifically demolishes your idea that certain castes have more higher indo european ancestry with the higher the better.
Iyengar brahmins don't have remotely the same amount as R1a1a dna as brahmins and have much lower r1a1a ones than lower caste gujaratis who coincidentally lived in some of the biggest trade hubs in india.

>Most Brahmins and high caste people are R1a though,
They're 40% R1a. For comparison, tribals are 20% by themselves and they're as far away as you can get from the IE. There's really not that much of a difference between upper and lower caste and I'm saying that as an upper-caste guy.

>whereas most low caste people are indigenous Dravidians
What? From my own experiences I've seen a lot more lower caste Punjabis that look more ""Aryan"" than legit Southern Brahmins.

>They're 40% R1a
Dravidian lies
Iyengar Brahmins are the exception, not the rule, as they are of recent Dravidian origin.

wait for the dumbass snownigger to call your ancestor a cuck and you a mongrel.
what's your caste and where are you from.

>100% pure indo european genes

Butthurt Dravidians such as you can’t deal with the fact that Indo-Europeans subjugated you and therefore do mental gymnastics such as this to convince yourself that Dravidian men didn’t get thoroughly disenfranchised by Indo-European invaders.

nature.com/articles/jhg20082
>Comparison of Brahmins and scheduled castes/tribals

>The percentage distribution of haplogroups (Supplementary Table 1) in Brahmins (n=256) showed a total of six most frequent (percentage >5%) haplogroups: R1a1* (40.63%), J2 (12.5%), R2 (8.59%), L (7.81%), H1 (6.25%) and R1* (5.47%),

>Tribals and scheduled castes (n=254) also showed six haplogroups: H1 (31.10%), R1a1* (20.47%), J2 (10.24%), L (7.87%), H* (7.87%) and O (6.69%),

I'm not doxxing myself here desu.

>butthurt dravidians
kek. I am a bengali brahmin.
>stating your caste is doxxing.
user please.

Nowhere in that page does it say that castes could intermarry in such a way.

Most sources state over 70%

>most sources
where?

Well at least this one is peer-reviewed.

Kshatriya. That's all I'm giving.

I didn't ask you for your district.

I livei n australia I know what I'm talking about.

Dravidians aren't indigenous to north india

> Indo Europeans are not associated with fair features at all.
How can you be so fucking wrong?

>Well, the original PIE were fair-featured,
Wrong

Common sense would tell that the upper castes have mostly R1a due to the fact that Indo-European elite dominance is how South Asia got Indo-Europeanized, and their extreme patriarchality would’ve meant that no foreign males could’ve infiltrated their ranks. It is obvious that R1a in Brahmins is due to a founder effect, whereas R1a in tribals and other non high caste people is from rapebabies.

>common sense
yeah, too bad you lack any.

They were, though.

Wrong

>this one late PIE culture mixed with caucasian women
>therefore the original Indo-Europeans weren’t blond and blue eyed

What I said makes perfect sense if you’re aware of Indo-European history.

>they were all blond haired and blue eyed.
>also we wuz sarmatians.

So do I. They might be paler if you're comparing the palest of the palest Chinks to the average sun-tanned Australian, but compare an untanned White with an untanned Chink and the White will always be paler. Chinks have that yellowish skin tone that can't be hidden.

no. You are pulling shit out of your ass and thinking it is common sense. Caste has very little to do with indo european genetic heritage since the regions in western india have a much higher amount of central asian genetic material since it was the closest to that region

I thought it was pretty much confirmed that blonde hair, blue eyes, and pale skin came from the Indo-europeans

>It is obvious that R1a in Brahmins is due to a founder effect, whereas R1a in tribals and other non high caste people is from rapebabies.
But caste wasn't as strict as you think. If there was a person that showed that they had talent they would be elevated to a higher caste.
>muh rapebabies
Is a disgusting, dumb word.

True PIE cultures such as Khvalynsk that had both R1 clades and were 100% EHG and therefore blonde and blue eyed.

>Khvalynsk
It's funny how wewuzzer are now claiming them instead of the yamna since we know how the yamna looked. It will go the same way with the khvalynsk btw

EHG had mixed hair and eye colors. Blonde hair and blue eyes was not the the dominant phenotype.

Actually Yamnaya was "abandoned" because the R1b subclades found in Yamnaya samples did not fit with the steppe hypothesis. Yamnaya was definitely Indo-European, but it wasn't the core PIE culture.

Of course it doesn’t have much to do with Indo-European auDNA anymore since the Indo-Aryan invaders miscegenated with local women, their Y-DNA is all that remains in practice but
it still shows a pattern that favors R1a.
It was very strict originally as it was in all ancient Indo-European societies, perhaps they got more lax with it over time as they attained more Dravidian genes from their women.

it was abandoned because snowniggers brain can't compute anything but varg tier ideas

Yes it was, PIE being dark is a baseless fantasy.

I never said that PIE was "dark". I am simply refuting your claim that EHG was blonde-haired and blue-eyed when in actuality it had mixed pigmentation, i.e. hair colours ranging from dark to blonde and eye colours ranging from brown to blue.

>It was very strict originally as it was in all ancient Indo-European societies
It wasn't even banned offically until two millennia ago how could it be strict >Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago.
>The Rigveda, a nearly 3,500-year-old collection of hymns written in Sanskrit, a North Indian language, mentions chieftains with South Indian names.
>South Indian names
Surely I don't need to explain to you the Aryan-Dravidian linguistic split?

> perhaps they got more lax with it over time as they attained more Dravidian genes from their women
Maybe not.

They were primarily light haired and eyed, that is what matters. Also I doubt that even the darkest EHG individuals were genuinely swarthy, as in black hair and dark brown eyes, but had light hair from the darker end of the spectrum and hazel / amber eyes.

>They were primarily light haired and eyed
Source? I have read otherwise.

>It wasn't even banned
They enforced that type of system in every place they conquered, I doubt they made an exception on you.

Germans are mixed with Slavs. not the other way around.

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

EHG is ANE + WHG

stay mad frenchie

t. pole

But what proof do you have?

Your wealth in the Vedic Age was determined by the number of cattle you had. If you had plenty you were an aristocrat no matter your lineage lol.

>WHG were likely blue eyed, dark haired and dark skinned, while EHG probably had variable eye coloring, but lighter hair and skin than WHG.
In other words, exactly what I wrote? EHG had mixed eye colours and mixed hair colours. And no, that link does not say once that blonde hair and blue eyes were dominant in EHG. All it says is that EHG was "lighter haired" than WHG, which is true, but not exactly meaningful since WHG was entirely dark-haired. Even being 10% blonde would be "lighter" than WHG.

Again, I'm not trying to say that EHG were swarthoids, but I am still waiting for proof that shows they were PRIMARILY blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

dude he is pulling shit out of his ass.

>EHG had mixed eye colours and mixed hair colours
With mixed he probably meant this No modern Northern European (Europeans with most EHG heritage) has truly dark, as in black hair. The darkest shade of hair to be found in modern Northern Europe is light by the rest of the world's standards. You must remember that light hair is a spectrum, I never said that every single EHG were platinum blond.
>And no, that link does not say once that blonde hair and blue eyes were dominant in EHG
Because it can't be said for certain yet. But as EHG is the source of light hair in modern Europeans then it probably was dominant.
>I'm not trying to say that EHG were swarthoids, but I am still waiting for proof that shows they were PRIMARILY blonde-haired and blue-eyed.
Fair enough.

Yeah I'm done here anyways.

Indo-European invaders were always patriarchal and patrilinear, that is my source.

How comes Polish subhumans are toilet cleaners and their women cumdumpsters if THEY WUZ KANGZ ?

How come Indians shit on the streets if they're Aryans?

lack of access to running water.

Your faggotry is getting out of hand.

for the same reason as in east asia, north africa, south east asia, europe and arab countries

If you had fair skin then that traditionally meant that you had been in the sun less because you were higher class and so did not need to work outside in the hot sun and get tanned.

It's very simple. that's all their is too it. Noble people had fairer skin because they did not need to work outside in the sun so fairer skin became associated with nobility.

Explain

>Well, the original PIE were fair-featured
Wrong

Wrong again

>this one late PIE culture mixed with WHG
>therefore the original Indo-Europeans weren’t dark haired and brown eyed

Your dear Corded Ware Culture is 80% Yamanaya thus mixed with Caucasian Women too

See Swarthoids don't get to claim PIE simply because light Indo-European men stole some women from the Caucasus.

Your dear ancestors were literal mongoloids with small dicks, no wonder modern-day Finns have such small dicks on average.

>modern-day Finns

I'm the Frenchguy guy not the Finnishguy


>Swarthoids don't get to claim PIE simply because light Indo-European
>light Indo-European


The Swarthoid R1bulls in Khavlynsk owned 80% of the copper objects, snownnigger were literally the slaves of the R1bulls

>Swarthoid R1bulls
>in Khavlynsk
horrible bait, they were fully EHG just as their R1a cousins

also I don't get why you fetishize the fact that Yamna mixed with swarthy Caucasian women, you have practically nothing to do with either CHG or EHG anyway

I see now why hitler wanted to gas poles

Kavlynsk R1b is basal to Yamnaya, furthermore Yamnaya is 57% Khvalynsk autosomally-wise

>Europeans will be bread out in 100 years
>Iranians, paki and indians will be the only pure indo Europeans

It doesn't need to be explained.

>relevant R1b is found all over Europe even before Indo-Europeans moved their ass from the steppe
>relevant R1a is only found in Ukraine
HUR DUR, R1B KANGZ WE WUZ DA RULARS YA HEAR ME KANGZ

If anything it points out that R1a were actual Indo-Europeans and R1b got simply Indo-Europenized.

cuz the Vedas are the greatest piece of philosophy and religion ever conceived by humanity

/thread.

Because Dravidians are obviously superior.