Hinduism Exposed

[beanpie]

Hinduism Exposed
by Dr. Robert A. Morey

http://www.british-israel.ca/hinduism.htm

[edited because of fair-use policies]

[Sarpedon]

What is your purpose for posting this absurd and shallow essay? Your only comment comes in the form of the "bug-eyed smiley" at the end. Does this mean that you do not agree with the author? or does it mean that you are as shocked by (his fabricated version of) hinduism as he is? Judging from the use of words like "demonic, sodomy, Sin, Savior," etc I assume this is a christian paper. My only comment is to use WinAce's

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/pot_kettle.jpg


Tell us why you put this here, and you may get more discussion.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by beanpie
by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Ah, Morey. A familiar name. An evangelical Christian, and author of the erroneous claim that the god of Islam was originally a moon god.

[Viti]

beanpie, it is against the rules here, and possibly the law, to copy and paste an entire article.

[beanpie]

Since it is considered un-lawful to "cut and paste", I shall send you directly, to the site of the "Dalits", whom the religion of Hinduism oppreses the most. http://dalitstan.community.everyone.net/community/scripts/topics.pl?NodeID=331624&ClientID=26522

And oh yes, Mr. Morey was incorrect when he stated Muslims prayed to "Hubal".

[Sarpedon]

(sigh) I wonder what will happen when Shivalinga responds to this, he is doubtless crafting a long winded reply.

Ernest: "Eat Miak and die, troll!"

[Viti]

So beanpie, do you have any thoughts of your own? What is your opinion? What would you like us to discuss here?

[shivalinga]

hmmm, the basic mythos of the uneducated based
on 19th century propaganda by colonialists as an excuse
for their oppression,i.e white mans burden.

Hinduism is one of the oldest pre-Christian pagan religions still viable in the world today. While we think of it as the faith of Mother India, it actually traces it origins to a mysterious tribe of Europeans called the Aryans who invaded and conquered Northern India from 1500 BC to 500 BC. The light-skinned Brahmins of Northern India claim to be their physical and spiritual descendants.

that is the creation of propagandists in the 19th century,
and has lost all credibility since.
essentially through the study of sanskrit,the "hindu"
mother tongue, it was discovered that all(al but a couple)
european languages were related to sanskrit,
not hebrew as was the prevelant mythology,
the older a language was (greek) the more it resembled
sanskrit,the conclusion is that sanskrit was connected
to europe at a very early time, so they concocted
a history,they used the "hindu" Veda's, as their source,
and claimed the people who wrote the Vedas
were the "aryans", and that they invaded europe,
the middle east,and persia and india,originally
coming from somewhere between scandanavia
and armenia, they had no evidence to support
this history,and with todays study of the Vedas
we learn there is no mention of any place outside
of India ,and by astronomical calculations
of various star and planet configurations in the
Vedas we are now able to date them to
at least 8,000 years old.

this was done with the notion of keeping the european
roots being more related to india then christians
would like to believe hidden and obscure,and to
keep public support for the colonial domination
of india.Much as been written on this topic,
the good doctor simply has not done his homework.

As for racism, the "hindu gods" were almost all
dark skinned,Krishna means blackish,so is shiva,
etc, while the goddess was generally light skinned.

Racism is not a "hindu" concept,is it ?
The Vedic concept is that light skin
was looked at as a sign of not having to work,thereby
not getting suntanned,or dark, therefore
light skinned people were considered higher
class,not becasue they had light skin,because
that meant they were well off, also they
had the same view of overweight people,
overweight people were seen as a sign of good luck,
again because that meant they had more then enough
to eat .

that original "hindu" concept,became perverted,
so today many believe in a prejudice way,
not based on race though,based on skin tone,
one may believe that a light skinned person
has better "karma",not that he is intrinsically
a lower type of human,like racism
in the west.

As for preaching in Africa, there are many who do just
that,the western racist view is that dark skinned
people are a lower form of humanity,the hindu form of racism
(not universal) is that lighter skinned people
just performed better karma in their last life,
and the pure educated hindus,dont believe
that at all,the actual hindu scriptures say
in this age all are born equally lame.

the caste system is a perversion of an earlier
system called Varna-Ashrama-Dharma,
which taught that society is naturaly
split into different divisions,
and that people at an early age instead of going
through many years of learning things they
will never use or remember,their propensity
would be encouraged and they would spend more time
learning what they were naturally more inclined
to like.

for example,you go to school and learn
math,science,grammar etc,all throughout
grammer school and high school,
but msotly all that you learned turned out to be
a waste of time, some may go on to use math,others
grammar,others science,but everyone is forced
into all these things,and later forget 90%,
in the vedic system this was not done,
a person was guided to learn more specifics
at an earlier age so he wouldn't waste
his youth doing useless busy work,
this was in an age of non technology,
and was not meant for this day and age,
any way the caste system gradually
became the perverted form of the original
system,based on birth rather then inclination,
based on social standing rather then communalism.

So it's not the religion thats to blame,
its the lack of it,and in the rest of the world we
see the same thing ,just not as out in the open,
especially among the rich.


then you he goes on about 'child sacrifice,etc',
none of these things were part of the religion,
they were societies ills, is the christianity to blame
for the Mafia ? the Ku Klux Klan,is judaism to blame
for the mafiya ? is buddhism to blame
for the triads and yakuza,people may use religion
as an excuse for abherrant behaviour,but
the Vedic religion did not promote any of things
he claims,those actions were always done
by cultists,and extremists,just as christians
killed native americans,enlaved africans,etc,for their own good ? for making america
a christian country.



1. Hinduism denies the existence of the infinite/personal triune God of the Bible who exists independent of and apart from the universe which He created out of nothing. It is atheistic in this sense

there is no religion called "hinduism",there are many religions
in india,you can find every philosophy under the sun,
including a personal transcendant god,in fact
85 % of "hindus" are Vaishnavas,Vishnu worshippers,
they are strict mono theists,and they are Panen-theistic,
which is that God is the world, and God is also transcendent
to the world,which in fact is what many christians,jews and other faiths also believe,they do not believe god created the "world"
out of nothing,which is an oxymoron,they believe God created
the world out of ...God.


Hinduism never solved the problem of the One and Many or the infinite/personal dichotomy.

again,there is no such thing as 'hinduism' as a religion,
you can find that philosophy also, known under various
names,Bhedabheda,Vishishtadvaita,Dvaitadvaita,etc,
all meaning one and different, or panentheism,
God is everything,God is also a person controlling everything,
god also exist as your "soul mate" god also takes
human birth "avatar".




. Those Hindus who emphasize the One over the Many, teach Monism (All is One) and pantheism (All is God), erasing any distinction between Creator and creation. "God" is an impersonal infinite force or power which manifest itself as the universe around us. The "things" we see around us do not really exist per se. They are only illusions of the One. This is what the high caste Hindus teach the Westerners who come to India in search of "enlightenment."

85 % are panentheists,,not monists, or pantheists,see previous stuff,Hans Kung one of the worlds pre-eminent christian
theologins compared christian dogma with islam,judaism
and hinduism and buddhism,in his famous book,
his conclusion was that the panentheistic Vaishnava
religion was closer to christianity then any other philosophy,
and even went as far to say that it was superior to christianity
because it could explain better the basic flaw in christian dogma,
" why is there inequality ? why are some born rich and beautiful,other poor and lame ? "



The vast majority of Hindus do not follow the Brahmin doctrine of monism. Instead of emphasizing the One over the Many, they emphasize the Many over the One and practice the most vile forms of polytheism imaginable in which they worship millions of gods and goddesses. It is said that the Hindus worship more gods and goddesses than the total number of Hindus who exist today. They worship snakes, monkeys, elephants, crocodiles, cats, insects and other absurdities.

Brahmins are not monists,Brahmins are the priest caste,
monism is a philosophy,not a caste,many uneducated people
read some monist 'hindu' theology and believe their propaganda
that their view is "hindusim",in fact that school of thought
is the newest school of thought and was established
in the 7th century a.d.(or thereabouts),and as i said 85%
of "hindus" are not monists,including brahmins.

hindus are not polytheists,that is a misconception,
the "devas" or god's, are Demi-gods,in fact that philosophy
is the origin of angel theology in the biblical tradition,
the "devas" are not Gods,they are Gods helpers, or
'heavenly hosts", all "hindus' regardless of a particular
belief, are mono theists, either panentheists or monists.

Why does the Universe exist as opposed to not existing? Since it cannot answer this question, Hinduism simply denies the existence of the world around us. It is an illusion (maya) or dream.

the world exists as Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita,
the "hindu bible" "I am the source of both the material and spiritual worlds,i am the seed giving father of all living entities,
I am the beginning,the middle and the end,everything rests on me like pearls on a thread, this material world is comprised
of my inferior energy,the living soul `is comprised of my superior
energy,etc,etc,etc.

so god claims he created the world, out of himself,Maya is the illusion
created by god that hides this truth,the monists have their own
interpretation of Krishna's words, but again,85% of "hindus"
take Krishna at his word.

Is the universe eternal or did it have a beginning? Hinduism has always taught that the universe is eternal. But this has been successfully refuted by modern science. This also exposes an inherent contradiction within Hinduism. If the universe does not exist but is illusionary in nature, how then is it eternal? How can Hinduism speak of the universe going through eternal cycles if the universe does not exist?

Maya is not that the world does not exist,but that the world
is an illusion,like a magicians trick,for instance
the television to an infant may appear to be
a real thing,the t.v. shoiw happening in the box in his house,
that is an illusion, so this world is Maya,it appears
to be one thing,but in fact it is something different,
not that it doesn't exist,that again is monist dogma,
theydon't actually say this world doesn't exist,they say
it is temporary,we are eternal,therefore the world
as reality is an illusion.


\the rest of his stuff is along the same line of thought,
essentialy he has take a single sects belief system,
and not a very good study of it,and called that "hinduism",
in india that is called "Advaita" or A=non, dvaita=dual,
and was originaly taught in mass by Sankara Acharya,
and his school is called Advaitavadi,or Sankarism,

85% of 'hindus' are devotional mono theist personalists,
who believe god is a person,and the goal of life is to
awaken direct conscious awareness of God-who-is everywhere,
and to ultimately live with him/her in the heavenly eternal
abode of ever youthfull pastimes of love or Lila.

[nessa20x]

Good call Sarpedon :):)

[beanpie]

shall have more to state, on the morrow...:notworthy

[premjan]

beanpie, you should [crude remark removed], rather than believe this evil jewish propaganda. the jews didn't like anyone who was not jewish, and labelled them all "pagans", and the later christians "heathens", and the muslims as "infidels". The Jews would be loath to consider anyone not Jewish as being of worth. The Christians, anyone not Christian and the Muslims infidels. Hindus consider all people as being of some worth, wherein which Dalits (downtrodden) are the ones of, sadly, the least earthly value. Yet, the framer of the Indian constitution, Bhimrao Ambedkar was a Dalit and the Dalits are not as oppressed as before in modern India).

There is much that is sublime and beautiful in hinduism as there are weaknesses also. The treatment of dalits was bad, yet, no religion (except perhaps Islam) has solved the problem of what to do with those who are less fit than others (in modern american usage "losers"). Man has never solved the problem of his own cruelty to his fellow man. Hinduism never quite managed a solution either. The dalits used to clean toilets (in an era of no soap) and they were also butchers and leather-workers. Thus society shunned them due to their "impure" pursuits.

This should be placed in contrast to the apartheid treatment which whites gave blacks, a far far worse way of looking at people, in my opinion. The Dalits were the lowest caste. Yet, historically some Dalits have ascended to great achievements. E.g. Valmiki the poet of the Ramayana was said to be an untouchable. And the Maurya emperors were said to have descended from Shudra lineage. So even in ancient India, upward mobility was possible. In modern India it is definitely possible. Many politicians are Dalits.

[beanpie]

I have made a VERY crave mistake and am being rightfully "tongue-lashed".

I found this site several days ago. Uppon perusal, I noticed a dicussion of Hinduism. I went directly to the "Dalitstn" site, as they had complained about their mistreatment, at the hands of the Brahmins.

I wished to expose Hinduism, so I cut and pasted what I THOUGHT I was in agreement with. Before reading it or, seiing who the author was. BIG MISTAKE!


My following post shall show that the Arab CHRISTIANS referred to God as Allah. MR. GOSPEL, YOU SHOULD READ IT so, this "moon-god" fallacy can die.

This is one of my quotes, from another site, dispeling an essay, written by Mr. Morey.


none of these things were part of the religion, shivalinga

I am in full agreement...
Facts are the foundation of true religion, not Belief.
One of my "topics", at another site.

was Hinduism a religion BEFORE the arrival of Aryans and the caste system? Please, elaborate.
One of my postings, at another site. I was informed, by a Dalit, that it was.


Maybe the caste system has been misinterpreted. My knowledge of Hinduism, is limited. I DO know the Dalits are at the bottom of this system. Oppressed by the lighter skinned Brahmins, because of their skin color, under Hinduism.

[premjan]

In India it is too extreme to speak of skin color. "Skin shade" might be more meaningful. And there are plenty of Brahmins just as dark in shade as the Dalits, as there are light-skinned Dalits. Dalit is a social division, not a racial division, and it is based upon historical occupation (bare-handed excrement scooper without availability of soap, or butcher, or tanner). Bad though it was to discriminate against these people, an early bad turn in Hindusm vis-a-vis the caste system has kept these people in dudgeon (where they were mistreated and kept down). In Hinduism, alas, all occupations have not been treated as noble (and, indeed, work has not always been respected). Many Hindus rue the fact that Gandhianism has made Indians rather lazy. Yet, note that Dalits were not slaves, merely excluded from primary community property like some water sources and temples and access to the village thoroughfares. Also, some Brahmins in South India used to make a big deal about even the shadow of a Dalit falling upon them. Probably, as some gays are nowadays, they may have been the occasional victim of a perverse beating just for being of a lower caste. But please note that Dalits were not slaves. They were merely the lowest in the social pecking order, in a culture that was extremely class-conscious for most of its history (partially, these Dalits were the equivalent of feudal serfs, yet not exactly, since serfs were probably more like bonded laborers). Anyway, India was always a culture where people of high status would look down on those of lower status (yet, note that every caste had items of pride in its favor and nominally conisidered themselves better in some way or other than the rest, all except the Dalits, whose spirits may have been more broken than the rest. Due to their occupation, noone was prepared to touch them). Yet, most social reformers (Buddha, Raja Rammohun Roy, Gandhi) undoubtedly tried to do something for the lower castes, and widows and other unfortunate groups. India being an old culture has had the burden of many centuries of history and culture to erase always. Part of it comes from the rather libertarian basic tradition of Hinduism, which is anything but totalitarian in its beliefs. As many good things are easily found in India, all evils in many shades have also flourished, from the thuggees (or "thugs") whose cult involved ritual decapitation of hapless victims and making garlands out of severed human fingers, to widow sacrifice (which was originally supposed to be a voluntary sacrifice to avoid the "fate worse than death" or rape and dishonor) to temple prostitution. At the same time, you should note that whenever one talks of the abuses of Hinduism, you have to always contrast them with the outstanding liberties and open-mindedness of Hinduism, which virtually NO OTHER ancient society could match. The caste system was initially a magnificent innovation because IT PREVENTED the barbaric practise of slavery present in many other nations, including ancient Greece and Israel.

So please make sure you get a balanced view on matters involving Hinduism and do not buy the standard Jewish/Christian/Muslim line which is born out of puritanical desert scripturalism and not out of the bounteous libertarianism which is the very soul and inception of Hindu thinking. Hindus first and foremost believe that human life, in all its complexities should be tolerated and allowed to flourish. The gift which a homeland rich in agricultural resources has bestowed upon him, the Hindu always wishes to liberally besprinkle on everyone desirous of it.

Plus, those of the Dalit community who have not converted to egalitarian religions like Islam, have probably come under the grip of Communism (e.g. the Nakshalite movement). To the extent that communism may liberate them from social bondage, I applaud this. to the extent that it may enslave them to a failed ideology, I cannot wholeheartedly support this development.

[Sarpedon]

Caste systems are common in all countries, and all cultures. It is a result of the labor specialization that existed before industrialization. It took so much work to accomplish anything before the industrial revolution that everyone had to study their entire life to learn how to do A SINGLE task. The secrets of these trades were jealously guarded, and not taught to outsiders. In Europe there were the guilds and the knightly orders. In the Hebrew culture, trades were passed down from father to son. In India, they only married within their particular group. Hence the separation into castes. Those with no particular trade were excluded from learning trades by those who don't want competition, and were reduced to performing menial tasks. Later, they came to be regarded as lowly and worthless. They are not "losers," prejam, nor is there a rascist principle behind it, beanpie, except that which has been accrued by the fact of centuries of exclusive breeding. As in all things, the issue here was money, and how to make a livelyhood. People who are economically disadvantages tend to remain on the bottom, generation after generation, in ANY society. Now that industrialization and democracy have broken down the economic basis for the caste system, we see it gradually dissolving. You have no right to be looking down your nose at these people because they have antiquated social systems. Europe and America went through exactly the same thing before industrialization. India is changing more slowly because it is an economically disadvantaged country. As its economy grows, the social system will change. Money makes the World go 'round.

[beanpie]

I suppose it was incorrect to refer to the Dalits as "dark-sinned". There are many folks in the U.S. who are "hi-yella", yet considered "Black".

In the Dalit's own words...
More than one-sixth of India's population, some 160 million people, live a precarious existence, shunned by much of society because of their rank as “untouchables” or Dalits—literally meaning “broken” people4—at the bottom ofIndia's caste system. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land, forced to work in degrading conditions, and routinely abused at the hands of the police and of higher-caste groups that enjoy the state's protection. In what has been called India’s “hidden apartheid,” entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. National legislation and constitutional protections serve only to mask the social realities of discrimination and violence faced by those living below the “pollution line.”

The discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in the 1920s brought to light a suppressed chapter of Indian history, namely the large-scale destruction and genocide perpetrated over 1000 years by the Aryan invaders on indigenous Negroid Sudras, Mongoloids and Semites. However, this episode is blatantly denied by the Brahmin-controlled press of India, which propagates highly distorted versions of history, and even goes to the extent of denying that any genocide took place. Such distortion of history leads to the continuation of crimes against humanity; the massacre of Sudroid Tamils in Sri Lanka by Aryan Buddhists and the genocide of Dalits by the Brahmanist Republic of India after 1947 are merely consequences of the negationist mindset. In order to comprehend current Caucasoid-Negroid conflicts in South Asia, it is necessary to comprehend the full history of the engagement. In order to solve the current Arya-Sudra problem in India a clear unbiased understanding of history is required. This book seeks to address some of these concerns, and hopes to provide a factual account of atrocities perpetrated by the Aryan invaders. ...Introduction-Bible of Aryan Invasions -Aryan Invasions & Genocide of Negroes, Semites & Mongols -by Prof. Uthaya Naidu

[Sarpedon]

No one is denying that primitive people living thousands of years ago tended to massacre one another. I'm tired of these myths about how the peace loving people of (insert region here) were invaded and brutalized by the viscious inhabitants of (insert region here) Its like the movie Kundun, that begins with "Tibetans have practiced non-violence for thousands of years." My ass they have! They non-violently invaded china every time its central authority weakened! The fact that culture A lost to culture B is because culture A was weaker, not because culture B was more brutal. This is a classic example of people doing what Nietszche called "Turning weakness into virtue." All ancient cultures fought each other. All of them massacred, all of them purged. "The discovery of the Indus Valley civilization brought to light this massacre?" That civilization ceased to exist 3000 years ago! What the hell kind of bone are you trying to pick here? Do you even read previous posts? How do you respond to my above critique? The situation in India is bad, yes. Is it purely because of those mean 'ol Aryans? No. If the Harrappans had been the stronger, they would have done exactly the same thing. Its the economy, stupid. Things are getting better, slowly. You can't wave your magic PC wand and change things. Besides I think you and your Chip-on-the-shoulder Dalit friend are engaging in reverse rascism with this ludicrous rhetoric.

[beanpie]

The Dalit people consider themselves to be "Black. It is a fact that they have the very worst jobs. It is a fact, that too, too many of their women are raped. It is a fact, they are oppressed because they are "Daits". This is not "reverse discrimination".These are FACTS.

Many Dalits believe it was the Aryans, who set up and established the cate system.

A question: Regarding the history of America, would you trust a foreigner more than a citizen?

[shivalinga]

the plot unfolds (http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/31_organized_efforts.htm)

we can see how and why the history of india was created
by political actors for colonial purposes,
the above is a series of articles investigating
what happened in the words and letters of
the europeans who staged the whole thing.

and then here also it another part of the larger story,
how indian history was invented for various purposes
in the 19th century.

aryan nations (http://members.tripod.com/~ramkumaram/article3.html)

either way the dalits are not black, or darker,although
may are ,ONLY because many of the tribal cultures
in india are dark skinned,and since the tribal culture
did not participate in indian society by there own choice,
they were all considered outside of the system,
which placed a great value on cleanliness,vegetarianism
etc, anyone who was "unclean " or a meateater
was considered an untouchable.

the tribal cultures were meateaters,and outside the culture,
they were then 'untouchable' not because of race.

anyways,the prejudice they faced is factual,still is,
but the original article was blaming the ills of indian
society on the religion, in fact the religion wasn't to blame,
it can be shown that until the european conquest
there were no problems between the various castes
and outcastes,the outcastes had there own tribal society which they wanted as their own,the british created division and hatred
in order to keep the indian subcontinent,which
was many different kingdoms,races,religions,
languages,etc, unable to come together and fight the british.
this is shown in the above articles.

[beanpie]

...how you all know more about what a Dalit is, then the Dalits themselves! Simply amazing.

...either way the dalits are not black, or darker...

From a Dalit site...
Another important writer from antiquity, Apollonius of Tyana, who is said to have visited India near the end of the first century C.E., was convinced that "The Ethiopians are colonists sent from India, who follow their forefathers in matters of wisdom."
http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm

[hinduwoman]

Dalits who are arguing that they are black originally are parroting the Aryan invasion line of Britishers, which said that they deserved to be conquered because they were black!

However these intellectuals wilfully ignore their OWN traditions which describe how they fell or were cheated by other castes. Before the British came, the lower castes had no idea about any invasions (of course higher castes did not either). Besides the rise of many dalit castes can be traced back to historical origins in middle ages.

Finally if Dalits knew more than others about their origins then how do they respond to Ambedkar's rejection of the thesis, or do they automatically know more than their equivalent of Nelson Mandela?

[shivalinga]

you dont understand what a dalit is,they used to be called
untouchables, or outcastes,they were outside of the caste
system or outside of indian culture,europeans included.

for example the people in south india can be very dark skinned,and the people in the north can be lite skinned,
either way a brahmin is still a brahmin with dark skin or lite,
and a dalit is a dalit with dark or lite skin, skin color
has nothing to do with it, skin color is a different prejudice
and has to do with vanity and ancient ideas of
work and caste, but "dalit" or untouchable
is outside of the entire caste system,skin color
has nothing to do with it, many dalits are dark skinned
becasue of their tribal heritage,but they are dalits
because of their tribal heritage not because they are dark skinned,any one who says different has never been to india,
if they have they would know that in south india the people
are all dark skinned(almost all) ,you couldn't distinguish
between a dalit or a brahmin unless you know them or by some
other method,they are both dark skinned.


Of course you can present those who claim otherwise,
you can present anything from a variety of sources,
with a variety of motivations,anyone who as been to india
and traveled around knows the truth,and can distinguish
between propaganda by christian preachers and marxists
(marxism is alive and well in india).

prejudice in india is like anywhere else,it isn't the norm,
and anyone who experiences it blows it up to seem so,
and those who have a poltical agenda or other agenda
will try and exploit other peoples misfortune
as a tool for their own exploitation.


your entire presentation is for what purpose ?
with that in mind we can see that you will pick and choose
material that supports your thesis -hindus and hinduism is evil,

you then present only material by those who have an agenda
to exploit,christain missionaries,politically powerless in pursuit
of power,etc.

your entire motivation seems to be to point out the ills of indian society,with what purpose ?

Its like for instance if i want to discredit christianity
i start a thread called the truth of christianity then
present only stuff about the inquisition,slave trade,
witch burnings, etc,
then i present stuff from people who were abused by priests,
as being the "truth" of christianty.

if some dalits are unhappy,why present this thread as the
"truth of hinduism", if you were really concerned about the dalits
instead of attempting to exploit them on your quest
to diminish the indian religion then you would have
called this thread something else.

so we can understand your sympathy for the dalits as a false
pretense, a charade, a tool for propaganda,which proves my
earlier point, you will present anyone who advances your
thesis-hinduism is evil, regardless of their relative
truthfullness or relative accuracy.

[Sarpedon]

Once again, I must ask, who are you? why are you doing this? what is your real purpose? You say you get your information from a dalit on another website, and keep posting quotes from this dalit website, which implies that you yourself are not a dalit. Could you please invite your informant to come and debate? that might cut through this wall we seem to be facing here. Also, as you say we are not dalits. Guess what, it is often easier to see to the core of these social issues if you are not a part of the particular society being scrutinized, as it matters not to me whether the dalits or the kshatiryas or the brahmins are right. Intellectual detachment works wonders. I'm mostly confused about you and why you are trolling in this way.

[premjan]

I have been to ethiopia and I have been to south india. ethiopians do not look like indians, dalit or otherwise.

dalits are merely an unfortunately static social category at the very bottom of the totem pole. there may be some incidental genetic endowment (i.e. people don't intermarry with them much). but I do not believe you could with confidence identify a dalit person purely on physical characteristics.

the people who do look a bit like some indians are australian aborigines. ethiopians do not, however. and indians are very mixed from centuries of immigration.

as for the indus valley being a dalit invention, this is like blacks laying sole claim to egypt. exactly the same thing. except that dalits are not such an identifiable racial group at all.

[beanpie]

Once again, I must ask, who are you? why are you doing this? what is your real purpose?

I am a man that dispels lies, when he comes across them and chooses to do do so.

I also spread TRUTH , based on FACT , not "opinion".

When presenting info, I have adopted the motto, "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT ALONE". You have obviously chosen to leave it. Which is fine, with me.

I choosee not to argue. If you and others believe you know more about the racial make-up of Dalits than the Dalits themselves, so be it,

[beanpie]

this is like blacks laying sole claim to egypt.


"The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips, broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin." -- Herodotus, 450 BC

R E T U R N T O G L O R Y by Joel A. Freeman, Ph.D.

photos that prove, the ancient Egytians were Black.

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

[Sarpedon]

My friend, when you look at egyptian wall paintings, you see people represented with many different skin colors. The most prevalent is red. Yellow and white are also common, as is black. Things are not so clear cut as you people would like to think. In egyptian art, the african Nubians are represented with curly plaited hair, and wide lips, where as egyptians are not. You could always tell who was a nubian in those pictures, as it was a graphic convention. I am inclined to believe that the egyptians were a mixed people, based on the depictions of themselves in their art.

Its also interesting that you cite as an authoratative source someone who also claims that in ethiopia there live people with no heads and who have their mouths in their stomachs.

And you say you are spreading "the truth, based on fact, not opinion," but you are constantly citing sources that are put up by the very people who's opinion is most expected to be biased, and who are very selective in what evidence they choose to show. The photo galleries are absurd. Go to a friggin museum if you want to see what egyptian art was really like.

[beanpie]

"The original Egyptians were unmixed pure black folks. When they were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any means. During the middle dynasties especially (and later) when people migrated to this great land there was some intermarrying. This is natural and doesn't need to be debated. It was even done within royalty lines at times to solidify alliances, which was a common practice between powers during that period of history. Chancellor Williams refers to this phenomenon in his book "The Destruction of Black Civilization." And frankly, he theorizes that this mixing was part of the reason for the fall of Black Civilization. Nevertheless, there was never so much of this that at any time the ancient Egyptians could ever be classified as other than a black people."--Dr. Joell Freeman

The photo gallery, from the above site, is from the museum in Egypt.

Do the pictures lie?

[beanpie]

I am inclined to believe that the egyptians were a mixed people

"mixed people"

almost every so-called Black person in the U.S. is "mixed" Do you still consider them to be "Black"?

[beanpie]

...you are constantly citing sources that are put up by the very people who's opinion is most expected to be biased...

Dr. Joel Freeman is a Caucasian.(you may view pics of him, on request)

So, how is he "biased"?

[shivalinga]

if i take a photo of colin powell and then state that photo
proves that american governments officials in the 21st
century were all black ,then i would be doin what that
website does,or what you claim for the dalits.

the egypyian wall paintings almost always have the egyptians
painted as semites, the nubians whose culture was almost
identical to the egyptians,and older are painted as jet black,
and exagerrated facial features of nose and lips,clearly
the egyptians were not the same ,if there is some
paintings of black egyptians that shouldn't be taken
to mean all egyptians were black, of course some were,
but the paintings themselves show that by far they were not.

as far as the sphinx,evidence has come up to show that
the sphinx predates egyptians and most likely was created
in the time of Nubian supremacy,so it makes sense
that the sphinx would be nubian in character,
the myth that Napoleans soliders shot up the face of the sphinx is a myth,there exists arabic documents that predate napolean
by hundreds of years telling how muslims hacked the face
up(corroborated by study of the marks ,hacked not bullets
were the conclusions), this was in line with muslim belief
that in art showing any kind of representation of a human
face was an offense to Allah.

So if you take all the evidence,not simply one piece of the puzzle,
we come up with egyptians who were semites ,due to nubian
influence there was inter breeding producing at time
black egyptians,but the art speaks for itself,
clearly the egyptians saw themselves and nubians
as very different in skin color.

whenever you present a theory based on a selective
presentation of data,using only that data that supports
your theory,and ignoring the data that contradicts your theory,
then that theory is not scientific it is nothing more then
propaganda for a purpose other then display of actual
truth.

so whenever you state that indians are prejudiced against
black skinned people that is contradicted by the fact
of most of the people in south india have darker skin
then most africans,brahmins Kshatiryas,Vaisyas,Sudras,
or dalits, all are very dark,if you say only the dalits are
dark that is propaganda.

india has a larger amount of tribal groups then any where
on earth,many people are suprised to hear this,they
think africa or south america whenever they think of tribal
societies.

These tribal people comprise most of the Dalits,
they have traditionaly shunned indian society,
they were insular and had there own society,
as we come into the present day and age there are the land developers who want to take the land of the dalits and force
them into indian society,much like what happened to the native
americans.

Because of this and other reasons(many tribals want a
more comfortable lifestyle) tribals have moved into
the cities.

there they have encountered prejudice,not because of skin color,
they have lighter skin then many brahmins,and because of the prejudice(caused by a variety of reasons,language,education,
cultural difference) they have been left to the lower
jobs in society, as in all societies the newcomers are always
the worst off, in amercia the irish,the italians, and the jews
were newcomers at the same time, they were treated
in a bad way,they came together and formed organized
self help groups, as did the chinese, in both cases
these organizations became criminal,mafia and the tongs.

In india these people have become organized into self help
groups ,politically,mostly by marxist organizations,to gain votes
they will use propaganda, to gain power and help outside of india,they will play up to western guilt of rascism, but
the facts are different, the prejudice in india against dalits
is social not racial.

[beanpie]

Herodotus says, that there were two Ethiopian nations, one in India, the other in Egypt. He derived his information from the Egyptoian priests, a race of people who must have known the truth; …* In Chron. ad Num. 402. ** In vita Apollon. Tyanei
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Philostratus* says, that the Gymnosophists of Ethiopia, who settle near the sources of the Nile, descended from the Bramins of India, having been driven thence for the murder of their king.** This, Philostratus says, he learnt from an ancient Brahmin, called Jarchas. * Vita Apoll. C. vi. ** Crawford, Res. Vol. II p.193.

Another ancient writer, Eustathius, also states, that the Ethiopians came from India. These concurring accounts can scarcely be doubted; and here may be discovered the mode and time also when great numbers of ancient rites and ceremonies might be imported from India into Egypt; …

info from the book ANACALYPSIS by Mr. Godfrey Higgins written in 1833 Volume I [867 pages] Volume II [525 pages]

Higgins' (1773-1833) greatest work in the archaeology of religion. "Early in his life Higgins became convinced that there was an ancient universal religion from which later creeds developed, and he devoted 20 years to a search for a secret tradition." Melton, Ency. Occult. & Parapsy. " Resigning his commission (in the army) about 1813, he devoted himself entirely to an unbiased investigation into the history of religious beliefs. He acquired a knowledge of Hebrew, and sometimes pursued his studies in foreign libraries. At the date of his death he had projected a journey to Egypt, 'and perhaps Samarcand,' in search of further clues to religious problems. The first volume, though not published till 1836, was printed off in June 1833; four sheets of the second volume were revised by the author, at whose son's expense the remainder was edited by George Smallfield...He had intended 'to exhibit in a future book the Christianity of Jesus Christ from his own mouth.' He claimed to be a Christian, regarding our Lord as a Nazarite, of the monastic order of Pythagorean Essenes, probably a Samaritan by birth, and leading the life of a hermit." DNB His son realized that "a taste for deep learning among us is fast declining...which is one reason I have only printed two hundred copies of this work." Preface. "It supplied material and inspiration for the early theosophical writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who even echoed the title in her own book Isis Unveiled." Melton.

[beanpie]

THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN BY GODFREY HIGGINS, A
CAUCASIAN. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1836. SOL(THE EMPHASIS IN THE QUOTES ARE MY
OWN)


[QUOTE] The religion of Budda, of India, is well known to
have been very ancient...he is found black as jet,
with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the
Negro...He will be proved to have been prior to the
god called Christna...The religion of this NEGRO GOD
is found by the ruin of his temples and other
circumstances, to have been spread over an immense
extent of country and has been professed BY DEVOTEES
INCONCEIVABLY NUMEROUS... He must have been prior to
or contenporaneous with the BLACK EMPIRE, supposed by
Sir William Jones to have flourished at Sidon.

... Mr. Maurice is fully confirmed by Sir W. Jones,
who says,
"The remains of arcitecture and sculpture in
India, which I mention here as mere monuments of
antiquity, not as specimens of ancient art, seem to
prove an early connexion between this country and
Africa; the pyramids of Egypt, the collosal statues
described by Pausanias and other, the Sphinx, and the
Hermes Canis, which last bears a great resemblance to
Varahavatar, or the incantation of Vishnou in the form
of a bear indicate the style and mythology of the same
indefatigable workmen who formed the vast excavations
of Canara the various temples and the idols which are
continusly dug up at Gaya, or in its vicinity. the
letters on many of those monuments appear, as I have
before intimated,partly of IDIAN, and partly of
Abyssinian or Ethiopic, origin.: and all these
indubitable facts may induce no ill-founded that
Ethiopia and Hindostan were peopled or colonized by
the SAME EXTRAORDINARY RACE; in confirmation it may be
added, that the mountaineers of Bengal and Bahar, can
hardly be distinguished in some of their features,
particularly their lips and noses, from the modern
Abyssinians, whom the Arabs call the children of Cush:
and the ancient Hindus, according to Strabo, DIFFERED
IN NOTHING FROM THE AFRICANS but in the straightness
and smoothness of their hair, while that of the other
was crisp and wooly...we frequently see figures of
Buddha with curled hair, apparently designed for a
representation of it in its natural state."[QUOTE]

[shivalinga]

what is your point ?

no doubt some indians ,or many migrated to africa,
that doesn't mean all africans or ethiopians are indian,
so what are you attempting to establish ?

That originally indians were black or negroid ?

that is a strange theory, the negroid race in india is confined
to islands,on the mainland the darkest skinned people
are clearly australoid,they don't have the same hair
as negroid or the same bone structure of the head
as negroids.

just becasue the skin color can be just as dark still there
are other differences,either way that doesn't establish
who was first in india,who were the original inhabitants.

there is the tendency to see india as a single place,
with a single original people, but in fact india is called
a sub continent because of the vast variety.

the north east tribals are mongoloid in appearence,
the north west tribals are semetic in appearence,
the southern tribals are austrailoid in appearence,
the middle tribals are a mix in appearence,
and in all tribals there is some mixing.

there is no original people of india,india has always
had different peoples in different areas, the "aryan"
people are the people from any racial group
who followed then Vedic culture and religion,
they could be and are in fact from all of the racial
stock of india,the in Manipur ,N.E. india we find
a larger perecntage of vaishnava,vishnu worshippers
then any other area,they are more mongoloid
in appearence because they are next to burma,
which historically was part of the Vedic lands,
in south india the "dravidians" are also aryans,
or Vedic, the skin color is not the deciding factor
it is the culture.

in south india you can find people with jet black skin
who are aryan and then go to n.w. india and find people
who are tribal and non aryan who have light
skin.

originally the people of india were a mix,they still are,
the tribals who claim they were the original
people and that the lighter skinned "aryans"
were not ,have to contend with the north east
tribals who are not dark skinned,the north west
tribals who are not dark skinned,etc.

all the attempts to claim original therefore
legitimate claims for power is based on
a lack of serious study of this subject and or
an attempt to gain poiltical or economic advantage
based on guilt.

the truth is and always has been that indians are
a mix of many peoples,the aryans were a culture
that was participated in by all of the races,
those that didn't were not older or original
peoples,they were different cultures that didn't have as much of a following and became less and less so due to being gradually marginalized,in fact it can be shown that many of these
tribes came from outside of india and remained
insular,the nagas for example have their origins
in china and south east asia.

the idea that the "dravidian" people exist as a seperate
people is not true,they are simply a mix of various
peoples,nor can it be shown they were the original
more so then other racial variety in india, like the
tribes in orissa or manipur and so on.

this idea is nothing more the an attempt to create history
based on racial ideology to benefit whoever
is claiming to be "original",this is promoted by christian
organizations to help them make converts by lying
to the uneducated tribals ,telling them the nasty hindus
are not really indian,just foreign invaders, this has caused
a lot of anger among the tribals , violence supported
and paid for by christian preaching organizations
all based on spreading hatefull ideas of race baiting
and made up history for political gain.

the hindus have responded to that ,the whole thing
has been created first by marxist groups then christian
groups,all with the singular purpose of getting
the tribals to hate the hindus and to believe they are the rightfull
and original people or owners of india,all done with
lies and money and deception for political gain
by unprincipled people.

[beanpie]

If I have the choice of believing a man who has devoted 20 years of his life to research or you, I easily choose the former.

"Take it or, leave it alone".

originally the people of india were a mix,they still are---

As I have mentioned before...
"mixed people" almost every so-called Black person in the U.S. is "mixed" Do you still consider them to be "Black"?

[beanpie]

[QUOTE]if i take a photo of colin powell and then state that photo
proves that american governments officials in the 21st
century were all black ,then i would be doin what that
website does...[QUOTE]

but, if you presented pics that ALL their rulers were Black...

I challenge you to present ONE pharoah who was a Caucasian, BEFORE the rule of the Romans.



[QUOTE]The photo galleries are absurd. Go to a friggin museum if you want to see what egyptian art was really like.[QUOTE]

They are not "absurd". According to you, " Go to a friggin museum if you want to see what egyptian art was really like" Well, these photos were taken in the "friggin" museum, of Cairo, Egypt.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am inclined to believe that the egyptians were a mixed people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"mixed people"

almost every so-called Black person in the U.S. is "mixed" Do you still consider them to be "Black"?





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...you are constantly citing sources that are put up by the very people who's opinion is most expected to be biased...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dr. Joel Freeman is a Caucasian.(you may view pics of him, on request)

So, how is he "biased"?

[premjan]

the only true "blacks" on the indian subcontinent are tribals in the Andaman Islands (classified as Negritos). Some of them are being recruited by athletic teams due to their supposed superior stamina.

The Dravidians do have admixture of curlyish hair (like semites) but tend to have flattish noses.

Indians are said to be a mixture of caucasoid, australoid and meditteranean physical types. Of course there is mongolian influence in the east too.

The Buddha is traditionally considered to be a saka (scythian) so of aryan lineage. However, many depictions show him with curly hair so he may have had some african blood. And then again, the way his eyes slant definitely indicates mongolian. these may just be representational quirks though.

In any case, whoever created the indus valley, we believe their descendants to be still living in india, and not to all be oppressed parties such as dalits.

I really can't comment on the occurrence of "semitic" types in India. My understanding is that semites were traditionally desert dwellers (e.g. assyrians, babylonians, jews, arabs et cetera).

As for the Greeks, the Greeks thought everything came from India, including the Jews. They claimed that the Jews were none other than Indian "Calanians". I can't put too much credence into that, given that Jews are the cultural brothers of Arabs, Assyrians and Babylonians and other semites who are not known to have come from India. There is no doubt some Indian admixture in Ethiopia. There is DEFINITELY Arab admixture in Ethiopia there too, and is known to be the case from history, where Ethiopia was colonized by pagan Arabs from Yemen at one point in history.

Maybe Egyptians were more black or brown than white. What of it? It doesn't materially produce a racial hypothesis in the case of India (because there are no clear racial lines in India). India is the equivalent of Brazil or the United States, in that it is historically a racial melting pot. That was the whole point of the caste system, to orthogonalize pure race out of the picture. You want to find some people who really think about race a lot, go to China, where the Han chinese do look on themselves as superior to Tibetans et cetera. And Japanese as superior to Ainu and so on.

[beanpie]

WRITTEN BY A DALIT

[QUOTE]

Hindu propaganda is with out evidence and source?

Hindu propaganda is on a large scale now. It covers their past misdeeds. They are upset about the dark side of the ancient history of India. Media, newspapers, Radio, Television and computers, and all the economy is under their control so that dalits gets hardly a chance for a fair play to expose to the true history of India.

We all know that the blacks were one of the world's oldest civilized people. India's ancient branch of the Black race is called Kushite to which the Nagas belong. Kushites and Nagas of India are the great honor to Blacks world-wide. It was the Kushites in India from Africa who began the entire process of civilization on planet earth.

The Naga People of India (African Kushite branch) belong to a large family of Blacks whose origins are in East Africa and who spread to West Africa, East Asia and the Indian Ocean-Pacific region. In fact, there are still Blacks in both East and West Africa who use the title "Naga" as their primary name. or use words derived from it. Examples of the name "Naga" includes the Naga Tribe of Sudan and East Africa, the Nago- Mina of West Africa and Brazil, the Nubians, the Nuers and Nuba of Sudan, the Nugamarta of West Africa. All these groups are of Kushitic origins and are of the same racial and ethnic lineage as the Nagas (tribals, Black Dalits and others) of India, the Blacks of South-East Asia, and those of some parts of the South Pacific and Melanesia. It is only a matter of time before all these blacks...perhaps one 800 to one billion of Kushitic origins, rise up and regain their former glory as the greatest people the world has ever known.


India's Black Dalits or Untouchables are out- side of the caste system. They are the descendants of the original Black Naga and other Black tribes of Black African roots. They were the first people on earth and who spread throughout the entire world in prehistoric times. As already mentioned, these are the Blacks who built Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, two of the major cities and urban complexes of the Indus Valley
Civilizations.

The Aryan barbarians introduced a disgraceful civilization, where drinking, free sex, gambling and other evil vices were practiced among them. Many rites of worship to invoke their gods were some of these functions.

Dalits are the original Black (Naga and other Kushitic types) of India who spoke the Kushitic and Dravidian languages, both part of the Afro-Asiatic language family which was first spoken by the Black race of Eastern Africa and was later adopted by the
Semites.

Disunity was the primary cause of their being defeated (HEAR THIS PEOPLE). If one billion blacks people on earth can be united , it is easier for them to nail these barbarians. Let us throw their discriminated scriptures , Puranas, Gods and Vedas to their gutter hills and to their past caves where they were hiding from before the black civilization in glorious India.
[QUOTE]

[premjan]

The Nagas are not black. There is a state in India called Nagaland, and the Nagas are Mongolian in appearance and Christian in modern religion. They are also far from backward (one of the most literate states of India).

The Kushites are Africans, not Indians. Kush is an ancient empire of Ethiopia.

Moreover, Dalits are called "Scheduled Castes" under the Indian constitution. Scheduled Castes are a mix of Caucasoid and Australoid, as are all Indians, although they may have darker skin due to working in the sun more. The only people with recognizably different racial features are not "Scheduled Castes" but "Scheduled Tribes" which are the ancient aboriginal peoples of the Indian subcontinent. These are not the same as the Dalits. These Tribes are Australoid in appearance, which means somewhat curly hair and flattish noses and darkish skin, but not truly African in appearance.

Of course, there is genetic evidence that all human beings are the result of an emigration out of Africa, but that has nothing to do with the observed cultures and races of the modern world, which are all derivative in nature.

[beanpie]

The Nagas are not black.

You are certainly free to, believe what you will.

Moreover, Dalits are called "Scheduled Castes" under the Indian constitution. Scheduled Castes are a mix of Caucasoid and Australoid

The Dalits are obviously not in agreement. But hey, I suppose you know more about their racial make-up, than them!

And what makes you belive there are absolutely NO pure Blacks, with straight hair and pointed noses? Please, present your proof.

[premjan]

well, if you want to be pedantic about it, be my guest.
as for Nagas, well, just take a look at any publicly available information about the Nagas. They look pretty South-East Asian to me, or anyone.
The Dalits have their own mythology no doubt, and you are welcome to kiss their ass if you want. once you start, it's hard to break the ass-kissing habit however.

[beanpie]

Well, I am VERY glad to, "kiss their ass".

[premjan]

your ideas fit right in with the south african ones. everyone with slightly darkish skin is "black". If skin tone is the primary measure and other things are secondary, then probably the majority of Indians are black and the rest are at least "colored". This is different than the conventional anthropological ideas about race, with their groupings.

But it works as well, as long as we are not talking about matters of hard fact. The Jews are also "black" since they tend to show admixture of individuals with frizzy hair. Caucasian people with noticeable freckles are also black although they may not look it. Melanization or lack of it are everything. All South-East Asians and Pacific Islanders are black. All Chinese and Japanese and Koreans are white, in that case, since there are few dark individuals in those countries. Everyone that has a homeland north of a certain latitude parallel is much more likely to be white rather than black.

Probably the blacks were all aboriginal races of the earth and the whites were offworlders, Nephilim, Titans or what you will. Probably the whites were initially the only intelligent ones, and by interbreeding with black aboriginals of the earth, they created the intelligent races of man.

This actually provides a good and simple rationale for keeping Mexicans (azteca) out of California, and the North American Indians, such as Apache in. The latter are whites and the former are blacks.

[beanpie]

QUESTION:

Who were the very first people, on earth. Please, provide evidence if, you are able to.

[Grizzly]

Folks - I am unclear how this thread, as it is evolving, pertains to Non-Abrahamic RELIGIONS. If the topic of this thread continuous, I am going to send it to ~Elsewhere~

[premjan]

there is some mitochondrial and other genetic/anthropological evidence that modern humans resulted from an emigration out of Africa. Hence there is no reason to invoke race to explain this. If you are an African or of the "black" race, you may take pride in the fact that Africa is probably the evolutionary homeland of humanity. It is unclear whether those Africans were all "black" or not, of course. Perhaps they were mixed in race already and the current segregation is the result of emigrations. Or perhaps selection pressures in the initial journey out of Africa have led to the current observed differences in race. Some people say that Mongolians have epicanthic folds in their eyes (and slant eyes too) because of dealing effectively with high-dust and high-sand situations in the Asian deserts. That Caucasians initially inhabited mountain regions (the Caucasus and Himalayas and, probably, the Atlas mountains as well) and hence developed sharp noses to increase air warming prior to inhalation. And that they lost their skin melanization due to it being less energy intensive and less necessary in colder climates. Note that ape populations already contain individuals (e.g. chimpanzees) with white skin. So it is possible that high melanization may be an entirely human adaption to the loss of body hair, which is abundant in the case of chimpanzees. In any case, apparently African human populations are more genetically diverse than those of other regions of the world. Probably, having migrated less far than other populations, they have less of the physical adaptations observed in other races (Mongolian or Caucasian).

I find East Africans to be of somewhat Mongolian appearance (at least I have seen a few Malagasy Islanders who distinctly have a chinese look to them, though with dark skin). Perhaps the Mongolians were boat immigrants out of East Africa to the Pacific Islands and therefrom populated China and Japan from small landfall populations. Also, the Canary Islands have a population of white people with light (red and blonde) hair. Perhaps the Nordic populations of the world have come exclusively from these migrants who went by boat or land to Spain, the British Isles and thence to Scandinavia. One notices that the Semitic populations do have admixture of some typically "African" features, mainly their hair. This may be because they migrated out of Africa later than others, thus remaining dwelling in desert habitats around the Sahara and Arabian and Middle Eastern deserts. Ethiopians definitely look fairly similar to both Asians and Africans that perhaps they were the original population bridge for individuals trying to leave Africa. There is speculation that North Africa was once a vast grassland prior to the drying up of the Sahara, about 10000 years ago. This would account for the need of more humans to migrate outwards, although many populations probably left Africa much earlier than this (e.g. the Australian Aboriginals are among the oldest). In any case the high wildlife diversity in Africa supports the hypothesis that evolution marches more rapidly there and hence humans too are from there. There are no enormous variations in animal physiology (e.g. hippos and giraffes) in other parts of the world. Hence Africa is definitely unique in biota and human populations, to the extent that it is probably the mother of many of the world's flora, fauna, and most likely of all modern humans. Many things Indians consider typically Indian (e.g. Tamarind) are originally African imports. India is really a little copy of East Africa in terms of its wildlife diversity and, probably , persistence of its aboriginal cultural framework too.

Anyway, just offering my thoughts. Are you from Botswana?

[premjan]

I have read that the incidence of heart problems is a little higher among some black populations. Is this because of cumulatively higher lifetime blood circulation load to feed melanin generation in the skin? If so, it is easy to see how this little extra evolutionary burden could have been shed by some individuals who no longer needed to live in a hot climate. Over several generations of living in a colder climate (e.g. the Atlas mountains), this selection pressure could lead to whitening of the skin.

Are there any observed exposure problems (e.g. nosebleeds) observed among people with flat noses when they try to inhabit very high altitude regions (e.g. mountaintops)?? If so, the cumulative selection pressure over many generations could lead to people with sharper noses to increase the warming of air prior to intake, and the cooling of air prior to exhalation (reducing heat loss). I suspect non-caucasian people exposed to extremely cold weather would probably lose heat faster than pure caucasians. Just a speculations.

Indians are not very adapted, but they are very lanky (perhaps an adaptation to hot weather) and have very skinny calves (perhaps an adaptation to starvation cycles caused by the unreliability of the agriculturally important monsoon rains).

What happens to people without epicanthic folds when they have to weather a sandstorm? Do they go blind? This would explain the emergence of the Mongolian race.

Again, just pure speculation on my part. Having an explanation for these things would greatly satisfy me, I admit.

[premjan]

I find the Greek tendency to attribute any and all things to India (e.g. the origin of both Ethiopians and Jews) to be rather suspicious. Probably it arises from the somewhat uncanny similarities between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophies.

[beanpie]

Before I respond, I would like to be completely sure, this is your final answer, regarding the original inhabitants, of earth.

And by the way, I have never even visited, Botswana.

[beanpie]

Before I respond, I would like to be completely sure, this is your final answer, regarding the original inhabitants, of earth.

And by the way, I have never even visited, Botswana.

[beanpie]

Before I respond, I would like to be completely sure, this is your final answer, regarding the original inhabitants, of earth.

And by the way, I have never even visited, Botswana.

[beanpie]

Mr. Grizzly,

Feel free to send this thread ~elsewhere~ for, it has become a discusson concerning "race".

[shivalinga]

actually you started this thread to bring lies and hatred
concerning "hindus",
of course as everything you have brought has been proven wrong, you want to end the debate.


foreigners during the time of ramses (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html)



stuff freeman won't show (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html)


Egyptians resembled Northern Indians
There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians' appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9):

The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.

Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording:

As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India. Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern India.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

are there africans in India ? yes.

brought by europeans as their slaves
siddis (http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/people/siddi.htm)

tribal female "semitic" or the same as middle easterners (http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/PhotoArchive/PhotoSlideshow.asp?photoid=64&topic=india)

tribals, black or semitic? (http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/PhotoArchive/PhotoSlideshow.asp?photoid=65&topic=india)

nagas,tribals black ? (http://www.northeastindiadiary.com/nagaland-travel/)

more tribals (http://www.asiasafari.com/photo/picture_gallery/index.htm)

this is from a dalit website, (http://www.ambedkar.org/News/NewsConv.htm) ,as you can see they look like ordinary
indians,because they are.

the christians and marxists are trying to exploit the dalits,
they create a fictional history where the dalits are not
"aryan",like the rest of india,even though they look
exactly the same,and are, the only difference is their
background, most are tribals,others are from
historical groups that have been ostracized,
the muslims conquered india and ruled for
a thousand years, they forced many hindus to
eat meat and other "unclean" or "contaminating"
things to humilate them, they forced their
children to learn islam etc, this created an entire
section of society that served the muslim rulers
as servants,cooks, etc, they were ostracized from
the very persnikkety hindu society who saw them
as being unclean and gradually this group grew larger
and larger over a thousand years, that and the tribals
are the dalits, they are not 'blacks' ,that is simply
propaganda for western consumption, and they
are not the "original" indians,that is propaganda used
by politicians and exploiters like missionaries
to get the dalits on their side by playing up to
their hatreds and feelings of discrimination.

[shivalinga]

and your argument of 'the dalits know the true history better then
anyone' is based on what ?

are you saying a person of whatever culture inherently,
intrinsicaly , has more knowledge of the history of his culture
then anyone outside the culture ?

that is absurd, ever watch the tonite show with jay leno ?
he has a section callled 'jay walking', he walks around town
and asks people questions about american history,politics,
etc. the reason it's so funny is because 90% of the people
are clueless about history or politics,they know nothing,
and this is in america with a half way decent educational system.

in india the dalits are not so well educated generaly,yet your
assumption that they inherently know their history
better then others,even other non dalits in india
is absurd.

for every dalit who claims the aryans invaded india,
and can show no proof of that,as neither can anyone else,
there are a 100 hindu historians who can prove using mounds
of actual data that the opposite is true, are they disqualified
from the truth because they are not 'black'.

so your theory of inherent knowledge of dalits over anyone
else is a fraud,as is every single thing you have said,
except that dalits are discriminted against, that is a fact,
but has nothing to do with race and everything to do
with culture.

if you want to believe humans evolved out of africa ,be my guest,
there is no "mitochondrial' evidence, the theory is purely
due to leaky and the bones he found which they believe
are the oldest proto human bones yet found,
so essentially it is specualtion based on proto human
bones,not even homo sapien.

I reject evolution as preposterous,until you can show
me how a mango tree came to exist,you have nothing,
all races were created by god,they didn't sprout up
out of any patch of dirt anywhere,including africa.

[premjan]

There appears to be a Voston in Botswana. Hence my question. If you happen to be black, then I totally understand your sentiments. If you happen to be white, well, then I totally don't understand your sentiments. Please explain yourself.

The 6000 years, of course, indicates you are a Christian missionary or other fringe lunatic.

[beanpie]

let the debates continue.

you sir, have very obviously misunderstood. I suggested Mr. Grizzly move this debate to ~elsewhere~, which he said he would do if, the debate continued on a course that did not discuss "non-Abrahamic religion".

re-read your pathetic posts. what have you proven? except your very long windedness.

Mr Shivalinga, you have picked the wrong intelligent person to "f" with.

I could very easily defeat your weak "propaganda", with just 1/10th, of ny brain power.

please, get much stronger "ammunition" for, you are putting me to sleep.

:boohoo:

[shivalinga]

well i am glad that you have the skills,yet we are still waiting
for anything,anything at all,other then unsubstantiated claims,
simply repeating 19th century political propaganda is not
really showing off your skills, how about you present something,
oh i don't know, lets say, in the way of actual facts,
demonstrated by something other then " those guys,those guys
over there,they said so".

i have given plenty of data to back up every single point i have made to counter your empty claims, you have presented
nothing but propaganda by uneducated people,
i have nothing personal against your ill educated
idealism, but if you want to stand up for the little guy
you may want to educate yourself on what you claim,
otherwise it comes across as emotional outbursts
based on some kind of hidden agenda.

If you want to convince everyone that dark skinned people
are the real deal holyfield and everyone else is just whitey,
the man, or bigots and rascists,good luck.

[premjan]

well, tell us more. we won't mind debating with you. and if we lose fair and square, so be it.

but I don't think the pattern of racial discrimination in India is as clearly there as you claim. Some of your facts are clearly wrong. If you wish to restate your thesis, please do so.

ah, but your objective was to show the superiority of Christianity over Hinduism, and in that we have currently foiled you by diverting the discussion to race, which is clearly where you were leading it. My sympathies for having been outwitted so easily.

[premjan]

even radiocarbon dating goes back to 50,000 years, so there is no question that genesis in 6000 BC is laughable.

[premjan]

I believe the Khoisan of South Africa are the oldest human race. There seems to be some accumulation of genetic evidence backing up this hypothesis.


At least two teams, working independently and looking at different parts of the Y chromosome, found that the oldest variants are most common in the Khoisan. Jenkins and Soodyall also analyzed the mitochondrial DNA. Virtually all of the !Kung have the most ancient mitochondrial fragments, which date to about 120,000 years ago, roughly the time humans are thought to have evolved into their modern form. The genetic findings accord with at least one line of fossil evidence, and various likely mathematical models yield similar results. Yet just as fossil evidence has often been reassessed, this genetic analysis could be off the mark. As one !Kung man said about the research, "I don't know my relationship to the first people, because I wasn't alive then."


apperently Khoisan have more chimpanzee genes than any other human race.

[beanpie]

shall adress your VERY weak "propoganda," this afternoon.

[Grizzly]

This thread has degenerated into race baiting and personal attacks. This thread is not going anywhere. I am closing it down.