Monday, June 07, 2010

Random Racialness: Are East Indians Black?

I ran across this unscientific Topix 'survey' yesterday. The opinion votes and comments give an interesting window, however limited, into how some people, especially natives of India, view themselves and others.

As for an accurate answer, I would say no and yes. Indians are descendants of homo sapiens who walked out of Africa, over tens of thousands of years, into the Fertile Crescent (Jordan, Syria, Iraq), and closer siblings/cousins to the folks (Caucasoids) that continued north into Europe and east into Asia. Their skin lightened by virtue of the higher latitude (less sun), compared to sub-Sahara Africa, but re-darkened in degrees as they settle farther south in the direction of the equator. They are a great example of the genetically labile (adaptable) nature of skin, base on the environment. Their dark skin makes them no more or less related to Africans, than anyone else. Skin color, in and of itself, tells nothing of genetic kinship. In fact, there are Africans (to this day) that are also just as unrelated to each other, although both have dark skin (here).

Survey comments (here).

James C. Collier

READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE...

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

4 comments:

ÐƎΓΓΛ ƁƎΓΓƎ© said...

I sure am not surprised at this debate...we had a similar one at work where every negroe there claimed to be atleast 5 different races..other than black...its 2010...no one wants to be a negroe....its just not good enough.....**rolls eyes***

jesus be a fence!

Anonymous said...

I think the posted study highlights the fact that we are all - black, white, asian, indian, latino, etc. - similar and we are all DIFFERENT. and RACE IS JUST A BOX, a label, that people like to increase divisiveness.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that the East Indians are diverse, and that there is a difference in origins between North Indians, loosely defined, and South Indians, loosely defined. The North Indians fit your description, but the South Indians arrived in the subcontinent at some earlier date, and (more speculative here) may be descended from the original groups of humans who entered the subcontinent.

Nagas74 said...

It's not about Negroes not wanting to be black but questioning what is black? India was called Indus Kush for a reason. They are black and they are related to Africans despite what some Eurocentric geneticist want to say. Since when did they start telling the truth anyways? They know as long as they keep blacks divided into groups thinking each is so different from the next,we are no threat. You said they left Africa and got light then darkened back up. What? They left Africa black and remained so. The same with melanisians and aboriginals. They left Africa as black people thousands of years ago and they are still black. It's not rocket science. If you have black skin, africoid features you are of black African descent. Period,directly or indirectly. I don't need some Eurocentric bullshit d.n.a. "expert" to tell me my brother is not my brother. Besides the basic divide and conquer at play here is another crucial reason for this seperation of African blacks and those native to Asia and the Pacific. The white man would have to admit that Black Africans were travelling the world by land and sea at least 40,000 years before Colombus! That would destroy the myth of the primitive African who never left the continent until 400 years ago in chains.