← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar
Thread ID: 5042 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-02-16
2003-02-16 03:56 | User Profile
[url=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/6/994?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=India&searchid=1045357298861_397&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=genome]Indian Brahmin Genetically Similar To Europeans[/url] Caste Differences In India Marked, Genetic Study Shows
2/15/03 10:09:28 PM Genome.Org
Salt Lake City, Utah --
Indian caste shows link to Europeans
A study has shown that people in higher ranks of the Indian caste system are more closely related to Europeans than Asians.
Experts now believe Europeans moved into India about 5,000 years ago, helped put the caste system in place and put themselves at the top.
The genetic differences between social levels are still clear because inter-caste marriages are frowned upon in Indian culture.
Researchers at the University of Utah looked at the genes of 265 Indian men of different castes and compared them with 750 samples from elsewhere in the world.
The study, published in Genome Research, even found differences between DNA inherited through the female and the male lines.
Whereas the male DNA was similar to Europeans the female DNA was closer to other Asian samples.
This supports the idea that most of the early European immigrants who adopted senior positions in the caste system were male.
Last updated: 23:27 Monday 14th May 2001
Libertarian Socialist News Post Office Box 12244 Silver Spring, MD 20908
[url=http://www.overthrow.com]http://www.overthrow.com[/url]
2003-02-16 16:46 | User Profile
Regarding the origins of Brahmins and other related issues which seem to matter to a handful of us ;) you are cordially invited, if you have not done so already, to peruse: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=5873&st=0#entry29112]In Search of the Seed of Indian-Aryan Civilization, a linguistic approach[/url]
2003-02-18 03:39 | User Profile
Sisyfos, it's a little disconcerting to see an erudite fellow like you clambering on the rban-wagon.
While anyone with a even a little learning will readily acknowledge there is actually a tiny kernel of truth hidden behind the turbaned one's excitable and incoherent ramblings, it is also clearly the case that there is nothing or nobody from contemporary India that has the slightest relevance or value to add in the struggle for the preservation and advancement of Westerm civilization.
There's little argument that several millenia ago a branch of what we now term the Indo-Europeans drifted into the northern parts of what we now call the sub-continent. Little seems to be known about the aboriginal population, but it seems quite evident that it was largely Australoid. Following centuries of miscegenation, the genetic heritage of the I-E colonisers has been diluted to such an extent that even a cursory examination of contemporary India will confirm that the overwhelming majority of the population has not even the most tenuous of genetic ties to modern people of European stock. Thanks to the rigid caste system, such 'Aryan' vestiges that do remain (e.g.. the Brahmins) represent the thinnest of fine veneers at the very summit of the broiling ant-heap that is India today.
For anyone whose ancestors hail from within say 1000 km of the Dogger Bank, your average Indian is genetically and culturally at the fartherst most outer reach, at the Pluto as it were, of the 'Aryan' world. If an Englishman and a Dane have a genetic distance of 1, the Indian has a genetic distance of 79.
So why should we, here in the Eurosphere, ever want to invite Hoechstensmischlinge such as rban's tribe into our tent. Just because several thousand years ago a long forgotten sub-branch of our very distant ancestors wandered into a remote and dusty backwater, and thereupon went native? Sorry, but it makes more sense to have all the mestizos in Brazil come on in, they've certainly got better Aryan credentials than any Hindu.
2003-02-19 04:14 | User Profile
Wintermute:
I think you may have perhaps overlooked the main thrust of my message. Let me state it again, more succinctly, and then move to responding to some of your cogent and well-taken points.
Basically my proposition is as follows. Yes, there is an Aryan genetic component in the present population of India. However after centuries of absorption into the indigenous population the Aryan genetic material is so strictly confined to a relatively microscopic number of individuals at the highest strata of the caste system as to be effectively irrelevant. The second point is that *contemporary * India is an economic midget, with endemic social and ethnic divisions. It is one monsoon away from famine, and is not the thrusting first-world wannabe that it's over-excitable PR flacks are attempting to portray. India has little to offer the West except its surplus population.
I don't support the massive immigration of Hindus to the United States or Europe
I am glad to hear we are in phase on this.
... I get the feeling that you might not credit that real spiritual and philosophical synthesis counts towards the 'preservation' and 'advancement' of the West...
I agree I have much to learn in this field. I am basing my comparative assessment on the contributions of physicists, chemists, engineers, life scientists, composers, inventors and other original creative forces who have forged Western society in the last 500 years. There undoubtedly are Hindus of astonishing erudition as you put it; with 1/6 of the world's population they must have bred a few geniuses.
**Referring to the Aryans as a 'long forgotten sub-branch' is an admission of contemporary moral dislocation. They are your progenitors. **
Sorry this is incorrect. By Aryans, I assume you are referring to the Indo-Aryans. I believe it is now generally understood that the Indo-Aryan sub-branch diverged from the proto Indo-European stem stock well before 1500 BC. To claim that the Indo_Aryans are the progenitors of the Germanic, Celtic, Baltic and other I-E ethnies is a major stretch and demonstrably untrue.
**To refer to the Aryans as 'very distant relations', as if they were Africans, is not the direction of growth and integration. It is the complete loss of memory, a potentially fatal dislocation. **
Surely you are over-egging the pudding. The (Indo-)Aryans are very distant relations. Cavalli-Sforza confirms that Indians (not Dravidians) are genetically closer to Tibetans and Mongol Tungus than to Northern Europeans. I say study the Vedas by all means if you're in the mood for some exotic tales about fire gods and how to be a successful hermit, but I personally feel more at home with Homer and the Venerable Bede.
Cheers!
2003-02-19 07:50 | User Profile
Gentlemen, it appears from your entries that you have misconstrued my position regarding Hindus despite my uncompromising history on the subject of race, and the playful tone of my ââ¬ÅIn Search ofââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â posting, which I thought plain.
I am pleased to see that others share my fascination with genetics, population migrations and transformations. It is evident, however, that these topics easily lend themselves to giving personal insult and for this and other reasons a clinical approach is to be preferred when discussing the etiology of any of the variety of talking hominids roaming about.
A rudimentary exponential exercise reveals that due to Earthââ¬â¢s known anthropoid population each of us runs out of direct distinct ancestors at some point around the thirteenth century. It follows that inbreeding of varying degree was extensively practiced from the earliest nomadic bands up until quite recently since racial differences imply that only a segment of the global population made genetic contributions to any individual. So far so good for what is race but an extended family, i.e., inbreeding. The problem is really outside-of-race breeding and how far back one has to go before foreign genetic admixture is uncovered. Appreciation of differences in reaction to this reality which impacts some more than others explains much, including behaviour of OD members.
Now, to elaborate:
-Aryan countries should stay as such, hence zero Indian immigrants (save perhaps one Brahmin Ramanujan type per century)
-Racial purity ought to be maintained with all other considerations subordinate.
End of fantasy and on to reality:
-US, for example, will continue to receive close to a million third world immigrants annually and short of barbwire and machine gun nests there is nothing it can do about it (that nothing will be done is implicit in the only real remedy, given present political realities).
-Hindus being of the more mongrelized variety of immigrants fall short concerning in-group cooperation when compared with Asians -- to say nothing of Jews -- and lack the innate aggressiveness of blacks -- in short, they represent the prototypical slaves our masters would have us become.
-In general, they welcome the presence of whites (disdain for dealing with women in business acknowledged) and of all other races they are the least parasitic, e.g., many are content with manning corner stores, and forcing you check that you have received exact change for your slurpee is small imposition considering other alternatives.
To sum up: absence physical removal of aliens already present in North America (Europe is a little behind but its accounting will be settled with the admission of Turkey into EU) the progeny of white will either go the way of Iranians (relatively uniform but quite Arabic in appearance) or Brahmins of varying shades. Hence the relevance of the genetic pottage that is modern India. BTW, I am no longer being playful!
I believe it is now generally understood that the Indo-Aryan sub-branch diverged from the proto Indo-European stem stock well before 1500 BC. To claim that the Indo_Aryans are the progenitors of the Germanic, Celtic, Baltic and other I-E ethnies is a major stretch and demonstrably untrue.
Irrelevant, for if the "Indo_Aryans" are not our progenitors then their parents or others further ahead of the genetic line surely are, and the study of their beliefs as preserved via scripts is more revealing historically as it predates other Aryan records by centuries if not millennia.
2003-02-19 11:46 | User Profile
Race and culture are not the same thing, although they are closely intertwined.
Race and culture set the boundaries for each other: racial-genetic factors like average IQ and emotionality set the broad parameters of potential cultural achievment, whereas a healthy culture functions to isolate and improve the race through the establshment of group identity (especially in regard to religion), the defense of group resources, and the setting of group-enhancing behavioural norms.
Thus, a "nation" is a semi-closed genetic group that maintains a distinct cultural identity (language, customs, laws, traditions) and occupies a defined territory.
The European nations can thus be defined by the indicia of (1) European geography, (2) Indo-European language, (3) Caucasoid race, (2) Christian religion. Nearly all of the nations of Europe share all of these indicia. It is my position that we should analyze each group with respect to these indicia.
There are a couple of exceptions, which underscore that not all of the indicia are of equal importance.
For example, the Hungarians, Finns and Basques do not speak an Indo-European language (2), but they do meet the other criteria and they're clearly European. On the other hand, the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims have (1) - (3), but their Muslim religion turns their loyalty to another civilization, and thus nobody could reasonably accept them as Europeans.
The question of immigration is whether the immigrant group can assimilate into the American mainstream without undue difficulty, while bringing needed skills. The American experiment has proved that any group of people bearing these four indicia can assimilate easily into the American national identity - just as it shows that groups that differ in religion or race do not easily assimilate and indeed cause untold damage to our body politic. America did a great job of melding Poles, English, Scots, Armenians, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Hungarians and so forth into the mainstream - it failed completely with blacks and Jews.
Now, turning to Rban's favourite subject, the Hindus. Would they make good immigrants and assimilate rapidly, or would their presence in large numbers lead to their striving for a distinct identity within the American nation and thus threaten disruption to our national life? Looking at the four indicia, we see that:
The upper-caste Hindus occupy a territory on another continent (sub continent) and are thus outside the mainstream of our history and cultural development;
They speak an Indo-European language, and indeed possess a great literature, as Wintermute points out;
As the Utah study shows, the upper-caste Hindus are the decendants of Aryan warriors and their native (Dravidian) wives, and so while they are closer to us than other Indians, they are nontheless of mixed race with obvious physical differences;
The Hindus did not share in the Christian centuries of Europe, and are indeed of a wholly-other civilization whose basic assumptions about the world and man's place in it are at odds with Christianity.
Taken as a whole, while upper-caste Hindus with higher educations no doubt would make better immigrants than other third world candidates, they differ from us European types sufficiently to place any large-scale immigration out of reasonable consideration. I'd take a few of their best, and encourage them strongly to assimilate as rapidly as possible.
A similar analysis lies with Persians (the main ethny of Iran). They speak an Indo-European language and are basically of Caucasian extraction, certainly more so than the Hindus. However, their geography is removed from Europe and thus did not share in the main currents of our history (indeed, they nearly destroyed Greece), and belong to the Muslim Umma. Large scale immigration from them, despite their many talents, would thus be very disruptive.
Amren published a letter to the editor that I wrote a while back on my little analytic method, although Jared Taylor edited it enough that he withheld my name.
Walter
2003-02-19 12:28 | User Profile
There are any number of people we can learn from, trade with, and establish amicable alliances with to mutual benefit. At a respectful distance, of course.
But none of this is possible without first getting our own house in order. And massive Indian immigration to the West can only compound our woes at the moment.
Unless they're willing to take our blacks and mestizos in trade at, say, a 2-for-1 ratio. Then we wouldn't have any choice but to listen. Might bring a uniquely Western perspective to the average Hindu, too. Right now they think Pakistanis are the last word in bad news......Apu, say hello to my leetle frens, DaShawn and Humberto....
2003-02-20 03:40 | User Profile
One of the really neat things about this forum is that, due to the generally elevated level of the discourse, you need to be fairly diligent about fact-checking before posting if you wish to avoid a roasting. Another is that many posters are clearly fifth-gear broadband types who can provide fresh insights into topics that one had perhaps lazily glossed over in the past.
On re-reading this thread, I find that, while not retreating an inch from my assessment of the contribution that *contemporary * India is equipped to make to Western society and culture (i.e. tending to zero), I may have been too dismissive of the value that the written legacy of the Aryans and Indo-Aryans could have in helping to understanding how our culture came to be as it is. If by my offhand comments I offended anyone who has devoted time and energy in this field of study, then I apologize.
I would like to ask anyone who has some knowledge in the field of the Indo-Aryan Sanskrit texts to:
Recommend a single volume that explains the significance of the Vedas in layman's terms, perhaps with slightly more emphasis on the historical and political aspects, rather than the mythological, and;
Outline the rationale why it might make sense for a harassed servant of Mammon to invest time in this field of study rather than, say, Beowulf or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, to name just two neglected subjects a little closer to home. In other words what additional benefit is the non-specialist Western reader likely to derive from the Vedas that is not available in our own very rich history and philosophy.
Thank you in advance.
2003-02-20 07:35 | User Profile
To be candid, there is little to be gained ââ¬Åfor a harassed servant of Mammon to invest timeââ¬Â in the study of the Vedas and other similarly neglected subjects save satiation of curiosity. The four Vedas themselves make up a relatively short compilation and will not infringe too severely on oneââ¬â¢s time. Beyond that, much depends on personal inclination and education.
Apart from historical and political aspects (not much there to allow for political considerations, but if examined for this exclusively it may lead to complete dismissal of the thing as nearing proto-Bolshevism) there may be something of merit for those scientifically or philosophically inclined. If this is your kind of meat you could do worse than start with ââ¬ÅThe Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.ââ¬Â Personally, I thought the book was at times reaching but there is no denying some intriguing parallels. At the very least, you will gain an appreciation of what Heisenberg and other ââ¬Ëredwoodsââ¬â¢ in the field were likely thinking of when they made the statements that rban had so diligently compiled for our benefit elsewhere. If that isn't ample motivation... :lol:
2003-02-21 06:25 | User Profile
**To be candid, there is little to be gained ââ¬Åfor a harassed servant of Mammon to invest timeââ¬Â in the study of the Vedas and other similarly neglected subjects save satiation of curiosity. **
Well thank you Sisyfos, I'll order the "The Tao of Physics.." and give it a whirl.
I had hoped that Wintermute and others who evidently lay great store in the relevance of the Vedic scriptures to our present predicaments might provide further illumination as to why this actually is the case. For one who is unashamably Eurocentric, it is not immediately apparent how a heightened awareness of what transpired in the Indus Valley 3500 years ago could be of major benefit today. But, as I readily admit, I am completely ignorant in this field and seek further enlightenment.
BTW S., I am uncertain how Heisenberg gets to be a redwood, what principle is at play here?