The Aryans (again); 19th century discourse.

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

Samar Abbas wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ashish Chandra wrote:
> > What I had meant was that to consider the
> > word Arya which means noble and equate it with a race of people is wrong.
>
>   Recently, anaylses of the genes of Indo-Aryans and other Caucasoids
> using the most advanced techniques avaliable showed that the Indo-Aryans
> belong to the "White Race".

Not really.  In fact, most broad recent genetic studies show that
Northern Indians are closer to Asians than to Europeans or North
Africans.

Genetics are hardly the smoking gun that some believe.

>
>   The earliest Aryans in India were of predominantly brachycephalic Lunar
> stock.
Solar Aryans (predominantly dolicocephalic) came later.

Actually, in terms of long-headed and broad-headed people, the reverse
happened.  I don't know about solar and lunar "Aryans."

 The term
> race is often loosely applied to macro-races (such as the Indo-European
> Caucasoids) as well as sub-races (like the Anglo-Saxon, Slav, etc.). So,
> if you want to be correct, the RigVedic Aryans were of different sub-races
> belonging to one race.

Again, not really.


>   Further genetic analyses have shown the Sudroids (Dravidoids and
> Kolarians) to be of Negroid stock, closely related to Africans. Racial
> conflict has always been more acute where white races have encountered
> black races. Cf. US South, South Africa, etc.

The evidence is quite mixed.  Only a few genetic studies show that
Dravidians are more closely related to Africans.  In fact, most studies
try a bit too hard to deny any connection.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala