This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asian2duracell (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 9 October 2007 (→Racial classifications). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:51, 9 October 2007 by Asian2duracell (talk | contribs) (→Racial classifications)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
|
 | Bangladesh B‑class Mid‑importance  | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Religion of Tamils before Hinduism
Yes, there were indigenous animistic faiths amongst the ancient Tamils and other ethnic groups in Southern India. Todays version of Hinduism in Southern India is a mixture of indigenous faiths and Vedic faiths to an extent. The reason you are going on this campaign is the fact that you cannot stomach the idea that we are all indigenous aboriginals of South Asia. All you have to do is take a look at our distant cousins in Australia and parts of the Indonesian archipelago. Apart from that, I would like to leave a famous quote:
"We are fit to think of `Self-Respect' only when the notion of superior and inferior caste is banished from our land." - Periyar Ramaswamy
Wiki Raja 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is the most weakest come back I have ever heard. Enough with this nonsense. Wiki Raja 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comeback? Do you even expect a comeback for your cruft stemmed out of illusions? Gnanapiti 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- At least I support my info with legitimate sources. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Legitimate sources where? Are we provided with different versions of Misplaced Pages here? Gnanapiti 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hindu.net
User:0scalefactor has tried to add back the Hindu.net website as a reliable source. It is not a reliable source. Its arguments for Dravidians and Aryans being the same race are primarily religious. The physical anthropology reasons it gives are uncited and do not explain their reasonings. They state that it is well-known that Dravidians are Mediterranean Caucasoids. The expertise of the author to assert such a statement is in question.----Tea© 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- User:0scaelfactor has a sockpuppet named User:Excel 2008 who made this edit which reverted the article. I am sure that the citations it removed were accidental and were just a part of the reversion. The other parts misrepresent the sources. --Tea© 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version --- Carleton S. Coon (Ph.D Harvad University), in his book he published in 1969, "The Living Races of Man," he said, "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasian racial region." | ” |
| “ | What Coon really said ----Caucasoid race there is a "third division ... included... southern India" but remarked this group had "facial features of a Veddoid character which in some instances suggest Australoid affinities." He further elaborated that in India there are "Veddoids... individuals who are to all extents and purposes Australoid" Over the exact racial composition of India Coon admitted, "he racial history of southern Asia has not yet been thoroughly worked out, and it is too early to postulate what these relationships may be... shall leave the problems of Indian physical anthropology in the competent hands of Guha and of Bowles." | ” |
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version --- Johann Friedrich Blumenbach claimed that most Indians are members of the Caucasian Race, (which includes the Dravidians.) | ” |
This statement about Blumenbach is uncited original research.--Tea© 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version --- Thomas Huxley wrote that all Indians are Australoid. | ” |
This misrepresents Huxley. Huxley considered Mongoloids, Australoids, and Mesochroi to exist in India. He didn't say they were all Australoids.--Tea© 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version--William Henry Boyd claimed that most Indians are members of the "European Race." | ” |
This is uncited original research.----Tea© 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
0scalefactor added back Egon Eickstadt's racial classification of India. The problem is I made that map and I did not cite it, making it original research. I can't trust the map I made, because I realize that even if Eickstadt says Mediterraneans live in India, it doesn't necessarily mean all of India. The source I found the map was a poor summary and a secondary source. From that source, I could not gather the extent of Mediterraneans in India. Also, Eickstadt never said Oesteropoids, Mediterraneans, Alpines and Nordics belong to the same race. Not all anthropologists recognize a grand racial classification that includes Nordics and Mediterraneans.----Tea© 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version--However the term "Aethiopians" does not imply that members are all of the Negroid race. In Genisis (10:6-32), all Ethiopians are said to be descended from both Shem (father of brown Caucasoid people)and Ham (father of black Negros.) | ” |
This is in reference to Chandler claiming that "Ethiopian Negritos" founded India. While it may be true that the term "Ethiopian" may not imply membership in the black race, Chandler specifically says these Ethiopian Negritos are a part of the black race, making the above critical distinction irrelevant.----Tea© 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | User:0scalefactor's version-- Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau claimed that most Indians are members of a so-called "Degenerative Race" | ” |
0scalefactor is misrepresenting Gobineau. Indians were classified as racially "degenerative" by Gobineau because they incorporated the black, yellow and white races. Gobineau did not define a "Degenerative Race".----Tea© 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Racial classifications
the "Racial classifications" part is too long, even longer than Genetic classification, as for these are just theories. And have nothing to do with serious science. Someone should re-edit it or just remove it.Asian2duracell 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to be part of the scope of this article. I see no reason for removing it.----Tea© 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah its a part of this article but way to long for its relevance, most of this statement have nothing to do with science. Some are political and some racist statement. If Dravidians fall under Caucasoid/Asiatic (we talk about scinece, not ones own opinion)....why do we need a statement from the 18th century which sais that they are negroid or veddoid or australoid or whatever. A few sentences like.... "the Dravidians have been mistaken or classified as other races in the past".. is enough.Asian2duracell 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
DNA Tribes
User:82.5.117.20 removed DNA Tribes information from on this edit, on the grounds that it is a commerical organization which involved many people testing DNA ancestry for a price which is odd because its commercial nature doesn't lower its credibility. DNA Tribes does its work into the present and incorporates multiple experts, making it a reliable source. User:82.5.117.20 did not remove Cavalli Sforza whose work represents one person's opinion and was done in th 1980's even though it was not as reliable a source. User:82.5.117.20 gripe seems to be disingenuous in attacking the stronger reliable source when the weaker source disagrees with them. I see nothing unreliable about the DNA Tribes source.----Tea© 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: