![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is on the verge of being a soapbox. What is the interest of presenting such obviously pseudo-scientific information? Historical? There is already two articles for that, Race (historical definitions) (which, by the way, really needs clean-up) and scientific racism. That's enough, I think. Furthermore, there seems to be a problem of WP:CS and WP:RS, and in particular of using primary sources which are presented as facts! This article needs clean-up,at the very least. Tazmaniacs 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed the reference to Joshua project on the number of ethnic groups in India as it is not a trustworthy source
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yusufbade.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
We should consider moving this page to Racism in India, in coherence with Racism by country issues. It would allow, IMO, for a better article. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The move to (merge into much smaller article which is only 2 days old) Racial groups of India also changes the focus from history to contemporary and suggests the concepts covered are still accepted. As usual, the person doing this apparently did not discuss and seek consensus. -- JWB 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I restored - with some modifications - the earlier version of the H&W summary because I think it is very much clearer than the condensed version. It's useful to have a longer version becuse these debates about racial classifications in India are regularly brought into content disputes in other articles and the full version lays out the theories of these writers fairly clearly. The discalimer at the top should be sufficient to ensure that H&W are not "swallowed" uncritically. Paul B 12:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how this content is relevant for Wikipedia. This article is not named "Hudson's theories", and makes the article too long for very detailed information. I don't know why knowing that so-called "Racial element A" was characterized by a "prominent and long nose", with "skin colour varying from light brown to dark tawny brown" relevant. This must be synthetized in short way. If further information is really needed, than a specific article can be made, or an external link to his book given Tazmaniacs 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
!Hudson stated that, broadly, seven "racial elements" are present in Indian people:
- Racial Element A
- Characterized by short-stature, long-head with high cranial vault but faintly marked supra-orbital ridges and broad, short but ortho-gnathous face, with medium lips. The nose is prominent and long but the alae moderately spread out, giving a mesorrhine index. The skin colour varies from light brown to dark tawny brown. The eye colour is dark brown, and the hair colour is usually black. The authors stated the Telugu Brahmins, "Kallas of Southern Tamil country" and the "Illuvas of Cochin" ( Ezhava) as examples. They said that this element is predominant in the lower stratum of the population of Northern India, including to some extent the Punjab (for example, Chubra and Chamar, which appear to be closely related to the Mediterranean stock of Europe)
- Racial Element B
- A Brachycephalic element of medium stature with flattened occiput but having also high head and not infrequently receding forehead. Characterized by short and orthognathous, but somewhat broader face. "The nose is long and quite often arched and convex". The skin colour varies from a pale white to light brown. The eye colour is usually dark brown, but a small per cent shows light eyes. The hair colour is black with a small proportion showing a dark brown tint. The hair is generally straight and the pilous system well developed. The examples given by the authors included the Nagar Brahmins of Gujarat, the Kayastha of Bengal and the Kannada non-Brahmins.
- Racial Element C
- A long-headed strain with comparatively lower but longer head and tall stature and possessing a long face and prominent narrow long nose. The skin color varies from a rosy white tint to light transparent brown. The eye color is usually grey-blue, and the hair color is chestnut. A small proportion of people have light eyes and brownish hair. Among this type also the hair is usually straight and the pilous system well developed. The examples stated by the authors included the "North-west Himalayan tribes like the Kaffirs and the Pathans", the Sikhs of the Punjab, and the Brahmins of U. P.
- Racial Element D
- A short and moderately high-headed strain with very often strongly marked brow ridges, broad short face, the mouth slightly inclined forwards and small flat nose with the alae extended. The hair varies from wavy to curliness and the skin is of a shade of dark chocolate brown approaching black. The examples given were the aboriginal tribes of Central and Southern India, including Bhils and the Chenchus. The authors also stated that this strain seems to have entered in a considerable degree in the lower stratum of the Indian population. The authors also believed that this type is closely related to the Veddas of Ceylon, the Toalas of Celebes, and the Sakais of the Malay Peninsula. The Aborigines of Australia were considered a primitive form of this type by the authors.
- Racial Element E
- A dark Pygmy strain having spirally curved hair. The examples given were the Kadars, the Pulayans, and the Angairti Nagas. The authors stated that the Andamanese are racially homogeneous and of distinct type, characterised by a dwarfish stature, black complexion and woolly hair.
- Racial Element F
- A brachycephalic Mongoloid type, having. The authors stated that the Mongoloid racial strain does not appear to have entered in any considerable extent in mainland Indians. It is found along the sub-Himalayan region of North-Eastern Kashmir to Bhutan. The type that forms the dominant element in Burma (which was then a part of British India) is also brachycephalic but somewhat shorter in stature and having a short flat nose and a tendency to alveolar prognathism. It appears to exhibit certain affinities with the Siamese, the Malay and the Cochin Chinese.
- Racial Element G
- A second Mongoloid strain characterised by medium stature, longish head and medium nose, but exhibiting like the typical Mongoloid characteristics of the face and eye. Examples given were people of Assam and Northern Burma, including the Angami Nagas and the Mikir- Bodo people.
This older reversion reverted to by User:Computational defunct has many maps that I made years ago that I did not cite correctly. I think I found most of them out of a Thomas F. Gossett's Race the History of an Idea in America, but they were not correctly cited with page numbers and everything. I can't confirm them. At that time I didn't realize that when an anthropologist classified a section of India as a certain race that it probably didn't apply to all Indians. This makes me suspect some of the maps may be in error. Recently I have been more inclined to using incontrovertible quotations from the primary sources which give little room for error. I also didn't specify the range for the racial groups for the people who mentioned different racial groups in India. This is an important issue. For these reasons, the current state of the article is better. Please, do not revert it.---- Dark Tea © 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
An attempt to rename this page (Historical definitions) to Racial groups of India has been done without any discussions, and, besides, without using the proper procedure. This is not correct at all. I strongly oppose the de facto move, and propose to merge the very recently created article "Racial groups of India" here, because of NPOV considerations. Tazmaniacs 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
His page [1] which you reference actually says "The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve."
If that statement is accurate, why aren't you consulting, quoting and referencing Oppenheimer, who is a notable recent scientist working in this field, or something like the Discovery Channel documentary, which is a mainstream secondary source, instead of a racial extremist? I do not understand your attraction to political extremists and it is not a healthy focus for science articles.
The second half of the page has a detailed tree structured typological classification which I suggested came from Coon and you then removed from another article. Why are you using it again here? -- JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
When did I input that McCulloch wrote of Indians being "Mediterranean"??? In his "The Races of Humanity" published in 2007, October 9, 2007 [2] he mentioned Indians as Caucasoids.- Goldenhawk 0
First, oddly, the footnote for Cavalli-Sforza actually points to a reference to Blumenbach who is centuries older.
Second, you quote a classificatory sentence from Cavalli-Sforza, but give absolutely no context! Is this based on skeletal data, color or other traits, autosomal DNA, mtDNA or something else? Is it his recent result, another scientist's recent result he's discussing, or decades-old information he's giving as introductory background?
This is typical of your approach - disconnected quotes with someone apparently pronouncing an opinion, with no attention to what the original source was and what the reasoning leading to the conclusion was. Articles are supposed to have coherent exposition of the progress of a field.
I see now that farther up, you've left another section also titled "Cavalli-Sforza (1995)", this one consisting of only 9 words! How sloppy can you possibly get? -- JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted in another article, cutting the middle out of the quote distorts the meaning completely. Please fix this.
You paste the same stuff in several articles, making it harder to clean up. You repeatedly accuse other people of WP:CFORK when there is even a vague similarity in topic but you feel like deleting their content which you don't like, then you insert completely identical, highly controversial, extremist quotes in multiple places, which is far worse a violation.
-- JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Goldenhawk 0 has been adding additions to the article which are unsourced. First, Goldenhawk 0 wants to add that Gobineau classified Indians as being part of a "degenerative race" with quotations. This is wrong. Gobineau considered Indians to be a mixture of the white, black and yellow races. He considered them to have a degenerative status due to their racial mixture. Goldenhawk 0's characterization of Mackenzie is misleading. It is not a direct quote from Mackenzie. It is only surmised from Mackenzie due to Mackenzie characterizing anthropologists who classified a proportion of Indians to be Mediterranean. There is already a Ripley section I made with full quotes that explains his views about India's racial mixture. Goldenhawk 0 has added a redundant section of lesser quality about Ripley. The Linnaeaus section was from my earlier characterization of Linnaeaus which is unsourced and without quotes. Richard McCulloch was agreed upon by User:JWB to be a poor source who has copied Coon's classification system, making him redundant. David Frawley is a Hindu researcher with no expertise in the subject of race. He is not a reliable source in this issue.---- Dark Tea © 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the new sources Goldenhawk 0 adds are suspicious. They aren't direct quotes which I would be more comfortable with. Direct quotes hinder an editor's ability to misrepresent sources. This is especially important on an issue like this where most of the sources will say that there is a Mediterranean influence in India, but will not say they're all Mediterranean. Goldenhawk 0's sources cannot be confirmed from Google books. The page numbers cited on at least two of the citations just happen to be the pages Google books left out.---- Dark Tea © 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The Von Eickstadt citation is really from Carleton Coon's races of Europe rather than the original source. I originally added the Eickstadt section, so I know that this is the case.---- Dark Tea © 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Did he make a pronouncement about the "racial" make-up of Indians? I don't think so. Did he quote a 19th century writer on the topic? Quite possibly. But if he is to be cited on that, then the reference must be to one of his works. Itsmejudith ( talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My God, this page has had both Dark Tea and Goldenhawk0 editing it? My sympathies to this much-abused article. I'm doing a trim and clean-up - cut material is being moved to Talk:Historical definitions of races in India/Dumping ground. Moreschi ( talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of restoration and clean up. Its been constantly vandalized by individuals promoting their own biased agendas. I feel so sickened by these people. And its such a mess. I would have to dig through the previous edits to restore all the valid additions that have been deleted. $$$ Fierce D $$$ ( talk) 11:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that all the information in the article has been removed without discussion. I've undone this edit. 123.211.33.128 ( talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Moreschi cut it down last year. While it is true that the article was an unreadable mess, a lot of valid information was lost in that edit. Relevant material should carefully be added back. -- dab (𒁳) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Racism in India redirects here? This article doesn't appear to be about racism in India at all. - Borofkin ( talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Modern studies indicate that the Dravidians of India belong to Mediterranean race. But this article appears to be having no mentions of it. Govindsharma ( talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to a report of edit warring filed at WP:AN/EW, I have protected this article for 24 hours. Bodhidharma7, Tamilan101, and MThekkumthala are strongly advised to bring their dispute to this talk page before making any further reverts after the page protection expires. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Carleton S. Coon has claimed the Dravidians as of caucasoid stock in the past, as well as Richard McCulloch. This article has no mentions on these claims and I will have to edit some material as well as put this aspect of the article in. ( Tamilan101 ( talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
BTW, you're an idiot if you think you can play this childish game with me indefinitely. Bodhidharma7 ( talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That does not matter, the article title is "Historical definitions of races in India", thus examining all aspects in history that have been contributed to the research of the races in India. These are clearly known claims. You seem to forget it is not you interest, this is wikipedia none of your POV motivated claims will be here.( Tamilan101 ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
I like how you have your sock account doing all your dirty work for you. Bodhidharma7 ( talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Anyways, I will Carleton's part to the "Great Races" section or make a new section itself. Though McCulloch's claim will remain, because it is relatively a new claim. ( Tamilan101 ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
You can include the Carleton Coon part in another section, but the McCulloch section has no place here. McCulloch is a nordicist. -- Bodhidharma7 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That has no link between this article. It is a claim that contributes to examination of races in India, thus should be added since this article must examine all viewpoints.( Tamilan101 ( talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
A source is a source, this article does not analyze who is a geneticist or anthropologist. It's a known claim and should shown here.( Tamilan101 ( talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
And white supremacists are not considered verifiable, trustworthy sources btw. 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Bodhidharma7 ( talk)
I have added that he is a white supremacist, however a claim is a claim. It is a widely known claim as well. ( Tamilan101 ( talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove "The races of modern India " section. It is obvious, that this section doesn't belong here. It's completely off topic and duplicates the content of a modern genetics article to be found here Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia .-- MThekkumthala ( talk) 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Krakatoa
Katie 13:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Edit warring over that section appears to be exactly why this page is currently protected. Go discuss the issue, don't try to continue your edit war by proxy.
Anomie
⚔ 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. No action until the active editors on this article reach a consensus. Lack of response does not constitute a consensus when there had been recent edit-warring. --
Donald Albury 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Admins think, that there is a dispute on the removal of this offtopic content. Please discuss.-- MThekkumthala ( talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable. http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization! The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct. Part one http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One Part Two very,very important! http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two (These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem) for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below: part two http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC) Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC) - There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC) 1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final
2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis
Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)
1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
182.72.239.115 (
talk) 20:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Historical definitions of races in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)