Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CASTE AND RACE IN INDIA (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/caste.html - broken link)
To Neuling
the above is an African site, and fits well with what I was taught in school
The caste system in India was originally based on race After the Aryan tribes invasion of the Shudras (black skinned), this racial caste was developed. This caste system regulated language, professions, and many other aspects of social life. The Aryans were on the top of the caste, the mixed races were in the middle and the Shudras or blacks were at the bottom rung.
Where did you get your information that the caste had nothing to do with color?
My friend told me, she is Indian herself and very interested in the history of her country.
There is even an interesting article on Wiki about this (yeah, I know, Wiki...), it pretty much confirms what has been found out so far. There are still a lot of myths out there, that are gradually being refuted as there are more and wider genetic studies.
Sorry to say that, but your source seems one of those Afro-centrist texts that lack scientific substance. India has very little to do with Africa.
I have always thought the word race was used by scientist and anthropologist to distinguish between skin tone, head shape, facial features etc., of humans. It was my understanding that they never intended the word to be used out side of the laboratory, academic, or clinical setting to describe people. As it is currently used, it is really an impractical word considering numerous morphological variations within each ethnic group.
I have always thought the word race was used by scientist and anthropologist to distinguish between skin tone, head shape, facial features etc., of humans. It was my understanding that they never intended the word to be used out side of the laboratory, academic, or clinical setting to describe people. As it is currently used, it is really an impractical word considering numerous morphological variations within each ethnic group.
Long before the anthropologists ever even thought about it, people themselves in their democratic masses had already aligned themselves into races, and from the earliest historical times, there is evidence that "race" was used to assign people to social classes.
The plain and simple truth is that "race" is the difference between individuals that is passed along genetically, that can be perceived by ordinary people and used to classify others on a social scale. That what it was 5,000 years ago, and that's what it is today. And it served the same societal function throughout known history.
Does anybody imagine that the Native Americans "learned" the concept of racial difference from Europeans? Or do you suppose the Indians looked at the Pilgrims and spontaneously came to the conclusion all by themselves that them dudes sure look funny, and immediately began making societal judgments about how to arrange the Europeans into a compartmentalized way of thinking.
Does anybody imagine that the Native Americans "learned" the concept of racial difference from Europeans? Or do you suppose the Indians looked at the Pilgrims and spontaneously came to the conclusion all by themselves that them dudes sure look funny, and immediately began making societal judgments about how to arrange the Europeans into a compartmentalized way of thinking.
I believe that it is the Native Americans that have the creation myth that the Great Spirit fashioned mankind out of clay and then baked the figures in an oven. The black people were the ones that were left in the oven too long. The white people were the ones that weren't in the oven long enough. The Native Americans were the ones that were baked just right and a nice shade of brown.
Okay. After a bit of googling, I found two sources for this creation myth.
This first link is the Native American (Pima tribe) version of mankind being baked in an oven. And the second link is an ancient Philippine creation myth.
No doubt humans saw each other and acknowledged morphological variations. Early pioneers the field of anthropology cautioned us that just because two humans look different they are not different. This sentiment is illustrated in the Journals of Lewis and Clark. When an indigenous group of people were told that they would get to see a "Black Man " who was traveling with the corps. There was quite a let down when they finally met Clark's body servant. Upon close scrutiny they found he was only a "Black Skinned White Man"
Last edited by thriftylefty; 05-30-2010 at 09:02 AM..
In every culture, in every era, in every location of human socialization, people distinguished each other according to "race" when they encountered people from another "race". How was that possible, if there is no such thing as "race"?
In every culture, in every era, in every location of human socialization, people distinguished each other according to "race" when they encountered people from another "race". How was that possible, if there is no such thing as "race"?
It has always been superficial. Imagine green people visited your town tomorrow, your people would look for explanations and distrust those green people because they don't know them, nor what to think of them. Maybe there are more differences than just the green color...
Consider that from the southwestern part of the United States to the southern tip of South America anthropologist believe there may of been at least 125 different language groups. How many thousands of years did they have to exist before they saw someone that was so different from them they had to have a word for it. The same with Africa, Indigenous people in North America, or China. I would think their language would create many words for the more subtle differences among people who look the same. I think the word "Apache" loosely translates as "those who fight us" So when the White Man learned that word it was told to them by some one who was not "one of those who fights us"
Last edited by thriftylefty; 05-30-2010 at 10:50 AM..
It has always been superficial. Imagine green people visited your town tomorrow, your people would look for explanations and distrust those green people because they don't know them, nor what to think of them. Maybe there are more differences than just the green color...
It's not superficial at all. When the green people have babies, they are also green. It's deeper than superficial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
