Daily reminder, North india > South India

Daily reminder, North india > South India

Other urls found in this thread:

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Skin-colour-tied-to-caste-system-says-study/articleshow/55532665.cms
youtube.com/watch?v=mPne-q4ynts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Pakistan > India

I didn't enjoy my time in the north when I was there. I am understating greatly.

The South is more civilized though.

>we wuz aryans an sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeit

If only they weren't muslim...

Because the beauty of the dusky dravidian woman must not perish from the earth

When I was there the south was the only good part about the trip.
-better food
-cleaner air
-nicer people

South India is literally a different state compared to New Smelhi.

Maybe historically, the South is much better in terms of metrics like GDP, healthcare quality, etc. now though.

nobody cares pajeet

Khalistan > Pakistan > India

...

im north indian but I look white, am I okay then?

It doesn't matter, Europeans should only vacation and care about other European countries/people. Fuck the rest of the world, we're full.

All Shitskins.
All serial rapists.
All inbred.

Carpet nuke Turkey to India.

Problem solved.

South Indians are uglier but smarter

but they still shit on their streets though right?

then there are north east indians which literally just look like chinks

WE WUZ INDO EUROPEAN ARYANS N SHEEIT

Yes, Achmed, Abdul and Mohammed will love European vacations!

It's curious how almost every nation has the north>south mentality.

I'll end up moving to the north pole just to trash talk the rest of the world.

Don't forget about Bangladesh and Indonesia

It's not about geography it's about the caste system. It was literally a eugenics system to keep the Vedics from mixing with the darkies. Northern India was conquered by indo-european nomads in ancient times and this caste system was basically them trying to stay white/intelligent.

seriously strange how asian they look

This is a upper class brahmin.

There are light skinned dalits and dark skinned brahmins

borders haven't always been where they are today.

Bangladesh is good for sweat shops.
Indonesia seems ok in parts, maybe ethnic cleaning of the lands.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Skin-colour-tied-to-caste-system-says-study/articleshow/55532665.cms

>cherry picking instead of using mass data

tamils are bros, gtfo

yeah, just goes to show how big india and china are

>27 ethnic groups from the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

2 Northern Indian states (both of whom are the poorest). That doesn't prove brahmin/dalit population differences between north and south.

Do they poo in loo?

India and China share a border, retard...look at a globe sometime.

no shit, it's just interesting because when people think of indians they think of the indian looking ones

I said it's not about geography, and beyond that when the caste system was made it allowed the southern kings/scribes the same marriage rights as the northerners. Some got in because it wasn't an explicitly racist system just "kings and rulers" or "priests and scribes"

not to mention the share a border with bhutan, and nepal, both mongoloid phenotypes.

Southerners may be uglier but they are more intelligent. Sri Lanka is darkest country in South Asia, and it has highest HDI.

having sea ports will tend to drive trade to those regions, they north's traditional source of trade income was the silk road and that all but dried up with the Suez canal opening.

North Indians = Muslim shits and rapists
South India = More wealthy, peacefull and less shit in the streets

The modern day caste system is a creation of the Mughals and the British, and it primarily affected North India. Before that Indo-Europeans and Dravidians mixed freely.

aryan vs dravidian. one poos in the loo the other in a designated street

>implying the entire country isn't shit

it's actually discussed in ancient hindu scripture and likely before recorded history

really makes you think

dam they even beat out africa

Nobody gives a fuck

If you're an Indian you're a poo, doesn't matter where in India you're from

the map needs regional data, I'd really like to see that.

unless you unironically think that geography = culture

they didn't use it to the extent the british used it as a population control mechanism

No. Biggest India redpill is Dravidans > Aryans

that sounds a lot like uncited post-caste propaganda

youtube.com/watch?v=mPne-q4ynts

North India = descendents of the white god Alexander the Great

South India = descendents of some monkey god

...

So captcha is fucked right?

oh, you're a poo in loo then?

funny how you try to deny how badly the bongs raped your people

yeah it freezes for me sometimes

settings > posting / replying > legacy captcha

the image selection one gives you false negatives to siphon more of your brain power per post

...

neither can poo in the loo

thats because they arent indian idiot

they are chinks who happen to be living within indian borders

then why deny it? It happened, and britain has used similar tactics elsewhere

are you ashamed or something?

>The modern day caste system
>modern

No one is arguing that it existed before the Mughals and the British. But the primary rigidification and expansion of it was done by the British. They came from a society with even more rigid class structures - I mean hell, they turned the peasant 'Jatt' class in Punjab into one of the most powerful, because of their loyalty.

>they are chinks who happen to be living within indian borders
Do you think when you cross the border between two countries, the race of the people instantly changes? North east India is majority Hindu and majority Indo-European, they are culturally Indian. They would never identify as Chinese.

brahmins > kshatriyas > rest

NORTH MEXICO WAS WHITE N SHIET UNTIL THE INDIOS STARTED COMING HERE

REEE

i'm not denying anything, I'm just skeptical of your single sentence claiming that to be the case
interesting part about that elevation of the Jatt.

I'm no expert on the subject, but denying that the caste system was eugenics should have to come with better citation. It's obvious that they only wanted smart people breeding with other smart people. Using that same logic and the universal human attraction to fairer skin it's obvious you can see that the lighter ones would be prejudiced toward the darker ones.

>Franceistan dark green due to all those fucking Muslims (~6.5 mirrion, ~10% of the population)

I lah mao at that.

the pitting of the classes against eachother was a perfect strategy for the british to keep control over the area - the caste system became much more stringent/important than it was in the time recently before the brits took india

It was an extremely good play by the british, and is well documented, so why brush it off as propaganda so soon after it happened? it's not like india is fucked up right now and reparations need to be paid

also, endogamy wasn't only common to the indo-aryans, the southerns/scheduled tribes ALSO refused to mate with them, to the extent that they developed high levels of sickle cell anaemia from inbreeding. Eugenics was obviously a factor, but no the whole story

smart people breeding with other smart people?
This is not like Europe's colonisation of primitive peoples in Africa and the Americas. The Indo-European migration was to a predominantly Dravidian region that was developed for its time (see Indus Valley).

Hopefully all the Dravidian can all go back to the India and live happily there without bothering Europeans

lolz

why brush off everything from over 2000 years of recorded history saying "don't breed outside your caste". regardless how much it had degraded by the 17th century it was written law from history. That's like saying christians never whipped people as punishment because they stopped the practice after it was written in the bible. I have a feeling you've shifted the argument to whether or not the british committed atrocities of which I have no doubt they did. Hell they did horrible things to their white neighbours.

DESIGNATED

I agree. Eugenics has mainly been an Indo-Aryan/European concept, but even during the migrations to India, there was heavy mixing between the ANI (Ancestral North Indian) and thet ASI (Ancestral South Indian) populations. It was only after, that you had a limited racial based caste system, which was largely confined to North India (links in with creations of clans there too).

But by far the modern day caste system is largely a work of the Brits. And its not a oddity either - the same case scenario happened in Rwanda, with the Hutus and Tutsis

scribes and priests need to read / write to do their job. Throughout history to be this kind of person you were in the top 0.1% of education / intelligence, following the logic of ancient peoples that all characteristics were passed on to children they didn't want people ruining their bloodlines and thus depriving the states of their scribes and priests. Now think about where a foreign conqueror would place himself in the caste system and it becomes obvious.

Not unless you're going to go back

there was never an idea of pan-india nationality until after the british consolidated the region, before that they were warring states with complex alliances and interactions

I don't consider the caste system an "atrocity" - it was a societal control

You're dodging my point, the british elevated the caste system's importance to a greater level than it was recently before they conquered it so they could keep control over india, this is undeniable because it worked extremely well and is pretty well documented

Yes it was done millenia in the past, but not in the period before the british conquered india

What propagandistic purpose would acknowledging that give? Are there indians in britain who seek reparations?

...

Stop talking about what you don't understand. The caste system is as old as Hinduism and the castes are found in equal proportions throughout India, though every region has it's own names and specific regional castes that fall under one of the larger four castes. South Indian brahmins in kerala are very fair and low castes in the north are often dark. And brahmins are not the king caste.

I never dodged your points, I said regardless of whether or not the caste system fell into disuse it was historically relevant

So how is it propaganda to say the british elevated the use of the caste system for their own needs?

Northern kings/rulers were ancient vedic from iran, that's why it was relevant.

do to poo in the loo indians only reside in the south? North indians look too evolved to do that type of behavior

>Picks the most densely populated country in the world
>Says there are lots of street shitters per square km
Fuck off.

because india abolished the caste system in favour for "we're all equal :DDDDD" despite the fact that the higher castes are going to be much more intelligent and float to the top of a pure meritocracy

Fuck you asshole Hanuman is a legend.

regardless, that doesn't make what I said untrue

Kshatriya > brahmin; unless when people ask you who's in charge of Australia you tell them "the pope" instead of "the prime minister"

And there still isn't to a large extent amongst large segments of the population.
Kashmir, Punjab, NE India as well as Tamil Nadu all saw/still see secessionist movements.

Though the British did stop the Mughal invasions and did modernise some of India, they ultimately left behind a legacy which exacerbated racial, class and ethnic divisions, that were less pronounced before they arrived.

which part?
>The caste system stopped being relevant in the 1700s.
eugenics takes place over many generations and would be hard to be undone in the ~12 generations since then

such is the case will all large multicultural nations

The thing i've been saying every post, and that you accused of being propaganda,
are you retarded?

the british elevated the use of the caste system for their own needs to a greater degree than it existed at the point of them conquering them

This isn't propaganda at all

I retract what I said; you seem to know your shit white boy. The Vedic and non-vedic terminology is confusing because Hinduism has too much history that's not recorded. As I understand it, Indo-Euro-Aryan-Iranian (whatever the fuck you call it) peoples migrated into North India repeatedly over some time, and there is a lot of migration in the high castes to prevent inbreeding and to create military alliances, which resulted in the genome being spread across a lot of modern India. I'm from Andhra Pradesh (traditionally south india) but my 23andme results pinned me as 80% indian and 15% middle/near east, even though nobody in my family has left approximately a 100 mi. radius for as long as anyone can remember.

but you continue to dismiss the caste system as having no effect on the current genetics of the population which in terms of all human genetics is false. We are all beholden to our ancestor's genes until genetic engineering is perfected. If you are no dismissing it then we've been arguing for nothing.

>but you continue to dismiss the caste system as having no effect on the current genetics of the population
I literally never said that, I said the OPPOSITE regarding what I said about sickle cell, what the fuck

show me your flag, are you indian? How are you so retarded?

And yet India prospers under this 'we're all equal' system. Unlike the rule of the hierarchal British, the more egalitarian. independent India has seen no major famines, increased literacy, nutrition and health.
There aren't socioeconomic divides unlike America, and as we see with thriving dark-skinned states like Kerala/Tamil Nadu/Telangana, the entire population can be slowly lifted out of poverty, regardless of race/caste/ethnicity. A much better improvement on the '''meritocratic''' caste system favoured by the British.

North or south, they still shit in filthy streets

>areas with the most Christians are the best.

what else is new?

They actually have affirmative action for low-castes now. A pity.
The British made caste a big deal to the LOW castes; because they used it to justify ridiculous systemic oppression and forced labor, etc. While low caste people were worse off than the upper castes, the degree of difference in living standards radically changed under the British, which fueled caste strife.

That being said, caste has always been very important in my family as well as friends' families, probably because our parents' left India before it started Westernizing. My grandma especially is absolutely adamant about "within caste or not at all" marriage, and my great grandma was worse(better?) but she's dead now.

So you agree we've been arguing over semantics.

the old system wasn't good for general wealth just like slavery, but in terms of making india one of the leading producers of doctors, scientists, and engineers it has done wonders.