Buddha was White

Buddha was White

Attached: physicalAppearance (1).jpg (284x357, 93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100057939
eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/03/sintashta-bmac-and-indo-iranians.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

looks greek

Indo-Aryan

The people that brought civilization to all of Asia were white

Attached: chinamummy1.jpg (640x305, 51K)

Sup Varg.

Looks jomon

It Looks obviously BLACK for me though

Buddha was a descendant of Scythian nomads who wandered up in Nepal. White or not, he inspired a heck of a philosophy.

I thought Koreans hate Buddha because he is a heathen that goes against American Jesus

Kek

I'm a French-Canadian. We, Canadians, often move to South Korea because it's easy for us to settle here.

Whitoids hate Buddha's symbol

Attached: 卍.jpg (442x305, 21K)

I want to do this story at European time.

Buddha was BLACK

He was Indo-European so I guess technically

If that's the case even I'm White.

BASED white aryan brother

This is a category of the art not a race.

Attached: c12854a34d7acbf534c574773d485aa4.jpg (525x700, 170K)

Your descendants were, you aren't

Same for Persians.

how can his descendants be white if he is not white

he tried to say "ancestors".

You realize that statue was influenced by the Hellenization from Alexander right?

Then why didn't he just say that, then his statement would have made sense. What an idiot.

So Buddha was Greek?

Attached: 16f.png (225x225, 10K)

No you dumb little shit. Greek culture was spread because of Alexander the Great. That style of art is Greek. Do you know nothing about world history or do Japs only talk about thier gay warlords stabbing themselves?

So Buddha was Alexander?

Attached: 1519320655796.png (420x420, 9K)

Yup

Attached: tegaki(3).png (400x400, 46K)

My ancestors, you mean. So basically you are saying that all the civilisation building people in West and South Asia were Nordic and they've turned into shitskins like me over thousands of years of intermarriage with darkies?

actually there's some overlap, i'm pretty drunk right now but were I sober and able to cleary see the books in my shelf id explain it

other lad may be able to thou

Well I was just shitposting but I'd be interested to know more.

the heroic figure has to do with hercules, but it was adapted to both alexander and buddha, so all three sort of coalesce in indo-greek art

>people in West and South Asia were Nordic and they've turned into shitskins like me over thousands of years of intermarriage with darkies?
Not necessarily Nordic, but people that settled in India used to have fair skin but developed more melanin to protect against the sun. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100057939

Because it's a statue made by Greco-Buddhists. This is how they imagined him to be. Real Buddha didn't looked like that. Same with chinks who make buddha's statue in which he looks like a chink.

Buddha was a Shakya and not Shaka (Indo-Scythian) these both groups are different. Buddha lived long before the Shakas came to India.

Looks Greek

I think it's just the artstyle lad. Not how they imagined him to be. Even in portraits you find the art adhere to the prominent style, diverging from what the actual person looks like. All art in all cultures seems to feature this.

There's really no evidence that the Buddha was White.

His 'white' features are most commonly sourced from the Buddhist 32 signs of a great man.

Ignoring that the 32 Signs of a Great Man was written in the 2nd century AD, seven hundred years after Gautama's death, it itself was a relic from Brahmanism that was later incorporated into Buddhism as Hinduism and Buddhism merged.

Brahma and Vishnu also have 32 signs FYI.

According to the Tipiñaka (a Buddhist text that began in 20 BC) the special thing about Buddha was that he seemed perfectly ordinary and had none of the Great Signs of a Man (which include having a ten-foot aura and saliva that improves the taste of food) so the religious priests of that era were surprised.

I don't get why his race matters anyway. Buddhism was never about that kind of stuff.

>Same for Persians.
Persians stopped being pure Indo-European thousands of years ago. It didn't stop them from being a regional empire for most of history.

>I don't get why his race matters anyway.
Dick measuring contest for autists with nothing going for them.

>Buddha was a descendant of Scythian nomads
Nope. Shakya not Shaka.
>that wandered up Nepal
Yeah more than a thousand years ago.

>over thousands of years of intermarriage with darkies
>thousands of years
Again no.

eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/03/sintashta-bmac-and-indo-iranians.html

The Indo-Europeans themselves were formed through a mixture of two populations, Eastern Hunter Gatherers (old Europeans unrelated to any population today) and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (related partially to Neolithic Iranians, who were distinct from modern Iranians).

These Proto-Indo-Europeans or Yamnaya people then marched into Europe massacring and absorbed the Early European farmers, to form the Corded Ware culture (a mix of the three mentioned above,).

From these people then split two groups, the Sintashta and Andronovo peoples, they then went into Central Asia and mixed with the native Neolithic Iranians of the BMAC culture, prior to going into India and Iran.

Indo-Europeans were never (despite what LARPing White nationalists say) a White elite matching into Brown people lands. By the time they went into India they were already completely hybridized.

>muh racemixing ruined their civilization
There was civilization in Iran and India long before that time.

>There was civilization in Iran and India long before that time.
I know that.

Bump