[wardaddy]

i agree (with both parts) but i'll bet you that even a sizable number of freepers bristle at the word.

I saw you mentioned Indians earlier. Like you I generally lumped them into the Caucazoid group but I was corrected the other day here by someone who informed me (with links) that most Indians (particularly lower caste) were indeed Australiod/Negroid unlike Pakistanis who were more Caucazoid.

interesting

[Cronos]

I saw you mentioned Indians earlier. Like you I generally lumped them into the Caucazoid group but I was corrected the other day here by someone who informed me (with links) that most Indians (particularly lower caste) were indeed Australiod/Negroid unlike Pakistanis who were more Caucazoid.

Ah, yes, the link to the Africaculture something site that tries to say that the Sumerians, Egyptians and Harappans were all Negroid.

That's garbage. India and south asia does have a few australoid and afroid tribes (like in Papua New Guinea), but these are all marginalised and mostly stone age -- shunted aside by the technologically advanced Caucasoid groups.

Pakistan was part of India until it became the land for Indian muslimes, so separating them out on basis of race is silly. The first great civilisations were either Caucasoid (Sumerian, Canaanite, Harappan) or partly so (I think Egyptians were more Semitic-Ethiopian like).

[Cronos]

From www.cia.gov:

India's Ethnic groups: Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)