[Cronos]

IIRC, the overly simplistic makeup of India is Aryans and Dravidians, the former being lighter skinned and mostly Brahmin/Kshatriya and the latter being darker skinned and mostly Vaisha/Shudra. It might be interesting to know how many of each group populates the vast horde of H1B.

That is actually wrong, not overly simplistic

indians - or rather ALL South Asians (Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Maldivians and to some extent Bhutanese) are an admixture of:

1. Aryan
2. Dravidian
3. Pre-Dravidian natives (related to the 'tribals' or Sentinalese)
4. Mon-Khmer (related to the Vietnamese/Cambodians) - in pockets in the east and north-east
5. Sino-Burmese

None of them are "pure" Aryan or Dravidian - even the Afghans and Punjabis have some "Dravidian" genes and even the Tamils have some "Aryan" genes.

Brahmins do have percentage-wise "more" Aryan genes, but Kshatriya and Vishya have Aryan genes too. Shudras tend to have closer to zero, but then they don't have much Dravidian genes either, but the older "sentinelese"

some Kshatriya are actually Kushans (Tocharians) like the Rajputs or other warrior groups that got assimilated into the Indic 'system'

As to the skin color - you are mostly correct, but it is, as you said, simplistic

[z3n]

Interestingly conversation. It reminds me that I believe I read once many years back that part of they Aryan myth may have come from blood typing studies in the early 20th century, and because they found that B-/B+ blood types were strongest both in south central Asia as well as stronger in north central Europe (compared to the rest of Europe) that there may have been a migration in (pseudo) history.

[chajin]

Thank you Cronos; I was trying to remember what I learned in undergrad about 55 years ago, and it was probably incorrect then too 🙄