The "racial" classifications of Caucasoid, Negroid and mongoloid is an outdated classification system. As our knowledge of genes grow these morphological distinctions that used to be defined as "race" actually turn out to be a very small proportion of the human genome compared to the vast VAST amount of the "average" genome between each geographic area and the populations around the Earth being 99.9% similar. The best way to answer your question with more factuality then simply relying on biases and guess work would be to look at the genetic frequency of Y-DNA and mt-DNA haplogroups between other areas around the globe in comparrison with India's haplogroups. Here is a handy diagram that you can refer to: (unfortunately the frequency diagram and artical that I had used earlier is no longer an active link) So here is a less handy diagram which shows the spread of haplo groups which shows how haplogroups spread to Europe and India independantly as they diverged along seperate paths and thus Indians are clearly a different very unique group, and have the unique introduction and a high rate of the L haplogroup that came about near the end of their ancestors migration to that part of the world: http://www.kerchner.com/images/dna/ydna_migrationmap_(FTDNA2006).jpg Clearly since the Indian population has a high occurrence of the L Y-DNA haplogroup, whereas the L haplogroup is NOT common within any other areas of the globe, save for low rates of L in the Middle East. The relationship between Indians and other groups, either mongoloids or Caucasians on the genetic level, therefore, is slim to none. Anyways, I prefer to bring in conclusive empirical evidence that provides factual answers instead of just conjecturing at whim. So there it is, a factual and empirically supported answer. I would have also liked to have shown you the global frequency of mt-DNA haplogroups, but as-of-yet my internet searches have not been forth coming at finding such a diagram. I have seen individual mt-DNA pie-charts for the areas in question, and this same discrepancy as is observed in the Y-DNA haplogroups is repeated in the mt-DNA haplogroups, but if anyone knows of a good link to demonstrate the global frequencies, please do post it as an answer or a comment, thanks.
2007-08-16 20:51:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
11⤊
23⤋
Indian Race
2016-12-13 09:45:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What Race Are Indians
2016-09-30 00:15:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by singley 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
which race do indians belong to?
mention all the races n origions...pleez let me kno
2015-08-07 09:51:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Caucasian
2014-06-14 06:58:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Troll 1
·
2⤊
3⤋
Browns are Mexicans, everybody knows that. Brown pride isn't flips.
2016-03-20 18:43:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by mulli mul 3
·
0⤊
6⤋
India has a population of approximately 1.12 billion people (2007), comprising approximately one-sixth of the world's population. This population is remarkably diverse; it has more than two thousand ethnic groups, and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages) as well as a language isolate (Nihali spoken in disputed parts of Jammu & Kashmir).
Unlike the USA, UK, and Australian Censuses, the national Census of India does not recognize racial or ethnic groups within India,but recognizes many of the tribal groups as Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
It should be noted that Indo-Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman are ethnic and linguistic terms and denote members of these ethnic groups and speaks of there linguistic groups.
2007-08-19 05:09:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Duke of Tudor 6
·
19⤊
1⤋
To answer your question in the most simple form: INDIANS ARE BROWN POO
2016-02-26 15:46:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Richard 1
·
3⤊
14⤋
When I first read your question my first thought was "Native
American" in a jog of political correctness before the second glance reminded me just who they are 'nicknamed' after.
I'm sure North America would be more different today if
Europeans focused more on India. Lucky for Indians, eh? You might query, 'Which Indians?' Spain was a royal pain,
you know, 1474 to 1504.
2007-08-16 18:14:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
13⤋
that's what im asking
2014-10-14 16:08:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
We talked about this in a class, the Indian is a considered a Caucasian race, not due to the variation of skin color, but due to their hair. So a very dark Indian would still be considered 'white' or Caucasian in America.
2007-08-22 01:23:31
·
answer #11
·
answered by Miss 6 7
·
12⤊
12⤋