Quote: (06-07-2017 07:14 PM)Agastya Wrote:
Quote: (06-03-2017 03:23 PM)Ethan Hunt Wrote:
Very low amount, the hottest are mixed with European softer facial features. The ones is this thread all appeal to the European standard anyway. The caste system their favours lighter skin, the lighter skin people tend to have more money and therefore better access to beauty products.
This is incorrect. Large parts of Northern India (Kashmir, Ladakh, Haryana, Punjab), Pakistan (Azad Kashmir, Khyber Pakhtunwa), and Afghanistan are filled with people who look just like you describe. Actually, they look even whiter. The Kalasha people of Pakistan, for example, frequently have red or blonde hair, which no one in Mumbai or Delhi possesses. These people are some of the poorest and most benighted in the word. The regions I listed above are incredibly poor, Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunwa are ridden with Islamic insurgencies. The whitest-looking people in India are actually some of the most unfortunate. Black Dravidians in South India are probably richer and better-educated on average, and their states aren't nearly as fucked up.
I will agree that light skin is seen as desirable on women. It doesn't matter as much for the men. If you watch a Bollywood movie you'll notice that a lot of the big actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Abhishek Bachhan, etc are pretty standard brown and would obviously seem Indian to an objective viewer. The women are a lot more likely to have blue/green eyes and incredibly light skin.
Quote: (06-03-2017 03:23 PM)Ethan Hunt Wrote:
Most of the richer folk in India are going to have European ancestry as you can bet for sure during the colonial period the European rulers would have cherry picked the best of the best to have as mistresses, from time to time they were going to have children.
Again, incorrect. The only Europeans who really mixed extensively with the natives were the Portuguese, who were entirely centered around Goa. I will agree that these women can certainly be attractive, but the majority of Indians have a minimum of European descent. The British generally kept to their own women after the 1800's. There is a population of mixed British and Indian Anglo-Indians, but their numbers are negligible and you're unlikely to find them in America. Plenty of these people basically just look Indian anyway. Comedian Russell Peters is Anglo-Indian and I wouldn't be able to guess British descent by looking at him.
What a lot of Indians WILL have is descent from Muslim invaders. Arabs, Persians, Afghans, Turkic peoples. These people were far more numerous in India than Europeans ever were. They have been in India for over a thousand years. And India's large Muslim population would imply that a lot of them fucked the native Hindus after forcibly converting them to Islam. This explains the lighter/more Caucasian features of these hotter Indian girls. It's because they have Middle Eastern ancestry. This is also why Afghans, Pakistanis, and some North Indians basically look like an intermediate between your typical Black Dravidian and a light-skinned Persian. Islamic imperialism was a lot more impactful on India than European imperialism ever was.
Quote: (06-03-2017 03:23 PM)Ethan Hunt Wrote:
Not saying that there are no full Indian hotties, cause there's plenty in this thread but they do tend to have lighter skin and softer facial features (hence why look more European).
I'm sure there would be hell of a lot more hot Indian women if there were higher access to make up or adequate hygiene cleaning.
Agreed completely on the last bit. Indian women are actually becoming hotter, I'm noticing way more hot Indian girls as the girls of my generation reach adulthood in the West. Indian girls seeming unattractive is largely because of diet and not giving a fuck about their appearance. Once more of them get in the gym, dress better, learn how to apply makeup (basically improve their SMV) you'll notice a ton more hot Indian girls. This has already happened in places like Dubai, Chicago, parts of the U.K, where Indian women are seen as being just as desirable as anyone else. It will happen in other places once the FOBs get their shit together physically. Indian women are not inherently any more or less attractive, the culture just hasn't caught up to the West (and large parts of the East) in terms of grooming or appearance.
I know this is not directly related to the thread, but the whole North Indians or Indians in general having a huge bunch of invader genes from Islamic Arabs to Turkic derived peoples is actually false and is not based on real genetic evidence or real actual authentic history.
India/South Asia was the most difficult to invade region in Ancient to medieval times and empires from the Assyrians to the Romans to the original Persians to the Greeks to the White Huns, to the Arabs, to the Mongols etc all faced routine defeats and humiliations when they attempted to take over India, as did the European colonials initially when they attempted to take over. Its VERY VERY VERY UNLIKELY that that they left large scale genetic imprints on the main populations there.
Ancient Indian empires had the most organized military machine and cavalry based units in the entirety of the ancient and medieval world and were world renowned for their discipline and organization. This military organization is what repelled and defeated many empires that attempted to cross into the India region as I mentioned above. Indian military units were also used as auxillary troops in various empires outside of India because of their proficiency and expertise, which continued all the way up to WWII/WWI. This military engine of Indian empires kept out foreigners and outsiders from South Asia region for centuries and kept outside admixture to a minimum in the Indian genepool, in addition to endogamous breeding practices in regional communities.
Because of this reality, it's highly unlikely that the reason why some Indians are light skinned has less to do with recent invasions as it's likely to do with indigenous genetic variation. Outside of Africa, India/South Asia has the biggest reservoir of genetic diversity in the entirety of the Eurasian continent and possibly the world. This is the real reason why you see so much diversity of body types and color variation in Southern Asia from Afghanistan to India to Sri Lanka, and its not due to invader genes.
Also the original Persians and Arabs and so called "Middle Eastern populations" were NOT WHITE OR LIGHT SKINNED, and the original Sumerian/Mesopotamian civilizations in the near-East, as well as the original Persian/Elamite civilization, was started by Indian/South Asian type peoples from Southern Asia, based on recent archeological research and skeleton based analysis.
The so called light skinned "Iranians" and "Arabs" you see today, are the result of invasions by Turks and Turkic derived peoples, Europid type peoples from the eurasian steppes regions to the "Middle East" region, and/or the result of White Eurasian/European slavery in the Middle East and North Africa regions, who's descendants later appropriated a pseudo-Islamic-Arab identity for their own assimilation and geopolitical reasons. They ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE "MIDDLE EAST"!
The so called Mughals, were originally actually from Afghanistan and regions adjacent to it, and Afghanistan was controlled and part of Indic/Indian civilizations for centuries and was part of an Indian empire before the British came. A lot of the Mughal army officers and military corps actually incorporated indigenous Indian Hindu/non-Muslim units into it's ranks to rule, and many of these later Islamic empires in India had to make alliances and use indigenous Indians to actually power their military strangehold over the parts of India/south Asia they managed to take over.
So this makes admixture as reason for their being light skinned Indians in the North very very unlikely. And there were many empires and civilizations in Southern Asia that lasted longer and BIGGER then any Islamic empire in the Indian region before them. Indians/South Asians from all sectors of the sub-continent genetically overlap with each other regardless of geographic region, in comparison to outsiders.
Also the Aryan invasion/migration idea has been refuted countless times and has no real logical or scientific or historical basis, and is a pseudo-scientific concept that is still repeated as hearsay because of general ignorance of modern research, and because it's still kept alive by people parroting it over and over. There is no "Dravidian race" either, and no such references to such a race ever existed in Ancient Indian texts until the British/Euro's came to India/south Asia, which shows that they created the fictional concept and idea of it. And this is true, because the whole "Dravidian" term, was created by a British Christian evangelist named Robert Caldwell, who wanted to convert Indians to Christanity, and segment/divide India/south Asia as per the interests of the British/Euro colonial interests in the region. The term "Dravida" in Indian texts, simply refers to the place "where the three seas meet" and not an actual race of people.
Of course, most people don't have the inclination or time to actually learn ACTUAL INDIAN HISTORY AND FACTS AND THE LATEST RESEARCH IN THIS SUBJECT, so this sort of lack of awareness and ignorance in threads like this isn't surprising. Also Russell Peters is not an Anglo-Indian....