The quoted portion is intersting but I have some issues with it
The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid.
Basically my issue is that these 'races' are as equally non-existant as the 'aryan/dravidian' division.
Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the
Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch.
This is news to me, I don't recall ever hearing that the indians, either in the north or south, had anything to do with mediteranean peoples. I
think I mentioned it earlier, that the only population I am familiar with any genetic studies linking indians and anyone else links some indians with
'asians', which of course is rather broad, and might as well have to do with just plain old diffusion of genes.
Biologically both the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race,
See, 'race' doesn't have any validity in biology anyways. There's no such thing as a 'caucasian race', at least not in terms of biology, its a
only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little
Populations of humans usually get 'longer' limb proportions when in tropical climates.
But over all I'll agree, its relatively difficult to talk about large biological distinctions between southern and northern indians (even tho one
often tell them apart, and especially indians can distinguish between even smaller and more restricted groupings). Heck, lots of pakistanis
immigrated there from india, so where's the cut off right? Does it stop at the pashtuns? The kashmiri?
But, while I'm not particularly convinced that there was an 'aryan' people, I do think its at least possible for a group, tribe, ethinicity, to
have considered themselves by some name like that and have basically done what the 'aryans' in the 'aryan myth' are proported to have done. IOW
while I think that its phsyically possible and doesn't have to have anything to do with 'race', I don't think that it did happen that way.
So just like the idea of an aryan and dravidian 'race' is unscientific, i think any racial divisions are unscientific.
However, 'dravidian' need not refer to biology, but linguistics. There is a difference of course between the southern dravidian languages and the
'northern' sanskrit languages. I'm wondering if thats a division that was allways there, or how sanskrit (and who knows what other non
'southern' cultural traits) was brought in to india (or, conversely, arose natively in india)
I -do- think that there is validity to the idea of an 'proto-indo-european' people (not race) who spoke the original 'proto-indo-european'
language, which spread across the globe, of course the question has allways been how much was spread by the sword and on horse back and how much was
spread by 'cultural diffusion'.
Again, I don't expect to get an answer here, but I think its interesting to find out what a generally large population of people think about it (ie
the ATS posting 'population' is big and should serve as a good representation of what most people think).
The replies so far have been very interesting of course.