Talk:Historical definitions of races in India

This article is on the verge of being a soapbox. What is the interest of presenting such obviously pseudo-scientific information? Historical? There is already two articles for that, Race (historical definitions) (which, by the way, really needs clean-up) and scientific racism. That's enough, I think. Furthermore, there seems to be a problem of WP:CS and WP:RS, and in particular of using primary sources which are presented as facts! This article needs clean-up,at the very least. Tazmaniacs 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the reference to Joshua project on the number of ethnic groups in India as it is not a trustworthy source

Requested Move

We should consider moving this page to Racism in India, in coherence with Racism by country issues. It would allow, IMO, for a better article. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one has commented on this move request, which makes it difficult to assess the consensus. I have, therefore, not moved it, but acknowledge that the proposed target is unobstructed, and any editor could be bold and move this article there. --Stemonitis 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am thus moving it for a more serious article. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly not about "Racism in India", a title which would imply a focus on modern social conditions. It is in fact about what it was once titled - historical definitions of racial distinctions in India. Racial classifications, whether right or wrong, are not "racist" as such, so the title is wholly misleading and inaccurate. Paul B 10:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The topics are of course related, but Paul is right: under such a title, you'd expect to read about minority rights, hate groups and the human rights situation in India, not about hisorical ethnology. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for any marginal, out-dated theories, especially as presented before cleaning-up, without any critical approach (a disclaimer in intro is not sufficient, and quite hypocrit, when the rest of the article assert things like: "the Australoids came from... and then the Negroes came from..." This article was racist non-sense, and claiming it only "presented in a neutral fashion racial theories" is also non-sense: presenting racist theories in a "neutral way" is, simply put, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for racist contents. Thus, the name "Racism in India" allows for extension of the article in more interesting lines. Tazmaniacs 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If Racism in India warrants another article, then I suggest we move this to Scientific racist theories concerning India, which is much more descriptive than "Racial groups in India" which implies that they are various "racial groups" in India. Tazmaniacs 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please! The only person using this as a soapbox is you, since you insist on adding POV characterisations like "scientific racism" to historical theories. Yes, it'sd obsolete as is Catastrophism and phlogisten, but the theories can be discussed without the need to moralise about them. Hodson was using the theoretical models of his day. You are the one creating a soapbox by repeatedly attempting to force judgements on his views. Paul B 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The title is "Racial groups in India (historical definitions)", which is NPOV. Your proposed title is pure POV. Paul B 16:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, and so do the majority of contemporary scholars on racism. If you contest the fact that these theories belong to the scientific racism tradition, you make me wonder about your own POV. Tazmaniacs 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonder as much as you like. You've surveyed "the majority of contemporary scholars" have you? Paul B 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The move to (merge into much smaller article which is only 2 days old) Racial groups of India also changes the focus from history to contemporary and suggests the concepts covered are still accepted. As usual, the person doing this apparently did not discuss and seek consensus. --JWB 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do people agree with the title "Racial groups of India" or do they prefer the former title, "Historical definitions of races in India"?----^DarkTea© 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hodson and Wyse

I restored - with some modifications - the earlier version of the H&W summary because I think it is very much clearer than the condensed version. It's useful to have a longer version becuse these debates about racial classifications in India are regularly brought into content disputes in other articles and the full version lays out the theories of these writers fairly clearly. The discalimer at the top should be sufficient to ensure that H&W are not "swallowed" uncritically. Paul B 12:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Having checked this source I see that "Hodson and Wyse" are an imaginary duo. Someone misread the title of the book. In fact Hodson is the author. He was "William Wyse Professor of Social Anthropology". Paul B 12:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how this content is relevant for Wikipedia. This article is not named "Hudson's theories", and makes the article too long for very detailed information. I don't know why knowing that so-called "Racial element A" was characterized by a "prominent and long nose", with "skin colour varying from light brown to dark tawny brown" relevant. This must be synthetized in short way. If further information is really needed, than a specific article can be made, or an external link to his book given Tazmaniacs 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

You may not see how it is relevant, but I have briefly explained why I think it is. Look at the numerous debates on pages with "Aryan" related theories with reghard to india, plus the pages on Cucasoids, Mediterranean race, "White people" and "black people" - with their interminable discussions about where Indians should or should not be included. This section provides a clear summary of the views of one notable commentator at the highj point of race sciernce. Youir reason for exlcuding materioal seenms to be that it is too long, well, no-one is forced to reasd it all are they? Better more information than less. The article as a whole is not is not too long. Paul B 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

!Hudson stated that, broadly, seven "racial elements" are present in Indian people:

Racial Element A

Characterized by short-stature, long-head with high cranial vault but faintly marked supra-orbital ridges and broad, short but ortho-gnathous face, with medium lips. The nose is prominent and long but the alae moderately spread out, giving a mesorrhine index. The skin colour varies from light brown to dark tawny brown. The eye colour is dark brown, and the hair colour is usually black. The authors stated the Telugu Brahmins, "Kallas of Southern Tamil country" and the "Illuvas of Cochin" (Ezhava) as examples. They said that this element is predominant in the lower stratum of the population of Northern India, including to some extent the Punjab (for example, Chubra and Chamar, which appear to be closely related to the Mediterranean stock of Europe)

Racial Element B

A Brachycephalic element of medium stature with flattened occiput but having also high head and not infrequently receding forehead. Characterized by short and orthognathous, but somewhat broader face. "The nose is long and quite often arched and convex". The skin colour varies from a pale white to light brown. The eye colour is usually dark brown, but a small per cent shows light eyes. The hair colour is black with a small proportion showing a dark brown tint. The hair is generally straight and the pilous system well developed. The examples given by the authors included the Nagar Brahmins of Gujarat, the Kayastha of Bengal and the Kannada non-Brahmins.

Racial Element C

A long-headed strain with comparatively lower but longer head and tall stature and possessing a long face and prominent narrow long nose. The skin color varies from a rosy white tint to light transparent brown. The eye color is usually grey-blue, and the hair color is chestnut. A small proportion of people have light eyes and brownish hair. Among this type also the hair is usually straight and the pilous system well developed. The examples stated by the authors included the "North-west Himalayan tribes like the Kaffirs and the Pathans", the Sikhs of the Punjab, and the Brahmins of U. P.

Racial Element D

A short and moderately high-headed strain with very often strongly marked brow ridges, broad short face, the mouth slightly inclined forwards and small flat nose with the alae extended. The hair varies from wavy to curliness and the skin is of a shade of dark chocolate brown approaching black. The examples given were the aboriginal tribes of Central and Southern India, including Bhils and the Chenchus. The authors also stated that this strain seems to have entered in a considerable degree in the lower stratum of the Indian population. The authors also believed that this type is closely related to the Veddas of Ceylon, the Toalas of Celebes, and the Sakais of the Malay Peninsula. The Aborigines of Australia were considered a primitive form of this type by the authors.

Racial Element E

A dark Pygmy strain having spirally curved hair. The examples given were the Kadars, the Pulayans, and the Angairti Nagas. The authors stated that the Andamanese are racially homogeneous and of distinct type, characterised by a dwarfish stature, black complexion and woolly hair.

Racial Element F

A brachycephalic Mongoloid type, having. The authors stated that the Mongoloid racial strain does not appear to have entered in any considerable extent in mainland Indians. It is found along the sub-Himalayan region of North-Eastern Kashmir to Bhutan. The type that forms the dominant element in Burma (which was then a part of British India) is also brachycephalic but somewhat shorter in stature and having a short flat nose and a tendency to alveolar prognathism. It appears to exhibit certain affinities with the Siamese, the Malay and the Cochin Chinese.

Racial Element G

A second Mongoloid strain characterised by medium stature, longish head and medium nose, but exhibiting like the typical Mongoloid characteristics of the face and eye. Examples given were people of Assam and Northern Burma, including the Angami Nagas and the Mikir-Bodo people.

PS: This is not Conservapedia where Creationism is to be presented in the same way as Darwin's theory of evolution. We are in 2007, not in 1931. Have a look at WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX please. Tazmaniacs 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not see how it is relevant, but I have briefly explained why I think it is. Look at the numerous debates on pages with "Aryan" related theories with regard to India, plus the pages on Caucasoids, "Mediterranean race", "White people" and "black people" - with their interminable discussions about where Indians should or should not be included. This section provides a clear summary of the views of one notable commentator at the high point of the influence of "race science". Your reason for exlcuding material seems to be that it is too long. Well, no-one is forced to read it all are they? Better more information than less. The article as a whole is not too long. The policy statements you quote are largely irrelvant, since this is a summary of an historical theory, not a claim that these categories are true. Your comments about Conservapedia also completely miss the point. These views are not being presented as facts or as current opinions. They are specifically historical. Paul B 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An article on Wikipedia does not concern itself with what's happening in another article: they are autonomous. "More" is not better than "good". On your account, I could make a detail article about Mein Kampf without any contemporary scholarship about it, simply presenting it as "historical theories." Tazmaniacs 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, articles do concern themselves with what is happening on other articles, because they link to them and often flesh out matters covered more briefly elsewhere. If you check the version I made you will see that significant commentary about contemporary views was added. That does not mean a summary of the book's content, following such analysis, is not useful. I for one find it very useful as a summary of typical thinking of this period with regard to India, one that can be linked to for several other articles providing a context for ideas of the time. Paul B 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Older reversion

This older reversion reverted to by User:Computational defunct has many maps that I made years ago that I did not cite correctly. I think I found most of them out of a Thomas F. Gossett's Race the History of an Idea in America, but they were not correctly cited with page numbers and everything. I can't confirm them. At that time I didn't realize that when an anthropologist classified a section of India as a certain race that it probably didn't apply to all Indians. This makes me suspect some of the maps may be in error. Recently I have been more inclined to using incontrovertible quotations from the primary sources which give little room for error. I also didn't specify the range for the racial groups for the people who mentioned different racial groups in India. This is an important issue. For these reasons, the current state of the article is better. Please, do not revert it.----^DarkTea© 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge new article Racial groups of India here

An attempt to rename this page (Historical definitions) to Racial groups of India has been done without any discussions, and, besides, without using the proper procedure. This is not correct at all. I strongly oppose the de facto move, and propose to merge the very recently created article "Racial groups of India" here, because of NPOV considerations. Tazmaniacs 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what NPOV stands for, but if the two articles were merged I certainly had nothing to do with it. I wrote "Racial groups of India" with the intention of it being an entirely seperate article, which is the way it should stay as far as I'm concerned. These articles are on two completely different subjects. This one discusses a recent history of racial classifications, whereas the article I wrote discusses the ancient history of various migrations into India. Besides which Joseph Cambell never made any classifications of Indian races - he just happened to be one of the sources I used to write the article. Matt Oid 13:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV stands for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If your aim was to discuss the "Ancient history of various migrations into India", why not name the article Ancient history of migrations into India instead of having the controversed concept of "race" enters the game. Outside of the US, this concept is not accepted, in particular in the scientific community. Ethnic groups is a more clear term, which does not reduce socio-cultural differences to biological differences. Tazmaniacs 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the title I used could have been chosen better. But that's no reason to merge my article into this one. The fact remains that Joseph Cambell never made any such classifications, and that he is just one of the sources used to write my article. What if I was to change the name - would that justify a seperate article in your oppinion? Matt Oid 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Racial groups of India" and the "Historical definitions of races in India" have the same content, making them content forks of each other. Whereas the "Racial groups of India" article may only have a recent source provided by User:Matt Oid, the "Historical definitions of races in India" has recent and historical sources. The main distinction between these two articles that the article with the longer title has the negative aspect of being harder to find in search engines with the aspect some consider to be positive of placing the classifications of race in the historical context.----^DarkTea© 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They do not have the same content, for reasons I've already stated above. Matt Oid 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your intention might have been to write an article about "the ancient history of various migrations into India", but the article was certainly not about that. The "Negritoid"-"Negroid"-"Caucasoid" is a historical classification scheme -- that's what the article was all about. It was based on a 1962 book written by a professor of mythology. A scientific article on the history of various migrations into India would discuss genetics (see Image:Human mtDNA migration.png, Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg etc.) and Recent single origin hypothesis; the terms like "Negritoid" and "Caucasoid" are neither used in modern scientific theories, nor in the Census of India. If you wish to write an article on "the ancient history of various migrations into India", it will have to written from scratch anyway -- the stuff about "Caucasoids" and "Negritoids" cannot be included in such an article. So, a merge is fair enough. Besides, the history has been merged as well, so you get credit for your edits. utcursch | talk 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Third time: Joseph Cambell never made any such classifications. It is entierly inacurate to say that he did. On that basis alone the section under his name cannot be included in this article. He was simply one of the sources that referenced an article that should be kept seperate from this one. The terms I used to describe the various ethnic groups may very well be outdated. I will change them for the sake of poltical corectness. But that dosen't change the fact that the migrations themselves were very real. Matt Oid 13:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't "change them [racial names] for the sake of poltical corectness", because that would misrepresent the sources you cited. Joseph Cambell seems to be another anthropologist. There is nothing that separates him from the list already in the article. Making a new article for only his theories would be a content fork.----^DarkTea© 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

DT's quotes and sources

McCulloch

His page [1] which you reference actually says "The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve."

If that statement is accurate, why aren't you consulting, quoting and referencing Oppenheimer, who is a notable recent scientist working in this field, or something like the Discovery Channel documentary, which is a mainstream secondary source, instead of a racial extremist? I do not understand your attraction to political extremists and it is not a healthy focus for science articles.

The second half of the page has a detailed tree structured typological classification which I suggested came from Coon and you then removed from another article. Why are you using it again here? --JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed McCulloch for being a redundant source. User:Goldenhawk 0 added McCulloch back, but misrepresented him as saying all of India is Mediterranean. I corrected Goldenhawk 0.----^DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When did I input that McCulloch wrote of Indians being "Mediterranean"??? In his "The Races of Humanity" published in 2007, October 9, 2007[2] he mentioned Indians as Caucasoids.-Goldenhawk 0

Cavalli-Sforza

First, oddly, the footnote for Cavalli-Sforza actually points to a reference to Blumenbach who is centuries older.

Second, you quote a classificatory sentence from Cavalli-Sforza, but give absolutely no context! Is this based on skeletal data, color or other traits, autosomal DNA, mtDNA or something else? Is it his recent result, another scientist's recent result he's discussing, or decades-old information he's giving as introductory background?

This is typical of your approach - disconnected quotes with someone apparently pronouncing an opinion, with no attention to what the original source was and what the reasoning leading to the conclusion was. Articles are supposed to have coherent exposition of the progress of a field.

I see now that farther up, you've left another section also titled "Cavalli-Sforza (1995)", this one consisting of only 9 words! How sloppy can you possibly get? --JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I never added this citation. User:Goldenhawk 0 and another editor did.----^DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gobineau

As noted in another article, cutting the middle out of the quote distorts the meaning completely. Please fix this.

You paste the same stuff in several articles, making it harder to clean up. You repeatedly accuse other people of WP:CFORK when there is even a vague similarity in topic but you feel like deleting their content which you don't like, then you insert completely identical, highly controversial, extremist quotes in multiple places, which is far worse a violation.

--JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.----^DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Goldenhawk 0

User:Goldenhawk 0 has been adding additions to the article which are unsourced. First, Goldenhawk 0 wants to add that Gobineau classified Indians as being part of a "degenerative race" with quotations. This is wrong. Gobineau considered Indians to be a mixture of the white, black and yellow races. He considered them to have a degenerative status due to their racial mixture. Goldenhawk 0's characterization of Mackenzie is misleading. It is not a direct quote from Mackenzie. It is only surmised from Mackenzie due to Mackenzie characterizing anthropologists who classified a proportion of Indians to be Mediterranean. There is already a Ripley section I made with full quotes that explains his views about India's racial mixture. Goldenhawk 0 has added a redundant section of lesser quality about Ripley. The Linnaeaus section was from my earlier characterization of Linnaeaus which is unsourced and without quotes. Richard McCulloch was agreed upon by User:JWB to be a poor source who has copied Coon's classification system, making him redundant. David Frawley is a Hindu researcher with no expertise in the subject of race. He is not a reliable source in this issue.----^DarkTea© 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the new sources Goldenhawk 0 adds are suspicious. They aren't direct quotes which I would be more comfortable with. Direct quotes hinder an editor's ability to misrepresent sources. This is especially important on an issue like this where most of the sources will say that there is a Mediterranean influence in India, but will not say they're all Mediterranean. Goldenhawk 0's sources cannot be confirmed from Google books. The page numbers cited on at least two of the citations just happen to be the pages Google books left out.----^DarkTea© 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Von Eickstadt citation is really from Carleton Coon's races of Europe rather than the original source. I originally added the Eickstadt section, so I know that this is the case.----^DarkTea© 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward Said

Did he make a pronouncement about the "racial" make-up of Indians? I don't think so. Did he quote a 19th century writer on the topic? Quite possibly. But if he is to be cited on that, then the reference must be to one of his works. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

My God, this page has had both Dark Tea and Goldenhawk0 editing it? My sympathies to this much-abused article. I'm doing a trim and clean-up - cut material is being moved to Talk:Historical definitions of races in India/Dumping ground. Moreschi (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I see that a slimmed-down version of "specific racial theories" does need to go back in. I'm working on one. Moreschi (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove citations from reliable sources.----^DarkTea© 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)