I understand where you are coming from - truly I do but here is the problem even with the source that you have given ... there is no such thing as a Negroid because we as black folks fit ever phenotype on this planet. We have every bone structure known to man - nasal, cranial, etc ... there is no category you can put black folks into because that which is considered Caucasoid is in depth within the Africa or black communities. Secondly, there is no such thing as a Caucasoid because 65 % of their dna is Asian and 35 % is African which mathematically is 100%. So when you say someone has white features - there is no such thing because Black folks globally has that feature and secondly, white skin is a mutation which happened about 6,000 years ago.
Aryan race? Which is what you have documented by Uthaya Naidu - does not represent reality because race is a new phenom created by WHITE Europeans ... such an ideology wouldn't have been known by the ancients. Any historian or theologian who gives credence to the concept of race is not a real scholar ... and if you or your theologian don't agree with me then you have them email me and I will gladly present evidence which will dismantle the whole fictitious notion thereof.
Please do not take this as a charge against you because many of our Afrocentric scholars give into the notion of race which is okay but as a learned student of genetics such a philosophy has given Afrocentric a bad name which I am "AFROCENTRIC" and I don't accept the charge because and ... Yet more importantly I'm truth-centric which rises above any form of any centrism ...
Peace and Blessings
Ru2religious
The following is from one of the articles I mentioned earlier. I don't agree with all of his points but some are valid in relation to this discussion.
Aryan and Dravidian Races
The idea of Aryan and Dravidian races is the product of an unscientific, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of color. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, 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 smaller. While we can speak of some racial differences between north and south Indian people, they are only secondary.
For example, if we take a typical person from Punjab, another from Maharash- tra, and a third from Tamilnadu we will find that the Maharashtrians generally fall in between the other two in terms of build and skin color. We see a gradual shift of characteristics from north to south, but no real different race. An Aryan and Dravidian race in India is no more real than a north and a south European race. Those who use such terms are misusing language. We would just as well place the blond Swede of Europe in a different race from the darker haired and skinned person of southern Italy.
Nor is the Caucasian race the "white" race. Caucasians can be of any color from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in between. The predominent Caucasian type found in the world is not the blond-blue-eyes northern European but the black hair, brown-eyed darker skinned Mediterranean type that we find from southern Europe to north India. Similarly the Mongolian race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than many so-called Cauca- sians.
In fact of all the races, the Caucasian is the most variable in its skin color. Yet many identification forms that people fill out today in the world still define race in terms of color.
The Term Aryan
A number of European scholars of the 19th century, such as Max Muller, did state that Aryan is not a racial term and there is no evidence that it ever was so used in the Vedas, but their views on this were largely ignored.
We should clearly note that there is no place in Hindu literature wherein Aryan has ever been equated with a race or with a particular set of physical charac- teristics. The term Arya means "noble" or "spiritual", and has been so used by Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians as well as Hindus. Religions that have called themselves Aryan, like all of these, have had members of many different races. Race was never a bar for anyone joining some form of the Arya Dharma or teaching of noble people.
Aryan is a term similar in meaning to the Sanskrit word Sri, an epithet of respect. We could equate it with the English word Sir. We cannot imagine that a race of men named sir took over England in the Middle Ages and dominated a different race because most of the people in power in the country were called sir. Yet this is the kind of thinking that was superimposed upon the history of India.
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html
![TOTAL - Can't You See (feat. The Notorious B.I.G.) [1995]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/3/3903-0162a793e282679661459263d81f7fc7.jpg?1561827145)
