Are SE Asians Australoids?

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated July 12. I am republishing this post, published earlier, because I added some new photos and text to it.

We have already dealt with this issue previously on this blog, but there is need to continuously revisit old issues that do not seem to be sinking in very well after we do our revisionist and rectification work here.

For instance, I do not really care about whether or not SE Asians are part-Australoid, but among amateur anthropologists, the notion is much in vogue. Furthermore, it is regarded as given by Chinese, which unfortunately includes Southern Chinese, who by this definition, would also be part-Australoid.

This issue needs to be dealt with because it is such a widespread myth, particularly among some of our best young minds out there in popular culture. Among anthropologists, the only folks saying that SE Asians are part-Australoid are wonderful folks like Richard Lynn, who wants to "phase out" inferior races. So I'm not sure that NE Asian Supremacists should make alliance with these guys.

The truth is clear. All of Asia, as far as we can tell, was Australoid up until 9,000 years ago or so. Further, some Caucasians were part-Australoid, and there is some evidence that all of them may have been at one point.

Take a recent comment by an excellent mind in my comments section, who states that all SE Asians are Australoids based on their lineage.

First of all, lineage doesn't really mean crap. In the lineage of Caucasians is African, Asian and probably Australoid, going back 45,000 years or so, and maybe more so in between, since India seems to be continuously injecting itself into the Caucasian mix from 10,000-45,000 years ago, and India was Australoid until 8,000 years ago, when it finally transitioned to Caucasian.

In fact, Caucasians may have been made up one part African from Masai and Tutsi-type Central African stock, and two parts NE Asian, which at 45,000 years ago was probably an Australoid that looked something like an Ainu. So Caucasians themselves are probably two parts Australoid in their mix going way, way back.

There are different ways of doing race, in places where anti-racist nuts have not outlawed it or shamed it out altogether. We can look at facial structure, or we can look at genes. There are no other ways of doing it that make sense.

Facial structure is a favorite among White racists, but otherwise it's ok. White racists despise genes, because too many other "non-White" Caucasians end up being too close to their precious European White Glory.

Lots of people hate genes because they give funny results. The exalted Hong Kong Chinese make up a taut subrace with the unknown Taiwanese Ami and the downtrodden and abused Filipinos. We can't have that.

Let's do faces instead, or skin color, the craziest of them all. We do skin color and we miss tight genetic units like Algerians and Nubians, one White and one Black group that are so closely related they can easily be called a minor race and even a closely-knit genetic family.

Faces are interesting, but genes are sort of where it's at in a way. Negritos and Ainu go to the surrounding Asians on genes, but to Australoids on facial structure. So where do we toss em? Fuegian Amerindians go Australoid on facial structure but Amerindian on genes, so which bin? I'm inclined to toss Fuegians into Amerindians on mere sense grounds, since saying they are Australoids lost in America is just too weird.

A classic Ainu man. Note the uncanny resemblance to an Amerindian. Ainus look Australoid on facial structure and Asian on genes. They are not Caucasian as many have theorized. One theory about why we have some Caucasian looking types in Asia is that the breeding together of an Australoid type with an Asian type can produce as Caucasoid type. That's just a shot in the dark, but it sounds appealing to me.

Some Amerindians, such as the Fuegians of Patagonia and the Pericu of Baja California also look like Ainu, as did the Paleoindians of the Americas, who are thought to be the first to come the continent, even before the Asian Amerindians that we know today. The Amerindians we know today may have shown up only 6,000-9,000 years ago, but they must have bred in with earlier groups.

So, we look at faces of SE Asians for Australoid structure, and we don't get much. Negritos, Melanesians, and sometimes Polynesians have Australoid faces. So do the Senoi, and possibly the Vedda (though not close to Aborigines), and we get the Tamils.

But Polynesians are Oceanians genetically, Senoi are SE Asians, and Tamils are Caucasians. Oh, what a complicated web we weave.

We don't see Australoid facial structure in SE Asians. In some, maybe we do. There are people with woolly hair and dark skin among the Taiwan aborigines and among the Malay and the Filipinos at least. These people do have some Negrito in them.

In most SE Asians, we just find that they have faces that look, well, SE Asian. It's a particular look of a face, and it's not Australoid or any such thing. I'm not sure what it resembles. It just resembles what it is - SE Asians have developed their own specific facial type, and it is what it is and you like it or you don't, but it owns itself.

If we go looking for Australoid genes in SE Asians, we pretty much come up empty handed. We find Papuan genes in some Southern Chinese, some coastal Vietnamese and some Malays and we find some sort of Australoid-looking genes in Indonesians, mostly to east.

We don't seem to find any at all in Taiwanese, Lao, Khmer, the rest of the Vietnamese, Thai or western Indonesians. Anyway, we only find a tiny amount in those groups, indicating that it's nonsense to say that they are part Australoid. It's just a tiny ancient remnant - that's all.

When we go looking at Polynesians and Micronesians, things get way more complicated. For a long time, analyses were finding that these people have up to 50% of what look like Australoid genes from Melanesia or Papua, and about 50% some kind of Austronesian genes from Taiwan.

A paper has recently come out showing that Polynesians and Micronesians are almost all Austronesian from Taiwan, and the Papuan - Melanesian connection is minor or even nonexistent. Even this paper showed that Melanesians had a heavy Papuan element, with a small Austronesian element mostly limited to eastern Indonesia. Download a paper looking at the matter on my site here.

Whatever the meaning of these studies, a close look at genetic charts tends to show Oceanians such as Micronesians, Melanesians and Polynesians lining up right alongside Papuans and Aborigines, who are themselves vastly far apart.

Clearly there is an Australoid Race. Clearly Aborigines and Papuans are too extremely distantly related aspects of that race, or maybe even separate major races on their own.

Including Melanesians is difficult. While some treatments now are finding an Oceanian Race separate from Australoids, others are finding a fairly close link between Melanesians and Australoids such as Papuans. It is probably best to say that Melanesians are Oceanians with a fairly close, but still distant, relationship to Papuans. Whatever relationship Micronesians and Polynesians have to Papuans, it is much more distant.

When we line up Aborigines to SE Asians such as Khmer, Malay, Filipinos, Thai, and Southern Chinese, we do not get a thing. The relationship is very, very distant. In many charts, the closest relative will be Polynesians (the connection above again) and then we will find Japanese, Koreans and even NE Chinese.

This is probably due to an Ainu-Gilyak Australoid element that was generalized all through NE Asia at this time.

In my opinion, the Ainu and the Gilyak are the remains of the proto-NE Asians. They probably go back to Lake Baikal around 35,000 years ago. At some point they may have gone to Thailand, then over to Japan, and at 20,000 years ago, they must have gone to Australia. At around 16,000 years ago, Ainu types left the Altai Mountains and traveled to the Americas, possibly via a coastal route on boats. Their ancestors today, other than Fuegians and the Pericu.

Look at those really long fingers on that woman. That looks so strange.

I have seen photos of modern day Gilyaks on Sakhalin Island and they look pretty Japanese. There are projects underway to record and possibly revive their very strange language, which is somehow still alive. These were very much a fishing people, living on the coast and heavily involved in salmon fishing, drying and consumption. They also eat a lot of seaweed. The Japanese diet resembles this in some ways.

Keep in mind at proto-NE Asians (Ainu types) colonized Australia 20,000 years ago and created one of the major inputs into the Aborigines.

A classic Aborigine, possibly from Coon in the early 20th Century. Coon made a number of good studies on Aborigines at that time. An Ainu type called Murrayians is thought to have colonized Australia 20,000 years ago. Around that time, Ainu types were in Thailand and Japan. They seem to have gone from Thailand to Japan around this time as the Jomonese, probably on boats. Surely they must have used these same boats to go to Australia.

On the way down to Australia, they seem have made up the proto-Australoids, a strange and little-known group from the Philippines that is thought to be the second arrivals after the Negritos. The description of the proto-Australoids sounds like an Ainu type, and their ancient arrival on the islands fits in well with a very early arrival in Australia.

It is true that SE Asians were probably still transitioning from Australoid to SE Asian maybe as late as 5,000 years ago, but NE Asians were making that transition only 9,000 years ago.

According the commenter, SE Asians are Australoids because that is sort of what they were 5,000 years ago. But why should we not include NE Asians, since they were Australoids only 9,000 years ago? Why not include East Indians, since they were Australoids until only 8,000 years ago?

Hell with lineage. Humans were ape-men not too long ago. Maybe even 200,000 years ago, we were still pretty apelike. Hell, Amerindians were still pretty Australoid up until 9,000 ago, and in Colombia even up until 3,000 years ago.

In the Fuegians and in the Pericu of southern Baja California, there were physically Australoid types until contact and even afterwards, even though the Pericu went extinct.

Truth is, lineage doesn't really matter. We look at things as they are today. Some things came from other things a long time, but the existing things of today are not the things that they transitioned from long ago, nor are they part of what they used to be.

Instead, they are whole new things, moving from one existence and creation to a new creation all of their own. I am not my ancestors, nor am I even part of my ancestors. But they are part of the creation story that is me and my kin, and that is a wonderful trail of a tale all on its own.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

The Peopling of India

Originally, this was part of an older post called New Cavalli-Sforza Gene Maps, but I figured this part of it anyway is better off in a separate post all of its own. Besides, I need a peopling of India post, and I already had it, but it was part of this stoned-out, drunken rambling called New Cavalli-Sforza Gene Maps, so I vivisected the old one and made a nice, clean new one with an explanatory title.

The peopling of India is a mystery. As my Indian doctor told me, India is as old as dirt. There are various narratives in India, but none of them make any sense, as usual.

Hindus believe something like that Hindus have always been in India, so if you say anything scientifically different, the Hindu fundamentalist boneheads are going to freak out and probably even threaten you. Wonderful people, and surely as stupid as any Christian or Muslim fundamentalist anywhere.

Within India, there is a lot of debate about whether or not there was an Aryan invasion that conquered the indigenous Dravidians, relegated them to the South of India, and imposed a ferociously racist Hindu caste system on the darker Dravidians - with Whiter Brahmins and higher castes being on top and darker Dravidian types being put in the lower castes.

Actually, caste in India is quite complex. High caste Indians from South India are often quite dark, and lower caste Indians from the North can be quite light. However, there is a general tendency for higher castes to be lighter skinned. In particular, for Indian women, Whiter has always been better, and Indian women have been trying to lighten their skins for as long as anyone can remember.

It is also interesting that, although inter-caste marriage was supposedly forbidden and enforced with serious penalties, the Brahmins have been getting progressively darker down through the centuries. Gee, how did that happen? Race mixing! Horror of horrors!

The Aryan Invasion theory is actually most popular with Dalits or untouchables. Supposedly they had a paradise down there until these evil White Aryans invaded and imposed evil caste Hinduism on the natives. In truth, Hinduism may be as old as India itself.

Surely, it seems to date back before any Aryan invasion. It seems to be the case that the Aryans may have superimposed caste on native Indian Hinduism though, and caste probably did not exist in the original religion.

The Aryan Invasion theory is also popular with White nationalists, see they see it as normal that Whiter folks should declare themselves superior to, and treat like shit, darker folks. The notion that there are two separate races in India, darker, inferior Dravidians and Whiter, superior Aryans is often added to this. In truth, all Indians are best seen as one coherent group.

An interesting collection of Northern Pakistani types, who resemble in type the Northern Indians such as Punjabis. The guy on the left, I swear, could be a Greek fisherman and the guy with the slicked-back hair could easily be an Italian. The fellow on the right and the one on the second to left are more classic North Indid types.


I think it's pretty hilarious that so many White nationalist morons say that this kid is not White. With a constricted mindset like that, WN is doomed for sure. Look real hard at this kid and tell me he's not White. This is a Pashtun kid (with a non-human kid on his shoulders) from northern Pakistan - specifically, the area where the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership is thought to be hiding.


She's not White? Says who? Says White nationalists, that's who. Another interesting Pashtun from northwest Pakistan. This is where you find the most European-looking types in the area. They live in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the greatest concentration in Nuristan, Kunar, Dir and Chitral. This girl could easily be an Italian.


A young Pakistani Pashtun girl with her little sister. I understand that these women are quite beautiful, but in this region, they go into purdah, or isolation, at puberty, and pretty much no one ever gets to see them anymore. They probably spend most of their time after that in a burka or some other stupid bag thing. Too bad. Nowadays, these poor girls are going to even have a hard time going to school.


An Afghan man from Chitral, where the most European types can be found. Take off the turban, put him on any street in America, and he's just another White dude. I think that bin Laden may be hiding in the area of Chitral and across the border in Kunar and Nuristan, though Dir in Pakistan is the best bet of all.


Yes, a red-haired Pashtun. I think this guy is from Afghanistan. Pashtuns describe themselves as Aryans, and say that they are the base that the European Whites came from. No one really knows, but the White European type that we know today probably came into existence with the spread of Indo-European across the continent 8,000 years ago.

White skin only shows up in Europe 9,000 years ago, and at 11,000 years ago, Europeans look something like Middle Easterners, so maybe the Aryans were the original Europeans. Who knows. Unfortunately, Hitler's Nazi regime was roaming around in these parts searching for the original White man or original Aryan or whatever.

Hence the word Aryan, mangled by Nazis to idiotically mean Nordic, has fallen into disgrace. But it deftly describes all of these North Indid types we are looking at in this section.


Another Afghan Pashtun. Unfortunately, it is the Pashtuns who are leading the insurgency against the US in Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Brahmins themselves have totally rejected this theory lately, so if someone vociferously rejects the Aryan invasion theory, they are probably high-castes or Hindu fundamentalists. The motivation is unsure, but they seem to be denying that caste is a bad thing or that it was imposed by evil invaders.

This is often leavened with dollops of caste is a good thing, or caste is normal, or caste hardly exists anymore talk, or other pro-caste propaganda. I have yet to meet a high-caste Indian who will denounce caste. If you ever meet one, please introduce them to me.

Recent research on the question is difficult, but there is a suggestion that an Aryan invasion may have occurred. Although all Indians are one major ethnic group, higher castes seem more related to Europeans and lower castes seem more related to Asians. There is also a northwest - southeast cline, with those towards the northwest being more European and those towards the southeast becoming more Asian.

Nevertheless, the best evidence is that Indians are a coherent race (they cluster together on genetic tests and there is no way to winnow out Aryans and Dravidians via genes) and they have been evolving, more or less in situ, with few outside inputs, for a good 15-20,000 years. Let's call it 17,000 years. Where did the Indians come from prior to 17,000 years ago? Evidence suggests the Middle East.

What is interesting about this theory is that we know that Indians look like Aborigines until about 8,000 years ago, when they begin to transition to Caucasians. So does this mean that the proto-Indians of the Middle East were Australoid types? You tell me. Racially, peoples of either the Middle East or Europe are poorly known at such an early date.

Indians and Dravidians are outside Caucasoids (but not by much) on the Cavalli-Sforza genetic chart below, but we have to lump them into one of the big three, so to Caucasians they go.

Fig. 1:
Click to enlarge and view. As you can see on this Cavalli-Sforza gene chart of the human race, Indians are just a bit outside Caucasians. It is true that Indians on some charts are the most divergent Caucasians of all. We may use this to deduce that Indians may be, along with Berbers, some of the most ancient Caucasian stocks on Earth.

After all, the European racial type is only known from about 9,000 years ago or so. Just prior, they seem to have resembled Middle Easterners and way back, they have had dark skin and resembled Masai or Tutsis from Central Africa. On many genetic charts, Indians of both the northwest and the southeast tend to ride the divide between Asians and Caucasians very closely.

So, while Indians are Caucasians for sure, they are starting to get towards Asians. North Indians such as Punjabis have 10-15% recent Asian genes to boot.

There are some ancient peoples in India who may represent the earliest Indians of all. Most Indians probably don't want to believe this, as these folks are tribals who, while outside the caste system, are widely discriminated against.

This map shows the location of many of the obscure tribes described below that may be remnants of the first Indians. This old map uses racial classifications that are no longer used today. It is written in a foreign language, possibly German. Although it sounds creepy today, German scientists did a lot of good work involving the races of man in the early part of the 20th Century.

The notion that any investigation of race may lead to the Nazi catastrophe has curtailed most such research today, but intrepid folks like yours truly continue to venture forth where fools fear to tread.


Nagas of NE Asia, thought to be perhaps the original people of the area. The guy on the right looks Papuan, for Chrissake (Or does he?), while the guy on the left looks sort of SE Asian, but not quite. I put the Naga into a Tibetan Northeast Indian Race within Southeast Asians, but the situation is confused as to whether or not they should be lumped in with Tibetans or split off. If they were early Indian Australoids, they then bred in heavily with Tibetan types and got genetically swamped.


A nice looking young Naga girl. She almost looks Amerindian, especially Central American Amerindian, but that's just convergence. Maybe a hint of SE Asian?

Indian Caucasians are clearly some of the most ancient existing Caucasians, except for the Kalash.

Kalash woman with her two girls in Pakistan. The Kalash are so diverse that they form an entire split in the Caucasian Race. In other words, among Caucasians, there are Kalash in one race and all Kalash in another vast race. I do not know what this means, but I am thinking that the Kalash may be one of the oldest Caucasians in existence due to their extreme genetic distance.


More Kalash. A woman and her son. The general theory is that the Kalash came from the Caucasus. If the Kalash indeed are the remnants of the most ancient Caucasians, the origin in the Caucasus is interesting because the Caucasus plays a major role in the formation of the Caucasian race as a nexus.

Other major nexuses are India, the Middle East and North Africa. Cavalli-Sforza suggests that the oldest Caucasians were two parts Asian and one part Black, this going back 40-45,000 years in Southern Russia (=Caucasus?). It is interesting to note that many Kalash have some Asian features. My theory is that the two Asian parts of the proto-Caucasians were Ainu types and the one Black part was a Masai-Tutsi type, but hey, I'm guessing.

There is evidence that Indians go back 44-63,000 years in India. Going back that far, they probably looked something like Aborigines, but no one is sure. The people along the coast were probably Negrito types.

The Garwhalis of far northern India. These people look a lot like the Kalash and may also be a very ancient Caucasian stock, this one probably from the Caucasus itself, which is where the mysterious Kalash arose. Some of these girls could walk down a street in a European city and no one would bat an eye. They could be Spaniards, Greeks, Albanians or Italians, but I am guessing. I could not place the Garwhalis into any race.


Nagas of Northeast India. Thought to be possibly be a remnant of the original people of Northeast India. They have a lot of Asian admixture. This one looks Tibetan. Genetically, they cluster with Tibetans.


More strange Naga people. The Naga have been fighting for a separate state for a long time now called Nagaland, and I support that struggle 100%. India has no right to any of NE India. India, go away.

The Indian proto-Caucasians seem to have bred in somewhat with Australoid types in India, but this is not at all clear except in the case of Tamils, who share skull affinities with Australoids. The general theory is that Indian skulls look like Aborigines from 8,000-40,000 years ago. Up until 5,000 years ago, Indians are quite muscular (robust), but then they become more gracile.

There are skulls going back 35,000 years in Sri Lanka, and more in Uttar Pradesh going back 45,000 years. According to one theory, Australia may have been settled from India. Tamil skulls do look Australoid, and resemble Papuans, Andamans, Senoi and Semang. There are stone tools in Sri Lanka dating back 22,000 years that are similar to the tools in Australia and Indonesia.

It is thought that these tools in the latter two countries came from India. The Veddas are the original peoples of Sri Lanka and predate the Tamils and Sinhalese, both of whom came about 2,000 years ago. However, in contrast to the India to Aborigine Theory, Vedda skulls do not currently cluster with Aborigine skulls, nor do Andaman Islander skulls (Bulbek)

Do look at many of the photos of Indians on this page who may be related to the original Australoids, possibly Negritos, of India.

A Yanadi boy peddling a canoe by the shore of the Indian Ocean in India. Some say Yanadis are the remains of the original Australoid inhabitants of India. The Yanadi live in coastal SE India.


An odd looking Nord Indid Banjara - Lambadi - Gypsy speaking a North Indian dialect This woman is from Karnatiman, which is somewhere in India. Maybe the ancient proto-Caucasians of 20,000 years ago in India looked like this.

I do not think we see much left genetically of the original Indian Australoids.

Yanadi boys in India. As you can see, some look a lot like Aborigines. Fascinating.


A Yanadi girl from India. This photo was taken from a Black nationalist site where they were screaming about how these people are ancient Blacks. Party all you want over your fantasy. She is more Aborigine than anything else, if you look very closely. For the Black appearance, more convergence. Lots of folks of various races look Black, or Negroid. So what. Doesn't prove relation.

Black or Negroid appearance, like Caucasoid phenotype or appearance, is probably just another endpoint for recent human facial evolution. Many races may end up either Negroid or Caucasoid appearing on a micro level.

The ancient Australoids of India now genetically and even (except in the case of the Tamils) anthropologically look like the neighboring Caucasian groups; we may be able to see older traces, but probably just that - traces. See these photos for those traces.

Super-commenter Joe Stickler calls these folks Indo-Melanids and calls them are proto-morphers (sort of anthropological shape-shifters). He notes that they are strongly stabilized and that they are certainly not Australoids.

A Gond boy from the Gond scheduled tribe in India. More aborigine appearance. The Gonds are thought to be the remains of the original Australoids of India. The Gonds are members of the South Indian Race along with the Munda, the Bhil, the Marathi, the Rajbanshi, the Oraon, the Parji, the Kolami-Naiki, the Chenchu-Reddi, the Konda, the Kolya, the West Bengal Brahmins and the Parsi. Gonds live in Central India.

Joe Stickler* describes this boy as intermediate between Indo Melanid and Veddoid. He is actually fairly standardized. Note the Asiatic eyes.


A Vedda man from India. The Veddoids are thought to be one of the endpoints of Negrito evolution, in this case the remains of the original Indians. Veddoid Tamils do resemble Negritos, Papuans, the Senoi, the Semang and the Andaman Islanders and others in skulls. However, Vedda skulls do not resemble Aborigine skulls.

I swear I know a Chicano guy who looks a lot like this.


A Mardia Gond male from India. He could well be a descendant of an original Indian Negrito group. Note the very primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The Mardia reside in Central India, south of the Gonds.

Indians have been evolving in situ, pretty much, without a lot of outside inputs, for about 17,000 years.

An Australoid looking man, or possibly a very early ancient Caucasian from India. Very interesting type.

The people of India are pretty closely related to each other, and form a compact and fairly unified group.

Che Guevara himself or any hippie from the 1960's in the US, right in India. Interesting phenotype.

The Indian proto-Caucasians probably came from the Middle East to India about 20,000 years ago.

A very modern Caucasian looking woman from Rajasthan in the West of India. Going West, Indians get more modern Caucasian-looking. The ring must mean marriage.

Originally, the Indian proto-Caucasians may have looked like Arabs, but this is not known.

A very beautiful Indian woman. This woman could easily be an Italian, if you ask me. A very interesting looking phenotype. She looks hot. Commenter Joe Stickler describes her as a North Indid - Graci-Indid type.

There were Australoid types present in the Indian subcontinent when these new Caucasian people came to India 20,000 years BP, and they looked like Australian Aborigines.

A Santal man from another scheduled tribe in India. The Santal are also thought to be a remnant of the original people of India. The Santal live in NE India, north of Bangladesh near Assam.


Another odd looking tribal woman, this one from Goa. The ring through the nose thing must be a sign of being a married woman. Once again, I look and think, ancient Caucasian, but who knows. There is somewhat of an Amerindian appearance, but this is more synchronicity. This is another Nord Indid Banjara - Lambadi - Gypsy speaking a North Indian dialect.

The Indian Australoids were bred out or genetically swamped by the Caucasians from the Middle East and they have now just merged into Indian Caucasians.

Oraon women in Orissa. Another scheduled tribe thought related to the original Indians. Note the Negroid or possibly Negrito appearance. The Oraon are members of the South Indian Race described above. The Oraon live in NE India, west of Bangladesh near the state of West Bengal.


Very happy Irular kids in India. Once again, I think I am seeing some kids that look like Aborigines in this photo. Another possible remnant of the first Indians. The Irular are members of the South Dravidian Race, along with the Sinhalese, the Lambada, the Izhava, the Kurumba, the Nayar, the Toda, the Kota, the Malayaraya and the Tamils. This race, along with the South Indian Race, are probably the remains of the earliest Indians.

The Irulars live in the far south of India, southwest of the Yanadi.


More Irulars of far southern India. The Irulars are a scheduled tribe and hence are subject to affirmative action measures, which are quite controversial in India. They are very dark-skinned, as you can see.


A Malid Panyer woman from India. Blacks love to claim these folk, but really the connection is probably to the Aborigines of Australia. Big difference. Or she could well be the remains of the Indian Negritos. In fact, early racial scholars Eickstedt put them and the Gonds in with the Negritos of the Andaman Islands. The Malids live in far southwestern India, near the state of Karnataka and west of the Irular. Joe Stickler* describes Malids as a mostly unspecialized and primitive Veddoid type.


A very primitive-looking Kanikar man with a loincloth and a bow and arrow. Note the woolly hair typical of Veddoids. The face seems to have an Australoid appearance also. Early racial scholars classed these people as Negrito types. Probably among the remains of the first Indians. The Kanikar reside at the very southern tip of India. Joe Stickler* describes Kanikars as a mostly unspecialized and primitive Veddoid type.


A Panya Gond woman, probably one of the remains of the first humans to populate India. Note the woolly hair and Negrito appearance. Gonds reside in central India. Joe Stickler* describes Panyas as a mostly unspecialized and primitive Veddoid type.

Indians are also one of the most diverse Caucasian groups, as they tend to ride on the edge between Asians and Whites all the way through, from Punjabi in the north to Tamil in the South.

A Chenchu woman in India, another possible remnant of the ancient Indians. They are also in the South Indian Race. The Chenchu reside in Southern India, mostly north and west of the Yanadi. Joe Stickler* describes this woman as a strongly stabilized Indo-Melanid type with some Veddoid influence.


Chenchu kids, from a scheduled tribes in South India. Scheduled tribes are completely outside of the caste system, whatever that means.


A beautiful North Indian girl. As you can see, folks in the North can also be quite dark. India is a mysterious continent.

*A Sri Lankan commenter on the site with extensive knowledge of Indian racial types.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Genocide in Australia

Looks like it was way worse than the genocide of the Amerindians in the US. The wiping out of the Amerindians was done mostly by disease. The much-repeated story of blankets poisoned with smallpox apparently occurred in once, back East.

There was a large poisoning of maybe 200-300 Amerindians in the Shasta area of California in the 1800's, and there was a massacre of 200-300 Amerindians near Eureka at the same time. California was actually one of the worst places of all. There was an all-out war against the Amerindians here.

I spent months going over old newspaper archives in a library as part of work I did for an Indian tribe here in the Sierras (now doing great with a casino).

In the 1850's and 1860's, the California Indians were fighting back. The governor himself was making wild proclamations about how this war a war of one race against another, a war that had to lead to the extinction of one or the other.

For 15-20 years or so, it was more or less legal to kill any Indian you wanted in the Sierras and Northern California and for any reason. You could rape an Indian woman too if you want to, and take an Indian child captive. All of this was more or less legal.

Of course this was taking place against the backdrop of the utterly insane mass criminality and homicide of the California Gold Rush, a crime wave the likes of which the state has never even come close to seeing since.

Too many young unmarried men, hardly any women, few to no families, lots of money in the form of gold, little law enforcement, all the ingredients were there. The law that existed was a brutal one, and men were hanged right and left in the Gold Rush for all sorts of things, but preying on Indians was not one of them.

On Sundays, the men would all go to church, then they would head back to the camps to drink, take drugs, steal, fight, kill and just in general act like animals.

There were regular hangings at the camps, and these were well-attended. Folks would go watch the hangings, then head back to camp to commit more crimes later that evening. Sometimes, even capital punishment just doesn't cut it. Recall the stories of the pickpockets that roamed through the crowds in England at the hangings. This was when pickpocketing was a capital offense.

Until 1870 or so, an Indian in this part of the state kept his head down and his mouth shut and hoped to stay alive. Epidemics and disease took their toll. By 1890, 95% of the Indian population on the Central Sierra Nevada foothills was dead.

That's interesting to folks who insist that genetic change in humans takes a long time. Not necessarily, when something happens that kills 95% of a group, and the survivors have some characteristic that enabled them to survive, you can get some pretty extensive genetic changes pretty quickly.

Those who tally such things say that ultimately, Whites killed 7,000 Indians and Indians killed about 11,000 Whites. It's true, the Indians were could be brutal and women and children were at times killed, but they also often kidnapped them and made them members of the tribe.

There are a couple of stories in my family about encounters with Indians. These all stem from one line of my family, who actually came over with the first invaders on the Second Ship of the Mayflower.

Sometime in the 1640's in Massachusetts, Indians attacked the village where all the men were off hunting. They rounded up the women and children and prepared to set fire to them.

Some of the women started singing a pretty song, and the Indians stopped to listen. Well, this was long enough for the menfolk to return, chase off the Indians and save the day. Two of my ancestors were in that group, a woman and her young child.

Later, in late 1700's Virginia, one of my relatives was taken captive by Indians with his friend. They made them run the gauntlet, a popular thing that Indians liked to do with captured Whites. As you ran the gauntlet, the Indians beat on you.

Well, the friend was apparently killed in this process. My ancestor, though, when prodded to run the gauntlet, started jumping around and squawking like a chicken. The Indians all started laughing and decided he did not have to run the gauntlet.

I'm not sure if it's the same story, but one of my ancestors at one point was either captured by Indians or joined them. This in late 1700's Virginia again. His family just gave him up for dead. Well, 10 years later, the son returns home, about 30 years old, and he's walking up to his father's house all dressed like an Indian.

His father got out his gun and was ready to shoot his own son until he recognized him. Back in those days, if an Indian was coming onto your property, you shot him.

My family goes back to 1600's Virginia and it's said that if you can trace your line back that far, you have a 50% chance of being related to Pocahontas. So there may be a bit of Amerindian (less than 1%) in me after all.

The first two stories are probably apocryphal.

If you notice the themes: clever Whites use their ingenuity (and common human nature) to fool the Indians by disarming them and appealing to their sensibilities for comedy and appreciation of music. As the Indian is a barbarian savage in both tales, at the same time, he is a fellow human, revealed by his ability to appreciate a clever joke or a beautiful song.

At the end of the day, there is really no way to figure out if such stories are true or not. But they got passed down through the family for years for a reason that is at once egotistical and at the same time a warning: our line is a clever line, able to cheat death by our wits. Remember this, and use this lesson in the close calls you may experience in your own dangerous times.

The treatment of the Aborigines looks like a real genocide. There were sterilization attempts, deliberate attempts at "breeding them out", mass imprisonments for minor infractions, infantilization throughout life by being confined to child-care like institutions where even their shit had to pass muster.

In these homes, both sexes experienced mass sex abuse, and this went on for decades. Single women were not allowed to have sex, and males were punished for being a "menace to White women". Half-breeds were taken away to be raised by Whites, and many Aboriginal children were stolen from their families. There was a conscious attempt to make this race fade into history.

There are not many full-blooded Aboriginals left. There are not that many in cities, and most are in remote areas. They still have very serious problems, but they are hardly any kind of threat to the rest of Australians in any way. At the moment, alcohol and drugs are the worst problems, and fetal alcohol syndrome is epidemic among them. The damaged children are petty criminals and find it hard to function on their own.

When the Whites first showed up, Aboriginals were waging their own war of extinction on the Negritos of Australia, who may have been there even before the Aborigines showed.

The Negritos are the first people out of Africa 70,000 years ago, who moved along the Indian Ocean to SE Asia, leaving trace populations (or relatives) behind (possibly) in Yemen, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, Malaysia, the Philippines and New Guinea.

The journey taken by early man out of Africa 70,000 years ago. As you can see, one line goes to Australia. Negritos, not Aborigines, were probably the first people in Australia.

The first Whites witnessed Aborigines hunting Negritos the way man would hunt wild animals. They were killed just for the pleasure of it, and because they were small.

Early investigations revealed and photographed some relict populations in Southwest Queensland around Brisbane, Gold Coast, Tin Can Bay, Fraser Island, Blue Lake National Park, Gympie, Tewantin, Cooloola National Park, Tiaro, and the general area of the Mary River. There was another large population in Northeastern Queensland around Cairns and Cape York. Tasmanians also seem to have had Negrito characteristics.

A photo of Australian Negritos from the Cairns rainforest, taken in 1890, found by Tindale in 1937. He went looking for some Negritos in the area and found a few of them. I haven't seen any genetic studies on these people, since there are few if any of them left, but studies did seem to show that like most Negritos, they are most closely related genetically to the people around them, in this case, the Aborigines.

Native Tasmanians are now apparently extinct. They were also hunted like animals for decades.

The people that we commonly know as Aborigines (or at least one group called Carpentarians named for the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia) seem to have come much later from Southern India (and seem related to the Veddoids) and largely replaced the Negritos, a genocide that was in its final phases when the Whites showed up.

Indo-Melanid Yanadi boys in Southern India. Note the resemblance with Aborigines. Unfortunately, cranial studies do not show a relationship with Veddoid types and Aborigines. However, genes did seem to show a link a while back. Nevertheless, cranially and surely genetically, these Yanadis are Caucasians.

They may be some of the most ancient Caucasians of them all. It's fascinating to think that the Aborigines as we know them are the original people, but were actually later arrivals from India and the Pacific Rim respectively.

The Carpentarians showed up about 15,000 years ago, were darker and had little body hair.

A classic Aborigine, probably a cross between an Ainu type and an early South Indian type. These types were generalized across India and SE Asia about 24,000 years ago.

Another group, called Murrayians, are apparently related to the Ainu, and arrived 20,000 years ago. The Ainu are thought to be the remnants of the original people of Northern Asia. They were stocky, wavy-haired, hairy, and fairly light-skinned.

A photo of Ainu Yasli Adam in traditional garb. I love this photo. Note that he could be mistaken for an Aborigine or a Caucasian. Anthropological studies suggest that Ainu types showed up in Australia about 20,000 years ago. There seems to be evidence of them in Thailand around 16,000 years ago, and about this time they went to Japan to form a very early Japanese culture called the Jomonese. There is a suggestion that proto-Jomonese people were also in Thailand around this time.

At the same time, the Americas were being populated by types that best resemble the Ainu. These are the Paleoindians, and the Amerindians today are no relation, no matter how much they scream. The famous Kennewick Man is also a Paleoindian most closely related to an Ainu or a Maori. He only appears Caucasian because the Ainu types do look Caucasian. However, in facial structure, they are Australoid, and genetically, they are Asians.

Complete moron White nationalists claim that Kennewick Man is a White Man, and this proves that Whites were here before Amerindians, and therefore the whole continent is ours. Stupid or what? I'm going to do a whole post taking these clowns to task over this. In traditional early anthropology of the Philippines, a group called the proto-Malay is postulated.

They arrived after the Negritos and after an Australoid group called Sakais, who seem to resemble Veddoids or the Senoi of Malaysia. The proto-Malay are described as short and very hairy. A hairy Asian sounds like an Ainu, and indeed, there were Jomon types in Thailand, and Ainu types may have settled Australia 20,000 years ago, and the Americas 12,000 years ago.

In short, Ainu types were on the move around the Pacific Rim from 12-20,000 years ago, and may even have settled in the Philippines. This is real cutting-edge stuff here and I am totally going out on a limb. Feel free to dive in.

An Australian fossil called Kow Swamp from 20,000 YBP curiously looks more like Homo Erectus than Homo Sapiens.

The Negritos were least advanced, then the Murrayians, then the Carpentarians.

Tindale and Birdsell did the best work on the peopling of Australia long ago and much of it stands to this day. In between the 1960's saw such idiocies as pan-Aboriginalism, which mandated that all Aborigines had to come from a single source.

Ridiculous theories postulated Negritos not as ancient remnants of the first modern humans in their regions, but as the result of microevolution (in particular, to living in a rain forest) and evolutionary drift.

This same scenario plays out in Africa, where Bantus kill Pygmies just for the fun of it, and take special pleasure in eating them. This old habit has come back with the horrible civil war in Zaire that has killed 5 million people.

In the Philippines, Negritos have been murdered by settlers for their land for decades now, with few legal consequences. The remainder are a defeated people, their lands stolen by Filipinos, working for Filipinos on their former lands as agricultural labor, living in squatter villages, families falling apart, riven by alcohol, dope and even pornography.

A full-grown Ati woman. The Ati, a Philippines Negrito group, live on Panay Island, where they number about 1,500. The Filipinos have been stealing their land and killing them when they resist for decades now, and the government could care less. The Negritos of the Philippines are starting to look like a defeated race.

On the Andaman Islands, most of the Negritos have gone extinct due to disease. The few remainders, for some odd reason, are afflicted with very low fertility, that is, the women seem to be unable to bear children. Is this nature's way of marking the extinction of a race?

Andaman Islands Negritos. Contact with advanced civilization is fatal to them. They have some immunity to malaria, but none to Hepatitis, venereal diseases or even the common cold or the flu. They quickly succumb to venereal disease, violent crime, beggary, and sloth upon contact with modern civilization.

There is a group on the Sentinel Islands that attacks all researchers who come near. Indian nationalist fuckheads keep sending expeditions to "bring them into civilization" but every Andamans group that has come to the modern world has been destroyed. Long may the Sentinelese prosper in the Paleolithic glory.

I actually think these Stone Age chicks are kinda cute. Hell with modern woman anyway. Every one I meet wants to know my net worth. Think these babes care? Hell with Late Capitalism, how do I get me one of these Negrito chicks anyway?

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

R-K Scale or Introversion-Extroverion Scale?

There are clearly some differences between the races, at least between Northeast Asians, European Caucasians and Blacks. Those differences are obvious to me and to many others, and show up in many statistics on a variety of societal variables.

Whether or not there are global personality differences between the races is very controversial, but it seems obvious to many folks just looking around at the world, and as a former US schoolteacher who taught classes full of Anglo-Americans, Japanese Americans and Afro-Americans for years all over Los Angeles, after a while you have to really lie to yourself to believe that such a thing does not exist.

At Gardena High School, there were many Blacks and many Japanese-Americans, and the contrast simply belts you in the face with a knockout punch. Even those experts who agree that there are differences go on and on about whether they are genetic or cultural, when it's clear that they are both.

Some recent studies have come out (by Jewish psychologists, of course) claiming that there are no significant personality differences between Blacks and Whites. I don't even care to read such a study, as it flies in the face of common sense observation.

Philippe Rushton is a racist who dislikes Blacks and his books are very controversial. He has suggested r-strategy versus k-strategy for the differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. R-k selection theory is a theory in biology relating different modes of adaptation that animals use to survive in the environment.

I'm going to stay agnostic on the r/k thing and I don't wish to align myself with the oily Mr. Rushton, who, by the way, wishes to do away with all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but one thing I think Rushton makes clear is that there is an extroversion-introversion scale that closely mirrors that r/k scale.

As introverts have a vastly lower crime rate and extroverts tend to make up the vast majority of criminals (even among Whites) that makes good sense to me.

Also, extroverts are much more likely to be bored with school, tend to use and manipulate others more, have a "strong prey on the weak and that's ok" mindset, are vastly less moral and mannered, less inclined to repay debts, have much more regard for self than others, are more promiscuous, gamble, drink and take drugs more, take worse care of their health, are less cautious, have more accidents, take way more risks, are much more aggressive, impulsive prone to wild and excessive mood swings (wild emotionality) and are financially irresponsible and have a lowered life expectancy.

It's clear to me that all of these are true even within a race, say, with Whites (that's the race I'm most familiar with).

It's obvious to me that Blacks are the most extroverted race, NE Asians the least, and Whites in between.

Honestly, I have no idea what to do with most of the other races. SE Asians psychologically resemble NE Asians, though I think they are somewhat more extroverted. I haven't the faintest idea what to do with Amerindians, Hispanics, Polynesians, Micronesians and Papuans. I suspect that Papuans and Aborigines may be more like Blacks in extroversion.

Polynesians are very odd. They're obviously part-Asian and can be pretty quiet and introverted, yet at the same time, they are collectivist, love parties and are surrounded by people all the time. Filipinos are much the same. East Indians, Arabs, North Africans and South Asians are pretty much like Whites, cultural baggage aside.

Culture seems to intervene a lot here, as with everything else, and it gets real hard to disentangle everything. Sure, there are introverted Blacks (I've known a few of them!) and there are extroverted NE Asians, but we are looking at these groups globally here.