Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Indians are closely related to "Europeans"

Evenki

Evenki

Recruit
★★
Joined
May 26, 2025
Posts
121
There's no denying it. If you are even a little bit interested in linguistics this should be common knowledge.

I say "European" because not all people native to Europe are part of this group. What we would call "European" is made up of three major groups- Slavic, Italic, and Germanic. The European "branch", however, is part of the larger Indo-European family. The other main branch is Indo-Iranian, which is made up of Indo-Aryan(what we would today call "Indian") and Iranic.

So, from a lineage perspective, Germanics, Italics, and Slavics are the most closely related to each other, and the next closest group is North Indians and Iranians. Groups that might be considered European or adjacent to European, like North Africans, Arabs, Uralics, (Hungarians, Finnish), Hellenics(Greeks), and Turks, are less closely related to the European branch than Indians are. They are also certainly much closer to Europeans than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Austronesians, etc.

The "Aryan" race as people might call it originated somewhere around the Caucasus and split into two groups. The "European" branch migrated west and settled in Europe, and the Indo-Iranic branch migrated east into Persia and North India. What's interesting is that in India, regions have differing degrees of Indo-European admixture due to the caste system. Generally, South India has the most Dravidian(previous inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent) admixture, regions in North India like Punjab have the least. As you start going east from mainland India into Bengal, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, etc., the people are now primarily a mix of Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sinitic(East Asian).

So before insulting Indians, you should know that "Europeans" and Indians are both from the Indo-European family.
 
1756222031816
 
Linguistically for sure, but I don't think many people care about that when compared to genotypes and phenotypes.
 
No Indians are mostly AASI (abo), not Aryan at all. They are all shitskins.
 
Linguistically for sure, but I don't think many people care about that when compared to genotypes and phenotypes.
This
Indians look nothing alike Europeans ergo I feel no closeness towards them. Obviously your character is not determined by your race or ethnic group. There may be cool indians, I have just never met such a one.
 
Indians look nothing alike Europeans ergo I feel no closeness towards them. Obviously your character is not determined by your race or ethnic group.
 
Language isn't race
 
Did you know irish gaelic and hindi are related?!?? They're both apart of the massive indo-european language family which includes, german, russian, italitian, punjabi and more!
1756223971035

What makes all of these languages related is that they all descend from proto indo-european, or PIE. There are no records of this language, but we can reconstruct it using modern day words and every language shown in the map can trace their linguistic roots back to that ancient language
 
They're Caucasoid australoid combo
 
South Asians are closer to aboriginals than Europeans.
 
I say "European" because not all people native to Europe are part of this group. What we would call "European" is made up of three major groups- Slavic, Italic, and Germanic.
No, that is not what we call "European," at least racially/anthropologically. A European is someone who is genetically European, aka someone who is ancestrally a mix of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Western Hunter Gatherers, and Early-to-Middle Bronze Age Steppe Herders, and genetically clusters with other Europeans:
1756225839226


In regards to the rest of your post, even the most "Aryan" South Asians like Jats and Pathans cluster much further away from Euros than MENAs do. Linguistics and Proto-Indo-European ancestry aren't everything:
1756225570974
1756225597176
1756225605634


Even if we want to speak culturally, the European cultural-civilizational zone is much more than just PIE languages and paganism. It's differentiated by an overlapping mix of PIE influence, Greco-Roman influence, and Christian influence – something that you don't see anywhere else in the world. Out of this triumvirate of factors, the only one held in common with South Asia is the first. Comparatively, the MENA shares Greco-Roman influence (due to once having been part of the Roman world) and Christian influence (even if it's today Musim-majority) with Europe, so I'd argue MENAs are culturally closer to Europeans than SAs are
 
Last edited:
No, that is not what we call "European," at least racially/anthropologically. A European is someone who is genetically European, aka someone who is ancestrally a mix of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Western Hunter Gatherers, and Early-to-Middle Bronze Age Steppe Herders, and genetically clusters with other Europeans:
View attachment 1532467

In regards to the rest of your post, even the most "Aryan" South Asians like Jats and Pathans cluster much further away from Euros than MENAs do. Linguistics and Proto-Indo-European ancestry aren't everything:
View attachment 1532460View attachment 1532461View attachment 1532462

Even if we want to speak culturally, the European cultural-civilizational zone is much more than just PIE languages and paganism. It's differentiated by an overlapping mix of PIE influence, Greco-Roman influence, and Christian influence – something that you don't see anywhere else in the world. Out of this triumvirate of factors, the only one held in common with South Asia is the first. Comparatively, the Middle East and North Africa share Greco-Roman influence (due to once having been part of the Roman world) and Christian influence (even if it's today Musim-majority) with Europe, so I'd argue they're culturally closer to Europeans than SAs are
Most Aryan Saar!
 
Did you know irish gaelic and hindi are related?!?? They're both apart of the massive indo-european language family which includes, german, russian, italitian, punjabi and more!
View attachment 1532449
What makes all of these languages related is that they all descend from proto indo-european, or PIE. There are no records of this language, but we can reconstruct it using modern day words and every language shown in the map can trace their linguistic roots back to that ancient language
tales from 1000 BC
 
What does it matter, nobody looks at a curry and thinks "Oh there's a fellow european, we are similar".
 
Linguistics isn't surprising when you realize all humans share a common ancestor.

You could probably link certain words to an obscure African tribe in huts but who cares.
 
Did you know irish gaelic and hindi are related?!?? They're both apart of the massive indo-european language family which includes, german, russian, italitian, punjabi and more!
View attachment 1532449
What makes all of these languages related is that they all descend from proto indo-european, or PIE. There are no records of this language, but we can reconstruct it using modern day words and every language shown in the map can trace their linguistic roots back to that ancient language
That map should include all of the Asiatic Indios in the Americas speaking an Indo-European language. Not really a great racial indicator.
 
That map should include all of the Asiatic Indios in the Americas speaking an Indo-European language. Not really a great racial indicator.
Wrong! Native American languages evolved independently.
 
There's no denying it. If you are even a little bit interested in linguistics this should be common knowledge.

I say "European" because not all people native to Europe are part of this group. What we would call "European" is made up of three major groups- Slavic, Italic, and Germanic. The European "branch", however, is part of the larger Indo-European family. The other main branch is Indo-Iranian, which is made up of Indo-Aryan(what we would today call "Indian") and Iranic.

So, from a lineage perspective, Germanics, Italics, and Slavics are the most closely related to each other, and the next closest group is North Indians and Iranians. Groups that might be considered European or adjacent to European, like North Africans, Arabs, Uralics, (Hungarians, Finnish), Hellenics(Greeks), and Turks, are less closely related to the European branch than Indians are. They are also certainly much closer to Europeans than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Austronesians, etc.

The "Aryan" race as people might call it originated somewhere around the Caucasus and split into two groups. The "European" branch migrated west and settled in Europe, and the Indo-Iranic branch migrated east into Persia and North India. What's interesting is that in India, regions have differing degrees of Indo-European admixture due to the caste system. Generally, South India has the most Dravidian(previous inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent) admixture, regions in North India like Punjab have the least. As you start going east from mainland India into Bengal, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, etc., the people are now primarily a mix of Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sinitic(East Asian).

So before insulting Indians, you should know that "Europeans" and Indians are both from the Indo-European family.
Okay jeet.

That's because europeans came and conquered india a long time ago. So they created a racial caste system, that is why high class indians are a lot whiter than low class indians, that's proven by studies. If you're a jeetcel, at least own it and don't claim to be european if you're not
 
Most of Pakistan and India are diverse shitholes. Only a partial part of their populations could be considered "aryan". Only people from Afghanistan still resemble their conquering ancestors. With Iran, from what I heard there was a smaller population of shitskins in Southern Iran, but I don't remember that much so I could be wrong.
 
Only a partial part of their populations could be considered "aryan". Only people from Afghanistan still resemble their conquering ancestors
Even the most European-passing of South Asians are genetically very distant to Europeans – see the figures I posted above. The equation of "Aryanness" with "Europeanness" is dumb because Aryans are just one of the three main ancestral populations of modern Euros. MENA people, who have almost no Aryan DNA, are genetically less distant to Europeans than South-Central Asians (who have significantly more Aryan DNA) are, due to their lack of either Australo-Melanesian DNA (present in South Asians) or East Eurasian DNA (present in Central Asians) and since both Euros and MENA are high in Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry
 
,,but saaaar, we are whites saaar" :feelskek:
is this the biggest dream of pajeets, to believe the lie that they are europeans that they are white??:feelshaha:
 
Haha, yeah alright. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, i guess.
 
The thread smells like shit.
 
I think the white passing in India are easier to spot in Europe as Indian if that makes sense
 
If they have brown skin, nigger hair, or nigger facial features, they are honarary niggers, jeets, shitskins, whatever you want to call them. Whatever ancient vedic whites may have been present are basically extinct.

YWNBW

Welcome to niggerhell, sucks doesn't it? (I would know.)
 
,,but saaaar, we are whites saaar" :feelskek:
is this the biggest dream of pajeets, to believe the lie that they are europeans that they are white??:feelshaha:
To be fair, who can blame them? :feelskek:
 
No ethnicity for sub5s. That is the truth.
 
They've diverged so much that they are completely different now
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top