Hey Indians not all of your ancestors are white skinned Arya

[Nosuperstition]

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=some+of+the+Ajanta+and+ellora+cave+paintings&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTrrHqlPXUAhVJrI8KHQ_0AtoQsAQINg&biw=1440&bih=791

Fair skinned people of India seem to identify more so with whites and not with the majority black tribals of India.During the existence of pagan Rome,deals were made by subcontinental kings as part of which white slaves were given to the harems of subcontinental kings.The book periplus of the Earythrian sea authored by pagan author of Rome named Pliny mentions the same about Bharuch of modern day Gujarat in India.And the trade of white girls to Middle East ceased once whole of Europe became Christian.Christians too just like muslims believe in the concept of brotherhood of faith and would not give their white girls to you in general.So stop going to wars with your Asian neighbours at their behest.

Muslims too had many harems in medieval India where they kept many white slaves.Since rapine of Hindu women was common in medieval times,that way too fair skin might have spread a lot.

[Nosuperstition]

People in the olden days considered wars as ways of disposing off excess population.So who knows ,might be a war with China is a means of disposing off surplus Dravidian population in India that came into existence due to the Green revolution.

[manfred]

NS, you really are one strange dude....

Why would it matter what colour skin anyone's ancestors have? What next, not all grandma's have problems with ingrown toenails?

You really need to get away from the race thing, it seems to occupy a lot of your time. And not a lot of rulers EVER thought, hey my cities are getting a bit crowded, let's start a war... Wars are dreadful things, and a sign of all round human failure. They bring only death and suffering, and rarely much else. Sometimes a war is a necessary evil though, as not fighting the war would bring even worse things.

BTW... as skin colour fascinates you so, here is a rather hilarious, useless fact:

ALL the eunuchs in the Ottoman court were always black Africans. Why? The sultans knew that sometimes a castration would be botched or not carried at all, because the person who is supposed to do it got attacks of bad conscience. As Muslims themselves were not keen on doing the deed, the forced Coptic Christians, preferably priests, to castrate the slaves. You can imagine it was not something people did gladly for their tyrants. So some "eunuchs" always "slipped though" the process, some intentionally, some because the man supposed to do it was not competent in such things, or sometimes, when a man gets very frightened his testes recede into the body, (you get a similar effect if you suddenly jump into some cold water...) , enough to fool an inexperienced or unwilling "surgeon".

So the "black only" rule was for a very simple reason: Should any woman in the harem get pregnant, the skin colour of the baby gave away the father.

[Hombre]

People in the olden days considered wars as ways of disposing off excess population.So who knows ,might be a war with China is a means of disposing off surplus Dravidian population in India that came into existence due to the Green revolution.

Yeah, wars are means for population control - as long as your family and loved ones are not included

[Nosuperstition]

NS, you really are one strange dude....

Why would it matter what colour skin anyone's ancestors have? What next, not all grandma's have problems with ingrown toenails?

You really need to get away from the race thing, it seems to occupy a lot of your time.

Why I hardly ever think of skin color except when I am forced to.For that matter it is Indians themselves who are a lot color conscious.For example in almost every matrimonial ad,you come across people advertising themselves either as fair skinned persons of so and so caste or that they need fair skinned partners of the same caste or both.So this thing has not been erased in the collective consciousness of Indians and continues to be in vogue even today.

And some say caste is actually an endogamous tribal group / entity that precedes the arrival of Hinduism while others say it is an endogamous entity formed after arrival of Hinduism based on occupations.Whatever may be the truth,fact of the matter is same word 'jaati' is used for denoting both caste and nation in Sanskrit. Jaati literally means that which is by birth.So how the greater idea of one nation of India took place while lesser nations/castes of Hinduism still exist in conservative fashion is another question that boggles my mind.

[Nosuperstition]

According to what has been written in the book about Nostradamus by Stephen Paul/Stephen Paulus,Chengiz Khan had this brilliant strategy of disposing off those that are least loyal to him.For example people of territory A were forcibly conquered by him.Then in his next conquest he would use the young men of territory 'A' as the soldiers of front ranks.They would then be the first to get killed just like King Solomon got the Hittite Uriah killed before taking his wife Bathsheba for himself.I have vaguely heard that even the Russians of the U.S.S.R did the same in Afghanistan whereby they used soldiers from the muslim parts of Central Asia more often than Russians themselves.May be Brahmin think-tanks of Congress,B.J.P and the army top brass in India who consider Brahmins to be the core of India also want to dispose off excess low caste Dravidian people of India by waging a war with China.

[Fernando]

just like King Solomon got the Hittite Uriah killed before taking his wife Bathsheba for himself

Ah, so that's where Mohammed got the idea from!

[Nosuperstition]

just like King Solomon got the Hittite Uriah killed before taking his wife Bathsheba for himself

Ah, so that's where Mohammed got the idea from!

It is a primitive form of tribal behaviour or the law of the jungle with the dictum 'might is right'.For example when one reads about gods making slaves of the wives of demons in the Hindu text of Matsya Purana,one may not believe it and might rubbish it as missionary propaganda.However well known story of Brahmin sage Parashuram using Brahmins to sire children to widows of slain arrogant Kshatriya dynasties then affirms the fact that in olden days when wars happened that is what they did to the leftover surplus women.So this phenomenon is an universal evil.

[Nosuperstition]

At this point, however, we should not overlook a puzzling episode in Hindu legend which describes a similar behaviour by a Hindu conqueror: Parashurama, deified as the 6th incarnation of Vishnu, killed all the adult male Kshatriyas for several generations, until only women were left, and then had Brahmins father a new generation upon them. Just a story, or reference to a historic genocide?

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

If we look at things realistically by assuming that miracles do not happen/that they are just fiction,then there is no way Parashurama could have done that to the meat eating Kshatriyas with the help of his fellow veggie Brahmins. That only proves correct various parts of the Hindu texts of different eras referring to animal sacrifices being offered to gods by Brahmins themselves who later ate those offerings.

Many Hidtava and Aryasamjis, harekrishna idiots etc. believe that there were no animal sacrifices mentioned in Vedas.

They all believe that sacrifice was symbolical. No animal was killed. Rama and Dasarath went hunting but actually didnt kill anything or didnt eat meat.Like Moghul of this forum they interprete each and every word of Rigved in their own way.

Only Swami Vivekanand (among reformists) admitted animal sacrifices of bygone ages. He told people that modern day hindus should not eat meat beacuse the belief had changed.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15499&p=204686&hilit=sacrifice#p204686

Vivekananda seemed to have confirmed what Ambedkar said regarding animal sacrifices of bygone eras in Hinduism before Jainism and Buddhism forced them to leave behind those practices.