this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
110 points (95.8% liked)

GenZedong

4048 readers
380 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

you can't say they managed keep their race pure . its unhistorical and unscientific statement similarly to Nazi racism.

You can. Because they did. All you have to do is look at their DNA

Obviously no races are pure. But you can claim purity from a certain reference point, the same way you can say that a recipe needs "20% mayonnaise" even though mayonnaise is inherently a mixture of ingredients.

The following is a list of Indoeuropean Steppe-ancestry fractions for the Brahmins vs. the non-Brahmins of the given state:

Tamils: 20% vs. 3%
Bengalis: 25% vs. 12%
Gujaratis: 26% vs. 14%
Uttar Pradesh: 27% vs. 15%

Tamil Brahmins are basically 75% identical to Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh, meaning only 25% of their ancestry comes from actual South Indians.
In fact, Brahmins of any Indian state are more related to each other than they are to the actual people of the state they reside in.

Now ask yourself: How does such a population stay that pure and distinct for 2000 years? Or 4000 years, in the case of the northern states? The only way to do that is through extreme casteism.

Why did the South have these anti-caste movements like Lingayatism, etc.? Because for whatever reason (mostly geography and distance) Brahmins weren't able to socially and culturally dominate these places

It's not racist or nazi to point this out. That's like saying it's racist to point out that the richest Mexicans are Spanish immigrants.

The commies of India don't hate brahmins or southern/Northern people , we hate the inherent caste structure based on land ownership and economic inequality

And wouldn't it make sense that said inequality is going to be worse wherever brahiminization was the highest?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Bro you are a nazi and a racist to the core. 95 percent of Indians don't marry outside the caste, Southerners are no angelic people and are no superior to Northerners . I don't want to hear your justification for your utter BS. I am a communist not a fucking racist ambedkarite who hate brahmins for just for being brahmins . We commies hate the system not the people itself , you are no different from Nazis , just you have a caste cover to justify your northern hatred. You are getting a block from me. https://www.thehindu.com/data/Just-5-per-cent-of-Indian-marriages-are-inter-caste/article60099878.ece

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Lol, so much for caste free society in South India.

My brother in Shiva, the statistic you just posted lists 2 out of the 4 South Indian states as having "very high" intercaste marriage

and the other three are basically South lite (Goa) or not Gangetic (Punjab and Meghalaya). No idea why Tamil Nadu is so low but I guess I learned something today, apparently casteism is very high there.

Also I hardly know anything about Ambedkarism. I'm just basing this off my my actual experiences talking to many different Indians from many different states. The most reactionary people I've talked to heavily skew northeastern/Gangetic