Are Jatts, Upper Caste Punjabis, Pashtuns, Kashmiris and the like White?

[Mortimer]

Judging by some threads or posts they seem to think they are. And for southasian standards seem to be. And I take into consideration self-identity and social status (socially accepted definitions).

[Zroota]

I would consider a few Pashtuns and Kashmiris to be white. Really depends on the individual.

I'm not familiar with the others though.

[lameduck]

none is white , though some Pashtuns can pass as white

[Mark]

I am not sure; as such, I am not qualified to answer with full confidence.

But consider this: You do not consider yourself as proper white, yet when I look at you current avatar, you do look it (mostly). And most of the Northern Indian diaspora I would assume to be darker and more proper Nord-Indid than yourself. So something to think about.

[Mortimer]

I am not sure; as such, I am not qualified to answer with full confidence.

But consider this: You do not consider yourself as proper white, yet when I look at you current avatar, you do look it (mostly). And most of the Northern Indian diaspora I would assume to be darker and more proper Nord-Indid than yourself. So something to think about.

We had this discussion in pm thouroughly though. I dont consider myself white due to being roma, and roma have roots from lower castes, and are socially/culturally in many ways akin to lower castes. They dont have the self-identity neither the social status that they are white. Those two people are viewed very differently, while roma were always exotified in europe the others were viewed as "aryan leftovers" and akin to white people by the british for example. I just dont consider roma to be white and since im slightly over half roma I dont consider myself white. I see big differences between roma and upper caste northwestindians.

Also because of my reality, how im viewed etc in real life too. You said in pm "yes no one can deny you that reality".

[StonyArabia]

Jatts were originally outside of the caste system. However Jatts are quite powerful within the Sikh faith.

[Mark]

We had this discussion in pm thouroughly though. I dont consider myself white due to being roma, and roma have roots from lower castes, and are socially/culturally in many ways akin to lower castes. They dont have the self-identity neither the social status that they are white. Those two people are viewed very differently, while roma were always exotified in europe the others were viewed as "aryan leftovers" and akin to white people by the british for example. I just dont consider roma to be white and since im slightly over half roma I dont consider myself white. I see big differences between roma and upper caste northwestindians.

Also because of my reality, how im viewed etc in real life too. You said in pm "yes no one can deny you that reality".

Point/s taken and accepted.

[Mortimer]

Jatts were originally outside of the caste system. However Jatts are quite powerful within the Sikh faith.

jatts are originally a nomadic tribe and lower castes similar as gujjars still are but genetically they are probably more caucasian then brahmins, and they arose in caste status nowadays.

people said gujjars are upper castes but they have the status in some indian states as sheduled tribes in some others as other backward caste. but genetically they are more upper caste then brahmins.

[Mortimer]

Point/s taken and accepted.

thanks. sometimes you doubt whether im a brown person and you place me within the white community, but you are very wrong.

[Mingle]

Outside of Europe (and maybe even within parts of Europe), there is no racial concept of whiteness or whatever. There are only stuff like light-skin and dark-skin. Pashtuns don't consider themselves "White" at all. West Asians (especially if they're Christian) are more likely to do that so I don't know why we were mentioned over here. The only context under which Pashtuns could be considered "White" would be if you are using it as a synonym for Caucasoid/West Eurasian.

[Mortimer]

Outside of Europe (and maybe even within parts of Europe), there is no racial concept of whiteness or whatever. There are only stuff like light-skin and dark-skin. Pashtuns don't consider themselves "White" at all. West Asians (especially if they're Christian) are more likely to do that so I don't know why we were mentioned over here. The only context under which Pashtuns could be considered "White" would be if you are using it as a synonym for Caucasoid/West Eurasian.

Maybe Im wrong, but I just had impression that they think they are. Sorry If im wrong. If they dont consider themselfes white then Im wrong. But MyAnthropologies and some other Pashtuns considered Pashtuns as white. Well MyAnthropologies looks very white too but he generally considered pashtuns as white. Hadouken considers kurds as white for example, and i think thats very important, if they consider themselfes white i will consider them white, well if a african considers him white probably not but in controversial cases its very important to take into consideration self-identity.

[Mingle]

Maybe Im wrong, but I just had impression that they think they are. Sorry If im wrong. If they dont consider themselfes white then Im wrong. But MyAnthropologies and some other Pashtuns considered Pashtuns as white. Well MyAnthropologies looks very white too but he generally considered pashtuns as white. Hadouken considers kurds as white for example, and i think thats very important, if they consider themselfes white i will consider them white, well if a african considers him white probably not but in controversial cases its very important to take into consideration self-identity.

I forgot about people like him. IIRC, he is using White as a synonym for West Eurasian. Everyone has their own interpretative definition I guess. But Pashtuns generally don't have such a concept. Most Pashtuns are just Pashtuns and in Pashtun society, people are sometimes mentioned as light-skinned or dark-skinned but there isn't a White race concept or whatever. We call Europeans "European" not "White" for example.

[Mortimer]

I forgot about people like him. IIRC, he is using White as a synonym for West Eurasian. Everyone has their own interpretative definition I guess. But Pashtuns generally don't have such a concept. Most Pashtuns are just Pashtuns and in Pashtun society, people are sometimes mentioned as light-skinned or dark-skinned but there isn't a White race concept or whatever. We call Europeans "European" not "White" for example.

ok

[Mortimer]

I forgot about people like him. IIRC, he is using White as a synonym for West Eurasian. Everyone has their own interpretative definition I guess. But Pashtuns generally don't have such a concept. Most Pashtuns are just Pashtuns and in Pashtun society, people are sometimes mentioned as light-skinned or dark-skinned but there isn't a White race concept or whatever. We call Europeans "European" not "White" for example.

ok and its really not a bashing or troll thread. its well intentioned to discuss.

[lameduck]

Maybe Im wrong, but I just had impression that they think they are. Sorry If im wrong. If they dont consider themselfes white then Im wrong. But MyAnthropologies and some other Pashtuns considered Pashtuns as white. Well MyAnthropologies looks very white too but he generally considered pashtuns as white. Hadouken considers kurds as white for example, and i think thats very important, if they consider themselfes white i will consider them white, well if a african considers him white probably not but in controversial cases its very important to take into consideration self-identity.

even Dadic People of North Pakistan dont consider themselves white , Pakistanis generally associate with their ethnicities and country and there are some that consider themselves brown race, from what I have seen its non Muslim MENAs who are most concerned with white label outside of Europe and they have genuine reasons for it.

[Mingle]

even Dadic People of North Pakistan dont consider themselves white , Pakistanis generally associate with their ethnicities and country and there are some that consider themselves brown race, from what I have seen its non Muslim MENAs who are most concerned with white label outside of Europe and they have genuine reasons for it.What's the point in repeating what I just said? Anyways, I gave a bad answer to Mortimer and he seemed to have been mainly asking about in the context of the West. In the Western context, most don't identify with Whites but there are a small minority that will say they're White for whatever reason.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Marmara]

I forgot about people like him. IIRC, he is using White as a synonym for West Eurasian. Everyone has their own interpretative definition I guess. But Pashtuns generally don't have such a concept. Most Pashtuns are just Pashtuns and in Pashtun society, people are sometimes mentioned as light-skinned or dark-skinned but there isn't a White race concept or whatever. We call Europeans "European" not "White" for example.

Exactly the same here, there is no race concept, white means having light skin; and "white" is never used to refer someone's race or ethnicity

But, there are words to refer other races.

[Purohit ji]

jatts are originally a nomadic tribe and lower castes similar as gujjars still are but genetically they are probably more caucasian then brahmins, and they arose in caste status nowadays.

people said gujjars are upper castes but they have the status in some indian states as sheduled tribes in some others as other backward caste. but genetically they are more upper caste then brahmins.
There is no such thing as genetically uppercase. Rajputs have ruled almost entire northern and central india from 2nd century ad. And they have very high south indian dna. Similar to rajasthani dalit . And these jatts gurjar or any other caste were nothing in comparison to them .

[Tooting Carmen]

Some individuals could be taken as such, but as a whole no. Even Turks and Armenians collectively don't look 'White', so why would Pashtuns?

[turbosat]

There is no such thing as genetically uppercase. Rajputs have ruled almost entire northern and central india from 2nd century ad. And they have very high south indian dna. Similar to rajasthani dalit . And these jatts gurjar or any other caste were nothing in comparison to them .

Rajputs were not mentioned even in 7th century let alone 2nd century AD. They also always lost against external invaders.

[turbosat]

There is no such thing as genetically uppercase. Rajputs have ruled almost entire northern and central india from 2nd century ad. And they have very high south indian dna. Similar to rajasthani dalit . And these jatts gurjar or any other caste were nothing in comparison to them .

Maybe in some other places some Rajputs might have higher South Indian DNA similar to some Dalits, but I dont think this is the case for Rajputs in Punjab.

[Purohit ji]

Rajputs were not mentioned even in 7th century let alone 2nd century AD. They also always lost against external invaders.

Rajput is not a single caste. They have various mix origins indo aryan kashtriya brahmins southern warriors some foreign saka kushan huna mix as well also indian tribal warriors . The bhaati rajputs built the bhatner fort in 2nd century ad in northern rajasthan hanumangarh.
They Not always lost to foreign invaders otherwise most of india not hindu at this time.
They defeated Arabs and Persian saka huna etc several times from 6th century to 12th until the prithviraj chauhan lost to mohamad gori in 1192. Also many rajasthani rajputs defeated mughal like babar and humannyu many times.
Like the great maharana sanga maharana kumbha maharana pratap. Also rathods like chandrasen maladev etc

[NPKTO]

Some Pashtuns and North Pakistani groups can pass as White imo. This is based on pictures I've seen on the internet. Others not so much, but they usually don't have that stereotypical S Asian looks (if you know what I mean).

[turbosat]

Rajput is not a single caste. They have various mix origins indo aryan kashtriya brahmins southern warriors some foreign saka kushan huna mix as well also indian tribal warriors . The bhaati rajputs built the bhatner fort in 2nd century ad in northern rajasthan hanumangarh.
They Not always lost to foreign invaders otherwise most of india not hindu at this time.
They defeated Arabs and Persian saka huna etc several times from 6th century to 12th until the prithviraj chauhan lost to mohamad gori in 1192. Also many rajasthani rajputs defeated mughal like babar and humannyu many times.
Like the great maharana sanga maharana kumbha maharana pratap. Also rathods like chandrasen maladev etc

I just now checked this story of who built the "bhatner" fort. It seems to be a made up story to link it with Rajputs even if fort might be 1700 years old. Some Indians are prone to writing and making up stories or changing stories for their own purposes, we cant believe everything some Indians say or write.
I have seen this before in other things, like where a figure was actually originally, say "4%", but another Indian writer in his book copied the figure and changed it to "40%" to inflate it for their own purpose, and then it would be quoted at 40% by many others.

According to what I read, Bhattis came from Punjab to Rajasthan in 7th or early 8th century, and even at that time, it does not say they called themselves "Rajputs". I am guessing this widespread "Rajput" designation probably started some time after that? Also when Bin Qasim came to Sindh in early 8th century, there was no mention of word "Rajput" in Sindh by Arabs which suggests there was no group under that name at that time.

As you said, Rajputs would be originating from different castes. For example, a Dalit becomes chief or ruler ("Rajah") in some area, and then his whole tribe or clan call themselves "Rajputs", or a Bhil or Brahmin or some other like Gujjar or Jatt becomes a Rajah and then his all clan or tribe call themselves "Rajputs". This makes some sense, "Rajah" + "putt" ... = "Rajput".

Rajputs might have defeated invaders in some battles, but important point is they could not stop the invaders in the end.