Hi! I'm sorry to bother, but I have a question. I have a friend who looks white (blonde, light skin, green eyes) but was actually born and raised in India by her Hindu parents. She practices Hinduism and only recently moved to the states. She still wears traditional clothing, but the other day she posted a picture of herself in her traditional clothes and got a lot of hate for it, people saying it was cultural appropriation. She's bummed out about it and is now questioning her ethnicity. Help?
1. All those people screaming cultural appropriation at her are ignoramuses who are basically saying,Ā āWow, you donāt look like my ill-informed, narrow-minded stereotype of what people from this region actually look like!ā and āI actually subscribe to horrible, reductionist stereotypes that Indian people canĀ onlyĀ have dark hair, skin and eyes. Light hair? Green eyes? European (origin) only!āĀ
This is gonna be a tad long, because itās gonna delve into biology and history- and itās because I hope people realise howĀ artificialĀ the US paradigm of race is. Itās woefully incompetent at understanding the biological diversity of our species because it is a social construct.Ā Modern scientists and historians generally refuse to categorise people on the amount of melanin they have because itās just reductionist and oversimplistic- what they do is classify people by their geographic origin, linguistic and cultural ties.Ā
2. India is an EXTREMELY diverse continent. Itās so genetically diverse that the only place more genetically diverse is the African continent, aka, the birthplace of humanity. And this is a big deal. Iāll explain why.
Surprise! People inhabiting an extremely large country that has more than 2000 ethnic groups, members of all the worldās religions, been the site of multiple ancient civilisations, been on the major crossroads of human migration and trade for thousands of years come in multiple colours!
Presently, the most widely-accepted theory of our origins is theĀ Recent African Origin, or Out of Africa Theory.Ā This holds that originally, humans first appeared in Africa, thus all of us have African ancestors.Ā All modern non-AfricansĀ are descended from much smaller groups of people who migrated out of Africa, anytime from 65,000 to 125,000 years ago. How do scientists know this? By looking at our DNA, in addition to fossil and archaeological records.Ā They discovered that the differences in the DNA of non-African peoples like say, a German a Japanese and a New Zealand Maori wasĀ far lessĀ than the genetic differences between people from different African ethnic groups.Ā (Somali, Dinka, Yoruba, San, Kikuyu, Luo etc- Iām BARELY scratching the surface)
What this meant was that Africa had to be theĀ original, diverse genetic pool where modern humans first appeared.Ā Everybody else outside of Africa today is descended from much smaller groups of people who left Africa at various times- and that ancestral genetic ābottleneckā is why people who appear to have very different heritage (e.g European vs East Asian) actually haveĀ far lessĀ genetic variation than the various African peoples.
So, IndiaĀ being the second most genetically diverse place on this planetĀ is a big deal-Ā itās basically second only toĀ THEĀ CRADLE OF HUMANITY.Ā Thatās why Iām pretty convinced your friend can have blonde hair and green eyes and still be 100% Made in India.
3. Now, the genetics of India itself.
Genetic studies have shown that if you take a modern Indian fromĀ anyĀ part of India, no matter how dark or fair they are, his or her lineage will consist of mixing from two main ancestral groups. One is the Ancestral Northern Indians (ANI), and the other the Ancestral Southern Indians (ASI). You may have heard of the ancient Indian caste system which put a lot of social pressure that prohibited marrying outside your caste. Caste discrimination is banned today, but old attitudes do persist. However, even this caste rigidityĀ wasnāt so 4000- 2000 years ago.Ā ANI people married ASI pretty freely,Ā so thatās why every modern Indian has heredity fromĀ bothĀ groups.Ā So, already to start off, you got quite a fair bit of diversity hidden in peopleās genes.Ā
And the next interesting part to explain why it IS possible for Indians to have features stereotyped as āEuropeanāĀ is because while the ASI seemed to be genetically unique to the Indian subcontinent, the ANI people are genetically related to Middle-Easterns, Europeans and Caucasians (and I mean this not in the sense of āwhiteā as often used in the US, but theĀ actualĀ region ofĀ Caucasus, which borders Europe and Asia).
You mentioned she looks āwhiteā- and the American-understanding of āwhiteā being hurled at her by those people screaming cultural appropriation are actually ignorantly treating āwhiteā as synonymous with āEuropean-originā.Ā In reality, itās completelyĀ uselessĀ in the realm of biology. Biologically,Ā there is actually no real dichotomy where āEuropeanā suddenly ends and āAsiaā begins.Ā
As I earlier pointed out, well, weāre all kinda related.Ā And itās not at all earth-shattering that some people from India look like theyāre of āEuropean-originā. Because modern Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians are all believed to be descendants of a group of people calledĀ the Proto-Indo-Europeans.Ā Itās believed they lived around 6000-7000 years ago. Some modern people that are descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans are French, Germans, Iranians and Pashtuns (a major ethnic group in Afghanistan).Ā Ā Itās even been found that Europeans and Indians shared a gene for fair skin from a common ancestor- which is why there ARE people who look like your friend.Ā Naturally, fair skin is just relatively rarer in India vs Europe because more parts of India are located in hotter regions. Therefore, thereās more selection pressure for darker skin which has more melanin to protect from the sun- making fair skin rarer, butĀ stillĀ possible.Ā
(This is a map of theĀ Kurgan Hypothesis, which is currently the most popular theory for how the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their homeland to settle Europe, Central Asia, Iran, India and Turkey etc)
Saying Indians are descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is NOT the same as saying theyāre of āEuropean originā. For example, think of the Proto-Indo-Europeans as like the āmotherā of Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians- theyāre like āsiblingā groups, not descendants.Ā The original Indo-Europeans were not āEuropeanā in the modern sense. I am clarifying this because plenty of colonial-era scientific racism tried to attribute ancient Indiaās achievements to āEuropean who left Europe for Indiaā- you might have heard the phrase āAryanā thrown around in Nazi Germany, which was used to mean āblonde hair, blue eyesā. Nazi scientists and historians also abused it to explain away the sophistication of non-European civilisations in Ancient Egypt and India. In reality,Ā āAryanā is derived from the ancient Sanskrit word āArya" which means "noble".Ā SanskritĀ is an ancient language still used in classical Indian texts, and is of Proto-Indo-European origin. For example, the name of the country āIranā actually means āland of the Aryansā- it was the names ancient Iranians (another people descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans) gave to what others called the Persian EmpireĀ for more than a thousand yearsĀ before the Third Reich.Ā
Furthermore, many languages we often separate as āEuropeanā and āAsianāĀ like German, English, French, Italian vs. Hindi, Farsi (Persian), Gujarati, Punjabi, Pashto, Sanskrit etc are ALL classified by linguists as belonging to the sameĀ Indo-European language family- which all evolved from the original language the Proto-Indo-Europeans spoke. See how artificial the Europe/Asia dichotomy really is, in terms of human genetics and origin of cultures?Ā
4. Finally- thereās plenty of modern proof that the region we call Europe today does NOT have a monopoly on producing people with blonde hair, fair skin and green eyes.
This isĀ Aishwarya Rai Bachchan,Ā a popular Indian Bollywood actress who is also known for her striking blue-green eyes.Ā Sheās 100% Indian- she was born in Mangalore, India to Indian parents.Ā
This is a couple at their wedding- the lady on the left is Indian, from the Southern Indian city of Hyderabad. Her husband is Ethiopian.
This is a photo of a boy and a woman who is likely his mother, taken in Turkey.
This is a girl fromĀ Darfur, Sudan- an area that has more than 30 ethnic groups.
This is a Nuristani girl. The Nuristani people are an ethnic group from Afghanistan.Ā
5. And in the first place, what makes up a personās identity IS NOT JUST HOW MUCH or HOW LITTLE MELANIN THEY HAVE.
Tell your friend she is 100% Indian, because what makes up her identity isĀ notĀ just how she looks. Identity is what feels most natural to her, and if that identity is indeed very intertwined with major aspects of Indian culture- then well, she IS Indian and noone can say otherwise.Ā
Those people had no right to make her feel awful and ānot-Indian enoughā because itās clear she identifies as such due to actually being born there and also practising major aspects of Indian culture.Ā The best example I can think of to explain this is how in the US, people sometimes use the term āLatinoā as a race category, with the stereotype that all latinos must have tanned skin and dark hair. In reality, itās more of a cultural identity. The are fair haired-latinos and darker-skinned latinos whose ancestors included the African slaves brought to the Americas four hundred years ago. But what really makes them āLatinoā or āHispanicā is theirĀ upbringing- growing up in the environment of Latin America, which is culturally a syncretic fusion of Amerindian, African, Spanish, Portuguese and other European influences.Ā
(This is the Brazilian football team that won the 1970 World Cup- you can see Pelé- second from the bottom right. He is an Afro-Brazilian. If you look at his teammates, you can see how latinos come in ALL COLOURS.)
6. Your friend should not be questioning her identity, but those people attacking her should be questioning their utterly myopic worldview.Ā The history of human genetics and migrations makes it abundantly clear how DIVERSE India is- so itās perfectly possible for her to be Indian but have blonde hair and green eyes, even if it may be less common.Ā
7. On a more general note, I cannot stress this enough to everyone- DO NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE for ācultural appropriationāĀ when you are NOT even from that culture in question and/or donāt actually know in detail the history and genetics of that region.
If you suspect cultural appropriation:Ā DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST or ASK SOMEBODY you know who actually belongs to that group. You may be attacking mixed-race people or people like the anonās friend, who simply has features that are less genetically dominant- blonde hair shows up less easily in countries with a bigger pool of people with dark hair because dark hair is dominant. Even if her parents had dark hair, itās possible they both carried a recessive gene for blonde hair that was suppressed by their dark-hair gene. Their child would be blonde if she happened to get both copies of the blonde gene instead of the dark hair gene.
Also, even if you think the person isnāt of that group, please bear in mind they might have been invited to dress in that clothing by a friend, or because theyāre at an event. (I.e letās say, at an Indian wedding)
I canāt stress how infuriating this āwhite knightā complex is. Speaking as someone pretty familiar with colonialism,Ā Iāve had people who didnāt grow up in my culture condescendingly insist that if Iām okay with somebody doing something from my culture, itās āself-internalised oppressionā. Iāve studied African colonial literature, and the way people insist on defining what people should be alright with is very reminiscent of 19th century imperialists high-handedly saying, āoh, we have to bring the light of civilisation to save those backwards colonial subjects from themselves!ā
This is Reese Witherspoon, wearing a kimono in Japan, where she is being taught by JAPANESE people how to perform the traditional tea ceremony. This is not reducing a culture to a caricature because sheās actually learning stuff respectfully and wearing a bona fide kimono.
Fighting against cultural appropriation is to prevent cultures from being cheapened, made into jokes, sexual fetishes or ugly caricatures. Part of returning power to people to define themselves is ALSO by allowing them to set the parameters of what they want to share with others-Ā and many cultures are perfectly willing to share aspects that are non-sacred or do not have to be earned. So, for example, do not go around insisting a Japanese person should not be allowed to teach non-Japanese people to wear a kimono- because a kimono, unlike a Navajo war bonnet (akin to veteranās medals), is something anybody can wear. Recognise this difference.