> but the groups mentioned in this discussion (western
>european, eastern european, turkish, arab, persian, indian)
>they dont share that much in common to group them as one.

you're a pakistani punjabi and you're saying that indians don't share that much with persians and arabs?! persoarabic culture had a tremendous amount of cultural influence on india, how could you possibly claim otherwise?


>we all share a common origin if we go back enough.

are you about to sing we are the world?



>"indo-european" theory is still a theory. developed by
>William Jones in order to include brahminic knowledge into
>the fold of "europeans" the same way they try to do with
>egyptian civilization.

surely you are not arguing that sanskrit is *not* an indo-european language? (in this regard, wasn't max muller more important than william jones?)


>and the west (which u are a part of and enjoy priviledges of)?

aren't you?


when cultures,
>and people were raped and taken away the same damn way as in
>africa as in india as in suth east asia as in the americas.


but, wait, yts also share our common origin if we go back enough.

i'm kidding, but i'll say this. i myself also have all sorts of warm feelings about south-south relations, but you can't get solidarity pre-fab from zimbabwean pathans. people's skepticism can't be shouted down, or argued away with references to one's own experience of poverty or social set up or whatever. and i find it curious that the south asians in this thread have a desire for rapprochement that the afrikans do not share. rather than calling yuckwheat a self-hating dougla, perhaps the question is how he arrived at his skepticism.


ps. i find it funny that you as a pakistani keep saying india, when i thought the pc phrase was south asia. just an observation.