Answer2Question.com

This is pretty long so please bear with me. I've tried to explain thoroughly the differences between Pakistanis and Indians from what I witnessed first hand and from research online. THE DIFFERENCE IS MUCH GREATER THAN YOU THINK. Last summer I travelled through both India and Pakistan because I've always been fascinated by the Indian Subcontinent and wanted to visit there. I am in the UK and we have a lot of Pakistanis and Indians where I live and the Pakistanis are usually a little different to the Indians here. They tend to be a little taller and fairer with sharper features than the Indians, but the difference isn't that big. However, when I travelled through the two countries, my eyes really opened up and saw the difference between the peoples of the two countries was far greater than I previously experienced. MY GOD THE DIFFERENCE IS STARK. The Pakistanis you see in the UK and the US generally tend to be Punjabi and they are similar to Punjabi Indians who reside on the Indian side of the border. There are about 25 million Indian Punjabis and about 85 million Pakistani Punjabis. Some Pakistani Punjabis are a little different to Indian Punjabis though because some have other admixtures such as Afghan, Central Asian, but a lot of them are same as Indian Punjabis. But its the non-Punjabi people in Pakistan that looked so different to Indians. I saw tons of people in Pakistan that looked like they were Iranic people or with Iranic admixture. They looked as if they were Afghans. Some others looked Middle Eastern. A few also looked like they had Central Asian admixture, others looked Turkish/Greek. Most of these people were fair or pretty fair and tend to be sharp featured with long, narrow nose, pretty deep eye sockets. When I was visiting through India, most were brown or dark brown, and loads had the colour of burned toast. People are generally much darker Pakistanis and tend to be a good deal shorter and their features aren't as sharp as the Pakistanis. Honestly, a quite a lot of Indians looked like they has Austroloid and Austro-Asiatic blood in them. My conclusion is, loads of people in Pakistan are very different to Indians and the paksiatnis you see in the UK and US are not a good indicator of how many other Pakistanis look because the Pakistanis in the UK and US tend to come from the same regions of Pakistan and tend to Punjabi. There are other Pakistanis you might see in the US or UK that look Afghan, so you probably think they are not Paksitani because your mind programmmed to think of Paksiotanis as looking similar to North Indians. I was always under the impression the two peoples were pretty similar, but I am so much wiser after this visit. The number of Iranic looking people in Pakistan stunned me. I have done some research on APksitanis and Indians sicne,a nd it appears teh two countries have loads of ethnicities, an around 35 to 40% of Pakistanis belong to ethnic groups that do not exist in India. Also, I also heard some Indians have an inferiority complex towards Pakistanis because and go around claiming Pakistanis are similar to them, but its not the truth, as far as what I've seen with my own eyes. Yes, some are similar to some people in North India, but many Pakistanis aren't the same at all. What do you guys think? Yahoo Answers are filled with responses that are not very intelligible, so I don't want people coming here with stupid responses like 'I can't tell the difference' or 'they look the same to me', etc. These are the same people who think Indians are the same as Middle Easterners. Only intelligent answers please.

I am writing a final project paper for a college course I am taking. I forgot this years ago, but what's the proper term to call Indians that live in North America? I am not meaning Native Americans but Indians from India. I see them all of the time in my area because most of them are Doctors, work at the local Hospital, and even have their own health clinics. I want to use Indians working as Doctors as an example of why my state is very tolerant of different racial and ethnic groups and do not want to offend anyone if I use the wrong term. Thanks so much! This helps me out a lot! :)

The founder of each of the thirteen colonies each had a different perspective of life. They each set a goal to their own colony that they believed was important to society. Even tough all of the thirteen colonies had a goal not all of them pleased their founders expectancy. A lot of them came close to fulfilling it but only very few actually fulfilled it. I believe that Virginia was the colony that came the closest to reaching its goal. Virginias goal was for trade and profits. It was founded as joint-stock company. Virginia was named for Elizabeth I of England. In 1584 Elizabeth gave permission to Sir Walter Raleigh to establish colonies in America but the expedition failed. In 1606 king James Chartered the Virginia Company of London for colonization. In 1607 Colonists of company established Jamestown, colony led by John Smith. John Rolfe began to raise tobacco in 1612. Tobacco exporting helped save the colony by giving people a way to support themselves. Massachusetts Bay colony was set up for religious freedom for puritans. It established political freedom and a representative form of government. Their first code of laws was set up in 1641 knows as “The body of liberties.” The puritans purpose was to establish a ‘godly’ society. Their religion became known as congregationalism. The minister was the most important man in the colony, and no one was. allowed to vote unless a member of the church. Maryland’s original purpose was to have religious freedom for Catholics. It was named for queen Henrietta Maria, wife of king Charles I. In 1632 Charles granted it to Cecilius Calvert who believed in religious freedom. In 1649 the colonial assembly approved Calverts draft of religious toleration. By 1654 William Clairborne led a group of protestant settlers and overthrew Calvert’s government. The puritan revolt lasted until 1658 when the Calvert family regained control and re-enacted the Toleration Act. During the persecution of Maryland Catholics by the Puritan revolutionary government, all of the original Catholic churches of southern Maryland were burned down. Later the government was aligned with the protestant church. Both of the Carolinas goals were trade and profit. The colony of North Carolina was originally part of the province of Carolina which as chartered by eight proprietators. The province later became North Carolina. The division of the colony into North and the South was complete by 1712, although the same proprietors continued to control both colonies. Many of the settlers in the North Carolina colony were poor tobacco farmers who made their living off tobacco. In South Carolina, the farmer's plantations were much larger and the settlers grew rice, which made a lot of profits. People from South Carolina also grew Indigo which was a plant used to make a valuable blue dye for clothing and threads. Pennsylvania was granted to William Penn, March 4,1681 by king Charles II of England. It was established for religious freedom for Quakers, trade and profits. In 1701 William Penn signed the Charter of Privileges which granted individual right to inhabitants of Pennsylvania. For example Christians of any denomination were allowed to hold any governmental office. His policy attracted a heavy inflow of immigrants, and a mix of ethnic groups. By 1700 it was the third biggest and richest colony in the New World. Georgia was the final colony founded by James Oglethorpe. He envisioned the province as a location for the resettlement of English debtors. Another purpose was to be a buffer between the Spain and England. He began negotiating with Indian tribes but he knew that the Spanish had a great influence on local tribes, so he found it necessary to get to an understanding with the natives. Georgia didn’t fulfill its goal because there was a war between Spain and England. Overall most of the colonies did pretty good in trying to stick to their goal. But if I had to pick one I would still pick Virginia because its actually prospered and grew in every way.

Well.. I am an italian boy, I live in Piedmont, in the Alpes (it is in the north of italy, near switzerland, france, ecc.). I want to ask you, and principally to the american people: Why, the most people think that the italian people are "the classic person": -with dark eyes, dark hair, olive skin, very fat, an ugly face,a mandolin; -always eating a pizza, spaghetti, maccheroni, ravioli, or pasta in general; members of the mafia, corrupt and ignorant people? yes, of course in every Country, there are the "stereotypes", but what a stereotype is? EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. If there are corrupt people, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are in this way. If there are ignorant people, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are ignorant people. If there are bitches, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are bitches. (I want to be repetitive, for grasp the concept.) MORE, about the italian appearance, the italians are strange for their appearance: today's inhabitant of italy, are the result of various ethnic groups in and outside Europe. For example, arabs, Germans, Normans, the northern italians of the Po Valley (Gauls [or Celts] for the Romans), Greeks and Goths. So, why to stereotype? Before to go in Italy (I mean from the Northern Italy, to the Southern Italy), NEVER DO THAT.

Well.. I am an italian boy, I live in Piedmont, in the Alpes (it is in the north of italy, near switzerland, france, ecc.). I want to ask you, and principally to the american people: Why, the most people think that the italian people are "the classic person": -with dark eyes, dark hair, olive skin, very fat, an ugly face,a mandolin; -always eating a pizza, spaghetti, maccheroni, ravioli, or pasta in general; members of the mafia, corrupt and ignorant people? yes, of course in every Country, there are the "stereotypes", but what a stereotype is? EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. If there are corrupt people, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are in this way. If there are ignorant people, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are ignorant people. If there are bitches, it doesn't mean that ALL the italians are bitches. (I want to be repetitive, for grasp the concept.) MORE, about the italian appearance, the italians are strange for their appearance: today's inhabitant of italy, are the result of various ethnic groups in and outside Europe. For example, arabs, Germans, Normans, the northern italians of the Po Valley (Gauls [or Celts] for the Romans), Greeks and Goths. So, why to stereotype? Before to go in Italy (I mean from the Northern Italy, to the Southern Italy), NEVER DO THAT.

This is my debate with a friend. Check it out!!! Views on Islam and Pakistan - 1 I think your analysis of Islam and Pakistan is extremely naïve and simplistic. Most of them time you seem to be parroting views of some highly prejudiced groups without any forethought. In fact, parts of your post are so stupid, I am not even sure whether to waste my time in responding. Just reflect on some of your statements! (1) "Based upon my understanding the kaafir world vs. Islam is the biggest issue today". Really? Global warming, environmental degradation, and population increase are not civilizational threats? According to various UN estimates, the impact of impending environmental change on Africa (via weather pattern-induced famines and consequent social and economic breakdown) is going to be well over a hundred times worse than a major nuclear strike. What about the role of US policies in the Middle East - to maintain access to petroleum reserves - in fueling Islamic terrorism? (2) ".The real true Muslims do not discriminate on the basis of nationality." Really? Then why does the Muslim world consist of nation states? If that is a consequence of European colonialism, why does public not annul it in favor of an all-encompassing Islamic state? Have you any idea of the factionalism, regionalism, ethno-centrism, and sub-nationalims that existed even during the times of various Islamic empires? Have you ever visited any Muslim countries to get a feel for their national distinctiveness? You don't need to be a genius to know that Indian, Turkish, Arab, Persian, and Indonesian Islams are completely different. Moreover, you can see tremendous variation in Muslim states within one supposedly monolithic region, such as (Arab) Middle East and North Africa. (3) You want to test Pakistani nationalism? Try invading the country. I guarantee you 100% that all ethnic, cultural, religious, and socio-economic differences will disappear overnight and people will fight the invader. To give a feel of Pak nationalism, as a Pakistani I cannot dare say publicly on national TV that Pak suffers from an identity crisis and expect to live safely in the country. (4) "And most fundamentally sound Muslims think the same!" Oh, yeah? I thought not even two human beings thought the same and that even twins are different. Surely, your insight that 1.5 billion muslims "think the same" turns conventional wisdom about human behavior completely on its head. Nobel Prize, anyone? (5) Have you looked at the rest of the third world? Forget about comparing Pakistan to India - a shining exception of stable, pluralistic, participatory, and representative democracy in the developing world. Do you have any clues about political cultures of Africa, Central Asia, Middle East, and Southeast Asia? Or until very recently, about political cultures of Central and South America or Eastern Europe before 1990? What happened to Russia under Putin? Seems like it is well on its way to reverting to a dictatorship in all but name. (6) The tragedy of Partition of India as well as the falsehood of the "two-nation [Hindu-Muslim] theory" notwithstanding, do you actually know anything about Jinnah's character, ability, integrity, or principles? Had he lived for even half the duration that Nehru lived after the country's creation, Pak would have turned out very differently. Today's Pakistan bears absolutely no resemblance to the secular, liberal, progressive, and democratic one envisioned by Jinnah. In short, he imagined (maybe, erroneously) a "Westernized" country where Muslims would not have to fear Hindu domination. (7)Jinnah famously remarked to Pakistan's first constituent assembly: "You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state." Had that statement been implemented by future Pak leadership, or had Jinnah had time to implement it himself, do you think Pak would have been "destined to be a joke." (8) "Whenever the Baloch and the Pathans intend to separate, they should do it peacefully." Really? What do you know of Baloch and Pathan separatist movements?

My friends view on Islam and Pakistan!!!!!? This is my debate with a friend. Check it out!!! Views on Islam and Pakistan - 1 I think your analysis of Islam and Pakistan is extremely naïve and simplistic. Most of them time you seem to be parroting views of some highly prejudiced groups without any forethought. In fact, parts of your post are so stupid, I am not even sure whether to waste my time in responding. Just reflect on some of your statements! (1) "Based upon my understanding the kaafir world vs. Islam is the biggest issue today". Really? Global warming, environmental degradation, and population increase are not civilizational threats? According to various UN estimates, the impact of impending environmental change on Africa (via weather pattern-induced famines and consequent social and economic breakdown) is going to be well over a hundred times worse than a major nuclear strike. What about the role of US policies in the Middle East - to maintain access to petroleum reserves - in fueling Islamic terrorism? (2) ".The real true Muslims do not discriminate on the basis of nationality." Really? Then why does the Muslim world consist of nation states? If that is a consequence of European colonialism, why does public not annul it in favor of an all-encompassing Islamic state? Have you any idea of the factionalism, regionalism, ethno-centrism, and sub-nationalims that existed even during the times of various Islamic empires? Have you ever visited any Muslim countries to get a feel for their national distinctiveness? You don't need to be a genius to know that Indian, Turkish, Arab, Persian, and Indonesian Islams are completely different. Moreover, you can see tremendous variation in Muslim states within one supposedly monolithic region, such as (Arab) Middle East and North Africa. (3) You want to test Pakistani nationalism? Try invading the country. I guarantee you 100% that all ethnic, cultural, religious, and socio-economic differences will disappear overnight and people will fight the invader. To give a feel of Pak nationalism, as a Pakistani I cannot dare say publicly on national TV that Pak suffers from an identity crisis and expect to live safely in the country. (4) "And most fundamentally sound Muslims think the same!" Oh, yeah? I thought not even two human beings thought the same and that even twins are different. Surely, your insight that 1.5 billion muslims "think the same" turns conventional wisdom about human behavior completely on its head. Nobel Prize, anyone? (5) Have you looked at the rest of the third world? Forget about comparing Pakistan to India - a shining exception of stable, pluralistic, participatory, and representative democracy in the developing world. Do you have any clues about political cultures of Africa, Central Asia, Middle East, and Southeast Asia? Or until very recently, about political cultures of Central and South America or Eastern Europe before 1990? What happened to Russia under Putin? Seems like it is well on its way to reverting to a dictatorship in all but name. (6) The tragedy of Partition of India as well as the falsehood of the "two-nation [Hindu-Muslim] theory" notwithstanding, do you actually know anything about Jinnah's character, ability, integrity, or principles? Had he lived for even half the duration that Nehru lived after the country's creation, Pak would have turned out very differently. Today's Pakistan bears absolutely no resemblance to the secular, liberal, progressive, and democratic one envisioned by Jinnah. In short, he imagined (maybe, erroneously) a "Westernized" country where Muslims would not have to fear Hindu domination. (7)Jinnah famously remarked to Pakistan's first constituent assembly: "You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state." Had that statement been implemented by future Pak leadership, or had Jinnah had time to implement it himself, do you think Pak would have been "destined to be a joke." (8) "Whenever the Baloch and the Pathans intend to separate, they should do it peacefully." Really? What do you know of Baloch and Pathan separatist movements?

My 6 year old mixed race daughter refers to African American children in her class as "dark brown". If over heard, is this offensive? Should I correct her and if so...with what? I do not want her to unintentionally insult someone. Her Dad is an ethnic mix - from Malaysia but half Asian Indian and half "mixed" (white and something else, I have forgotten). I am white. We have running jokes for years about being brown in his family and our ethnically diverse group of friends. We live in a very diverse neighborhood and school in Texas - middle class whites, blacks, latinos, muslims, catholics, fundamental christians, a few jews and at least one Sihk I spotted at the school. My neighbors are black,retired from up north; white, mid aged, and Jewish from Florida; young, unmarried family from California; Texan mid aged fundamentalist christian family; Pakastani Muslim family; Nigerian family; Texan black, mid age family; and us, Texan mid age mixed race family. A few years ago I was irritated when a white kid from a white racist family told my three year old daughter that "Brown people like you smell funny". I told the child that it was not okay to say that. We have had basic discussions regarding race when it comes up(explaining I went to different schools - b/c of school district's efforts at desegregation, then explaining segregation, then realizing I was in too deep and changing subject) (explaining older or historical movies) but I am entering a strange/grey area in parenting. I am probably overthinking this. Thanks for any thoughts on this.

yeah that's right check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan Aryan (IPA: /'ərɪən/) is an English language loanword. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India."[1] As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has "long been in English language use".[2] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- to mean the same thing it originally did in that Old Indic language, namely as a (self-)identifier of speakers of North Indian languages.[2] When it was determined that Iranian languages – both living and ancient – used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word 'Aryan' came to refer the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[3] Then, in the 1830s, the term "Aryan" was adopted for speakers of Indo-European languages in general, in the erroneous belief that this was an ethnic self-identifier used by prehistoric speakers of European languages. This development was in turn instrumental to the development of the concept of an "Aryan race", which by the early 20th century became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). In Nazi Germany the classification of peoples as Aryan or not was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[4][n 1] This racialist interpretation engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, and – in a late 19th century British-mediated form – to a racialist reinterpretation of Indian society, texts and history. Following the end of World War II and the discovery of the genocide that the self-styled "Aryans" had caused, the word 'Aryan' ceased to have a positive meaning in general Western understanding. In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis. @m178.......your comment shows your ignorance.........and the first answerer *that's your lesson of the day* free of charge... @princesa........would you like me to "scan" a history book for you?? would that make if better for?? @wyatt........okay I'm the "Black" troll.......I told you if I WAS "Black" I wouldn't have a problem with it.........like you apparently do......since your a self hating Mixed boy.........and if you had any sense at all you'd realize that the block feature only prevents one from sending email and continued posts on an old strain of conversation.....*but, your more than welcome to continue to post on ALL my new questions....*note: it's just evidence against your account, which will set you up for deletion *since you keep harassing.......lol @ you......