`22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)  :::::These ``RS`` aren't about who's white and who isn't according to societal definitions, except the US one, which states that it represents social definitions, and happens to recognize non-Europeans as whites. Indians are Caucasoids, and are likely to be the ancestral group of all ``European`` types. The existence of the Indo-European languages is a testimony that Europeans originated in India (sometime after the Out of Africa migrations).  :::::: Three different but related groups- White, Caucasian and European. The concept of whiteness would mainly be about skin color and would arise when there is contact between whites and non-whites, mainly in multicultural societies such as the US, Brazil or South Africa. Whereas caucasian is an attempt to use more scientific methods at classification, such as craniofacial anthropometry. In which case skin color is less of an issue since caucasoid crania are found in africa and India. Europeans concern Europe to the exclusion of other asian or african caucasians. but the problem is political boundaries do not necessarily coincide with phenotypic boundaries. All these terms overlap and are used interchangeably, however for this article we should focus more on whiteness and less caucasian, because arguably most caucasians would come from Asia and not Europe, since India has 1 billion people.  :::::::Ramdrake, it's more likely that the Aryan Invasion Theory is true instead of the Out of India Theory.  The Out of India Theory is discredited.  The fact that the Dravidian languages does not share a genetic relationship to Indo-European languages shows that it is not genetically related to Indo-European.  It shares words by proximity to Indo-Aryan. Why is this hard to imagine this when the spread of the Indo-European languages has been forced over various people by European colonial empires.  Languages similarity does not prove similarity in ancestry.  The Indians are Negroid/Australoid/Dravidoid not Caucasoid. 04:`