DNA evidence confirms what historians, linguists and anthropologists have long known but nationalists have denied: that Indians are mainly a mix of indigenous Australoids and intrusive Caucasoids. They're composed of two genetic components, one related to Andaman Islanders and the other to Western Eurasians, which is higher in upper castes. The estimated dates of admixture between the two are consistent with the introduction of
Indo-Aryan languages from the northwest and probably also earlier events related to the spread of
Dravidian languages and even agriculture.
India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.
Reich et al.
"Reconstructing Indian Population History".
Nature, 2009.
Metspalu et al.
"Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia".
Am J Hum Genet, 2011.
Linguistic and genetic studies have shown that most Indian groups have ancestry from two genetically divergent populations, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). However, the date of mixture still remains unknown. We analyze genome-wide data from about 60 South Asian groups using a newly developed method that utilizes information related to admixture linkage disequilibrium to estimate mixture dates. Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent. These results suggest that this formative period of Indian history was accompanied by mixtures between two highly diverged populations, although our results do not rule out other, older ANI-ASI admixture events. A cultural shift subsequently led to widespread endogamy, which decreased the rate of additional population mixtures.
Moorjani et al.
"Estimating a date of mixture of ancestral South Asian populations",
Evolutionary and Population Genetics, 2012.
The paper provides an overview of the spatial and temporal aspects of human morphological variation in India. Four morphological types — Australoids, Negritos, Mongoloids and Caucasoids — have been discerned in the contemporary Indian population. The Australoids appear to be the oldest and have evolved in India. The Caucasoids are physically heterogeneous and suggests incorporation of more than one physical type involving more than one migration. The within-type variance compared to between-type variance for characters studied is smaller. The paper further discusses the observed variability in terms of Indian social organization as well as in terms of endogamy, small numerical strength of the groups and varying ecological conditions prevalent in India.
K.C. Malhotra.
"Morphological Composition of the People of India".
J Hum Evol, 1978.
 |
| Indian Male Composite |
|
 |
| Indian Female Composite |
|
Assumed parental groups:
 |
| Andamanese Australoid |
|
 |
| Iranian Caucasoid |
|
Degrees of admixture:
 |
Austroasiatic speaker
(Juang) |
|
 |
Austroasiatic speaker
(Santhal) |
|
 |
Dravidian speaker
(Paniya) |
|
 |
Dravidian speaker
(Hallaki) |
|
 |
Indo-European speaker
(Meghawal) |
|
 |
Indo-European speaker
(Kashmiri Pandit) |
|
75 comments
You're not serious about the pictures choice do you ?
Yeah, what's wrong with them?
Agree about the picture choices. ANI and ASI are composites so they can't be represented by individual modern phenotypes. Also, no one has ever mentioned that Iranians are representative of ANI. Moorjnai actually found that Georgians have the lowest z-score and share genetic drift with the ANI. As for ASI, they have indicated no modern population is representative of it since the populations with the highest amounts of ASI have minor non-ASI admixture. However, the Andamanese Islanders are a "distantly" related population to the ASI which separated from them about 30,000 years ago. Using them as representative of the phenotype of ASI is hardly scientific considering how distantly related they are.
This blog post was made before that Moorjani paper came out. But Iranians are a good enough proxy for ANI, just like Andaman Islanders are a good enough proxy for ASI. Look at the genetic plot from Metspalu et al. The South Asian populations cluster right between Iranians and Andaman Islanders. And Moorjani's plot looks the same, with Iranians being very close to Georgians.
The science has proved the main Indian population is an admixture of various racial groups(mainly Australoid and Caucasoid with some mixing of Negrito and Mongaloid races) and only differing in percentage in different regions and ethnicities. It has been always the case in India that political and other hidden agendas prevent any unbiased scientific truths being disclosed. Therefore I am mystified by the choice of your photos accentuating the stereotypes and myths of Indo Aryan and Dravidian speakers. You have selected well known Former PM as an example of an Indo European speaker but selected unknown tribals as Dravidian speakers, surely for an unbiased portrayal, you could have posted well known actress Ashwarya Rai as a Dravidian speaker.
Aishwarya Rai is a high-caste person (the Kshatriya caste, i.e., the warrior caste), so she can in no way represent Dravidian speakers in general, the vast majority of whom are members of the low castes.
Photos are representing the linguistic groups, not the castes .Caste is common to both major linguistic groups in India.
Saying that Indian people are a mixture of many races whether they are South Indians or North Indians(including the different castes) and with the same breath saying the Dravidian speakers all look Australoid and Negreto and all Indo European speakers look cucasoid shows India has a long way to go. Even the scientists are motivated by different agendas. It was a shame the introduction of caste system put a halt to the mixing of different groups. The practice of endogamy has made the Indian population more insular and less progressive.
This is interesting, as I am most commonly mistaken for a MENA person in the US, by Arabs, Persians, and other Middle Easterners. I would say if I grow my beard out I look 100% Persian. I've had Arabic people talk to me in their language, Iranians talk to me in Farsi, etc. In India all my relatives look similar to me, except with (in some cases) skin that is lighter by about three shades, different eye shapes (as is expected in any population) and noses that are sharp but suited to individual faces. In other words, my entire family could pass in the entire MENA region. As far as our caste, we are Indo-European speakers that are settled in North India, originally from Rajasthan, now near the border of Nepal. We are Rajputs/Kshatriyas and have intermarried among members of the Kshatriya caste for centuries. I was wondering why there are blatant similarities between North Indian High Castes and good looking Middle Eastern people- the theory postulated here could account for some of it- but looking at the base populations its hard to imagine such blatant changes over time, resulting in obvious phenotype changes in Indo European/Dravidian speakers and Higher/lower castes. I guess thousands of years is enough time to see such drastic changes. As far as Aishwarya representing the Dravidian community- I suppose that is fair, but only if you keep in mind that Aishwarya is an upper caste Dravidian- and thus has susbstantial ANI ancestry- and it is known that many higher castes from North India settled in the South, which gave rise to the creation of a fourth caste in that region. Therefore, if we look at the native Dravidian population that is not composed of migrants from the North- it is fair to say that Aishwarya would be a poor example. And she is not particularly good looking either- I've seen much better looking females among higher castes in North India.
Also, is it fair to say that all Indo European speakers are 100% Caucasian? I mean their physical characteristics are all caucasoid, down to their hair and hirsutism. In addition, the children I have seen of even lower caste Indo European speakers and Europeans come out looking 100% European- and vice versa. Therefore, it is safe to assume that a large proportion of the population in India is Caucasoid- and this is mostly found among the upper and lower caste Indo European Speakers, along with a minority of Dravidian speakers that are upper caste/not lower caste. As I said before, the similarities among MENAs and NI Upper caste individuals like myself are mind boggling. There is no way to distinguish between the two in many instances.
It doesn't matter whether the blog post was made before Moorjani's paper came out. Neither Reich or Metspalu mentioned that Iranians are representative for ANI in any of their work. In fact, Reich originally used the NEU (Utahn White Americans of North Euro ancestry) as a proxy for ANI in his original ANI-ASI paper. Moorjani's group improved on that aspect as Georgians were a much closer match. I assume you used Iranians because they share a linguistic connection with South Asia and the affinity they have on PCA plots toward South Asia in comparison to other West Asians. That is simply because they share some ANI ancestry with very minor ASI ancestry. Other than that, they aren't actually a "very good" proxy for ANI since it was much more "Caucasus" like than the admixture of Iranians who have affinities toward Southwest Asia and the Mediterranean too. At least on admixture runs. No to mention that ANI is a composite so even if Georgians a proxy for population genetics, a population representative for ANI in terms of phenotype is simply not possible. As for the the Andaman Islanders, they are a much worse proxy for ASI (especially in terms of phenotype) than Iranians are for ANI. Firstly, they are 30,000 years apart from the ASI and secondly, ASI is a composite. It's highly probably that ASI is made up of diverse indigenous populations in South Eurasia that could have been fairly divergent among themselves. Reich mentioned in his original paper that the Andamanese Islanders were only used as proxy because a purely ASI population no longer existed and the Andamanese Islanders were an ASI-related (albeit distantly) population with no ANI admixture.
As for Metspalu's PCA plot, that plot is only meant to be an intra-South Asian plot. Otherwise, people would actually think that Tajiks and even Uzbeks, Hazara and Uyghurs were more West Eurasian than the HGDP Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhis, etc. which is not the case at all. In fact, on 23andMe's Global Similarity plot and McDonald's 2 dimension world PCA plot, these Pakistani populations are much closer to Euros and West Asians than those Central Asian populations other than Tajiks who are roughly similar in distance. In addition, the Andamanese Islanders would also be much further on 23andMe's global similarity plot or McDonald's plot.
It's not even about the genetic distance so much but portraying the Andmanese Islanders as a modern day phenotypical representation of the ASI is not exactly very scientific.
You don't know what you're talking about. Metspalu's plot is not "intra-South Asian". It's comparing South Asians to West Eurasians, East Asians and Austro-Melanesians. The Central Asians you mentioned are clearly intermediate between West and East Asians, while South Asians (except for the Tibeto-Burman speakers) are intermediate between West Eurasians and Austro-Melanesians.
And I told you, Iranians are very close to Georgians and a perfectly good proxy for ANI. And Andaman Islanders are also a good proxy for ASI. Do you understand what "proxy" means?
Stop spamming my blog with your nonsense and making me repeat myself endlessly.
I never directly said it was an intra-South Asian plot but implied it should be interpreted as such as it is not the most informative World PCA (excluding Africa). It has a North-South Axis with the South Asian populations with more South Asian ancestry further South. Although, West Asians and East Asians are on the plot, the PCA plot doesn’t actually show how West Eurasian each South Asian population is like 23andMe’s Global Similarity or McDonald’s world PCA plot which are built more on a West-East axis for West Eurasian vs. East Eurasian levels of ancestry or North and South for West Eurasian vs. SSA levels of ancestry.
Also, not all Central Asians are clearly intermediate between West and East Asians. Look at where Tajiks and Turkmen cluster versus Baloch, Brahui and Pashtun. On Metsplau’s PCA, Turkmen and Tajiks seem much closer to Iranians and West Eurasia than the Baloch, Brahui and Pashtun which is not the case at all. Turkmen are roughly similar in terms of West Eurasian ancestry as Baloch, Brahui and Makrani (although more Northern shifted) but Tajiks are less West Eurasian than Baloch, Brahui and Pashtun which is what most autosomal admixture studies indicate.
This McDonald PCA is much more informative than that Metsplau’s plot:
http://oi39.tinypic.com/2cxvyfa.jpg
So, what if Iranians are very close to Georgians in terms of distance? They aren’t phenotypic substitutes for one another since there is phenotypical differences between the two on average. They also aren’t the most accurate proxy for ANI which means your photos are misleading. Especially, considering that ANI is a composite like ASI. You can’t use a modern human population as a phenotypical proxy for an ancestral population like ANI or ASI which consist of various differentiated populations.
Also, how are Andaman Islanders a good proxy for ASI? Reich and Moorjani never indicated that. That’s your interpretation of their research. Reich clearly indicated they are the only proxy since they lack non-ASI admixture. 30,000 years apart from a sister population hardly makes a “good” proxy. It makes you a proxy. Nothing more. I understand what proxy means. You don’t seem to understand what “good proxy” means though.
With nonsense? Half of your blog is pseudoscience nonsense. The other half is regurgitating genetic studies with “your” interpretation of them. Any credible geneticist or anthropologist would take it for a bad joke. Although, of course to you, they are just a bunch of politically correct race-deniers.
If you run the Admixtools software on Iranians using the same formula that Moorjani et al used to calculate ANI, you end up with a value of approximately 85%. So you can't say Iranians are ancestral to Indians. If you run the same program on Armenians you end up with almost 100%.
Anyways, how can you say that the Onge types are the ASI ancestors. That's like saying that humans evolved from apes.
By the way, the Georgians as B in the F4 formula does not give correct ANI number either because of the fact that Brahmins as well as NW Indians have higher Northern European admixture than Georgians. Not to mention that it won't fully capture the Mal'ta like ancestry.
Tajiks and Turkmens look phenotypically exactly how they plot genetically -- like Caucasus/Iranian people with slight Mongoloid admixture. And according to Reich et al., Pakistanis (Pathans and Sindhis) are still only ~75% ANI, which is why those samples cluster farther away from West Eurasians.
That McDonald plot looks just like the Metspalu and Moorjani plots. South Asians are intermediate between Iranian Caucasoids and Australoids (Papuans and Melanesians this time since there are no Andaman samples). That makes those two groups good proxies for ANI and ASI. Period.
You're just another one of these self-hating South Asian trolls who denies being descended from Aryan invaders and Negrito-like natives because of your weird nationalist/racist fantasies. I've dealt with your kind of nonsense before.
Don't post here again.
You don’t know the first thing about Tajiks and Turkmen do you? They can range from looking pseudo-North Euro (especially isolated mountain Tajiks) to very East Eurasian influenced. Autosomally, there is a large range as well with Afghan Tajiks being even more diverse than Yunusbayev Tajikistan Tajiks. The Afghan Tajik samples also seem to be more East Eurasian and South Asian influenced. You would know that if you bothered to follow any of the new studies.
Also, using Moorjani’s formula to calculate ANI or West Eurasian ancestry for Tajiks and Turkmen, you would get 66% and 70% respectively while the HGDP Pashtuns get 70% and Sindhis get 64%. So, while those numbers are merely rough estimates, it proves that the HGDP Tajiks and Turkmen are not really any more West Eurasian than the HGDP Sindhis and Pashtuns and are likely less West Eurasian than the HGDP Baloch, Brahui and Makrani.
The McDonald plot doesn’t look just like Metspalu and Moorjani’s plots. On their plots, there were certain South Indian and tribal groups clustering almost immediately next to the Andamanese. However, Dr. McDonald’s South Indians (mostly tribal and low caste according to him) are quite distant from Melanesians and Papuans and aren’t even on a proper cline with them. When you get to the HGDP Burusho and other HGDP Pakistani populations, the cline drops even more off and if anything, seems to be a cline with East Eurasians rather than any Negrito populations. This makes sense since substituting Dai for Onge gets ANI-ASI estimates very similar to those of Reich and Moorjani.
Also, you seemed to ignore the Anonymous post below mine. Iranians don’t even show up as 100% ANI using Moorjani’s formula but closer to 85% so how could they possibly make a good proxy for ANI? They also have an affinity or pull toward South Asia that is lacking in other West Asians. As for, Papuans and Melanesians making “good” proxies for ASI, that’s even more absurd since they are likely even much more distant from ASI than the Onge (30,000 years). How one could reasonably infer that they make a “good” proxy for ASI because they are simply in between South Asians and Iranians is very presumptuous and not a credible argument. In addition, lumping ANI and ASI into modern day single populations is not only disingenuous but unscientific. Moorjani and Reich were careful in labeling Georgians as representative for ANI as they mentioned that ANI is multi-layered from diverse populations. They only used them as a “genetic” proxy and never alluded to using them as some type of phenotypic proxy that you have taken the liberty to do with various populations on your blog.
As for a self-hating troll, that’s a rich comment coming from someone who thinks his blog has anything credible to offer toward genetics and anthropology. Not to mention, someone who is obsessed with protecting the purity of Southern Italians. By your same reasoning, denying studies that show the affinity of Southern Italians toward the Near East, North Africa and even SSA (albeit minor) makes you a self-hating Southern Italian. Also, don’t forget your efforts to prove that the phenotype differences between North and South Italians are negligible. The fact is they aren’t and Italians form a cline with more Northern Italians having a closer proximity to other Euros (especially Northern and Central Euros) while Southern Italians have closer proximity to Near Easterners and Jews.
I should clarify I meant affinity regarding than overall proximity regarding North and South Italians. Regardless, this affinity can be clearly seen on McDonald's PCA plots that include Sicilians, Tuscans or or other Italians.
You're the one who doesn't know anything about Tajiks and Turkmens. Figure 3 of Di Cristofaro et al. (2013) shows them clustering exactly like they do on Metspalu's plot. They're predominantly Caucasoid. Period.
And as for South Asians clining toward Papuans and Melanesians, they do the same thing even more clearly in Figure S1 of Auton et al. (2009). They're a mix of Caucasoids and Australoids/Negritos. Deal with it.
Like South Asia, Europe has two distinct ancestral components varying from north to south -- "Ancient Northern Eurasian" and "Ancient Western Eurasian" (Lipson et al. 2012) -- which, unlike you, I don't pathetically try to deny. The cline in Italy comes from that, and it is indeed genetically and phenotypically negligible.
Your next endless post of denial with no links to any peer-reviewed studies will be deleted. Final warning.
An endless five-post reply spamming the same nonsense I've already refuted, and still not a single link/quote from a peer-reviewed study. SMH
And btw, we do know what ASI looked like from anthropologists who've studied South Asian crania, including Mesolithic Balangoda Man. All show Australoid/Negrito affinites (follow the links on this page).
Spamming the same nonsense? Your blog is nothing but nonsense. SMH…
“For example, the true ancestral populations of India were probably not homogeneous as we assume in our model but instead were likely to have been formed by clusters of related groups that mixed at different times. “
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/
This quote is from Reich’s original ANI-ASI paper. This quote alone makes your individual phenotype proxy assumptions an utter joke. You can’t use an individual phenotype as a proxy for an ancestral population which is not homogeneous.
“However, the Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/
The Andamanese are ASI related. They aren’t pure ASI like you’re assuming.
“Genetic evidence indicates that most of the ethno-linguistic groups in India descend from a mixture of two divergent ancestral populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to West Eurasians (people of Central Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Europe) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) related (distantly) to indigenous Andaman Islanders.”
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2013_AJHG_Priya_India_Date.pdf
When will you get it through your thick skull that that ASI (an ancestral population) is not a homogenous population that Reich’s model assumed? It cannot be represented through the phenotype of a single modern day population. Not to mention that the Onge are only “distantly” related to ASI. Humans are also distantly related to modern Chimps and Gorillas but that doesn’t mean our ancestors looked like Chimps and Gorillas. We simply shared an ancestor just like ASI shared an ancestor with the Onge but only distantly. Hence, the distant relationship.
Dienekes’ work on putting ASI in context simply puts to light what Reich and Moorjani already stated. That no modern population is closely related to ASI.
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/ancestral-south-indian-asi-in-context.html
Also, we don’t know what ASI looked like. Quoting outdated anthropologists and studies from 30+ years ago doesn’t prove anything. I can’t believe I’m wasting my time arguing with someone foolish enough to think Coon was actually a credible anthropologist. Modern anthropologists and geneticists laugh or cringe at the mention of his name. Oh wait, they are politically correct race-deniers….
Moron, when you need to represent "not homogenous" populations that don't exist anymore, you have to use a proxy, which is a substitute that will never be 100% perfect. But of all living people, Andaman Islanders are the closest to ASI and therefore the best possible proxy. That's why Reich et al. used them, and that's why I used them too. But really, any Australoid would do because that's what all the evidence says ASI was, and that's what you can't accept. No realistic proxy would be good enough for you.
Your "outdated anthropologists" line just got you permanently banned from here. It proves you're just a denier of evidence you don't like, which comes from being a self-hating racist troll who's butthurt about having Negrito ancestry. Coon is still respected by modern anthropologists, but the sources I cited were mostly Indian anthropologists anyway, and they all agreed about the racial make-up of ancient and modern South Asians, which in turn agrees with genetics.
This discussion is over.
while Indians are a hybrid population of ANI and ASI, ANI are not derived from an outside populations who arrived a couple of thousand years ago according to an unproven linguistics theory. ANI have been in North India for 45000 years. So stop pushing the euro-trash feel good meme, Indians, ANI and ASI are ancestral populations, meaning only the Africans came before us, nobody else, that includes all the special little snowflakes.
That man is not Iranian Caucasoid lol, rather he is a north indian himachali pahari, You can easily tell by looking at his hat and clothing. And I hope Racial Reality knows that Iranian is too much of a vague term, Because persians and kurds are closer middle-eastern groups as a whole than they are to afghans. And andaman islanders are not ASI, rather ASI and andaman islanders are two different groups, and for one thing andaman islanders are genetically more closer to east asians than ASI is to east asians. Also Austroasiatic people in india have ANI, ASI and eastasian ancestry, because Austroasiatic people were originally native to places like Vietnam not india. I would say that Pashtun people or Kalash people are closest to the ANI phenotype. While Birhor people or even the Irula people preserved best the phenotype of the ASI.
All I infer from reading this material is that Indians are descendants of two different populations (may be three as we include mangaloids). Linguistically, the story is the same. So, AIT in some shape or form must be true.
It is also likely that there was no country called "India" in those days. It does appear there was a country called Rigvedia and a country called "Greater South India" and somehow people of Rigvedia imposed the religion and caste system into "Greater South India". Social customs, linguistics and genetics seem to point to this.
@Seeba Alexander
"Iranian Caucasoid" stands for all Indo-Iranian speakers of Caucasoid type, who are the best proxy for ANI. That would include Pashtun and Kalash people. And Andaman Islanders are the best proxy for ASI, which is why Reich et al. used them, as I've already explained many times in my above comments. Birhor and Irula people look way too mixed to represent ASI.
yes Andaman Islanders are the best proxy for ASI because there is no unmixed ASI people left. Still the fact is Andaman Islanders and ASI are two different peoples who where separated from eachother for very long time, even if they once were closely related to each other. Imagine hypothetically if the british, spanish and others did a stronger job of exterminating native americans and all native ancestry couldn't be found higher than 60% to 50% in the present. basically if there was no pure native populations left over like Amazon Karitiana people, then don't be shocked if modern siberians or north-east-asians get used as imperfect proxy for native americans, and same is true for ASI. native-americans have more exotic elements that aren't found much in later siberian or asians, and they also don't 100% look identical with asians either. andaman islanders also carry some really older south-east asian elements that isn't found in people with indian ASI ancestry, which is why you shouldn't confuse people further by putting up an Andaman lady in the profile as an example of what people in india or ASI were like before the neolithic.
And even if you believe "Iranian Caucasoid" stands for all Indo-Iranian speakers of Caucasoid type, that still doesn't change the fact Iranians are a very heterogeneous group of people. A west persians and kurds are literally a middle-eastern people with strong amounts of male ydna Haplogroup J-M267, E-M215, G-M285 and other near-eastern markers(and lets not forget their female side is similar to other near-eastern groups). While east-iranians and north-indians have high amounts of ydna Haplogroup R-M420 and other west-eurasian markers that are not found in large amounts in middle-east. Its really doing a sloppy confusing job talking about a standard Iranian Caucasoid when there is clear difference between different iranians. One more thing Kalash people aren't iranians but rather they speak similar north-indian language similar to kashmiri.
And Birhor and Irula people maybe mixed, but they still preserved the phenotype of the ASI the best. Irula are on average 70% ASI and with the Birhor(who haven't been sampled and tested) in isolated region of jharkhand it may even be slightly higher (wouldn't be shocked if they're 75% asi). If you have no problem picking out an individual Saami girl to represent what WHG "mesolithic-europeans" looked like, then it shouldnt be hard to find an individual Birhor or Irula to represent what "Ancestral south indians" looked like also. On average saami, finns and baltic groups are 50% WHG, while in india ASI levels can be found much higher.
>>> And even if you believe "Iranian Caucasoid" stands for all Indo-Iranian speakers of Caucasoid type, that still doesn't change the fact Iranians are a very heterogeneous group of people.
Unlike Andamanese, which are a specific population, the proxy for ANI in the study is "Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans", which is really broad. I chose Indo-Iranian speakers because of the language connection and geographic proximity. It doesn't matter that they're heterogeneous since they're all included within the study's large proxy group.
>>> One more thing Kalash people aren't iranians but rather they speak similar north-indian language similar to kashmiri.
I said "Indo-Iranian-speakers", and the Kalash language is Indo-Aryan, which is part of the Indo-Iranian family.
>>> it shouldnt be hard to find an individual Birhor or Irula to represent what "Ancestral south indians" looked like
Maybe, but why use someone with ~30% ANI admixture when there's a population that's almost fully ASI, and which is in fact the very population used to represent ASI in the study? In your hypothetical Native American example, a Siberian would make a much better proxy than a Mestizo, both genetically and phenotypically.
Yes The proxy for ANI had many types of West-asians/Europeans. But ANI is an unique type Westeurasian people. The Neolithic element in ANI is quiet different from southern-europeans/north-africans, meaning both side preserved different diversity of ancient near-east before things got mixed up later in near-east. on top of that ANI aren't anything like northern europeans because they lack WHG, but they had highest ANE ancestry in all of eurasia. in the end Who better represents ANI genetically and phenotypically aren't the kurds or ossetians but pushtun, kalash or even kashmiri.
As for hypothetical Native American example, I will pinpoint that even if Siberians would make a much better proxy than a Mestizos that still doesn't change that they are an imperfect proxy for real native americans. but on the other-hand phenotypically speaking an individual Mestizos can still give better examples of what natives looked like than Siberians. finding Siberians like Buryats or nivkh who pass for native-americans is hard but same is not with some southern mexicans or el salvadorians. Maybe you don't live in the americas so you don't know, but even in 2006 movie "Apocalypto" large number of the casts were Mestizos playing natives.
Anyway all of the above statement for Native American, siberians and Mestizos the same can be easily made for ASI, Adaman islanders and modern indians with high ASI addmixtures.
anyways since you don't live in north or south America therefore it may be hard for you imagine the diversity of Mestizos as a whole. but on average many Mestizos found in northern mexico, colombia, chile and costa-rica tend to look more west-eurasian like, while its opposite for many in southern most of mexico, el-salvador, guatemala and bolivia where amerindian features are stronger. Collectively speaking Mestizos everywhere are mixed looking, but individually there are some who are more caucasoid while others are more native-looking sometimes depending on region or family. there even are many who look more native than both "Selena Quintanilla Perez" or "Jorgito Vargas, Jr." And there is no way a Siberian would beat them phenotypically in looking NATIVE.
Also keeping up with the native and mestizo example, if you were to open your blog showing examples two pictures that are parental population that gave birth to hispanic mestizos. And one picture of a latin european speaking Romanian man, while other example being an inuit, chukchi or even Evenk woman as native example then people would equally call you out on that no matter how much you protested. And the thing is you still falsely claim andaman island population are an ASI or that they are almost fully ASI, when its nothing else but the opposite of what you are saying. ASI and andaman islanders are two different groups even if they are closely related, and even David Reich or Dienekes would not make the claim that andaman islanders are ASI unlike you. Dienekes has even shown thst ASI cluster on it own away from anadman, while zack from harappadna has even shown that andaman people on admixture level can't compete against india tribes with ASI-like traits they carry. On top of that andaman people look nothing like the HIgh ASI carrying indian tribals phenotypically speaking.
I know very well what Mestizos look like, and if they look fully Native then they're not true Mestizos (50/50) but Natives with a small amount of European admixture. Your example is stupid anyway because Mestizos are a recent mix, and Spanish and Mayan parent groups still exist. Parent groups for South Asians don't exist anymore or are not known historically, so we have to use proxies. Romanians and Siberians would be acceptable proxies for Mestizo parents if we didn't have anyone more specific, and Andaman Islanders and Indo-Iranian-speakers are acceptable proxies for ASI and ANI in the same way.
Mestizos like "blacks" or "whites" are both racial and cultural identities in new world, and none of them have to be 100% or 50/50 exact. And older definition of Mestizos was meant for anyone of mixed ancestry not just a 50/50 person, and even spanish upperclass only started getting more technical about the term much later on.
And what is stupid anyway? MY POINT IS sure even if Romanians and Siberians would make some-what reasonable proxies, but that then wouldn't therefore mean both are the parental population for Latin-Mestizos. And even if the ancestral-groups for South Asians don't exist anymore that then doesn't mean the nearest proxies all of a sudden magical become the Assumed parental populations for east-indians. Also Parental group of Mesolithic europeans don't exist anymore, but you have no problem using a Saami girl who's picture you had to digital alter because these finns/balts at most 50%.
either way the Saamis like finns/balts are closer to 50% Mesolithic european but you are not here crying that their ancestral-group don't exist anymore or they look way too mixed to represent WHG-Mesolithic europeans. You also Wrongly label a himachal Gaddi man as iranian caucasoid parental example, when he is at best is ~70% ANI in his Degrees of admixture making him identical to Kashmiri Pandit example. but an individual from ~70% ASI Birhor or Irula group ironically can't be used at all unlike your above examples. You even falsely claim that andaman population is almost fully ASI or are used to represent ASI in the studies, when reality is that they full acknowledged as an uniquely asi-related but separate group everywhere. you are even going on about how Andaman Islanders and Indo-Iranian-speakers are acceptable proxies for ASI and ANI, when the real problem you keep forgetting is that you falsely labeled them as being the Assumed Parental groups for southasians. If you called them acceptable proxies from day one and not Assumed Parental group then nobody would have had problems with your presentation, and in the end this mess is your own doing sad to say.
"Cultural identities" are totally irrelevant to anthropology and genetics. Mestizo means mixed race, and an Indian with a drop of European blood is not mixed race enough in the scientific sense. A true hybrid Mestizo would not make a better proxy for an Indian than a Siberian would.
And I only altered the Saami girl's pigmentation, because hunter-gatherers were still brown and modern North Eurasians are depigmented. But their genetic ancestry and facial features are probably very similar. Just like ASI and Andaman Islanders.
The only people who have "problems with my presentation" are self-hating South Asians who wish they weren't racially mixed with Australoids. Don't post here anymore.
ASI was supposedly distantly related to Onge of Andamans around 30,000 year ago. Can we assume that ANI came to India in the 2nd millennium BC after the collapse of IVC?
Racial Reality blog perhaps requires some reality check. The racial groupings like Caucasoid, Australoid, Mongoloid, and Negrito have been discarded long ago. Modern scholars avoid these racial tags, because there is no scientific basis. I hope you'll do a reality check and remove the racial tags from the blog.
Lol, the blatant bias is quite visible in the pictures.
Bruh, why are the Dravidians the only ones who are old and in need of dental care?
Almost like you subconsciously believe they're lesser than everyone else.... hmmm.
Allow me to ruin your fantasy that only pale people can be pretty:
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/lakshmi_menon/
http://nishasvest.blogspot.com/2013/09/archana-indian-model.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/living/identity-miss-america-nina-davuluri/
It's funny how they all had to leave India in order to be seen as the queens they are.
Not to mention these racial groupings were made up by white guys who wanted to prove their superiority over everyone else. They'd never let you join their exclusive club.
No, there's no bias. The Iranid and Kashmiri are old too, and the one who needs dental care is the 3rd lightest. I had to find people who belonged to all those specific ethnic groups and represented the racial types well, which wasn't easy.
Btw, those women you posted aren't that dark or that attractive. They look like average Indians.
Hi, I have a question. Why are south Indian Brahmins lighter-skinned than South Indian lower castes?
I understood that ANI represents light skin and ASI, dark.
I also think from the discussion here that there is more ANI percentage in North India than in the South.
If that is the case why the difference in skin color between brahmin and non-brahmins in south India?
I know there are many light-skinned low caste people, including untouchables, but in general, in my observation, in south India brahmins are lighter than, say, untouchables.
Can working in the sun eventually make skin dark at the birth itself?
Can not working, similarly, eventually make people get born with lighter skin?
I appreciate any responses. Thanks
Where is the picture for Hindu Jats and Khatris? What about Sindhi Bhatias and Gujjars? The Cline for the "Caucasian-ness" or "West-Eurasian-ness" of Hindus doesn't end at Nehru, who is a Kashmiri Pandit. The most West Eurasian Indians are Hindu Jats and Khatris, who are 85% West Eurasian/Caucasian, and can often look like this: https://www.browngirlmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Shashi-Kapoor-Featured-Image.png
You do realize by the way, that Indians, particularly the Upper-Caste NW Indians, are NOT admixed with Andamanese Islanders, right? That picture you have posted of Nehru, a Kashmiri Pandit, being part of this admixture cline is also horribly inaccurate, as people from his caste DO NOT have any admixture from Tribals -- the latest genetic studies show that him and other people in the NW that are from Upper Caste Groups like the ones mentioned above, have SE Asian admixture, NOT Andamanese admixture. Only certain people in the Far East and South of India that are from isolated tribes have minor admixture from a COMMON ANCESTOR that is shared with the Onge, not the ONGE themselves. Your post seems to imply that it is ALL Indians that share this ancestry, and that this ancestry is directly inherited from the Onge themselves. This is FALSE. I can post peer-reviewed studies done by Harvard and other fine institutions that directly prove this claim and disprove your WRONG statement.
You can find them with a simple Google Search. Unless you want to tarnish the image of your blog and portray it as a peddler of dishonest and intellectually fraudulent information, you should really update your post with not only the most West Eurasian Indians, but also the MAJOR distinction between them and other Indians, and the fact that only a minority of tribal Indians have SHARED ancestry with an ancestor of the Onge. A LOT of research has been done on the genetics of the subcontinent since this post, and it really is irresponsible of you to not have updated your post to reflect this. You do yourself and your readers a great disservice.
Can you please provide a modern source that backs up your claim of South Asians being mixed with Australoids? If you cannot (and I know you cannot) then this blog is simply your frustrated attempt at maligning the reputation of South Asians because you cannot get laid.
South Asians have nothing to do with Australoids. The Ainu have more to do with Australoids than any South Asian, and thats saying a lot, because the Ainu arent even Australoid themselves, but were considered to share many traits with them by anthropologists until recently. South Asians have no affinities or admixture from Australoids, and the latest analyses of Skulls and other traits by anthropologists only confirm the finding that South Asians and Australoids have zero relationships.
Also, perhaps the author of this blog is a racist troll, and unaware/ignorant as a result, but the latest archaeogenetic research shows that AASI, which btw also has substantial West Eurasian admixture, is a purely East Eurasian component distinct from Onge/Andamanese and Australasian peoples. Onge/Australasian people were found to be mainly Basal Eurasian and ancestral to all East Asians today, and share direct ancestral descent with Tibeto-Burmans and SE Asians. They also possess substantial admixture from the Han Chinese and a minor admixture from AASI, all from people that visited the Island and mixed with the natives there. This doesnt mean that the Han Chinese or the AASI or SE Asians have Onge admixture, rather that the Onge have ancestry from all three sources due to roaming migrants.
AASI is a purely South East Eurasian component that has zero admixture from Australoids, Australasians and Negroids. It is part of the larger East Eurasian race/genetic cluster and shares a distant common ancestor with other East Eurasians, including the SE Asians, NE Asians and others. The distant shared ancestry deep in time between the AASI and the Andamanese is the same as the distant shared ancestry shared between the Han Chinese and the Andamanese, which is why the Han Chinese can be used as the best proxy for AASI according to David Reich. Even the Dai of Vietnam can be used as a better proxy for AASI ancestry than the Onge. The AASI also have different strains, the ones in the NW of South Asia look like indigenous Natives of the Americas, youre not going to tell me that the Natives of the Americas have Onge now too are you? Stop making up bullshit and update your blog before you lose more credibility. This is for the benefit of other readers so as to not be misled by your nonsense. I am reporting this blog for spreading nonsense racist theories.
@Unknown
Bullshit. AASI forms a clade with Onge, that is in its original definition.
@Onur Dincer
You're not too bright are you? Nice attempt at trolling and a non sequitur. The "clade" you speak of also has East and SE Asians in it. I will post a detailed breakdown of what that means, so that other readers who come across this post do not be misled by your assertions, which are nothing more than nonsense couched in misleading statements in order to confuse people. Wait for the complete reply tomorrow. I dont have time to do this right before bed. BTW, a Turk wasting time trying to spread racist lies about fellow East Eurasian admixed folks is the funniest thing ever. I thought I had seen it all. Then again, I expect no less than this from someone who is low IQ.
BTW, for other folks who are following along. All Reich did in his original study was incorrectly use a distantly related proxy like AHG that shared a common ancestor deep in time distantly related to the ancestor of AASI, because they wanted a sample free of extra admixture from West Eurasians. Imagine if all people in America mixed with Native Americans, and all "pure" native Americans were wiped out. Then, a couple hundred years later, someone decides to calculate Native American admixture in White Americans, and since there are no fully Native American people running around, they instead find someone who is mostly Sub Saharan African genetically, but also possesses Native American, Japanese, and SE Asian admixture as a proxy to calculate how Native American someone is in a genetic study. Sounds dumb as fuck right? Because that is exactly what the Reich lab did, and it turns out, this was a very wrong approach, something that has been established quite well since then, not only because Andaman Islanders have admixture from AASI and East, SE and Negrito Asians (Negritos are on a cline between Australasians and East Asians), they also possess a native component that seems most similar to Australasians, who themselves have nothing to do with AASI and East Asians, genetically or phenotypically. In fact, there was even some West Eurasian admix picked up in some initial analyses.
Therefore, using them as even a poor distantly related proxy for AASI was a very dumb choice, though admittedly they said even in their initial study that it was an imperfect proxy and nothing more. Anyway, this imperfect proxy shares a clade with other East Eurasians as well, specifically East and SE Asians, and in fact, is much more closely related to certain East Eurasians like the Tibeto-Burmans and others, whom directly descend from it. This same clade gave rise to East Asians, Native Americans, AASI, and Australasians that split within the same time frame. Even IBD sharing shows that Onge shares the most alleles with groups like Cambodians, North Vietnamese, and tribals like the Munda who derived almost all of their ancestry from SE Asian rice farmers, again proving that Onge is far more related to the Burmese and related East Eurasian groups, than to AASI. I will post more details, including all the data that will put to rest this myth of AASI having anything to do with Onge tomorrow. Until then, feel free to write more inane nonsense in an attempt to mislead people here.
Dude, my main objection is to your claim that AASI has substantial West Eurasian admixture, which is false, AASI is fully ENA, that is in its original definition. As an ENA population, AASI forms a clade with East Eurasians, Australasians, various Negrito groups and the Andamanese (including Onge) to the exclusion of all modern human groups. The exact relationships of ENA populations are yet to be determined.
How exactly AASI looked is another issue and is also waiting to be determined. What we know is that what is known as the Mongoloid phenotype is a relatively recent evolution and was not yet found in any of the ENA populations when AASI formed as a distinct group, so AASI certainly did not look Mongoloid, what we can say on its phenotype beyond that would be mostly speculation.
Of course we can also be certain that AASI had a dark pigmentation based on the pigmentation of modern populations with high levels of AASI ancestry.
to the exclusion of all modern human groups
to the exclusion of all other modern human groups
@Onur Dincer
I appreciate your attempt at civility, but you just made some more claims that dont pass muster, and I will address them as well in my post, which will now have to be even longer and take more time. I am a busy man, and dont have time to sit around writing long-ass posts online to educate the misinformed, but when certain racist and crazy people like "Racial Reality" are hell-bent on propagating false and racist narratives regarding billions of Asians, I have no choice but to intervene for the greater good. At least the unsuspecting reader who comes across this shit post will have the benefit of knowing just how wrong this whole blog post is thanks to my work and will come away informed of the actual facts. Anyway, I dont know why this blog is still up, it should have been purged of its racist lies a long time ago.
Why don't you start a blog rather than writing in different blogs at the same time? You can write in your blog and then give links to your blog writings in other blogs, that will be less time-consuming for you and will allow more people to access your writings.
@onur
I am not sure what you mean by the unsolicited advice. I dont have time to maintain a blog or to write in different blogs at the same time. I actually have a job and a real life unlike most folks, so these things take a backseat to my real world responsibilities. I wish I had the luxury of writing inane nonsense online however. You should take your advice and start a nonsensical blog of your own where you and Racial Reality tag team and spread all sorts of bullshit about different races worldwide while pretending to be pure as Snow White yourself. Not my style. The funny thing is, none of this shit would every fly in any academic forum or peer-reviewed study. Only on the interwebs can such racist liars thrive and mislead innocent people into believing their drivel. Its honestly a shame that such content is allowed to be hosted. Good thing this blog is not more popular, lest more people buy into its bullshit.
I am honestly pained to write out the long-ass rebuttal of all the BS posted here, but I have no choice but to post it. It will happen soon enough, its just that when the truth is evident and the writing is all over the wall, one is loathe to try to put it into words because it is a redundant task. However, the world deserves to know. So I will do a public service as a good samaritan with a conscience.
I will be posting the rest of my rebuttal regarding the falsehoods of AASI in a bit, here is a nice addendum relevant to our discussion of racial purity in the meantime.
Perhaps other readers would like to know that not all Turks look/are West Eurasian, even though the country is classified as consisting of people that all look fully West Eurasian. Here is an example, a bonafide Turk who is quite famous for being an intellectual giant:
https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/11406100_711695122269464_5414935348611451468_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=VlIaI0UzJ3oAX_cPam6&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8pSyl4L4rKe5ykw9o8USv7BldDIQjQxO9ViDb_gxqylA&oe=6286F5AC
Melis Nuray Anahtar. Both parents are Turks. Looks like a Mexican Harniza. Most definitely has Mongoloid admixture. More than Aryans of NW South Asia that look fully West Asian or European depending on the person.
So many triggered responses from a supposedly civil and anti-racist person but who nevertheless tries to "prove" that NW South Asians are "whiter" than Turks and who even changed his nickname into one that is openly offensive to Turks despite the fact that I have said nothing about Turks nor have I said anything negative or openly non-factual about South Asians or indeed said that I am Turk but just I happen to have a Turkish name. Just saying "bullshit" and countering one of his arguments was enough to trigger that person in this way, who nevertheless still talks about civility, anti-racism etc.
he/she does not even provide a good example to his/her claim
which is already a very triggered claim since, like I said, I was not even talking about Turks or trashtalking South Asians in any way. I am in fact someone who looks at at least some of the South Asian countries with sympathy in politics (India being one of them).
Also, as if I have said or implied anything negative about having non-West Eurasian features or genetic mix. But the above commentator seems to think having non-West Eurasian features or genetic mix is something negative (at least subconsciously) despite claiming to be anti-racist.
Everything is politicized to a degree, including racism. In a world with South Asian political and cultural domination having South Asian physical features and genetics would almost certainly be seen as more preferable than in our current world. It is harder today when English rather than Hindi is the global lingua franca and the US is still the global super power rather than India.
Lastly, the world I favor is one in which there is no global super power, no global lingua franca, no global currency, no global network like the Internet and in fact no globalism at all. A compartmentalized/fragmented/regionalized/localized world is better in my opinion, such was the world until about the last 100 or 200 years in fact. Having said that, I am strongly against world wars and especially nuclear wars, so there should also be at least a relative world peace even if without any global organizations such as the UN and the like.
@Onur Dincer (1/2)
Please my Turkish pal, you are not making sense by accusing me of being triggered. I wrote a huge wall of text (multiple actually) explaining why South Asians are not admixed with Onge or Australasians, (which you know as well as me is the truth) and why AASI is not the same as Onge, giving so many details about the same thing, and all you did was reply in an uncivil manner. "Bullshit." Not only that, you also wrote an irrelevant comment that will only mislead readers into believing that AASI has something to do with Onge that other East Eurasians dont (sharing a clade with it, something that is true for other East Eurasians as well) In the context of that exchange, and given your initial reply, "Bullshit" it was clear to me that engaging in a civil discussion with you was pointless because you were unwilling to accept the main point of my argument, AASI is not Onge, which as all academics know, is true.
Also, I know you cannot be this dumb, because my real life Turkish friends are nowhere near so stupid, so I know you are aware of the fact that this blog has a lot of racist nonsense on it, including this very post that claims that South Asians are mixed with "Australoids" and that they are "ashamed of it" -- as said by Racial Reality, multiple times, on this very comment thread. Saying that Australoid admixture is real and that it is something to be ashamed of, as if it is an "inferior" thing. This, and the rest of his racist posts on this very racist blog are testament to the very malignant and racist nature of this blog, on which you are a regular commenter and supporter (See your comment regarding the "science of raciology" where you support Racial Reality in this entire effort, thereby owning up to the fact that you endorse all of his very toxic, incorrect and unscientific, Hitler-esque views and racism on this blog)
@Onur Dincer (2/3)
You also wrote that you believe in the "science of raciology" which doesnt exist and wrote: "The discussion of who is more West Eurasian (Caucasoid) is much more meaningful from a scientific viewpoint." on another post. Implying that being "purer" is something significant enough to investigate scientifically, as it holds meaning to you. This and your other comments on this blog, (and your endorsement of Racial Reality's views) including your hostile and uncivil reply to my explanations, made clear to me that you are at some level an irrational man, who is unwilling to yield to the evidence and truth, and who is racist at his core, for who else would waste his time supporting such an obvious bigot like Racial Reality and write such things? It is in this context that I changed my username and posted the picture of a towering academic genius like Melis Anahtar, whose feet you are not worthy of touching. Not to belittle Turks for having East Eurasian admixture, something that I am very proud of myself as an East Eurasian admixed South Asian, but to show you that it would be very ironic for a Turk to help a racist individual like Racial Reality in spreading lies about billions of South Asians, (who are your comrades in being West-East Eurasian admixes), claiming as he does that they are mixed with "Australoids" and "Ashamed of it" directly implying that he finds Australoid admixture (or non-West Eurasian admixture in general) to be something unworthy and shameful, thereby making South Asians some sort of "pariah" according to his world views, not to mention thereby implying that East Eurasians in general have Australoid admixture/are Australoid themselves, since AASI and other East Eurasians have nothing to do with Australoids, genetically or phenotypically. This would mean that Turks are also mixed with "Australoids" according to his dumb logic (Han is used as a proxy for AASI, Onge is more closely related to Tibeto Burmans and SE Asians, is mostly Basal East Asian, related to Tianyuan man, etc etc.) and so it would be ironic for a Turkish person to waste his time spreading Racial Reality's lies, since it also implicates his own ethnicity. This is the context in which I wrote those comments.
I am not here to prove that NW South Asians are "White" or "Pure" -- in fact, as one can see from the totality of my comments, I am only here to prove that South Asians are West Eurasian - East Eurasian mixes, just like most of Eurasia, including Turks. I am simply here to refute the nonsensical notion that South Asians are mixed with Australoids, Onge, Australasians, etc -- and the above pictures that imply that South Asians were born of Onge individuals mixing with invading West Eurasians. Another blatant lie, as you well know. And yet, despite knowing that this is a lie, you said nothing about its misrepresentation and falsehoods to Racial Reality against it, which again leads me to believe that you have a racialist mindset and hierarchy in mind, where you think that Australoids are beneath you (supporting Racial Reality implicitly), and so South Asians, supposedly having mixed with them are beneath you too. All of which are lies btw. Therefore, please do not accuse me of "being triggered" or "Racist" when in fact, all the evidence points to the contrary, and really implicates you as the racist.
@Onur Dincer (3/3)
Now, as for Dr. Melis Anahtar, I know her quite well, and I can assure you that she is NOT fully West Asian or European in appearance. At all. And to claim otherwise is simply a joke. This is quite clear from both my picture, which is HD quality, and your own low resolution picture which has a lot of extra flash on it and is a headshot. Here are multiple videos of hers, where her East Eurasian admixture is again evident, and HD pictures, where she again looks like a Latina, (and was frequently mistaken for Latina in the US, something she had expressed to me personally). In the Castiza range at most, could be Harniza for some:
HD picture of Melis: https://bit.ly/3LcN7OE
A video where Melis is being interviewed at 1:08: https://bit.ly/3kqUmH3
More pictures: https://pastebin.com/7XzXvEes
She DOES NOT look like a "pure" (no such thing as pure BTW) West Asian or MENA ot European in ANY video or picture, to ANYONE with eyes, and she is considered a non-White Latin/Hispanic in the US/Americas. This is a fact that she doesnt look fully Caucasian. Her mother looks very mixed as well, and her father overlaps with many NW South Asians of diverse kinds. I am not even going to debate this, as doing so would be absurd.
But the point is, that she has an "admixed" appearance, sure, (something that I have no issue with), but that is irrelevant to my respect and admiration for who she is as a person; she is a role model for me (and personally coached me at many stages of my life) so I respect her immensely. I dont give a shit about how "pure" or "West Eurasian" looking someone is, I only brought her up to show you an example of why Turkish people who are racist and care about "how West Eurasian someone is" and believe in "raciology" (like yourself, owing to your allegiance/past comments/behavior) shouldnt be trying to spread any sorts of lies about South Asians, who are East Eurasian admixed just like Turks, including many Turks that look far from fully Caucasian, just like most South Asians who arent from endogamous castes in the NW look mixed, like Melis does. And in fact, people like Melis and many others who are also far more "mixed" with East Eurasians in Turkey and even more so in South Asia, completely demolish any "hierarchy" that people like Racial Reality and his ilk espouse regarding Asians, both East and South and Central Asians,not to mention Latin Americans, and many West Asians, in relation to Europeans and "Pure" Caucasians.
I will add my final reply concerning the mountain of evidence proving that AASI is not Onge/Australoid (at the risk of being redundant in its overall factual claim) later.
Like I said, my initial reaction to you was mainly about your claim that AASI has substantial West Eurasian admixture, which is false. I have no duty to criticize every wrong view of Racial Reality and the commentators here, like you also do not criticize every wrong view of them. That does not mean you or I endorse wrong views of Racial Reality (I am not a regular commentator here BTW).
You refer to some of my statements from years ago. The truth is, my views have changed a lot since then, I no longer use terms like raciology and now use terms like Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. only when referring to physical types and those like West Eurasian, East Eurasian etc. instead when referring to the broad genetic clusters and prefer to call them population rather than race due to the vagueness of the term race (as race often brings to my physical types). Using such terms in the past or today does not make me racist. You apparently live in the US, that explains your excessively politically correct mentality. Most people in the world (including those in South Asia and Turkey) do not share that mentality. You can label most people in the world as racist with that mentality. My advice to you: get rid of that mentality and be more in accordance with human nature. As for the looks of Anahtar and her parents, that is a side issue so I will not comment on it further.
By the way, I am not someone who has group mentality. I do not identify with this or that human group, but I am not globalist either, I am super localist instead. Generally I do not identify with people whom I do not personally know and like. But on the other hand, I feel more comfortable when I am with people who are sufficiently like me in physical looks, views and behaviors (also we should have a common language to communicate) and prefer to be with such people. You people in the US have too much group thinking as far as I can see, maybe as a consequence of being comprised of people from all over the world and your too identity-focused politics and cultural environment.
Hierarchical thinking is alien to me too. My world view is self-centered instead, more subjective than objective.
South Asians, Central Asians and Western Siberian natives are pretty much the only major Eurasian groups who fall outside the broad West and East Eurasian genetic clusters and are dispersed on the space between them instead.
Of course if Latin Americans other than the purest Amerindian groups were included on that PCA, we would see people dispersed all over the PCA space.
Post a Comment
Be civil. Write clearly. Proofread and preview. Don't troll or spam. Stay on topic.