Do you count Gypsies as Caucasoid or not

[Mortimer]

I noticed that many people exclude indians from the caucasoid group. I think in the past indians were considered caucasoid but nowadays they are considered as southasian. Do you consider gypsies as part of the caucasoid group or not. Just curious, i will make a poll to see how many vote for what

According to a genetic study i read they are 80% westerneuroasian and 20% ASI

We estimate that the Roma harbor about 80% West Eurasian ancestry–derived from a combination of European and South Asian sources–and that the date of admixture of South Asian and European ancestry was about 850 years before present. We provide evidence for Eastern Europe being a major source of European ancestry, and North-west India being a major source of the South Asian ancestry in the Roma. By computing allele sharing as a measure of linkage disequilibrium, we estimate that the migration of Roma out of the Indian subcontinent was accompanied by a severe founder event, which appears to have been followed by a major demographic expansion after the arrival in Europe. http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/autosomal-genetics-of-roma-people.html

also im not sure what the craniofacial taxonomy of a pure ancient ASI would be, similar to negritos similar to weddoids? or proto-caucasoid? ASI forms a cluster with negrito but they separated a long time ago at one point all humans derrived from eatch other but seperated, so mongoloid and caucasoid are also close on a K3 closer then to negroid because all Out of Africa are closer to eatch other, so i dont know if ASI were neccesarily negritos like the onges.

thanks for your opinions

[Shepherd]

yes they are caucasoid of course

[SupaThug]

Yes,they do!And so do indians!

[SupaThug]

Poll should have been made public man

[Dictator]

Are they even human?

[Ballist]

I don't think so. Indians were very excluded when whites moved near. They were discriminated for being dark. Maybe sub-Caucasoid.

[Dictator]

I don't think so. Indians were very excluded when whites moved near. They were discriminated for being dark. Maybe sub-Caucasoid.

http://i.imgur.com/1PVniOH.gif

[zhaoyun]

Well, they are obviously Caucasoid. I think the reason why many here disqualify them is because they consider Gypsies undesirable or do not like the high crime rate associated with their culture.

But obviously they are Caucasoid. They are significantly Europid genetically and the part of India they are originally from is North India which is largely Caucasoid.

[Ballist]

http://i.imgur.com/1PVniOH.gif

Omg you made my day. :lol:

[Anglojew]

Generally yes, minor with Australoid

[IMadeYouReadThis]

I don't think so. Indians were very excluded when whites moved near. They were discriminated for being dark. Maybe sub-Caucasoid.

That's a huge misconception.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V899ADQHkw

[Ballist]

That's a huge misconception.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V899ADQHkw

No, much earlier when Aryans migrated.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

No, much earlier when Aryans migrated.


How mixed the British are themselves is highly underestimated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d25c4qzCgXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UEfDLvxHt0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozUbotK7XAI


1 in 25 fathers may not be the child's real parent:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS46BSUBkZ8

[Longbowman]

Even South Indians are over 50% ANE and Near East (no WHG though) with significant EEA, Papuan and SSA.

As for mixing, my mum has British Colonial ancestry and I'm 0.00% Indian.

[BeerBaron]

No, to much mix from the east.

[Pahli]

They are caucasoid yes, like this criminal gypsy family from Croatia, living in Denmark:

54472

[Jana]

Yes. Some have diluted ''Weddoid'' admixture, but most are Caucasoid.

[Mortimer]

bump

[Smeagol]

The vast majority of Gypsies are Caucasoid of course. It's not debatable.

[Mortimer]

The vast majority of Gypsies are Caucasoid of course. It's not debatable.

eventhough half of the voters think they are not. 12 think they are and 9 think they are not thats 1:1

[Smeagol]

Even South Indians are over 50% ANE and Near East (no WHG though) with significant EEA, Papuan and SSA.

As for mixing, my mum has British Colonial ancestry and I'm 0.00% Indian.

Source?

[Smeagol]

How mixed the British are themselves is highly underestimated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d25c4qzCgXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UEfDLvxHt0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozUbotK7XAI

I just watched the first video. Absolute nonsense. Nobody with any knowledge of history, or genetics could take it seriously. There is absolutely no way at all that ethnic English people could have such varied ancestries. I mean an Englishman scoring 8% SSA, or 20% South Asian? Impossible. And such huge differences between the amount of North European DNA in native Brits? They really expect anyone to believe that. No this is just propaganda, trying to show that the English are mixed to justify the massive immigration of third world scum. That's not even mentioning that this is several years old. Thankfully now we have accurate DNA tests that show that the English have basically no foreign ancestry since Viking times.

[Smeagol]

eventhough half of the voters think they are not. 12 think they are and 9 think they are not thats 1:1

They either just don't want to be associated with Gypsies, or they have zero knowledge of Anthropology.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

... English have basically no foreign ancestry since Viking times.

Do you really think that Vikings were pure? What a juvenile point of view.

http://s11.postimg.org/6863fb20j/herger_joyous_ahmed_ibn_fahdlan_large_msg_11825.jp g
http://s1.postimg.org/p2kfp7epr/MV5_BNTM1_MDQ0_Nz_A0_M15_BMl5_Ban_Bn_Xk_Ft_ZTcw_MT E1_NTY0_NQ.jpg


Refutes Scandinavian Racial Purity Myth
By Charles Hawley

New research has revealed that Scandinavians are much more genetically diverse than previously thought. A study looking at 2,000-year-old skeletons in Denmark found DNA from all over the world, refuting myths of racial purity.



Jørgen Dissing
New research has found that Scandinavian racial purity is a myth.
It's an assumption that many a European racist has held for years: The tall, blond, blue-eyed Scandinavian is the perfect example of a pure race. Ergo, argue many on the far right, immigrants should not be allowed as they may introduce impurities into that racial perfection.

Indeed, many pseudo-scientists spent many years trying to prove that position in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- an attempt promoted to national policy in Nazi Germany.

Now, though, scientists in Denmark have dug up evidence that there is no such thing as a pure Scandinavian race. Indeed, the Danes of old, say scientists at the University of Copenhagen responsible for the study, show just as much genetic diversity as people do today.

"This thought of a blond, blue-eyed race moving to northern Europe and becoming what Scandinavians are today is completely wrong. The whole idea of race is a funny discussion," Linea Melchior, the lead scientist on the study, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There is nothing to support this idea of a pure Nordic race that can be somehow diluted by immigrants. I hope this study can contribute to toning down that rhetoric."

Melchior's study focused on analyzing the mitochondrial DNA of skeletons found in 1,600 to 2,000 year old Iron Age grave sites south of Copenhagen. Because of the way mitochondrial DNA reproduces and is passed down, certain types correspond with different groups of people in different geographical regions. Melchior's team found that the DNA of the 56 bodies studied was much more varied than one would expect were ancient Danes isolated from other peoples.

The research team also found the remains of a man whose genetic characteristics indicate that he was likely of Arab origin. Because he was buried together with the others, the study -- published earlier this week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology -- concludes that he was treated much the same as locals. Melchior notes that, in a separate study, a colleague of hers found a man of Siberian origin likewise buried together with locals, indicating that outsiders were absorbed by ancient Danish communities.



"It is a naive thought that people were very isolated in the past and that traveling and multiculturalism is a more modern development," Melchior says. "This research refutes that idea. We find a great degree of diversity."

Another feature of Melchior's findings supports her conclusion that ancient Danes and other Iron Age populations traveled much more than assumed until now. None of the 18 sets of remains analyzed appeared to be maternally related and there were no big family graves, meaning that Iron Age Scandinavians likely didn't grow up, live and die in the same village they were born in.

Melchior, who carried out the study as part of her Ph.D. work, hopes to be able to analyze more grave sites in Denmark and elsewhere in Scandinavia to broaden her findings. But, she says, she expects that further analysis would find the same degree of genetic diversity as she found.

"We found a broad array of mitochondrial DNA types just as you do in Eastern Europe," she says. "It suggests that Denmark and Scandinavia are the product of people from all over the world."


http://s11.postimg.org/gjrmzg8hf/flava_viking_horzzzzzz.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/ct1s0bxlf/Snap_2015_01_21_at_14_17_54.jpg

Let alone the Blacks in ancient texts:


Black Vikings.

Below are a few of the many references to Black Vikings in ancient texts.

BACKGROUND - Inscriptions, Sagas, and Annals.

Vikings were not very literate; they made inscriptions in runes (related alphabets) on wood, bone, and stone. Their history is compiled from these and their Sagas. Sagas are stories about ancient Scandinavians and Germanic peoples; and about early Viking voyages and battles in prose form. Annals were originally a means by which monks determined the yearly chronology of feast days. Over time, obituaries were added, along with notable political events.


Saga of Thorfinn Karlsefne - 1007 A.D.

p. 218- 219

There was a man hight Thorvard; he married Freydis, a natural daughter of Erik the Red; he went also with them, and Thorvald the son of Erik, 1 and Thorhall who was called the hunter; he had long been with Erik, and served him as huntsman in summer and steward in winter; he was a large man, and strong, black and like a giant, silent and foul-mouthed in his speech.


Egil's Saga

Chapter 1

Kveldulf and his wife had two sons, the elder was named Thorolf, the younger Grim; these, when they grew up, were both tall men and strong, as was their father. But Thorolf was most comely as well as doughty, favoring his mother's kin; very cheery was he, liberal, impetuous in everything, a good trader, winning the hearts of all men. Grim was swarthy, ill-favoured, like his father both in face and mind.


Egil's Saga

Chapter 55

Egil was large-featured, broad of forehead, with large eyebrows, a nose not long but very thick, lips wide and long, chin exceeding broad, as was all about the jaws; thick-necked was he, and big-shouldered beyond other men, hard-featured, and grim when angry. He was well-made, more than commonly tall, had hair wolf-gray and thick, but became early bald. He was black-eyed and brown-skinned.

[FeederOfRavens]

snip

What sort of drivel is this? Black as an adjective in ancient times meant dark hair and eyes(i.e Swarthy people) not actual Black Africans who were referred to as Blue Men or "'blámenn" by the Norse. It's elementary grade stuff. Vikings were Europeans. I don't see whats the point in posting movie shots and fantasy art as evidence. I hope to god you're trolling.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

What sort of drivel is this? Black as an adjective in ancient times meant dark hair and eyes(i.e Swarthy people) not actual Black Africans who were referred to as Blue Men or "'blámenn" by the Norse. It's elementary grade stuff. Vikings were Europeans. I don't see whats the point in posting movie shots and fantasy art as evidence. I hope to god you're trolling.

This is the final version of your text ? Because you edited it many times...

[Smeagol]

That study has been debunked in another thread. (search "Arab in ancient Denmark"). In reality they found a person with a haplogroup that is found mostly in the Near East, and the Southern Europe. Probably it was a Neolithic inheritance like most haplogroups in Europe. As for the "Siberian" he wasn't actually a Siberian, just an average Dane with a haplogroup tracing back to Siberia like a minority of Scandinavians today as well. Hallo groups tell close to nothing about actual ancestry. Just more multicultural propaganda.

And black Vikings? Are you trolling? Because if not you have no knowledge of the Vikings at all. Feeder of Ravens response is correct. "Black" did not have the same meaning in Viking era Scandinavia as in 21st century America. "Black", or "brown", were just used to refer to swarthy complexions, or hair (As opposed to Harald "Fairhair", or Eric the "Red" for example)

[IMadeYouReadThis]

That study has been debunked ...


... Feeder of Ravens response is correct...

Oh my lord jesus no one knew you would have even said that. You can do better than that.


haplogroup ... haplogroup ... haplogroup ...

Haplogroups are not a good indicator for ethnicity distances at all though... Ask details for someone like the user Magnetic, he can explain it pretty well. Amazing dude.

[Ctwentysevenj]

Caucasoid Indids.

[Longbowman]

eventhough half of the voters think they are not. 12 think they are and 9 think they are not thats 1:1

It's 1.6:1 now and it was 4:3 when you wrote this.

[Longbowman]

Source?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/edit#gid=0

Population
ANE
SEA
Near East
EEA
WHG
Oceanian
Pygmy
SSA


South Indian (n=3)
27.65%
24.13%
27.33%
8.19%
0.00%
7.58%
0.03%
5.08%


Pathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathans_of_Punjab)(n=21)
33.43%
15.45%
45.12%
0.61%
1.33%
1.86%
0.12%
2.08%



'Traditionally Caucasoid components' (WHG, ANE, Near East: obviously ANE is certainly not unique to Caucasoids): South Indian, 52.98%, North Indian: 79.88%.

[Antimage]

Most gypsies are caucasoid, however some gypsies still have veddoid admixture
for example the woman on the right:
http://www.galbeno.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gypsy-hungary-budapest-anti.jpg
another gypsy woman with visible veddo-australoid admixture, she looks like a depigmented indian
http://m.blog.hu/ny/nyilegyenes/postimage/47d9dd7efe9cf5dd879d1ec110bfeb28ea3bc173_142021331 0.jpg
this gypsy couple on the other hand look full caucasoid, the woman looks east-med can almost pass as a greek
https://kuruc.info/galeriaN/2012/horvathkarolyviktoria150118_01.jpg

[Pausanias]

Of course not, the ppl who voted yes is talking seriously?

http://www.lasociedadgeografica.com/blog/uploads/2010/06/origen_gitanos.jpg

something different is that over the centuries, some of them are mixed with Europeans. But originally they are neither European nor Caucasians. They come from India.

[Altaylardan Tunaya]

Gypsies are the original aryans.

[Antimage]

Yes,they do!And so do indians!

only a minority of indians are pure caucasoid.

indians(as other south asians) are a mixture of caucasoid,veddoid-australoid and mongoloid races. Some are full caucasoid some are full veddoid.

If indians were caucasoids then albino indians should resembe white people,but they do not. they look different

http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-27-43.png


India's racial diversity and miscegenation is comparable to that of brazil


"About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition." http://www.oocities.org/pak_history/differences.html

India is less caucasoid than brazil

Don't get fooled by caucasoid bollywood actors,they are always the most caucasoid, the whitest high caste etc.
http://www.apunkachoice.com/upload/actors/actgal4080.jpg
these indian boys look nothing caucasoid
http://i27.tinypic.com/2w3yfqw.jpg

[Mortimer]

"About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition." http://www.oocities.org/pak_history/differences.html


35% is still alot of caucasoids and some regions have more of it then others. interesting that your article says that pakistanis are mostly caucasoid gypsies are certainly closer to pakistanis then to southindians.

[Antimage]

35% is still alot of caucasoids and some regions have more of it then others. interesting that your article says that pakistanis are mostly caucasoid gypsies are certainly closer to pakistanis then to southindians.
gypsies are caucasoid. but sometimes they show veddoid influences also( see the photo above)

[Mortimer]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/edit#gid=0

Population
ANE
SEA
Near East
EEA
WHG
Oceanian
Pygmy
SSA


South Indian (n=3)
27.65%
24.13%
27.33%
8.19%
0.00%
7.58%
0.03%
5.08%


Pathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathans_of_Punjab)(n=21)
33.43%
15.45%
45.12%
0.61%
1.33%
1.86%
0.12%
2.08%



'Traditionally Caucasoid components' (WHG, ANE, Near East: obviously ANE is certainly not unique to Caucasoids): South Indian, 52.98%, North Indian: 79.88%.

The SSA is probably ancient shared genetics from out of africa, i doubt blacks came to southindia. I wouldnt take it too literally with the components. What i mean is that i think that indian genome is "diverse" shares similarities to east asians and europeans mostly but i dont think it is like being half european half asian or half european half oceanian it is still unique. And interesting that southindians are only 7% oceanian (australoid as about the smae amount as ssa) their non-caucasoid seems to be mostly related to mongoloid or asian. Mabye im not right but thats what i think because it makes most sense to me, it doesnt make sense to me that indians are racially all that i just think their genome is unqie and they share similarities to those groups, like all humans share similarities but closer.

[Mortimer]

gypsies are caucasoid. but sometimes they show veddoid influences also( see the photo above)

true. i think some gypsies show weddoid but i dont think the women you posted and the women you posted look more european then avarege gypsies, the most gypsy looking is the guy with the girl you said looks depigmented indian.

[SupaThug]

only a minority of indians are pure caucasoid.

indians(as other south asians) are a mixture of caucasoid,veddoid-australoid and mongoloid races. Some are full caucasoid some are full veddoid.

If indians were caucasoids then albino indians should resembe white people,but they do not. they look different

http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-27-43.png


India's racial diversity and miscegenation is comparable to that of brazil


"About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition." http://www.oocities.org/pak_history/differences.html

India is less caucasoid than brazil

Don't get fooled by caucasoid bollywood actors,they are always the most caucasoid, the whitest high caste etc.
http://www.apunkachoice.com/upload/actors/actgal4080.jpg
these indian boys look nothing caucasoid
http://i27.tinypic.com/2w3yfqw.jpg

Yeah man,you're right!Brazil is definitly more caucasoid than India,the majority of brazilians are more than 60% european!

[Longbowman]

The SSA is probably ancient shared genetics from out of africa, i doubt blacks came to southindia. I wouldnt take it too literally with the components. What i mean is that i think that indian genome is "diverse" shares similarities to east asians and europeans mostly but i dont think it is like being half european half asian or half european half oceanian it is still unique. And interesting that southindians are only 7% oceanian (australoid as about the smae amount as ssa) their non-caucasoid seems to be mostly related to mongoloid or asian. Mabye im not right but thats what i think because it makes most sense to me, it doesnt make sense to me that indians are racially all that i just think their genome is unqie and they share similarities to those groups, like all humans share similarities but closer.

I think it's ancient too but that doesn't mean it's less non-Caucasoid. Ultimately DNA doesn't lie. Genetics are much better than any other information.

Actually, South Indians score more Papuan than any other non-Oceanian group. In fact, the second closest barely scores more than 1%. It is clear there is some ancient kinship there.

[Mortimer]

I think it's ancient too but that doesn't mean it's less non-Caucasoid. Ultimately DNA doesn't lie. Genetics are much better than any other information.

Actually, South Indians score more Papuan than any other non-Oceanian group. In fact, the second closest barely scores more than 1%. It is clear there is some ancient kinship there.

if we split our genome between pigs and mice how much would we score? im sure some, doesnt mean that we are that, it means we share some similarities from ancient evolution. thats what i mean, i dont think it is the same as being 5% SSA

[Longbowman]

if we split our genome between pigs and mice how much would we score? im sure some, doesnt mean that we are that, it means we share some similarities from ancient evolution. thats what i mean, i dont think it is the same as being 5% SSA

Well, we split off from pigs earlier than mice, so 100% mice.

I see what you're saying but it's not relevant to the point, which is that 5% is 100% non-Caucasoid.

[Mortimer]

Well, we split off from pigs earlier than mice, so 100% mice.

I see what you're saying but it's not relevant to the point, which is that 5% is 100% non-Caucasoid.

if you see what im saying how can you its irrelevant. there is ancient kinship between groups indians are more diverse genetically they share similartieis more with europeans or more with east asians etc. i dont think it is the same as being triracial (like a brasilian). thats what i mean, and there is also craniofacial morphology and taxonomy not only genetics. you sound like a genetics nerd. who puts too much importance into numbers of spreadsheets. northindians are mostly caucasoid and indid is caucasoid, gypsies are caucasoid. not all indians are caucasoid though.

[Longbowman]

if you see what im saying how can you its irrelevant. there is ancient kinship between groups indians are more diverse genetically they share similartieis more with europeans or more with east asians etc. i dont think it is the same as being triracial (like a brasilian). thats what i mean, and there is also craniofacial morphology and taxonomy not only genetics. you sound like a genetics nerd. who puts too much importance into numbers of spreadsheets. northindians are mostly caucasoid and indid is caucasoid, gypsies are caucasoid. not all indians are caucasoid though.

If I'm a genetics nerd, you're all phenotype nerds, and at least genetics and epidemiology are recognised and relevant scientific fields, whereas phenotype science falls into 'I think he looks a bit French.' Genetics matter. 'Numbers on a spreadsheet' are more important than little vanity projects like classification threads, fun though they might be, because, and not to play no true Scotsman, the true anthropology enthusiast cares about what really happened in history, what we're really made of, not 'what do I look like lol.' I already voted Caucasoid anyway.

Race is a fluid concept, you can define it as you like.

[Smeagol]

if we split our genome between pigs and mice how much would we score? im sure some, doesnt mean that we are that, it means we share some similarities from ancient evolution. thats what i mean, i dont think it is the same as being 5% SSA

True. I think South Indians don't have any actual SSA, or Papuan ancestry, since there was never any significant amount of blacks, or Papuans in South India.

[dude]

I do know. But here in Kansas when the Gypsies come by with the caravan setting up temporary merchandise sales, they get confused by the local people for Mexican Mestizos.

[Longbowman]

True. I think South Indians don't have any actual SSA, or Papuan ancestry, since there was never any significant amount of blacks, or Papuans in South India.

At the very least though their genetics, be they ancient, contain a segment more similar to the more ancient migrations from Africa and to Oceania and unrelated to Caucasians or even other Eurasians which is the point. We're talking about over 1/8 of their genome here, to boot.

[Mortimer]

If I'm a genetics nerd, you're all phenotype nerds, and at least genetics and epidemiology are recognised and relevant scientific fields, whereas phenotype science falls into 'I think he looks a bit French.' Genetics matter. 'Numbers on a spreadsheet' are more important than little vanity projects like classification threads, fun though they might be, because, and not to play no true Scotsman, the true anthropology enthusiast cares about what really happened in history, what we're really made of, not 'what do I look like lol.' I already voted Caucasoid anyway.

Race is a fluid concept, you can define it as you like.

sorry bro for calling you a nerd, you are a good guy but racial taxonomy is also recognised still for example in 3D face modelling and recognition technology and in forensic i think it is still important.

[Ades]

Yeah man,you're right!Brazil is definitly more caucasoid than India,the majority of brazilians are more than 60% european!

That seems to be true.

http://i49.tinypic.com/bydlu.png


Of course a considerable number of Brazilians are less than 60% European though.

[Smeagol]

At the very least though their genetics, be they ancient, contain a segment more similar to the more ancient migrations from Africa and to Oceania and unrelated to Caucasians or even other Eurasians which is the point. We're talking about over 1/8 of their genome here, to boot.

They might be non-Caucasoid, but I doubt South Indians have real SSA ancestry. Keep in mind, South Indian is a very broad category. I just looked at some results of Tamils from Dodecad, and they score 0% SSA. I know it maybe isn't as accurate as Eurogenes, but most of the SSA percentages for other ethnic groups was basically the same as what they get from Eurogenes.

[Longbowman]

They might be non-Caucasoid, but I doubt South Indians have real SSA ancestry. Keep in mind, South Indian is a very broad category. I just looked at some results of Tamils from Dodecad, and they score 0% SSA. I know it maybe isn't as accurate as Eurogenes, but most of the SSA percentages for other ethnic groups was basically the same as what they get from Eurogenes.

I agree it's ancient but that's not the point of the thread.

[Longbowman]

sorry bro for calling you a nerd, you are a good guy but racial taxonomy is also recognised still for example in 3D face modelling and recognition technology and in forensic i think it is still important.

It's alright mate :)

[Mortimer]

At the very least though their genetics, be they ancient, contain a segment more similar to the more ancient migrations from Africa and to Oceania and unrelated to Caucasians or even other Eurasians which is the point. We're talking about over 1/8 of their genome here, to boot.

true but you cant treat it as if they are 1/16 black (5%) and 1/16 papuan i also doubt they are 8% east asian etc. their most dominant non-caucasoid is sea which is ancient southeast asian. i agree with what you said, it is unrelated to caucasians but it could also mean they split earlier from proper caucasians like near east and europe etc. it is interesting but i wouldnt treat it racially as if they are part papuan and part black i would see it as what it is what you just said related to ancient migrations out of africa and to oceania.

[Longbowman]

true but you cant treat it as if they are 1/16 black (5%) and 1/16 papuan i also doubt they are 8% east asian etc. their most dominant non-caucasoid is sea which is ancient southeast asian. i agree with what you said, it is unrelated to caucasians but it could also mean they split earlier from proper caucasians like near east and europe etc. it is interesting but i wouldnt treat it racially as if they are part papuan and part black i would see it as what it is what you just said related to ancient migrations out of africa and to oceania.

They are 1/8 non-Caucasian with SSA and Papuan type genetics, and an additional 3/8 East and Southeast Asian or Asian-like.

[Leto]

Do you really think that Vikings were pure? What a juvenile point of view.
The article is pure libtard nonsense. "Denmark and Scandinavia are the product of people from all over the world". Yeah, and nig-nogs, Arabs and other diverse groups are indigenous to Denmark.:picard1:

[IMadeYouReadThis]

I do know. But here in Kansas when the Gypsies come by with the caravan setting up temporary merchandise sales, they get confused by the local people for Mexican Mestizos.

How dare they! Most of those Kansas citizens must have the same kind of mind set of this guy in the following video. Gypses look nothing like Indio-mestizos. No offense but they probably get confused easily. Same can look like certain castizos though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z3zoe0ZTM0&index=22&list=PLbNQdeyD8mF6fG80rFjd_Lk17HFzuRnXO

[Leto]

these indian boys look nothing caucasoid
http://i27.tinypic.com/2w3yfqw.jpg
They are not the average Indians either.

[Ades]

I voted "no".

As Longbowman explained, Indians have genetic components that are foreign to Europeans and their Near Eastern neighbours. It doesn't matter if they are ancient or not, it's what makes them what they are today. I belive they should be treated as a racial catogory of their own, as a consequence.

Since Gypsies have a considerable amount of Indian ancestry, I see them as a different racial group, the same way I would see someone part Indian, part European/Mid Eastern.

[Leto]

I do know. But here in Kansas when the Gypsies come by with the caravan setting up temporary merchandise sales, they get confused by the local people for Mexican Mestizos.
Are there unassimilated Gypsies in the US?

[LightHouse89]

Do you really think that Vikings were pure? What a juvenile point of view.

http://s11.postimg.org/6863fb20j/herger_joyous_ahmed_ibn_fahdlan_large_msg_11825.jp g
http://s1.postimg.org/p2kfp7epr/MV5_BNTM1_MDQ0_Nz_A0_M15_BMl5_Ban_Bn_Xk_Ft_ZTcw_MT E1_NTY0_NQ.jpg




http://s11.postimg.org/gjrmzg8hf/flava_viking_horzzzzzz.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/ct1s0bxlf/Snap_2015_01_21_at_14_17_54.jpg

Let alone the Blacks in ancient texts:

Retarded troll spotted.

The Northern Races are the most genetically pure race on earth. Spread these unscientific left wing lies elsewhere, heathen!

The Northern Race are god's chosen Shepard race to guide barbaric brown heathens like you out of the dark ages :thumbs up

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Retarded troll spotted.

The Northern Races are the most genetically pure race on earth. Spread these unscientific left wing lies elsewhere, heathen!

The Northern Race are god's chosen Shepard race to guide barbaric brown heathens like you out of the dark ages :thumbs up

Such lunacy...

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Confused-Jacksonville-Jaguars-fan-in-stands.gif

[Antimage]

They are not the average Indians either.

the brazilian boy said that india is a caucasoid country, i just tried to explain that he's wrong!

[Leto]

Caucasoid, but with some non-caucasoid admixture.

[Leto]

Well, even if they are technically caucasoid (predominantly) and European-born, they are still not European. Most Gypsies are too swarthy for Europe and have foreign faces. They are also one of the most notorious and troublesome groups.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

the brazilian boy said that india is a caucasoid country, i just tried to explain that he's wrong!

Your intention seems noble, but next time you could choose a less nitpicked pic.


Caucasoid, but with some non-caucasoid admixture.

Kinda like Russian's 4% non-caucasoid Northeast Asian...
http://s24.postimg.org/raxn41q0l/populations_Russians_575.png

[Leto]

Kinda like Russian's 4% non-caucasoid Northeast Asian...
Don't compare Russians with Gypsies.

[Longbowman]

Don't compare Russians with Gypsies.



-
Capital City
Population
Language[s]
Nuclear power?
Known for fortune telling?
% of Charlie Chaplin's ancestry:


Russia
Moscow
147 million
Russian; other minority languages
Yes
No
0%


Gypsies
None
12 million
Romani, others
No
Yes
6.25%



What now, punk?

[Not a Cop]

-
Capital City
Population
Language[s]
Nuclear power?
Known for fortune telling?
% of Charlie Chaplin's ancestry:


Russia
Moscow
147 million
Russian; other minority languages
Yes
No
0%


Gypsies
None
12 million
Romani, others
No
Yes
6.25%



What now, punk?

>Gypsies
>Known for telling truth

:loco:

[Jana]

What does social standing has to do with ''race''? Caucasoid doesn't equals European anyway, but yeah they have some non-Caucasoid genes. Still predominately Caucasoid, and anyone who claims opposite disregards what that concept means. In the end, all those racial cathegories can change over time.

[Longbowman]

>Gypsies
>Known for telling truth

:loco:

Fortune telling =/= truth telling.

[Leto]

-
Capital City
Population
Language[s]
Nuclear power?
Known for fortune telling?
% of Charlie Chaplin's ancestry:


Russia
Moscow
147 million
Russian; other minority languages
Yes
No
0%


Gypsies
None
12 million
Romani, others
No
Yes
6.25%



What now, punk?
LOL.:D

[dude]

How dare they! Most of those Kansas citizens must have the same kind of mind set of this guy in the following video. Gypses look nothing like Indio-mestizos. No offense but they probably get confused easily. Same can look like certain castizos though.

Not really. Kansas has still not gotten the "culture" clash from large Indo-mestizo populations. They simply see that they are brown skinned and don't look Arab. AS far as the video goes, the white guy does have a point. Just because someone is Indo-mestizo it does not entitle them to this country. To being with, if they were native to this land, they would already be here (Just like native Americans) but they are also migrating just like Europeans did. So what's the difference? What the white guys says is that you should follow the existing rules that are already established in this country. The Mexicans are the ones pulling out the race card.

[dude]

Are there unassimilated Gypsies in the US?
I am sure there might be some, but the thing is that you never hear about the assimilated people. It is always the ones who refuse to assimilate that cause problems.

Oops, I misread the question. Yes, there are small populations of unassimilated gypsies.

[Mortimer]

They are 1/8 non-Caucasian with SSA and Papuan type genetics, and an additional 3/8 East and Southeast Asian or Asian-like.

Im not sure about southindians but they still could be caucasian, because caucasian is a race of human being just like i said we would be part mice if we divided our genome between pigs and mice but we arent. And you agreed to that, they are not 5% SSA and East Asian etc. it is either noise or shared similaritiy like we share 99% similarity with chimpanzees but you would not classify as such. Also for northindians its much less and gypsies are from northwest india which is traditionally seen as caucasian or indo-aryan. indid, indo-afghan, nordindid, indobrachid, gracilindid etc. those are mediterannid caucasoid people. i dont know why you said that about southindians even when gypsies are not southindians.

[Mortimer]

I voted "no".

As Longbowman explained, Indians have genetic components that are foreign to Europeans and their Near Eastern neighbours. It doesn't matter if they are ancient or not, it's what makes them what they are today. I belive they should be treated as a racial catogory of their own, as a consequence.

Since Gypsies have a considerable amount of Indian ancestry, I see them as a different racial group, the same way I would see someone part Indian, part European/Mid Eastern.

he said it for southindians, northindians have much less of it and it is not just "ancient" it is a similarity in my opinion like we are 99% similar to chimpanzees but no one would classify as as such, it is irrelevant for race classification, northindians are caucasians and gypsies are from northwest india the most caucasoid part and they were always seen as caucasian im sure if you ask a scientist he would say gypsies are caucasian.

[StonyArabia]

Yes they are Caucasoids, some even look White:)

[Mortimer]

Yes they are Caucasoids, some even look White:)

when i was in hospital, they had a weight scale and that scale had a profile like race, gender, birth date etc. and i was "caucasian" but not self-identified i even said im not and that im asian, and they said i should ignore it and it is not important and i continued to be "caucasian"

[Mark]

I voted 'yes'.

[just]

No. But I count Irish Travellers as a White.

[StonyArabia]

when i was in hospital, they had a weight scale and that scale had a profile like race, gender, birth date etc. and i was "caucasian" but not self-identified i even said im not and that im asian, and they said i should ignore it and it is not important and i continued to be "caucasian"

I have a friend who is 1/4 Romanian Gypsy and 3/4 British Isles she looks White to me, and I see her as as White. Hazel eyes, light brown hair, very fair skin, typical Caucasoid eyes and face. Her grandmother was from Romania on her maternal side but she was not ethnic Romanian. She actually recently shared this with us in class, I would and most people never suspect that. If 1/4 Gypsies look White, this means their mostly of Caucasoid origins, even if they have a dark pigmentation.

[Mortimer]

I have a friend who is 1/4 Romanian Gypsy and 3/4 British Isles she looks White to me, and I see her as as White. Hazel eyes, light brown hair, very fair skin, typical Caucasoid eyes and face. Her grandmother was from Romania on her maternal side but she was not ethnic Romanian. She actually recently shared this with us in class, I would and most people never suspect that. If 1/4 Gypsies look White, this means their mostly of Caucasoid origins, even if they have a dark pigmentation.

in population studies they were always considered caucasoid. i dont know if that changed with modern genetics, but i doubt it, gypsies cluster even closer to europe then to india and their fst distance is closer to europeans then to gujuratis etc. but northindians are caucasoid too despite the genetics etc. but some are really close to caucasians, india is diverse, northwestindia counts as caucasian. i think if we ask a scientist he would most likely count gypsies ethnic group as dark pigmented caucasians. in a encyclopedia entry i saw "gypsies are a dark skinned caucasoid ethnic group" i dont know who wrote that or how old it is though.

[StonyArabia]

in population studies they were always considered caucasoid. i dont know if that changed with modern genetics, but i doubt it, gypsies cluster even closer to europe then to india and their fst distance is closer to europeans then to gujuratis etc. but northindians are caucasoid too despite the genetics etc. but some are really close to caucasians, india is diverse, northwestindia counts as caucasian. i think if we ask a scientist he would most likely count gypsies ethnic group as dark pigmented caucasians. in a encyclopedia entry i saw "gypsies are a dark skinned caucasoid ethnic group" i dont know who wrote that or how old it is though.

North Indians are Caucasoid yes,and yes Gypsies will be closer to Europeans, because they have varying degrees of European admixture depending on the region and where they have mixed.

[Longbowman]

Im not sure about southindians but they still could be caucasian, because caucasian is a race of human being just like i said we would be part mice if we divided our genome between pigs and mice but we arent. And you agreed to that, they are not 5% SSA and East Asian etc. it is either noise or shared similaritiy like we share 99% similarity with chimpanzees but you would not classify as such. Also for northindians its much less and gypsies are from northwest india which is traditionally seen as caucasian or indo-aryan. indid, indo-afghan, nordindid, indobrachid, gracilindid etc. those are mediterannid caucasoid people. i dont know why you said that about southindians even when gypsies are not southindians.

Race is fluid. You can define Caucasian as you like. I would say this: the US government considered even high-caste Northern Indians to not be Caucasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind) back when these sort of classifications were relevant. They based this decision on the evidence from leading scientists at the time.

Again, your mice/pig/chimp thing is ignorant, you don't understand population genetics. I am simply pointing out that in North Indians about 20-25% of the DNA is from sources that are extremely uncommon amongst other Caucasoid populations. However, North Africans also score about 20-25% 'non-Caucasian' although in their case it's mostly SSA and for that reason I voted 'yes.' Furthermore, Gypsies are admixed with various Caucasian populations anyway, both in the Middle East and Europe. I'm simply pointing out a genetic reality. I wouldn't consider South Asians to be Caucasian.

[Mortimer]

Race is fluid. You can define Caucasian as you like. I would say this: the US government considered even high-caste Northern Indians to not be Caucasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind) back when these sort of classifications were relevant. They based this decision on the evidence from leading scientists at the time.

Again, your mice/pig/chimp thing is ignorant, you don't understand population genetics. I am simply pointing out that in North Indians about 20-25% of the DNA is from sources that are extremely uncommon amongst other Caucasoid populations. However, North Africans also score about 20-25% 'non-Caucasian' although in their case it's mostly SSA and for that reason I voted 'yes.' Furthermore, Gypsies are admixed with various Caucasian populations anyway, both in the Middle East and Europe. I'm simply pointing out a genetic reality. I wouldn't consider South Asians to be Caucasian.

You are uninformed because the supreme court did consider him caucasian and the scientists considered him caucasian but the supreme court argued that for the lay man he is not white and therefore he cant be granted citizenship. they said he is caucasian but not white. the scientists didnt said he is not caucasian. so you say that modern population genetics doesnt consider northindians to be caucasian? can you prove that with a source? if you understand population genetics so much better then me. my opinion is we shouldnt base it on the genome alone, because on 23andme when there were 3 populations european, asian and african, a australian aboriginal scored 80% asian 10% african and 10% european, would you therefore classify him as mongoloid? no and the average indian scored 80-90% european depends on the individual, i scored 99.99% european with 0.1% east asian. different methods bring different results, on eurogenes southindians have SSA and oceanian on many other like genographic ancestry project they had over 50% southeastasian and east asian combined which means mongoloid, from genetic standpoint alone they might be not caucasian or extreme outliers but their skull and features are caucasian not of all but the indid subrace is caucasian and anthropology still considers that in harappa civilisation meditteranean, alpine, proto-australoid and mongoloid skulls were found so if no indian is caucasian they wouldnt have alpine and meditteranean skulls found, right? we cant see it from a genetic standpoint alone or that aboriginal would be mongoloid with 20% admixture. actually i think only the 10% european might be real admixture from british but the SSA is from similartiy of early out of africa migration. You say im ignorant but i think you are ignorant, and i would be interested to see your scientific source which claims that there are no caucasians in southasia.

[Longbowman]

You are uninformed because the supreme court did consider him caucasian and the scientists considered him caucasian but the supreme court argued that for the lay man he is not white and therefore he cant be granted citizenship. they said he is caucasian but not white. the scientists didnt said he is not caucasian. so you say that modern population genetics doesnt consider northindians to be caucasian? can you prove that with a source? if you understand population genetics so much better then me. my opinion is we shouldnt base it on the genome alone, because on 23andme when there were 3 populations european, asian and african, a australian aboriginal scored 80% asian 10% african and 10% european, would you therefore classify him as mongoloid? no and the average indian scored 80-90% european depends on the individual, i scored 99.99% european with 0.1% east asian. different methods bring different results, on eurogenes southindians have SSA and oceanian on many other like genographic ancestry project they had over 50% southeastasian and east asian combined which means mongoloid, from genetic standpoint alone they might be not caucasian or extreme outliers but their skull and features are caucasian not of all but the indid subrace is caucasian and anthropology still considers that in harappa civilisation meditteranean, alpine, proto-australoid and mongoloid skulls were found so if no indian is caucasian they wouldnt have alpine and meditteranean skulls found, right? we cant see it from a genetic standpoint alone or that aboriginal would be mongoloid with 20% admixture. actually i think only the 10% european might be real admixture from british but the SSA is from similartiy of early out of africa migration. You say im ignorant but i think you are ignorant, and i would be interested to see your scientific source which claims that there are no caucasians in southasia.

1) No, that's not what the court said
2) Old-school 23andme results count for nothing. Global K3 = weak. Yes, I would guess 10% European in an Australoid is actually European, so let's focus on them scoring 7/8 EEA and 1/8 SSA on this hypothetical K3. I would say predictable result. Yes, of course it probably doesn't mean SSA. But for God's sake Brown Bear, could you please read what I said? You're arguing against points I'm not making. The Australoid results would look most similar to EEA with some SSA, seems legit.
3) You are ignorant on the subject matter and I have no sources because 'Caucasian' is an arbitrary and fairly unscientific designation, you can define it as you like. If, however, by 'Caucasian' we mean 'genetically similar to MENA and European people' then South Indians are not really Caucasian. Gypsies and Northwest Indians would be though. Besides, you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't say 'there are no Caucasians in south Asia.'

[Mortimer]

1) No, that's not what the court said
2) Old-school 23andme results count for nothing. Global K3 = weak. Yes, I would guess 10% European in an Australoid is actually European, so let's focus on them scoring 7/8 EEA and 1/8 SSA on this hypothetical K3. I would say predictable result. Yes, of course it probably doesn't mean SSA. But for God's sake Brown Bear, could you please read what I said? You're arguing against points I'm not making. The Australoid results would look most similar to EEA with some SSA, seems legit.
3) You are ignorant on the subject matter and I have no sources because 'Caucasian' is an arbitrary and fairly unscientific designation, you can define it as you like. If, however, by 'Caucasian' we mean 'genetically similar to MENA and European people' then South Indians are not really Caucasian. Gypsies and Northwest Indians would be though. Besides, you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't say 'there are no Caucasians in south Asia.'

wait ok im sorry bro you know you are a good guy i dont want to offend you, here is what i found

The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005), divides the population of the subcontinent into four morphological types— Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoids, and Negritos (largely in the Andaman Islands) and four linguistic groups— Indo–European, Dravidian, Tibeto–Burman and Austro–Asiatic.[35] The molecular anthropology studies use three different type of markers: Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation which is maternally inherited and highly polymorphic, Y Chromosome variation which involves uniparental transmission along the male lines, and Autosomal DNA variation.[36]:04

so the caucasian still is valid in india, in india there are 5 morphological types or races and that was what the supreme court said im sure because it was on storrmfront that not all caucasians are white and it was written differently a yearw ago then now, the supreme court said despite him being considered caucasian by anthropologists it is debatable division of humankind and he would not be considered white by the layman

[jatt]

Longbowman. Do u consider urself caucasoid n on what pheno typical basis

[Longbowman]

wait ok im sorry bro you know you are a good guy i dont want to offend you, here is what i found

The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005), divides the population of the subcontinent into four morphological types— Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoids, and Negritos (largely in the Andaman Islands) and four linguistic groups— Indo–European, Dravidian, Tibeto–Burman and Austro–Asiatic.[35] The molecular anthropology studies use three different type of markers: Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation which is maternally inherited and highly polymorphic, Y Chromosome variation which involves uniparental transmission along the male lines, and Autosomal DNA variation.[36]:04

so the caucasian still is valid in india, in india there are 5 morphological types or races and that was what the supreme court said im sure because it was on storrmfront that not all caucasians are white and it was written differently a yearw ago then now, the supreme court said despite him being considered caucasian by anthropologists it is debatable division of humankind and he would not be considered white by the layman

Yes but if all Indians are only part-Caucasoid then they're also part non-Caucasoid which is the point.

The Supreme Court actually said that the original 'Aryan' blood had been mixed into the 'dark-skinned Dravidian' race and thus he 'wasn't Caucasian in the normal sense of the word.'

[Longbowman]

Longbowman. Do u consider urself caucasoid n on what pheno typical basis

I don't consider myself 'Caucasoid' at all. My phenotype is Atlantid/Atlanto-Med but I wouldn't take that to the bank, if you know what I mean, it's just vanity.

Racially I'm 2/3 Neolithic/Near Eastern, 1/5 Mesolithic European/Western Hunter Gatherer, 1/11 Indo-European/Ancient North Eurasian with small amounts of East Asian and SSA.

If 'Caucasoid' means 'Caucasian,' and 'Caucasian' means 'European and MENA' then of course all my known ancestry is from those regions.

[jatt]

Good bro u are confident and not hypocrite at all.

[Mortimer]

Yes but if all Indians are only part-Caucasoid then they're also part non-Caucasoid which is the point.

The Supreme Court actually said that the original 'Aryan' blood had been mixed into the 'dark-skinned Dravidian' race and thus he 'wasn't Caucasian in the normal sense of the word.'

genetically they show affinities both to caucasoids and non-caucasoids thats better term then they "are part SSA, papuan east asian etc." i think it is a affinity they show both to western and eastern euro asian populations, but from morphology their population can be divided into different skull types and skull also ws admixture like half neanderthal half human was found and his skeleton showed the mixture but in india there are alpine and mediteranaean skulls proper, i repeat myself that from genetic standpöoint alone it is not conclusive, and other measures need also to be taken into account, and many indians show closer affinities to westerneuroasians then to eastern euroasians but also many show closer affinities to eastern euroasians so it is a melting pot. also what the supreme court said was probably based on old school racism that aryans were fair skinned haired race like hitler believed and was common at the time, and they did said he was part dravidian but they also said what i said that he would not be considered white by the layman because he did anthropologists papers to back him up that he is caucasoid.

[Longbowman]

genetically they show affinities both to caucasoids and non-caucasoids thats better term then they "are part SSA, papuan east asian etc." i think it is a affinity they show both to western and eastern euro asian populations, but from morphology their population can be divided into different skull types and skull also ws admixture like half neanderthal half human was found and his skeleton showed the mixture but in india there are alpine and mediteranaean skulls proper, i repeat myself that from genetic standpöoint alone it is not conclusive, and other measures need also to be taken into account, and many indians show closer affinities to westerneuroasians then to eastern euroasians but also many show closer affinities to eastern euroasians so it is a melting pot. also what the supreme court said was probably based on old school racism that aryans were fair skinned haired race like hitler believed and was common at the time, and they did said he was part dravidian but they also said what i said that he would not be considered white by the layman because he did anthropologists papers to back him up that he is caucasoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

Genetics mean more than phenotype.

[Trogdor]

Yes, I would say that they are caucasian. I'm not sure what else they could be. I think Indians count as caucasian too.

[Mortimer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

Genetics mean more than phenotype.

a year ago it was written a bit differently, it said "he would not be considered white by the layman" now it says "he is not caucasian in the common sense as a white man" which is the same but differently written. it was about whether he is white in the usa, not only about caucasoid and he is obviously not white, there was one japanese who wanted to be white to get citizenship because he has white skin but lost the case. i told my opinion about genetics we discussed it i think you see it too narrow with the numbers and percent on spreeadsheet s etc. i think both is importnant

[IMadeYouReadThis]

... What the white guys says is that you should follow the existing rules that are already established in this country. ...

You sound like a proud American, bro. A real one; much respect. Ask to the pilgrims!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJGzAKxxyU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N3FWCf2YQ4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kf2xWuzy0M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYvKCD2FSAk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kk8voPmTX0

[Leto]

when i was in hospital, they had a weight scale and that scale had a profile like race, gender, birth date etc. and i was "caucasian" but not self-identified i even said im not and that im asian, and they said i should ignore it and it is not important and i continued to be "caucasian"
Do they use this word in Austria? "Kaukasisch" means "from or related to the Caucasus" in German, not "white'' or "caucasoid".
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/kaukasisch

[Longbowman]

Do they use this word in Austria? "Kaukasisch" means "from or related to the Caucasus" in German, not "white'' or "caucasoid".
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/kaukasisch

Indeed my German-speaking brueder, it was a German scientist who coined the term Caucasian, or as he wrote it, Kaukasisch, as he viewed the Georgian people as the 'most beautiful and fairest example of [the Caucasian] race.' Yup, white folk are named after Georgians. No word of lie.

[Mortimer]

Do they use this word in Austria? "Kaukasisch" means "from or related to the Caucasus" in German, not "white'' or "caucasoid".
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/kaukasisch

usually they dont use it in everyday life, but in that hospital they used it.

[AverageKorhonen]

Yes, as Caucasoid ofc.