classify gypsies who were beaten by police

[Mortimer]

the language sounds slavic maybe macedonian or bulgarian im not sure, i understand a bit the guy says he was mistreated by police slapped and beaten etc. do they look very indian?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZt8zkuSWw

[Shah-Jehan]

They blur him out

[Mortimer]

They blur him out

whats with all the others, please watch the video

[Shah-Jehan]

whats with all the others, please watch the video

they have a weird look, like Indo-brachid mixed with something else.

[gum_dum]

wow they look very south asian/indid types. Very little of anything else in them. Long live gypsy and south asian brotherhood.

[gum_dum]

Its amazing such a look exist among them, on HAP there is 1-2 gypsy sample. After so much mixing they still have 22% South Indian component. Which is similar to Pak pashtuns and Kalash but not look wise. I think this proves phenotype is result of certain type of ancestors in recent past. And we know gypsy are originally of Rajasthani tribal background who have 55-60% south indian component and very little outside ancestry. Thats why such look are still common among euro gypsy.

[Mortimer]

Its amazing such a look exist among them, on HAP there is 1-2 gypsy sample. After so much mixing they still have 22% South Indian component. Which is similar to Pak pashtuns and Kalash but not look wise. I think this proves phenotype is result of certain type of ancestors in recent past. And we know gypsy are originally of Rajasthani tribal background who have 55-60% south indian component and very little outside ancestry. Thats why such look are still common among euro gypsy.

they are not rajasthani tribals dude. they are punjabis, and they didnt mixed so much at all. i know you guys call all the nomads in southasia gypsies, but they arent, and many gypsies tribes are unrelated only that they are all indian etc. but otherwise they are not the same ethno. there are lots of gypsies tribes in india, you call them gypsies because of their untouchable status and half nomadic lifestyle, you probably got that stereotype from european colonists who told you who gypsies are, i doubt before you knew that, because gypsy is a word which orginated in europe with the roma because europeans thought roma are e-gyptians and called them gypsies etc. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/

[Mortimer]

Its amazing such a look exist among them, on HAP there is 1-2 gypsy sample. After so much mixing they still have 22% South Indian component. Which is similar to Pak pashtuns and Kalash but not look wise. I think this proves phenotype is result of certain type of ancestors in recent past. And we know gypsy are originally of Rajasthani tribal background who have 55-60% south indian component and very little outside ancestry. Thats why such look are still common among euro gypsy.

and for the record "it doesnt just exist among them" it is the norm, or almost all look like that if they are not mixed like half or quarter gypsy

[gum_dum]

they are not rajasthani tribals dude. they are punjabis, and they didnt mixed so much at all. i know you guys call all the nomads in southasia gypsies, but they arent, and many gypsies tribes are unrelated only that they are all indian etc. but otherwise they are not the same ethno. there are lots of gypsies tribes in india, you call them gypsies because of their untouchable status and half nomadic lifestyle, you probably got that stereotype from european colonists who told you who gypsies are, i doubt before you knew that, because gypsy is a word which orginated in europe with the roma because europeans thought roma are e-gyptians and called them gypsies etc. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/

I was going by this update on gypsy genetics which point their origin towards tribal group.

''When the researchers overlaid the closest matches onto a genetic map of India, the highest density was in areas dominated by India's "doma", "scheduled tribes and castes" – the low caste dalits or untouchables who suffer widespread and generational discrimination and usually do society's dirtiest jobs.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9719058/European-Roma-descended-from-Indian-untouchables-genetic-study-shows.html

And yes even in punjab these groups exist.

[Mortimer]

I was going by this update on gypsy genetics which point their origin towards tribal group.

''When the researchers overlaid the closest matches onto a genetic map of India, the highest density was in areas dominated by India's "doma", "scheduled tribes and castes" – the low caste dalits or untouchables who suffer widespread and generational discrimination and usually do society's dirtiest jobs.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9719058/European-Roma-descended-from-Indian-untouchables-genetic-study-shows.html

And yes even in punjab these groups exist.

yes but doma are not banjara from rajasthan they are untouchables from punjab, and that was by ydna marker, further autosomal studies showed close relationship with meghawal caste (indo-european untouchables) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghwal and kashmiri pandits.

[Mortimer]

also gypsies are indo-european not tribal group, maybe tribal group but still indo-european, coon knew that too what is revealed by genetics he said they are pariahs from northwestern india who are meditteranid, he studied gypsy population characteristics as a whole http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI18.htm

[gum_dum]

yes but doma are not banjara from rajasthan they are untouchables from punjab, and that was by ydna marker, further autosomal studies showed close relationship with meghawal caste (indo-european untouchables) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghwal and kashmiri pandits.

Yes it make sense, i though doma was rajasthani. Because in punjab we call them chuhras.

''Doms also exist in Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan in small numbers as well as the Chitral, Swat, Kohistan and Ladakh regions of Pakistan and India. In Gilgit, Dom are coupled with the Kameen and Mons, who are also musicians, blacksmith and do similar menial jobs.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom_people

[Mortimer]

Yes it make sense, i though doma was rajasthani. Because in punjab we call them chuhras.

''Doms also exist in Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan in small numbers as well as the Chitral, Swat, Kohistan and Ladakh regions of Pakistan and India. In Gilgit, Dom are coupled with the Kameen and Mons, who are also musicians, blacksmith and do similar menial jobs.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom_people

i think doma is a umbrella term, they exist all over india in various forms it means like untouchable they exist also in pakistan but they are not all the same some can be indo-european

[gum_dum]

i think doma is a umbrella term, they exist all over india in various forms it means like untouchable they exist also in pakistan but they are not all the same some can be indo-european

99% of Pakistanis speak indo-european language, it has little to do with tribal. In India they call ethnic groups like banjara tribals, thats why i used this word. In Pakistan this word is used for FATA pashtuns and not anyother group of people like doms. Maybe it means different thing depending on country.

[lameduck]

dom is another name for dalits/low caste people in some regions.

[Mortimer]

99% of Pakistanis speak indo-european language, it has little to do with tribal. In India they call ethnic groups like banjara tribals, thats why i used this word. In Pakistan this word is used for FATA pashtuns and not anyother group of people like doms.

yes but "sheduled tribes and castes" is a broad term. thats lots of castes and tribes etc. and you meant probably the banjara from rajasthan but gypsies seem not to be from rajasthan, and there are other "gypsy" tribes in india. and untouchable is not the same as a gypsy tribal, because untouchables are not nomadic often etc. or depends on the caste etc. while gypsy tribes are called people who are nomadic like banjara, there are various differences.

[Mortimer]

you also said that they are heavily southindian like 60% and mixed very much etc. which is not the case really

[gum_dum]

you also said that they are heavily southindian like 60% and mixed very much etc. which is not the case really

Yes it is, doms/dalits/chuhras of punjab are 55-60%+ south indian. Native high caste punjabis seem to be between 28-35% south indian depending on tribe etc We have yet to get results of many different tribes/castes that exist in Pak punjab.

[Mortimer]

Yes it is, doms/dalits/chuhras of punjab are 55-60%+ south indian. Native high caste punjabis seem to be between 28-35% south indian depending on tribe etc We have yet to get results of many different tribes/castes that exist in Pak punjab.

this article says that gypsies are not mixed much http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/ what you say means they are only half indian. but maybe its true. i dont know. they definitely look as if they pass in india.

[gum_dum]

this article says that gypsies are not mixed much http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/ what you say means they are only half indian. but maybe its true. i dont know. they definitely look as if they pass in india.

Ofcourse they pass in India, at least the ones in video you posted look South Asians from every angle. But they have mixed thats why their automosal results/componetson HAP are very different from south asians. A part from one native component of south asia, rest clearly suggest heavy mixing with europeans.

[Mortimer]

Ofcourse they pass in India, at least the ones in video you posted look South Asians from every angle. But they have mixed thats why their automosal results/componetson HAP are very different from south asians. A part from one native component of south asia, rest clearly suggest heavy mixing with europeans.

i think its part of a agenda to make gypsies less indian. they must be at least 80% indian to me from looks many look hundred percent even but they should be only 40% (and thats the darkest gypsies who are dark as tamils) the lighter ones are 10% southasian (in england etc.) that sounds weird

[Mortimer]

this guy razib khan was so happy when the article came out that gypsies are 70% non-southasian (and thats the darkest), indians look down on gypsies as untouchables and want them to be not indian, i heard indians saying that im only 1% indian and that im not brown

[gum_dum]

i think its part of a agenda to make gypsies less indian. they must be at least 80% indian to me from looks many look hundred percent even but they should be only 40% (and thats the darkest gypsies who are dark as tamils) the lighter ones are 10% southasian (in england etc.) that sounds weird

I don't know what agenda someone can have on HAP. You for exemple don't look like typical Indian. Plus phenotype depend on type of ancestors and not mostly on exact % of different genetic automosal components.

[gum_dum]

this guy razib khan was so happy when the article came out that gypsies are 70% non-southasian (and thats the darkest), indians look down on gypsies as untouchables and want them to be not indian, i heard indians saying that im only 1% indian and that im not brown

Razib is idiot if he said that. You guys clearly have south asian origin.

[Mortimer]

I don't know what agenda someone can have on HAP. You for exemple don't look like typical Indian. Plus phenotype depend on type of ancestors and not mostly on exact % of different genetic automosal components.

i dont know if hap is even true science, it is like 23andme or ftdna a hobby. lets wait for full genome sequencing, this article says bulgarian gypsies etc. are not mixed much http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/ did you read it? dna tribes told me im 8% tamil untouchable and 50% lebanese druze that makes my 60% roma, but i think thats not how it should be etc. i dont know which reasons it has that gypsy components are different then indian components i dont think they are that much mixed. if im wrong ok so should it be.

[Mortimer]

Razib is idiot if he said that. You guys clearly have south asian origin.

i dont know how he thinks, maybe he likes roma who knows but he emphasised that they are 70% non-southasian that sounded as if they are not really southasian

[gum_dum]

i dont know if hap is even true science, it is like 23andme or ftdna a hobby. lets wait for full genome sequencing, this article says bulgarian gypsies etc. are not mixed much http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/06/genetic-sequencing-traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/ did you read it? dna tribes told me im 8% tamil untouchable and 50% lebanese druze that makes my 60% roma, but i think thats not how it should be etc. i dont know which reasons it has that gypsy components are different then indian components i dont think they are that much mixed. if im wrong ok so should it be.

Can you post your harappa results here?

[Mortimer]

Can you post your harappa results here?

im harappa 15 and im listed as 1/2 romani 1/2 serb and i dont have a region assigned, there is not one full romani there on the list

Population
S-Indian 10.90%
Baloch 12.19%
Caucasian 23.26%
NE-Euro 23.71%
SE-Asian 0.46%
Siberian 0.20%
NE-Asian 0.93%
Papuan 1.05%
American 0.92%
Beringian -
Mediterranean 21.17%
SW-Asian 4.98%
San 0.24%
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African -

[Mortimer]

here is my oracle doesnt seem to work properly as im part romanian part french on first

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 65% romanian-b (behar) + 35% french (hgdp) @ 4.16
2 70.2% romanian-a (behar) + 29.8% bene-israel-jew (behar) @ 4.24
3 73.7% tuscan (1000genomes) + 26.3% brahmin-uttar-pradesh (metspalu) @ 4.39
4 72.1% tuscan (1000genomes) + 27.9% nepalese-a (xing) @ 4.4
5 73.2% tuscan (1000genomes) + 26.8% up-brahmin (harappa) @ 4.46
6 73.4% tuscan (1000genomes) + 26.6% bengali-brahmin (harappa) @ 4.52
7 51.1% romanian-b (behar) + 48.9% romanian-a (behar) @ 4.56
8 73.8% bulgarian (yunusbayev) + 26.2% cochin-jew (behar) @ 4.56
9 68.5% tuscan (1000genomes) + 31.5% haryana-jatt (harappa) @ 4.61
10 74.4% tuscan (1000genomes) + 25.6% vaish (reich) @ 4.75
11 74.8% romanian-a (behar) + 25.2% cochin-jew (behar) @ 4.85
12 74% tuscan (1000genomes) + 26% bihari-muslim (harappa) @ 4.9
13 71.1% tuscan (1000genomes) + 28.9% up-muslim (harappa) @ 5.05
14 69.5% bulgarian (yunusbayev) + 30.5% bene-israel-jew (behar) @ 5.06
15 76.3% tuscan (1000genomes) + 23.7% srivastava (reich) @ 5.06
16 75.2% tuscan (1000genomes) + 24.8% up-kshatriya (metspalu) @ 5.08
17 79% bulgarian (yunusbayev) + 21% gujarati-patel (harappa) @ 5.17
18 72.5% tuscan (1000genomes) + 27.5% punjabi-brahmin (harappa) @ 5.18
19 78.1% bulgarian (yunusbayev) + 21.9% ap-reddy (harappa) @ 5.21
20 76.3% bulgarian (yunusbayev) + 23.7% kerala-christian (harappa) @ 5.23

[Mark]

It's difficult for me to classify them but collectively they may fall within the N. Indid to Weddid range.

[Fear Fiain]

the language sounds slavic maybe macedonian or bulgarian im not sure, i understand a bit the guy says he was mistreated by police slapped and beaten etc. do they look very indian?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZt8zkuSWw

they look like foreigners who don't belong in europe.

[Mortimer]

they look like foreigners who don't belong in europe.

you are not from europe fat fuck

[Nurzat]

here any olive skinned or tanned individual is called a Gypsy, colloquially, not like people really consider him a Gypsy. when I come back from seaside some tell me and I tell them jokingly things like: "what a Gypsy you came back, little brother". colloquially, all tanned people are Gypsies in Eastern Europe

[jatt]

this guy razib khan was so happy when the article came out that gypsies are 70% non-southasian (and thats the darkest), indians look down on gypsies as untouchables and want them to be not indian, i heard indians saying that im only 1% indian and that im not brown

no one look down on gypsies in india at all as no one know about them.. forget abot low lives you met in net they don't represent Indians.. but rearding the video if u want my honest response it would be I didn't see face of the guy who was mistreated as it was blury but others didn't look indian at all. they look Mexicans but not Indians. the white guy whom come out in last part the police commissioner something if he got tanned a lot will fit right among them t0o.. brother their features I dnno why look European influenced. but I consider you south Asians.

[morski]

Video is from Bitolya, Vardar Macedonia.

[morski]

Today a senior citizen shot dead three Gypsies who were allegedy attacking him in Sofia. People here are quickly losing their patience.

[gum_dum]

im harappa 15 and im listed as 1/2 romani 1/2 serb and i dont have a region assigned, there is not one full romani there on the list

Population
S-Indian 10.90%
Baloch 12.19%
Caucasian 23.26%
NE-Euro 23.71%
SE-Asian 0.46%
Siberian 0.20%
NE-Asian 0.93%
Papuan 1.05%
American 0.92%
Beringian -
Mediterranean 21.17%
SW-Asian 4.98%
San 0.24%
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African -

Bro there is very little Indian in you, 10% is found even in kurds looking at anthrogenica.

[Mortimer]

Bro there is very little Indian in you, 10% is found even in kurds looking at anthrogenica.

i think im more indian then what it looks like from results, i dont know why the results turn out like that, but i think im half indian

[aherne]

They look Indian (they are Indian and they speak an Indian language, so there is no surprise). I've noticed that too when I was in Macedonia (exactly Bitola): Gypsies live a world apart of Bulgarians (no mixing, no communication even). As a result of that, their faces show the most minimal level of admixture...

[gum_dum]

i think im more indian then what it looks like from results, i dont know why the results turn out like that, but i think im half indian

You guys have lost any trace of major dom ancestry, even HAP south indian component is not proper ASI but only 50% of it. Most gypsy i see don't look south asians even if some of them are darker. But the ones in video clearly show ancient dom traits with little something else.

[gum_dum]

They look Indian (they are Indian and they speak an Indian language, so there is no surprise). I've noticed that too when I was in Macedonia (exactly Bitola): Gypsies live a world apart of Bulgarians (no mixing, no communication even). As a result of that, their faces show the most minimal level of admixture...

Face is different thing, genetically it seem there has been major intermixing between Bulgarian native woman and gypsy men.

[Mortimer]

You guys have lost any trace of major dom ancestry, even HAP south indian component is not proper ASI but only 50% of it. Most gypsy i see don't look south asians even if some of them are darker. But the ones in video clearly show ancient dom traits with little something else.

thats not true dude, ok im not southasian you know it maybe better but to me they look southasian as a non-expert and to most europeans and other outsiders too. only southasians say they dont look southasian. like jatt said they look mexican not indian.

gypsy thieves/metal collectors caught (they dont look southasian?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONleVgp7iUo

they say she passes off as any other indian girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6HfenInNEA

but in hundred years they might not look indian anymore or only little because often a quarter indians dont look indian but white or very little indian and quarter southeast asians or east asians quarter amerindians (castizos) etc. too my dad is quarter gypsy and doesnt look indian or gypsy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6HfenInNEA