Classify Bhutanese actress

[Thambi]

Her name is Tshering Zam

https://i.imgur.com/EMmlXBJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MV5Kf9D.jpg
with ji sung, korean actor
https://i.imgur.com/eYHVgOS.jpg

[JMack]

Interesting, I don't know a lot about East Asian types but I can certainly differentiate Bhutanese from Tibetans, for example.

It seems there are three main types of East Asians:

1. Mongolians, Tibetans, Manchus
2. Japanese, Koreans, Northern Chinese
3. Southeast Asians

Bhutanese people seem to be in between group 1 and 2 imo.

[Thambi]

Interesting, I don't know a lot about East Asian types but I can certainly differentiate Bhutanese from Tibetans, for example.

It seems there are three main types of East Asians:

1. Mongolians, Tibetans, Manchus
2. Japanese, Koreans, Northern Chinese
3. Southeast Asians

Bhutanese people seem to be in between group 1 and 2 imo.

Technically Bhutanese are Tibetan in origin but yeah they are their own group now and they seem to have some sinid influence. But yeah nice analysis. Agree with the grouping. Thanks for replying.

[Nurzat]

she's stunning. too bad these people didn't expand more towards Europe and other regions of Asia, hehe. some East Asians seem to be at the peak of human aesthetics

[Thambi]

she's stunning. too bad these people didn't expand more towards Europe and other regions of Asia, hehe. some East Asians seem to be at the peak of human aesthetics

True. imo the best looking east asians/mongoloids are from the himalayan region. Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet. the Himalayan states in India as well.

[NPKTO]

Tibetid.

[Rgvgjhvv]

Interesting, I don't know a lot about East Asian types but I can certainly differentiate Bhutanese from Tibetans, for example.

It seems there are three main types of East Asians:

1. Mongolians, Tibetans, Manchus
2. Japanese, Koreans, Northern Chinese
3. Southeast Asians

Bhutanese people seem to be in between group 1 and 2 imo.

Unfortunately that list is too general and doesn't take into account the diversity of phenotypes which exist in each country.

But if we think of it as very general, and not think about some of the "sub categories" then it's good enough probably.

[arkas]

She doesn't look strongly Tibetid in phenotype imo, looks kind of Kham Sinid. Also, Bhutanese are Tibetic people for sure, related to Sikkimese in India and Eastern plateau Tibetans.

[Gangrel]

Generally Tibetan phenotype.

[Thambi]

She doesn't look strongly Tibetid in phenotype imo, looks kind of Kham Sinid. Also, Bhutanese are Tibetic people for sure, related to Sikkimese in India and Eastern plateau Tibetans.

Eastern nepalese as well like Rais/Limbus and Arunachal people from northeast India

[Thambi]

Generally Tibetan phenotype.

Can she pass in central asia like Kazakhstan?

[Gangrel]

Can she pass in central asia like Kazakhstan?

You'd have to ask someone from there or who's been there, honestly she probably could. I've been to Thailand and she doesn't look like the locals, although she could pass as atypical I think.

[Nurzat]

Eastern nepalese as well like Rais/Limbus and Arunachal people from northeast India

I understand poor people get bullied by Indians if they venture into let's call it Indo-Aryan territory, like Delhi.

do Dravidian southern Indians bully them too?

how do they find themselves in India, are they ok to be part of it?

also, how did Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh ended up in India while Nepal and Bhutan could go on as separate states? all these Tibetic populations couldn't have had their own country, either a large confederation of all these territories, or separate?

[Thambi]

I understand poor people get bullied by Indians if they venture into let's call it Indo-Aryan territory, like Delhi.

do Dravidian southern Indians bully them too?

how do they find themselves in India, are they ok to be part of it?

also, how did Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh ended up in India while Nepal and Bhutan could go on as separate states? all these Tibetic populations couldn't have had their own country, either a large confederation of all these territories, or separate?

yeah they do face some discrimination in mainland india. They get called derogatory terms like chinki, momo(Nepalese/tibetan dish), etc. Delhi is the worst for them. Southern Cities are a bit better but not by much. They look very foreign compared to most indians, so they are bound to face some harassment. But its not as bad as the media portrays.

They are indifferent about India. They call themselves Indian for the sake of it and are within indian borders and hold the citizenship. They do not really feel Indian afaik.

A lot of history behing this. Sikkim and arunachal became part of India through the british. Sikkim was a kingdom so it had a choice of becoming its own country, but due to conflicts with china, they were afraid that their region would get invaded like Tibet. So they just decided to join India.

Himachal, Nepal, and Uttarakhand are known as the pahari region. They're not really Tibetan, not fully atleast. Both Indo aryans and Tibetans share this region and have intermixed quite a bit overtime. This region was on and off under Nepal/Indian empires. This region is not at all foreign to south asia and has been part of south asia throughout most of the history.

Now why Nepal and Bhutan are separate states is because the british never invaded these regions since they saw them as buffer states between india and china. Also, India didn't invade them either prior to the british arrival. Southern Nepal was part of India at several points in history, but central and northern nepal was its own region. Nepal was under Gorkha rule and Bhutan again was its own kingdom, or part of Tibet. Gorkha kingdom was under rule from 1500-1743, and then prithvi narayan shah united nepal with modern boundaries.

[Borealis]

Decent looking

[Peterski]

Any Bhutanese GEDmatch kits?