0
Yes
No
I don't know
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,041 Given: 43,518 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 24,400 Given: 12,599 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 104 Given: 3 |
Georgians are white in my opinion. Chechens and the like are even moreso but are dumb as bricks.
The reason I think Georgians are white is because I consider CHG a component connected to Europeans. CHG are closest to Caucasus peoples, but are closer to modern Northern Europeans than they are to MENA/SA people. They also have a very white phenotype which old school anthropologists deemed pleasant. However, I am wary of any culture which is muslim. Islam is seemingly a hotbed of dysgenics wherever it goes.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,358 Given: 0 |
Are you sure about that?
With GedmatchCode:Distance to: GEO_CHG 0.15514676 Iranian_Mazandarani 0.16964420 Iranian_Zoroastrian 0.16985357 Iranian_Fars 0.17260680 Iranian_Persian_Shiraz 0.17351527 Iranian_Lor 0.17520045 Turkish_East 0.17604027 Iranian_Bandari 0.19092044 Turkish_Kayseri 0.19460313 Turkish_North 0.20341577 Turkish_Northwest 0.20570995 Iranian_Jew 0.21131952 Iraqi 0.27945953 Norwegian 0.28087955 Russian_Smolensk 0.29309621 Finnish_North
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 55.77
2 East_Med 22.14
3 West_Med 12.23
4 Baltic 4.84
5 East_Asian 1.70
6 North_Atlantic 1.54
7 South_Asian 1.39
Least-squares method.
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Abhkasian @ 3.674193
2 Georgian @ 5.907027
3 Ossetian @ 13.877807
4 Adygei @ 14.458330
5 North_Ossetian @ 15.089102
6 Balkar @ 16.444563
7 Kabardin @ 18.690607
8 Kumyk @ 18.972198
9 Kurdish @ 20.477928
10 Chechen @ 20.565985
11 Lezgin @ 21.414471
12 Armenian @ 22.289671
13 Iranian @ 24.029566
14 Azeri @ 24.426241
15 Tabassaran @ 24.505100
16 Georgian_Jewish @ 25.853485
17 Turkish @ 27.409996
18 Turkmen @ 29.907368
19 Assyrian @ 30.306126
20 Makrani @ 32.421654
No european appears
Thumbs Up |
Received: 52,720 Given: 43,625 |
that's because whitness is depending on how you look. A quardoon/octoroon or castizo will be socially treated as white if they look the part and their non white admix isn't visible.
same for any white looking Caucasian or MENA.
just like some native Europeans don't look white but exotic.
That's why European is way better term. Everyone knows what that includes.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 52,720 Given: 43,625 |
north Caucasians are still way closer to other West Asians than to any Euros. Unless you mean PIE/steppic admix which they have unlike Georgians.
But that's not specifically European thing (WHG admix is) since it's widespread all over central/south Asia and partially MENA, even if it peaks in Europeans and is main part of their genetic make up.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 57,942 Given: 58,640 |
I think Gypsies were part of the "European" immigration to the USA since always, but I think they were not fully equal they lived in tents or something or in caravans, and roamed around, and there are anti-gypsy laws i think. Do you know anything about that? Also I think maybe some Gypsies could live normal but they had to go under their nationality, like if they are from Serbia they are "Serbian" but they could not be Gypsies?
My AncestryDNA autosomal results [yes it is a link click on it]
I like thinking big. If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big. Donald Trump
Wir wollen endlich den Volkskanzler, schnauze voll von den Einheitsparteien
Thumbs Up |
Received: 5,706 Given: 8,357 |
Yes, according to Carleton Coon for instance there were both British and Balkan gypsies in early 20th century and for sure much earlier. I don't think there were anti-gypsy laws, but I remember I read on wiki and posted here a quote from some Congressman in late 19th century who in Congress was warning his fellow Congressmen and Americans about gypsy crime and misbehavior (or of some gypsies I suppose). I also doubt anyone made the gypsies in America go about in caravans and live in tents. They did that themselves because that is what they did for generations in Europe. They probably did prefer to say they are Serbian, British or whatever 'cause even in America they were not well liked, but there probably was only extralegal discrimination by private citizens and organizations and not by the authorities or by law. Gypsies were classed as white in census always and socially I don't know what they were considered, but they were legally white which was an advantage since they were not subject to racial segregation. But back before the 1960s or 1970s most Latin Americans mestizos and the like (not so numerous then in the US) were also legally white and not subject to racial segregation, but there was some discrimination and they were not socially white. I think Gypsies were in a similar situation: legally white, but widely seen as inferior, though I am not sure if as non-white because Americans don't know too much about gypsies or even how they typically look like or so it seems to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks