Many years ago i overheard a Canadian of Indian ancestry say “technically Indians are white people”. Interestingly, the person who was most angered by this comment was not one of the white people, but a Chinese ancestry guy who stood up in anger to yell “WHAT??!!!”.
“Well, Caucasian,” the Indian clarified, but this just made the Chinese guy angrier.
Although Indians are not white, they are often classified as caucasoid and it’s almost as if the Chinese guy was jealous
But no need to be jealous because Northeast Asians are even whiter than whites in the sense that whiteness is a cold climate phenotype & Northeast Asians branched off caucasoids to adapt to an even colder climate. That’s why Asians don’t benefit from the affirmative action that benefits non-white minorities & in fact are openly discriminated against, because intuitively liberals must understand that they are even whiter than white people. Or maybe a better way of saying it is they are the opposite of black people, while whites are merely not black.
When most North Americans say Asian, they mean East Asian, particularly Northeast Asian; they do not mean South Asian. Yet for some reason, the census classifies Indians as Asian, even though very few Indians have any visible mongoloid ancestry (though Indian Americans perform like mongoloids academically)
Meanwhile the people who Indians are actually racially related to (middle easterners) are not considered Asian by the census (even though the Middle East is mostly in Asia) but are considered white (even though they’re non-European and largely dark skinned )
I do not consider Indians Asian, nor do i condider middle easterners white; i consider both non-white caucasoids
So how did Indians get lumped in with East Asians? Did East Asians want a non-mongoloid to deracialize the Asian category? Or did Indians self identify as Asian to get minority status and/or distance themselves from Arabs, who the U.S. media has turned into pariahs
Swanky writes:
Anyone who knows anything about style knows that’s not true. From the Greeks to the Romans to Shakespeare to modern writers of the best novels, no great writer has ever considered that a hallmark of style.
A recently published book on style illustrates this concept quite well: Mark Forsyth’s The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase
Forsyth cites examples from Shakespeare to James Bond, and concludes his excellent little book by saying “Above all, I hope I have dispelled the bleak and imbecilic idea that the aim of writing is to express yourself clearly in plain, simple English using as few words as possible.”
Once again, spunky argues with phantoms. “say what you MUST SAY…” does not mean “use only simple English” and ‘use only few words.”
If you have something complicated to say, naturally, you will use larger words and you will use more words. Writers GENERALLY do not have something complicated to say, which is why the actual guideline — what I said — is often reduced to ‘use small words’ and ‘use less words.’
More blah blah blah.
I quoted you directly. You tried to take Macaca’s side in this debate on style, and thus proved you know little about it.
There’s nothing wrong with the passive voice. It’s just an urban legend passed down among stupid fucking schoolmarms.
Economy is also not necessarily a hallmark of style. For some writers, it can be, but for most writers, a more florid style – or at least a style which doesn’t automatically seek to eliminate every unneeded word – is the prose of choice.
You don’t even seem to understand what the guidelines mean. The florid style works well with writers who are expressing complex ideas and making exacting descriptions, which conforms with the rule I stated above.
Blah blah blah, spunky.
bin Laden had a florid style. or so said some now dead Palestinian pundit whose name i can’t remember.
Kant admired the comparatively simple style of Hume. but really Kant is just repetitive. he conceals fairly obvious ideas with volubility. his Prolegomenon is sufficient to summarize Kant.
Wittgenstein was never able to write anything in a fluid style. he said he’d tried, but couldn’t do it. so he writing are for the most part merely organized observations, scholia, apothegms, etc. the same is true of much of Neitzsche’s work.
brevity is the soul of wit….
If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter
…so his works are merely…
it was Fouad Ajami.
my bad. Ajami was a Lebanese of Persian ancestry, but anyway…
i was reading the Maltese Falcon and found even it too frilly.
i think the Bible is the standard. and i don’t think that for religious reasons. lapidary style is Biblical style. even Alan Dershowitz has said he’s amazed at how well written the Bible is. at least in translation. and the KJV was archaic when it was written.
and Swank is right as usual.
Sein und Zeit was criticized for its obscurity, but as any good Heideggerian knows it was no more obscure than it needed to be. that is, it is an exceedingly difficult book, but the reason isn’t Heidegger’s style. the reason is that it expresses, or attempts to express, ideas which conventional, everyday, language cannot express.
it can also be said with assurance that if one actually has quite subtle and/or complex ideas to express, and to their expression he adds “style”, he will be simply be unintelligible.
not unintelligible in the good Heideggerian sense, but simply unintelligible in every sense.
If Swanky Pete and Macaca were editing the English translation of Julius Caesar’s famous Latin phrase “veni, vidi, vici”, they would’ve changed it from the incomparable “I came; I saw; I conquered,” to “I came, saw and conquered.” Fewer words, you see.
If they were secretaries responsible for editing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the memorable phrase “we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground,” would’ve been hacked to pieces and restitched together as “we can not dedicate this ground.”
If they were in charge of showing Shakespeare’s play King Henry VI, they would indelicately tell the Bard that the famous lines he gives to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester…
REPOSTED:
If Swanky Pete and Macaca were editing the English translation of Julius Caesar’s famous Latin phrase “veni, vidi, vici”, they would’ve changed it from the incomparable “I came; I saw; I conquered,” to “I came, saw and conquered.” Fewer words, you see.
If they were secretaries responsible for editing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the memorable phrase “we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground,” would’ve been hacked to pieces and restitched together as “we can not dedicate this ground.”
If they were in charge of showing Shakespeare’s play King Henry VI, they would indelicately tell the Bard that the famous lines he gives to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester…
…should be changed to “I can hide my true intent.”
Idiots.
No, Swanky, it is you who doesn’t understand. A florid style has nothing to do with the complexity of the ideas being expressed or the details of the scene being described. Any minutiae in a scene or in an idea can be broken down into parts and recreated with simpler sentences.
But words are about more than mere utility. They have rhythms and music, syllables and sense. That’s why the classical grammars all spent so much time on rhetoric. From the Greeks to the Victorians, it was widely recognized that economy of style was only valuable when it worked. And if it didn’t work, it was to be junked.
the modern world wears pants PM, not togas. but i don’t expect you get me. and this pants wearing isn’t barbarian…anymore.
Ludwig von Mises was a douche and a moron, but Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was a genius.
get it?
someday you’ll love “those novels”. the “man loves tractor” novels of Socialist Realism. the Soviet aesthetic is my aesthetic. everything else is bourgeois decadence.
Jorgeous,
You do know you are a fucking retard, right? I mean, that fact has sunk in to your thick, underused cranium.
And T.E. Lawrence wore a thobe and wrote as floridly as any homosexual man, yet you still adore his style as if you were one of his Arab catamites.
If you can’t strip Lawrence of Arabia’s literary prose down, if you think it’s “clean,” then a florid style does not exist.
Oh please, spunky. Blah blah blah. You aren’t even really disagreeing anymore.
I would not alter Caesar because he expressed the EXACT idea well. So many misunderstandings…
it’s pearls to swine Swank.
i am an hereditist. i believe hereditists are innately stupid.
But words are about more than mere utility. They have rhythms and music, syllables and sense.
dear God just more baby talk pretending to be adult. the syllables and sense has no place in the above. and if one wants to write libretto, or show tunes, then let him. but show tunes are for shows.
and indeed PM’s style works. so did the Pinto…most of the time.
only the Seven Pillars of Wisdom in hs for me PM. don’t remember his “style”.
again you’re arguing with the voices and not with the words on the page.
why do i have to explain everything to you PM.
re-read what i wrote and assume that i intended no more than what i said, that i intended exactly what i said. that, for example, i said nothing about Lawrence’s writing style nor intended to communicate anything about it.
Swanky writes:
Yeah, we are in full agreement – except for all those parts of your posts I excerpted and contradicted, which were pretty much all of them.
So, in other words, Strunk and White’s “Omit needless words” is gibberish you feel free to ignore. When you earlier wrote, ““I have yet to find an exception to the rule of “say what you must say in the fewest words possible,”“ you were just whistling another tune of Swanky horseshit. Your “rule” didn’t last further my first example. Caesar’s six words don’t need to be condensed to four – a 33 percent reduction in verbiage – because words are about more than utility.
Face it, Swanky. You and Macaca are acolytes of the Strunk and White approach to style. The hallmarks of this stylistic leprosy are an obsessive concern with passive constructions and reducing words to their bare minimum.
a lacuna has been found in the thousand lakes of PMs learning. he’s no idea of the desert and religion.
jesus loves you PM even though you’re covered in KS.
PM’s “style” is to style what Hamm’s is to a Trappist ale.
…and thus proved you know little about it.
HA!
he proved at least that what he knows is that there’s nothing to know about it. and better it is to know nothing about which nothing may be known than to know anything.
‘except for all those parts of your posts I excerpted [misconstrued] and contradicted, which were pretty much all of them.’
We agree!
Shakespeare was shit. Shakespeare is shit.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1021043
it’s worthy of note, to me, that Guigo is discussed here. God is in the desert, and so is the best style.
Jackson Bentley: What is it, Major Lawrence, that attracts you personally to the desert?
T.E. Lawrence: It’s clean.
it isn’t hyperbole…whoever would concern himself with style will never have any. and nor will he ever have any substance.
i expect it a lesson any who’ve had to write more than a paragraph have learned. though “any” may not include morons.
that lesson is that one should never say anything more than he feels he must to effect the communication he would effect…more than necessary will be ignored by the reader and be an interruption.
one needn’t say everything. just enough is always enough…if the reader can read.
much information is conveyed accidentally. that is, it is conveyed without the writer’s or speaker’s intending it be conveyed. so the good writer must also be a good reader of his own writing and not repeat himself.
“Shakespeare was shit. Shakespeare is shit.”
As we discovered the last time we had this discussion, you haven’t even read Shakespeare.
“we” discovered? is that the royal “we”?
i’ve quoted the bard how many times. you? none.
my granddad taught English at Columbia. where did yours teach English? where did your Dad get his AB in English? where did your Mum get her AB and AM in English? what were your SAT or GRE verbal scores?
tell “us”. “we”‘re interested.
Yes, it’s the royal “we”. Me, myself, and I, motherfucker.
And every other man in this otherwise blessed outfit who’s been damned by having to read the stupid fucking arguments in your stupid fucking prose.
We form a royalty, with you playing the lone prole.
Now tell me again about how Shakespeare was shit. Quote Tolstoy again about the Bard’s moral failings. Make up shit again about your keen intellectual sense on style.
i will say this in partial agreement…i hope.
there is very often a confusion between simplicity of expression and simplicity…in another sense. and i am almost always underwhelmed by people like Blankfein or hedge fund managers, Jew or gentile. i do find Soros very impressive however.
believe me PM i know better than anyone how stupid the dogma of clarity and concision can be. so did Heidegger. so does Chomsky…a clearer writer doesn’t exist.
Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
In fact, the structure of the news production system is, you can’t produce evidence. There’s even a name for it — I learned it from the producer of Nightline, Jeff Greenfield. It’s called “concision.” He was asked in an interview somewhere why they didn’t have me on Nightline, and his answer was — two answers. First of all, he says, “Well, he talks Turkish, and nobody understands it.” But the other answer was, “He lacks concision.” Which is correct, I agree with him. The kinds of things that I would say on Nightline, you can’t say in one sentence because they depart from standard religion. If you want to repeat the religion, you can get away with it between two commercials. If you want to say something that questions the religion, you’re expected to give evidence, and that you can’t do between two commercials. So therefore you lack concision, so therefore you can’t talk.
I think that’s a terrific technique of propaganda. To impose concision is a way of virtually guaranteeing that the party line gets repeated over and over again, and that nothing else is heard.
but your writing is quite intelligible. it’s just…how does one say it…what’s the opposite of dense?…rarefied? yes! you’re ideas and arguments are rarefied within the miasma of your prose.
Macaca continues to pretend he understands style:
Rhetoric is about persuasion, you idiot. It’s about arranging words in a certain order to draw attention to them. That means the speaker or writer has to be aware of details that escape your grasp, shades of meaning that elude your understanding, word-music your tin ears cannot hear.
i understand “style” perfectly. it even gave it’s number and asked me to call. but i’d get herpes.
so i’ll repeat myself…
it isn’t hyperbole…whoever would concern himself with style will never have any. and nor will he ever have any substance.
if one has something to say and says it he needn’t worry about style.
if one has nothing to say but would pretend he has, he need worry.
it’s
as
simple
as
that.
win over the subhuman proles like pp who esteems you “learned”. alienate the cognoscenti.
get it?
Except of course if they’re like Macaca, who has nothing to say, and says it quite often.
The world is more complicated. People with something to say often say it so ineptly that no one cares to listen to them long enough to ferret out their meaning.
Or, in demonstrating the opposite case, as George Santayana said of Bertrand Russell, “He writes so clearly that it’s always easy to see where he is wrong.”
PM would convince? really?
no! not really.
it’s just divertimenti, as it is for all blog commenters…i hope.
but more than Swank, and a fortiori more than I, PM has demonstrated an inability to grasp the subtler holds of the subject.
he puts on a flamboyant show, mad with the HAPE.
those who’ve climbed above him call, “join us PM! you can do it PM!”
but it turns out that PM only made it to base camp.
it turns out PM is a yak!
but the “and” before the “nor” is unnecessary. scratch that. and changing one’s mind in mid sentence left “it’s” which should’ve been “its”.
you can type. i can’t. i’m proud of that disability.
Rhetoric is the art of making people who don’t know believe that the speaker knows, regardless of whether the speaker knows.
It is to be avoided.
If that was the case, Swanky, then you’d be a master of it. But no, it’s not. From Aristotle to the early twentieth century, when it began to fall out of the curriculum, the study of rhetoric was keenly interested in why some language moves us and other language of similar meaning does not.
Shh spunky. Rhetoric and style for style’s sake is for those who don’t have anything to say.
You don’t care about ideas by your own admission.
You value the empty by your own admission.
vanity of vanities. all is vanity.
for PM…
ALL
IS
vanity!
vanitas — emptiness
bourgeois decadence on display.
or rather
vanity is ALL!
you should start wearing men’s clothes again PM.
‘From Aristotle to the early twentieth century, when it began to fall out of the curriculum, the study of rhetoric was keenly interested in why some language moves us and other language of similar meaning does not’
so…?
That you believe this serves as a response or proof that “no it’s not,” demonstrates my point.
i remember learning in my middle-school class with title, believe it or not, “Communism vs Capitalism” taught by the shop teacher…that Trotsky was a skilled orator, but Stalin made sense.
of course this was an American interpretation and, in fact, “comrade card index” was going to be the next leader no matter what, but it was an interesting rationalization of the defeat of Trotsky, fait accompli though it was.
Here’s what I will tell you, Macaca. I don’t give a damn if your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granddaddy sucked Shakespeare’s dick under the theater during one of his plays. Of if your one of your great uncles took it up the ass from Oscar Wilde before the debut of The Importance of Being Earnest. Or if your mother was whored out by John Updike to a coterie of aging New England literary critics.
I don’t care about family, whether they’re real or make-believe. You’re still an idiot who knows nothing about literature or style.
i know enough to know there’s nothing to know about style.
—“— there’s little to know about literature.
it would be better termed “b>cliterature”.
my toyota starts and will start for 500k miles. i know that!
get it?
you know…wait…of course you don’t…you’re a striver…
there is a beyond beyond, so to speak.
contemporary American and Anglo-sphere conservatism and hereditism are confined by the background of their proponents. PM lives in Norrmalmstorg Kreditbanken and doesn’t know it.
shhhh. don’t wake the baby.
sorry…
Cliterature.
they’re is what is sometimes called “useful idiots”. but useful to whom? merito-crats? HA!
they actually believe that individuals and groups don’t cheat let alone that they cheat so frequently that they themselves don’t know they cheat.
let’s play chess, and let’s not cheat at chess. let’s not play five card stud. even the Cincinatti Kid might be Jewed.
I wash my hands says Pilate and only now has come, in sudden frost the Age of Hooper/PM. “wash your hands of what gov’ner?”
These two delayed aspies can never understand our language. It is waste of time. The consciousness of asburguer community, need to have a limit, because the fact that they are much intelligent than average neurordinary or neurocommons, does not mean they are sufficiently able to understand the world, even because they tend to have a ‘neurological culture’ ‘completely different from ours .
This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals — this is pseudoscience and completely inaccurate. Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics, and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text, but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.
Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another; in other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature, depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry, which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves. They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India, who are not even a part of the Caste system to begin with, NO other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg
http://archive.org/stream/racesofeurope031695mbp#page/n529/mode/2up
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/are-the-people-of-india-caucasians-yes/
It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids — those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation, and this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture — ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is, with different components for different people/castes in India. The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at BEST, a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture, and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves. The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture, and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time; they also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians. In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.
More information here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1050864&viewfull=1#post1050864
and
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1061499&viewfull=1#post1061499
Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge; in fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are. More here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1054161&viewfull=1#post1054161
Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all — the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well. It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans. You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has the latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between AT LEAST four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
More at link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
It has also conclusively shown that ALL populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to HUGE amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1 (see here). In Europe today it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and, intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians, also carry very high ANE, in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI. Here is a graph explaining this in a simple manner: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b_OUyvAOJfo/UH6mOGV0OII/AAAAAAAAG9U/tP3lG_BxQ20/s640/tangledweb.gif
What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are NOT a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids — except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai. According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian — these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports, including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature. It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian, or in other words, from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%). If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole — he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations: http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/02/guest-post-by-razib-khan-my-personal-genome.php
In addition to the Reich et. al paper, and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project (link to the project: http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/), which is helmed by a genetic expert, and is working in combination with Reich’s data, is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned. According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between Caste/Location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian in nature than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper Castes being the most Caucasian of all — up to 95%. All of the North-West Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India, as well as Pakistan and Nepal. As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.
For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu (also well represented in the States) or the lowest caste Tamils, are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India, (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper Caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the North-West) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian. If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l87nGSIYTP-h7m-VKjB-BZcuEoWdz765nU4f_krOdd4/edit?pli=1#gid=0
For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid in nature, and the E African, San, Pygmy and W African components are all Negroid in nature. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under sampled in the project.
Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and North-West, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything BUT alone. Lets start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on AVERAGE, 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on AVERAGE — so some would be MORE than 21% black, some less. The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed ON AVERAGE. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black ON AVERAGE, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average. So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more Negroid than Caucasoid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers, but I’ll give you a link to the Nat Geo data here: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/central-asians/
As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmens have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average; However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35 – 56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmens on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenenistan, like the Northern and Eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55% Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid. Even Turkish many people are 10-20% Mongoloid, and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed — up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average. So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, with some leaning more towards Mongoloid, and being on average, 80-85% Caucasian, and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.
Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians. The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.
This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EiT2DbpCI90/VA5ZPZgLHmI/AAAAAAAABVI/iSDLST-Boic/w1001-h199-no/Table_S14.12.png
More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-tangled-web-of-humanity.html
Which itself references this landmark paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037
It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and DOES NOT include SEPARATE, ADDITIONAL East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids due to the Golden Horde and other admixture events. ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.abstract and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/#.Ve77Xs44JNY
What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population. What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components — one is Caucasian in nature and related to Levantine ancestry, and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America. Therefore,
according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be — which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.
Keeping in mind that in Europe, among Lezgins and Chechens and Ossetians. ANE is in the 23-27%+ range, this means that other Eastern Europeans, not residing in Northern Europe, are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition, and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians. A table with ANE scores from a recent paper: http://i.imgur.com/R70lWOG.png Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did NOT include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry? Well lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns, are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (NOT including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture, which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture and the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range is around Leningrad and other areas around Russia. Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are AT LEAST 13 to 17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12 to 18% East Asian. More info here: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/mongoloid-admixture-in-russians/
Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians and Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way. Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:
Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
Proto West Eurasians + ASI /ANE-like= South Asians and Central and West Asians
Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans
And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid) Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, So the next time you present Indians as being unique in being admixed, or Europeans as being unique in being pure, think again — for that has no basis in reality. The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper Caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most, 18% admixed or less, and thus 82-95% Caucasian.
Therefore, Indian IQ is not a mystery or an enigma — it is in fact perfectly within line of their Eurasian ancestry that is predominantly European in nature, as it is for most Europeans and Near Easterners and Northern Africans. One could say that it hasn’t reached its full potential yet, for its not yet at the very least, equal to average IQ in European nations.
So no, Indians are most definitely not Asian.