> I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
Well, yes, American media are going to use the American definition of "Asian". This is an article on Vox, not the BBC.
> In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent.
It is my understanding that the UK term isn't more inclusive, it just refers to subcontinentals instead of orientals, since for historical reasons that's who's present in England.
> Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law (there are some exceptions) until pressure from Indian activists in the Nixon administration got them reclassified.
> Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law...
I’m sorry but that is not a “basic well-known fact” that is just conjecture.
Dubious, now repealed, racial laws are not a sound basis on which to hang an argument.
If you want to make that claim stick you’d need to do a peer reviewed comparison of DNA and prove it.
If you really want to play this game consider that China and India share a border.
Where do the people 20 miles on either side of that border fit in your racial hierarchy?
I guess you can keep resorting to ad hominem or you can admit this is not settled and India is a genetically diverse place.
If you pick a different haplogroup such as O-M122, which is believed to have originated in China, you’ll see that is highly present in northern India showing that that border is porous, Himalayas or not.
Notice how the modal component in Indian groups is the "Europe" component. Notice how the East Asian groups share almost nothing with the European groups.
And the next time you want to have an argument in public, please try to make sure you know at least a little bit about the topic. Come on.
.png){kind=link}
Well, yes, American media are going to use the American definition of "Asian". This is an article on Vox, not the BBC.
> In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent.
It is my understanding that the UK term isn't more inclusive, it just refers to subcontinentals instead of orientals, since for historical reasons that's who's present in England.
> Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law (there are some exceptions) until pressure from Indian activists in the Nixon administration got them reclassified.