Razib,

Yeah I know. I know it’s political. I’m talking about this from a genetic perspective.

Back in 11th grade, me and my Law class went to this court and saw a whole bunch of different cases(this was in Ontario btw). There’s this thing called the Gladue court system where people of Aboriginal descent can claim that and it will allow them to receive alternative trials and sentencing outcomes which are more favourable to them. We saw a couple of these cases and many of the Gladue court defendants were literally just full white people who “identified” as ABoriginal because their great grand pa or something was. They looked completely indistinguishable from their white lawyers or judges. So yeah, it’s a political identification. I’m talking about the genetics perspective.

1) we don’t know it’s “more indigenous” tho probably is older

2) it is quite likely that AASI was not present in modern Pakistan area, and is intrusive, and that eastern Iranian element was indigenous there

3) a lot of groups in the subcontinent have high AASI

there isn’t a major difference genetically btwn tribals and many dalits and OBCs. the difference is cultural. but the cultural matrix is all the same.

Being “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous” has lots to do with ancestry.

this is not legally true in the US tho even from the perspective of a native American tribe. this is really a political issue. it’s not about heritage

there are Mexicans who are more native American than most native Americans who identify as “Spanish”

if you talk to native people they will explain that we outsiders kind of misunderstand it as an ethnicity. they think of themselves as a sovereign nation. that means they can use whatever criteria they want

Branch Dravidian,

Again, I could not care less about your politics. Stop inserting your political BS into this. It doesn’t matter if you identify as a cow or a a skyscraper or a helicoper, what actually DOES matter is your blood and what you ACTUALLY ARE. Doesn’t matter what you believe you are lmao. What matters are the FACTS, especially the fact that AASI is the indigenous component of the South Asian genome and Paniyas and other tribals have the most of this component making them the most indigenous to South Asia.

It’s a cut-and-dry discussion point and your meaningless deflection into Native Americans/First Nations is laughable considering how that’s got nothing to do with it AND considering many of them are literally just white people larping as First Nations for the numerous benefits(legal, financial etc) considering they’re not even that genetically First Nations, if at all. Again, your deflections are political.

Also, they don’t need to carry around their ancestry tests. We already have good estimates on the AASI percentages of different groups anyways. Facts>>>.

a) AASI is the most indigenous component of the South Asian genome/ancestry

b) Paniyas and other tribals have 75% of this component and the highest amount of it

c) if both of the above are true, than that means the Paniyas etc are genetically the most indigenous to the land, by far.

Both a) and b) are true meaning C is also true. Simple. Nobody cares about how you “feel” about this. Your meaningless deflections are also noted.

You’re the one calling the question political and there isn’t anything to get angry about so calm your man boobs. Normal people are not carrying around their ancient ancestral calculations and calling out each other on who belongs more. How others feel is irrelevant, the dude who presents white but has quarter Cherokee ancestry may feel as strongly about his nativity as a full-blooded dude. Tribal councils in North America largely agree with this mentality, only verifying blood quantum to a certain level. Likewise, a UP Jatt will believe he is a much a member of the subcontinent as a Paniya regardless of their AASI %’s. There is no such than as being “more native”, you either got it or you don’t; seeing as they both share ancestries from the same first human populations to reach India, I see them both as a native group.

Indigeneity in general feels like a silly concept, humans have been mixing and pushing each other out our entire history. Makes me believe that indigeneity is a measure of time and not who got there first. Give it a couple thousand years, nobody will be calling out Anglos in America that they were settler colonizers or whatever bs.

Razib,

so basically your point is if I’m understanding this correctly is that they are genetically Indigenous in terms of ancestral components/genetic makeup but due to their cultural history(language, Austro-Asiatic haplogroups, etc) they are in a different boat?

Sorry if this comes across as rude, I’m just trying to understand your point better.

Branch Dravidian,

I’m trying very hard to be nicer to people both in person and online but this is proving to be quite the challenge. Did you actually read the comment are you just inserting your politics into this just because? Keep your idealogy out of this, it’s a very simple point. The point about the Native American blood quantum thing is merely political, and everyone knows it which is why many here in Canada scoff when others claim being Indigenous. Being “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous” has lots to do with ancestry. It matters. It’s only touchy because of some controversial actions in the past. How can an “Indigenous” man who is like 75% white be as indigenous as a First Nations dude who happens to be 75% Indigenous? That’s just ridiculous.

You also claimed that a ” UPJatt” is just as indigenous as a “Paniya”. How? If South Asian Hunter-Gatherer/Ancient Ancestral South Indian is the most indigenous component of the South Asian genome(which is true) and Paniyas have 75% of this component compared to the 30% that Jatts have, how are they similarly indigenous? That makes ZERO sense because clearly Paniyas have more of this ancestry, meaning they are more indigenous. It’s a very cut and dry thing. If you have more of the c omponent that is genuinely native to the land, then you are simply more indigenous.