Unrelated to the point, but related to the graph: I find it somewhat bizarre that east asians cluster with Polynesians more than central asians. But, again, "east asian" itself is a rather loaded term. Mongolians and the northern Chinese are east Asian, but are assuredly closer to turkics than they are to Polynesians. While vietnamese would likely be closer to Polynesians. Cambodians, Burmese, etc fall under the purview of "east asian" but are phenotypically almost closer to dravidians than a northeastern asian *or* a Polynesian. And then the Japanese are northeastern mongoloid mixed with the ainu, who are pretty much an isolate that have been on the archipelago since before the east-west eurasian split, which is why they look so ethnically ambiguous/"eurasian"
I'm also curious where other groups sit on this graph as well, I want to see Europe's clustering divided based off of region. Do northeastern Europeans huddle closer to asians than Southern Europeans do? What about the Finno ugrics? Who are white, but asiatic
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
I'm also curious where other groups sit on this graph as well, I want to see Europe's clustering divided based off of region. Do northeastern Europeans huddle closer to asians than Southern Europeans do? What about the Finno ugrics? Who are white, but asiatic
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
same as gypsies, pajeets and jews.