Is Gypsies white or indian?

[ibodi]

white from Romania or indian from india?

[Cubus]

Gypsies originally come from India, so they are White

There's so such thing as "Indian race". Only Americans believe so.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

From an 'American' -

There's one race, homo sapiens sapiens.

[Cubus]

@nolabels Nope. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species. Not a race.

[nolabels]

@Cubus
Semantics, but I'll give you that one.

You know my meaning.
I'm an 'American'.
You put words in my mouth that aren't there.
I called you on it.

All people are homo sapiens sapiens.
Race is but a social construct that I don't recognize.

Would you like me to view all people of your nationality based on your attitude as you've generalized Americans?

I won't, even though I could display your attitude as justification for my doing so.

Food for thought.

[Cubus]

@nolabels Those are pretty important semantics.

It's like saying: " there's one bear: a polar bear."

[Cubus]

@nolabels "Would you like me to view all people of your nationality based on your attitude as you've generalized Americans?"

I do not generalise. On American census data they put "Indian" as a separate race.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

I'd say that the semantics in this case is much less important the generalization displayed in your original post.

If I could edit my comment to say species instead of race, I would.
I have owned the error.

Would you like to own your error in generalizing Americans?

[nolabels]

@Cubus

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/generalize

[Cubus]

@nolabels You didn't answer my argument

[nolabels]

@Cubus

I've answered what you think is your argument. In addition, I've called out and proven your error.

Refer back to my first two comments to see my position.

You made an unjust generalization. I called you on it. You deny doing so. I've shown that you have.

I'll save you the trouble of clicking my previous link to the definition of the word 'generalization' so you're more easily able to see the evidence of your error:

"generalize
[ jen-er-uh-lahyz ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for: generalize / generalized / generalizing on Thesaurus. com
📙 Middle School Level
verb (used with object), gen·er·al·ized, gen·er·al·iz·ing.
to infer (a general principle, trend, etc.) from particular facts, statistics, or the like.
to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.
to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to.
to make general; bring into general use or knowledge.
verb (used without object), gen·er·al·ized, gen·er·al·iz·ing.
to form general principles, opinions, etc.
to deal, think, or speak in generalities."

Semantics aren't working for you now, are they?

Acknowledge your error and we'll be done.

If you'd like to debate, state your case in a manner worthy of my consideration.

I've got all the time in the world.

[Cubus]

@nolabels American censuses name "Indian" as a race. It's a fact, it;s not unjust in any way, like you claim.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

First, your use of the term 'American' is not accurate, although it is plain to see the country to whom you are referring.

I, as a U. S. citizen, have nothing to do with the way census forms are worded.

I will bring to your attention, once again, my original statement that all people are homo sapiens sapiens. Fact.

Explain to me if you are able how you can be correct in saying that I as a U. S. citizen believe that there is such a thing as an 'Indian race'.
I've repeatedly stated my position to you.
It is crystal clear.

What is unjust is your including me in your generalization of 'Americans' as believing that 'Indian' is a race.

Let me know the country in which you hold citizenship, if you do hold citizenship anywhere in the world.
I'll give you examples of issues which some people could use to make a generalized statement about you.
Would you like me to do that?
I don't think you would, yet that is exactly what you have done to me and millions of other 'Americans', as you inaccurately call us.

Statements of that nature deserve to be challenged.
If I were to make a statement of generalization which unjustly included you, I would expect to be called out on it.
I would apologize.

The next step is up to you.

[Cubus]

@nolabels "I will bring to your attention, once again, my original statement that all people are homo sapiens sapiens. Fact."

And what that has to do with the question in the first place?

[nolabels]

@Cubus

The fact that all people are homo sapiens sapiens, and that 'race' is an imaginary construct completely negates the need for any response to the question.
As you can see, I have not replied to the question itself.
No offense to the asker, but the question is meaningless.
There are ways to group peoples by ethnicity that are devoid of discrimination, but this question really has no logical answer in terms of what it is asking, therefore I choose not to address the question at all.
There is no answer out of the two choices that makes sense.

I could ask you the same of your original comment.
What does it have to do with the question?
The first half of your answer is a racist opinion.
The second half is an inaccurate generalization having nothing to do with the question.

As can plainly be seen, I called out the inaccuracy and unjust nature of your comment.

After a quick review of G@G's terms, I find that I am completely within G@G guidelines in responding to an already posted comment without addressing the original question under which said comment is posted.

I'm fed up with "Americans' being lumped together and accused of being the cause of virtually every ill in the world.
I'm calling out unjust accusations as I come across them.

My very first response to you was to let you know that I am an 'American' and that I view all people as people.
In other words, I was nicely letting you know that I do not wish to be included in your generalization.

You've been fighting me now for hours over a subject upon which, at its core, we both seem to agree.
You chose, though, additionally, to blame me as an 'American'.
I'm not letting that go unchallenged.

You've shown that you can't logically justify your generalization.

If you'd like to reword your original comment to reflect that it is not 'Americans', but the wording on a census form that you find to be problematic, I'd accept that, and an apology to me and to "Americans' in general.

[Cubus]

@nolabels

"The first half of your answer is a racist opinion."

I said where do Gypsies come from.

Is this racist? No?

Is this an opinion? No, it's a scientific fact.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

You said more than where they are from.

You also said they are white.
That is a racist descriptor.
It is not fact.
You may not have knowingly meant to use the term in a racist manner, but racist it is, nonetheless.

I wouldn't have called attention to it, but since you have such a hard time acknowledging the truth, it has finally come time to point out all of your fallacies.

You can try to keep dancing around the truth, but it'll get you nowhere.

Reword your original response and apologize.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

Maybe this will help you.

Imagine that you are an unbiased third party reading this exchange.

What makes sense and what doesn't?

[Cubus]

@nolabels I didn't say they are "white". I said they are "White". Those are two completely different things.

These things are as different as "Winter War" and "winter war".

[nolabels]

@Cubus

Even worse.

Keep dancing, Cubus, you'll tire eventually.

Have you looked at our exchange from the point of view of an unbiased observer?

I'd be happy to bring in some additional observers to analyze the proceedings and comment as they see fit.

Remember, "Pride goeth before the fall".

[Cubus]

@nolabels You say "pride goeth before the fall" and yet you seek attention from others.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

I seek nothing except an apology from you.

I've humbled myself and admitted to a small inconsequential error in my first response to you.

I have no shame in revealing the content of these exchanges to anyone.

You've yet to address any of your own errors.

Your hubris knows no bounds.

[Cubus]

@nolabels "I'd be happy to bring in some additional observers to analyze the proceedings and comment as they see fit."

No. You certainly do not seek attention.

I am indifferent if someone would see this discussion. I honestly believe people have better things to do than follow two random guys arguing online.

[nolabels]

@Cubus

Yet more deflection.

Apologize.

[Cubus]

@nolabels Why would I apologize? I didn't offend you in any way.

[NamerOfStars]

The last genetic study I read indicated that the Rom originally came from India, and despite their legendary insularism, it's pretty much impossible that they got NO influxes of blood from other peoples.

[lalaloveee]

You can accuse me of being racist, but I would prefer even gorilla Hanabiko to a Gypsy.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Gypsis are from F India, they never belong to Romania and Romania don't want them and olso hate them.
They don't want to adapt, they don't want to make a single efort in order to become good citazians.
No going to school.
Not accepting low social jobs.
Talk whit no respect to any person from kids to teachers/doctors and older people.
And moust of them stink and are brown because they refuse to clean themself saying they are protected from colds.
If they don't want to adapt and become normal citazians of our country then GO OUT. I will had deported them all to India. School and jobs vs force to go to India.

[USLegionary]

Indian. They are from India originally and don't really mix outside their own.

[Guy13]

They look like India to me. And, American Indian in USA.

[Anonymous]

I only know Irish gypsies who are definitely white

[nolabels]

Indian if they're from India.

[Anonymous]

Neither in my opinion.