Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't done DNA. I don't want the results driving my research. I'd like to think I can rise above it, but I know there will be confirmation bias. I think DNA should be used to help your research. Too many people look at is as the be all and end all.
If you have not tested, then you do not know whether you have ancestors from Africa and Europe, do you? As I see it, the danger for you in knowing your DNA admixture is that it would not confirm your current bias.
If you have not tested, then you do not know whether you have ancestors from Africa and Europe, do you? As I see it, the danger for you in knowing your DNA admixture is that it would not confirm your current bias.
You're right. So far, I only know I'm American. But I think I've found someone who has Irish ancestry. Now imagine I took DNA and had European results trace to Germany. Then what would I do? Completely ignore written records because DNA says I'm German. Now I'm trying to fit my history into the box the DNA results put me in. That's not cool. I just don't think I'm strong enough to avoid doing that. I let the paper tell the story. And even THOSE are off, because people lied. That's the problem I'm running into right now with the possible Irish connection. So many people moving back and forth through households. That's why you really need to know history and geography when doing this, because you can fill in the holes of the story.
You're right. So far, I only know I'm American. But I think I've found someone who has Irish ancestry. Now imagine I took DNA and had European results trace to Germany. Then what would I do? Completely ignore written records because DNA says I'm German. Now I'm trying to fit my history into the box the DNA results put me in. That's not cool. I just don't think I'm strong enough to avoid doing that. I let the paper tell the story. And even THOSE are off, because people lied. That's the problem I'm running into right now with the possible Irish connection. So many people moving back and forth through households. That's why you really need to know history and geography when doing this, because you can fill in the holes of the story.
Unless you have a virtually complete tree going back many generations there is no way for you to know you had those German ancestors.
I have my tree back five generations, more in some lines, and there is only one unknown couple among all my 32 three times great grandparents. One of those GGGgrandparents has the surname Miller. Go back two more generations and the surname is Mueller, a man born in Germany in 1721. I have to go back that far to find out that I had French Huguenot ancestors, too.
When I look at the DNA map that shows where my ancestors came from it fits nicely with what the paper trail shows. The only oddity is a fraction of !% that shows as Mongolian. It's a tiny fragment and most probably just noise.
If your paper trail is suspect DNA can help tell you where to look.
So do you think percentages and physical appearances matter? Does it matter how much Portuguese ancestry you have? Also, you stopped replying to my DM's as well.
Here is a question for you Mathias de Sousa what was he? Was he Portuguese-American, a Black-American or a Jewish-American? Or something else?
There were no blacks in America before slavery. Get over yourself. Pure blooded Native Americans are not hard to find. Natives might have low numbers in the USA but not south of the border. Your theory is a bunch of crap.
UrbanLuis, I hope that we can have a peaceful and unemotional discourse. I'm not sure that it's really so cut and dry. Like I've mentioned repeatedly, the books that I've been reading describes a Micronesian and Melanesian looking people over here.
UrbanLuis, I hope that we can have a peaceful and unemotional discourse. I'm not sure that it's really so cut and dry. Like I've mentioned repeatedly, the books that I've been reading describes a Micronesian and Melanesian looking people over here.
So? Different genotypes can result in the same phenotype, and the books you have referenced were published way before anyone had an inkling about genetics and DNA.
Do you have any references that confirm modern African Americans have Micronesian or Melanesian DNA?
Also, Micronesians and Melanesians trace back to Asia, as do Native Americans. Phenotypic similarities are to be expected.
the books you have referenced were published way before anyone had an inkling about genetics and DNA.
Honestly, this is why their descriptions are likely to be a little more accurate. They early colonizers were not coming to study hard sciences. Science hinges on the technology available at the time. That's why we revise findings as better technology becomes available. The colonizers were tasked with reporting the conditions to their home country. Unless they knew well in advance how we'd use the information today (still totally possible), there was really no incentive for them to lie about what they saw. This world has steadily evolved into a world of deceit. I'd definitely trust government reports from hundreds of years ago vs. what's available today.
Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
Logical Form:
Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.
----
Everything in the quote below is a straw man
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzureKite
Having predominant features doesn't mean that's your predominant ancestry. You can look full African and have all West African features and be biracial or be mostly European. Looks don't tell you what someone is predominantly.
Straw mans works like rumors they are attempt to falsely frame a debate, if some wasn't paying they would think
1. I said "Having predominant features doesn't mean that's your predominant ancestry." Because your this back to me as if suggest that. When I said predominant ancestry I'm talking about DNA, Because Black Americans are predominantly African ancestry they have west African features not because they have west African features they have west African ancestry, that's a straw man
2. The other straw man is you wasn't talking about mix people. You ask what if a native Americans had West African features would he be Native American. So I respond a Native American is not going to have West African features.
UrbanLuis, I hope that we can have a peaceful and unemotional discourse. I'm not sure that it's really so cut and dry. Like I've mentioned repeatedly, the books that I've been reading describes a Micronesian and Melanesian looking people over here.
If those book saying "North America" throw them away because there false. Your reading conspiracies theories.
Micronesia is in the South Pacific, Slavery in the US happen in the America south near the Atlantic. How did Micronesian looking people get A to B,
a minority reaching South America might be possible but if they did that still have travel the continents from South America to the Southeast US, which begs how did a large migration of a little group of people happen, this contradicts human migration.
They would some how stick as small group for hundreds of years and bi past all the lighter Native theres to get to south east United States. Really
Honestly, this is why their descriptions are likely to be a little more accurate. They early colonizers were not coming to study hard sciences. Science hinges on the technology available at the time. That's why we revise findings as better technology becomes available. The colonizers were tasked with reporting the conditions to their home country. Unless they knew well in advance how we'd use the information today (still totally possible), there was really no incentive for them to lie about what they saw. This world has steadily evolved into a world of deceit. I'd definitely trust government reports from hundreds of years ago vs. what's available today.
There are no "government reports" involved with ancestral DNA. The concept is quite simple. Collect DNA from people living in Africa today and compare it to African Americans in the US. African Americans have DNA that matches modern Africans.
Where is the archaeological evidence for a group of "black Native Americans" in North America before the arrival of Europeans on the continent and the black Africans they brought with them - not all of whom were slaves?
What it boils down to is that you have to generate a conspiracy theory that all such evidence has somehow been erased. There is no evidence for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
