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.
More crazy talk. Dude seriously go to school or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
Her mother is full-blooded Lakota. There you go again filtering out information that doesn't suit your narrative. Her mother is the type of person America acknowledges as Native American. Her father is not. If she takes her DNA and it goes back to Africa that is because somewhere in her lineage a person migrated from Africa. The African Ancestry DNA test only goes back to about 2,000 years, I believe. The world has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. We need DNA from someone thousands and thousands of years old if we want to be really accurate. The tests we have today are the equivalent to someone taking YOUR DNA and then 2,000 years later telling your descendant they originated in North America. But I bet someone in your family came directly from Europe, right?
Here's a better example. We know, by documented evidence (and heck, people who are still alive today) that black people from America went over to Liberia in order to start a colony. We know this. It's something you can Google fairly easily. Well guess what? The descendants of those people are probably going to show that some of their DNA traces to Liberia. Does that mean they were native and culturally Liberian? No, because we know their family members just MIGRATED THERE from America. But it's not "wrong" to say the have a connection to Liberia, because scientifically that is correct.
This is a discussion forum. I am not trolling. . Again you guys are making outlandish racist claims. Your theories are only hurtful to real Natives. You have provided no credible sources to back up your theories and you wont find any becàuse there is none. Like I said if this was about any other groups it would be ok to call you out but since it is about natives it is ok to say what ever you want? I dont think so!!!
Miss Luis, stop being a fool. There was nothing racist said. What did I write, that was racist? I just mentioned a different view a you become a prick especially when I'm being civil to your dumb@$S. You're the one who's the masochist on here by deciding to get upset and pay attention to views that make you upset. Tu sei un idiota.
Most of the Native American ancestry that shows up in DNA tests is from people who come from south of the border aka Latin America. So if you do not have ancestors that came from there (which black people won't if the US is their native land), you will not show as "Native American" in those DNA tests. Companies like Ancestry don't even have a large pool of black people in their database. So it's like comparing your DNA only to those people who live in Ohio. Well, if you're black and your people were never in Ohio, of course you will not show as being "black" in the test. This is why the whole race thing is stupid and didn't even exist until they wanted to institutionalize slavery. RACE IS NOT A REAL THING, but as long as we treat it as real, it will be real (hope that makes sense). There is no "black" or "white". We are just people on the globe with different skin colors, with highly-pigmented people being the indigenous. Over time, some people tried to "breed out" the dark pigmentation by only mating with lighter-skinned people.
Until America recognizes black people as indigenous (which they are not going to do voluntarily), black people are never going to show up as Native American in DNA tests. If not because they don't have any ancestors from below the border, then because these companies (deliberately) don't use any samples from people with ancient DNA. It's paper genocide. Which America is very good at.
I fear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of genetic DNA.
DNA from South America is used because the indigenous population there has the same ancestry as the indigenous population in the US. NAs in the US do not tend to participate in DNA testing, so related populations are used as a proxy. So, yes, people with North American indigenous ancestors will have it show up if there is a significant percentage. One or a few distant NA ancestors might not show up because an individual may not have any DNA from those particular ancestors. It has been lost due to genetic processes involved in reproduction.
The DNA testing companies use modern day Africans as the comparison group for African Americans, because that is where African American ancestors came from, just as they use European comparison groups for those with European ancestors. Plenty of African Americans are doing DNA tests.
You still have not provided any evidence that there was an indigenous black population in the Americas before blacks were brought from Africa.
You are the one making a big deal over skin color. DNA now makes it perfectly clear that African Americans are a mix of African, European, and - sometimes - Native American ancestry. There is no conspiracy to not "use any samples from people with ancient DNA." In the end, all DNA is "ancient."
When African Americans match with living African cousins - in Africa - as a previous link I gave you showed, that shows you that African Americans do not descend from some mythical "indigenous" black population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
Her mother is full-blooded Lakota. There you go again filtering out information that doesn't suit your narrative. Her mother is the type of person America acknowledges as Native American. Her father is not. If she takes her DNA and it goes back to Africa that is because somewhere in her lineage a person migrated from Africa. The African Ancestry DNA test only goes back to about 2,000 years, I believe. The world has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. We need DNA from someone thousands and thousands of years old if we want to be really accurate. The tests we have today are the equivalent to someone taking YOUR DNA and then 2,000 years later telling your descendant they originated in North America. But I bet someone in your family came directly from Europe, right?
Has her mother's DNA been tested?
Her father is African American, not Native American. We do not need to go back thousands of years, because it is only recently that populations have been as mobile as they are now. Even in Europe, hundreds of years ago people might live their entire lives and never venture even twenty miles from where they lived.
Therefore, assigning a geographic location for DNA is best done by using as a database people who know their ancestors were living in the same location for hundreds of years. That is what this research group is doing.
Here's a better example. We know, by documented evidence (and heck, people who are still alive today) that black people from America went over to Liberia in order to start a colony. We know this. It's something you can Google fairly easily. Well guess what? The descendants of those people are probably going to show that some of their DNA traces to Liberia. Does that mean they were native and culturally Liberian? No, because we know their family members just MIGRATED THERE from America. But it's not "wrong" to say the have a connection to Liberia, because scientifically that is correct.
Your DNA does not care where you live now. Someone who is descended from an original citizen of Liberia will have DNA that predates his ancestors' arrival in Liberia plus whatever contribution has been made by people from other areas since then.
I actually understand how DNA works very well. I've listened to the advice of geneticists who are more interested in being factually accurate than helping people maintain a lie. I'm not knocking you, but lay people want to take DNA results as gospel and you simply cannot. Old school research is the only way you're going to really learn about your lineage.
Miss Luis, stop being a fool. There was nothing racist said. What did I write, that was racist? I just mentioned a different view a you become a prick especially when I'm being civil to your dumb@$S. You're the one who's the masochist on here by deciding to get upset and pay attention to views that make you upset. Tu sei un idiota.
Go cry to the mods.
Your crazy theories deserve no respect. Call me all the names you want but what you and treemoni are doings is just ignorant and offensive to Natives. Real Natives. El idiota sos vos *******.
I am a 24 yr old Black american male and my racial percentages basically are 85% West African 5% Central African and 10% Northwestern European. I have a milk chocolate complexion , very athletic build with a shorter torso and long legs with dread locked hair. My white features are
My nose with although it is very wise has a pretty high bridge.
My skin tone being noticeably lighter than most west Africans but still darker than many west Africans.
My hair, which although is kinky and wooly it is noticeably looser and softer to the touc than every one of my west African friends and the “baby hairs” on the edges are much more prominent.
However I could easily blend in from a looks stand point with west Africans. And have often been asked if I am Nigerian. That being said I am a bit blacker Han you average AA 10% white and not 15% white. All of my immediate and extended family of my generation and generations immediately before me look black. Some of them are extremely black and look sorta leonean. My mother side of the family is Gullah and my great great grand father on my dads side was mostly white if not entirely white-I have seen pictures of him, his small eyes and wide nose suggest a little African admixture.whiteness becomes pretty noticeably at 20-25% id say.
I have seen several DNA test results from Gullah AAs and they on average are 95% or more African. Some that are 100% African can even be found in this ethnic group of AAs. So your mother side being Gullah explains your high 90% percent Sub-Saharan African.
One important thing to note about the ancestry tests is that if you have full-blooded siblings(unless you are twins), you won't necessarily get the same results. It doesn't entail that the tests are bull and unreliable, but rather indicates one sibling favors one parent over the other.
Great point. These DNA tests should only be an aide in your research. Nothing replaces rolling up your sleeves and following the paper. Black people rely heavily on oral tradition, which can be riddled with half-truths...but the half that leads you somewhere is another piece of the puzzle. Who knew my grandma wasn't telling fables when she said her mother (who died when my grandma was a child) was Indian.
Please start another thread if you want to continue to discuss this. You are talking in circles about percentages, it has been thoroughly explained to you that one Portuguese ancestor does not make you Portuguese even if you want to call yourself Portuguese, and your thesis that you are Portuguese has nothing to do with the OP.
So does having a parent or a grandparent that's Portuguese make you Portuguese? I don't have one Portuguese ancestor by the way. My 3x great-grandparents and my 7x great-grandparents were also Portuguese as well. Being of Portuguese descent means you originate from Portugal, so I'm Portuguese by blood and ancestry and have a biological connection to Portugal.
I actually understand how DNA works very well. I've listened to the advice of geneticists who are more interested in being factually accurate than helping people maintain a lie. I'm not knocking you, but lay people want to take DNA results as gospel and you simply cannot. Old school research is the only way you're going to really learn about your lineage.
If DNA tells you something different from your "old school research" you need to do more research. That is how people discover their dad is not their biological father.
DNA ethnicity results are estimates and may change as the comparison database is refined. My ethnicity results are totally congruent with my paper trail - except for that pesky tiny fraction of a percent that is Mongolian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
Great point. These DNA tests should only be an aide in your research. Nothing replaces rolling up your sleeves and following the paper. Black people rely heavily on oral tradition, which can be riddled with half-truths...but the half that leads you somewhere is another piece of the puzzle. Who knew my grandma wasn't telling fables when she said her mother (who died when my grandma was a child) was Indian.
How do you tell what is true or not unless you can find documents to support it?
Why not do your DNA and see if you can find NA admixture?
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.
