U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:06 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 854,376 times
Reputation: 227

Advertisements

In Klimentidis, Miller, and Shriver's Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans, it is stated that, [i]"Results reveal that NAs underestimate their degree of EU admixture, and that Hispanics underestimate their degree of NA admixture," and, "Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%...(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%..., a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001)." The Hispanic average of Amerindian admixture is slightly lower than the "Mexican-American" average. As recorded in Cerda-Flores's Genetic admixture and gallbladder disease in Mexican Americans, "the proportionate genetic contributions from European, Native American, and African ancestries in our sample were 0.575, 0.390, and 0.035, respectively."

However, there is a dichotomy between genotype and phenotype, which is why Mexican-Americans have an informal color designation of "brown." To use an example of a Mexican-American public figure, George Lopez's admixture map indicated that he was 55% European and 32% Amerindian, but it seems reasonable to categorize him as an Indian because of his phenotype, particularly his skin pigmentation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:54 PM
 
959 posts, read 1,070,241 times
Reputation: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
In Klimentidis, Miller, and Shriver's Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans, it is stated that, [i]"Results reveal that NAs underestimate their degree of EU admixture, and that Hispanics underestimate their degree of NA admixture," and, "Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%...(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%..., a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001)." The Hispanic average of Amerindian admixture is slightly lower than the "Mexican-American" average. As recorded in Cerda-Flores's Genetic admixture and gallbladder disease in Mexican Americans, "the proportionate genetic contributions from European, Native American, and African ancestries in our sample were 0.575, 0.390, and 0.035, respectively."

However, there is a dichotomy between genotype and phenotype, which is why Mexican-Americans have an informal color designation of "brown." To use an example of a Mexican-American public figure, George Lopez's admixture map indicated that he was 55% European and 32% Amerindian, but it seems reasonable to categorize him as an Indian because of his phenotype, particularly his skin pigmentation.

It proves that Native American genes are strong, since you can be genetically 55% European in ancestry and still have a Native American looking phenotype.

But somebody who is genetically 55% Native American in ancestry can never look European in phenotype, because European genes are weak and recessive.

Heck, Eva Longoria is 70% European in ancestry and she still does not look like a White woman. You can still tell she is mixed with some Native American ancestry just by looking at her. That's how weak and recessive European genes are when mixing with other races.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,472 posts, read 15,327,800 times
Reputation: 6194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr bolo View Post
Ive never met a full blooded native american in my entire life, most people that claim to be are usually mixed with whites or hispanic, etc

are there any surviving full blooded natives left or are they all mixed or partial race now?

they seem like they are almost extinct?
I haven't either well if you don't count the full blood Indians south of the border.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:40 PM
 
39 posts, read 83,408 times
Reputation: 46
There is no single "Native American type" - which leads some people to doubt the authenticity of folks who are mostly or fully Native American. The ideal type for many Americans is tall, copper colored, with an aquiline nose. Many Mexicans and other Latin American Hispanics are fully Native American, but since they tend not to fit into the "Hollywood Indian" stereotype, they tend not to viewed as "real Indians." Native Alaskans often look Asian. Athapaskan people have different origin from Puebloans in New Mexico. Some Native people have admixture from Europeans and Africans that is so far back that, for all practical purposes, they form a "new" Indian type. Requiring that all Indians fulfill a single, pre-1492 ideal is a pretty unrealistic expectation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:42 PM
 
39 posts, read 83,408 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Blood View Post
It proves that Native American genes are strong, since you can be genetically 55% European in ancestry and still have a Native American looking phenotype.

But somebody who is genetically 55% Native American in ancestry can never look European in phenotype, because European genes are weak and recessive.

Heck, Eva Longoria is 70% European in ancestry and she still does not look like a White woman. You can still tell she is mixed with some Native American ancestry just by looking at her. That's how weak and recessive European genes are when mixing with other races.
Next to Rigoberta Menchu, she looks mostly white. Most Indians of the Mexico and Central America regions are VERY short and VERY dark brown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 08:43 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 854,376 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Blood View Post
It proves that Native American genes are strong, since you can be genetically 55% European in ancestry and still have a Native American looking phenotype.

But somebody who is genetically 55% Native American in ancestry can never look European in phenotype, because European genes are weak and recessive.

Heck, Eva Longoria is 70% European in ancestry and she still does not look like a White woman. You can still tell she is mixed with some Native American ancestry just by looking at her. That's how weak and recessive European genes are when mixing with other races.
Skin pigmentation is a polygenic trait. It is theoretically possible that individuals can possess majority Amerindian admixture and possess , depending on their inheritance of specific alleles that determine light or dark skin pigmentation. Direct reproduction between two non-admixed individuals of distinct genetic populations with distinct skin pigmentations could result in a number of different intermediate skin pigmentations for their children, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
There is no single "Native American type" - which leads some people to doubt the authenticity of folks who are mostly or fully Native American. The ideal type for many Americans is tall, copper colored, with an aquiline nose. Many Mexicans and other Latin American Hispanics are fully Native American, but since they tend not to fit into the "Hollywood Indian" stereotype, they tend not to viewed as "real Indians."
There are comparably few Mexicans and Latin Americans that are fully Native American, and those that are would generally be confined to rural settings in regions that were historically densely populated Indian cultural areas, namely the Mesoamerican and Andean cultural areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
Native Alaskans often look Asian.
Native Alaskans are genetically distinct from the majority of Native Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
Athapaskan people have different origin from Puebloans in New Mexico.
Southern Athabaskans (or Apachean peoples) are descended from a founding group that is genetically distinct from Southwestern Indians. However, admixture between Southern Athabaskans and other Southwestern Indians has occurred, as Navajos have historically absorbed or blended with Puebloan peoples, and Apaches (particularly Mescaleros and Chiricahuas) have assimilated other formerly distinct cultural groups that may or may not have been Athabaskans, such as the Sumas, Jumanos, Conchos, Tobosos, Jocomes, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
Some Native people have admixture from Europeans and Africans that is so far back that, for all practical purposes, they form a "new" Indian type. Requiring that all Indians fulfill a single, pre-1492 ideal is a pretty unrealistic expectation.
The most reasonable criterion for classifying people as "Indian" is genotype-influenced phenotype, or whether an individual resembles a population that he or she possesses admixture from sufficiently to be identified as a member.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
Next to Rigoberta Menchu, she looks mostly white.
Overestimates of Amerindian admixture may be influenced by the false perception that admixed Indians are "full-blooded." When one observes skin pigmentation and other physical characteristics intermediate to that of admixed Indians and a genetically distinct population, this is incorrectly considered a "mixed-blood" appearance, when the so-called "full-blood" appearance is already a "mixed-blood" appearance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliadh View Post
Most Indians of the Mexico and Central America regions are VERY short and VERY dark brown.
Southern Mexico and northern Central America conform to the historic Mesoamerican cultural area, which was characterized by high population densities, and consequently high Amerindian admixture among its modern inhabitants, which is the reason for their dark skin pigmentation.

The stunted growth of Indians in poorer regions is an environmental factor influenced by malnutrition and preventable disease. As recorded in Bogin et al.'s Rapid change in height and body proportions of Maya American children, "Maya families from Guatemala migrated to the United States in record numbers from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. Births to Maya immigrant women have created a sizable number of Maya American children. The height and sitting height of 5 to 12 years children (n = 431) were measured in 1999 and 2000. Leg length was estimated and the sitting height ratio was calculated. These data were compared with a sample of Maya children living in Guatemala measured in 1998 (n = 1,347). Maya American children are currently 11.54 cm taller and 6.83 cm longer-legged, on average, than Maya children living in Guatemala. Consequently, the Maya Americans have a significantly lower average sitting height ratio (i.e., relatively longer legs in proportion to length of the head and trunk) than do the Maya in Guatemala. These results add support to the hypothesis that both the height and body proportions of human populations are sensitive indicators of the quality of the environment for growth."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2011, 01:19 AM
 
11,232 posts, read 12,521,698 times
Reputation: 29237
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr bolo View Post
Ive never met a full blooded native american in my entire life, most people that claim to be are usually mixed with whites or hispanic, etc

are there any surviving full blooded natives left or are they all mixed or partial race now?

they seem like they are almost extinct?
Considering that most "whites" have admixture of genealogical "blood" from exotix areas, it seems like a pointless question.

Which human group is pure.

It's a question that I had thought died about 1945.

I have known a small number of Native Americans in my 73 years, some looked very similar to various type of American "white," whereas others if they had any other genetic heritage other than Native American showed it not at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,632 posts, read 7,818,138 times
Reputation: 4713
There's a considerable number of tribes in Northern Canada that had little contact with Europeans over their history and are still what you could call ethnically "pure". The best example would be the James Bay Cree of Eeyou Itschee. This remote area only has Cree towns in it and Cree is the language that is most often spoken in the public sphere. Much of the culture and political system has likewise remained similar, but of course, as a large cultural block, like any living culture the Cree culture changes and adapts over time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2011, 09:04 PM
 
55 posts, read 234,531 times
Reputation: 57
According to US census, around 2.5 million people are "Native American". Now if we're talking about REAL, pure, and full blood Native Americans, their population is in the hundred thousands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2011, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,632 posts, read 7,818,138 times
Reputation: 4713
Canadian census shows 600 thousand full blooded native Americans and Inuit and about as many people who report having some other kind of mixture as well, but I know at least 200 thousand of those people who aren't full-blood are over 50% native because of the band roles. 1.25 million people who claim "Aboriginal identity" as either mixed or full blooded, and the numbers are actually going up rapidly because of very high birth rates among Aborignal people in Canada. So Full blooded NDN's are far from disappearing, at least north of the border. We've heard alot about American natives, but I'd be interested to learn more about the dynamics among Mexicans who identify culturally as indigenous as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top