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)
 
Old 05-22-2015, 03:43 PM
 
876 posts, read 833,538 times
Reputation: 1226

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by historyfan View Post
The above cartoon is unamusing to me and I find it inappropriate for the genealogy forum.
Agreed, a genealogy forum is no place for political commentary for or against any side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2015, 04:33 PM
 
1,112 posts, read 865,706 times
Reputation: 1464
I am 1/4 Asian american and 3/4 Black and I do indeed consider myself to be both Black and Asian. I recognize myself to be of both heritages and recongnize them equally. 1/32 is a small quantum to me, but if the tribe elected him, then so be it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2015, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
9,973 posts, read 16,611,522 times
Reputation: 6364
American Native status is political in that the tribes determine who is a member. Blood % is rarely determinative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Bishkek
1,975 posts, read 1,807,457 times
Reputation: 1246
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
After all, we elected a Kenyan as our chief.
LMAO. But really he should at least be over 50% IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: CA--> NEK VT--> Pitt Co, NC
375 posts, read 287,270 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhundred View Post
It should not be so much questioning that man himself but using him as an example. When someone in general has such a distant relation to a specific ancestry going back many generations in this case. Is it strange for that person to completely identify themselves with that distant ancestry? When the vast majority of their ancestry is not at all related to that group.

I've heard of similar cases of people with very distant native ancestries identifying themselves as native american. This man is just an extreme example in my view.
In the black community this is pretty common. There are plenty of fair skinned "blacks" whose racial composition would show that they have very little african ancestry, and yet because they grew up here and were raised by people who self-identified as black (who themselves were likely raised by people who self-identified as black) who call themselves black.

It is one of the more curious racial inconsistencies in our non-white/white racial dichotomy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2015, 01:22 PM
 
277 posts, read 478,559 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by naadarien View Post
In the black community this is pretty common. There are plenty of fair skinned "blacks" whose racial composition would show that they have very little african ancestry, and yet because they grew up here and were raised by people who self-identified as black (who themselves were likely raised by people who self-identified as black) who call themselves black.

It is one of the more curious racial inconsistencies in our non-white/white racial dichotomy.
I believe more of this is hardwired from slavery and rules of hypo-descendent. I believe also the fact in people oppressed as in many people of color were, form their own communities and "identification." When someone says they are "Black" they are not gauging their amount of "African" blood more so then they are showing their belonging to a community or want to show identification with that group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 11:27 PM
 
876 posts, read 833,538 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
I believe more of this is hardwired from slavery and rules of hypo-descendent. I believe also the fact in people oppressed as in many people of color were, form their own communities and "identification." When someone says they are "Black" they are not gauging their amount of "African" blood more so then they are showing their belonging to a community or want to show identification with that group.
I also suspect we are talking about different percentages. Based on watching all the genealogical shows Henry Louis Gates Jr. does which has the benefit of involving many African Americans and often showing their European/African percentages a "fair" skinned black person often is at least 20-30% African... That's still 1/5th - 1/3rd. At 1/32 we're talking 3% and I highly suspect someone who is 3% African probably doesn't look African American at all (heck people who are 10-15% usually are hard to tell in most cases I've seen).

Not that such a group doesn't have it's own dynamics but I strongly suspect "fair" skinned black people are often far more than 3% so we're probably talking apples and oranges here.

On the other hand I do think the belonging to the community aspect is potentially an apples to apples. If you were raised Native American you probably identify as such no matter your percentage, much like the Black community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 11:11 AM
 
277 posts, read 478,559 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
I also suspect we are talking about different percentages. Based on watching all the genealogical shows Henry Louis Gates Jr. does which has the benefit of involving many African Americans and often showing their European/African percentages a "fair" skinned black person often is at least 20-30% African... That's still 1/5th - 1/3rd. At 1/32 we're talking 3% and I highly suspect someone who is 3% African probably doesn't look African American at all (heck people who are 10-15% usually are hard to tell in most cases I've seen).

Not that such a group doesn't have it's own dynamics but I strongly suspect "fair" skinned black people are often far more than 3% so we're probably talking apples and oranges here.

On the other hand I do think the belonging to the community aspect is potentially an apples to apples. If you were raised Native American you probably identify as such no matter your percentage, much like the Black community.
I agree with you points.

Vanessa Williams was 65% SSA when she tested and comes from multigenerational mulattoes. She is fair skinned with discernible SSA features but looks admixed. A person who would test 20-30% SSA in the US (not Latin America), is most likely a product of partial (parentage) Black ancestry and with percentages such as that (20-30), comes from a Black parent which has a degree of mixture themselves be it European/Native American, regardless of how they identify. I've seen quite a few American Mulattoes test over 40% to near 49%. There are a lot of African Americans test in the 90's.

With regard to DNA Percentages, if they include the X (like 23andMe), can also over inflate ancestry. Someone can have African, Native or European on their X but not on the autosomes. Since the X does not undergo the "generational shuffle" and is passed down unchanged, does not indicate recent ancestry. So theoretically if someone had 3% SSA on their X can mean something different than 3% on their autosomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,430 posts, read 6,189,061 times
Reputation: 11262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts View Post
American Native status is political in that the tribes determine who is a member. Blood % is rarely determinative.
True, but the requirements for citizenship in the US over a century ago when millions of enslaved Africans were not "members" or citizens of the United States were also "political." But, like that decision/setup, the setup of tribal nations is, while political, also inherently racial as there is no tribe that doesn't have a system of membership based on lineal descent to an Indian or, for a couple of tribes, to the descendants of black slaves owned by tribal members (such as the Seminole Nation and Cherokee Nation . . . that number can expand to 5 tribes depending on current litigation). Tribes have made a political decision to extend membership only to members who are descendants of Indians by blood. Yes, that is their right, but lets not take away the clear racial element of that decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2015, 08:23 PM
 
305 posts, read 466,532 times
Reputation: 511
The Cherokee have been a mixed people since the eighteenth century. Being Cherokee is more a matter of cultural affiliation than genes or looks.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top