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 11-22-2015, 11:01 AM
 
172 posts, read 125,591 times
Reputation: 193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
I didn't get this feeling at all from the post... by "kick" it seems like they meant an interesting surprise... the rest they sounded like they wanted to get some additional opinions on whether 3% was anything more than noise. Before you start want to folding something new into your identity you want to make sure it's actually accurate and correct (like hearing stories of Native American vs verifying it).
I have to disagree. Finding out that you have African-American in your ancestry is a whole lot different from finding out that you have Native American ancestry. You can safely say as a white person that you have Native American ancestry and check off white on the box.

It is very different to reveal that you have African American ancestry and state in the same sentence that you are white. This is the result of the legacy of racism in the United States. If Barack Obama said that he wants to identify as white, you know that would not go over well. Whites would not accept him and blacks would be angry. I can understand how you are reasoning this but history tells a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2015, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,224 posts, read 4,717,236 times
Reputation: 5632
National Geographic's Geno 2.0 test won't even report on anything less than 2% because they can't be sure if its significant. I mean why worry over a racial fragment that's like 1/64 or 1/128 "whatever"? That's so tiny as to be insignificant in genealogy. Even if it exists its not your race or culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2015, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,218,356 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by virulentpeach View Post
Ah, I see. Interesting!

What was it you meant when you said my results are more complete than my mother's? What do you think her actual results should look like rather than how they came out?
Shoot, I can't remember exactly why I stated your results were perhaps more complete than your mother's.

In my case, I have matched folks on my father's line that he did not match. He is an old man and I believe he was not able to produce a good specimen. So I'm sure I was suggesting that your specimen may have been more complete than your mother's, BTBH, I can't remember exactly why that was my suspicion. (If I get a chance later I'll go back and read the posts. I'll be busy for the next week or so.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2015, 12:33 PM
 
877 posts, read 839,873 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by willow1990 View Post
I have to disagree. Finding out that you have African-American in your ancestry is a whole lot different from finding out that you have Native American ancestry. You can safely say as a white person that you have Native American ancestry and check off white on the box.

It is very different to reveal that you have African American ancestry and state in the same sentence that you are white. This is the result of the legacy of racism in the United States. If Barack Obama said that he wants to identify as white, you know that would not go over well. Whites would not accept him and blacks would be angry. I can understand how you are reasoning this but history tells a different story.
I'm sorry but I think you completely misunderstood my post. Your arguing something I never said. All I was saying is I think you misunderstood the post you quoted... basically that:

1) "kick" was not meant as in negatively a kick, but as in something interesting. It seemed they were suggesting it would be a positive and interesting result if they had African ancestry.

2) Before claiming to be part African they wanted to get some opinions on whether 3% was enough DNA to be accurate... Not in a desire to dis-avow it, just to not claim something as them unless they fully understand the evidence for it.

My comparison to Native American was purely in this regard, that if someone hears they are Native American they may want to verify it before fully owning it.

I was telling no "story" about racism, history, or whatever... just pointing out that the OP wasn't actually saying these things in a negative way but in a cautiously curious (cautious to be sure they are interpreting it correctly).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2015, 11:10 PM
 
637 posts, read 645,054 times
Reputation: 959
LOL. The anti-Black racism here is so obvious. She has an African ancestor. So what? Many White Americans do. Why is it so bad?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2015, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,420 posts, read 28,272,492 times
Reputation: 28997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Having done a pyramid of decent...I worked it out one day- that on person after a few hundred years is descended for well over 5000 people...That means if you go back say a thousand years ONE person has the genetic markers contained in well over 50 thousand people---I am just tossing rough figures around but it is amazing. Out of those thousands of ancestors...at least a few traveled all over the planet breeding willy nilly with everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
We in each of us have some genetic trace in us of everybody that ever lived.
We do not have DNA from every one of our ancestors. You actually can have the contribution from a given ancestor be lost going back only a few generations, due to the process of recombination. That is why current DNA technology may pick up native American or African ancestry, but if it does not that ancestry cannot be excluded. The contribution from that ancestor may have been lost through recombination or it may be that the testing company does not have a comparison group for that ancestor in its database.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manhattangirl View Post
LOL. The anti-Black racism here is so obvious. She has an African ancestor. So what? Many White Americans do. Why is it so bad?
The people who are actually discussing their DNA results here are interested in what they have found and where their African DNA might have come from. Why is that racist? Who here has said it is "bad"? I reread the entire thread and found nothing I can call "racist".

From Dr. Henry Louis Gates:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist..._ancestry.html

"Here’s how Scott Hadly reported Kasia Bryc’s findings on the 23andme website on March 4, 2014: “Bryc found that about 4 percent of whites have at least 1 percent or more of African ancestry, known as “’hidden African ancestry.’”

“Although it is a relatively small percentage,” Hadly continues, “the percentage indicates that an individual with at least 1 percent African ancestry had an African ancestor within the last six generations, or in the last 200 years [meaning since the time of American slavery]. This data also suggests that individuals with mixed parentage at some point were absorbed into the white population,” which is a very polite way of saying that they 'passed.'”

Last edited by suzy_q2010; 11-27-2015 at 10:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2015, 12:51 AM
 
877 posts, read 839,873 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
We do not have DNA from every one of our ancestors. You actually can have the contribution from a given ancestor be lost going back only a few generations, due to the process of recombination. That is why current DNA technology may pick up native American or African ancestry, but if it does not that ancestry cannot be excluded. The contribution from that ancestor may have been lost through recombination or it may be that the testing company does not have a comparison group for that ancestor in its database.



The people who are actually discussing their DNA results here are interested in what they have found and where their African DNA might have come from. Why is that racist? Who here has said it is "bad"? I reread the entire thread and found nothing I can call "racist".

From Dr. Henry Louis Gates:

How Many White People Have Hidden Black Ancestry? - The Root

"Here’s how Scott Hadly reported Kasia Bryc’s findings on the 23andme website on March 4, 2014: “Bryc found that about 4 percent of whites have at least 1 percent or more of African ancestry, known as “’hidden African ancestry.’”

“Although it is a relatively small percentage,” Hadly continues, “the percentage indicates that an individual with at least 1 percent African ancestry had an African ancestor within the last six generations, or in the last 200 years [meaning since the time of American slavery]. This data also suggests that individuals with mixed parentage at some point were absorbed into the white population,” which is a very polite way of saying that they 'passed.'”

Agreed on every point.

Regarding having DNA from every ancestor. You have to keep in mind our DNA holds a finite amount of data... so obviously you will always run into a limit of how much information a single person's DNA can hold.

Likely our technology limits us from confidently identifying small segments of DNA (which is why any very small segments are thrown away when looking at ethnicity and/or matches, since we just don't know if they are real or noise), we might get better at this and might be able to identify smalls segments from more ancestors than we can right now, but even then we will always run into a limit... The DNA of many thousands of people cannot exist within the DNA of a single person, at least not directly.


Regarding racism... I also did not see anything said here as being racist. For some reason some people think when someone who asks whether a small amount of DNA (say African) is legitimate it must be because the person doesn't want to own it. If they didn't want to own it they probably wouldn't have asked. Most often someone is just being cautious, for all they know having small amounts of that DNA might not mean a recent ancestor of that ethnicity. For example if you are of English descent and have small amounts of Iberian DNA it doesn't mean you have an ancestor within the last 300 years from Iberia. Obviously this is a bit different with African DNA since European, African, and East Asian DNA is much more distinct from each other and as long as your segments are large enough to not be noise it likely means a semi-recent ancestor from that region (or with East Asian it could be Native American or another heavily influenced population). People don't know this and have to ask this before they can. Often this is out of respect to the ethnicity represented by that DNA, as we see many people get offended if a white person goes around saying that have Native American DNA without confirming it, it's often an act of respect for someone to be cautious before fully identifying with that.

I was fortunate enough to have Henry Louis Gates Jr. respond to an inquiry I had of the same regard (an expert suggested it might actually have signs of East African DNA, but upon further consideration I think the 23andme response Gates acquire is more likely, though there were a small amount of East African slaves brought to the US):
I’m White, but Tests Show I Have East African DNA. How? - The Root

and if you read the comments you'll see someone assuming the same about me... That asking for verification must mean I was trying to "write-off" my potential African ancestry. If they knew me they would've known nothing could be further from the truth. Simply before embracing it into my ancestral identity I wanted to be sure it was legitimate (and not noise) and get an idea of what it represents. Cautious in ancestry, genealogy, and DNA is a *good* thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2015, 10:20 AM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,238,493 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
Agreed on every point.

Regarding having DNA from every ancestor. You have to keep in mind our DNA holds a finite amount of data... so obviously you will always run into a limit of how much information a single person's DNA can hold.

Likely our technology limits us from confidently identifying small segments of DNA (which is why any very small segments are thrown away when looking at ethnicity and/or matches, since we just don't know if they are real or noise), we might get better at this and might be able to identify smalls segments from more ancestors than we can right now, but even then we will always run into a limit... The DNA of many thousands of people cannot exist within the DNA of a single person, at least not directly.


Regarding racism... I also did not see anything said here as being racist. For some reason some people think when someone who asks whether a small amount of DNA (say African) is legitimate it must be because the person doesn't want to own it. If they didn't want to own it they probably wouldn't have asked. Most often someone is just being cautious, for all they know having small amounts of that DNA might not mean a recent ancestor of that ethnicity. For example if you are of English descent and have small amounts of Iberian DNA it doesn't mean you have an ancestor within the last 300 years from Iberia. Obviously this is a bit different with African DNA since European, African, and East Asian DNA is much more distinct from each other and as long as your segments are large enough to not be noise it likely means a semi-recent ancestor from that region (or with East Asian it could be Native American or another heavily influenced population). People don't know this and have to ask this before they can. Often this is out of respect to the ethnicity represented by that DNA, as we see many people get offended if a white person goes around saying that have Native American DNA without confirming it, it's often an act of respect for someone to be cautious before fully identifying with that.

I was fortunate enough to have Henry Louis Gates Jr. respond to an inquiry I had of the same regard (an expert suggested it might actually have signs of East African DNA, but upon further consideration I think the 23andme response Gates acquire is more likely, though there were a small amount of East African slaves brought to the US):
I’m White, but Tests Show I Have East African DNA. How? - The Root

and if you read the comments you'll see someone assuming the same about me... That asking for verification must mean I was trying to "write-off" my potential African ancestry. If they knew me they would've known nothing could be further from the truth. Simply before embracing it into my ancestral identity I wanted to be sure it was legitimate (and not noise) and get an idea of what it represents. Cautious in ancestry, genealogy, and DNA is a *good* thing.
Your link is interesting thank you for posting it several months ago in one of Henry Louis Gates Jr. video's he mentions that a company I don't recall the name of the entity or even if he disclosed that information separated his African DNA 50% from the European portion and compared it to various African populations and the results showed that his African DNA clustered within the core of either the Mende tribe or Mande peoples I don't recall which is correct. I found this to be fascinating it gave me hope hopefully at some point the technology will advance to the point where it can be applied to small segments of Sub-Saharan African DNA.

Last edited by AFP; 11-28-2015 at 10:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2015, 05:56 PM
 
393 posts, read 261,531 times
Reputation: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by TootsieWootsie View Post
If anyone understands the testing done by Ancestry.com then the 3% Sub-Saharan could just be a hiccup of the machine? Am I understanding that right?

Course, I would consider it a kick if I were 3% Sub-Saharan....but I think I read it right on the results. Yes? No? Anyone understand this confusing stuff?

From what I gathered, when a small percentage like 3% shows up it is the machine burping and you have none of whatever the Race is in you.
ancestry tells you, based on your DNA where people with that heliotype have typically lived. Having something in Africa doesn't necessarily mean you have black ancestors, your people might have been colonizers or slave traders
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2015, 06:36 PM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,238,493 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
Your link is interesting thank you for posting it several months ago in one of Henry Louis Gates Jr. video's he mentions that a company I don't recall the name of the entity or even if he disclosed that information separated his African DNA 50% from the European portion and compared it to various African populations and the results showed that his African DNA clustered within the core of either the Mende tribe or Mande peoples I don't recall which is correct. I found this to be fascinating it gave me hope hopefully at some point the technology will advance to the point where it can be applied to small segments of Sub-Saharan African DNA.
It was Mende and the test was done at Penn State rather than by a commercial testing company. This is the video at 50:30.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTT7MMz7KIc
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
Similar Threads
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