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.
We just did 23andme and just found out that he's overwhelmingly European (no surprise there) with the majority of his DNA coming from Scandinavia/North Sea countries. Come to think of it, he looks like a Viking, so that's not surprising at all. He and his mother and father are all blonde haired, blue or hazel eyed, and very fair skinned.
We also found out that he's 1.1 percent African. And not northern African - subSaharan African.
Pretty cool - but very surprising!
WOW Interesting ! I wonder if he burns easily in the sun ?
Just one great reason to embrace more melanin and possible natural sun block
This subject has answered for me why so many European Americans look noticeably different than the Europeans born and bred across the pond
Even compared to people in a place like Australia .
"Hidden" African ancestry must come of course from ancestors a good number of generations back. Most whites from the big immigration period of the late 19 century and early 20th century settled in northern or western states and had very little contact with blacks (the Great Migration didn't occur until they were already here). The South saw very little immigration, so the population was pretty static. Even there the poor and middle class whites rarely interacted with blacks. Pre-Civil War they were on plantations and post Civil War Jim Crow segregation was very effective in keep the races apart. African-Americans do frequently have European ancestry (about 15-20% on average), but that was almost always a result of mixing while the population was enslaved. The white population of the South has very little hidden African blood. The 3-5% of European-Americans 23andMe states who test for African ancestry is small enough to be chalked up to testing inaccuracy and among those most have less than 1% of their genes African. Again, that's low enough to be testing inaccuracy (especially given how early genetic testing frequently showed anomalies like that - a half dozen tests would give a half dozen results).
Its not that I'm in denial, it just the European-American population as a whole is very homogeneous thanks to American racial attitudes and segregation (either by law or convention). The more likely race they might be a fractional amount would be Native American, but I've read that even its grossly overstated by most white family mythology. A prime example is Johnny Cash. His southern family always claimed they were a substantial amount Cherokee, but when he looked into his ancestry it was discovered he was nothing but Scots-Irish (check his Wikipedia article). Just because one has dark hair and eyes doesn't necesarily mean they're Indian.
I just sent off a sample to the Geno 2.0 Project that National Geographic is doing. I should get the results most likely in December. It'll be interesting to see what our background is according to that test. My family is white and from the South, but regardless I'll be pleased to find out any African/Indian/Neanderthal blood we have in us. Its all good!
WOW Interesting ! I wonder if he burns easily in the sun ?
Just one great reason to embrace more melanin and possible natural sun block
This subject has answered for me why so many European Americans look noticeably different than the Europeans born and bred across the pond
Even compared to people in a place like Australia .
Surprisingly, even though he is pretty fair complected, with blue eyes and blonde hair, he doesn't burn easily. In fact, he's one of those disgusting people who turns a lovely golden tan in the sun. He's a veritable Nordic Adonis! LOL
You know, you never can tell - maybe it's that smidgen of African blood that protects him from the sunburn that most fair skinned people seem prone to.
We also found out that he's 1.1 percent African. And not northern African - subSaharan African.
There's a very good chance that if he did a second test from another source it would show no African ancestry. I'm not going to do a second test once I get my results, but any tiny fraction like that I'll take with a grain of salt. I've read reviews of the various tests and those that get multiple tests done usually have anomalies like that (showing another race they had no knowledge of). One white person show a smll percentage East Asian, then African and then 100% European from there different tests (23andMe being among them).
There's a very good chance that if he did a second test from another source it would show no African ancestry. I'm not going to do a second test once I get my results, but any tiny fraction like that I'll take with a grain of salt. I've read reviews of the various tests and those that get multiple tests done usually have anomalies like that (showing another race they had no knowledge of). One white person show a smll percentage East Asian, then African and then 100% European from there different tests (23andMe being among them).
I would say there's at least as much a chance that he's 1.1 percent African as there is the chance that the test is wrong. I don't know why anyone would be surprised - we're such a melting pot in this country.
There's a good chance that if it shows up on the conservative estimate that it is real and within the last 500 years.
Yes, it shows up on the conservative estimate as 1 percent. He also shows up as 97 percent rather than 98 percent European on the conservative, with the difference being less native American and more unassigned. On the speculative side he shows up as 1.2 percent African, 98.5 percent European, .3 percent East Asian and Native American and .1 percent unassigned.
I've been doing some family research and have hit a wall. My GGGG grandmother, on my mother's side has 2 possibilities to follow. It's possible that instead of being Native American, as we've always been told, she may actually have been African. Unfortunately, she has a very common name. (I have found her in census records listed as white, but I have also found her name listed in "property'" records, listed as "mulatto." This may or may not be different people.) During her life, the family was in Arkansas, and then settled in Jackson, Mississippi. I figure if she was African, it would have been quite scandalous, which may be why I'm having such a hard time pinning her down. My grandmother on my mom's side was always pretty tight-lipped about her family's history, but I do remember her referring to the "darkies" in Mississippi.
This is the main reason I will be getting my DNA tested. I feel like if there was an African ancestor, and she had to be kept "secret" that it's time for her to be acknowledged. There is nobody left in the family who would be embarrassed by any of our ancestors, so we can finally dig up the truth. I can understand why my southern roots may not have embraced her at the time, but I have no problem doing so.
I've been doing some family research and have hit a wall. My GGGG grandmother, on my mother's side has 2 possibilities to follow. It's possible that instead of being Native American, as we've always been told, she may actually have been African. Unfortunately, she has a very common name. (I have found her in census records listed as white, but I have also found her name listed in "property'" records, listed as "mulatto." This may or may not be different people.) During her life, the family was in Arkansas, and then settled in Jackson, Mississippi. I figure if she was African, it would have been quite scandalous, which may be why I'm having such a hard time pinning her down. My grandmother on my mom's side was always pretty tight-lipped about her family's history, but I do remember her referring to the "darkies" in Mississippi.
This is the main reason I will be getting my DNA tested. I feel like if there was an African ancestor, and she had to be kept "secret" that it's time for her to be acknowledged. There is nobody left in the family who would be embarrassed by any of our ancestors, so we can finally dig up the truth. I can understand why my southern roots may not have embraced her at the time, but I have no problem doing so.
I feel totally the same way. "Back in the day" racial mixtures were so often scandalous. Now they're not much more than "interesting" to many families, which I think is terrific. My little grandkids are the most fabulous mixtures of races and they are gorgeous and very healthy, without exception. I only have one "pure" grandchild, and ironically he's the one that's adopted! But he was adopted from Korea and the Korean culture is famous (or infamous) for it's lack of racial mixing - not to say it never happens, but it's rarer there than in many other parts of the world. As far as we know, my grandson is 100 percent Korean - he sure looks that way.
It's ironic that in a family that looked so "white" just a couple of generations ago, now we have this glorious mixture of Korean, Panamanian, African American, Puerto Rican (no telling what's in that mix!), and Sicilian on top of the "white Europeans." And suddenly we have all these exotic looking little rug rats!
Personally I am so glad that we live in a society that is more open to this.
I dug up too much for a Southern family prior to the internet. All it did was cause problems. Blue eyed, blonde turned out to be on the Cherokee tribal role. :>)
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.
