Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-28-2013, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,095 posts, read 41,226,282 times
Reputation: 45085

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
It is the very fact of racism will be why such ancestry is hidden. The extreme laws forced many who can "pass" to fully integrate as "whites". And indeed many moved out of the South to do hat, thinking that whites elsewhere might be less "expert" at detecting subtle traits which might betray connection to other blacks. Also the person would not be known and so can re-invent themselves. We have none other than the Hemmings family as proof.

So the question remains. Why demand that blacks identify with their white ancestry, despite the rejection that they have received, and might still receive, if they track down their white relatives? And then pretend a so few whites have black ancestry so the question is irrelevant.

In addition to what happened during slavery there was way more miscegenation between blacks and whites than one might think. Indeed in 19th C NYC Irish women with black men was not unusual. It is possible that if they, or more likley their offspring were light enough they would have crossed off, thereby obtaining the advantages that being white brought in pre WW II in the north east.

As an aside there was a young white male who worked in my office who used to tease me about some one (cant remember who) being my kid. I teased him back that he was also my son, but didnt know that. SUDDENLY the joke ended and he became desperate to prove that it was impossible that he could have any black ancestry. He is olive complected with black hair.

You see there is an assymetry in the demands by some whites that blacks own up to their white ancestors. This being no doubt motivated by a desire to get them to be less "blacK", maybe in order to ensure that they mobilize less as blacks to obtain equality. But whites seem not to be under any such obligation.

It is noteworthy that the same forces which led to many blacks having some white ancestry also led to some whites sharing ancestry with blacks. Especially in places like Louisiana where color lines were more fluid.
The foundation of the pressure to pass as white is obvious, and certainly enough people managed to do so successfully that there are some folks who identify as white and have no idea that they have any African ancestors at all. However, that does not mean that there are a large number of whites who have hidden African ancestry. In the 23AndMe database it is 3 to 4% and the admixture is 0.5 to 0.75%, correspondig to an ancestor who lived about 200 years ago.

When people who identify as white are found to be related to people who identify as black, it is much more likely that the common ancestor will be European rather than African. Of course, the 23AndMe database is not likely to be representative of the entire population, but I think it is unlikely that we will find that the majority of the current US population that identifies as white will have hidden African ancestry.

Where do you get the idea that whites "demand" that blacks "own up to" having white ancestors and "pretend" that the number of whites with African ancestors is small? There are threads here exploring attitudes of both blacks with European ancestors and whites with African ancestors acknowledging their minority contribution ancestors. The fact is that the majority of African Americans have some European ancestors but a minority of white Americans will have African ancestors.

The consensus in both of the threads seems to me to be that we should acknowledge all of our ancestors, realizing that some of them, regardless of color, may not be nice folks we would want to socialize with, for example my ancestor who murdered his son in law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
Bear in mind that when Gates did a patrolineal DNA test he turned out to be very white, but when he added a matrinileal his African ancestry increased.

Most Transatlantic blacks get their white ancestry from the patrilineal side as white men had access to black and mulatto women (free and slave) while those men had scant access to white women until recently.

People have to be careful about which tests that they do and those with significant mixed ancestry need to be especially so if they desire an "accurate" result.
As far as I know, the tests that report admixture percentages are autosomal tests. That gives a sample of the entire genome, not just Y DNA or mitichondrial DNA. However, the commercial DNA companies do not test the entire genome. That means that a particular ancestor might not have passed down a gene that the companies test for to assign DNA to a particular geographical area. Indeed, a particular ancestor's DNA might have dropped out of his descendants totally before it got to you. So finding certain alleles present helps to place some (but not all) of your ancestors in a particular geographic location, but the absence of detected genes from a certain area does not completely exclude an ancestor from a particular area.

 
Old 10-28-2013, 08:02 PM
 
860 posts, read 1,109,414 times
Reputation: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
. The fact is that the majority of African Americans have some European ancestors but a minority of white Americans will have African ancestors.
I disagree that this is a "fact." The fact is that whites look down on African ancestry, and hence will ignore or downplay it.
 
Old 10-28-2013, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
67,650 posts, read 60,853,687 times
Reputation: 101073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite97 View Post
I disagree that this is a "fact." The fact is that whites look down on African ancestry, and hence will ignore or downplay it.
Generalize much?

The fact is that many "white" Americans would not be ashamed in the least of African ancestry - but actually KNOWING about it is a whole other matter. Their white and biracial ancestors WERE probably ashamed of it and therefore the facts are often hidden. Don't assume that most "white" Americans with some African ancestry even have any idea that it exists in their family tree.

My husband was completely taken by surprise. But he's not at all ashamed of it. He thinks it's interesting and sort of funny. No one could possibly look more "white" than him, unless they were a white albino.
 
Old 10-28-2013, 08:57 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
That happened with one guy of Louisiana Creole heritage.

Black Like I Thought I Was | Alternet
Yep that was one of the cases. But 23andme was not out over a decade ago. I wonder if he did 23andme if he would find African genetic DNA markers in his lineage?
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:03 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocrodril View Post
Obama is not black, he's a "mulato atrasado". A "mulato atrasao" is a mulatto that preserves exagerate amounts of African features for being half white.
Interesting nomenclature you gave.

Barack Obama looks mixed race to me. I'd be able to tell he was more than 1/2 white.

What I find funny is that people like Daddy Yankee or Rosie Perez are often not regarded as black even though they could be Obama's siblings.

Where people are born or come from influences how people percieves ones looks.

I speculate that had Obama been born and/or raised in Puerto Rico or any Spanish speaking country they would not necessarily regard him as black in the USA.

For example Colin Powell was born and raised to Jamaican parents, yet people label him black, but then if Colin Powell had a twin or look alike from Cuba which is like less than boat ride or island hop or swim away from Jamaica, the Cuban of the same phenotype would not be regarded as black in the USA.

It shows how race and perceptions and politics is hypocritical.
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:06 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocrodril View Post
Sure, just like those Jews that believe in JC.
There are Jews that believe in Jesus Christ (I.E. Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus).

Anyway there are plenty of notable examples.

Many Southern states had laws that stated that 1/32 Negro or black ancestry, that you could be declared white. In some 1/8 was even the cut off.
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,095 posts, read 41,226,282 times
Reputation: 45085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite97 View Post
I disagree that this is a "fact." The fact is that whites look down on African ancestry, and hence will ignore or downplay it.
Feel free to disprove it if you like.

You have already been given examples of whites who are not ignoring or downplaying their unexpected African ancestry.

Like to generalize much?
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:09 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated View Post
I'm no longer sure it should matter. There are people who are clearly black no matter how many or few "drops" they claim. But that does'nt mean that they want to be considered black in America. who would, with the negative connotation it has acquired over the centuries, still being portrayed as morally, genetically and intellectually inferior to the 'dominant' culture?
Then why would you want to support the one drop rule?

Also what about families and siblings that are of different colors? This happens frequently. That means people of one family can be categorized as or live as being different "races"
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:12 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3 View Post
Imo, the main people supporting whites acknowledging any black in their dna are people of color. There are too many areas of the country where such news would not be grand and joyful for whatever reason.
Well many whites openly claim Native American ancestry.

Look up the concept of multiracial whiteness. There is a big multiracial whiteness movement that has gone on and is growing throughout the USA.
 
Old 10-28-2013, 09:24 PM
 
2,238 posts, read 3,321,255 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3 View Post
Three people are used as examples to show that whites have NEVER been pure at all. Your logic is so flawed it relegates your words to the trash heap.
And the fact that you failed to grasp the point being made to show examples of a few famous celebs that we accept as white, that have mixed ancestry, shows that there is something wrong with your brain, and shows that your words are trash heap and bull**** and cheap talk.

If you want more examples, Carol Channing revealed that her biological father is said to be a mulatto man and she revealed more recently in a book.

Carly Simon is of mixed race heritage though many people have treated her as white.

Many people don't know Mariah Carey is of mixed race heritage.

Then there is theories that many previous U.S. Presidents had African and Native American ancestors. President Hoover is said to have come from a family of people that passed for WHITE and such is being further researched. It's definitely debatable and controversial.

Peter Wentz from the band green day is of mixed race lineage

Tom Sizemore's father is of African American and Creole heritages.

Charles LeDuff has African ancestors from his father's ancestors since they arrived into Detroit from Louisiana, and many of them were able to pass as white.

In addition during the colonial period and tikes of slavery if you were accepted as white and looked white even if it was known that you were mixed, you were still treated as white. White slaves were treated as and accepted as and considered as WHITE as well.

Patrick Francis Healy during the times of his living was treated as and accepted as and widely known openly as a WHITE man that just happened to have detectable close African ancestry. During his time there was no one drop rule.

One drop rule was only implemented firmly from 1931 to 1967.


Slavery had nothing to do with race. Slavery was MATRILINEAL. This was based on the sexist mysoginistic rule of matriliny or rather the rule of PARTUS SEQUITUR VENENTRUM. That means that you were only allowed to be a slave or be a potential target or candidate for enslavement if your MOTHER was a slave. There were slaves of ALL races, including large numbers of WHITE slaves. It was illegal to have race based slavery or to enslave someone for because of their race. Such was punishable and one would receive notable severe consequences for such. Also colonial documents don't even refer to a blacks as slaves or vice versa or that such is equivalent to such. During slavery, a person's race wad determined based on what they looked like. So if a person was mixed race during the colonial period but looked white they most often times would be considered WHITE. If they looked very mixed or identified as such they'd be labelled as mixed etc.

Not all race mixing was from rape. There were lots of complex arrangements and circumstances, unions and relationships that occurred between people of different races. In fact many WHITE woman even had children with BLACK men.

If during the early colonial antebellum era, they had enslaved people based on their race the WHITE fathers would have been held more responsible or been and acknowledged and possibly chastised. Under partus SEQUITUR ventrum support could be provided behind the scenes and under hush hush agreements, with sole focus and onus, focus, and blame being put on and centered on and around the woman.

Btw, there were masters, "massas", slave traders, captors, colonists, settlers etc of all races and race mixtures. There were also enslaved peoples of all races and racial admixtures and mixes.

As for the one drop rule no such thing existed during the antebellum colonial era or during slavery. One drop rule was a legal rule instituted on the books and in practice beginning in the 1930s. Mulatto and various other mixed race identities were recognized in the USA and on the censuses for virtually all of USA history. 1930 was the last year that mulatto and mixed race identity was legally recognized. After 1930 many ppl that identified as or were usually listed as mulatto or other or mixed had to get used to the risk of being possible mistaken for or listed as Negro or black etc. Many still weren't used to it and many still identified as mixed even during the one drop rule period. In some aspects it was also some black and mixed race black individuals that helped to support and boast/bolster the racist one drop rule, and many sectors of white and mixed race white elites didn't want a one drop rule, however some people of African descent grew arrogantly proud of their ethnic African American identity so they one dropped themselves and others. But this was only a tiny minority of ppl of color that advocated onr droppism. Most people were anti one droppist. One drop rule was put in place because of white supremacy and economic and social CLASS distinction and protection and to increase further division and create further competition. The one drop rule was a legal rule that sought to target people of mixed ancestry, and those whose ancestry was questionable. There was also a racist one drop rule that was applied to target Native Americans although it was not as severe as the hypodescent one drop rule method that was used to target blacks.

100 years ago In states like Oklahoma and Ohio legally someone like Obama would have been legally and socially treated as and considered a WHITE man.

One drop rule was only implemented from 1930 to 1967. The successful 1967 Sulreme Court Case ruling of Loving V. Virginia helped eradicate and dismantle the racist one drop rule. In 1967 mixed race and multiracial identity and conciousness was further restored in the USA.

So mixed race identity faced paper genocide because of the implementing of the one drop rule in the South from 1930 to 1967. It did a lot of damage. Had there not been a one drop rule the USA probably would not have the racial controversies and hang ups in the manner that still seems to permeate some aspects of USA society.

For much and most of USA race relations were fairly good or decent. That took a turn in the 20th century with segregationist one droppism and Jim Crow which splintered and damaged race relations in the USA especially between 1930 and 1960, especially since the one drop rule was implemented from 1931 to 1967. That splintered and damaged race relations. Luckily race relations and mixed race identity and mixed race consciousness and more equal and better race relations was restored in 1967. Society still has a long way to go. We have come a long way

Last edited by MelismaticEchoes; 10-28-2013 at 10:10 PM..
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top