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 04-02-2014, 08:25 AM
 
269 posts, read 427,519 times
Reputation: 429

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
When it happens at those low levels (less than 1%) it can be statistical noise. In other words, it may not be real.

What the tests do show is what makes up each particular person and isn't that the point?
You probably never bothered to read her page? I provided a link at the top of the autosomal photos. Perhaps this was overlooked.

I will quote her;

"What surprised me was no Native American showing for me (it is confirmed that I have Native American heritage through a Mohawk ancestor, Ots-Toch born ca 1622 in what is now New York state), and that I have a small bit of East Asian. However it's important to note that one test isn't the final answer, especially when searching for confirmation of heritage from several generations back."

I purposely used someone with 1. Documented evidence of Native American ancestry. 2. Had tested a sibling and 3. Shows a prime example of recombination and how it can show a difference between siblings in showing up for one, but not the other. It didn't show up in her, but it shown in her borthers. A plus.....She has genealogical evidence to support the finding in her brother's Ancestry Composition by 23andMe. Small percentages are sometimes just small, not always statiscial noise. In her case, her brother's is most likely real and they both carry the East Asian segment seen often with Native Americans to varying degrees. Austomal ancestry profiling is a crude analysis showing a "ballpark" geographical analysis which is comparative. If someone has no evidence to support 0.8 of anything, would be left wondering, "Gee, is it real?"

However, it proves a point that I have made with regard to RECOMBINATION was the reason for my post and siblings. Hopefully, you understood this was the reason for my posting this example.

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 04-02-2014 at 09:05 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2014, 10:58 AM
 
17,918 posts, read 9,854,361 times
Reputation: 17410
These tests are cool for personal gratification, but they are socially insignificant at the present time.

According to my family history, I have a Commanche great-great-grandmother, which should be enough to make me a member of the Commanche nation. I even have her picture with my great-great-grandfather. However, that marriage was not recorded in the official Commanche nation records, and it's utterly irrelevant to them what a DNA test reveals--they will only accept their own records. The Commanche nation doesn't care about the results of a DNA test, so there's no more point to me getting too excited about it now than it was 63 years ago when I was born with only my great-great-grandmother's picture in my family's possession.

In the same, way, a DNA test would reveal that my son is less than 50% African but at least 50% Polynesian. Makes absolutely zero social different, because he has been and will be treated by US society as African American. That's something he came to accept while he was still a teenager. Claiming to be "***-Talian" (a black American reference you may not be old enough to catch) is useless at the present time.

In the US at the present time, what you "are" is socially dictated by what the dominant white American judges you to be by your appearance. How they treat you when you interview for a job, when you apply for an apartment, when the cop pulls you over, when the school principal brings you in for misconduct, when the car salesman considers your offer...all that is based on what you look like to them at that particular moment. They don't care about "no steenkin' DNA test." They don't care if you call yourself a "***-Talian."

If any part of their decision is based on racial prejudice, they will make make it based on what you look like to them, not on DNA test results you wave in their faces. I expect in twenty or thirty years that will change--after we Boomers are safely dead or we all have Altzheimers. But not at this moment while we Boomers are still in control of industry and government. I had thought we Boomers were the transitional generation from the racist apartheid we were born into into a post-racial generation, but the last six years have shown me that we Boomers are still the product of our apartheid childhood.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:38 AM
 
17,918 posts, read 9,854,361 times
Reputation: 17410
The landscape is changing for millennials--and not necessarily to the better. Some points I'd make as groundwork:

1. Prior to the 70s (when interracial marriages involving blacks in particular were either outright illegal in many states and highly dangerous in most others), there were darned few such marriages. As a result, there were also darned few "mixed"--persons whose immediate parents were recognized as black and something else. In those days--the US population up to and including the Boomer generation--if a black person had light skin, it was most likely because of random genetic variation, not the result of an interracial marriage. And the percentage of that was very low--there weren't that many light-skinned black people in the population.

2. During that same period up to the 70s, if a white person did marry a black person, that white person lost the social privileges of being white. A white man no got automatic "benefit of the doubt" if he was pulled over by a white cop and had his black wife and biracial children in the car. A white mother no longer got deferrence if her biracial kids got suspended from school and she went to the principal to complain. Those whites understood in those days that being white no longer meant anything in society once they married black.

After the 70s, that situation changed dramatically.

3. After the 70s, when interracial marriages became legal and began to be socially acceptable, the number of them spiked. As a result, the number of biracial children also spiked. The proportion of light-skinned persons (blacks who are light-skinned as a result of random genetics plus biracial) in the population is now much higher in the millennial generation than in the Boomer generation.

4. At the same time, with interracial marriages becoming socially acceptable, the white spouses now keep their white privilege. This is a huge new event. They can and do use their white privilege (consciously or unconsciouly) for the benefit of their mixed children, and they teach their biracial children (consciously or unconsciouly) that the children, too, should expect that same privilege.

5. This situation creates a new racial group that had not existed in the US before (except in Lousiana in the 1800s). Suddenly there is a "colored" group that has at least a subset of traditionally white privilege. "Biracial" for the first time has actual social impact and is socially distinct from merely being a genetically light-skinned black. The US is becoming what South Africa was.

6. It must be recognized that "light skin" and "biracial" are becoming distinctly different social classes. Today, light-skinned blacks have no more social privilege than a dark-skinned black--that social privilege is extended specifically to "biracial." To the extent that "biracial" can be visually determined (and it very often can), a biracial child gains those privileges, but this is no different from the extremely light-skinned blacks in the past who could pass for white.

7. This is happening without a great amount of realization across the board. Dark-skinned blacks don't recognize that only mixed kids are getting additional privilege, thus they lump light-skinned with mixed and envy them both. Light-skinned blacks who experience the difference are angered for being envied for privileges they don't have. Mixed kids don't recognize they have special privilege--or they do, which is why they're pushing for the recognition of themselves as a distinct social group: "Biracial."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 02:40 PM
 
269 posts, read 427,519 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
I had no Native American in my test results. I'm 1% South Asian/Indian/Pakistani, 19% from various European groups and 80% from various African groups.
You tested with 23andMe? I'm only asking because 23andMe does not break down "African groups" only West, East etc. You are African American I am assuming?

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 04-02-2014 at 02:49 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:30 PM
 
Location: California
1,191 posts, read 1,232,410 times
Reputation: 1742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post

6. It must be recognized that "light skin" and "biracial" are becoming distinctly different social classes. Today, light-skinned blacks have no more social privilege than a dark-skinned black--that social privilege is extended specifically to "biracial." To the extent that "biracial" can be visually determined (and it very often can), a biracial child gains those privileges, but this is no different from the extremely light-skinned blacks in the past who could pass for white.
Ralph,

I'm not following this one. How can one know if a "light skinned" black is biracial (ie: one black parent and one white parent) or "lighter" skinned due to multi-generational admixture? It seems like an arbitrary difference. Most biracial people can't pass for white.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:42 PM
 
17,918 posts, read 9,854,361 times
Reputation: 17410
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDude1 View Post
Ralph,

I'm not following this one. How can one know if a "light skinned" black is biracial (ie: one black parent and one white parent) or "lighter" skinned due to multi-generational admixture? It seems like an arbitrary difference. Most biracial people can't pass for white.
In response to the part of my post that you bolded, mostly it's a matter of their white parent exerting "being white" as they are growing up in the home and as they observe that parent outside the home.

Let's take a situation where two kids have gotten into a fight at school and both are under threat of suspension. Make one a light-skinned black with two black parents and the other a biracial kid with a white parent.

Let's say both mothers storm in to the school to make sure their kids are not suspended. The black mother will likely not be treated with the same deference by the school officials as the white mother, and that experience will affect their children.

In terms of physical appearance:

It's not a sure bet by any means, but people use markers such as light eye tones, keener features, lighter hair tone, and finer hair texture. My daughter is light-skinned from two medium-dark parents as a result of random genetic combination, but she's "betrayed" as such by Naomi Campbell lips and the nose Naomi Campbell was originally born with. It's somewhat better than a 50/50 guess.

It's certainly not foolproof. People who are trying to make that distinction with such markers would probably guess Vanessa Williams is biracial and that Barack Obama is not, and be wrong in each instance. But they do try.

It's kind of like distinguishing the nationalities of east Asians. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese will swear they can distinguish between themselves, and I've spent enough time in the Far East that sometimes I think I can myself. There do seem to be some core distinguishing characteristics that make it somewhat better than a 50/50 guess if you know what to look for.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 05:14 PM
 
Location: USA
7,778 posts, read 9,617,164 times
Reputation: 11672
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorderoAries View Post
Again, varies by region, time period, etc. For example, only 100 years ago, in Ohio, Obama would have been seen as WHITE man. They even put it in their code of law. That is what happened in Puerto Rico as well, where more than half the population identifies as White even though the African ancestry in many is obvious. Again, experiences vary by region and blanket statements tend to be innacurate as they hold up in some cases and not in others.
I don't think Obama would have been seen as a white man in Ohio or anywhere else 100 years ago or 200 or any other number of years. He has mixed parentage, but he is black. That's just the way it is. Wishing does not make something true. Saying something is one way when it is another way, does nothing but cause confusion. Also, for someone to think biracial will be having a separate niche, doe not make it true.

My mother said my eyes were blue, but they aren't. My eyes are green. The color is obvious, no matter what someone says. I'll never know what my attitude would be if I were black. As it is, I'm a realist. If I were another race, I hope I would still be a realist, but considering such a difference, there's no telling what I would be or what I would believe. One granddaughter married a Cherokee. His father is white, but my grandson-in-law is Cherokee. If he went around telling everyone he is white, he would be silly.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:56 PM
 
23,262 posts, read 16,076,440 times
Reputation: 8543
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
You tested with 23andMe? I'm only asking because 23andMe does not break down "African groups" only West, East etc. You are African American I am assuming?
I tested with Ancestry.com and Ancestry does indeed break things down by nation (neighborhood ethnic groups in the same African nations test similar). The African nations in my background were Benin/Togo, Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon/Congo, Mozambique, Ghana). The European Groups were English, Spanish, Northern Russian, Eastern European, and traces of Italian, Irish, and Scandinavian).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:58 PM
 
23,262 posts, read 16,076,440 times
Reputation: 8543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
But if you get pulled over on I-95 or I-44 for "driving while black" by a racially prejudiced cop who is going to treat you the way he sees you, then it is going to matter to you, and what you call yourself will be utterly irrelevant in that situation.
What a cop thinks of me is utterly irrelevant. Have you allowed yourself to be so beaten down that you place yourself at the mercy of whatever scum?

And btw, no one gets away with mistreating me. This is true of any people and of any color.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:12 PM
 
23,262 posts, read 16,076,440 times
Reputation: 8543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The landscape is changing for millennials--and not necessarily to the better. Some points I'd make as groundwork:



5. This situation creates a new racial group that had not existed in the US before (except in Lousiana in the 1800s). Suddenly there is a "colored" group that has at least a subset of traditionally white privilege. "Biracial" for the first time has actual social impact and is socially distinct from merely being a genetically light-skinned black. The US is becoming what South Africa was.

6. It must be recognized that "light skin" and "biracial" are becoming distinctly different social classes. Today, light-skinned blacks have no more social privilege than a dark-skinned black--that social privilege is extended specifically to "biracial." To the extent that "biracial" can be visually determined (and it very often can), a biracial child gains those privileges, but this is no different from the extremely light-skinned blacks in the past who could pass for white.

7. This is happening without a great amount of realization across the board. Dark-skinned blacks don't recognize that only mixed kids are getting additional privilege, thus they lump light-skinned with mixed and envy them both. Light-skinned blacks who experience the difference are angered for being envied for privileges they don't have. Mixed kids don't recognize they have special privilege--or they do, which is why they're pushing for the recognition of themselves as a distinct social group: "Biracial."
There's also the negative and stereotypes associated with Black Americans. It recently made the news when a pretty Black guy whose parents are from Ghana got accepted into 8 Ivy League Universities. You cannot get darker than this guy.

The true problems may be the associations that people have with stereotypical "Black" culture. People who don't have those associations because they are from other countries AND/OR because they are from biracial backgrounds may certainly have it much easier and yes, this affects people professionally.
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.


 
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.

2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top