Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Not according to the various DNA studies, which suggest only 30% of African Americans have significant European ancestry. This would mean most Black Americans aren't multi gens.
Puerto Ricans are multigens and you see a lot more people there WHO LOOK like it, plus various studies CONFIRM IT.
Yes, you'd love to say the DNA studies and everything else is flawed, because it doesn't agree with your invented history.
Race mixing was not look on as a good thing in the pre civil rights South. It was TABOO. Yes, it happened, but it was also severely repressed. Interracial marriage was out of the question. A black woman might be the concubine to a white man (and I don't think the majority of white men were interested in those liasons back then), but that certainly wasn't a position most Black women would have wanted. For starters, in the early 20th century, even among Blacks, it was taboo to be a single mom. You were basically a prostitute, to be shunned and ridiculed.
So to the 30% of Blacks tested as having European ancestry, unless they were the products of recent interracial relationships, any mixing would have mostly happened in the 1700 and 1800s. Once slavery was ended, there would have been no new influx of whites into the family, because they were extremely fanatical about discouraging interracial mixing and this is in the HISTORICAL RECORD. British North America also would have gotten the bulk of its slaves in the 1700s, and this would also be in the historical record. So the Jim CROW period, lasting a century, was not that short a time period, either.
But you ignore history and science to make up a false picture of what you'd like to believe.
|
Pot meet kettle again. You are projecting some of your own thoughts on to me in addition to flaws and hypocrisies and contradictions at times. I'm simply responding trying to understand and analyze your points or further adding points to consider to the discussion.
Ah ok. Understood. However you said >>>"I would not automatically assume that a dark skinned Hispanic person is MIXED. I REPEATEDLY said its BASED ON the PERSON's FEATURES overall, including HAIR TEXTURE." <<<
However if that is the case, I notice that people don't extend this mixed label to those people they perceive as black Americans or historic Americans if they have these same features but Latinos of similar features or mixed are viewed as mixed.
This is why I just go by individuals instead of making broad over generalizations of ethnic groups because it can be limited and a curse and a blessing to stereotype or make a generalization. I just notice that ppl tend to gloss over and ignore the mixture if black Americans but then glorify it in other black or African descent groups.
Yes. There are people that lie about their family histories. I have caught a few people who live their lives in denial and refuse to live their truths and realities. They choose to live in a fanality, which is a fantasy based reality lol.
Black Dominicans may claim Taino because it is a unique way to tie them to the Dominican land. It's very complex issue. Some are delusional if they don't think there is African ancestry.
As for Black Americans, yes some do deny or claim something else that they don't have. I think most Black Americans do have significant enough non black ancestry which is usually European and in addition some Native. But for most Black Americans its been mixed in over the generation as in their parents or grandparents were biracial or multiracially mixed and each generation came out different skin colors or features or hair textures.
As said before extensive mixing took place during the antebellum colonial era and even immediately after and during the postbellum post slavery era. It was mainly towards the late era of Jim Crow that anti interracialism campaigns and segregation was at it's peak. *
Keep in mind I'm talking about multigens, which is what most black Americans are. Think about it. If those light skinned and/or mixed looking black Americans or black Americans that were or are mixed but don't look it have kids with each other that distributes mixture within the community. Plus there were always cases of mixed people being born during the era of segregation, but they were raised with their black side or usually lumped as black but were indeed mixed. Eartha Kitt is an example of this.*
Also there was mixing between many ethnic white populations with African Americans, during the times when groups like Irish, Jews, Italians, Scottish etc were not considered white. Many of these intermarried with AAs. There were other mixes too that occurred. It wasn't always black and white.
I am not talking about a couple of distant white ancestors. I'm talking about multigens. In other words, a white person mixed with a black person then that mixed person gets with a black person then their child gets with a quadroon and then with a white and then with a Griffe. It gets passed down on and on. And this happened in colonial society and times.*
In fact I'd argue that the descendants of most AAs before 1930 were listed as being mulatto or something other than black. In 1930 on the census many ppl categorized as mixed or something other than black or Negro had to take time getting used to being rakishly victimized by the newly implemented one drop rule.
For example Mariah Carey is a quadroon or less. Nick Cannon I'll say is a griffe (1/4 white, 3/4 black). There kids would even out to mulattoes.
Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon could have easily had children that came out Nick Cannon's color. This is the whole point I'm trying to make.
Beyonce is mixed. Her father is Bahamian and her mother is a Louisiana Creole. She could easily have a child that comes out resembling Tina Knowles in hair texture, skin tone, phenotypical features, and have mixed genotype.
Hell Beyonce could probably still pop out a redhead or blonde haired baby with a dark skinned predominantly or fully "black" person.
Many black Americans can point to a mulatto grandparent or great grandparent and their griffe grandparent on one side and there black grandparent on another.
I'm speaking in terms of the fact that the lineage is multigenerationally mixed.
For example Corey Booker is multigens. Henry Louis Gates Jr is multigens.
Don Cheadle is about 20% white.
Chris Tucker is 20% white or higher
What's your idea of very mixed?
I'd say that if a person has 20% or higher of one lineage then that is mixed. I don't really believe in fractions or idea of what constitutes mixed but for purposes of this convo I'll make an exception.
African Americans are not a racial group. It's an ETHNIC group in which people can be of any race. Some AAs were found to not even have detectable African ancestry in many DNA studies.
Well DNA tests are flawed as heck. The Native American thing is very controversial. I believe AAs do have some Native American ancestry
As for European ancestry it has been said in a DNA study that more than 40% of the European ancestry detected in AAs comes from females.
And btw, mixing between white males and black females during the times of colonial era antebellum slavery was not always from rape. There were many consensual unions or unique circumstances and arrangements. People did fall in love.
Also slavery was NOT racial. Slavery was matrilineal. You were only a slave if your mother was a slave. That's why there were slaves of ALL races. There were plenty of Irish slaves. Irish were not considered white until recently. There were plenty of white slaves though as well as Native American slaves and mixed race slaves.*
Do you feel Chris Brown has mixed race features? Given that he is from Virginia and the history there he most likely has significant mixed ancestry. He also claims a Native American tribe group lol.
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.
