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 01-02-2015, 08:30 PM
 
311 posts, read 619,351 times
Reputation: 542

Advertisements

It's a slow night at the ranch, so I thought I'd resurrect thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL View Post
.......So here's the theory: I believe everything happens for a reason. The Native Americans and the Africans as a collective, in the spiritual sense decided to come together and create another race......

I say the southeast in particular because that's where Natives and Africans would seemingly flourish as far as interaction goes. For example the Black Seminoles in Florida is pretty common so I assume that the Southeast would be a hotbed area and also in Georgia I notice African Americans with a red tint, me included. I know that my great grandmother on my dad side was pure blood Native but I don't know what tribe and my great grandmother's mother on my mama side was pure blood. So I know I'm an example of this theory.

Any Thoughts?
Thank you for the invite for actual thoughts. I do't think you have a clue to the racial tensions that existed back then among all these groups. Anyway to my onslaught..... Red tint, fullblood ancestors, recent ancestry, no genealogical documentation, and the big BUT I don't know what tribe anyone is from and walla.....You are an example to your theory.
How would you know great granny was a fullblood tribal Indian? Having no interruption in her past ancestry if you cannot document her tribal lineage especially with no tribe? While many, I mean many people enrolled with federal tribes especially from one of the five civilized tribes have ancestors with some degree of mixture, yours is fullblood? If you had taken a DNA test and had shown Native American ancestry, then sure, you have a biological connection to Indigenous Americans, however, this cannot every verify any tribe. However, this is not the case in point of your post.

Admixture map


Now, after reviewing that admixture map, consider the statement taken from 23andMe's research with the people who are self identified African American and White American. The "New Race" theory went flat on it's face.
Many Whites Today Would Have Been Classified as Black in the 1940s

"On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans."

This pretty much fits the admixture chart that shows the African Americans (as a population) has little Native American admixture. If the average is .8, the African Americans that score over 2%-20%+ are in the minority and under 2% NA is more common if the average is less than 1%.

I'll throw Whites Americans and Native American ancestry. To keep it fair and balanced. No new race there either. The chart dove tails with little admixture of Native American ancestry as a population. You would think they were find more the way people claim this in the White community.

"These broad estimates masked wide variation among individuals. Based on their sample, the resarchers estimated that over six million European-Americans have some African ancestry. As many as five million have genomes that are at least 1 percent Native American in origin. One in five African-Americans, too, has Native American roots."

The largest group of African Americans with at least 2% are in OK.

"Oklahoma shows the highest proportion of African Americans with substantial Native American ancestry, where over 14% of African Americans from Oklahoma carry at least 2% Native American ancestry"
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...09340.full.pdf

This "hot bed" in GA and Seminoles, should be enough to pull the percentages up. I would think going by your theory? Most of that "at least 2%" comes from 14% African Americans in OK according to 23andMe. Makes sense since in OK a large chunk of Indians were moved there from the Southeast who had contact with blacks or went with them.
In the same article, they found lower Native American ancestry in African Americans with Seminole ancestry where they expected to find more according the the census which made notable documentation of intermarriages between Seminole Indians and Blacks.

"In constrast, we do not observe higher rates of Native American ancestry in African Americans in Florida, which is potentially notable in light of the known history of Seminole intermarriage with blacks according to the 1860 U.S. Census41"

From the chart, we can see Latino's as a population are more mixed on average, this is largely due to colonization and males from European intermarrying with the indigenous population. America was much more discriminatory towards Indigenous peoples. Black's and White's were in close quarters with one another while Indians were trying to avoid encroachment of placed on reservations.

Yes, while Blacks (and Whites) and Natives did mingle, it was smaller than what is or was believed. Their genetic landscape does not show too much mixing on an average with Native Americans.

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 01-02-2015 at 09:20 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2015, 10:16 PM
 
2 posts, read 5,574 times
Reputation: 10
What is considered a "substantial amount" of NA ancestry?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 10:58 AM
 
311 posts, read 619,351 times
Reputation: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Chinky_Eye View Post
What is considered a "substantial amount" of NA ancestry?
From the article?

"Oklahoma shows the highest proportion of African Americans with substantial Native American ancestry, where over 14% of African Americans from Oklahoma carry at least 2% Native American ancestry"

Staying with that report and not to deviate. In genomic terms 2% is a "good worth" and is a solid amount to be detected on the chromosomes. It's usually more robust segments or more segments sprinkled liberally on the chromosomes. 23 has a category East Asian/Native American. If this population (of any group) falls under 1% at times, can be associated with noise. The large crux of African Americans (not counting ones who produce 2%+), the ones that show a percentage in East Asian Native American score from .3 - 1.5. See examples. This seems very common. It is not common for African Americans to score over 2% as a population in an area, but in OK it is seen more common in 14%+. African Americans can show higher percentage in other regions individually but does not raise the population %.

More common Ancestry Compositions seen among African Americans




Here is a painting about 2%, segments are more robust. This person I personally have knowledge of, his grandmother is of Native American ancestry.


The images above are taken from people who published their results online. 23andMe published a report over a year ago, can't find it. At that time, it was said of self identifying African Americans 11k had at least 1% Native American while about 500 had over 2%. There are African Americans that show no Native/East Asian.

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 01-03-2015 at 11:20 AM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 02:51 PM
 
7,796 posts, read 11,157,578 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Chinky_Eye View Post
What is considered a "substantial amount" of NA ancestry?
Probably anything above 5%. Beyond that percentage chances are high that a feature or two might appear in people's phenotypes, but I think most of the times its hard to tell.

For example, how do you know if the nose of an AA with significant NA ancestry is more of an African nose or a NA nose? In most likelihood its a mixed nose, but it would be hard to tell to which side the mixture is much more skewed in the appearance of the nose.

An African nose:

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/lifestyle...africa-man.jpg

A NA nose:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ad2069e78c.jpg

And that's one feature of many others that are easily confused. High cheek bones is another one even though most people assume that having them is a sure sign of NA ancestry, but many AA with no NA mixture also have them.

I think in Spanish and Portuguese Latin America is where you will find significant NA admixture in people with significant African and European ancestry. Look at Dominicans as examples of this, very rarely does a Dominican has less than 5% NA admixture with s surprising number of them having as much as 10% NA blood mixed in. They also have significant Euro mixed in too, usually ranging from 40 to 70% of any given person. That is that its relatively rare for Dominicans to have less than 40% or more than 70% Euro mixed in. But even among them, despite that NA features are often much more prominent than among AA's, you do have to wonder at times if the nose looks more African or NA or the cheekbones or many other features.

Last edited by AntonioR; 01-03-2015 at 03:00 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 03:55 AM
 
1,049 posts, read 1,127,711 times
Reputation: 1530
Some random points based purely on my own opinion:

1) I don't think everything happens for a reason, things happen and people and groups adapt and adjust and try and survive

2) I don't think those two groups *chose* to come together in these hardships, they just did

3) There is a *lot* less intermixing between African Americans and Native Americans (hence folding Native American into the full identity of Native Americans doesn't really make sense), for example this latest study showed:

"One in every 20 African Americans carries Native American ancestry"
23andMe Study Sketches Genetic Portrait of the United States

4) Someone mentioned that one thing the OP missed was that slavery already existed, in one example between African tribes.

While this is true (heck slavery goes way back beyond the Romans and Egyptians) what developing during this period was a sort of global slavery system based on skin color (and the beginnings of the concept of "race" in the way we think about it now). This was especially true in the US, if you weren't considered "white" you could always be thrown into slavery even if you weren't and often there was little you could do about it.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 11:22 AM
 
215 posts, read 354,145 times
Reputation: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL View Post
Okay I've been thinking on this for about a few months now and it really pertains to the South and the Southeast in particular in the US. Okay so while the slave trade was going on Native Americans were going through their own sorrows, struggles and persecution by the same oppressor as the Africans in the slave trade. When the Africans came over its documented they were befriended with the Natives and some of the Natives even owned the slaves and treated with better treatment overall, plus they would compliment and help each other and their relationship was steady for quite awhile before the Trail of Tears and the near eradication of the Native population.

So here's the theory: I believe everything happens for a reason. The Native Americans and the Africans as a collective, in the spiritual sense decided to come together and create another race (bare with me ) which was African Americans [of course other races play apart in it, but the two main ones were the people from the natives of the Africa and the natives of the North America]

These two groups both share similar histories of oppression with the same group and both are nearly gone from this country (not African immigrants but the Africans who came with the Atlantic Slave Trade i.e. The Gullah People in the Lowcountry)

I say the southeast in particular because that's where Natives and Africans would seemingly flourish as far as interaction goes. For example the Black Seminoles in Florida is pretty common so I assume that the Southeast would be a hotbed area and also in Georgia I notice African Americans with a red tint, me included. I know that my great grandmother on my dad side was pure blood Native but I don't know what tribe and my great grandmother's mother on my mama side was pure blood. So I know I'm an example of this theory.

Any Thoughts?
I honestly don't know why Black people care so much for "good" slavery??

you hear this bullsh*t all the time (oh but they treated their slaves better than etc..)

WTF????

this says, just one example "there wasw little difference in slavery between Cherokee and European-American society. They made tribal laws that shoed favor for Cherokees and Whites but disfavored Blacks."

http://en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen

maybe that small percent of Native American DNA found in a small handful of African Americans is because native Americans raped their African slaves too.

why the hell is there such a thing as "lenient slavery"??? that is just stupid

ad if your judgement on that is based the amount of pseudo-freedom granted to them by the owner then obviously white people were "good" l slave owners too. All you have to do is look at the case of Robert Smalls.

but that not true across the board and there's no reason to think it's any different for a native American slave owner.
I mean they were just property, right? they were still property, right? they didn't care so much about them as to actually free them or anything, did they?

I mean until they were forced to free them just like with white people.
so you feel beter about it knowing they were still slaves but weren't raped and beaten AS much as the next owner?

that's just stupid and its equalltyu stupid to think white slave owners in general were these mean violent owners al the time
MOST white slave owners were POOR people or small famers who could not actually afford to torure their slaves and they were usually ourtside working the fields with them

only the 5% or less who actuall own Plantations could be so careless as to rape and torture their slaves dispairngly

ALSO seriously what the hell makes ANYONE think native Ameeicans didn't torture their African slaves either?

except for the Seminole most Native Americans had nothing to do with African Americans and they even kidnapped them along with their white masters on the frontier sometimes

maybe then they had close contact I ffhry adopated them or tey could have just killed them as well.

They didn thave any close relationship and if they did it was more likely at a time when white intnetured servants also ahd a closer relationship with African slaves too earlier in the 1600s.

I guess the OP ahs never heard of the Cherokee Freedmen controversy?

its stupid to think Native Americans cared so much for African slaves anymore than anyone else did.

plus its also stupid to think all wite slave owners were inhumane.
this links ays otherwise in some cases

Stonewall Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here is what some Modern Native Americans think about black tribal members

Cherokee freedmen controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and despite what the OP claims, anyone that knows anything at all about DNA studies and Southern history knows the overwhelming majority of both African Americans and White Americans even from the South don't have one drop of Naïve American blood or genes and out of the few who do its usually less than 5% or around that
so there couldn't have been hardly any mixing going on.

African Americans have a much higher percent of western European ancestry than they do any Native American ancestry.

and as for what I said about slavery? probably all slave owners were cruel and violent

they probavbly all had experiences like with what you hear in the Slave Narratives

I honeslty don't know why a Native American slave owner would javge been different especially since they owned slaves for the exact same reason white owners did
for economic exploitation and nothing else

and if they were better to their slaves then they probably treated them about the same as most white owners who were really just small farmers and not large planters.

what is it with black people or anyone else giving excuses to people who were "good" slave owners??

talk about a bunch of Uncle Toms.

and from what I've been told most true Native Americans on reservations laugh when they hear about all of the native American ancestry in White and African Americans

if all of that mixing went on then how come they weren't wiped out or largely absorbed from that alone?

it happened sometimes but was more rarer than people think.
people are clueless when it coms to genetics and history.
yes even in the South it was the same as everywhere else with very very very few exceptions.

to the OP: if your great grandmother was a pure-blooded native American then their should be paper work and census records showing that and what tribe she was from.

that doesn't seem like some remote distant ancestor. If its just your great grandmother it means no earlier than the 1800's which is when they took records for tribes and native Americans more extensively since it was about the time of Indian removal.
those records should be there especially if she came from the South.

and the fact she was a pure blood in the 1800's means her ancestors must have lived largely within a tribe up to that point for her to not have any White ancestry in that late of a date/era.

Last edited by Tenn82; 01-05-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 05:32 AM
 
25,539 posts, read 21,654,309 times
Reputation: 10058
Quote:
Originally Posted by queensgrl View Post
Have you ever considered that the admixture of Native Americans and Black Americans came from whites who are admixed with native blood, who then produced children with blacks?

It would certainly explain my DNA test results - 12% Asian, 30% European, 58% African.
Or alternatively a lot of Blacks have family that came from the Caribbean. You had Chinese laborers in the Caribbean. So a lot of Blacks actually do have East Asian ancestry.

Of course some Blacks do indeed have Native American ancestry, but I think in the US it is a lot rarer than it would be in places like Panama or Colombia. For the most part Natives in the US were subject to genocide.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 01:13 PM
 
1,049 posts, read 1,127,711 times
Reputation: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
Or alternatively a lot of Blacks have family that came from the Caribbean. You had Chinese laborers in the Caribbean. So a lot of Blacks actually do have East Asian ancestry.

Of course some Blacks do indeed have Native American ancestry, but I think in the US it is a lot rarer than it would be in places like Panama or Colombia. For the most part Natives in the US were subject to genocide.
The most recent DNA studies suggest 1 in 20 African Americans have Native American ancestry, so it is indeed pretty rare, of course certain areas and groups from different regions have more than the average.

With that said I've seen no study that suggests African Americans have any significant actual east asian genetic influence in any real way.

For a long time Mulengeons have been claimed to be of some sort of European, Native American, and Portuguese descent in many areas.

DNA instead has shown that most of those groups are European and African American and in some cases some small amounts of Native American. Mostly just European and African though, those traits combine in interesting ways that make people think of Native American sort of traits (high cheekbones and long straight hair).
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 4,975,809 times
Reputation: 10095
This is an interesting topic, however I think you have some time-line issues. The peak of the slave trade was in the mid 1800's close to the advent of the "War of Northern Aggression" (couldn't help it) whereas mass die offs of Natives from small pox occurred decades before that as well as the trail of tears.

There was a separate treatment of the two groups (Natives and Slaves) by the Europeans. Initially the Europeans tried to enslave the Natives, however they proved to not do well under this system and died "too easily." Thus the importation of Africans. The Natives after this point were viewed more as a problem than a resource and were relocated. Its highly unlikely that the slaves relocated with the Natives as the slaves were property and the owners wouldn't just let them go.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 4,975,809 times
Reputation: 10095
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
Probably anything above 5%. Beyond that percentage chances are high that a feature or two might appear in people's phenotypes, but I think most of the times its hard to tell.

For example, how do you know if the nose of an AA with significant NA ancestry is more of an African nose or a NA nose? In most likelihood its a mixed nose, but it would be hard to tell to which side the mixture is much more skewed in the appearance of the nose.

An African nose:

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/lifestyle...africa-man.jpg

A NA nose:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ad2069e78c.jpg

And that's one feature of many others that are easily confused. High cheek bones is another one even though most people assume that having them is a sure sign of NA ancestry, but many AA with no NA mixture also have them.

I think in Spanish and Portuguese Latin America is where you will find significant NA admixture in people with significant African and European ancestry. Look at Dominicans as examples of this, very rarely does a Dominican has less than 5% NA admixture with s surprising number of them having as much as 10% NA blood mixed in. They also have significant Euro mixed in too, usually ranging from 40 to 70% of any given person. That is that its relatively rare for Dominicans to have less than 40% or more than 70% Euro mixed in. But even among them, despite that NA features are often much more prominent than among AA's, you do have to wonder at times if the nose looks more African or NA or the cheekbones or many other features.
That's selective bias there. If you look up Africans from different regions of Africa their noses are very different. The picture you used, he is most certainly mixed.
Rate this post positively 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, 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