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.
if my father's grandmother was African American, my brother's autosomal results would still reflect a significant amount of sub-saharan, even though it came from my father's side, not my mother's.
you just proven you know nothing about dna or you cannot read. the male y dna doesn't not change no matter how many blacks your grandfather, great grandfather slept with. Now i remember saying that the woman side would be more difficult, that means your father grandfather too which is no included in the y dna. So if you had a ggggggg grandfather that was black then it would show up in the Y dna because it be black all the way down no matter how much it was diluted by the woman side of the dna. the y go back thousand of year unchanged except for some minor mutlation every couple hundred year
So a couple things:
1) You should probably relax, you are sounding a bit intense
2) The text you are quoting said "autosomal" not y dna. Everyone has 24 chromosomes. Everyone has 22 autosomal (Autosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) chromosomes. Men have one Y chrosome and women have two X chromsomes. Y dna is paternal, X is maternal... all the rest, the autosomal ones are passed down from both and represent your entire recent ancestry within roughly 300-400 years or so.
They were pointing out that a Y dna test is just one test, you can also do an autosomal test which gives you all branches of your ancestry (though it's inherited randomly so it doesn't represent all your ancestry equally).
That's the same thing... your new found ethnicity is due to finding out where your ancestors came from.
Not quite. If there was African ancestry, and it can't be isolated to a country, it's as feneral as stating European. It appears like a number of people on this thread interpret or equate African as race as opposed to ethnicity.
Not quite. If there was African ancestry, and it can't be isolated to a country, it's as feneral as stating European. It appears like a number of people on this thread interpret or equate African as race as opposed to ethnicity.
To some extent, though that's an oversimplification. Though it's extremely hard for people to trace back their specific African country it doesn't mean they aren't doing the same as you and trying to. Also a lot of DNA tests will give you something a bit more specific, such as west africa, north africa, or east africa. Different DNA data sets will try to narrow it down differently. AncestryDNA's latest ethnicity result claims to test against something like 10+ African countries too.
People refer to "African" more out of difficulty narrowing it down, for example some people may say West European, East European, Great Britain, or Continental European.
There's no problem in referring to a generalized area, such as "European" or "African", that doesn't mean you aren't in fact looking for specific sub continents or regions of such an area.
if my father's grandmother was African American, my brother's autosomal results would still reflect a significant amount of sub-saharan, even though it came from my father's side, not my mother's.
you just proven you know nothing about dna or you cannot read. the male y dna doesn't not change no matter how many blacks your grandfather, great grandfather slept with. Now i remember saying that the woman side would be more difficult, that means your father grandfather too which is no included in the y dna. So if you had a ggggggg grandfather that was black then it would show up in the Y dna because it be black all the way down no matter how much it was diluted by the woman side of the dna. the y go back thousand of year unchanged except for some minor mutlation every couple hundred year
It appears you are the one who does not understand. Lenora is talking about autosomal DNA, not Y DNA. An African American female's autosomal DNA will show up in the autosomes of both her male and female descendants.
The same for all your African American ancestors, male and female, not just the single line from father to his father and all the fathers in that single line.
The Y DNA test is done differently from the autosomal tests, using an entirely different methodology.
Y DNA is not "diluted". Mutations in Y DNA do occur, and some sites are more prone to mutation than others. Those are more likely to happen more often than "every couple hundred years".
In this study, There were two known father/son pairs out of 4999 which had two mutations between them:
Though people in the past like Shriver thought as much as 20%+ white americans had african ancestry, he revised that number far down to 5%. Also 23andme found only about 3-4% of white americans had african ancestry:
Gates also stated that 5% is probably close to the modern consensus.
Now I haven't seen any data regarding this research into native american ancestry, though I could easily see it being 5% or higher.
Personally I would guess it's a toss up.
According to Frank W. Sweet's book, "Legal history of the color line", the figure is more like 30% of white Americans have some amount of African admixture, averaging about 2.3%. Averaging together all white Americans (including the 70% without African admixture), the average African admixture is 0.7% in the white population.
But anecdotally, with about 300 people I share genomes with, about half have a tiny amount of African admixture, and far fewer (maybe 10% or less) have Native American. The slave population was enormous. In South Carolina for a time, the slave population exceeded the white population. Meanwhile the Native American population had been decimated by disease and displaced by Europeans greedy for land. So there was much more opportunity for black/white mixing than native/white mixing, no matter how much the latter gets romanticized today.
If you are 99% white and 1% Native, then most of your ancestors were probably busy killing Indians and stealing their land. If you want to feel "proud" of your Native ancestry, then also acknowledge the larger part of your ancestry that was at war with the Native population and stole their land.
According to Frank W. Sweet's book, "Legal history of the color line", the figure is more like 30% of white Americans have some amount of African admixture, averaging about 2.3%. Averaging together all white Americans (including the 70% without African admixture), the average African admixture is 0.7% in the white population.
So that book references Shrivers work that I was talking about:
Shriver originally came out with those numbers. That roughly 30% have African DNA, roughly with an average of 2.3%, making 0.7% average for the whole population. Later he was quoted saying the number was in fact 10% and not 30%... even later he was quoted as saying 5%: DNA Is Only One Way to Spell Identity
I have also seen people reference issues with his work (especially his initial dna work) around the web.
That's why Henry Louis Gates Jr. said that the consensus was around 5% (Also considering that 23andme landed at about 3-4% based off it's approach).
2.7 percent of European Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American Ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent).
Less than 1 percent of European Americans have at least 12.5 percent West African ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent).
Now the amounts of trace ancestry might in fact be different... and this is just yet another reference number.
People crossed the race line and there were in fact racial intermixing, but the majority of them went the other way. Part European children being considering "black". The other direction was in fact pretty rare, so far DNA supports this and history does as well. Considering the sheer amount of people involved, it did in fact happen. Someone eventually "passed" and that was probably the more common case of it. There were some inter-racial mixed communities, but those were quite rare too.
I don't think most people understand the historical boundaries that worked against the situation of a white person having african dna without a history of it... sure it happened, but it was against nearly all the social boundaries of the times, even at the best of times... heck even during civil rights.
To some extent, though that's an oversimplification. Though it's extremely hard for people to trace back their specific African country it doesn't mean they aren't doing the same as you and trying to. Also a lot of DNA tests will give you something a bit more specific, such as west africa, north africa, or east africa. Different DNA data sets will try to narrow it down differently. AncestryDNA's latest ethnicity result claims to test against something like 10+ African countries too.
People refer to "African" more out of difficulty narrowing it down, for example some people may say West European, East European, Great Britain, or Continental European.
There's no problem in referring to a generalized area, such as "European" or "African", that doesn't mean you aren't in fact looking for specific sub continents or regions of such an area.
I'm actually trying to trace specific countries, because I have an unusual Irish surname and would like some idea as to its origin.
Not intending to step away from your point, if I get results which show French/possibly German origins, it will affirm what has been told all along. On the other hand, given the scant few other places the name turns up (Turkey and Russia) I have to wonder if my branch traces back to Turkey/Ottoman Empire and that we might see some African introduced that way, or if there is African descent introduced by the Moors invasion of the Iberian Peninsula 1300 years ago/Spanish Armada/Black Irish.
I sent for the Ancestry kit, we'll see what happens. Will more than likely follow up with the other kit you recommended on the testing thread I started.
Going back to the topic -- If I learn I am a minute fraction of general, non-specific African, there's really no way to embrace it, or recognize it for reasons I wrote before. Devil's advocate: what if every person who has African turn up in their ancestry were to claim it on future census forms, or any form which asks race?
But anecdotally, with about 300 people I share genomes with, about half have a tiny amount of African admixture, and far fewer (maybe 10% or less) have Native American. The slave population was enormous. In South Carolina for a time, the slave population exceeded the white population. Meanwhile the Native American population had been decimated by disease and displaced by Europeans greedy for land. So there was much more opportunity for black/white mixing than native/white mixing, no matter how much the latter gets romanticized today.
Locally, the Shinnecock tribe had mixed with slaves, and freemen. Several hundred years later many members of the tribe look African American.
Most americans are mixed. Black americans are mixed with European, yet whites having african ancestry is often ignored. Do white americans embrace their African ancestry? Also, I just read something about Heather Locklear, who is blonde and blue eyed, having African ancestry.
I think more "White" people-and when I say White I'm mainly referring to those that have had family tracing here to pre 20th century-need to start embracing that they are in fact much more mixed than they have been taught. As a country we still have a long way to go to get there though. I think it could be one of the last hurdles to being truly post-racial.
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.
