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.
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.
Let us be honest. Until VERY recently, and I am talking about the last 10 years, MOST whites would have been devastated to find out that they had African American ancestors. They would not have known due to the stigma of having such ancestry, and most, if told, would have considered it to be a nasty and vicious lie. Look at the whole Hemings situation.
This is why when many AAs have done thse tests and have attempted to outreach to the descendants of their white ancestors they have been rebuffed.
The point being that the reaction of your husband is unusual. Admit that there were until recently, very real consequences for a white person admitting to black ancestry, all negative, and all due to adverse recations from other whites.
Where do I get that some white demand that blacks accept their white ancestry (this while they find all sorts of reasons why whites do noy have to reciprocate, where such ancestry exists? Just go to the thread about the topic. Lots of very opinionated accusations that blacks must be misguided, etc.
Given what I know about black history in the USA I really see no reason why people should be surprised that blacks are reluctant to embrace people who clearly show no deep desire to reciprocate.
But there are people who are reciprocating, right here on CD.
You have to know you have African ancestry before you can acknowledge it. That means either you are aware of an African ancestor or you discover it through DNA testing.
There are also white families who are discovering and accepting black cousins. I am currently exploring shared ancestry at 23AndMe with a cousin who is black.
To me the consensus in the other thread appears to be that it is possible to recognize European ancestry without necessarily embracing the actions of those ancestors.
Ethnic identity is fascinating because we hold such strong feeling about it with very little proof. You can see many barely black, bright blacks claiming and feeling only black, you have those who look at Barack Obama and see only a black man, others see his whiteness and some see his combination. He himself has id'd with one or the other on & off.
No one Mexican I know runs around bragging about their ancestors ripping out the hearts of men during sacrifices(Aztec) or saying they love Cortez. Many have sympathy for the native Americans whether they are of that or not.
And no one is right or wrong because it relates to how we feel.
I'm pretty sure I would have not appreciated some of the ideas believed by some of my ancestors. I don't condem them though. I've never walked in their shoes. I think we should accept that ancestors may not have acted as we would, or wish we would, but then we *don't* know if we'd grown up in their world if we'd have felt the same. In three hundred years, I would guess a great much of what we do will be looked upon as negative. Do we really know what we'd think if we lived in the 1700's?
We act upon what our societies and cultures consider 'normal'. The Aztec priest ripping out the heart did not see it as an act of horror, but a necessary sacrifice, and culturally the norm. A wanna be today would be a psycho. Same act, different motivation.
But I do know my ancestors survived some awful times and went on to make a better life, and I can admire that. It is neither connected with color or nationality or anything but being human. What we need to learn to do with history and genetics and genology is to celebrate the humanity we ALL share.
Considering black skin is a result of "excessive" sunlight and white skin is a result of "NON-excessive" sunlight, perhaps that theory makes sense?
People who wandered up north lightened up as an adaptation to the lack of sunlight.
It's believed to be a function of vitamin D production. Dark skin produces far less. In the tropical sun, that is sufficent. As humans moved northward, the norm was selected out to be a lightening so sufficent would be produced. Lack of it can be debiliting.
But environmental genetics are not absolute, and among dark skinned people someone with lighter skin can be born. And someone with darker than the norm can come from a fair skinned mother or father. Back when they were migrating and settling, these mutations or throwbacks likely didn't survive.
Skin cancer might also be a factor. Dark skin offers protection. Light skin is most succeptable and this could have killed off any light skinned born early before they contributed much to the genetic pool.
The highest concentration of skin cancer in the world is found in Australia where a vast number of fair skinned prisoners were shipped into a tropical zone and who like most westerners, love the sun. Minus medicine and sunblock, this would have a decided effect on the population quickly.
Let us be honest. Until VERY recently, and I am talking about the last 10 years, MOST whites would have been devastated to find out that they had African American ancestors. They would not have known due to the stigma of having such ancestry, and most, if told, would have considered it to be a nasty and vicious lie. Look at the whole Hemings situation.
This is why when many AAs have done thse tests and have attempted to outreach to the descendants of their white ancestors they have been rebuffed.
The point being that the reaction of your husband is unusual. Admit that there were until recently, very real consequences for a white person admitting to black ancestry, all negative, and all due to adverse recations from other whites.
We all started out with NOT white skin...I don't see what the big deal is...there had to be a start to human kind, we, more than likely, share the same ancestors. So, what's the problem? I only wish my ancestors shared a little more pigment with me.
It's believed to be a function of vitamin D production. Dark skin produces far less. In the tropical sun, that is sufficent. As humans moved northward, the norm was selected out to be a lightening so sufficent would be produced. Lack of it can be debiliting.
But environmental genetics are not absolute, and among dark skinned people someone with lighter skin can be born. And someone with darker than the norm can come from a fair skinned mother or father. Back when they were migrating and settling, these mutations or throwbacks likely didn't survive.
Skin cancer might also be a factor. Dark skin offers protection. Light skin is most succeptable and this could have killed off any light skinned born early before they contributed much to the genetic pool.
The highest concentration of skin cancer in the world is found in Australia where a vast number of fair skinned prisoners were shipped into a tropical zone and who like most westerners, love the sun. Minus medicine and sunblock, this would have a decided effect on the population quickly.
I did not know the highest concentration of skin cancer was found in Australia. I learn so much from this website!!! T.Y!
Let us be honest. Until VERY recently, and I am talking about the last 10 years, MOST whites would have been devastated to find out that they had African American ancestors. They would not have known due to the stigma of having such ancestry, and most, if told, would have considered it to be a nasty and vicious lie. Look at the whole Hemings situation.
This is why when many AAs have done thse tests and have attempted to outreach to the descendants of their white ancestors they have been rebuffed.
The point being that the reaction of your husband is unusual. Admit that there were until recently, very real consequences for a white person admitting to black ancestry, all negative, and all due to adverse recations from other whites.
No, I'm not going to "admit it." This just hasn't been my experience. What, for example, would have been the "very real consequence" of a white person acknowledging their black ancestry fifteen or twenty years ago? Just the average "white person" in the US?
Of course prior to the Civil Rights movement and during segregation things would have been different. I'm not talking about that era. I'm talking post Civil Rights movement, since say the 1980s after young adults had gone through their entire school career in an integrated atmosphere.
But there are people who are reciprocating, right here on CD.
You have to know you have African ancestry before you can acknowledge it. That means either you are aware of an African ancestor or you discover it through DNA testing.
Right. Take for instance my very "white" husband. Without DNA testing, there is simply no way anyone could have ever guessed that he has a small percentage of AA genes.
By the way, when I told his 82 year old mother this, she started laughing and got a big grin on her face. She wasn't at all upset or shocked or mortified in any way. She thought it was surprising but funny.
The same debate exists in Europe, as evidenced by this latest controversy: DNA test confirms that Bulgarian woman IS the natural mother of blonde haired Maria | Mail Online
Gypsies are presumed to be south Asian, descendants of ethnic tribes from India who migrated through the Middle East to Europe.
Yet, this blonde/blue-eyed child has dark-haired/skinned parents. The tiny mother would probably be described as Indian (the irony!) in South America. Her oldest daughter & another boy are very similar to the young girl in question. I draw no conclusions about the source of the red hair on the babe-in-arms!
The red hair - I'd call it orange - reportedly came from a box.
The very first report I read, accompanied by photos, referred to the child's dyed hair, without further explanation.
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.
