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.
DNA tests when it comes to racial admixture are not always accurate and can have different results depending on which company you decide to test with.
I remember a few years ago reading an article by a White woman from "The New York Times" who said she took a DNA test which revealed that she has 3 percent Sub Saharan African admixture. But when she tested with another DNA company, it revealed that she has no Sub Saharan African admixture at all.
Maybe the 3 percent was just statistical noise. Who knows which one was the real accurate result.
Both could be correct, since they may not test the same genes.
Again you are projecting your own issues onto other people. I've also never heard of a mixed race person lightening their skin. If anything I've heard of very dark Blacks lightening their skin because it was considered ugly by some Blacks to be too Black. This had NOTHING to do with whites (at least in the context of Africa). The people who worked outside often turned darker (in the sun all day) so being very Black was associated with low class. This is true in the Caribbean as well. So sometimes the Blackest people bleached their skin to look like a lighter and more acceptable shade of Black. They were not trying to be white. If you already had substantial European, Asian, or Native ancestry you probably weren't as dark and therefore no need to do this.
As for straightening one's hair, what about white people who put their head in dredlocks or corn rolls or make their hair curly? Or dye their hair another color? Since when does changing one's hair imply tragedy? A dye job is a dye job. For that matter with all the plastic surgery, implants, and other fake things going on a big percentage of the public in general hates their physical appearance and want to look like something else or someone else. That's not necessarily tragic either.
I am one of "those" people and I can say there is nothing tragic about my or OUR lives, and I have lived in many communities of color which are not strictly limited to African Americans (Been to Brazil, Paraguay) been across the US, lived in immigrant communities from the Caribbean, etc.
You've demonstrated no proof of tragedy other than your love of antiquated Harlequin Romance novels, and you've not concept of actually ASKING mixed race people how they view their lives. As noted, the very public success of so many mixed race people certainly demonstrates there's no tragedy. But I guess you like living in a fictional world of the 1880s.
As for what I know about the mixed heritage of communities of color, aside from spending my whole life among them (in various communities across the country and out of the country) and my specialty in history is that of Latin America and in a number of Latin American countries the majority identifies as MIXED. Speaking to a couple of Blacks in your town in the South does not make you an expert, my friend. The discrimination as whole in communities of color is against the Blackest Blacks. Not that justifies discrimination/stupidity/ignorance and not that everyone acts like that or things that way, but that's how that goes to the extent that there is discrimination on the basis of color/complexion.
Since this is about geneology, let's stick to facts and not deal with romance novels. And please do understand just because something is written in a book (especially a fiction novel) does not mean it is true or that it was ever true. Not everything written in pop culture influences the masses, either. Not every published book is even read by large numbers of people. Romanticized slave novels are making the NY Times best sellers list these days.
I'm sorry, I still don't think you get what I am trying to say, but that's my fault, I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. What I was talking about was my reality where I live, not your reality where you live. I would not speak about how things are in YOUR community because I AM NOT PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY, just as YOU ARE NOT PART OF MINE. How much time have you spent in the deep South? I've been here forty-five years.
Anyway, there is so much wrong in your statements...it would take so much time to explain to you and frankly, you just seem so brainwashed by the culture that it would fall on deaf ears. Some of the "points" you made about discrimination mostly against the blackest blacks... makes me wonder how much African-American history you're actually studied. You argue points by changing the subject.......not worth my time to even try to explain to you because I'm sure you'll have an "answer" for anything I say.
One thing I will point out - those "romanticized slave novels" that you say I love so much.... That article that I linked was not a work of fiction rather an academic article written by a professor of sociology studying Black racial stereotypes - sociology being the study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions - but I know, totally irrelevant , right?
DNA tests when it comes to racial admixture are not always accurate and can have different results depending on which company you decide to test with.
I remember a few years ago reading an article by a White woman from "The New York Times" who said she took a DNA test which revealed that she has 3 percent Sub Saharan African admixture. But when she tested with another DNA company, it revealed that she has no Sub Saharan African admixture at all.
Maybe the 3 percent was just statistical noise. Who knows which one was the real accurate result.
It has been said that humans evolved in Africa. That is really interesting.
Both could be correct, since they may not test the same genes.
The difference is in the populaton, the size of the populations for that group, the predominate "marker" being used for that population and the AMOUNT of markers/SNP's being tested. Some companies use no more than 24 makers or they use outated CODIS with is STR (FBI database). Some companies use 700k makers and SNP's, others only 400k.
I mentioned this in another posted you commented me...Your "genes" are not being "tested", specifc locus, regions of the DNA (which are small) geneic sequences where differences amoung popuations can be noted in high frequency is being analysed. These are non-coding regions of the DNA, sometimes termed "junk DNA." Companies look at the same regions since only certian regions have these "markers" to be seen. These SNP's for ancestry, are not found all over one's DNA for companies to pick and choose what they will test.
I don't mean to knit pick but many people are not in understanding about genomic studies and what exactly is being reviewed on the genome and what the result means.
I'm sorry, I still don't think you get what I am trying to say, but that's my fault, I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. What I was talking about was my reality where I live, not your reality where you live. I would not speak about how things are in YOUR community because I AM NOT PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY, just as YOU ARE NOT PART OF MINE. How much time have you spent in the deep South? I've been here forty-five years.
Anyway, there is so much wrong in your statements...it would take so much time to explain to you and frankly, you just seem so brainwashed by the culture that it would fall on deaf ears. Some of the "points" you made about discrimination mostly against the blackest blacks... makes me wonder how much African-American history you're actually studied. You argue points by changing the subject.......not worth my time to even try to explain to you because I'm sure you'll have an "answer" for anything I say.
One thing I will point out - those "romanticized slave novels" that you say I love so much.... That article that I linked was not a work of fiction rather an academic article written by a professor of sociology studying Black racial stereotypes - sociology being the study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions - but I know, totally irrelevant , right?
What I said about the Blackest Blacks stands for all Black communities, including those in the Deep South. Yes, there's colorism among Southern Blacks and the discrimination there too tends to be against the darkest ones.
As I said, I lived in many Black communities, and I've witnessed it first hand. So there wasn't much need to study for what I have actually seen.
Oh, in the deep South you'll have Blacks talk about good hair and bad hair. Good hair is hair that is closer to European (non white) in texture and appearance (and I'm not talking about straightened hair). Bad hair is hair that has completely Black texture. This talk isn't just an African American or a Southern thing, you have it in the Caribbean and Latin America as well.
Again, you're against interracial mixing, so you want to create a myth of misery and tragedy that simply isn't there for mixed people. And truthfully, at least some people have benefitted from being mixed race. A person with two Black Southern parents from the Deep South would stand a snow ball's chance in hell of being elected President. Obama's mother was from a white upper middle class family that had him get the very best in education. The fact that he wasn't perceived as so Black helped Obama big time professionally. He used his mixed heritage as an asset. And so have others. The less Black someone is perceived (in speech, color, overall appearance and demeanor the more presentable they are to non Blacks). Colin Powell, the former secretary of state is of Jamaican descent, and he is a White/Black mixture. Condoleeza Rice, whose family is from Birmingham, isn't really perceived as a stereotypical Black (she's highly educated, she studied Eastern European studies and is a professor at Stanford), isn't pitch Black, and is skinny. Eric Holder, the attorney general, is a mixed race person whose family is from Barbados. So there isn't any tragedy when it's at least somewhat more acceptable to bemixed, particularly if there are foreign elements, than it is to be associated with Black Southern poor roots (these are the people associated with inner city poverty/the ghetto).
I like the one where Wanda Sykes learned she was a descendant of free african americans. Hehehehe.
Eh? No she wasn't:
Quote:
Her ancestry was traced back to a 1683 court case involving her paternal ninth great-grandmother Elizabeth Banks, a free white woman and indentured servant, who gave birth to a biracial child Mary Banks fathered by a slave, who inherited her mother's free status.
As an illegitimate child of an indentured servant, Mary Banks would have been forcibly "indentured" until the age of 31. White illegitimate children of indentured servants were only forcibly indentured until the age of 24.
So - her farthest-back (traced) paternal ancestor was fully a slave, and his daughter by a white woman was virtually a slave until middle-age. Indentured servants were not allowed to marry - but somehow clearly Mary Banks got around that.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, actually I'm not sure when the 31/24 mandatory indenturement of the illegitimate children of indentured servants started. It might have been later than 1683. So she may have been forcibly indentured for a shorter period of time - until 21 or 18, depending on the laws current at the time.
Whaaa??? Are you not able to read my posts or do you just not bother? Did you miss the part where I said the paper was written by a SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR? This person is a RESPECTED ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL. I am not making this stuff up. These are not my opinions. This is based on research into literature and historical fact.....And btw you are terrible at debate. Many of your "points" are nonsensical, or based solely on your opinion. What ever college you attended, you should try to get your money back.
So just because ONE PROFESSOR wrote a paper, it's inarguable fact? Newsflash, academics disagree all the time and no academic would argue just because a professor outlined something in a paper it's the full story or that it's some sort of bible on the subject. In fact, the paper may not accurately reflect the professor's knowledge because you can't put everything you know in a paper.
Example, clearly there are a number of mixed people who had professional and career opportunities far beyond the average Black in the deep South. Obviously these people don't have tragic lives if they can get top jobs in government and in media. That right there in and of itself suggests something, but it's something you want to ignore to cling to your racist argument. You ignore everything you don't already know.
As an illegitimate child of an indentured servant, Mary Banks would have been forcibly "indentured" until the age of 31. White illegitimate children of indentured servants were only forcibly indentured until the age of 24.
So - her farthest-back (traced) paternal ancestor was fully a slave, and his daughter by a white woman was virtually a slave until middle-age. Indentured servants were not allowed to marry - but somehow clearly Mary Banks got around that.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, actually I'm not sure when the 31/24 mandatory indenturement of the illegitimate children of indentured servants started. It might have been later than 1683. So she may have been forcibly indentured for a shorter period of time - until 21 or 18, depending on the laws current at the time.
There was a blonde white woman on a talk show who didn't like that both her daughters were dating black guys. She agreed to do an ancestry test and found out that she had 6% African/black blood and 2% Asian blood. Interesting.
I know my background, and it is definitely a mixture. I am Scotch/Irish and Venezuelan. Yes, we have traced it pretty far back. The Venezuelan is the mixed bad. I am proud of it all. I don't see a reason to worry. Everyone should be proud of who they are.
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.
