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.
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.
Though I agree with your ideal being that, so far the data doesn't play out that way, at least with "African" DNA in "White" people.
So far the latest data suggests the number of "White" people with African DNA is probably around 5%, despite some earlier studies that started at 30% (Shrivers which he downgraded to 5% in further months). That data is constantly being updated and I think most would agree future generations are going to change that even more, but so far that seems to be the context of "White" and "Black" intermixing in recent American history (meaning all of it since it's all pretty recent lol).
With that said, even 100% European is still diverse in it's own way. It means a mixture of many very different European countries and outlying amounts of further areas, such as Mediterranean, West Asian, etc.
We truly are all very diverse, at least nearly all of us. There are a few very remote people that can trace little diversity down very far. That is very much the rare case though.
Though I agree with your ideal being that, so far the data doesn't play out that way, at least with "African" DNA in "White" people.
So far the latest data suggests the number of "White" people with African DNA is probably around 5%, despite some earlier studies that started at 30% (Shrivers which he downgraded to 5% in further months). That data is constantly being updated and I think most would agree future generations are going to change that even more, but so far that seems to be the context of "White" and "Black" intermixing in recent American history (meaning all of it since it's all pretty recent lol).
With that said, even 100% European is still diverse in it's own way. It means a mixture of many very different European countries and outlying amounts of further areas, such as Mediterranean, West Asian, etc.
We truly are all very diverse, at least nearly all of us. There are a few very remote people that can trace little diversity down very far. That is very much the rare case though.
I wasn't necessarily talking about African, a lot of Whites are actually more heavily mixed with Native American.
I wasn't necessarily talking about African, a lot of Whites are actually more heavily mixed with Native American.
Not to seem disagreeable, but though that might be true, actual DNA data is hard to find confirming this. *Many* "Whites" have a family history of Native American but find they have no DNA of this, myself included. I had two family stories about NA ancestry. One indeed ended up being a Cherokee woman, though turned out was a first wife to my ancestor so not a blood connection (which explains why many of the stories seemed to have some sort of foundation at first glance). The other was an ancestor described by many to "look" NA by many people (cousins, descendants, etc). I haven't traced her tree completely but I have at least 3 generations beyond her with no actual evidence of NA. I have no trace of NA in my DNA test either (I'm waiting on my parents DNA which will give me further info, since if I have a NA ancestor it's pretty far back since I find no paper trail).
I hear this same story more often than I hear the story of people who confirm DNA. With that said I have indeed seen many people who confirm their NA DNA too.
I've found no comprehensive studies on NA DNA in "White" people. Though Henry Louis Gates Jr. seems to observe the same thing in African Americans, strong family stories of NA DNA but most people he tests have none.
I strongly believe the idea that African or NA blood in what we consider very "White" people is pretty rare. African is supported by the evidence, NA so far looks the same (though far from conclusive).
Again I still believe "White" people can have a lot of diversity even if 100% from Europe, since Europe is an extremely diverse place... though I am a strong advocate of using the evidence at hand.
Based on what you see on DNA sites, I'm starting to think that white Americans might actually a lot less African and NA admixture than many believe. It seems that African Americans will often have NA ancestry, but whites more often don't have either NA or African ancestry. 5% doesn't seem unrealistic
My grandmother always said our family was part Cherokee. 23andMe tests for both me and my grandmother showed nothing but European. Not many white Americans have African or NA mixture in their veins.
My grandmother always said our family was part Cherokee. 23andMe tests for both me and my grandmother showed nothing but European. Not many white Americans have African or NA mixture in their veins.
You have to keep in mind that 23AndMe does not test all of your genes --- a big chunk, but not all. And it is possible that genes from a NA ancestor have just been lost due to the way chromosomes get mixed over the generations. So current genetic testing may help confirm NA ancestry, but it cannot completely exclude it.
My grandmother always said our family was part Cherokee. 23andMe tests for both me and my grandmother showed nothing but European. Not many white Americans have African or NA mixture in their veins.
You have to keep in mind that 23AndMe does not test all of your genes --- a big chunk, but not all. And it is possible that genes from a NA ancestor have just been lost due to the way chromosomes get mixed over the generations. So current genetic testing may help confirm NA ancestry, but it cannot completely exclude it.
I even called them and they said that with 98.5% accuracy (this is for noise variance) they can say that I have zero NA admixture for at least the past five generations along all lines and zero NA admixture along direct paternal or maternal lines for the past 8,000 years or something. lol. Grandmother was the same thing.
I was really hoping we were at least a little NA. My grandmother LOVED the idea of being part Cherokee. In the past when you asked her what her ancestry was Cherokee was the first thing she said. When her results came back she was so upset you would have thought she was just told she was adopted. lol.
I even called them and they said that with 98.5% accuracy (this is for noise variance) they can say that I have zero NA admixture for at least the past five generations along all lines and zero NA admixture along direct paternal or maternal lines for the past 8,000 years or something. lol. Grandmother was the same thing.
I was really hoping we were at least a little NA. My grandmother LOVED the idea of being part Cherokee. In the past when you asked her what her ancestry was Cherokee was the first thing she said. When her results came back she was so upset you would have thought she was just told she was adopted. lol.
Of course, your results make it less likely, but not impossible, if your family has been in America more than five generations. How far have you traced your grandmother's family tree?
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.
The ancestry I know of back to 1600 or so is ulster Irish, Scots and from the British Isles. Once they got here they mostly were farmers, and migrated from the East to Kentucky and then to the midwest. Then a bunch of them ended up in California, but I'm sure I have relatives all over Kansas and Missouri and certainly Iowa.
Personally, I think its pretty plain vanilla but who knows. I do intend to do a dna test to see if any unlikey cousins show up since grandma's dad might have been a second husband who'd dropped off the chart. And I want to see how much of me comes from the Viking raiders. But if stuff shows up which is unknown and surprising, I'm neither making a fuss or shutting the book. Whereever all the particulars came from the things which shaped me are what my parents and grandparents had happen to them in their lives more than the genes which accumulated.
Not to say I discount geneology or the fascination of finding your ancestors. But the most important stuff is what made the people you knew who raise their kids and loved their grandchildren like you. If something surprising happens in a dna test, I'd not deny it nor embrase it as something which should change me.
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.
