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.
Not true at all. There are still many 100 percent Native Americans. They are not extinct.
My point is, "Native American" is not a race. It is a distinction given to the aboriginal people of the Americas. You are only "100% Native American" in the sense that Ancestry's results show your people have been in the Americas for a very long time. For example, thousands of years from now, Ancestry results for my descendants will show they're "100% Native American" because my family hasn't lived on any other continent. But I am not considered a "Native American" today. They essentially tell you location - not bloodline. That's my point. I know it's confusing.
A very large part of Africa is North Africa. You conveniently don' talk about that and you ignore all the facts about who the Moors were and where they came from.
I don't talk about it because it doesn't matter. "Africa" is the name Europeans gave the continent. Before that, it was a land made up of kingdoms and people of different tribes. And all those people were at some point 100% "black".
Well I totally admit not being schooled whatsoever concerning genealogy or genetics. I haven't had any testing, don't plan to and don't care unless some sort of "fluke" disease appears and a specialized medical "expert" encourages me to do so.
In the interim and as an off to the side of the road spectator I satisfy my curiosity when I am...curious. I then satisfy that curiosity by "looking around" on the internet. And for what it's worth...or not and according to "the research"...
Wow, who knew? And Illinois seems similar in Native American ancestry as Texas
Genetic study reveals surprising ancestry of many Americans
European ancestors tended to be male, while African and Native American ancestors tended to be female.
This mixing seems to have started almost immediately after the first European colonizers and African slaves arrived in North America. “It suggests that really early U.S. history may have been a time of a lot of mixture,” Bryc says.
“The U.S. has a very particular genetic imprint compared to the rest of the Americas.” The 23andMe study “is one of steps forward in asserting that it’s possible to disentangle that complex scenario.”
Wow, who knew? And Illinois seems similar in Native American ancestry as Texas
There was an entire pre-Columbian city called Cahokia in the area that is now southern Illinois/Missouri. Wiki has 1050 - 1350 CE as the timeframe (note again the overlap with other world happenings at the time). There is basically no information on this city, which was very advanced for its time. Based on the erasure of the histories of other such ancient civilizations, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it was part of one of those African empires we know little to nothing about. We know so much about ancient cities like Rome but virtually nothing about the empires that preceded them. There was a topic in the "Americas" forum about how the national museum of Brazil was burned to ash. That museum housed records and artifacts dating back 2,000 years...many of them from Africa. Coincidence? I think not. We are currently sitting between the end of one era and the beginning of the next. Thousands of years from now our records will be the "ancient" civilization people read and hear about. I gather this is what happens at the end of every cycle. Next year they are going to make a big deal about 2019 being the anniversary of the first "slaves" who were "brought" () to America. Marking another significant "era" in history.
It's a myth for most and ironic because many whites had ancestors who wanted nothing to do with NAs. At some point being NA became romanticized so they want to claim it. Most claims are complete BS.
I agree. I can't even begin to count how many people have told me they have native American ancestry, and some even claim to be descended from Native American "princess" or "chief". Although they can't give more information than that and the tribe is always "Cherokee".
I agree. I can't even begin to count how many people have told me they have native American ancestry, and some even claim to be descended from Native American "princess" or "chief". Although they can't give more information than that and the tribe is always "Cherokee".
I am not going to lie. A lot of black people say this, and it is a running joke...but now that I'm delving more into history, I don't actually think it's far-fetched. My own grandmother told me her mother had native blood, and while I didn't think her mother looked particularly native, my grandmother sure does, and her sister could also pass as native if not "mulatto". There is a native "look" purported in the media and that primes people for what a "Native American" is. I, myself, had to expand my view of what a "native" is after learning about tribes with obviously "black" members. It's just like how most of the representation of Latin Americans are those with white skin when in reality, most Latin Americans are black or brown. This is apparent to anyone who has visited Latin America, particularly outside of tourist regions. I was listening to one person who said the slave trade was really just ships going up and down the Atlantic kidnapping native people. While that may be oversimplified, I'm not sure it's entirely false. We have to ask ourselves: Why aren't there remnants of any slave ships in museums? And is it really hard to believe they'd kidnap native people? Look what's happening with ICE these days...
This in an of itself is ludicrous. How can whites not have any black ancestry when civilization began in Africa? This is just more propaganda and not wanting to shatter white people's image of themselves. This is precisely why I don't really trust Ancestry's DNA results. There were civilizations before Europe. To suggest that white people have NO African ancestry is just fairytales.
Because we're not talking about practically the beginning of time. Racial identities millennia to develop and genetics of today show distinct DNA differences between people of different continents. Particularly when we talk about autosomal DNA, it does not go back that far. Please educate yourself about how autosomal DNA works.
This is going a little off topic since Finding Your Roots is more about black history than Native American, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Gates. I've watched Finding Your Roots and I don't get the impression he is trying to claim that mixed heritage is very common among white Americans. I do think they feature a lot of black and mixed race people, because Gates is black and is obviously trying to highlight black history... but there's nothing wrong with that (frankly, it sounds like you think there IS something wrong with that - do you?), and it's not like they don't include white people too. I haven't watched every single episode, but to my memory, I can't even recall one white (non-hispanic) person who wound up having unexpected black or NA ancestry. Maybe there's been one or two I didn't see? But certainly the vast majority of white (non-hispanic) people featured on the show don't have black/NA ancestry and I don't get the impression Gates is trying to claim otherwise.
Gates probably has stated that there was a lot of mixing, but I'm guessing that was while talking to a black celebrity, which is accurate and I apologize if I gave the impression it isn't. The vast majority of black Americans do have a large portion of white ancestry (an average of 24% of their genome). It just doesn't go the opposite way - while most black Americans have a good chunk of white ancestry and sometimes have a smaller amount of NA ancestry (0.8% average of genome), most white Americans don't have any black/NA ancestry. (I can't speak for how much white or black DNA might be found in NA populations - the study didn't seem to cover that). That doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of mixing, it just means that when it happened, the offspring were designated to the minority side of their heritage by society and therefore descendants generally remained such too and do not consider themselves "white", so it's therefore not common for people who do consider themselves white (and non-hispanic) to have black or NA ancestry. That doesn't mean it's untrue to say there was a lot of mixing, and again, apologies if I gave the wrong impression there - what I meant was that the mixing is not represented in white non-hispanic populations (also my comments were more about mixing among Native Americans and European Americans, not African Americans and European Americans). Like I say, I have watched Finding Your Roots and don't get the impression Gates is trying to portray things any differently from this.
As for "Who Do You Think You Are?" - yes, they feature more white than minority people, and that's fine too. But of the two shows, the only one I know of to feature a white person with black (or NA) ancestry is WDYTYA, not Finding Your Roots - Liv Tyler (she had a black ancestor). Of course my memory is not infallible and like I say, I haven't watched every episode of either show.
Wanted to note this was a good post in response the one it was addressing. I've actually seen all of the episodes of Finding Your Roots and the only person I remember who is white who kind of discovered a black ancestor was Ty Burell who plays Phil on the show "Modern Family." But he did have family lore that he had a black ancestor - one of his 3rd great grandmothers was a slave who was impregnated when she was 13 by her slave master who was in his 30s and she had a bi-racial daughter - Ty's 2nd great grandmother who used the homestead act to acquire property and moved to Oregon, where he was born.
I do have some real life cousins who "discovered" African ancestry based on DNA tests but I agree that show doesn't have an "agenda."
Dr. Gates is pretty open about his love of black American history and his love in general of genealogical research. I find the shows he does or little spoken about historical eras and incidents in European history to be very interesting. The one about Lidia Bastianich was interesting and the episode featuring those of Greek heritage that Tina Fey was on. The most interesting to me was the man whose grandfather he thought was Japanese but he turned out to be Korean and was a spy during WW2 posing as a performer (can't remember that guy's name but that was a fascinating story IMO).
After this discussion I did a quick search about Native Americans and DNA results. It looks like natives from North America are hesitant to get tested (not surprising) and therefore, there is not really any data to compare. So it's not that white people don't have any NA blood. It's that not enough natives of North America are in the database. Makes sense to me. This also serves to promote the idea that white and black people are genetically different when we really aren't (well, at least not to the point that we're two different species). The "difference" boils down to phenotype (not a good indicator of anything, really) and resulting culture. Since whites and black have been divided, we've developed our own cultures independent of each other which then makes us think we're different. Culturally? Yes. Genetically? Not so much.
It's interesting that you mentioned this. I'm almost willing to bet that most of the people in Louisiana with N-A blood are probably Cajuns who acquired it more than 300 years ago via Quebec, Canada.
The term *Cajun* is a corruption of the term *Acadian*. The Acadians were expelled from present-day Nova Scotia in the 1700s. They did NOT arrive via Quebec, although some French Canadians (modern-day Quebeckers) settled in communities in Avoyelles Parish, like Bordelonville, and later mixed with *Cajuns*. The Acadians probably do have some native Micmac ancestry from Nova Scotia. The *Cajuns* also absorbed some Chitimacha and Houma (Choctaw) in southeastern Louisiana. The Houma of Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes were the last primarily French-speaking people of Louisiana. The United Houma Tribe got recognition from the State of Louisiana in 1972, but the federal government has not recognized the tribe... too many members have too little Native American DNA. Most have Acadian, French and/or other European *blood*… and not a few have visible African heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDM66
This is a weird moment in history: When the French colonized Canada they did not allow any women to immigrate. --It was men only for several decades. The French were being chivalrous when they believed that North America was too dangerous for women. But obviously you cannot sustain a society without women, so Frenchmen began to intermarry with N-A women. It was a common practice until the French government finally came to its senses and allowed women to immigrate to the colonies. The English never restricted the immigration of women to the colonies like the French.
That has been the *story* or narrative line for a long time... but if you review actual DNA analyses of French Canadians in Quebec, they have very little racial admixture from Native American sources. Maybe the French crown sent over enough filles du roi to do the trick.
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.
And Illinois seems similar in Native American ancestry as Texas
) to America. Marking another significant "era" in history.
