U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2019, 10:32 AM
 
16,198 posts, read 8,473,895 times
Reputation: 8324

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
Hmmm, sounds to me this is boarding on "Black people are the original Native Americans." Common sense and science doesn't hold this up. Not sure why a small group tries to disconnect a part of their ancestry from an ancient and chock-full of history region of the world (Africa) to chase silly stories that lacks identity for ones self by trying to cleave onto another by believing there is some conspiracy. As if Natives did not suffer enough they need to be dismantled of their homeland and history by being painted as another people?
This doesn't happen in Mexico, only in the US do these fringe groups arise insisting they are the real Egyptians, Hebrews or Native Americans. They take to the streets and behold the campaign.......Anway

Indigenous Americans (Native Americans, Paleo Americans, Earliest Americans) are primarily O (both AB antigens) type blood with the exception of the Blackfoot Indians (federally recognized tribe in Montana) which can carry in high frequency type A. Most people globally are type O+. The Black peoples who inhabit the continent of Africa in the West, East and South genetically have different phenotypes and genetic variations. African Americans are mostly descended from [West]Sub-Saharan Africa and share genetic similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans.

According to the Red Cross (where is where I believe you are harvesting your information?) type O+ is found;

37% Caucasian
47% African American
39% Asian
57% Latin American
https://www.redcrossblood.org/

In the What are Blood Types, those statistics don't account for Indigenous North, Central or South Americans just Latinos as a group. However, they are primarily O in high frequency. Also consider the fact, blood type does not determine geographical location or where one's ancestors might come from.



African Americans share their genetic African ancestry similarly with people of Sub-Sahara Africa primarily West African as do Latinos with African ancestry. Native Americans share genetic similarity with East Asians. African Americans and Native Americans have a far genetic distance. The earliest humans found in America (Kennewick Man, Malta Boy) had no genetic relation to Black African/Americans. For example, East Asians/Native Americans their mtDNA is A,B,C or D. A African mtDNA is an L. Subclads will vary. We can look at both groups and see phenotype similarities as you can look at African Americans and West Africans and similarities inherited from their ancestral populations. I'm speaking on relatively unadmixed people from both groups.



There are African Americans with Native American ancestry which is as recent as Great Grandparents. Upon taking a DNA test, produce a result. It shows their Native Ancestry and African ancestry or other varying ancestries. DNA testing is a good support for people which lack a 1. Good and 2. Solid paper trail documenting an ancestor(s) to an actual tribe. Most Americans White and Black who take ancestry testing do not largely come back with Native American ancestry which would show recent ancestry on the autosomes. Most of these stories with Indian ancestors are largely myth especially if coupled with no documented ancestry.



Cherokee (Nation, Ketoowah, East Band) and Choctaw are federally recognized tribes today and they are not called Afrikans nor ever have been. They are racially aboriginal or "Indians" who also have people of mixed ancestry which are enrolled which trace "Indian" ancestors to a tribe. As stated, the Blackfoot are a tribe in Montana. The Blackfeet (also called Cherokee-Blackfeet) are a pseudo-tribe from the VA/NC area and not recognized as an Indian tribe as they have no language or cultural history that predates the colonial era. As far as Chocataw, I'm assuming your family is documented to the Choctaw tribal rolls By Blood which would = they are Indian or have Indian ancestors.



Unless you are using a Magic 8 Ball, 23andMe may say otherwise.
On the bold, will just add that that person's mentioning of the "Cherokee-Blackfeet/Blackfoot" indicates that they probably have some tri-racial roots from VA/NC. It is very common for people to claim this sort of ethnic identity who are descendants of Africans, Europeans, and native people. Many of them do have roots with particular native American tribes, just not the Cherokee or Blackfoot. Often they have lost touch with these roots other than stories in the family. But some do still have a connection to their indigenous tribal origins and customs.

I'll also note that the federal recognition of tribes is what caused many of them to expel persons of African descent. This occurred within native reservations starting in the 19th century in regards to treaties. Prior to these sorts of policies, it was not uncommon for native people in the SE in particular to mate with or marry persons of African ancestry. Native Americans prior to being forced to ascribe to an ethnic identity by white Americans, were not ethnically stringent like they are today. Today's politics regarding Indian identity and federal recognition were imposed on the tribes by the US government via both treaties and the BIA in the past. They would be denied land and investments/money if they were deemed "too black" and so tribes started to prevent members from marrying black people or having children with them and would even kick them off of reservations in the past if they did. They started doing this at the start of federal invovlement.

I've been doing some reading/research on Mississippi Choctaws in particular and they went through a similar process of expelling mixed race individuals from their tribe and asserting a "pure Indian" requirement at the turn of the 20th century so that persons who didn't speak their language or live in their community in Mississippi wouldn't be able to claim their lands and monies owed to them by the US government from an 1830 treaty. Persons placed on rolls oftentimes were under the decision of the federal government and the government, due to the "one drop rule" officials would not put persons on the roll if they were deemed "too black." Some documents I reviewed which were interesting and about Virginia were writings by Thomas Jefferson and others when one of the last remaining native tribes in Virginia was seeking to sell some of their reservations, Jefferson mentioned how they were "more Negro than Indian" and this was the early 1800s. This was because free people of color often created and maintained their own communities on Indian lands. Most of them did have some Indian ancestry associated with the reservations and communities that they lived in/around. This was prior to the advent of rolls so persons who could prove their Indian ancestry but who didn't "look" Indian enough, when rolls were created in the later 19th century, they just were not put on them. That doesn't mean they didn't have a connection with their heritage.

Similar situations occurred with the Cherokee whereas Indian tribes themselves created their own governing documents and had various laws about who tribal members (especially women) could marry or have children with and the ramifications of marrying a white person versus an African ancestored person was much more severe and oftentimes would lead to exile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2019, 02:04 PM
 
290 posts, read 515,541 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
On the bold, will just add that that person's mentioning of the "Cherokee-Blackfeet/Blackfoot" indicates that they probably have some tri-racial roots from VA/NC. It is very common for people to claim this sort of ethnic identity who are descendants of Africans, Europeans, and native people. Many of them do have roots with particular native American tribes, just not the Cherokee or Blackfoot. Often they have lost touch with these roots other than stories in the family. But some do still have a connection to their indigenous tribal origins and customs.
I'll also note that the federal recognition of tribes is what caused many of them to expel persons of African descent. This occurred within native reservations starting in the 19th century in regards to treaties. Prior to these sorts of policies, it was not uncommon for native people in the SE in particular to mate with or marry persons of African ancestry. Native Americans prior to being forced to ascribe to an ethnic identity by white Americans, were not ethnically stringent like they are today. Today's politics regarding Indian identity and federal recognition were imposed on the tribes by the US government via both treaties and the BIA in the past. They would be denied land and investments/money if they were deemed "too black" and so tribes started to prevent members from marrying black people or having children with them and would even kick them off of reservations in the past if they did. They started doing this at the start of federal invovlement.

I've been doing some reading/research on Mississippi Choctaws in particular and they went through a similar process of expelling mixed race individuals from their tribe and asserting a "pure Indian" requirement at the turn of the 20th century so that persons who didn't speak their language or live in their community in Mississippi wouldn't be able to claim their lands and monies owed to them by the US government from an 1830 treaty. Persons placed on rolls oftentimes were under the decision of the federal government and the government, due to the "one drop rule" officials would not put persons on the roll if they were deemed "too black." Some documents I reviewed which were interesting and about Virginia were writings by Thomas Jefferson and others when one of the last remaining native tribes in Virginia was seeking to sell some of their reservations, Jefferson mentioned how they were "more Negro than Indian" and this was the early 1800s. This was because free people of color often created and maintained their own communities on Indian lands. Most of them did have some Indian ancestry associated with the reservations and communities that they lived in/around. This was prior to the advent of rolls so persons who could prove their Indian ancestry but who didn't "look" Indian enough, when rolls were created in the later 19th century, they just were not put on them. That doesn't mean they didn't have a connection with their heritage.

Similar situations occurred with the Cherokee whereas Indian tribes themselves created their own governing documents and had various laws about who tribal members (especially women) could marry or have children with and the ramifications of marrying a white person versus an African ancestored person was much more severe and oftentimes would lead to exile.
Not disagreeing with anything you are saying. You are preaching to the choir. Indian tribes have political issues, even today. Raising the blood quanta or lineal requirement ejects members.There are full-blooded Indians inter-tribally mixed they can’t enroll. The entire system destroys tribes. People who are mixed Black, Native or white and forming social groups outside of the tribes for whatever reason(s) would take on a name, Brass Ankles, Melungons or Blackfeet or a pseudo “Cherokee” tribe. The re-classifications laws were very common in VA with mixed race Indians, especially Black Indians (who are mixed Black/Indian). Many were classified as Mulatto or Negro. I’ll end here with the politics.

Emanating from his/her post “White washing” – no pun intended- his/her Sub-Saharan ancestry with pseudo-science. Not sure if they took a ancestry DNA test but perhaps a general comment I suppose but shear ignorance in population studies. What is apparent here, they are claiming First Nations people’s DNA is being interpreted as Sub-Saharan African (Afrikan). I would a assume some type of ethnic dysphoria all together.

The posters usage of “Afrika” is used by a group of African Americans who distinguish themselves as the diaspora of Africans in the New world (descend from slavery). Which I find odd this poster
would use this term since it appears he/she believes Black people are the Native Americans who later became called Negro/Black people and DNA tests that say you are SSA, are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top