Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 16:30 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
OTHER wrote:
Another example - if my high yella, medium brown haired, blue-green eyed "black" father spoke of this Scottish ancestor or that Blackfoot Indian grandmother, no one would doubt him. However, I wonder if his older FULL brother who has medium brown skin, dark brown/black hair and brown eyes said the same thing, if he would be assumed to be a liar.
Based on what it is that he'd be claiming, I wouldn't call his bluff.
I'll give you an example of something that happened when I was in Philadelphia, about two years ago, to stop and see some friends while visting my family in Delaware:
One of my wife’s acquaintances who is about our age, who’s skin color matches the description of your older uncle’s, claims to be mixed. Even judged on phenotype, most wouldn’t challenge her, because she had… for lack of a more politically correct term, “good hair.” BUT – she claimed to be part Portuguese. Had she claimed to be part Anglo-Saxon, or Irish, or Scottish, or German… I’d have let it go unchallenged. But she claimed Portaguese – a “rarer” more “exotic” European nationality. Although she was my wife’s acquaintance, it was through her mother – who is a good friend of my wife’s. In this woman’s absence, we visit her mother’s house to get a confirmation or denial. All we got was that there are “light skinned, good haired” people in previous generations, but no one really knows what they’re mixed with – in other words, no doubt she is mixed, but she doesn’t know what with – and chose something that she thought would get people’s attention or make her seem “exotic” to others.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Sat 10 May 2008 17:18; edited 2 times in total
Recent mixed heritage? Would eyeballing prove this woman to be a liar if she claimed recent mixed heritage?
How about this one?
I would venture to guess that if either of these women claimed recent mixed ancestry today in the United States, they would be met with doubt from at least some people. The blonde woman is Eartha Kitt's daughter. The woman in the black and white picture is Ida B. Wells, a griffe. So, in both cases, the "mixing" was quite recent.
Well if a person can be EXTREMELY MIXED beyond belief like their family tree resembles a united nations yet the person can still have a phenotype that would be eyeballed by most people as looking Black and not racially ambiguous/exotic/inbetween looking than that just proves how strong SSA genes are. That you can be mixed with a gazillion races/ethnicities yet still have a phenotype that looks overwhelmingly SSA.
Although personally I think if somebody is truely that genetically mixed to the max where they are mixed with so many different groups in them that they lost count than I wouldn't expect that person to look Black at all and if they did in my mind I would still find it very hard to believe and would think their lying. I would expect somebody that is almost literally mixed with every group on the planet to look racially ambiguous like this woman for example.
And like I said not this
That would have to be some extremely strong SSA genes to be extremely mixed as a mutha and still look like the woman above me.
Last edited by Bischoff on Sat 10 May 2008 23:52; edited 1 time in total
Clearly some folks misunderstood my words/intentions and their feathers have been ruffled. Hmm...it IS the Internet, after all, so even innocuous statements or questions can be misinterpreted because you can't see who you're conversing with.
Again, I apologize if some people have an issue with this thread or if anything I said seemed unclear or offensive. This is not about color or perceived superiority or any of the things that people have mentioned, but some folks seem to have taken offense to the subject matter of this thread. Maybe that is my misunderstanding but that is how it seems.
This baffles me because I never once called into question the self-identity of anyone (or their families) here on this forum. I was simply asking a QUESTION and sharing my perspective. I wanted to know if anyone had ever noticed or experienced this when talking with certain individuals in their own lives. It is not, nor was it intended to be, a personal attack on people of a different hue. It seems to me that if people around here share experiences or ask questions that differ from the "norm", they are accused of having a bias about color or phenotype. I'm not the most politically correct person, as most of you can probably tell.
I like to ask questions, I like to learn...as we all do. So if my questions or comments have struck a nerve, I apologize.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun 11 May 2008 02:14 Post subject:
For what it's worth, let me throw in what I've been told to be true. I'm merely reporting data from a reputable organization.
Geneticist Dr. Lou Charlton, formerly of DNAPrint (AncestryByDNA), mentioned in several e-mails to me that countless Americans want to have their claims of having Native American ancestry validated, so they get an autosomal DNA test. A good percentage of them do not type with any significant (sometimes none at all) Amerindian DNA. They then write back, claiming there was some sort of testing error. When told that the results would not have been sent out with marker failures, some of them become irate, with a few of them even threatening the staff at DNAPrint. When it is explained to them that not all legends about Native American ancestry are real, the customers are incredulous.
Sometimes they are asked by staff at DNAPrint how they know of the Amerindian ancestor(s). Most of the time, it is hearsay..."my grandpa thought so" or "my aunt told me so" or "grandma had Indian eyes" or some such claims that are not able to be substantiated. DNAPrint staff is also instructed to inform such "NAMWABEs" (the staff actually coined a mock-term for this very common phenomenon - Native American Wannabes) that an ancestor who may have genuinely been affiliated with an Amerindian tribe, and may have been considered a Native American, may not necessarily have had much Native American DNA, since intermixture with Europeans and Africans was common.
If this is what pianoplayer111 had in mind, then I can say that DNAPrint can confirm the suspicion.
(Incidentally, those seeking to have their claims of Native American ancestry validated by a DNA test nearly always claim Cherokee ancestry. Why is that??)
Last edited by William on Sun 11 May 2008 19:27; edited 1 time in total
The majority of Americans who claim to have a Cherokee ancestor in their family tree (which is in the millions, perhaps even hundred millions) can not even legally join the Cherokee Nation because either they are lying and do not have a single drop of Cherokee blood or if they do it's very very small like 1/32 for example. That is why less than 1% of the U.S population are actually legally enrolled in the Cherokee Nation since the number of enrolled members is not even in the millions but only the mere hundred thousands.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 11 May 2008 12:26 Post subject:
William wrote:
Geneticist Dr. Lou Charlton, formerly of DNAPrint (AncestryByDNA), mentioned in several e-mails to me that countless Americans want to have their claims of having Native American ancestry validated, so they get an autosomal DNA test. A good percentage of them do not type with any significant (sometimes none at all) Amerindian DNA. They then write back, cleiming there was some sort of testing error.
Ya know, when so many people claim to "be part Cherokee," as if it made them "special," I used to jokingly "counter-brag" that I have no known Native American ancestry at all - the lack of Native American ancestry, of course, makes ME the one to be among the "elite few."
William! You messed it up for me! I don't feel so "special" anymore!
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 11 May 2008 13:22 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
I even told this (AA) man last week, that I was bi-racial and he said:"We all are". LOL! My response was, I read genetics journals now [be prepared to back up your claim] ...the subject was changed...
But I do know what you mean, in that some AAs tend to over-estimate their own admixture or downplay 'yours' in an attempt to one drop Creole/bi-racial/MGM people....
Phil, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You wouldn't be ale to counter these, because when you say to let that "black person with the one great-great parent" ID as multiracial, you're forgetting the motive behind it. I.e., if they can't make you black, they'll make themselves multiracial - either way, their desired effect is to keep you "claimed."
The majority of Americans who claim to have a Cherokee ancestor in their family tree (which is in the millions, perhaps even hundred millions) can not even legally join the Cherokee Nation because either they are lying and do not have a single drop of Cherokee blood or if they do it's very very small like 1/32 for example. That is why less than 1% of the U.S population are actually legally enrolled in the Cherokee Nation since the number of enrolled members is not even in the millions but only the mere hundred thousands.
American Indian tribes have strict rules for who can and cannot legally join their tribes. Admixture levels or whether a person "looks" Native American is not the determining factor. I was surprised to learn recently that my friend, who has significant NA ancestry on both sides, can only legally claim 1/8th and only in a general sense, not a tribal sense. His family cannot prove or ascertain affiliation to one tribe. He is a NA mutt but he is not tribally "pure." His picture can be found in a Molecular forum thread for eyeballing purposes, but it is abundantly clear that he has NA ancestry. I'd eyeball it at at least 25% but it could be higher or lower of course.
Obviously most people are mistaken in their rush to claim NA ancestry, Cherokee specifically, but being enrolled in a tribe or not enrolled in a tribe do not determine what one's ancestry actually is. Tribes also have a financial incentive to keep their rosters low and might also bar those with legitimate claims. See the legal battle of the Freedman Cherokee and many Seminoles for an example.
I'm sure some people would eyeball me as one of those delusional Americans who are NA poseurs too, and they'd be mistaken. My test results not only supported my family's genealogy, they were higher than I expected based on eyeballing. I'm going to have my mother tested too - her NA/EA admixture could be in the 25% range, which would track mathematically with the percentage one would expect from the granddaughter of a NA woman. In our case, Comanche.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 12 May 2008 16:38 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
I'm sure some people would eyeball me as one of those delusional Americans who are NA poseurs too, and they'd be mistaken.
I don't think most people are going to think that you're delusional - because so many people claim NA ancestry, that an NA claim will either:
a. Go in one ear, and out the other; or
b. Be met with, "Really? Me too! What tribe?"
I'm not going to challenge you on it or anything, but I can tell you that if I woke up tomorrow and found out that I was part NA, I would more than likely disregard it or keep it to myself; because too many people claiming it, IMHO, "cheapens" it, and makes EVERYONE who claims it (even if they're telling the truth) subject to being challenged on it or being ignored.
I'm sure some people would eyeball me as one of those delusional Americans who are NA poseurs too, and they'd be mistaken.
I don't think most people are going to think that you're delusional - because so many people claim NA ancestry, that an NA claim will either:
a. Go in one ear, and out the other; or
b. Be met with, "Really? Me too! What tribe?"
I'm not going to challenge you on it or anything, but I can tell you that if I woke up tomorrow and found out that I was part NA, I would more than likely disregard it or keep it to myself; because too many people claiming it, IMHO, "cheapens" it, and makes EVERYONE who claims it (even if they're telling the truth) subject to being challenged on it or being ignored.
Well there is a difference between stating, claiming and identifying with an aspect of one's real or imagined ancestry. I agree with Phil that it is a good thing for more people to acknowledge the complexity of their ancestry because it reduces the racialist behavior/perceptions that people often have. I can sympathize with the annoyance at the need of some to claim or identify with an aspect of one's ancestry that is not relevant but I do not believe it is anyone's place to decide HOW relevant that ancestry SHOULD be to a person, based on appearance, upbringing etc. I don't inquire about the ancestry of other people as a general rule unless it becomes relevant to a conversation. If they choose to share it, great, but it is not information that I need to have.
I have to say that I am fascinated by requirement of a person to derive a feeling of specialness based on how many people claim or identify with a group/ancestry/ethnicity/label. I do not understand why ancestry, something that is not a personal accomplishment, makes someone special or not special. Someone looking for validation in that manner is really lost IMO. If everyone in the United States claimed Cherokee ancestry absolutely nothing is taken away from people who really are Cherokee or descended from them in part unless some sort of privilege or casino profits go along with claiming Cherokee. You've got to know who you are at the end of the day, and an ancestry only determines who you are if it becomes a part of your life (i.e. through cultural practices) or if it is stigmatized in some way by society.
That is exactly what gets under my skin...it seems that some people (even on this board) have bought into the idea that they are somehow special because who their parents, their grandparents, etc. chose to procreate with. And if they are "special" then it stands to reason that there are others who are "not so special"
You are special because of who you are as a person, not because of your genetics.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 12 May 2008 18:12 Post subject:
Well said, Maya, as always. That is clearly the wrong reason to do genealogical and personal genetic research, if there is a right and wrong in this case. In my view, researching one's family history should be fun and interesting, and should serve to broaden one's knowledge of one's ancestors and the areas from which they came. Personal genetic testing should be used merely to find out what continent-of-ancestry markers one has, and can also be used to help dispel notions of "racial" purity of any kind, since virtually everyone has admixture from places other than where their known ancestors originated.
Well, I don't know if I'm included in "some" of the people on this forum who supposedly feels special because of my mixedness...I certainly don't see it that way.
Well, I don't know if I'm included in "some" of the people on this forum who supposedly feels special because of my mixedness...I certainly don't see it that way.
oh stop that!!! If I meant you I would have called you out by name since you started this thread.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 12 May 2008 20:36 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
[I have to say that I am fascinated by requirement of a person to derive a feeling of specialness based on how many people claim or identify with a group/ancestry/ethnicity/label.
Never once in my life, have I ever inquired about one's NA ancestry (because, based on previous experience and application of the social microcosm theory, I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is going to be), nor have I ever intentionally asked an open-ended question that could be answered with NA ancestry. So when someone tells me that they have it, their statement of NA ancestry was 100% unsolicited. That said, do these people feel that they're special? If not, then why are they mentioning these things when no one asked them?
It's like I mentioned before, many times on this thread - actual mixed people, lying about what it is that they're mixed with. Out of all the mulattoes here, I'm willing to bet that I'm probably one of the few (probably single digits) that claims "plain' ol' backyard-barbecuin', Bud Light chuggin', NASCAR watchin', Anglo-Saxon whitey." What about everyone else here? Part Swiss? Greek? Croatian? Lithuanian?
The truth is, I know that there's alot more of "me" out there than what people care to admit - instead, they want to be one of those "rare breeds."
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 12 May 2008 20:49 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
sagascend wrote:
[I have to say that I am fascinated by requirement of a person to derive a feeling of specialness based on how many people claim or identify with a group/ancestry/ethnicity/label.
Never once in my life, have I ever inquired about one's NA ancestry (because, based on previous experience and application of the social microcosm theory, I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is going to be), nor have I ever intentionally asked an open-ended question that could be answered with NA ancestry. So when someone tells me that they have it, their statement of NA ancestry was 100% unsolicited. That said, do these people feel that they're special? If not, then why are they mentioning these things when no one asked them?
It's like I mentioned before, many times on this thread - actual mixed people, lying about what it is that they're mixed with. Out of all the mulattoes here, I'm willing to bet that I'm probably one of the few (probably single digits) that claims "plain' ol' backyard-barbecuin', Bud Light chuggin', NASCAR watchin', Anglo-Saxon whitey." What about everyone else here? Part Swiss? Greek? Croatian? Lithuanian?
The truth is, I know that there's alot of "me" out there than what people care to admit - and I think people want to be one of those "rare breeds."
Hey, I'm just your average, plain-Jane, European-looking German/Austrian-American with a touch of Alsatian. Nothing special to claim. There are stories of a Gypsy forebear on my dad's side, but there is nothing to substantiate this, so I don't put much faith in the claims.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
LOL! My response was, I read genetics journals now [be prepared to back up your claim] ...the subject was changed... 
