Posted: Sun 19 Nov 2006 04:43 Post subject: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
This thread was inspired by a debate in another forum. I have posted it here because the posting rules here, in the "Technical and Scholarly Discussions" forums are stricter than in the "Special Interest" (political advocacy) forums.
The two most important posting rules for this thread (and they will be enforced) are: (1) No moralizing or value judgments, please. (2) We are seeking facts (findings). Opinions (conclusions) are acceptable, but they must be based upon facts (findings) previously presented.
Let me set up the discussion by presenting two incontrovertible facts that are not subject to debate (unless you present some very solid verifiable, replicable, peer-reviewed mainstream scientific findings to the contrary).
Fact 1. -- The average (mean) Euro DNA admixture in African Americans is 17-18 percent. Virtually all African Americans have some detectable level of Euro DNA admixture. More than one African American in twenty (about 1.4 million individuals) have more than 50 percent Euro DNA admixture, and some have no detectable sub-Saharan admixture at all. In short, virtually all African-Americans are of both European and African genetic ancestry and many are genetically more European than African. [For details, see the chart published in Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, “Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa,” Human Genetics, 111 (September 2002), 566-99. The chart is also available in Legal History of the Color Line page 27, and in various threads in this discussion group.]
Fact 2. – In the U.S. federal census of 2000, when respondents were encouraged to check all "races" that apply, less than one non-Hispanic in 30 checked off both "Black" and something else. [See Nicholas A. Jones and Amy Symens Smith, The Two or More Races Population: 2000 (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), p. 7.]
To summarize, virtually all African Americans are genetically Euro-Afro mixed but virtually none acknowledges this fact. The dramatic mismatch between verifiable reality and perception is startling. It is also unique to the African American community. Only one Hispanic in ten checks off "Black" (only). And, according to Yu Xie and Kimberly Goyette, “The Racial Identification of Biracial Children with One Asian Parent: Evidence from the 1990 Census,” Social Forces, 76 (no. 2, December 1997), 547-70, most Americans of mixed Euro-Asian parentage report themselves on the census as totally "White."
The question that I invite members to answer is "why?" Why, among all Americans of non-Euro ancestry, do African Americans alone deny their Euro ancestry? For what they are worth, two answers previously suggested in other forums were: (1) It is a conscious choice due to African-Americans' knowledge of their unique oppression at the hands of Euro-Americans and (2) It is not a conscious choice, but the result of African American ignorance of their own ancestry.
Especially useful would be any findings regarding how this phenomenon varies with socio-economic class (rich versus poor), religion (protestant versus Catholic, Jewish or Muslim), educational level (post grads versus HS dropouts), gender (men versus women), age (young versus old), region (east versus west, north versus south), or rural versus urban residence.
Again, please do not answer with moralizing or value judgments. As mentioned above, opinions (conclusions) are acceptable, but only if you reference the facts (findings) that led to your opinions (conclusions).
What ethnic data is available on which Americans have sought admixture tests, and whether discovering the results changes their self-labeling behaviors?
A descendant of Jamaican slaves, Ms. Duncan had already identified the Scottish slave owner who was her mother's great-great-grandfather through archival records. But the DNA test confirming her 10 percent British Isles ancestry gave her the nerve to contact the Scottish cousins who had built an oil company with his fortune.
The family's 11 castles, Ms. Duncan noted, were obtained with the proceeds of her African ancestors' labor. Perhaps they could spare one for her great-great-great-grandfather's black heirs? In case the paper records she had gathered were not persuasive, she invited male family members to take a DNA test that can identify a genetic signature passed from father to son. So far, no one has taken her up on the offer. Her appeal, Ms. Duncan said, is mostly playful. Less so is her insistence that the Scots stop referring to their common ancestors as simply "Virginia and West India merchants."
"By acknowledging me, the Scots are beginning to acknowledge that these guys were slaveholders," she said.
Other slave descendants, known as the Freedmen, see DNA as bolstering their demand to be reinstated as members of the Indian tribes that once owned their ancestors. Under a treaty with the United States, the "Five Civilized Tribes" — Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees — freed their African slaves and in most cases made them citizens in the mid-1800's. More recently, the tribes have sought to exclude the slaves' descendants, depriving them of health benefits and other services.
At a meeting in South Coffeyville, Okla., last month, members of the Freedmen argued that DNA results revealing their Indian ancestry underscore the racism of the tribe's position that their ancestors were never true Indians.
"Here's this DNA test that says yes, these people can establish some degree of Indian blood," said Marilyn Vann, a Cherokee Freedwoman who is suing for tribal citizenship in federal court. "It's important to combat those who want to oppress people of African descent in their own tribe."
As the assets of some tribes have swelled in the wake of the 1988 federal law allowing them to build casinos, there has been no shortage of petitioners stepping forward to assert their right to citizenship and a share of the wealth. Now, many of them are wielding genetic ancestry tests to bolster their claim.
"It used to be 'someone said my grandmother was an Indian,' " says Joyce Walker, the enrollment clerk who regularly turns away DNA petitioners for the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, which operates the lucrative Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut. "Now it's 'my DNA says my grandmother was an Indian.' "
Recognizing the validity of DNA ancestry tests, some Indians say, would undermine tribal sovereignty. They say membership requires meeting the criteria in a tribe's constitution, which often requires documenting blood ties to a specific tribal member. DNA tests cannot pinpoint to which tribe an individual's ancestor belonged.
My own personal opinion is that identity politics have exacerbated the negative feelings that many African Americans might have about their European ancestry. But - we should not forget that, even after debunking notions of "slavemaster rape" in every case, that many B-W relationships in the U.S. were forged despite tremendous social pressure to keep the populations apart. How many people on both sides of this equation simply couldn't sustain relationships under the pressure, and defected to one side or the other? Many African Americans families with White ancestors may have tried to distance themselves from the shame of being rejected by White families or abandoned by White spouses/lovers by developing amnesia and denying their "White blood" in turn. It could also be that Whites who did remain with their African American families "became Black" to escape the sanctions associated with crossing the color line.
It could also be that Whites who did remain with their African American families "became Black" to escape the sanctions associated with crossing the color line.
I know of at least one such case. The mother of a personal friend immigrated from Ireland, married, and lived in Miami with her husband and two young children. Her husband died unexpectedly and she was left a penniless young widow with no relatives, no job, and three mouths to feed. Through incredible good fortune she met and fell in love with a Black professional man with a steady income who loved her and the kids.
They married are were happy for about a year when someone filed a complaint with the state. It was during the Jim Crow era and interracial marriage was not only illegal, but White children with a Black step-parent came under child-abuse laws. The woman's children were taken away by the state, put into foster homes, and despite all her efforts, she never saw them again.
In order to prevent a repetition, before becoming pregant by her new husband, she dyed her hair and persuaded her husband to re-start his career in a different city, where she introduced herself as a Black Creole (with an Irish accent). She lived the rest of her life as a Black woman. I met her when she was in her 90s. Mary Lee and I had invited a friend to dinner and the friend asked if she could bring her mom along. By the time the old woman finished her tale, Mary Lee had soaked two handkerchiefs.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the events happened in the 1940s. But researchers agree [see Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1980)] that similar cases of White-to-Black "passing" happened more often than many realize.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 168 } Location: Mid-Atlantic States; USA
Posted: Mon 20 Nov 2006 03:28 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
sagascend wrote:
It could also be that Whites who did remain with their African American families "became Black" to escape the sanctions associated with crossing the color line.
In order to prevent a repetition, before becoming pregant by her new husband, she dyed her hair and persuaded her husband to re-start his career in a different city, where she introduced herself as a Black Creole (with an Irish accent). She lived the rest of her life as a Black woman. I met her when she was in her 90s. Mary Lee and I had invited a friend to dinner and the friend asked if she could bring her mom along. By the time the old woman finished her tale, Mary Lee had soaked two handkerchiefs.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the events happened in the 1940s. But researchers agree [see Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1980)] that similar cases of White-to-Black "passing" happened more often than many realize.
Yes, it probably has.
Last edited by leosprycat on Thu 22 Mar 2007 00:42; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Mon 20 Nov 2006 12:45 Post subject: white ancestry
Having spent years reading black-identified denunciations of "passing" and even publicly acknowledging European ancestry, I have to conclude that an inferiority complex is the main reason for denial. Read the years of black attacks in "Interracial Voice." It's always some version of not being good enough to be anything other than black or they'll "prove" you're "black" by pointing out some imperfections that true "whites" supposedly don't have.
Having spent years reading black-identified denunciations of "passing" and even publicly acknowledging European ancestry, I have to conclude that an inferiority complex is the main reason for denial. Read the years of black attacks in "Interracial Voice." It's always some version of not being good enough to be anything other than black or they'll "prove" you're "black" by pointing out some imperfections that true "whites" supposedly don't have.
That's part of it, but for many, perhaps most, the assumption that European and all other ancestries are overshadowed by the African seems to be a stronger motivation.
Also, many or most African Americans like to believe or need to believe that all European ancestry was the result of rape.
Having spent years reading black-identified denunciations of "passing" and even publicly acknowledging European ancestry, I have to conclude that an inferiority complex is the main reason for denial. Read the years of black attacks in "Interracial Voice." It's always some version of not being good enough to be anything other than black or they'll "prove" you're "black" by pointing out some imperfections that true "whites" supposedly don't have.
That's part of it, but for many, perhaps most, the assumption that European and all other ancestries are overshadowed by the African seems to be a stronger motivation.
Also, many or most African Americans like to believe or need to believe that all European ancestry was the result of rape.
Also, many or most African Americans like to believe or need to believe that all European ancestry was the result of rape.
I do not know if you can consider this corrobration, since it comes from such an indirect source, but here it is.
According to Javier Nelson (now retired sociology teacher, founding member of this discussion group, and author of a history of the Dominican Republic among other works), this denial of the legitimacy of rape-spawned ancestry is precisely why most Dominicans freak out when you ask them to admit their (physically obvious) African ancestry. They refuse to accept it because they attribute their African DNA to rapes during a very unpleasant period of brutality by Haitians when they conquered Santo Domingo.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Tue 21 Nov 2006 13:36 Post subject:
Based on what older relatives have told me, and what I've read, a great deal of ethnic mixing took place in the context of concubinage, not rape per se. I'm talking specifically about the small town South under Jim Crow where so much of black American culture seems to have been shaped.
These relationships took place in a political and social context where the basic humanity of people of African descent was constantly devalued. Legitimate relationships based on mutual respect were impossible. While there were certainly individual whites who maintained relations with their black relatives, the society as a whole denied that such connections and common humanity could exist. There were also whites who completely turned their backs on their black relatives. To my mind, this stands in sharp contrast to the black American cultural practice of accepting people with a wide variety of ethnic mixture and phenotype.
This black American cultural practice strikes me as much more decent, more humane, more civilized than the white American practice of shunning anyone who appeared to be a little bit black. Based on what I've learned on this site, I'm aware that this cultural practice was not universal among white identified Americans, but I do believe it's been the prevailing practice for the 20th century.
Under Jim Crow, white America and black America were at war with each other. So the "black" mistresses of "white" men were sleeping with the enemy. In some cases they were shunned much like the French women who were involved with occupying German soldiers during WWII. How many French people, even today, would admit to being descended from German occupiers?
"White" women who became involved with "black" men were also shunned by their communities. Hyperbolic violence against black men who were even suspected of involvement with white women was commonplace.
By contrast, black Americans will readily and even enthusisatically admit to native american ancestry, even though the fraction of ancestry is usually much smaller.
edit
White identified Americans seem to take the same position. They deny their African ancestry, but readily admit to Native American ancestry. Black and White America are still in some sense at war with each other, so nobody wants to admit to sharing ancestry with the enemy.
a great deal of ethnic mixing took place in the context of concubinage, not rape per se. I'm talking specifically about the small town South under Jim Crow where so much of black American culture seems to have been shaped. These relationships took place in a political and social context where the basic humanity of people of African descent was constantly devalued. Legitimate relationships based on mutual respect were impossible.
This is an important point that is often overlooked. There is no question that U.S. society is still reverberating from the impact of Jim Crow. The memories of that time are still fresh in the minds of anyone over 60 years old, and they linger second-hand in their grandchildren. That young people falsely project Jim Crowism onto antebellum times is an unfortunate distraction, as is the claim that things have not improved since MLK. Rejection of Euro ancestry from the Jim Crow era is perfectly understandable, even if it is erroneously projected onto antebellum times.
I recently asked a close friend and fellow re-enactor who portrays Elizabeth Keckly (the same lady who had two coronary stents put in a couple of weeks ago) a question about genealogy. Since she is an accomplished genealogist and gives classes in the subject, I asked her how she chooses her ancestral subjects. For example, she writes about two ancestors who lived around 1800. But, like everyone else, she had a thousand ancestors alive at that time. How did she come to choose those two?
Her answer was that, first, those two were more interesting than the others; ultimately, genealogy is all about telling true stories about interesting people. Second, she said, she was able to find less than a dozen ancestors (out of the thousand) because she is African-American. Slave records are very sparse and hard to research.
Knowing, from our long friendship and prior discussions about maroon communities (she is related to the Goins of Louisiana), that she is at least half Euro, I asked, "What about your White ancestors? You could certainly find out more about them." She replied, "Why on earth would I want to do that? I am Black!" And this is from a woman who is extremely knowlegable in U.S. history. But she is in her 70s, and I am sure that Jim Crow is still vivid in her memory.
I used to post on another message board years ago. One of the members of the forum started a thread titled "Why no body wants to be black?" He made a long rant about how his girlfriend is a self-loather because she acknowledges having white and indian ancestry. Nowadays it's trendy to be "mixed" with something, so if an african american acknowledges indian or white ancestry, they'll be ridiculed, especially if their skin is dark. This attitude is more common among younger people though.
I've heard some people say that the reason many american blacks are lighter than west africans is because the climate here is colder. I don't have any real evidence to proove why euro ancestry is denied but there are probably several reasons that have already been mentioned. Having watched the african american lives show on PBS and seeing Skip Gates' reaction to his admixture test, I think the best explanation is number 2. It's not a conscious choice but a result of african american ignorance of their own ancestry.
Posted: Tue 21 Nov 2006 22:27 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
fwsweet wrote:
More than one African American in twenty (about 1.4 million individuals) have more than 50 percent Euro DNA admixture, and some have no detectable sub-Saharan admixture at all.
Not to get off topic but do you know how many have more than 25 percent Euro DNA admixture?
I don't think only checking one box on a census form is tanamount to denying European ancestors. I think most blacks acknowledge it.
Would you ask this question of the 80.5% of Puerto Ricans who checked off "white" and nothing else in the 2000 census? Only 4.5% checked "two or more races".
Would you ask this question of the 80.5% of Puerto Ricans who checked off "white" and nothing else in the 2000 census?
I certainly would! Judging by the census, most Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. clearly deny their African ancestry (although the fraction who check both boxes is still at least double that of U.S. Blacks).
Would you ask this question of the 80.5% of Puerto Ricans who checked off "white" and nothing else in the 2000 census?
(although the fraction who check both boxes is still at least double that of U.S. Blacks).
maybe, but I think (and I could be mistaken) that they (Puerto Ricans) also have a much higher African DNA admixture than African Americans have Euro DNA admixture.
(Puerto Ricans) also have a much higher African DNA admixture than African Americans have Euro DNA admixture.
Yes. About double. Mean Afro admixture in Puerto Ricans is about 45 percent. Mean Euro admixture in African Americans is about 17-18 percent.
But it is easy to see why most Puerto Ricans in the U.S. do not want to be seen as Black. Like others of dual ancestry (Cape Verdeans, BWI's, African immigrants, and members of most maroon communities of the U.S. Southeast), they know that being classified as U.S. Black condemns them to the oppression, bigotry, lack of opportunity, and wretched earning potential inflicted upon African Americans by U.S. society. It makes sense to avoid this fate if at all possible.
(Puerto Ricans) also have a much higher African DNA admixture than African Americans have Euro DNA admixture.
Yes. About double. Mean Afro admixture in Puerto Ricans is about 45 percent. Mean Euro admixture in African Americans is about 17-18 percent.
But it is easy to see why most Puerto Ricans in the U.S. do not want to be seen as Black. Like others of dual ancestry (Cape Verdeans, BWI's, African immigrants, and members of most maroon communities of the U.S. Southeast), they know that being classified as U.S. Black condemns them to the oppression, bigotry, lack of opportunity, and wretched earning potential inflicted upon African Americans by U.S. society. It makes sense to avoid this fate if at all possible.
By the same token this could also be the reason why U.S. blacks don't mention (not necessarily deny) their European ancestory. The same way, for whatever reason, that Puerto Ricans see black as being synonymous
with "African American" and all the historical implications it entails. African Americans for the most part associate European ancestry with U.S. White and all of its historical implications.
Under those circumstances its easy to see why a black person would not want to check a box on a census that says "White" when maybe they themselves or their mother or grandmother(s) were not allowed to drink from water fountains that were designated for "Whites".
I think the problem is that the term White is allowed to represent various people of European descent (with no stigma), while the term Black (in Latin America at least) is seen synonymous with "African American", which carries a huge stigma.
I think the problem is that the term White is allowed to represent various people of European descent (with no stigma), while the term Black (in Latin America at least) is seen synonymous with "African American", which carries a huge stigma.
Black isn't synonymous with African American in Latin America. It may be synonymous with African American among Latinos who live here in the U.S., but not necessarily. To Dominicans black may be synonymous with Haitian. To Central Americans and Mexicans in the U.S. it may be anyone, even non-African Americans, who looks like he is significantly African in appearance.
Generally throughout this hemisphere blackness or African looks are stigmatized.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
