Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1084 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 20:26 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
But the presence of the famous X gene in the Native population, even if it is true it is pre-columbian, does not mean anything. It could only mean that the genetic Asian frequencies, in the time of crossing were a lot different than today, and that certain wave of immigrants carried them from Asia. Caucasoid and Australoids peoples existed in some number in East Asia at the time of crossing; that's all.
Since the X lineage has not been found in Asia, it seems unlikely that it came from Asia. It would be unlikely for a lineage that was quite common 15kya in a population to be completely wiped out now.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1084 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 20:30 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
What irritates me is most people are not really interested in Native Americans at all, but in those contact theories.
Yes, I see your point here. Those who get caught up in the "we were here first" arguments miss the point. Wherever the natives came from, whether it be Asia, Europe, or Mars, they've been Native Americans for so long that this is all that really matters.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 21:12 Post subject:
William wrote:
...
Yes, I see your point here. Those who get caught up in the "we were here first" arguments miss the point. Wherever the natives came from, whether it be Asia, Europe, or Mars, they've been Native Americans for so long that this is all that really matters.
You bet!
They were first in the New World. That's what really matters.
We, as the contemporary inhabitants in these land have the duty -I believe- to know a little about those ancestors. Even if not genetically, they are at least ancestors in spirit.
If memory serves, the oldest skulls ever found in America have been described as "Negroid" or "Australoid." I do not now recall where I read this.
Naw, you are thinking of Luzia.
But other skulls in the same group look less Australoid. Also Peņon woman predates Luzia. Again, reconstructions are subjective. I think the European bias shows in this reconstruction, but you can make your own conclusions. She is the oldest ever found in the Americas
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 05 Jan 2007 01:46 Post subject: I agree
I agree with you, Salssasin. Those skulls doesn't show anything definitive at all.
And we should not forget that "australoid" features are not uncommon at all in the average Natives of very isolated tribes, like the non-contacted Amazonian natives, and the 19th century people of Austral Patagonia.
In the case of "caucasoid" features we should remember that between those same groups above mentioned there are people that look "Italian".
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1084 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 05 Jan 2007 17:34 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Naw, you are thinking of Luzia.
Yes, that's the one! I had forgotten the name.
Salsassin wrote:
But other skulls in the same group look less Australoid. Also Peņon woman predates Luzia. Again, reconstructions are subjective. I think the European bias shows in this reconstruction, but you can make your own conclusions. She is the oldest ever found in the Americas.
Yes, reconstructions do tend to be subjective. I always regard them with a raised eyebrow. I was unaware that Peņon Woman antedates Luzia. Thanks, Jaime.
Omar wrote:
And we should not forget that "australoid" features are not uncommon at all in the average Natives of very isolated tribes, like the non-contacted Amazonian natives, and the 19th century people of Austral Patagonia.
In the case of "caucasoid" features we should remember that between those same groups above mentioned there are people that look "Italian".
This just confirms that traits vary considerably within population groups -- more than they do between them. You once posted pics of supposedly pure Chilean natives who looked somewhat European.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 05 Jan 2007 17:43 Post subject: Indians
William wrote:
...
This just confirms that traits vary considerably within population groups -- more than they do between them. You once posted pics of supposedly pure Chilean natives who looked somewhat European.
Yes, indeed. But more than just "somewhat". Natives of Southern South America, for instance, vary in aspect from Japanese to Italian, to they point they could trick even Japanese and Italians in those countries if saw in European clothes.
Other Natives has a more distinctive "ethnic" look, like the Quechuas, for instance, or some North American natives, but in the Amazon you get once again some people that could be confussed with Asian or European.
That's why many people get dissapointed when visit Southern South America, where most people is mixed and has a mainly european culture. They think "Indians are gone". They forget we carry the feathers inside.
Native Languages of the Americas: Lumbee (Croatan, Croatoan, Pamlico, Carolina Algonquian)
Language: The language most commonly referred to as 'Lumbee' was an Algonkian language also known as Croatan or Pamlico, but the ancestors of the modern-day Lumbee Indians also included speakers of several other languages, including Tuscarora, Catawba, Cheraw, and other Iroquoian and Siouan languages little is known about today. English was used extensively among the Lumbee tribe, both as a practical lingua franca and also as a first language (due to intermarriage with English speakers), and the original Lumbee languages fell into disuse and finally extinction. The unique Lumbee dialect of English spoken by their descendents, known as "Lumbee English," is still in use today.
People: The Lumbee Indians have been denied federal status as an Indian nation because of their high degree of mixed blood--their ancestors include Cheraw, Tuscarora, and Croatan Indians, many African-Americans (the tribe was known for sheltering runaway slaves), and, in all likelihood, members of the original "lost" colony of Roanoke. The Lumbees are recognized by the state of North Carolina if not the federal government, and they are 40,000 people strong, making them one of the largest Native American tribes remaining in the eastern US.
History: The Croatan (or Croatoan) Indians first made history when the Roanoke colony left their name carved on a tree. This supposedly mysterious carving has inspired many science-fiction books and conspiracy theories since that time, but in fact it was the name of an island belonging to some friendly Indians, and the colonists probably simply moved in with them when their food supplies ran low. Lumbee historian Adolph Dial made the case that the Croatans and their English guests were among the ancestors of today's Lumbee Indians, who resurfaced some 50 years later speaking English, practicing Christianity, and sporting the same last names many of the colonists had brought with them. Though they are lesser-known to history texts, there were also many Iroquoian and Siouan tribes inhabiting the Carolinas; however, as happened in most of the east coast, the tribes merged together after heavy population losses, and none of their languages have survived. Their descendants, however, still thrive. The Lumbee today are by all accounts a mixed-race people, so mixed-race that they were not even sent to Oklahoma with the other Native Americans of North Carolina in the 1820's and 30's. North Carolina was not the most pleasant place to live in the 19th century if your skin was dark, though, and increasing violence against Lumbees and free mulattos set the stage for the Lumbee folk hero Henry Berry Lowrie in the 1860's. Called the "Indian Robin Hood" by some, Lowrie, enraged by the assault and murder of his family, spent the next decade wreaking vigilante justice on those who harassed Indians and stealing supplies to give to the disenfranchised. He was never caught, and his legend--brave, proud, dangerous when provoked, and above all else free--remains a powerful tribal metaphor.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 08 Jan 2007 01:54 Post subject: Where to look the Indians?
I really believe the large number of "hidden Indians" is not in the three-racial groups like the Lumbees in the U.S. And not in the traditional and registered Native American tribal peoples, but in the AVERAGE White and Black U.S. populations.
Many people of those groups do have Native ancestry but have forgotten it. It is time they remember not all came from Europe or Africa, and that people in the Americas existed before the foreigners came, and that they are important to remember.
When is the U.S. people going to make a decent and massive DNA test of the White and Black populations at last?
Joined: 29 Aug 2006 {Posts: 24 } Location: Germany
Posted: Sat 27 Jan 2007 20:26 Post subject: Where to look the Indians?
Great statement Omar!
In my case, I have oral history from my paternal grandmother (b. 1915) that both of her parents were Indians - her father was from the Wilson tribe and her mother was from another tribe that I cannot remember. However, she was certainly of African descent as well, as were both of her parents. However, they considered themselves to be Indians.
Recently, my aunt told me a very revealing anecdotal story that corroborates this. She said that one day, when she took my grandmother grocery shopping, an older lady approached them and said that she looked like she was from the such-and-such tribe. My grandmother said that the lady looked like she was from another tribe and they apparently had a conversation about where the various tribes came from and about what facial features were characteristic of each one, etc. I was fascinated and wish that I had asked more when my grandmother was alive. Of course, according to Plecker, all of these people would have been labeled as "Negroes" full stop.
On the subject of tri-racial isolates. My mother worked in a school in Halifax County, NC and was constantly mistaken for being an Indian. The people there tend to look like mulattoes, some with what I consider to be American Indian facial features - usually they are Halle Berry's complexion or lighter with dark brown to blue eyes and hair colours/textures that range from straight and blond to 3c and black. Those people consider themselves to also be Indian and call themselves the "Haliwa-Saponi" tribe.
Growing up in the South, we were constantly coming in contact with people who were from these tri-racial isolate communities. Usually, these communities were small, rural towns where everyone was of fair complexion, with straight-to-softly curling hair. They often came to live in the capital city because of work and it would be said that everyone in their towns looked like them.
I met Lumbees, for the first time, when I went to college and they tended to be fair in complexion, with some having pronounced African features and most resembling Mediterranean peoples, in colour and hair types, with what I consider to be American Indian facial features.
For clarification about what I consider to be Native American facial features (derived from my personal experience, exposure and my family's oral history), please see the following pics of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe (presumably a "full blooded Indian") and celebrities of part-Native Ameican ancestry: Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Tori Amos and Tina Turner, who I consider to have fairly strong Native American features. The features that I would like to highlight include epicanthic folding of the eyes (either partial or full), high cheekbones, deep folds leading from the nostrils to either side of the mouth, a pronounced area between the lip and the nose and deep undereye recesses leading in a diagonal from the inner corners of the eye. Also, please note that the facial planes are rather "flat" in an East Asian manner. I also have these features and my Dad says that they become more pronounced as we age (yikes - I'm a woman! ).
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 30 Jan 2007 04:47 Post subject: Re: Where to look the Indians?
Frechesmaedl wrote:
Great statement Omar!
In my case, I have oral history from my paternal grandmother (b. 1915) that both of her parents were Indians - her father was from the Wilson tribe and her mother was from another tribe that I cannot remember. However, she was certainly of African descent as well, as were both of her parents. However, they considered themselves to be Indians.
...
For clarification about what I consider to be Native American facial features (derived from my personal experience, exposure and my family's oral history), please see the following pics of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe (presumably a "full blooded Indian") and celebrities of part-Native Ameican ancestry: Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Tori Amos and Tina Turner, who I consider to have fairly strong Native American features. The features that I would like to highlight include epicanthic folding of the eyes (either partial or full), high cheekbones, deep folds leading from the nostrils to either side of the mouth, a pronounced area between the lip and the nose and deep undereye recesses leading in a diagonal from the inner corners of the eye. Also, please note that the facial planes are rather "flat" in an East Asian manner. I also have these features and my Dad says that they become more pronounced as we age (yikes - I'm a woman! ).
Yes, indeed!
As I have told before, I am Chilean, from a country that recognizes its hybrid Hispanic-Amerindian heritage. We are circa 20% Amerindian, so I see people with native features all the time (even when looking at the mirror myself). Now, not all natives of the Americas look the same at all, but there are things in common.
Now, for Tina Turner having Native blood it is amazing because I somehow I knew it. She has a look that seem very familiar to me.
And looking to the U.S. population is clear there is a lot more native genetics on it that people usually thinks.
You mentioned the following features:
"The features that I would like to highlight include epicanthic folding of the eyes (either partial or full), high cheekbones, deep folds leading from the nostrils to either side of the mouth, a pronounced area between the lip and the nose and deep undereye recesses leading in a diagonal from the inner corners of the eye. Also, please note that the facial planes are rather "flat" in an East Asian manner"
And yes, many natives do have it, and also people of mixed descent. However, not all native have those features very pronounced. I have pictures of 19th century austral natives that show people that could easily pass as Italians. Yes, I laugh when people mention italians, greeks or turks in those tri-racial groups. Because I know those "Italians" were really Amerindians!
Posted: Thu 01 Feb 2007 08:12 Post subject: Re: Where to look the Indians?
oevega wrote:
I really believe the large number of "hidden Indians" is not in the three-racial groups like the Lumbees in the U.S. And not in the traditional and registered Native American tribal peoples, but in the AVERAGE White and Black U.S. populations.
Many people of those groups do have Native ancestry but have forgotten it. It is time they remember not all came from Europe or Africa, and that people in the Americas existed before the foreigners came, and that they are important to remember.
When is the U.S. people going to make a decent and massive DNA test of the White and Black populations at last?
Omar
Most African American studies in the East coast have not shown substantial Native Ancestry in African American populations. Maybe more in the West coast. It would be interesting to see what level of Native Admixture was found in White Americana.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 462 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Thu 01 Feb 2007 22:44 Post subject:
Quote:
The Lumbee Tribe Regional DNA Project is open to anyone who believes they are (or could be) descendants of a Lumbee Tribe ancestor. This project is both a Y-Chromosome (direct paternal line) and a mitochondrial DNA (direct maternal line) study.
Not at all a scientific sample, but the results are very interesting. Looks like european haplogroups predominate, followed by african, followed by amerindian.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
).
