That's where the problem comes in. There is this expectant mulatto look. Therein lies the problem.
That's why people tend to contradict themselves in saying AA aren't mixed(and every single one may not be especially visually) but many are visually not what their african ancestors looked like, and turn around and say this 'biracial' person looks similar to AA's.
onlyhuman77 wrote:
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 00:14 Post subject:
pianoplayer111 wrote:
Hmm...
but, Grasshoppa, your skin color being like Will Smith's might not be an indicator of European admixture at all. It could possibly be from another group. I would definitely do a DNA test if I had the money.
Perhaps, but i doubt it considering i have green eyes and a mother that gets confused for being Asian.
Edit: whoops, thought you were referring to other lighter skinned african groups...I guess we could have some native american or asian in the fam, but I'm sure there's some Euro in there as well with the hazel/green eyes and all.
Last edited by Grasshoppa on Mon 07 Jul 2008 01:28; edited 1 time in total
Just look at Obama's parents, an average of the two faces and Obama himself. Yet many say he doesn't have the "mulatto" face.
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Yes I agree, the admixture in various AA varies, and many do have parents, grandparent(s), great grandparents who are biracial, so you get all kinds of mixing happening, not only white Euro Americans but Asian Native and others...
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 02:16 Post subject: racial confusion
gemini072 wrote:
onlyhuman77 wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Just look at Obama's parents, an average of the two faces and Obama himself. Yet many say he doesn't have the "mulatto" face.
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Yes I agree, the admixture in various AA varies, and many do have parents, grandparent(s), great grandparents who are biracial, so you get all kinds of mixing happening, not only white Euro Americans but Asian Native and others...
I think that many people are confused about the use of the terms "black" or "African American" to describe people who don't appear to meet that description. Many black-identified folks who view "whites" in general as the "enemy race" but have mixed-race families, reconcile their conflicting emotions by imagining that "blacks" really come in all colors without any help from "white" DNA. It is also those conflicting emotions that causes the hysteria about "passing" - which blacks view as siding with "the enemy." If you remember the infamous article "White Girl?" by Lonnae O'Neal Parker of the Washington Post, she was emotionally unable to accept the fact that her cousin, Kim, identified as white because "whites" represented the enemy to her. Yet, she was completely dependent on white patronage for her job and the dissemination of her pro-ODR views.
Just look at Obama's parents, an average of the two faces and Obama himself. Yet many say he doesn't have the "mulatto" face.
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Yes I agree, the admixture in various AA varies, and many do have parents, grandparent(s), great grandparents who are biracial, so you get all kinds of mixing happening, not only white Euro Americans but Asian Native and others...
I think that many people are confused about the use of the terms "black" or "African American" to describe people who don't appear to meet that description. Many black-identified folks who view "whites" in general as the "enemy race" but have mixed-race families, reconcile their conflicting emotions by imagining that "blacks" really come in all colors without any help from "white" DNA. It is also those conflicting emotions that causes the hysteria about "passing" - which blacks view as siding with "the enemy." If you remember the infamous article "White Girl?" by Lonnae O'Neal Parker of the Washington Post, she was emotionally unable to accept the fact that her cousin, Kim, identified as white because "whites" represented the enemy to her. Yet, she was completely dependent on white patronage for her job and the dissemination of her pro-ODR views.
Yes some people do confuse that.
I want to clarify that I'm dealing with people who identify a certain way... As well as Multigenerational people who identify as AA.
This is an interesting dynamic apart from biracial people and multiracials who look 100% like 1 race: weither it be European Asian or Native American... yet are part or 1/2 black.
black in the sense of negro/sub-Saharan African, do not come in all colors hair textures features and eye colors.
Black identified(social political term) or African-American people in the USA more specifically, do come in all those.
This doesn't mean I'm promo ODR, it just is. Many by choice, family, association, and others knowingly/unknowingly by the american underlying ODR 'cultural' indocrination.
Just look at Obama's parents, an average of the two faces and Obama himself. Yet many say he doesn't have the "mulatto" face.
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Yes I agree, the admixture in various AA varies, and many do have parents, grandparent(s), great grandparents who are biracial, so you get all kinds of mixing happening, not only white Euro Americans but Asian Native and others...
I think that many people are confused about the use of the terms "black" or "African American" to describe people who don't appear to meet that description. Many black-identified folks who view "whites" in general as the "enemy race" but have mixed-race families, reconcile their conflicting emotions by imagining that "blacks" really come in all colors without any help from "white" DNA. It is also those conflicting emotions that causes the hysteria about "passing" - which blacks view as siding with "the enemy." If you remember the infamous article "White Girl?" by Lonnae O'Neal Parker of the Washington Post, she was emotionally unable to accept the fact that her cousin, Kim, identified as white because "whites" represented the enemy to her. Yet, she was completely dependent on white patronage for her job and the dissemination of her pro-ODR views.
Yes some people do confuse that.
I want to clarify that I'm dealing with people who identify a certain way... As well as Multigenerational people who identify as AA.
This is an interesting dynamic apart from biracial people and multiracials who look 100% like 1 race: weither it be European Asian or Native American... yet are part or 1/2 black.
black in the sense of negro, do not come in all colors hair textures features and eye colors.
Black identified people in America more specifically, do come in all those.
This doesn't mean I'm promo ODR, it just is. Many by choice, family, association, and others knowingly/unknowingly by the american underlying ODR 'cultural' indocrination.
A good example of what I'm talking about would be Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and his PBS program on DNA. Gates was absolutely giddy over his results of 50% Euro DNA. "Can I still be chair of the Black Studies Department?" he giggled (This is the guy who condemned Anatole Broyard as a "black man" only "passing as white."). Yet, Gates' father has a Euro phenotype and his darker mother was also of mulatto ancestry. When you look at Gates' uncles, aunts and picture of the older generation, it is clear that he is something of a "throwback" and mulatoes tended to marry mulattoes in his corner of West Virginia. Why was he so surprised?
Gates and his imitators condemn Anatole Broyard as a "black man" and claim that nearly all his ancestors were "black" (actually Creole). I think that even educated people may really think that Broyard was some kind of pale black mutation with little white ancestry.
One thing we constantly emphasized on "Interracial Voice" is that multiracial or mixed ancestry is NOT limited to having parents who had an officially recognized "interracial" marriage.
Just look at Obama's parents, an average of the two faces and Obama himself. Yet many say he doesn't have the "mulatto" face.
That is because there are in the African American Community a certain amount of Self Identified African American's that have the phenotype of Obama, but have two Self-Identified African American Parents.
This is not to say that those of that phenotype don't have a significant amount of Caucasian admixture, but most I have seen with that phenotype have had one parent who is most likely 40-55% SSA and the other that is 75 -85% SSA. But both are self identified African Americans, so that is why many don't see his phenotype so equally racially mixed, though it actually is.
Yes I agree, the admixture in various AA varies, and many do have parents, grandparent(s), great grandparents who are biracial, so you get all kinds of mixing happening, not only white Euro Americans but Asian Native and others...
I think that many people are confused about the use of the terms "black" or "African American" to describe people who don't appear to meet that description. Many black-identified folks who view "whites" in general as the "enemy race" but have mixed-race families, reconcile their conflicting emotions by imagining that "blacks" really come in all colors without any help from "white" DNA. It is also those conflicting emotions that causes the hysteria about "passing" - which blacks view as siding with "the enemy." If you remember the infamous article "White Girl?" by Lonnae O'Neal Parker of the Washington Post, she was emotionally unable to accept the fact that her cousin, Kim, identified as white because "whites" represented the enemy to her. Yet, she was completely dependent on white patronage for her job and the dissemination of her pro-ODR views.
Yes some people do confuse that.
I want to clarify that I'm dealing with people who identify a certain way... As well as Multigenerational people who identify as AA.
This is an interesting dynamic apart from biracial people and multiracials who look 100% like 1 race: weither it be European Asian or Native American... yet are part or 1/2 black.
black in the sense of negro, do not come in all colors hair textures features and eye colors.
Black identified people in America more specifically, do come in all those.
This doesn't mean I'm promo ODR, it just is. Many by choice, family, association, and others knowingly/unknowingly by the american underlying ODR 'cultural' indocrination.
AD Powell wrote: One thing we constantly emphasized on "Interracial Voice" is that multiracial or mixed ancestry is NOT limited to having parents who had an officially recognized "interracial" marriage.
That is something that I run into a lot within online mixed/mulatto communities. You find very contradictory views, where some only deal with 1st gen mixes with whites or 2 mulattoes. It seems sometimes that people may be saying mulatto + black = too black
That's what I like about historic terms and acknowledgement of the Sambo, Marabou, Griffe & Sacatra
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.
It is evidently overshadowed by African genes. You only have to look at many biracial people in Britain to see this (child of a black father and white mother) because the biracial mix of black with white in America is not as thorough.
And don't try to play down occurence of slave rape as it was a major factor in this unwanted admixture problem that African-American's unfortunately have to suffer. Mutual intimate relations were far smaller.
Posted: Sun 19 Jul 2009 02:07 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
oevega wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
Do you have the admixture figures for the people of West Africa? I guess people from Ghana and other northern subsaharan countries , must have some degree of admixture with North Africans, Arabs and Europeans, because of the trans-saharan trade, the Islamic conquest and the contact with Europeans.
Scroll up a couple of messages to Heather Collins-Schramm's scatter diagrams. The two clusters on the right are of interest. The "135 AFZ" are subjects residing in Zaire (Congo). The "159 AFN" are subjects in Nigeria. Notice that Nigerians have more Euro than Congolese do. Although the original report does not suggest an explanation for the discrepancy, I believe that it reflects traces of the Almoravid empire, which stretched from Dakar, Senegambia to Barcelona, Spain.
Thanks Frank. That's interesting.
Besides the Almoravid Empire, that was short lived, I believe the large scale trans-saharan commerce and its persistency has lots to do with it, and also the establishing of Arab merchant in Northern Subsaharan Africa during the Middle Ages.
I remember that once we discussed this topic, and we even reach to the conclusion that some West Africans were mulattoes. And that it was possible to find some West Africans more "white" looking than some descendents in the Americas, and some mentioned the Fulani peoples as an example.
Regards,
Omar
NO they don't have any European.
There phenotype is naturally like that, iv'e visited these parts. I believe White biologists must stop touring the globe trying to pick out which other non-European groups display "Euro looking" bone features and then try to put claim on these indegenous groups with the "you have some of me in you" bullcrap. You think your being scientific but it's just aalways pathetic desperation I see with White's i.e. a declining population in Europe, more immigration etc
Would a Germanic (say a blonde Nordic Swedish) have any sub-saharan African found in them, I always wondered?
Fact is that Northern Europe, West Africa and Eastern Asia are some of the most "racially preserved" in the world with any admixture found to be very minimal and in some cases not worth bringing up. I didn't mean or say pure I said preserved.
It is why White, Black and East Asian in each geographic location exist so strongly today regardless of what bogus statistic graph you though at it.
don't try to play down occurence of slave rape as it was a major factor in this unwanted admixture problem that African-American's unfortunately have to suffer. Mutual intimate relations were far smaller.
Source, please. You have 24 hours. See The Rules 3.2.
popz wrote:
White biologists must stop touring the globe trying to pick out which other non-European groups display "Euro looking" bone features and then try to put claim on these indegenous groups with the "you have some of me in you" bullcrap.
This is moralizing value judgement in violation of The Rules 1.3. First warning. Stop now. If you want to express your likes and dislikes, please post in either of the two political advocacy fora.
To be honest, I did not read all the preceding pages, but what ever happened with the established scientific fact that the first human was African, that all phenotypes came out of this human and that there are no human races. There are just phenotypes. We find all possible phenotypes already in the Africa Man.
So what the hell is ‘White DNA?’ Why does no one challenge this non-scientific non-sense on this scientific forum? There isn’t a DNA test in the world which will show a persons phenotype. No phenotype is linked to any characteristics that physically or psychologically make up a kind of ‘human race.’
Then I'm still puzzled why this forum dedicated to science still condones the archaic notion of ‘SSA Black’ meaning ‘True Negroes,’ as the East-African types are then considered ‘African Caucasians;’ whites with black skin! ‘Caucasian’ features are not Caucasian at all as they are found all over Africa and among all black populations. And they in no way set these individuals apart or make them into some superior class over the ‘True Negroes,’ as this SSA divide implies.
J.A. Rogers, the author of Sex and Race (1941), wondered why ‘mixed-race’ persons were not treated differently then ‘pure blacks’ by white society. I guess if you look black, no amount of white European ancestors will make things easier for you. Society does not seem to accept a in-between status, and light-skinned blacks are to make a definite choice to what group they belong and how they view the ‘opposing’ group.
During slavery time in Surinam, manumitted slaves where forbidden to have any social relations with the enslaved population, because they could loose their freedom again. There are some cases where a freed slave could not find acceptance with the free blacks and coloureds, consorted with slaves, and were reverted back to slavery.
Off-topic. This thread is for discussion of a specific phenomenon: Although almost all A-A's have detectable Euro DNA markers, less than 3 percent check off more than one census "race" box (Black). Alba is a citizen of Spain and does not participate in the U.S. census.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
What ever happened with the established scientific fact that the first human was African?
Nothing happened to it. That is today's paleoanthropological consensus. Again, though, off-topic. If you have a question about DNA, please post it in the "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" forum.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
We find all possible phenotypes already in the Africa Man.
Off-topic. Please open a new thread to explain precisely what you are trying to say. What do you mean by "Africa Man"? Obviously, a great deal of genetic variation has arisen, by adaptation as well as drift, after the original diaspora about 70 kya.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
So what the hell is ‘White DNA?’ Why does no one challenge this non-scientific non-sense on this scientific forum?
Off-topic. No one in this thread has used "White DNA," although one post quoted afrocentrist use of the term. If any post were to employ such a term, it would be challenged.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
There isn’t a DNA test in the world which will show a persons phenotype.
Off-topic. Not so, hundreds of known polymorphisms are associated with external traits. One of the most obvious is MC1R-314, which produces red hair and freckles. If you have a question about DNA, please post it in the "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" forum.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
No phenotype is linked to any characteristics that physically or psychologically make up a kind of ‘human race.’
Off-topic. It depends into which "races" you choose to classify people. For example, if you see blood types as "races" then those with type A blood are easily determined. Similarly, members of the "Irish race" can be identified by their passports.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I'm still puzzled why this forum dedicated to science still condones the archaic notion of ‘SSA Black’ meaning ‘True Negroes,’
Off-topic. This forum does no such thing. Please post questions about site policy in the "Site Management" forum.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
the East-African types are then considered ‘African Caucasians;’ whites with black skin! ‘Caucasian’ features are not Caucasian at all as they are found all over Africa and among all black populations. And they in no way set these individuals apart or make them into some superior class over the ‘True Negroes,’ as this SSA divide implies.
Off-topic. Sorry, but the above is unintelligible. If you have a coherent question about craniofacial anthropometry, please post it in the appropriate forum.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
J.A. Rogers, the author of Sex and Race (1941), wondered why ‘mixed-race’ persons were not treated differently then ‘pure blacks’ by white society.
Off-topic. In many ways, they are treated differently. Colorism is common among White Americans, although not as common as it is among Black Americans, and nowhere near as common as it is among Latin Americans. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss colorism among White Americans.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
During slavery time in Surinam, manumitted slaves where forbidden to have any social relations with the enslaved population, because they could loose their freedom again. There are some cases where a freed slave could not find acceptance with the free blacks and coloureds, consorted with slaves, and were reverted back to slavery.
Off-topic. If you want to discuss Surinam history during slavery times, please start a thread in either the "International" or "Caribbean Basin" forum (depending on how you classify Surinam).
Now why do these ungratefull AA's don't want to be associated with any white blood, 'White DNA', 'Caucasian' or what have you, ancestors etc. Like these beaties on this marvelous piece of American history?
During slavery time in Surinam, manumitted slaves where forbidden to have any social relations with the enslaved population, because they could loose their freedom again. There are some cases where a freed slave could not find acceptance with the free blacks and coloureds, consorted with slaves, and were reverted back to slavery.
Frank Sweet wrote
Quote:
Off-topic. If you want to discuss Surinam history during slavery times, please start a thread in either the "International" or "Caribbean Basin" forum (depending on how you classify Surinam).
You misunderstand. I'm not changing the subject, I want to touch base and find out from my American friends if such a thing is known in the US too and if this tradition survived slavery, forcing blacks to choose to which side they want to belong.
Now why do these ungratefull AA's don't want to be associated with any white blood, 'White DNA', 'Caucasian' or what have you, ancestors etc. Like these beaties on this marvelous piece of American history?
Off-topic. This thread is for discussion of a specific phenomenon: Although almost all A-A's have detectable Euro DNA markers, less than 3 percent check off more than one census "race" box (Black). If you wanted to ask about history of the lynchings during the U.S. Jim Crow era you should have started a new thread.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I'm not changing the subject, I want to touch base and find out from my American friends if such a thing is known in the US too and if this tradition survived slavery, forcing blacks to choose to which side they want to belong.
No more warnings. For repeatedly trying to derail this thread, your posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, October 19, 2009.
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 {Posts: 22 } Location: California
Posted: Wed 26 Aug 2009 19:27 Post subject:
I really like this article and this line in particular:
"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"
I recently found out that I have substantial European and Jewish ancestry, so this article really helps me realize that I'm not alone. I recently found out the Dr. Henry Louis Gates has 50 percent Euro DNA admixture as well. I'm new by the way.
[
Off-topic. This thread is for discussion of a specific phenomenon: Although almost all A-A's have detectable Euro DNA markers, less than 3 percent check off more than one census "race" box (Black). Alba is a citizen of Spain and does not participate in the U.S. census.
).
I thought that the explanation that self definition according to ethnicity rather than ancestry was the reason why AAs dont check off more than one box. And that this was already discussed. Watching Gates' PBS program clearly indicates that AAs often acknowledge ancestries other than subSaharan African within their gene pool. Very few will claim to be 100% SSAfrican.
I thought that the explanation that self definition according to ethnicity rather than ancestry was the reason why AAs dont check off more than one box. And that this was already discussed. Watching Gates' PBS program clearly indicates that AAs often acknowledge ancestries other than subSaharan African within their gene pool. Very few will claim to be 100% SSAfrican.
Yes. That is my understanding also. But then Codfried started posting off-topic. As you point out, the original question has been pretty well beaten into the ground. I should probably close the thread, unless you can think of a reason to leave it open.
I thought that the explanation that self definition according to ethnicity rather than ancestry was the reason why AAs dont check off more than one box. And that this was already discussed. Watching Gates' PBS program clearly indicates that AAs often acknowledge ancestries other than subSaharan African within their gene pool. Very few will claim to be 100% SSAfrican.
Yes. That is my understanding also. But then Codfried started posting off-topic. As you point out, the original question has been pretty well beaten into the ground. I should probably close the thread, unless you can think of a reason to leave it open.
I agree. Close it. So if some one wants to continue then hopefully it will be a fresh discussion instead of some one trying to rehash what was discussed years ago. Simply because they havent gone through the entire thread.
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.
It is evidently overshadowed by African genes. You only have to look at many biracial people in Britain to see this (child of a black father and white mother) because the biracial mix of black with white in America is not as thorough.
You are referring to genetics. I am talking about the notion, which is quite common here in the U.S., that African ancestry overshadows all other ancestries in one's consciousness. Hence, people who look completely European, non-SSA, or ambiguous can see themselves as thoroughly African American or black. They are not necessarily denying their European ancestry or any other ancestry. How they view themselves is independant of phenotype and genotype.
popz wrote:
And don't try to play down occurence of slave rape as it was a major factor in this unwanted admixture problem that African-American's unfortunately have to suffer. Mutual intimate relations were far smaller.
Try reading my post very carefully. Not ALL European admixture in the AA population was the result of rape. This is a fact. Stating this fact isn't isn't downplaying the occurance of rape.
Further, European admixture, historically speaking, wasn't all that unwanted in the AA population. If it were you wouldn't have had the strong preference for women with more European features and "good hair" in such magazines as "Jet" and "Ebony".
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
