Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Unhappily Disappearing Native Ancestors

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Unhappily Disappearing Native Ancestors

    When I first decided to test FamilyTreeDNA, I understood they weren't the best choice for detecting First Nations ancestry, particularly in Canada, yet I wasn't aware just how grave the situation was. I now have the results of my mtDNA and Family Finder tests, and I am stunned to note that my results show only 2% Native American admixture, yet a large percentage of Scandinavian origins.
    First, my father was AT LEAST half First Nations IF NOT MORE, with a considerable mixing of Mi'kmaq, Abenaki, Montaignais (Innu) and Huron, and possibly other First Nations, so I think I could expect to see more than 2% Native American. Further, my mother has First Nations ancestry, which would augment my percentages. Second, I have NO Scandinavian ancestors. And most of my family lines have been traced to the 1600s.

    My final concern rests with the haplogroup I have been assigned to. Having explored the 'H' and 'H16' project sites, I've noted that my string of HVR1 and HVR2 mutations do not fit with others assigned to H16… additionally, I am missing a mutation which I understand is one which defines the haplogroup (16189T). I did read a post at the following forum (http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=32206) which offers two plausible reasons for my situation (I'm paraphrasing and substituting my assigned haplogroup into the explanations in the following):
    A. I don't belong to haplogroup H16, or haplogroup H at all… or
    B. I do belong to haplogroup H16, but have an additional mutation which cancelled out 16189T… a back mutation… The explanation also refers to the principle of Occam's razor which accounts for my having been presumed to fall into category B, and that leaves me feeling less than confident, and hoping that my assigned haplogroup is reconsidered.

    In conclusion, I am unhappy with my results and completely puzzled. Has anyone else had a similar situation, or any insight to offer?

    With thanks,
    Susan

  • #2
    There are no North American Amerindian samples in FTDNA's reference database. Full-blooded American Indians have shown a reluctance to participate in scientists' DNA testing.

    Do you see any percentages for "Northeast Asian" or "Central Asian"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by khazaria View Post
      There are no North American Amerindian samples in FTDNA's reference database. Full-blooded American Indians have shown a reluctance to participate in scientists' DNA testing.

      Do you see any percentages for "Northeast Asian" or "Central Asian"?
      That's not true. Pima and Mayans are from Mexico which is in North America. I do agree that if there were a northern Native North American tribe reference population then the results would be better for her.
      Last edited by Armando; 16 September 2015, 09:45 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I suggest that you download your raw data & upload to gedmatch. You can then run it through a number of admix calculators.

        Timothy Peterman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by scw View Post
          When I first decided to test FamilyTreeDNA, I understood they weren't the best choice for detecting First Nations ancestry, particularly in Canada, yet I wasn't aware just how grave the situation was. I now have the results of my mtDNA and Family Finder tests, and I am stunned to note that my results show only 2% Native American admixture, yet a large percentage of Scandinavian origins.
          First, my father was AT LEAST half First Nations IF NOT MORE, with a considerable mixing of Mi'kmaq, Abenaki, Montaignais (Innu) and Huron, and possibly other First Nations, so I think I could expect to see more than 2% Native American. Further, my mother has First Nations ancestry, which would augment my percentages. Second, I have NO Scandinavian ancestors. And most of my family lines have been traced to the 1600s.

          My final concern rests with the haplogroup I have been assigned to. Having explored the 'H' and 'H16' project sites, I've noted that my string of HVR1 and HVR2 mutations do not fit with others assigned to H16… additionally, I am missing a mutation which I understand is one which defines the haplogroup (16189T). I did read a post at the following forum (http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=32206) which offers two plausible reasons for my situation (I'm paraphrasing and substituting my assigned haplogroup into the explanations in the following):
          A. I don't belong to haplogroup H16, or haplogroup H at all… or
          B. I do belong to haplogroup H16, but have an additional mutation which cancelled out 16189T… a back mutation… The explanation also refers to the principle of Occam's razor which accounts for my having been presumed to fall into category B, and that leaves me feeling less than confident, and hoping that my assigned haplogroup is reconsidered.

          In conclusion, I am unhappy with my results and completely puzzled. Has anyone else had a similar situation, or any insight to offer?

          With thanks,
          Susan
          Susan, FTDNA misassigns some of the Native American as belonging to other Asian groups and 23andme and Ancestry.com does a better job of assigning Native American DNA. There are First Nation people from Canada at 23andme that get more than 50% Native American. 23andme doesn't have First Nation people from Canada in their reference population so it isn't the reference population that is the only cause of your low amount. You might want to try the other companies to compare what you get there.

          H16 is defined by C10394T and not by 16189T. So you are H16. If you get the 23andme test they will also test your mtDNA which will give you similar results.

          For more info about H16 see the latest mtDNA phylotree at http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_R0.htm and Ian Logan's site at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_..._sequences.htm
          Last edited by Armando; 16 September 2015, 10:17 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            admixes are not rocket scienses and ftdna is not the best at it by far, you should rather try gedmatch with real admixes tool such as harapaworld and dodecad

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by khazaria
              There are no North American Amerindian samples in FTDNA's reference database.
              Originally posted by Armando View Post
              That's not true. Pima and Mayans are from Mexico which is in North America.
              It is true. Here are your very own words from http://dna-explained.com/2014/05/11/...ses-myorigins/:

              "What happened is FTDNA removed the Maya, Pima, and Colombian reference populations and only left Karitiana and Surui."
              - "Armando on July 29, 2014 at 3:15 pm said"

              The Surui and Karitiana live in Brazil - South America.

              Do you know why the others were removed?
              And is there any outreach newly attempting to encourage some U.S. tribes to join a research project?
              Last edited by khazaria; 16 September 2015, 11:40 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                maybe because the american people killed and genocied the indian , the true historical owners of the land and in an european colonialist spirit they want to avoid recognizing that....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by boutrosdu93 View Post
                  maybe because the american people killed and genocied the indian
                  Michael Medved disagrees with you and calls your use of that word "defamation":
                  http://townhall.com/columnists/micha...cans/page/full

                  Originally posted by boutrosdu93 View Post
                  the true historical owners of the land
                  Originally posted by About boutrosdu93
                  Biography
                  french guy from lebanse origins adopted by french people at the age of 1
                  Yes, Amerindians were the first, but you're a Lebanese living in France. Using your "true" argument, do you truly belong where you are?

                  Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Kim Tallbear is an Amerindian who expressed her opinion on reasons why most Amerindian tribes resist DNA testing:
                  https://www.newscientist.com/article...tive-american/
                  "a suspicion ... that scientists ... want to turn our history into another immigrant narrative"
                  and
                  "They would prefer to privilege the tribal creation stories"

                  However she does note that the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts did get DNA tested and found they had mixed Amerindian-European-African ancestry.

                  But many members of tribes further west would have less or no admixture. Some of them could help build a good U.S. Amerindian reference sample.
                  Last edited by khazaria; 16 September 2015, 12:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks to All

                    Thank you everyone for all your helpful suggestions and anxiety-relieving comments. Perhaps after all my First Nations ancestors have not disappeared, yet still remain patiently waiting to be acknowledged. I suppose I shouldn't be too emotionally invested in my results, for I know my family history… it's just nice to have confirmation. I will try testing at 23andMe, and as advised, I've just uploaded my raw data to Gedmatch. My results here at FamilyTreeDNA did show 2% Native American and 1% Northeast Asia, so I guess that's a start…
                    Thanks again for the much-appreciated insight,
                    Susan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by khazaria View Post
                      Michael Medved disagrees with you and calls your use of that word "defamation":
                      http://townhall.com/columnists/micha...cans/page/full





                      Yes, Amerindians were the first, but you're a Lebanese living in France. Using your "true" argument, do you truly belong where you are?

                      Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Kim Tallbear is an Amerindian who expressed her opinion on reasons why most Amerindian tribes resist DNA testing:
                      https://www.newscientist.com/article...tive-american/
                      "a suspicion ... that scientists ... want to turn our history into another immigrant narrative"
                      and
                      "They would prefer to privilege the tribal creation stories"

                      However she does note that the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts did get DNA tested and found they had mixed Amerindian-European-African ancestry.

                      But many members of tribes further west would have less or no admixture. Some of them could help build a good U.S. Amerindian reference sample.
                      hey before speaking about someone it's always better to know about its' history otherwise you could pass for a liar or for a people who doesn't what he's talking about...
                      i'm from lebanese origins but french by nationality so i have all the rights to be here and my parents came with a visa. nothing to do with invading and slaughtering almost an entire population isn't it?
                      denying the slauhgter would like be denying the shoa or the slaughters of the palestinian population in the occupied territories same boat...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by scw View Post
                        Thank you everyone for all your helpful suggestions and anxiety-relieving comments. Perhaps after all my First Nations ancestors have not disappeared, yet still remain patiently waiting to be acknowledged. I suppose I shouldn't be too emotionally invested in my results, for I know my family history… it's just nice to have confirmation. I will try testing at 23andMe, and as advised, I've just uploaded my raw data to Gedmatch. My results here at FamilyTreeDNA did show 2% Native American and 1% Northeast Asia, so I guess that's a start…
                        Thanks again for the much-appreciated insight,
                        Susan
                        really 2% of native american is insignificant as i told you... it ' s far bellow the margin of error. i have 80% middle east and 20% europe. the rest i don't take into account

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by boutrosdu93 View Post
                          i'm from lebanese origins but french by nationality so i have all the rights to be here and my parents came with a visa.
                          Well according to your new argument here -- which contradicts your previous statement about "true" versus false inhabitants of a land -- we can also say U.S.-born descendants of British people have the right to live in the U.S., too, as they have an American nationality and were born there. No need for you to discuss the centuries-ago colonialism of the Brits, French, and Spaniards in the New World then. That's old news.

                          nothing to do with invading and slaughtering almost an entire population isn't it?
                          You didn't read Michael Medved's article yet did you? Most Amerindians in the lands today comprising the U.S. died from lack of immunity to European diseases.

                          denying the slauhgter would like be denying the shoa
                          No it wouldn't. This isn't a proper comparison, because of those two only the Shoah was deliberate genocide, in which two of my great-great-grandparents were killed.

                          the slaughters of the palestinian population in the occupied territories
                          Very contentious arguments you're using here.

                          So in another switch you've turned against one of your arguments and now you think the land of Judea and Samaria is being "occupied" by the Israelis, even though their ancestors were living there thousands of years ago and descend in part from the even more ancient Canaanites and the other natives? DNA testing proved that.

                          Many Gazans' ancestors came from Egypt. Who's doing the occupying?
                          Last edited by khazaria; 16 September 2015, 01:21 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by boutrosdu93 View Post
                            maybe because the american people killed and genocied the indian , the true historical owners of the land and in an european colonialist spirit they want to avoid recognizing that....
                            If Europeans are so bad then why do you live in France? Shouldn't you move to a part of the world where the people are less evil?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kevinduffy View Post
                              If Europeans are so bad then why do you live in France? Shouldn't you move to a part of the world where the people are less evil?
                              maybe because there's money in france and i have the right to live here cause i was born here and adopted by french people as i said earlier when you don't one one's situation you should better not talk about it....
                              to paraphrase mac tyer french rapper. jbaiserai la france jusqu'a ce qu'elle m'aime...

                              yeah ths israelis lived there but also there was filistin contrary to the zionists say so .....
                              no the zionist want all thanx to the US help of course the so called police of the world just lol. well i will leave you cause it is incorrect to tell the truth so...
                              Last edited by boutrosdu93; 16 September 2015, 02:31 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X