Tweet
This is what FTDNA says:
http://www.familytreedna.com/release.html
---
Unless you are a Native American or of Native American Ancestry,your Country of Origin is not the USA. It should be the country where your ancestors came from.
---
This ought to be pretty clear for most people. Anyone who objects to this classification can simply leave the line blank. However, FTDNA ought to make clear that anyone who does not know the answer to the question should also leave it blank (or mark it Unknown).
There are people for whom this classification is not so clear--e.g.:
1) Those whose ancestral country lies within the New World but who believe themselves to be ultimately of European origin. For example, a Mexican or Mexican-American who thinks he is pure-blood Spanish from 400 years ago might wonder whether to put down Mexico or Spain. I suspect that FTDNA wants him to put down Mexico, partly on the theory that Latin Americans cannot generally be certain of their blood-heritage (Spanish/Portuguese vs. Native American) due to extensive, centuries-old intermarriage.
On the other hand, a Canadian or Canadian-American who has no reason to suspect Native American blood should probably put down England or France (or another Old World country), as appropriate, since Canada (at least after 1763) followed the same colonization model as the United States.
For other formerly colonial countries such as Australia, I think the same rule should be followed: If extensive intermarriage occurred, simply put down the name of that colonial country; if intermarriage was rare, put down the ultimate country of origin.
2) African-Americans often do not know the specific modern-name country from which their ancestors came, but know that it was in Africa. I think FTDNA should give a clear and general instruction such as:
"If you know your ancestral continent but not the specific country, enter the name of that continent."
Incidentally, this is also a good rule for mixed-ancestry European-Americans who cannot distinguish specific ancestral lines: Just put down Europe! That's better than Unknown, anyway.
3) Since even European countries have often changed boundaries, some people wonder whether to enter the country in which their ancestral city is now located, or the country which possessed/occupied their ancestral city at the time of Atlantic crossing, or even the ethnic group to which their ancestors belonged regardless of sovereignty. In my humble opinion, the clearest convention is to enter the country that currently holds sovereignty over the customer's ancestral city or region. So for example:
a) Those whose ancestral city is now within Polish boundaries should enter Poland, even if their Polish-speaking grandparents came to America on an Austrian or Russian passport, or even if their German-speaking parents were compelled to leave the part of eastern Germany that the Allies gave to Poland after World War II.
b) Most Jewish people who say that their ancestors came from Russia should actually enter Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, or Poland, despite the fact that the Russian Empire was occupying these countries at the time of Atlantic crossing.
c) On the other hand, those whose Polish-speaking ancestors come from Lviw (formerly Lwow) or Vilnius (formerly Wilno) should enter Ukraine or Lithuania, respectively.
Unfortunately, this convention may require some simple knowledge of geography that Americans often do not have. Worse, some Americans may have justified or unjustified emotional reasons not to associate themselves with the country now sovereign over their ancestral city or region. Such people can either leave the line blank, or enter Europe.
4) People who can trace, via solid genealogy, their patrilineal or matrilineal lines back across multiple migrations within the last few hundred years--e.g., from America to Ireland to Scotland--should probably enter the earliest well-documented country of residence (in this example, Scotland).
The above is, again, my own opinion. I heartily encourage FTDNA to write up a formal set of guidelines covering these more difficult cases.
http://www.familytreedna.com/release.html
---
Unless you are a Native American or of Native American Ancestry,your Country of Origin is not the USA. It should be the country where your ancestors came from.
---
This ought to be pretty clear for most people. Anyone who objects to this classification can simply leave the line blank. However, FTDNA ought to make clear that anyone who does not know the answer to the question should also leave it blank (or mark it Unknown).
There are people for whom this classification is not so clear--e.g.:
1) Those whose ancestral country lies within the New World but who believe themselves to be ultimately of European origin. For example, a Mexican or Mexican-American who thinks he is pure-blood Spanish from 400 years ago might wonder whether to put down Mexico or Spain. I suspect that FTDNA wants him to put down Mexico, partly on the theory that Latin Americans cannot generally be certain of their blood-heritage (Spanish/Portuguese vs. Native American) due to extensive, centuries-old intermarriage.
On the other hand, a Canadian or Canadian-American who has no reason to suspect Native American blood should probably put down England or France (or another Old World country), as appropriate, since Canada (at least after 1763) followed the same colonization model as the United States.
For other formerly colonial countries such as Australia, I think the same rule should be followed: If extensive intermarriage occurred, simply put down the name of that colonial country; if intermarriage was rare, put down the ultimate country of origin.
2) African-Americans often do not know the specific modern-name country from which their ancestors came, but know that it was in Africa. I think FTDNA should give a clear and general instruction such as:
"If you know your ancestral continent but not the specific country, enter the name of that continent."
Incidentally, this is also a good rule for mixed-ancestry European-Americans who cannot distinguish specific ancestral lines: Just put down Europe! That's better than Unknown, anyway.
3) Since even European countries have often changed boundaries, some people wonder whether to enter the country in which their ancestral city is now located, or the country which possessed/occupied their ancestral city at the time of Atlantic crossing, or even the ethnic group to which their ancestors belonged regardless of sovereignty. In my humble opinion, the clearest convention is to enter the country that currently holds sovereignty over the customer's ancestral city or region. So for example:
a) Those whose ancestral city is now within Polish boundaries should enter Poland, even if their Polish-speaking grandparents came to America on an Austrian or Russian passport, or even if their German-speaking parents were compelled to leave the part of eastern Germany that the Allies gave to Poland after World War II.
b) Most Jewish people who say that their ancestors came from Russia should actually enter Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, or Poland, despite the fact that the Russian Empire was occupying these countries at the time of Atlantic crossing.
c) On the other hand, those whose Polish-speaking ancestors come from Lviw (formerly Lwow) or Vilnius (formerly Wilno) should enter Ukraine or Lithuania, respectively.
Unfortunately, this convention may require some simple knowledge of geography that Americans often do not have. Worse, some Americans may have justified or unjustified emotional reasons not to associate themselves with the country now sovereign over their ancestral city or region. Such people can either leave the line blank, or enter Europe.
4) People who can trace, via solid genealogy, their patrilineal or matrilineal lines back across multiple migrations within the last few hundred years--e.g., from America to Ireland to Scotland--should probably enter the earliest well-documented country of residence (in this example, Scotland).
The above is, again, my own opinion. I heartily encourage FTDNA to write up a formal set of guidelines covering these more difficult cases.
Comment