Melungeons, Black Dutch and Black Irish

[GregKiroKH]

Oops, I could not correct my grammar errors. So it printed twice.
It seems as if lifestyles are important since Asian mixed marriages were the most popular mixed marriage in North America. Yet, the data suggest the major concerns are with black and white marriages.

(maybe no one will ever know of the grammar mistakes)

[GregKiroKH]

I agree that if what you are saying that genetics alone should not classify a people. On the other hand, it is those differences from the original gene pool and the different cultures that those gene pools brought with them whether Native American, African, French, Spanish, English, Scotch, Irish, Italian that become a part of the overall culture.

Appalachia, Louisiana and other parts of the South all have there unique cultures and peoples that are a direct reflection of the society, politics, economy and yes the genetic contributions of various populations of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Most of the white populations also show a fairly high level of East Asian. While this is very possible, the more likely shource I believe for this level of EA is NA. It has been suggested that 3 in 6 of the Early Americans from England intermarried with various NA tribes.

I am unsure what to say about things that I know little since a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I started to think about this issue a few years back. There was an historian at Williamsburg, Virginia who spoke about slavery in colonial America. I asked her a few questions. One being about what society called black people who pretended to be white. She said at first black and white people lived different lifestyle. Eventually, some mixed-blooded children were allowed to be indentured servants. It was not until later that some mixed-blooded people called themselves white so that they could pass as white. These types of events seemed to match several family histories too. If you told people you had a Negroes ancestor, then people would call you Mulatto or Black or you could pass as white and just talk about your white ancestors. I found some data based upon what people have declared.

<<Interracial Married Couples: 1960–1995
(Includes all interracial married couples with at least one spouse of white or black race.)
Interracial married couples

(A,Year)
(B, Total married couples)
(C, Total)
(D, Total)
(E, Black husband,white wife)
(F, White husband,black wife)
(G, White/Other race *)
(H, Black/Other race *)
-A-------B-----------C-----D-----E-----F------G------H
1960 40,491,000 149,000 51,000 25,000 26,000 90,000 7,000
1970 44,598,000 310,000 65,000 41,000 24,000 233,000 12,000
1980 49,514,000 953,000 121,000 94,000 27,000 785,000 47,000
1990 51,718,000 1,461,000 213,000 159,000 54,000 1,173,000 75,000
1995 54,937,000 1,392,000 328,000 206,000 122,000 988,000 76,000
*“Other race,” is any race other than white or black, such as American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series, “Household and Family Characteristics: March 1994,” and earlier reports.>>

Asian mixed marriage were the most popular mixed marriage.

[GregKiroKH]

I agree that if what you are saying that genetics alone should not classify a people. On the other hand, it is those differences from the original gene pool and the different cultures that those gene pools brought with them whether Native American, African, French, Spanish, English, Scotch, Irish, Italian that become a part of the overall culture.

Appalachia, Louisiana and other parts of the South all have there unique cultures and peoples that are a direct reflection of the society, politics, economy and yes the genetic contributions of various populations of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Most of the white populations also show a fairly high level of East Asian. While this is very possible, the more likely shource I believe for this level of EA is NA. It has been suggested that 3 in 6 of the Early Americans from England intermarried with various NA tribes.

I am unsure what to say about things that I know little since a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I started to think about this issue a few years back. There was an historian at Williamsburg, Virginia who spoke about slavery in colonial America. I asked her a few questions. One being about what society called black people who pretended to be white. She said at first black and white people lived different lifestyle. Eventually, some mixed-blooded children were allowed to be indentured servants. It was not until later that some mixed-blooded people called themselves white so that they could pass as white. These types of events seemed to match several family histories too. If you told people you had a Negroes ancestor, then people would call you Mulatto or Black or you could pass as white and just talk about your white ancestors. I found some data based upon what people have declared.

<<Interracial Married Couples: 1960–1995
(Includes all interracial married couples with at least one spouse of white or black race.)
Interracial married couples

(A,Year)
(B, Total married couples)
(C, Total)
(D, Total)
(E, Black husband,white wife)
(F, White husband,black wife)
(G, White/Other race *) (Black/Other race *)
---------A-----------B-----C-----D-----E------F------G
1960 40,491,000 149,000 51,000 25,000 26,000 90,000 7,000
1970 44,598,000 310,000 65,000 41,000 24,000 233,000 12,000
1980 49,514,000 953,000 121,000 94,000 27,000 785,000 47,000
1990 51,718,000 1,461,000 213,000 159,000 54,000 1,173,000 75,000
1995 54,937,000 1,392,000 328,000 206,000 122,000 988,000 76,000
*“Other race,” is any race other than white or black, such as American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series, “Household and Family Characteristics: March 1994,” and earlier reports.>>

Asian mixed marriage were the most popular mixed marriage.

[M.O'Connor]

According to the Genographic Project we (out of Africa) share a common ancestor from Eurasia. We have a lot of cousins everwhere.



So what is this Alatolia Head bump thing from Turkey? is there any science on this?

[shoshone]

hello,

just came across the forum. I just wanted to say blessing from the ancestors. I am a good example of what the discussion is all about. Yes the different native tribes ecpecially from the Southeast did mingle with both Black and white populations. I belong to Native American mtDNA Haplogroup A. I am directly decendant from a Full blood native American Indian woman. My GGGgrandmother. I also have African ancestry and European. All three showed up in my DNA test. My family hails from North Carolina. My maternal lines is said to go back 35,000 years. Long ago people did not really talk about being mixed you just tried to survive. Also in the south there was really no classification for ndn's only if you were on a reservation set aside by our wonderful goverment. So native people dropped off and mingled with other non-native peoples. Some went on to become present day white Americans and some present day African Americans. It was not until recently in our history that many of these Native decendants began reclaiming thier heritage. Now we can realize that superfical things such as race, color, prejudice that once separated us is being overlooked and our people are coming back together now to pay homage to our Native Ancestry. True Native Americans will always respect there fellow Native brothers, no matter what color they may be now. We are one.

Take care.

Blessings from the Ancestors.

Shoshone

[BlackWolf]

I have been reading Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, People, and Languages." Quickly changing genes based upon migration patterns, natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations should not be used to classify people. Even if they are interesting to study. I still do not understand the importance of using autosomal markers. Y-DNA results and mitochondria results are good if they are taken over several generations. So what should the average gene searcher do? Let's surf the web for an article. Looking at Frank Sweet's article, I wonder if it is true that people hid their family history because of their shame while those who were proud enough to tell the truth had to live alternative lifestyles.

<<Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States, Sweet, Frank W
One possible explanation for the high present incidence of sub-Saharan DNA in White Americans (1/3 have 2-20% African admixture) is a relatively high but unnoticed rate of families passing through the color line from Black to White during the 18th and 19th centuries. The triracial isolate communities of the Southeast may have served as a buffer zone or halfway house facilitating such color-line permeability.



The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture.16 To put this in perspective, this would have been the result if every member of the U.S. White endogamous group alive today had a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture seven generations ago (around the year 1850). Of course, African alleles are not distributed evenly. Seventy percent of White Americans (like 5.5 percent of Blacks) have no detectable African genetic admixture at all. Among the thirty percent of Whites with African genetic admixture, the admixture ratio averages to about 2.3 percent, the equivalent of having a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture from around the year 1880.17 Black Americans, on the other hand, have significant European admixture (averaging about 75 percent African and 25 percent European).>>

I agree that if what you are saying that genetics alone should not classify a people. On the other hand, it is those differences from the original gene pool and the different cultures that those gene pools brought with them whether Native American, African, French, Spanish, English, Scotch, Irish, Italian that become a part of the overall culture.

Appalachia, Louisiana and other parts of the South all have there unique cultures and peoples that are a direct reflection of the society, politics, economy and yes the genetic contributions of various populations of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Most of the white populations also show a fairly high level of East Asian. While this is very possible, the more likely shource I believe for this level of EA is NA. It has been suggested that 3 in 6 of the Early Americans from England intermarried with various NA tribes.

[GregKiroKH]

Afro-European Genetic Admixture

I have been reading Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, People, and Languages." Quickly changing genes based upon migration patterns, natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations should not be used to classify people. Even if they are interesting to study. I still do not understand the importance of using autosomal markers. Y-DNA results and mitochondria results are good if they are taken over several generations. So what should the average gene searcher do? Let's surf the web for an article. Looking at Frank Sweet's article, I wonder if it is true that people hid their family history because of their shame while those who were proud enough to tell the truth had to live alternative lifestyles.

<<Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States, Sweet, Frank W
One possible explanation for the high present incidence of sub-Saharan DNA in White Americans (1/3 have 2-20% African admixture) is a relatively high but unnoticed rate of families passing through the color line from Black to White during the 18th and 19th centuries. The triracial isolate communities of the Southeast may have served as a buffer zone or halfway house facilitating such color-line permeability.



The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture.16 To put this in perspective, this would have been the result if every member of the U.S. White endogamous group alive today had a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture seven generations ago (around the year 1850). Of course, African alleles are not distributed evenly. Seventy percent of White Americans (like 5.5 percent of Blacks) have no detectable African genetic admixture at all. Among the thirty percent of Whites with African genetic admixture, the admixture ratio averages to about 2.3 percent, the equivalent of having a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture from around the year 1880.17 Black Americans, on the other hand, have significant European admixture (averaging about 75 percent African and 25 percent European).>>

[BlackWolf]

I really hope someone can explain to me exactly what shovel teeth are.....most of my family are from Southwestern Virginia with some in Montgomery and Floyd counties. There is rumored Native American ancestry, but no paper trail to support it.

Carla

Padgett, just a couple of notes.

If you have this trait it is a clear proof indication of mixed ancestry of some kind at some point in your near or distant ancestry past.

The area where your family is from is a area that has a LONG history of Native American and other mixed groups of people in early American history.

However, it does not mean that you have Native American or even Melungeon ancestors. Is it probable, YES but not fullproof.

It does mean that at some point you did have non-anglo ancestors and this trait was passed on to you. This could be from SEVERAL sources. I would recommend if you can search all those paper trails and talk to your older relatives.

I am still researching my own heritage just like you and it is very difficult.

Amazing at how assimilated these groups became out of a need for survival. It was not too long ago that if you were of any king of mixed ancestry you were considered below all other people in the United States.

Some of course, sadly, still feel that way today.

Peace

BW

[Bob Swinea]

Hey Threefeathers, I went ahead and ordered the Ancestrybydna 2.5. I will let you know offline what the results are when I get it back.

BW

I look forward to hearing from you Black Wolf.

[Bob Swinea]

Hello,
I have shovel teeth and if you can picture holding a shovel upright and look at its shape. Imagine that its concave form is a tooth. Voila! Shovel teeth BlackWolf is right. The two top teeth and the four bottom teeth are shaped like this. Mongol/Asain/AmerIndian Usually with the shovel teeth there is a very noticable ridge down near the gum line. Take your fingernail and start just below the gum line touching the tooth scrtach upwards and "click" you will feel the ridge. Its really interesting. The anatolian bump is something else too.
Peace,
Bob

[BlackWolf]

I am not expert but have heard it is a trait of Asian (not necessarily Native American although they have it) ancestry.

Northern European peoples front teeth on upper jaw and four front lower teeth on lower jaw resemble this \! where shovel teeth would be )! Simply it is a indention on the back of the tooth.

I know that does not help much, try this link

http://www.derweb.co.uk/imgsearch/imglibrary.asp?code=2580&UserID=20601

[Padgett]

Shovel Teeth

I really hope someone can explain to me exactly what shovel teeth are.....most of my family are from Southwestern Virginia with some in Montgomery and Floyd counties. There is rumored Native American ancestry, but no paper trail to support it.

Carla

[BlackWolf]

Hey Threefeathers, I went ahead and ordered the Ancestrybydna 2.5. I will let you know offline what the results are when I get it back.

BW

[Bob Swinea]

BlackWolf I used GeneTree. The service was affordable and I got my results before 6 weeks

Cajun, eh? hahaha Love those mud bugs and jambalaya

Bob

[BlackWolf]

Im thinking about taking that, which is the best service to use?

If the results come back to the way I look then I will be 100% Cajun. LOL.