Originally posted by xyyman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Genome-wide ancestry of 17th-century enslaved Africans from the Caribbean
Collapse
X
-
Nothing wrong with discussion or disagreement. That is how we learn. But what is fascinating is out >26,127 !!!! European haplotypes in the database NONE was close. The alliance was formed with a far far far away "kingdom". That "explains" the female line. What about the male G2? When did R1b enter the Royals of England or are they G2 also?
Comment
-
Originally posted by xyyman View PostNothing wrong with discussion or disagreement. That is how we learn. But what is fascinating is out >26,127 !!!! European haplotypes in the database NONE was close. The alliance was formed with a far far far away "kingdom". That "explains" the female line. What about the male G2? When did R1b enter the Royals of England or are they G2 also?
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1210...srep00745.html
This is a good one to read
Comment
-
The 13 original British colonies vs. those wild French/Spanish ones
"The fast answer of a "slave" child just does not fit into anything I have. And I do not think a slave child would have been raised by the man that fathered it with out there being backlash in the 1600's. All the paperwork I have shows "white" as color of people."
In what was then a French, and then Spanish, and then French colony, things were quite different in areas of what became the Louisiana Purchase. There was at least a three-tier racial/social hierarchy, with "free persons of color" not only mixing and "marrying" (as common law spouses) with whites, but also owning their own property, including slaves.
Take a look at the story of Norbert Rillieux, Edgar Degas' cousin. His mother was a "placee" and the only known spouse of slave owner and inventor Vincent Rillieux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Rillieux
If no one in your family owned slaves, as far as you know, they were likely not well-off people. I believe that the wealthy and well-connected had more leeway. The French and Spanish kept excellent records in the 1600s-1800s, but it's still quite possible that you had a mixed ancestor or ancestor. One possible scenario is that a woman of mixed race gave birth to a child who looked white, and a white-on-paper family raised the child.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Olive88 View Post"The fast answer of a "slave" child just does not fit into anything I have. And I do not think a slave child would have been raised by the man that fathered it with out there being backlash in the 1600's. All the paperwork I have shows "white" as color of people."
In what was then a French, and then Spanish, and then French colony, things were quite different in areas of what became the Louisiana Purchase. There was at least a three-tier racial/social hierarchy, with "free persons of color" not only mixing and "marrying" (as common law spouses) with whites, but also owning their own property, including slaves.
Take a look at the story of Norbert Rillieux, Edgar Degas' cousin. His mother was a "placee" and the only known spouse of slave owner and inventor Vincent Rillieux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Rillieux
If no one in your family owned slaves, as far as you know, they were likely not well-off people. I believe that the wealthy and well-connected had more leeway. The French and Spanish kept excellent records in the 1600s-1800s, but it's still quite possible that you had a mixed ancestor or ancestor. One possible scenario is that a woman of mixed race gave birth to a child who looked white, and a white-on-paper family raised the child.
Yep, poor as poor could be and no record at all of slaves or persons of color. As I have said this happened way before the slave trade. I have found others with this subgroup living in other parts of the world and they have never had family in America , Spain or France. I am hoping they get their full seq. done so we can compare closer.
Comment
Comment