Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genome-wide ancestry of 17th-century enslaved Africans from the Caribbean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by xyyman View Post
    Of course no one is making a big deal of it. I saw only one snipet on the news. Plus a lot of " how dare you" hate mail.

    People like the way things are. The truth doesn't matter.

    I can backup EVERYTHING I post on.
    I'm not disputing that I was just curious.

    Comment


    • #17
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by xyyman View Post
        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?

        http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1210...srep00745.html

        This is a good one to read

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by hazel_ion View Post
          I like " Christina's" posts at anthrogenica. She writes with a clear mind.

          Comment


          • #20
            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


            • #21
              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

              Working...
              X