Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

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

  • Originally posted by Yaffa
    Another big major factor is what we call "Pencil Genocide" I know many people who's ancestors proven "Indian" ( by paper or DNA ) but were listed as "White" on the census or on a birth cirtificate for saftey purposes. I have found slave census where the slaves are listed as "WHITE ' One of my Indian ancestors was listed as " WHITE MEXICAN " . They say the Taino tribe in Cuba was extinct. DNA has proved this to be wrong. We all know history can be filled with exaggerations. I think there were a lot more Indians here than recorded or accounted for. Many assimilated into white society and survived.
    I think one day DNA testing will prove this.
    Absolutely!!!

    DNA analysis has shown there are more indian ancestors that people never though. Some examples from Latin America:

    Brazil: After centuries of claiming Indians were just a small fraction of the population, today is known circa 30% of the population is Amerindian descendent.

    Argentina: Argentineans were shocked when they discovered they weren't pure whites. 50% of theirs mtDNA is Amerindian, although most people "looks" White.

    Hispanic Caribbean: After centuries repeating the myth of Taino extinction, today is quite clear the percentages of Amerindian ancestry are high. In Puerto Rico is more than 30% of the genetic melting pot.

    Chile: After centuries believing we just have a "little" Amerindian ancestry, we now know 80% of our mtDNA is Amerindian! and 25% of our genetics has that origin as well.

    It would be no surprise if in the future some genetical studies show more Amerindian ancestry in the U.S. population that it was never though possible.

    Comment


    • The problem with Amerindian ancestry is that it is hardly visible in the phenotype at all. Mixed people is somehow ambiguos but a 1/4 Amerindian individual looks European. Moreover, there are many native Europeans that could pass for Amerindians. Perhaps 1 in 50! How you could notice? Noses are smaller and faces are a little bit rounder, hair is darker. That's all the clue you get.

      These are mixed individuals 1/2 European and 1/2 Amerindian. Most didn't have problems to addapt to White society.

      Look at the son of Pocahontas:



      From him descend a long line of very famous upper class "white" Americans.

      Look at Garcilaso de la Vega (Inca+Spanish)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kawashkar
        Absolutely!!!

        DNA analysis has shown there are more indian ancestors that people never though. Some examples from Latin America:

        Brazil: After centuries of claiming Indians were just a small fraction of the population, today is known circa 30% of the population is Amerindian descendent.

        Argentina: Argentineans were shocked when they discovered they weren't pure whites. 50% of theirs mtDNA is Amerindian, although most people "looks" White.

        Hispanic Caribbean: After centuries repeating the myth of Taino extinction, today is quite clear the percentages of Amerindian ancestry are high. In Puerto Rico is more than 30% of the genetic melting pot.

        Chile: After centuries believing we just have a "little" Amerindian ancestry, we now know 80% of our mtDNA is Amerindian! and 25% of our genetics has that origin as well.

        It would be no surprise if in the future some genetical studies show more Amerindian ancestry in the U.S. population that it was never though possible.
        Someone that I had a HVR1 match to just contacted me. They didn't know Haplogrouup B was NA. I have a Jewish last name and my match had a Jewish husband. My match was in Mexico. Her husband thaught his wife's ancestors came from Spain and figured since I had a Jewish name, his wife's ancestors must have been Spanish Jews. I had to break the news to him that his wife's ancestor was NA.

        Im sure is is a lot more NA in the population then Documented

        Comment


        • Louis XIV did something

          It seems to be common knowledge that the Sun King, Louis XIV, sent ship loads of young French women to New France (Quebec) to do something about the unbalanced ratio of French men to French women. But I've never read or heard that the Spanish monarch(s) did the same in the Spanish colonies.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
            It seems to be common knowledge that the Sun King, Louis XIV, sent ship loads of young French women to New France (Quebec) to do something about the unbalanced ratio of French men to French women. But I've never read or heard that the Spanish monarch(s) did the same in the Spanish colonies.
            It is common knowledge in Latin America that Spanish women were in here since the first times of conquest and settlements. There was a gender imballance between Spaniards, though, that's true. But the idea that there weren't European women among the Europeans in Latin America is simply non-sense.

            Intermarriage was widespread in Latin America. And I bet in the earliest stages of British settlements in North America something similar happened. At least with the fur trappers intermarriage was common.

            There is a taboo , though, in North America to talk about the topic. Notice that historians always remark Amerindian tribes got mixed with time, but they never remark the point that at the same time Amerindians were being assimilated to white society. Afterwards, the Americans brought tens of millions of Germans and other Europeans to "clean the mess" under the policy of "white washing" that was in fashion in those times.

            Comment


            • Yes, Spanish women were here...

              I found a U5b2 (obviously European) on the Mexico Project, which would put her in my sub-haplogroup. Also, there are many Spanish-desent women in Colombia (and Cuba). And Argentina has many women of European desent. But I suspect those women came over on a more privately arranged basis. Louis XIV was very paternalistic, and meddled a lot in the day-to-day lives of his subjects. (I have a book on his biography).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
                I found a U5b2 (obviously European) on the Mexico Project, which would put her in my sub-haplogroup. Also, there are many Spanish-desent women in Colombia (and Cuba). And Argentina has many women of European desent....
                That's nothing extraordinary. Most people of Latin America is mainly European in ancestry, particularly in South America. However, people is not exclusively European, but mixed with Amerindian in varying degrees.

                Only really platinated blond people of Scandinavia could call the attention in a place like Buenos Aires, Santiago or Sao Paulo, actually. Most of the rest of Europeans or Americans won't call our attention at all, at least they talk.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kawashkar
                  Intermarriage was widespread in Latin America. And I bet in the earliest stages of British settlements in North America something similar happened. At least with the fur trappers intermarriage was common.
                  This is a link to a genealogy tv show here in Canada and the story of singer Chantal Kreviazuk searching for her roots.

                  http://www.cbc.ca/whodoyouthinkyouar...xt_chantal.php

                  One of her early European grandfathers had three Native wives.

                  "The HBC forbade sexual contact with local women. Nonetheless, despite the orders from London, there is recorded evidence of familial unions between Aboriginals and the HBC employees as early as 1740. During his time with the Company, William had three native or "country" wives."

                  The only unique thing about this story is that written records were actually kept so Ms. Kreviazuk had the luxury of finding names and dates.

                  Comment


                  • Religious and social control-Romantic marriages versus business relationships:
                    Manumitting-
                    It seems as if the number of the other people determined how people were treated. From what I understand, if your father was of pure European ancestry, and he said you were not a Negro, he had the right to prove it. Since, a free person could be light tan, yellow, or a close to white color, a father could call his half-Indian son white if he wanted to. And so, if he married a white woman, then their children would be white Christians.

                    1691 Racial intermarriage between whites, (bond or free) with a Negro, mulatto or Indian (bond or free)

                    Penalty: banishment from Virginia forever

                    1705 Racial intermarriage between white Christian and any of following; Negro, mulatto, Indian, Jew, Moor, Mohammedan or other infidel

                    Penalty: All white (indentured) servants belonging to the white Christian are to be set free

                    1792 1/4 It is provided that every person other than a Negro, although all his other progenitors except that descending from the Negro shall have been white persons shall be deemed a mulatto; so every such person who shall have one-fourth part or more of Negro Blood, shall in like manner be deemed a mulatto.

                    1833 n/a A court upon satisfactory proof, by a white person of the fact, may grant to any free person of mixed blood a certificate that he is not a Negro, which certificate shall protect such person against the penalties and disabilities to which Negroes are subject.

                    http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jmahoney/lec08net.htm
                    In almost every case, the government tried to control the racial purity of the population.

                    “Slave Codes,” “Black Codes,” ”Castas System,” and “Code Noir,”
                    Many of the early Louisiana settlers, who were mostly men, depended upon the help of Native Americans, for survival. That help often came as a result of their intermarriage with Indian women. The French encroachment on Indian lands led to the deterioration of Indian-French alliances and intermittent hostilities with Indians which frequently broke out throughout the colony.

                    Cristiano viejo, ethnicity, race and class

                    Zambos or Lobos from dressing like Spaniards, or going to school (Diggs 1953:403–407; Landers 1995:17–41)

                    The 16th century Spanish colonial population was made up of three basic groups; the indigenous Indians, European-born Spaniards or their American born descendants called criollos, and the Africans. By the late 17th century, after nearly two hundred years of Spanish law that permitted and in a sense encouraged manumission, there was a considerably sized free African population and many free African communities throughout the Spanish colonies. There was also considerable intermarriage between the three groups.
                    http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnograp...tContextsE.htm
                    http://www.tarver-genealogy.net/visu.../ulthm1_1.html
                    As families became less depended upon the government and larger population groups, they began to marry who they liked.
                    GregKiroKHR1bL1
                    Registered User
                    Last edited by GregKiroKHR1bL1; 18 November 2007, 01:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Not all A I Nations got same treatment.

                      1.The Cherokee Nation encountered Uncle Sam earlier, and had the recourses, to negotiate a treaty recognising them as a "Nation". This has been legally durable and gave advantages throughout the bad times.
                      Communities further West that were in the focus later, in the expansionist Federal mode, did not fare so well and were treated like "problem aliens", clearly shown in Congressional debates.

                      2.The 90% death figure refered to to "specific localities", not overall, and would not epidemiologically be expected to apply equally to communities that had a much later more superficial and gradual contact with Europeans. Still one would expect higher that 30%

                      Comment


                      • Many Amerinds are now Hispanic

                        1/My last post on epidemiology was a reply to kwashkar's yesterday's post. Wow how it was overlaid!

                        2/ A Year ago, I put the question , how Indian are the so-called "Hispanics"? My own instinct was that they represented a reconquista by the Amerinds.

                        The response showed that little evidence was present in the Y DNA, but that Mt DNA supported strong Amerind persistence in "Hispanics". The male-female balance was always in the female favor statisticallly, illustrating the socio-historical concept that "males colonise, females remain with the children and the land". Culture and language, and religion, are the"joker in the pack"!

                        Comment


                        • Women as carriers of culture

                          When I took Anthropology courses, the prof pointed out that females were the carriers of culture. At the time, the subject was Native Americans.

                          On a similar note, when I lived in Florida as a teenager and took Spanish in high school (which I've largely forgotten), I heard on more than one occasion that the purest form of Spanish spoken in the New World was in Colombia. So from that, I extrapolated that there must be a core of women of Spanish descent there to keep the old Spanish culture alive.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GregKiroKHR1bL1
                            It seems as if the number of the other people determined how people were treated. From what I understand, if your father was of pure European ancestry, and he said you were not a Negro, he had the right to prove it. Since, a free person could be light tan, yellow, or a close to white color, a father could call his half-Indian son white if he wanted to. And so, if he married a white woman, then their children would be white Christians.
                            ...
                            That's a fact that complicate matters. In North America there is confussion between Black and Indigenous people. Many mestizos were called mulattos indeed. So when historians look for records in the U.S. they don't get a clue.

                            In Latin America we have the historical advantage we have precise declaration of the original races of marriages, since the 16th century. So we figure it out precisely what was going on since long time ago.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by derinos
                              ...
                              The response showed that little evidence was present in the Y DNA, but that Mt DNA supported strong Amerind persistence in "Hispanics". The male-female balance was always in the female favor statisticallly, illustrating the socio-historical concept that "males colonise, females remain with the children and the land". Culture and language, and religion, are the"joker in the pack"!
                              How Indians are Hispanics? It depends which Hispanics. From which country and region. In culture, less than 5% of the population really has Native traditions. However. when they exists they are strong and healthy.
                              In Genetics, it varies from country to country. In Guatemala, Amerindian must be over 70% of the genetic pool and European about 30%. In Argentina 85% is European and 15% Amerindian. In Chile 75% is European and 25% Amerindian.

                              Gender imballance exist and has been studied carefully. However all the populations have some percentage of Indigenous Y chromosomes and European mtDNA, the majority is the other way around.

                              Why that happened? The answer it also clear. It is well known for historical record that the mixed couples of Amerindian and Spaniards were unbelievable fertile (15 kids or more), while couples of Amerindians usually have no more than two kinds if so. So, in just a few generation that inbalance got perpetuated in the population.

                              Any other question?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
                                When I took Anthropology courses, the prof pointed out that females were the carriers of culture. At the time, the subject was Native Americans.

                                On a similar note, when I lived in Florida as a teenager and took Spanish in high school (which I've largely forgotten), I heard on more than one occasion that the purest form of Spanish spoken in the New World was in Colombia. So from that, I extrapolated that there must be a core of women of Spanish descent there to keep the old Spanish culture alive.
                                Well, In Latin America the only culture preserved by female lines is really the cooking traditions. Mexican foods with tacos, burritos and those stuffs were preserved by female lines. However, the Western Culture (Catholicism is western, for instance) was very strong in reprogramming people minds.

                                I don't believe Colombians speak the better Spanish. Actually Bolivians, a people mainly Amerindian, speaks a lot better than Colombians. So I am afraid your theory is wrong. By the way, the worst Spanish is spoken in Spain between low class people... weird.

                                Besides, people is more "pure" European genetically in places like Argentina and Chile rather than in Colombia; for what is worth

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X