Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

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

  • #16
    Iroquoian.

    Forgot to state that some decendents also claim Iroquoian decent with the Algonquian when speaking of the Potowomeck. Maria

    Comment


    • #17
      Maria, Can I ask if you are NDN on both sides of the family that your Haplogroup is not one of those given for NDNs or is your mother European? Hope you don't mind my curiosity .

      Comment


      • #18
        Comes from Autosomal DNA.

        My mother has both Native American and European heritage. The reason I do not have a mtDNA native haplogroup is becasue my blood is not in a straight line. It must pass from mother to daughter to daughter to daughter, ect. MtDNA only tells me about 1 of my oldest female relative and apparently she wasn't native American, she appears to be German, ect. Have not taken my dads YDNA yet, but I assume it would be something that fits with European also since my surname is German. Men carry their mothers mtDNA but can not pass it on like we do. And since we don't have the yDNA we can only do 2 types of testing. Tells about one ancestor which right now is German. Now we come to autosomal DNA which tells you a different story. My mothers heritage is not as complicated as my fathers line is, hers is from the Waugh line. My fathers is more complicated cousin marrying cousins. Autosomal is from your mothers and fathers line all the way back on both sides. It combines their dna from 1'000's of ancestors and picks and chooSes what dna you will inherit. I recieved about 10% Native DNA. My autosomal line for both my mother and father is where i get my Potowomeck heritage. I am 10% Native American dna wise. DNA wise I have markers that are consistent with Native Americans. I am 10%Virginian Algonquian, specifically Potowomeck and 90% Indo European. Another thing about autosomal dna is that it is random. It does not chose dna evenly. Oh, I forgot about x testing. Maria
        Last edited by Maria_W; 3 September 2006, 06:43 PM. Reason: Left out sentence.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Maria_W
          ... Intermarrying with the European insured the survival of the tribe. My own European and Native ancestors killed each other. Were still here! Maria
          Dear Maria:

          Your family history is very interesting, and shows that something else was going on in colonial times. That's precisely what I am looking for. How many Native Americans that were in contact with the European settlers in the early colonies, "intermarried to insure the survival of the people".

          Could you, please, elaborate more? I would like to have a broader perspective of the topic.

          Thanks,

          Omar

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks Maria, very interesting genetic history. You have far more information than many of us. Just a suggestion, get your dad to do a test sooner rather than later. We are unable to find anything out about my grandfather because of a family of all males and one female child (my mother) no men are alive or have male children who are alive so his DNA history has died with him as far as we know. It's a shame that we females don't carry Y-DNA, so much gets lost along the way.

            Comment


            • #21
              Sponsoring Business is Complex

              Originally posted by Pleroma
              There are references to the Euro and Native marriages and relationships scattered everywhere but here are some links that you may find interesting:

              Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), Mohawk
              http://www.indigenouspeople.net/brant.htm

              AFRICANS AND INDIANS: ONLY IN AMERICA
              http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/blk-ind.html
              (This has more to do with the African/Native mix but has many interesting things.)

              Excerpts from "The History of Montgomery Classis, R. C. A., 1916", by W. N. P. Dailey
              http://www.fortklock.com/Bio.htm
              (This was written in 1916 by an American so it is written from a racist perspective and also an anti-Loyalist one, however there is some interesting information.)

              METIS CULTURE 1791-1792
              http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/metis28.htm
              (here is a list of Metis marriages which, I think, is only a very small fraction of the reality.)
              These were very interesting articles. I think Thomas Jefferson and others made many comments about the Virginia Indians. He never answered why the Mattaponi mtDNA is still Native American. I think these attitudes might have influenced Virginian marriage laws. I am sure the endless complaints from community and church leaders bear proof of the pudding. The mixed blooded Indians girls in Arizona said to me in 1980 "that mixing the blood makes people crazy." And then they disappeared giggling. And on the elevator a few days later, out of the clear blue sky, this girl in the presents of her boyfriend spoke to me about the names people were given for mixing blood with the Europeans. Any way, I wonder why some Eastern Coast Native American mtDNA matches with Mexican Native American mtDNA. This might help to explain the color variations between local tribes. It does not depend only on the slave trade. Historians admit that many people have left out family histories and stories from older textbooks. They tended to concentrate on the activities of the President. Most of the class differences existed between the Patron and the working class. Families and friendships dominated many common law events. I always find writing point-of-views interesting. I am finding a wealth of information from local historians who are able to explain the chronological difference in everything from social stratification to what the girls liked in a man.

              The Pamunkey Indian Museum displays exhibits arranged by time period, allowing for a progressive trip through time in the life of the Pamunkey Indian. The museum is also home to a trading post filled with beautiful pottery made on the reservation. Unfortunately, most of the pottery on display was created by crafters who are now deceased. The Mattoponi Museum utilizes a less formal approach. Many of its artifacts, some dating to 5000 BC, are labeled with handwritten index cards. One of its most famous exhibits is a necklace that once belonged to Pocahontas. (http://www.virginiawind.com/virginia_travel/indian.asp)
              Last edited by GregKiroKH; 4 September 2006, 02:55 PM. Reason: grammar

              Comment


              • #22
                I had the autosomal/admixture test thru www.ancestrybydna.com. There are no Indian names in my family tree, but it is incomplete. My result is 83% European, 17% Native American. My ancestors immigrated to America in the 1600s, 1700s,1800,& 1900s, and stayed on the east coast. I must be descended from some of the original northeast tribes.



                Of my 176 markers, 7 are unknown.
                Last edited by rainbow; 22 September 2006, 03:12 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Doing a little math I figured that my 17% could be from eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents, who were all pure full-blooded Native American, marrying/having a child with eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents of pure European descent (white Americans). That sounds very romantic, almost like Shakespeares's Romeo & Juliet, or the movie West Side Story. I figured that it must've been circa 1790-1820. Then the Indian Removal Act of 1830 pushed most of the Indians westward. I think that was to stop any more intermarriages. It probably stemmed from jealousy. There were probably children of mixed blood that were forced out, and probably some children of mixed blood that were kept by their white families and were raised as white. And maybe that is where the concept of "nurture v. nature" sprung up.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rainbow
                    Doing a little math I figured that my 17% could be from eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents, who were all pure full-blooded Native American, marrying/having a child with eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents of pure European descent (white Americans). That sounds very romantic, almost like Shakespeares's Romeo & Juliet, or the movie West Side Story. I figured that it must've been circa 1790-1820. Then the Indian Removal Act of 1830 pushed most of the Indians westward. I think that was to stop any more intermarriages. It probably stemmed from jealousy. There were probably children of mixed blood that were forced out, and probably some children of mixed blood that were kept by their white families and were raised as white. And maybe that is where the concept of "nurture v. nature" sprung up.
                    No, the Indians were forced out because the whites wanted their land, and with your white family going back that far in the Eastern US, you also need to take into account intermarriage among the whites. Like many of us, you are probably descended from the same couple via more than one of their children, so your 11 gggggrandparents could actually be only 2 or 3 whose children or grandchildren kept marrying one another. For instance, I'm descended from Johan Philip Serfas four different ways, maybe five.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by N4321
                      No, the Indians were forced out because the whites wanted their land . . .
                      That's a bit of an oversimplification of a complex historical process.

                      North America was fairly sparsely populated when the first Europeans arrived here. There was plenty of land for everyone.

                      The Amerindians were not, however, a single, unified, monolithic group. They were divided into clans, tribes, and even incipient nations and confederacies. They warred with each and with the European newcomers.

                      Amerindian groups formed alliances with the Europeans to gain an advantage over enemies among their fellow Amerindians. They sided with this or that European power to oppose both other Europeans and other Indians.

                      Old, worn-out, politically correct victim-speak is not an accurate way to describe what happened in early North America between European immigrants and Amerindians.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I don't think that the indigineous peoples of America viewed it as "plenty of land to go round". The Native people did not "own the land" it was/is a gift from the Creator and consequently they did not understand the european concept of ownership. I suggest you read "A Little Matter of Genocide" by Ward Churchill and then say it's an over simplification that "the Indians were forced out because the whites wanted their land".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MAB
                          I don't think that the indigineous peoples of America viewed it as "plenty of land to go round". The Native people did not "own the land" it was/is a gift from the Creator and consequently they did not understand the european concept of ownership. I suggest you read "A Little Matter of Genocide" by Ward Churchill and then say it's an over simplification that "the Indians were forced out because the whites wanted their land".
                          Ward Churchill is a radical leftist knucklehead. He is hardly an objective or even qualified historian.

                          Whenever someone starts spouting gibberish about the innocent "Native people" who viewed the land as "a gift from the Creator" I know I have left the realm of history and entered the kingdom of fantasy.

                          Whatever the viewpoint of this or that indigenous group, the population of North America was sparse when the first Europeans arrived here. There was plenty of room.

                          What transpired wasn't all one sided and doesn't neatly fit into some fairy tale of good versus evil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rainbow
                            Doing a little math I figured that my 17% could be from eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents, who were all pure full-blooded Native American, marrying/having a child with eleven (11) great-great-great-great grandparents of pure European descent (white Americans). That sounds very romantic, almost like Shakespeares's Romeo & Juliet, or the movie West Side Story. I figured that it must've been circa 1790-1820. Then the Indian Removal Act of 1830 pushed most of the Indians westward. I think that was to stop any more intermarriages. It probably stemmed from jealousy. There were probably children of mixed blood that were forced out, and probably some children of mixed blood that were kept by their white families and were raised as white. And maybe that is where the concept of "nurture v. nature" sprung up.
                            Many people whose ancestors returned to the Eastern coast between 1830-1870 find that was the end of their Native American ancestry. Some people could not find home while other people made new friends. Some tribes were able to keep land in Virginia and in Florida for example while other members farmed new lands with their new families. We were friendly, and we found ways to keep some of what was ours. "Land belongs to everyone just like the air and water" is an ancient rule that many Old World people did not want to follow. The government should allow revenue for the people and the land. The government should be for the people, not for a person. I think many of the old rules will evolve with new old good rules as the bad rules go away. It is not complex, just good and better rules for everyone. The one-drop rule in the United States started in 1830 to prevent intermarriages. One example of laws like this created laws such as The Lex Canuleia by C. Canuleius passed during the Roman Republic in 445 BC allowing intermarriage between plebeians and patricians and the 1265 decree of Spanish King Alfonso X. By 1691, miscegenation became illegal in the North American colonies. The Native Americans accepted many people into their tribes, but many people were against miscegenation. By the 1830, marriage became a matter of economics. It could determine which families would keep what lands. With President Jackson in the White House, southerners gained control over many laws making policies. One policy was against miscegenation and slavery. The issue of new slave states or new free state divided America. This also influenced miscegenation laws. The census did not show large numbers of mixed marriages. The highest number in the twentieth century was between Asian American and Euro-American peoples for several years. With women rights, we see some changes in engagement trends. Each state had different laws regarding marriage, and in the early twenty-first century, Alabama was the last state to eliminate its miscegenation law. As other groups in America gained economic securities and social statues, mixed marriages gained mild legal acceptance.

                            Happy Talk . . .

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thanks Gregory. Your post sent me on a search and I found this book that looks interesting:


                              Suspect Relations: Sex, Race, and Resistance in Colonial North Carolina by Kirsten Fischer

                              This is an on-line review:

                              http://www.wm.edu/oieahc/wmq/Jan03/godbeerJan03.pdf


                              Also, here is an brief article on the topic of race, Natives and the American south:

                              "Mixed Blood" Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South"

                              http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n9434183

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Stevo
                                Ward Churchill is a radical leftist knucklehead. He is hardly an objective or even qualified historian.

                                Whenever someone starts spouting gibberish about the innocent "Native people" who viewed the land as "a gift from the Creator" I know I have left the realm of history and entered the kingdom of fantasy.

                                Whatever the viewpoint of this or that indigenous group, the population of North America was sparse when the first Europeans arrived here. There was plenty of room.

                                What transpired wasn't all one sided and doesn't neatly fit into some fairy tale of good versus evil.
                                Stevo,
                                I fully agree with you (this time).
                                Mr Churchill was accused of not even being an Indian.
                                The white man (I'm Part Indian) wanted their land for the timber, minerals, etc.
                                Then they passed laws/booze, taking their land. Of course this put the Indians on the war-path. The Army then moved in and sent them to reservations
                                where they could NOT live off the Buffalo and the natural resources.
                                Then they become "Slaves" to the white man. This is history, so bury the hatchet/tomahawk and move on.
                                Thanks,
                                darroll

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X