Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Experiences with Family Finder and PF

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

  • DavidaZ
    replied
    In and about Virginia. I don't know how familiar you are with the area, but one group was in the area of Louisa and Manakin Town. New Kent and Fluvanna were also mentioned. I am a Branham descendant. I also descend from the Langstons and Shepherds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by DavidaZ View Post
    What I learned about our early American history wasn't taught in school. I know that one of my 5th great grandfathers contested the racial designation of mulatto very early on. The records of this are long gone since most were lost during the Civil War. Identifying Natives as mixed or mulatto was profitable. They could be taxed as such. I've tried desperately to trace his line, but haven't had any success. I'd hoped that DNA testing might prove him right, but I guess that's not going to happen. My first results indicated a little less than 12% ME. This dropped out with the newer test. Does anyone think it's worth trying another test with DNA Tribes or another service?

    Thanks,
    Davida
    The only results I have seen so far to be more true to genealogy is Decodeme and right now its $2000 unless you get lucky and they run a special. DNA tribes has given Indian % to people that have tested with other companies that show no Indian. I would not trust it.

    Yes they did have tax laws against the free people of color. My ancestors were fighting in petitions to abolish the tax laws.

    Where were your ancestors?

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidaZ
    replied
    Native Ancestry Issues: The Paper Trail and DNA

    What I learned about our early American history wasn't taught in school. I know that one of my 5th great grandfathers contested the racial designation of mulatto very early on. The records of this are long gone since most were lost during the Civil War. Identifying Natives as mixed or mulatto was profitable. They could be taxed as such. I've tried desperately to trace his line, but haven't had any success. I'd hoped that DNA testing might prove him right, but I guess that's not going to happen. My first results indicated a little less than 12% ME. This dropped out with the newer test. Does anyone think it's worth trying another test with DNA Tribes or another service?

    Thanks,
    Davida

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
    Yes, the Map of Kinship and the ability to compare to sample populations around the world are both great, I hear, but $2K...
    Yep so in other words for $2,000 you might actually get a % test that matches to your genealogy. So far the people I know who have tested PF, 23andme, and decodeme, decodeme seems to be the most accurate results to ones ancestry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Javelin
    replied
    Yes, the Map of Kinship and the ability to compare to sample populations around the world are both great, I hear, but $2K...

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    A friend of mine gave me their results of PF, 23anme and Decodeme. The decodeme results best fits their ancestry though Y-MT DNA and paper. This person has confirmed African Indian and European.

    I got 100% European on FF ; on 23and me 1% African 99 European.
    Decode me 86% European 12% East Asian and 2 % African
    Their East Asian includes NA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    This is true and PF can not tell the difference between them. At the time the Spaniards invade here the Spanish Inquisition was going on in Europe. They just brought the Inquisition over here to the Indian tribes. They leave this out of history books in the US and call the Spaniards explorers. There are also R1b coming up in Mexico too and other haplogroups if you look at the Mex project. Not all of them come up haplogroup J -- http://garyfelix.tripod.com/index63.htm
    Adding that so far the women in the Mex project are Mostly indigenous and many different mother lines

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
    Well, I don't know how accurate it is but there could be explanations. One is that Iberia was settled a very long time ago by Phoenicians, who were probably very similar genetically to Jews, and also most Jews probably mostly have some Iberian ancestry.

    The thing is that Spain had Catholics, Jews, and Muslims getting along very well for maybe 800 years. There was bound to be some mixing. There were a very large number of Jews and Muslim Moors in Iberia, and some became Catholic and their descendants moved to New Spain, while others remained Jewish or Muslim and left for North Africa or Italy or Turkey, probably bringing Iberian genetics with them.
    This is true and PF can not tell the difference between them. At the time the Spaniards invade here the Spanish Inquisition was going on in Europe. They just brought the Inquisition over here to the Indian tribes. They leave this out of history books in the US and call the Spaniards explorers. There are also R1b coming up in Mexico too and other haplogroups if you look at the Mex project. Not all of them come up haplogroup J -- http://garyfelix.tripod.com/index63.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Javelin
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    Also with the Mex DNA project with the upgrade on Illumina everyone became slightly more Jewish. They know this is not accurate. Not all Spanish in Mexico were Jewish since Mexico is predominantly Catholic!!! My family in Tex/Mex was not or ever Catholic, Christian or Jewish. I only have record of them being in Mexico from the 1790's to 1870 when they move to TX.
    Well, I don't know how accurate it is but there could be explanations. One is that Iberia was settled a very long time ago by Phoenicians, who were probably very similar genetically to Jews, and also most Jews probably mostly have some Iberian ancestry.

    The thing is that Spain had Catholics, Jews, and Muslims getting along very well for maybe 800 years. There was bound to be some mixing. There were a very large number of Jews and Muslim Moors in Iberia, and some became Catholic and their descendants moved to New Spain, while others remained Jewish or Muslim and left for North Africa or Italy or Turkey, probably bringing Iberian genetics with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by ahernandez View Post
    I agree that culturally they're extinct but like you said genetics proves that wrong as lots of Caribbean people still have Taino DNA (especially up in the remote mountains of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc.)

    There's very little difference (genetically) between North American, Central American and South American natives as they're all descendants from a relatively small founding population that crossed over during the Ice Age. Having Pima and Maya in the database should be enough to pick up any substantial NA ancestry North Americans may have. I believe the problem is that most North American Native are mixed to begin with so over the generations the percentage shrinks from 20% to 10% to 5% to 2.5% until it's just autosomal noise and an mitochondrial haplogroup.

    As an aside, the Spanish have lots of Middle Eastern DNA in them (see my own percentages) as they have a long history of Phoenicians, Carthaginian, Jewish and Moorish/Muslim populations.
    I posted that not all people in the Islands may descend from the Taino. You also have Indian slavery going to the Islands from the US and some in the Islands may descend from US tribes. The world may never know what tribe some descend from in the Islands because the US tribes are not giving up their DNA. Some of those tribes from the US taken into the Islands may also be classified extinct.

    I can tell you that Pima/Maya is not enough. To make a claim that all Indians are genetically the same and all should match the Pima/Maya is ridiculous.
    Without DNA testing every tribe in all of North America, South America and having all their samples, there is no way to comment on the full picture. I have heard many historians claim there were a lot more Indian here than the Europeans recorded. DNA is slowly proving this outside tribal enrollment.

    Just in general with Indian Mother lines. I can tell you my mother line migrated to the US after HVR1 and 2 on MT DNA. My Mother Indian line was in North America sometime with my FGS mutations. In order to know your mother line you need to test FGS on MT DNA and many wont spend the money. There is also no way to tell the difference between Asian and Indian unless people test FGS on MTDNA. Without having FGS there is no way to tell how many mother lines entered North America.

    I just spoke to my distant FF match who does have confirmed Indian ancestors in their family closer to the living and Indian ancestors from the US.

    On their PF they are 100 % European, On 23andme they are 1% Asian and Decodeme they have 18 % Asian. They too say their PF test is off but obviously you see that they who descend from a US tribe DO NOT MATCH Pima/Maya on PF

    Also with the Mex DNA project with the upgrade on Illumina everyone became slightly more Jewish. They know this is not accurate. Not all Spanish in Mexico were Jewish since Mexico is predominantly Catholic!!! My family in Tex/Mex was not or ever Catholic, Christian or Jewish. I only have record of them being in Mexico from the 1790's to 1870 when they move to TX.
    Last edited by Yaffa; 29 March 2011, 11:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahernandez
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    The Taino tribe of the islands per the US Government are extinct. DNA can prove our Government wrong. My Guess is either you descend from the Tiano and or possibly US Indian slaves that were taken to the islands

    http://www.healing-arts.org/spider/tainoindians.htm
    I agree that culturally they're extinct but like you said genetics proves that wrong as lots of Caribbean people still have Taino DNA (especially up in the remote mountains of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc.)

    There's very little difference (genetically) between North American, Central American and South American natives as they're all descendants from a relatively small founding population that crossed over during the Ice Age. Having Pima and Maya in the database should be enough to pick up any substantial NA ancestry North Americans may have. I believe the problem is that most North American Native are mixed to begin with so over the generations the percentage shrinks from 20% to 10% to 5% to 2.5% until it's just autosomal noise and an mitochondrial haplogroup.

    As an aside, the Spanish have lots of Middle Eastern DNA in them (see my own percentages) as they have a long history of Phoenicians, Carthaginian, Jewish and Moorish/Muslim populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by dawer View Post
    FTDNA actually told me the opposite. They told me that because they only have a limited number of reference populations they report our strongest matches to the sample populations. The only caveat being genetic and migratory flow. So if you have any ancestry from Europe it is statistically possible for one to have ancestry from North Africa, Middle East, South Asia, etc. So, just a different perspective.
    They told me they have no US American Indian samples. Those Tribes may not match the samples they do have from Central and South America. I posted a few pages back why they have samples of Pima/Maya and it has to do with a diabetes study.

    I do have other Indian in my family from the US. My Affy test showed more mixture than my Illumina. This test is far from being accurate for some of us who do have close admixture. I do have an FF match to someone from a US tribe. I should email them to see what their PF is reading

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by dawer View Post
    Someone might have answered already, but since I'm just now reading this, I'll give my feedback on this comment.

    Most Mexicans are NOT Indian. Many Mexicans ARE Native Americans, but most Mexicans are actually of mixed race -- Mestizo. In 1921, only 30% self-identified as full Native American, and the rest where Mestizos of mixed race (about 60%), the rest where either White (1-2%) or no response. If you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that the data they quote ranges between 10-15% of people in Mexico who self-identify as Indigenous. Although I must say that Mexico doesn't truly track race, but language.

    It is a very safe guess that in terms of race, the percentages from 1921 likely still hold true - 30% NA, 60% Mixed, 10% others (Including White, Afrodescendant, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.).

    To say MOST Mexicans are Native American implies that over 75% of Mexicans are Native American which is just not the case. Don't want this to spin off into another full on debate, just wanted to clarify this piece of info.
    I dont research Mexico in the 1900's. My ancestors left Mexico in 1870. By the 1900's you have immigrants coming into Mexico. Even people fleeing the holocaust. Frieda Kahlo. Father was Jewish http://www.fridakahlo.com/

    I do happen to know professional genealogists and historians in Mexico who do a lot of research and also go look at the Mexico DNA project. These are people researching their ancestors before the 1900's. If you read Mexico records ( marriage, baptism) the race classifications are blood %. They will fluctuate from record to record as you get closer to the 18 th century because they can not keep up with who is mixing with who. Per DNA most have a higher % of Indian than Spanish. African % being at the bottom. Also not all people in Mexico descend from Mexican Indian tribes. In the 1800's you have many US tribes running back and forth across the US/MEX border . Apache, Comanche, Kickapoo, Cherokee just to name a few. My ancestors happen to not be Spanish
    Last edited by Yaffa; 29 March 2011, 01:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dawer
    replied
    clarification

    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    ...FTDNA even told me that they dont have enough samples to prove that some DNA is in fact Indian so they may be classified elsewhere in a different population that fits closest at the moment.
    FTDNA actually told me the opposite. They told me that because they only have a limited number of reference populations they report our strongest matches to the sample populations. The only caveat being genetic and migratory flow. So if you have any ancestry from Europe it is statistically possible for one to have ancestry from North Africa, Middle East, South Asia, etc. So, just a different perspective.

    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    ...Race classifications in Mexico are actual blood % ( Casta)
    Mexico has not used race classifications or blood % since at least 1821. The Census tracks things like language and national origin but not race, certainly not blood %. In Colonial Mexico this was certainly the case and the idea of "blood purity" lived on until independence from Spain. So, you might find birth records prior to 1850 in Mexico showing designations like "Indigenous; Mulato", etc. But after 1850 this practice all but disappeared and by 1900 this was gone. The most in terms of race that the government will track is skin color, and for purposes of identification for say, a voter id card or passport. So, in summary, before 1850 yes; after 1850 no.

    Leave a comment:


  • dawer
    replied
    Originally posted by DelawareNative View Post
    Clarification:

    -) I'm from Delaware

    -) I'm Native American physically...and other things mixed in. I believe I'm tri-racial because I've found whites, 'mulattoes' and 'negroes' on many records, so finding anything and everything in my lineage is expected.

    -) Unless it's a connection we haven't discovered, I'm not from one of Delaware's state recognized tribes. Doesn't make me less "DelawareNative" - just clarifying.

    -) DNA might carry you specifically to a tribe in North America, or anywhere in the world, depending on any DNA companies' test populations, and of course I'd like to find "my peoples" anywhere in the world they are, indigenous or not. You might be "orcadian" - tribes are merely groups of peoples, not necessarily one in the US that you can "join" by having the right Indian ancestors. I've never said that I'm looking for any specific tribe by way of FTDNA, but I myself can narrow down my people by logical deduction using Family Finder results, Population Finder results (well, maybe not for me yet) and paper trails.

    -) In speaking with professional genealogists, I've gleaned that I have red ties to Virginia and Maryland at a minimum, and maybe NC. It's a few tribes coming together, not just one relative way down the road; it's several families on both sides from different states. Most people from Delaware are mixed blood of many races, but they either don't know it or don't want to admit it - and that's the truth I have witnessed myself.

    -) I understand that this is somewhat 'bleeding edge' technology, and my results may vary. Daily.

    -) I'm a private investigator

    -) I'm a woman



    Just the facts, ma'am.
    Thank you for the clarification, I've been wondering about this and hearing it from you helps us understand how best to comment and provide guidance, wherever we may help

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X