The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
NYT: "White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier"
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From the New York Times, their spin on the 23andMe racial admixture data that I’ve been writing about for a year or two.

White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier
DEC. 24, 2014

Actually, as the genome data has gotten more precise in the 21st Century, the big surprise has been how white are American whites. I wrote an article back in 2002 about some early Penn State data, but as more genetic markers have been analyzed, the picture has gotten less murky and white Americans have turned out to be extremely white.

by Carl Zimmer

… In the United States, there is a long tradition of trying to draw sharp lines between ethnic groups, but our ancestry is a fluid and complex matter. In recent years geneticists have been uncovering new evidence about our shared heritage, and last week a team of scientists published the biggest genetic profile of the United States to date, based on a study of 160,000 people.

The researchers were able to trace variations in our genetic makeup from state to state, creating for the first time a sort of ancestry map.

“We use these terms — white, black, Indian, Latino — and they don’t really mean what we think they mean,” said Claudio Saunt, a historian at the University of Georgia who was not involved in the study.

The data for the new study were collected by 23andMe, the consumer DNA-testing company. When customers have their genes analyzed, the company asks them if they’d like to make their results available for study by staff scientists.

My guess is that most people who pay to have their ancestry analyzed are older. It’s not uncommon, for example, for the recently retired to get into genealogy.

Over time the company has built a database that not only includes DNA, but also such details as a participant’s birthplace and the ethnic group with which he or she identifies. …

On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans.

The usual estimate is that African-Americans are about 80% black. I’d suspect that this lower figure here may be an artifact of the selection process: paying to have your DNA analyzed probably appeals more to wealthier and whiter African-Americans, such as Henry Louis Gates.

Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African.

Once again, an artifact of the selection process. This sample is clearly not representative of the Mexican-American masses. Typically, studies of non-self-selected Hispanics in the Southwest, such as patients at a hospital, typically find the European and Native American ancestries to be of roughly comparable size.

The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.

Of course, 98.6% white, 0.19% black, and 0.18% Indian only adds up to about 99%, so apparently there is some wiggle room in these numbers. But let’s just use the numbers as printed.

I don’t know which way the sample’s biases push this figure for whites, but in any case: whiteness in modern America turns out to be not very murky at all. These findings of 0.19% black and 0.18% American Indian are tiny numbers.

Think about your family tree back nine generations ago, which would mostly be in the 1700s. You have 512 slots in your family tree nine generations ago (two to the ninth power). The 23andMe numbers suggest that for the average white American, 1 of your 512 ancestors nine generations ago was black and 1 of 512 was Native American.

Here’s another way to think of it. If the average self-identified black is 73.2% black and the average self-identified white is 0.19% black, then the average black in America is 385 times blacker than the average white. That doesn’t seem very murky to me.

These broad estimates masked wide variation among individuals. Based on their sample, the resarchers estimated that over six million European-Americans have some African ancestry. As many as five million have genomes that are at least 1 percent Native American in origin.

There are about 200 million whites, so that means a little over 3% have any black ancestry that can be found by 23andMe.

One in five African-Americans, too, has Native American roots.

Dr. Mountain and her colleagues also looked at how ancestry might influence ethnic identification.

Most Americans with less than 28 percent African-American ancestry say they are white, the researchers found. Above that threshold, people tended to describe themselves as African-American.

Katarzyna Bryc, a 23andMe researcher and co-author of the new study, didn’t want to speculate about why people’s sense of ethnic identity pivots at that point.

The sample size is quite small in this 1/4th black range. The traditional working of the one drop rule tended to push individuals away from 3/4th white / 1/4th black over the generations.

I suspect that this may also be an artifact of 23andMe appealing to genealogy hobbyists, whereas, say, elite African-Americans derive much of their eliteness from their ability to claim African ancestry so they aren’t in a hurry to pay money to find out how white they are: e.g., Professor Gates wasn’t all that excited to find out he’s about half white (if it had turned out he was all white, well, good-bye career).

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. I seriously doubt that anyone has 512 distinct ancestors 9 generations back. Way too many 2nd and 3rd cousin marriages especially in agricultural times for that. As far as aristocrats and royals are concerned the number is even demonstrably smaller.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/#comment-811423
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Prudhomme passed just about everybody, didn’t he? Zero to 300 mph in about 5 seconds.

    Read More
  3. I am a white American with about 3-5% Sub Saharan African (black) ancestry. This indicates that a great great great grandparent was black.

    It was a surprise and no one in my family suspected it. My mother is about 6-8% African American. Her mother was presumably about 12%.

    Our family had a story about being part Native American. I suppose that someone in the 1800s made up that lie to try to “pass” and it carried down through the generations.

    But I have photos of my great grandfather, who would have been about 1/4 black, and he looked white as anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe that white grandfather is not your grandfather.
    , @indigene
    yeah--I did 23andMe and got 0.7% sub Saharan African, close to 2^-7. We also have a Native American story, which I hear is a common cover. Interesting. Maybe some day I'll get my parents typed and get a little closer to understanding the story.
  4. We have some good friends – he’s white and she’s half black, half white. If these stats are correct, she’s probably 40% black. That would make their kids roughly 20% white.

    Their kids are still considered black (self defined, natch) – such are the real beneficiaries of affirmative action.

    As an aside, one of their kids legitimately looks blacks. The other two, not so much (down to the blue eyes).

    Read More
  5. 9 generations back, on either side, would put them in Wales, Scotland, or Damascus in the 1600′s. For the record, the Celts married up.

    Read More
  6. The OP says:

    “The way this is phrased is extremely misleading. Because thinking about race lowers everybody’s IQ a couple of standard deviations, Zimmer should have worked harder to avoid inserting another canard into the conventional wisdom.

    Here’s how a lot of people are going to misinterpret this 28% threshold notion: the average person who is 27% black identifies as white.”

    But the paper shows that the average person who is 27% black in the study DOES identify as white.

    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5

    See Figure 5.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The way this is phrased is extremely misleading. Because thinking about race lowers everybody’s IQ a couple of standard deviations, Zimmer should have worked harder to avoid inserting another canard into the conventional wisdom.
     
    When Zimmer does stuff like this, it's not a matter of working hard or not. His political orientation suggests that he's more likely to be deliberately obscuring the truth. His "Parasite Rex" -- otherwise a very interesting book well worth reading -- includes several pages of gratuitous and nasty political correctness. Recently, following the horiz0ntal transmission of ebola to the US, Zimmer tweeted his hope that the African virus would give Euro-Americans their just desserts for stealing the Indians' land.

    He's a science writer like Matt Ridley, except that he's at a rather different point on the philanthropy/misanthropy scale and the science-as-truth/science-as-politics scale.

  7. I traced family trees on matrilineal and patrilineal descent partly out of curiosity and partly for my relatives who are interested in such things. It goes back pretty far. However, the thing is, when you start talking about people in the 1600-1800 time frame, you will often find an ancestor or two who appear to have mixed, either with Native Americans or African Americans. But the impact will be minor, just by the numbers (less than 1%). I would expect if you only canvassed Americans with Colonial ancestors the % might be a bit higher, not so much the amount of mixture, but the prevalence of some mixture.

    I take it as a given that white, black, and native American mixtures would be exceedingly rare after about 1850 until say the 1960′s.

    Read More
  8. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    As someone else has already said, I think that Carl Zimmer is the Steven J Gould of the 21st century.

    That is not a compliment, by the way.

    Read More
  9. ‘very, very few of them’.

    Didn’t you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Didn’t you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

     

    Below is an iconic photo of JFK with Larry Csonka and OJ Simpson. They look like his two sons from different mothers.

    http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2007/07/photo-of-the--2.html
  10. I’m kind of surprised at the low incidence of American Indian ancestry in the white population.

    Many whites in the American South believe they have Indian ancestry. This is a common conception, and I believe there is even some kind of mockery of it as a mistaken notion.

    But anecdotally my mother does do genealogy research (? Guess that is the right word, more like bookkeeping). And she has found a number of incidences of Indian ancestry, sometimes full blooded Indian, more often though some name pops in that is listed or was described as “half Indian,” though I gather that may actually mean having black ancestry in some cases.

    Now this isn’t scientific. Maybe these are unusual incidences that she just notes because of their rarity or something.

    But from common belief (the Indian ancestry thing), and what she has said of her work I find this data somewhat surprising. Honestly I would have guessed most whites from the South would have had around 2 or 3 % Indian ancestry.

    Geez, if you go to the mountain areas (western North Carolina, East Tennesse, East Kentucky) you see a lot of people that if you squinted your eyes seem kind of Indian looking in a way.

    Maybe my imagination though, but I had always assumed there was more intermarriage in those areas.

    And as a totally unscientific anecdote, I have relatives from Tennessee. None of them can grow facial hair (they’ve tried the beard thing, but it just never works for them). That is another thing I kind of associate with having Indian ancestry, because the family in question generally believes certain ancestors were Indians (to the point where they have years and names).

    Anyway, blather off. I don’t really think it means anything, but a number of people totally identify as white, but also have the belief that they have some portion of non-white ancestry. Perhaps wrongly I had some belief about myself on the Indian issue, but it just meant nothing to my personal self-identity.

    Incidentally, don’t Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn’t you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My in-law from West Virginia thinks he's a little bit American Indian and I don't see reason to disbelieve him.
    , @SPMoore8
    Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the "five civilized tribes" (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read. Nor was it uncommon among French Canadians, who then might migrate south. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is significant mixture in the South, particularly SW VA, TN, NC and SC, GA, AL, and MS, especially to the extent that you follow the Appalachians. That's where we get the "Melungeons" from.

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there's a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons. James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it's almost a given.
    , @Jack D
    For some reason, it has never been shameful to have Indian ancestors in the US, neither among blacks nor among whites, even upper class whites. Indians I guess were brave warriors and had claim to being here first, so it was OK to have them in your family tree (whereas for a white person to have ANY black blood was a shameful secret and not something that you would ever admit in public). In Gates's TV show, just about everyone (aside from the recent immigrants like the Jews) claims Indian ancestry but few actually have any (to the point that it is funny). Blacks especially, since it is pretty clear that few are 100% African, prefer to claim Indian blood rather than the blood of the hated white man.
    , @Anonymous
    Like Sunbeam, I believe this study to be badly flawed. I have always thought that a tremendous proportion of white people in the South have some portion of Indian blood in them from one of the five Civilized Tribes. I believe this because most of the people I have ever talked to around here claim to be part Indian, usually Cherokee. I live in Arkansas, near the Oklahoma border.
    Prior to the Civil War, Cherokees owned black slaves, and brought the slaves with them on the Trail of Tears. The only known slave owner in my ancestry was a full blooded Cherokee. Sometime after the war, the federal government classified the freed black slaves of Indians not as blacks, but as Indians. That is why, to this day, you have obviously black individuals running around claiming to be Indians.
  11. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’ve used 23andMe, and it tells me that I belong to the set of overwhelmingly white Americans, of mostly Irish and British ancestry, with tiny amounts of Ashkenazi and Sub-Saharan in the mix from somewhere way back.

    Given that 23andMe has ripped the Rawlsian veil of ignorance away from human ancestry, and that it shows that the concept of race as inbreeding extended families makes perfectly good sense after all, why hasn’t the Southern Poverty Law Center denounced this company and its fans as a hate group?

    Read More
  12. @Sunbeam
    I'm kind of surprised at the low incidence of American Indian ancestry in the white population.

    Many whites in the American South believe they have Indian ancestry. This is a common conception, and I believe there is even some kind of mockery of it as a mistaken notion.

    But anecdotally my mother does do genealogy research (? Guess that is the right word, more like bookkeeping). And she has found a number of incidences of Indian ancestry, sometimes full blooded Indian, more often though some name pops in that is listed or was described as "half Indian," though I gather that may actually mean having black ancestry in some cases.

    Now this isn't scientific. Maybe these are unusual incidences that she just notes because of their rarity or something.

    But from common belief (the Indian ancestry thing), and what she has said of her work I find this data somewhat surprising. Honestly I would have guessed most whites from the South would have had around 2 or 3 % Indian ancestry.

    Geez, if you go to the mountain areas (western North Carolina, East Tennesse, East Kentucky) you see a lot of people that if you squinted your eyes seem kind of Indian looking in a way.

    Maybe my imagination though, but I had always assumed there was more intermarriage in those areas.

    And as a totally unscientific anecdote, I have relatives from Tennessee. None of them can grow facial hair (they've tried the beard thing, but it just never works for them). That is another thing I kind of associate with having Indian ancestry, because the family in question generally believes certain ancestors were Indians (to the point where they have years and names).

    Anyway, blather off. I don't really think it means anything, but a number of people totally identify as white, but also have the belief that they have some portion of non-white ancestry. Perhaps wrongly I had some belief about myself on the Indian issue, but it just meant nothing to my personal self-identity.

    Incidentally, don't Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn't you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    My in-law from West Virginia thinks he’s a little bit American Indian and I don’t see reason to disbelieve him.

    Read More
  13. I’m beginning to appreciate even more the fact that the territory of the US was pretty much held and molded in it’s early days by Anglo types who kept things separate and orderly. It it were the Spanish or others similar we’d be just one big Brazil North.

    Read More
  14. I think the white stats are also somewhat self-selected.

    I can guarantee you that if you sampled white americans living in the south, texas, the southern plains, you would get much higher nonwhite ancestry, in particular, indian.

    As the scots-irish moved west and south they interbred with the indians and some blacks.

    I am from west texas and am part indian. But it was not uncommon for whites in rural texas in the 50s and 60s to have some indian in them. I would bet that close to 50 percent of west texas whites in the 1950s had some indian in them.

    Most of the whites in the south, texas and the southern plains have ancestors that go back hundreds of years.

    But I would bet that whites who have had their ancestry tested come disproportionately from the north east atlantic metro area and california and the upper midwest. These areas are not generally populated with high percentages of the scots irish whose roots go back hundreds of years in america. I have seen a photo of one of my indian ancestors. But it is almost certain I have other indian ancestors from long ago. At least one of my ancestors came over from scotland in the late 1600s.

    I don’t think the high nonwhite ancestry of the scots irish would fit into the narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Have to agree with you 100%. My own genealogical research indicates that the early settlers, especially Scotch Irish in the South and French in the North (Canada) intermarried a lot. Partly because "race" wasn't so much on the table in the first place, but also because of the shortage of women.

    There's also the fact that the frontier allowed a lot of "passing." IOW, if you were considered a native American or a black person in one location, if you left, you could reinvent yourself as much as you could get away with it. And once you passed, then you married within your newly identified (here, white) group. Thus the descendants of a mulatto or part native who passed in 1850, after 100 years, would only have a tiny fraction of whatever mixture he was in the first place.

    , @Jonathan Silber
    I can guarantee you that if you sampled white americans living in the south, texas, the southern plains, you would get much higher nonwhite ancestry, in particular, indian.

    Maybe owing to a more vibrant party scene at Phi Kappa Psi houses away down South.

  15. Wait a minute. I thought, according to the Narrative, race was supposed to be merely a social construct.

    Read More
  16. @Sunbeam
    I'm kind of surprised at the low incidence of American Indian ancestry in the white population.

    Many whites in the American South believe they have Indian ancestry. This is a common conception, and I believe there is even some kind of mockery of it as a mistaken notion.

    But anecdotally my mother does do genealogy research (? Guess that is the right word, more like bookkeeping). And she has found a number of incidences of Indian ancestry, sometimes full blooded Indian, more often though some name pops in that is listed or was described as "half Indian," though I gather that may actually mean having black ancestry in some cases.

    Now this isn't scientific. Maybe these are unusual incidences that she just notes because of their rarity or something.

    But from common belief (the Indian ancestry thing), and what she has said of her work I find this data somewhat surprising. Honestly I would have guessed most whites from the South would have had around 2 or 3 % Indian ancestry.

    Geez, if you go to the mountain areas (western North Carolina, East Tennesse, East Kentucky) you see a lot of people that if you squinted your eyes seem kind of Indian looking in a way.

    Maybe my imagination though, but I had always assumed there was more intermarriage in those areas.

    And as a totally unscientific anecdote, I have relatives from Tennessee. None of them can grow facial hair (they've tried the beard thing, but it just never works for them). That is another thing I kind of associate with having Indian ancestry, because the family in question generally believes certain ancestors were Indians (to the point where they have years and names).

    Anyway, blather off. I don't really think it means anything, but a number of people totally identify as white, but also have the belief that they have some portion of non-white ancestry. Perhaps wrongly I had some belief about myself on the Indian issue, but it just meant nothing to my personal self-identity.

    Incidentally, don't Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn't you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the “five civilized tribes” (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read. Nor was it uncommon among French Canadians, who then might migrate south. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is significant mixture in the South, particularly SW VA, TN, NC and SC, GA, AL, and MS, especially to the extent that you follow the Appalachians. That’s where we get the “Melungeons” from.

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there’s a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons. James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it’s almost a given.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the “five civilized tribes” (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read."

    The Creek were civilized? Well they had a civilization for sure, but those guys were very warlike.

    The guy from Westhunter had some posts about the Commanche. Pretty interesting, and probably they were more successful at warfare for a number of reasons.

    But heck it wasn't really that long ago that the Creek were frightening. The big massacre in Alabama around roughly 1815 comes to mind. That was like 5 or 6 hundred people.

    On a related note I once worked with a guy in the 1990's, a fellow in his 60's. He remembered his grandmother telling him stories about her father hiding her from the Seminoles in South Georgia. The chicken coop was attached to the rear of the house and he stuffed her in a wooden box that contained grain (or corn more likely).

    It really wasn't that long ago. Just as a guess he would have heard that story in the 40's. So 1860's maybe? Guess it could be a tall tale, but he wasn't really that type.

    And if you have ever heard the saying "The good Lord willing, and the Creek don't rise," well it isn't about some small stream or something from what I have heard.
    , @ben tillman

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there’s a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons.
     
    Yes, there is. Oddly, though, there are an amazing number of blued-eyed people in Oklahoma. There are even people with Indian ancestry who claim there is such a thing as "dominant" blue eyes.

    James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it’s almost a given.
     
    Rockford's favorite alias was almost exactly the same as the name of my wife's half-breed ancestor who was known by people still living.
  17. One of Oklahoma’s first two Senators (Glass of the Glass-Steagall Act) was vaguely Indian. (The other was Gore Vidal’s blind grandfather.) As a litigator, he had won $5 million compensation for the Cherokees in a Supreme Court decision.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CMB
    "One of Oklahoma’s first two Senators (Glass of the Glass-Steagall Act) was vaguely Indian."

    That was Robert Owen. Carter Glass was from Virginia.
  18. @leftist conservative
    I think the white stats are also somewhat self-selected.

    I can guarantee you that if you sampled white americans living in the south, texas, the southern plains, you would get much higher nonwhite ancestry, in particular, indian.

    As the scots-irish moved west and south they interbred with the indians and some blacks.

    I am from west texas and am part indian. But it was not uncommon for whites in rural texas in the 50s and 60s to have some indian in them. I would bet that close to 50 percent of west texas whites in the 1950s had some indian in them.

    Most of the whites in the south, texas and the southern plains have ancestors that go back hundreds of years.

    But I would bet that whites who have had their ancestry tested come disproportionately from the north east atlantic metro area and california and the upper midwest. These areas are not generally populated with high percentages of the scots irish whose roots go back hundreds of years in america. I have seen a photo of one of my indian ancestors. But it is almost certain I have other indian ancestors from long ago. At least one of my ancestors came over from scotland in the late 1600s.

    I don't think the high nonwhite ancestry of the scots irish would fit into the narrative.

    Have to agree with you 100%. My own genealogical research indicates that the early settlers, especially Scotch Irish in the South and French in the North (Canada) intermarried a lot. Partly because “race” wasn’t so much on the table in the first place, but also because of the shortage of women.

    There’s also the fact that the frontier allowed a lot of “passing.” IOW, if you were considered a native American or a black person in one location, if you left, you could reinvent yourself as much as you could get away with it. And once you passed, then you married within your newly identified (here, white) group. Thus the descendants of a mulatto or part native who passed in 1850, after 100 years, would only have a tiny fraction of whatever mixture he was in the first place.

    Read More
  19. Wow, those Indians sure were good breeders! I swear every white Texan and Southern Boy is at LEAST 1/8 Indian.

    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually it was the white guys lovin' them some squaw on the side, but of course in these days and times, its spun to be the opposite.
    , @Former Darfur
    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    No, overwhelmingly mixing was white males and native females. I had uncles and cousins in the Army that used to hook up with the half-white Bettie Page trailer types when based at the southwestern forts, and I know of at least one child so fathered. Old Sarge paid child support, but marriage would have been out of the question. If an auntie or niece had been putting out for some Indian she'd have been disowned and I wouldn't have heard of it. The so called double standard was just common sense in those days and the women knew there was a big difference between what was OK for them and for the boys.

    Besides, very few native men really appeal to white women. They don't work, they are drunks and they are rough and unsatisfactory bed companions. Men, being much less fussy as to with whom they will do it with, find native women more satisfactory, and native girls especially if they are half white are usually somewhat clean and will present themselves invitingly. Although satisfactory as bedmates, marrying one leads to misery for most white men who do and most know it. I have worked with more than one white man who married a part-Indian woman, and every one of them regretted every aspect of the relationship except the sex. Bettie Page turns into Rosie O'Donnell or worse pretty fast.
  20. @ Sunbeam,

    Incidentally, don’t Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn’t you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    In most of Italy it is generally 1 percent and less. Though, some areas such as in Sicily, amounts of 2 to 3 percent have been found. It is believed these lineages arrived roughly 10,000 years a go.

    Read More
  21. @Steve Sailer
    One of Oklahoma's first two Senators (Glass of the Glass-Steagall Act) was vaguely Indian. (The other was Gore Vidal's blind grandfather.) As a litigator, he had won $5 million compensation for the Cherokees in a Supreme Court decision.

    “One of Oklahoma’s first two Senators (Glass of the Glass-Steagall Act) was vaguely Indian.”

    That was Robert Owen. Carter Glass was from Virginia.

    Read More
  22. Most blacks go back in this country a long time, meaning they have been a minority in a majority white country, with all the opportunities for admixture, for many generations. A lot of whites go back only a few generations. That and the one drop rule make a difference.

    Read More
  23. If you have to go back to the 1700s to find a black ancestor that probably means there wasn’t one as the black population of Europe at that time was negligible. The black genes probably date back to the time of the Roman Empire when small numbers of African slaves were settled in European provinces which perhaps had significant mortality due to malaria. Any racial mixing probably happened over 1800 years ago.

    Read More
  24. This sample is clearly not representative of the Mexican-American masses.

    Exactly. I did the Nat Geo test on a Mexican anchor baby ex-gf of mine a few years ago. 54% Indian, 42% white, 4% black. She looked it but had a sister who could pass for white.

    Read More
  25. @anony-mouse
    'very, very few of them'.

    Didn't you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

    Didn’t you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

    Below is an iconic photo of JFK with Larry Csonka and OJ Simpson. They look like his two sons from different mothers.

    http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2007/07/photo-of-the–2.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    On the one hand: It's nice to see Truth back. As I've said for years, I'll take Truth over Whiskey any day . . . .

    On the other hand: JFK? And as far as the actual pic goes, sons from different mothers seems like a two-timing stretch for J Edgar.
    , @Michelle
    Oh my gosh, that is funny!
  26. @SPMoore8
    Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the "five civilized tribes" (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read. Nor was it uncommon among French Canadians, who then might migrate south. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is significant mixture in the South, particularly SW VA, TN, NC and SC, GA, AL, and MS, especially to the extent that you follow the Appalachians. That's where we get the "Melungeons" from.

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there's a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons. James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it's almost a given.

    “Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the “five civilized tribes” (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read.”

    The Creek were civilized? Well they had a civilization for sure, but those guys were very warlike.

    The guy from Westhunter had some posts about the Commanche. Pretty interesting, and probably they were more successful at warfare for a number of reasons.

    But heck it wasn’t really that long ago that the Creek were frightening. The big massacre in Alabama around roughly 1815 comes to mind. That was like 5 or 6 hundred people.

    On a related note I once worked with a guy in the 1990′s, a fellow in his 60′s. He remembered his grandmother telling him stories about her father hiding her from the Seminoles in South Georgia. The chicken coop was attached to the rear of the house and he stuffed her in a wooden box that contained grain (or corn more likely).

    It really wasn’t that long ago. Just as a guess he would have heard that story in the 40′s. So 1860′s maybe? Guess it could be a tall tale, but he wasn’t really that type.

    And if you have ever heard the saying “The good Lord willing, and the Creek don’t rise,” well it isn’t about some small stream or something from what I have heard.

    Read More
  27. I used to think I had a little Indian in me because a great-grandmother was born out of wedlock to a family that had known connections to local Indians. Not only did 23andme show me to be completely white, I also found out that some of my white ancestors had been the victims of Indian raiders in western Virginia in the late 1700s. Damn.

    Read More
  28. @Sunbeam
    I'm kind of surprised at the low incidence of American Indian ancestry in the white population.

    Many whites in the American South believe they have Indian ancestry. This is a common conception, and I believe there is even some kind of mockery of it as a mistaken notion.

    But anecdotally my mother does do genealogy research (? Guess that is the right word, more like bookkeeping). And she has found a number of incidences of Indian ancestry, sometimes full blooded Indian, more often though some name pops in that is listed or was described as "half Indian," though I gather that may actually mean having black ancestry in some cases.

    Now this isn't scientific. Maybe these are unusual incidences that she just notes because of their rarity or something.

    But from common belief (the Indian ancestry thing), and what she has said of her work I find this data somewhat surprising. Honestly I would have guessed most whites from the South would have had around 2 or 3 % Indian ancestry.

    Geez, if you go to the mountain areas (western North Carolina, East Tennesse, East Kentucky) you see a lot of people that if you squinted your eyes seem kind of Indian looking in a way.

    Maybe my imagination though, but I had always assumed there was more intermarriage in those areas.

    And as a totally unscientific anecdote, I have relatives from Tennessee. None of them can grow facial hair (they've tried the beard thing, but it just never works for them). That is another thing I kind of associate with having Indian ancestry, because the family in question generally believes certain ancestors were Indians (to the point where they have years and names).

    Anyway, blather off. I don't really think it means anything, but a number of people totally identify as white, but also have the belief that they have some portion of non-white ancestry. Perhaps wrongly I had some belief about myself on the Indian issue, but it just meant nothing to my personal self-identity.

    Incidentally, don't Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn't you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    For some reason, it has never been shameful to have Indian ancestors in the US, neither among blacks nor among whites, even upper class whites. Indians I guess were brave warriors and had claim to being here first, so it was OK to have them in your family tree (whereas for a white person to have ANY black blood was a shameful secret and not something that you would ever admit in public). In Gates’s TV show, just about everyone (aside from the recent immigrants like the Jews) claims Indian ancestry but few actually have any (to the point that it is funny). Blacks especially, since it is pretty clear that few are 100% African, prefer to claim Indian blood rather than the blood of the hated white man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    What I find interesting is that the WN types find Indian ancestry to be far more acceptable than part-East Asian ancestry. I guess this is just a rare example of racialists ignoring HDB completely. Given that pure Native-Americans have lower IQ, lower educational achievement, and higher crime than East Asians, one would think they would prefer mixing with the latter rather than the former, in instances where they would accept mixing at all.
    , @A little bit Indian
    That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. How sad that the situation has degenerated so much since.
    As for not worrying about a bit of Indian blood (from the civilised tribes of course): of course one is or would be proud of such blood. These were warriors and they even beat us quite a number of times.
    The blacks never consistently managed that back in Africa; here, of course, they were slaves, and no one wants to be descended from those.
  29. The Glass-Steagall Act was so-called for it’s sponsors; Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama. Glass was married to a distant cousin, and as far as I can tell both were descendants of Anglo-Scots-Irish (and on her side Anglo-Scots-Irish-Welsh) settlers; in no particular order, but Glass was far more Anglo than she was. While digging into family roots I heard a lot about Indian ancestry but it never panned out . . . wishful thinking on somebody’s part.

    Read More
  30. @Truth



    Didn’t you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

     

    Below is an iconic photo of JFK with Larry Csonka and OJ Simpson. They look like his two sons from different mothers.

    http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2007/07/photo-of-the--2.html

    On the one hand: It’s nice to see Truth back. As I’ve said for years, I’ll take Truth over Whiskey any day . . . .

    On the other hand: JFK? And as far as the actual pic goes, sons from different mothers seems like a two-timing stretch for J Edgar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Edward
    O.J. Simpson should pose with Obama: a halfback and a half-black!
  31. The 1 in 512 thing is not right because black blood is not evenly distributed. If the average is .19% but 97% of whites have zero (as you say), then the 3% that have some have a LOT more than .19% – 33 times as much or 6.33% on average, for those who have any at all (.97×0%+.03×6.33%) = .19%.

    By the time of the great urban immigrant wave of the late 19th/early 20% century, miscegenation was highly looked down upon (and illegal in many places) until the 1960s so most of those immigrants (Italians , Jews, etc.) are 0% black.

    Averages are very misleading because no one is an “average” person. I’m guessing that whites with black ancestry fall into certain well defined groups – Creoles from New Orleans, “white” Cubans, etc. and again most of the rest of us have none at all. So the statement that the average white American is .19% black is totally misleading. The median white American has NO black ancestry at all, and a small tail group of 6 million are between .01 and 25% black. Even this group is not uniform – those who have 12 or 25% (for example Obama’s children if he had married his white girlfriend) are from a small group of recent formation and then there must be a larger group (since the average is only 6%) that has significantly less than 6%. If there was an even distribution from .01 to 25%, the average (among those who have any black genes at all) would be 12.5% but it’s half that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @james wilson
    Pre-Civil War northern blacks were 100% African. All those photos of black Union troops don't lie. So all the mixing happened first in the south, and not in the way of popular opinion.

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only--which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well, who then had that example to work from. Those relatively small number of slaves who were largely white became wildly successful reproductively after the war--with blacks.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Yes to all you said.

    The problem with talking about "white Americans" is that there really is no such thing. The conditions that prevailed in 17th century Virginia do not pertain to 19th century Kentucky, to 20th century Pennsylvania, etc. Each area had its peculiarities.

    Here's an example. Seventeenth century Virginia (not the US, a colony of Britain) had Indians, free whites, indentured whites, indentured blacks, and black slaves. The legal status of blacks wasn't settled until 1662, when the Virginia House of Burgesses ruled partus sequitur ventrem.

    Before that, intermarriage between freed black and white indentured servants was not uncommon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Key_Grinstead

    A "black" descendant of William and Elizabeth:

    http://image1.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2008/91/24568237_120707520109.jpg

  32. As Sailer said, it’s pretty clear (there’s nothing whatever murky) that Whites in the US are effectively 100% White and non-Whites are very mixed. And this is no big surprise because almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive, so admixture by Whites with non-Whites produces something that does not look White and will not (absent great wealth or some other distinction) have a very strong likelihood of breeding with a White in the next generation, resulting in some sort of “bleaching” effect–in Mexico of course the “bleaching” has been much more dramatic among the upper crust and even there chances are low of anything like more than a 10% non-White component among the “Whites” of mexico.

    Historically, the only option for a half-breed (White-Black, White-Indian) would be to breed with another non-White and thereby cement his descendents as non-White. The future obviously will be different as the proportion of 100% Whites (traditional Whites) is becoming smaller and smaller–very possibly, as in much of central and south America, there will be a much more flexible approach to Whiteness but all the time the upper crust will always be pressing for greater “bleaching” so that in the end I’m not sure that much will be different other than a country where nearly every White was 100% White will become a country where most Whites are merely 90% White.

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had “Indian” blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising. The Anglos always had their own girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn’t breed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive"

    Not vs east-Asian.

    BTW among my in-laws the half Japanese half Afro-American dad looks conventionally black. His half white quarter Japanese quarter Afro-American children look white by British standards. By American standards I think his half-white son still looks white but I guess his daughter looks somewhat indeterminate, probably likely taken for Hispanic, in Latin America she'd be a quadroon I guess.
    , @syonredux

    Fear of a White Planet

    One of the main facts about American life is hypodescent, “the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed-race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.” Barack Obama & the Kenyan politician Raila Odinga (who, probably falsely, claims to be Obama’s first cousin) are both “black,” despite the fact that when compared to each other Obama’s substantial European ancestry is rather clear. I recall years ago watching the Oprah Winfrey television show where they were discussing the issue of self-hatred with a young black woman who was attempting to become impregnated by a white man (any white man) so that her children would “look white” and be beautiful. An adoption counselor rose up and told this young woman that her agency had many biracial children who they were attempting to place, and “none of them look white, they all look black.” The clear and present background axiom here is that the power of black phenotype ensured the futility of this young woman’s “quest.”


    In hindsight it seems to me that these perceptions are mostly socially constructed. Years ago I had a friend who was of mixed European and Japanese origin who was raised in Japan. I recall once that someone stated that they were surprised that her father was a white American, as she looked “totally Japanese.” My friend got irritated, and replied that that was rather interesting as growing up in Japan people would tell her how white she looked. Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context; in Japan my friend’s white characteristics were very salient, while in the United States her Japanese ones were. The norms of reference were socially conditioned, so the scaling of phenotype did not have a linearly proportional effect on perception in identity. In other words, a rather small absolute physical deviation from the social norm can elicit strong relative perceptions of difference.

    All that being said, phenotypes do not emerge just out of our own minds, rather, they often genetically controlled. I have posted a fair amount on skin color because within the last 5 years we’ve really figured out how it shapes the normal range of human variation. In short, about half a dozen loci seem to account for nearly all the between population differences in complexion. But I was talking to a friend today and explained how I realized recently that the nature of the genetic architecture was actually rather counterintuitive from an American perspective. In short, whiteness is dominant!

    More precisely, I noticed that two of the loci of largest effect, SLC24A5 and KITLG, manifest a dominance component in terms of lightening skin color. In other words, if you took a West African and a Northern European their offspring would exhibit a lighter complexion than you would expect from simply blending the two phenotypes.


    In the case of SLC24A5 an ancestral guanine base mutated into an adenine at a particular position. For KITLG the reverse occurred. These changes resulted in an operational loss of function in relation to the melanin production for humans so that skin became lighter, and the variant was picked up and driven toward fixation among Europeans by natural selection. The table above illustrates the values of decrease in M index as you substitute an allele on the locus; as you can see, there are diminishing returns. This means that the heterozyogte state is closer to one than the other when taken against a genetic background. Fortunately for us I don’t need to get into statistical assumptions about averaging when comparing Europeans and Africans when it comes to skin color genes; the two populations have very different genetic backgrounds in reference to the variance we’re interested in. For SLC24A5 Europeans and West Africans exhibit disjoint allelic states, almost all Europeans carry the derived variant, while almost all Africans carry the ancestral. For KITLG the numbers are not as extreme, with each population having an 80-95% proportion for the major allele, but the minor allele frequencies are rare enough that its homozygotes are extant on the order of 1%. In other words, if an African and a Northern European produced offspring chances are they would be heterozygotes on these loci.

    We know that West Africans average around 60 for their M Index, while Europeans around 30. That’s a 30 unit spectrum. Adding up the unit effects above you see that SLC24A5 and KITLG account for 16 of them, in other words, over half of the between population variation in skin color in regards to West Africans and Europeans can be attributed to differences on these two genes! Let’s assume that additivity and independence apply to the 14 units not accounted for by these two genes. What does the dominance effect manifest on SLC24A5 and KITLG tell us in regards to the expectation for the offspring?

    This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population). It should be noted though that the dominance effect would definitely aid in the spread of these alleles through a population because of their immediate exposure to selection due to their strong expression in heterozygote genotypes.

    I think this is all rather interesting because at least judging from emails I receive the general perception is that dark skin is a dominant trait. This is true, if you bin the phenotypes into “dark” and “white,” so that the latter only includes complexions around a narrow range of 30 melanin units. In contrast, when you examine the issue quantitatively it doesn’t turn out that way at all. At a coarse first glance a blending/additive model seems to be appropriate for modeling skin color as a quantitative trait, but upon closer inspection dominance effects need to be noted. Instead of being buried in a rising tide of color, a panmictic world would exhibit a stronger effect of au lait. Next time someone brings up the blondes going extinct meme, you might want to point this out (after explaining the nature of the expression of complex traits in diploid organisms first of course).

     

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/#.VJweisAMA
    , @syonredux

    There is one aspect of paper and The New York Times article which I think is worth commenting on:

    Most Americans with less than 28 percent African-American ancestry say they are white, the researchers found. Above that threshold, people tended to describe themselves as African-American.

    Katarzyna Bryc, a 23andMe researcher and co-author of the new study, didn’t want to speculate about why people’s sense of ethnic identity pivots at that point.

    I will speculate. The 28 percent proportion is about where African ancestry becomes salient, or not. In a de facto sense today the law of hypodescent applies only those who have visible African ancestry. In the United States these individuals are classified as black, no matter the preponderance of their lineage. A good example here is Rashida Jones, the daughter of Quincy Jones and Peggy Lipton. Quincy Jones has had some genetic analysis done, and he is about 2/3 African and 1/3 European. The expected value then for Rashida Jones is that she is 1/3 African in ancestry, though that may vary up or down a bit (her mother is an Ashkenazi Jew). Rashida Jones regularly plays white characters in film and television, and she does so because African features are not very evident in her. In contrast, her sister Kidada is just a bit more African in her features, and profiles of them growing up have indicated that while Rashida identified with her Jewish side (and still does), Kidada felt more black. In contrast, people who are 1/4th Asian, such as Keanu Reeves, are not subject to hypodescent in the United States, because Asian features are not as salient to white and black Americans, and white supremacy in the American South was generally aimed at blacks (my friend David Boxenhorn, who is Ashkenazi Jewish, finds it amusing that both my children have lighter eyes than any of his children).
     
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/american-racial-boundaries-are-quite-distinct-for-now/
    , @Major Problem
    The Anglos always had their own [Indian] girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn’t breed.

    I don't think so. There was always only a limited time-frame when whites had an opportunity and motive to intermix with Indians on the frontier. That was when they (whites) were in an equal or subordinate position. Subordinate meaning they were captives of or "escapees"* to tribes who still possessed their historic power base, or traders interacting with powerful tribes. Equal as in a white man whose only possessions were a Hawken rifle, a "possibles" bag and perhaps an ax, who ventured into the wilderness and needed allies and a helpmeet to survive.
    Once the Indians had been defeated, the pitiful and few survivors were driven out or isolated on reservations, and only outcast whites or long-time white associates (such as old beaver trappers, buffalo hunters and mountain men who had married into the tribe) would have personal relations with them.
    In my case, my documented European ancestors (Swiss, German, Danish, Dutch, Scandanavian-Norman) all came to America between roughly 1730 and 1830, generally landing in Philadelphia. That meant that they were arriving in a settled community and they had to push on westward to find farming land and opportunities to establish themselves.
    The result was that they were frontiersmen and by necessity dealt with still-powerful Indian tribes as subordinates or equals. One, a homesteader in the Ohio river valley area, whose white family was massacred by Shawnees, subsequently married a Delaware Indian and they drifted west together. He died in 1808. Another, a trader, married into the Cheyenne to facilitate his business dealings. He died in 1846. My direct ancestral line had arrived in Oregon Territory by the 1840s, and moved down into California with the Gold Rush. In all that time since arriving on the Pacific coast, there was never another intermixture with Indians. I assume that's because the California Indians were both poor and powerless and there was no incentive to do so.
    As far as family looks go, I am blonde and bluish-gray-eyed, as was my mother. My father had brown hair and blue eyes as did my maternal grandfather and grandmother. My paternal grandmother had auburn hair and hazel eyes. My paternal grandfather had black hair. I don't remember what color his eyes were.

    *Historian of the West Bernard DeVoto once wrote that he had compiled a list of 1,000 white men who had run away to join the Indians of the Far West before about 1840. After that he stopped counting. He found not one single white woman who had run away to join the Indians, though quite a few were captured by Indians and lived out their lives among them.

  33. “Here’s another way to think of it. If the average self-identified black is 73.2% black and the average self-identified white is 0.19% black, then the average black in America is 385 times blacker than the average white. That doesn’t seem very murky to me.”

    Is 0.19% Black considered Negro enough for affirmative action purposes ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill

    Is 0.19% Black considered Negro enough for affirmative action purposes ?
     
    It sounds like "One Drop" to me. :)

    However, if you mean "affirmative action" in the get-contracts-and-free-money-from-the-government sense, I doubt it.

    In order to qualify for racial set-asides, for example, you have to be certified "Negro" by an official Negro certification agency approved by the Feds. They will do home visits, look at your birth certificate and driver's license, check your skin color, ask if you are a member of the NAACP, AKA, Boule, etc., do a home inspection (e.g. African masks on the walls? Orange/green/black prints or furnishings? photos of dark-skinned relations, etc.).

    It isn't to say that hi-yalla one-droppers CAN'T be officially certified as "Negro", but it is very, very hard. If you look white and act white there is very little chance. "Self-identification" just doesn't work.

    There are Negro certification agencies in pretty much all the major US cities.
  34. When you factor in how large the Black population is in Louisiana, it’s amazing that only 12 percent of Whites in Louisiana have some Black admixture.

    People overestimate how many people in Louisiana were “Passing”. Some people try to paint Louisiana as being as Multiracial as Latin America.

    Read More
  35. Boy, that social construct of a “One Drop Rule” sure did imprint itself on the genetic realities of America.

    I guess the message from all respectable media today is “let us never again think hard about what we want our country to be”

    Read More
  36. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I was always told I was as much as 1/16th Native American… turns out it was 0%. I did however come to find that I’m 4% Central Asian — and I haven’t the foggiest notion of where it comes from. Speaking of which, Steve, Asian is where that”missing” 1% you couldn’t find is from, I presume.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "I’m 4% Central Asian — and I haven’t the foggiest notion of where it comes from."

    Genghis Khan
  37. Tina Turner –lots of Indian
    Joe Jackson — same (Michael Jackson’s father)
    Same for the Jackson Five and the sisters
    Neil Young looks a bit
    Gene Clark (Byrds) looks part Indian. He’s from Oklahoma
    Condaleeza Rice seems part Indian.

    Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s preacher) looks very white. He was in the US Navy elite and >>

    “The first photograph was taken during the hospitalization of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. Jeremiah Wright, in his official capacity as military medical personnel, assists in the medical procedure and is standing next to the president on the gurney. A letter of commendation to Rev. Wright from Vice Admiral George Burkley, the president’s personal physician is also posted to the site.”

    The Mocha elite:
    Eric Holder and his wife
    Jeh Johnson — Open borders saboteur
    Valarie Jarret
    Kamala Harris

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jeremiah Wright looks a lot like former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.
  38. “In the United States, there is a long tradition of trying to draw sharp lines between ethnic groups”

    Gads, I just hate that formulation. As if the United States is somehow unique in doing this. When the mainstream media uses the phrase, it’s nearly always to condemn, at least by implication. I suspect that most countries have a similar “long tradition.”

    Read More
  39. “But the paper shows that the average person who is 27% black in the study DOES identify as white. ”

    Any so-called “White” person in the U.S who has as much as 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture is most likely either North African like Egyptian for example or Latin American like Cuban for example.

    You are not going to find any WASP, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, or Jew White in the U.S with anywhere near 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    You are not going to find any WASP, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, or Jew White in the U.S with anywhere near 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture.
     
    You might find ones who consider themselves to be White, but the opinion of others might be quite different.
  40. Remember the fake DNA test that said Craig Cobb has 14 percent Sub Saharan African admixture. If Craig Cobb really was 14 percent Sub Saharan African, you would expect that he would at least have a North African looking phenotype like Moroccan or Egyptian for example, in other words racially ambiguous/Off White. But he just looks like a regular Northern European WASP.

    Read More
  41. NYT, 12/24/14 – For Recent Black College Graduates, a Tougher Road to Employment

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/business/for-recent-black-college-graduates-a-tougher-road-to-employment.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

    William Zonicle did what all the job experts advise. He majored in a growing field like health care. He studied hard and took time to develop relationships with his professors. Most important, he obtained a great internship in the human resources department at Florida Hospital in Tampa the summer before his senior year. But more than seven months after receiving his diploma from Oakwood University, a historically black religious school in Huntsville, Ala., Mr. Zonicle is still without a job in his field. Instead, he is working part-time for $7.60 an hour at a Barnes & Noble bookstore in the center of town…

    College graduates have survived both the recession and ho-hum recovery far better than those without a degree, but blacks who finished four years of college are suffering from unemployment rates that are painfully high compared with their white counterparts…

    Immig…???

    Read More
  42. When you factor in how large the Black population is in Louisiana, it’s amazing that only 12 percent of Whites in Louisiana have some Black admixture.

    I’m sure it is higher than this for two reasons (1) selection effect: 23andme users are older and richer than the general Louisiana population (2) 23andme is not refined enough to always pick up small amounts of ancestry. For example, full siblings will often get different ancestry results.

    Read More
  43. @leftist conservative
    I think the white stats are also somewhat self-selected.

    I can guarantee you that if you sampled white americans living in the south, texas, the southern plains, you would get much higher nonwhite ancestry, in particular, indian.

    As the scots-irish moved west and south they interbred with the indians and some blacks.

    I am from west texas and am part indian. But it was not uncommon for whites in rural texas in the 50s and 60s to have some indian in them. I would bet that close to 50 percent of west texas whites in the 1950s had some indian in them.

    Most of the whites in the south, texas and the southern plains have ancestors that go back hundreds of years.

    But I would bet that whites who have had their ancestry tested come disproportionately from the north east atlantic metro area and california and the upper midwest. These areas are not generally populated with high percentages of the scots irish whose roots go back hundreds of years in america. I have seen a photo of one of my indian ancestors. But it is almost certain I have other indian ancestors from long ago. At least one of my ancestors came over from scotland in the late 1600s.

    I don't think the high nonwhite ancestry of the scots irish would fit into the narrative.

    I can guarantee you that if you sampled white americans living in the south, texas, the southern plains, you would get much higher nonwhite ancestry, in particular, indian.

    Maybe owing to a more vibrant party scene at Phi Kappa Psi houses away down South.

    Read More
  44. Some might remember that by far the most important American fascist theorist of the 1930s was a mulatto, Lawrence Dennis. Dennis had great hopes for Huey Long, only to see him assassinated in 1935:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/12/lawrence-dennis-and-a-frontier-thesis-for-american-capitalism/#more-51946

    But a truly influential fascist demagogue never developed in America (Huey Long, for whom Dennis expressed admiration as “. . . smarter than Hitler, but he needs a good braintrust,”[43] might have become one), and Dennis was left to conjure intellectual rationales for an American fascism that existed more in the world of myth and wish. “Goebbels, after all, had a government to transform dreams into reality, and Dennis, only the Harvard Club,” Schlesinger wrote.[44] As for the existing reality of American fascist activists, who were of the mentality to agree with him without necessarily being able to comprehend him, Dennis had “progressively to lower his sights” in order to reach them. Seeing himself as “the sophisticated spokesman of a revolutionary elite in a technological epoch,” Dennis, like Seward Collins, found to his chagrin that the “elite which was to save civilization eventually turned out to be a collection of stumblebums and psychopaths, united primarily by an obsessive fear of an imaginary Jewish conspiracy. What began as an intimation of the apocalypse ended as squalid farce.”

    Read More
  45. Think what you could do with this admixture data, correlated with some other test score or life outcome data.

    The progressive theory of racial disparity is hypodescent discrimination. Everyone who looks black enough is subject to the same amount of oppression, even Gates himself.

    That theory would predict something like a sharp discontinuity between all people who appear black enough and all people who appear white enough.

    On the other hand, HBD would predict a tight correlation between European admixture and scores or outcomes, and a smooth, continuous transition from the West African Mean to the European Mean.

    It’s the ultimate test of the nature (genes) or nurture (social oppression) debate.

    Now that deserves a kickstarter.

    I suspect we can even get someone like Gates or Oprah to do this test, if you frame it as if one is trying to prove the reality of the impact of unjust discrimination, once and for all, to that stubborn remnant of ignorant, wicked haters out there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    I suspect we can even get someone like Gates or Oprah to do this test, if you frame it as if one is trying to prove the reality of the impact of unjust discrimination, once and for all, to that stubborn remnant of ignorant, wicked haters out there.
     
    As soon as they notice the results the data will be suppressed.

    Indeed, they might already know what the data will show and likely could not be tricked into supporting such research.
    , @ben tillman

    On the other hand, HBD would predict a tight correlation between European admixture and scores or outcomes, and a smooth, continuous transition from the West African Mean to the European Mean.

    It’s the ultimate test of the nature (genes) or nurture (social oppression) debate.
     
    "HBD" does not include an assumption that Whites who mate with Blacks are, on average, exactly equal to the White average.
  46. paying to have your DNA analyzed probably appeals more to wealthier and whiter African-Americans, such as Henry Louis Gates.

    Yes, and that is to the extent that common, lower-class blacks (the vast majority) have even heard of such a thing.

    I worked for a city housing authority back in the 90s right before they started demolishing many of the housing projects. I noticed that the blacks in the projects seemed to be darker on average than middle class blacks I encountered. It was also very rare to see a fair skinned black in “the hood”. The blacks who look like Henry Louis Gates, Vincent Gray or Sharon Pratt Kelly tend to live in white neighborhoods.

    I would like to see the 23andMe project do their genetic testing in places like Ferguson, MO and SouthEast DC east of the Anacostia River. I bet the number would be closer to 90% African ancestry amongst those isolated populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A little bit Indian
    The blacks I taught in high school in the late '70s in LA were uniformly light colored, and could be described as middle class. They had both parents at home and their fathers had decent jobs.
    One year a coal black kid was recruited to play on the football team. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, an animal. The school was about one-quarter black, and the black students of the sort I have just described were embarrassed and horrified. They did not identify with him, and they did not appreciate it when they discovered that white liberals (i.e., all the other teachers in the school) expected them to. I hinted, right wing monster that I was, that their attitude was both understandable and honorable, and they appreciated that. I hate to think what forty years of unforgiving Leftism might have done to their youthful clear vision and common sense.
  47. @OsRazor
    As Sailer said, it's pretty clear (there's nothing whatever murky) that Whites in the US are effectively 100% White and non-Whites are very mixed. And this is no big surprise because almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive, so admixture by Whites with non-Whites produces something that does not look White and will not (absent great wealth or some other distinction) have a very strong likelihood of breeding with a White in the next generation, resulting in some sort of "bleaching" effect--in Mexico of course the "bleaching" has been much more dramatic among the upper crust and even there chances are low of anything like more than a 10% non-White component among the "Whites" of mexico.

    Historically, the only option for a half-breed (White-Black, White-Indian) would be to breed with another non-White and thereby cement his descendents as non-White. The future obviously will be different as the proportion of 100% Whites (traditional Whites) is becoming smaller and smaller--very possibly, as in much of central and south America, there will be a much more flexible approach to Whiteness but all the time the upper crust will always be pressing for greater "bleaching" so that in the end I'm not sure that much will be different other than a country where nearly every White was 100% White will become a country where most Whites are merely 90% White.

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had "Indian" blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising. The Anglos always had their own girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn't breed.

    “almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive”

    Not vs east-Asian.

    BTW among my in-laws the half Japanese half Afro-American dad looks conventionally black. His half white quarter Japanese quarter Afro-American children look white by British standards. By American standards I think his half-white son still looks white but I guess his daughter looks somewhat indeterminate, probably likely taken for Hispanic, in Latin America she’d be a quadroon I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OsRazor
    "Not vs east-Asian."

    All the examples I can think of the mix of White and Eastern Asian results in a not very White looking person--the person looks, for lack of a better word, "Eurasian". I'm thinking of Derbyshire's children, the Gosselin children--no White person 50, 100 or 200 years ago would have looked at them and said they were White. I'm sure Asians would have said the opposite--those children are not Asian, but we're talking about why Whites in the US are effectively 100% White so that's not really the question. It's pretty clear however that the "bleaching" can occur much faster with the Eurasian than the Eurafrican and so the 1/4 Asian Keanu Reeves easily passes as White as does the 1/8th Burmese Kate Beckinsale.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1
  48. Most of northern amerindians who blending with white americans already was mixed.

    This ”genetic genome research” look a little difficult to understand. ”White americans, ”IN GENERAL”, have 0,18% amerindian admixture”. Seems scandinavians can have little ”amerindian” or ”mongolic” old admixture.

    The fact that wasn’t found admixture necessarily don’t mean that wasn’t happen. Old white americans look to be slightly mixed, specially with blacks. Mass euro-immigration in XIX and XX reduce considerably this colonial ethno-landscape.

    ”European genes” (like all other races) are different individual combinations among other ”race genes”. Genetic similarities creates the idea of unity or cohesion in the genome map. Is not like water and oil.

    Whatever…

    Read More
  49. @OsRazor
    As Sailer said, it's pretty clear (there's nothing whatever murky) that Whites in the US are effectively 100% White and non-Whites are very mixed. And this is no big surprise because almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive, so admixture by Whites with non-Whites produces something that does not look White and will not (absent great wealth or some other distinction) have a very strong likelihood of breeding with a White in the next generation, resulting in some sort of "bleaching" effect--in Mexico of course the "bleaching" has been much more dramatic among the upper crust and even there chances are low of anything like more than a 10% non-White component among the "Whites" of mexico.

    Historically, the only option for a half-breed (White-Black, White-Indian) would be to breed with another non-White and thereby cement his descendents as non-White. The future obviously will be different as the proportion of 100% Whites (traditional Whites) is becoming smaller and smaller--very possibly, as in much of central and south America, there will be a much more flexible approach to Whiteness but all the time the upper crust will always be pressing for greater "bleaching" so that in the end I'm not sure that much will be different other than a country where nearly every White was 100% White will become a country where most Whites are merely 90% White.

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had "Indian" blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising. The Anglos always had their own girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn't breed.

    Fear of a White Planet

    One of the main facts about American life is hypodescent, “the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed-race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.” Barack Obama & the Kenyan politician Raila Odinga (who, probably falsely, claims to be Obama’s first cousin) are both “black,” despite the fact that when compared to each other Obama’s substantial European ancestry is rather clear. I recall years ago watching the Oprah Winfrey television show where they were discussing the issue of self-hatred with a young black woman who was attempting to become impregnated by a white man (any white man) so that her children would “look white” and be beautiful. An adoption counselor rose up and told this young woman that her agency had many biracial children who they were attempting to place, and “none of them look white, they all look black.” The clear and present background axiom here is that the power of black phenotype ensured the futility of this young woman’s “quest.”

    In hindsight it seems to me that these perceptions are mostly socially constructed. Years ago I had a friend who was of mixed European and Japanese origin who was raised in Japan. I recall once that someone stated that they were surprised that her father was a white American, as she looked “totally Japanese.” My friend got irritated, and replied that that was rather interesting as growing up in Japan people would tell her how white she looked. Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context; in Japan my friend’s white characteristics were very salient, while in the United States her Japanese ones were. The norms of reference were socially conditioned, so the scaling of phenotype did not have a linearly proportional effect on perception in identity. In other words, a rather small absolute physical deviation from the social norm can elicit strong relative perceptions of difference.

    All that being said, phenotypes do not emerge just out of our own minds, rather, they often genetically controlled. I have posted a fair amount on skin color because within the last 5 years we’ve really figured out how it shapes the normal range of human variation. In short, about half a dozen loci seem to account for nearly all the between population differences in complexion. But I was talking to a friend today and explained how I realized recently that the nature of the genetic architecture was actually rather counterintuitive from an American perspective. In short, whiteness is dominant!

    More precisely, I noticed that two of the loci of largest effect, SLC24A5 and KITLG, manifest a dominance component in terms of lightening skin color. In other words, if you took a West African and a Northern European their offspring would exhibit a lighter complexion than you would expect from simply blending the two phenotypes.

    In the case of SLC24A5 an ancestral guanine base mutated into an adenine at a particular position. For KITLG the reverse occurred. These changes resulted in an operational loss of function in relation to the melanin production for humans so that skin became lighter, and the variant was picked up and driven toward fixation among Europeans by natural selection. The table above illustrates the values of decrease in M index as you substitute an allele on the locus; as you can see, there are diminishing returns. This means that the heterozyogte state is closer to one than the other when taken against a genetic background. Fortunately for us I don’t need to get into statistical assumptions about averaging when comparing Europeans and Africans when it comes to skin color genes; the two populations have very different genetic backgrounds in reference to the variance we’re interested in. For SLC24A5 Europeans and West Africans exhibit disjoint allelic states, almost all Europeans carry the derived variant, while almost all Africans carry the ancestral. For KITLG the numbers are not as extreme, with each population having an 80-95% proportion for the major allele, but the minor allele frequencies are rare enough that its homozygotes are extant on the order of 1%. In other words, if an African and a Northern European produced offspring chances are they would be heterozygotes on these loci.

    We know that West Africans average around 60 for their M Index, while Europeans around 30. That’s a 30 unit spectrum. Adding up the unit effects above you see that SLC24A5 and KITLG account for 16 of them, in other words, over half of the between population variation in skin color in regards to West Africans and Europeans can be attributed to differences on these two genes! Let’s assume that additivity and independence apply to the 14 units not accounted for by these two genes. What does the dominance effect manifest on SLC24A5 and KITLG tell us in regards to the expectation for the offspring?

    This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population). It should be noted though that the dominance effect would definitely aid in the spread of these alleles through a population because of their immediate exposure to selection due to their strong expression in heterozygote genotypes.

    I think this is all rather interesting because at least judging from emails I receive the general perception is that dark skin is a dominant trait. This is true, if you bin the phenotypes into “dark” and “white,” so that the latter only includes complexions around a narrow range of 30 melanin units. In contrast, when you examine the issue quantitatively it doesn’t turn out that way at all. At a coarse first glance a blending/additive model seems to be appropriate for modeling skin color as a quantitative trait, but upon closer inspection dominance effects need to be noted. Instead of being buried in a rising tide of color, a panmictic world would exhibit a stronger effect of au lait. Next time someone brings up the blondes going extinct meme, you might want to point this out (after explaining the nature of the expression of complex traits in diploid organisms first of course).

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/#.VJweisAMA

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context": Jesus, he's an affected wee bugger, isn't he? And he takes half a paragraph to make a point worth at most one sentence.
    , @The most deplorable one
    It is amusing that Razib was talking about a trait that seems to involve the different alleles a few genes (maybe 2-10) when all the really important things in modern live revolve around thousands.

    Moreover, Cochran suggests that it takes something of the order 28 generations to change a population mean by one SD given truncation selection of 3.5% of an SD per generation (along with only 50% heritability).

    Given the costs of a large brain (and the fact that any group that developed more efficient brains would see other groups appropriate that development through inbreeding) am I surprised that Razib does not want to talk about IQ differences?
  50. @OsRazor
    As Sailer said, it's pretty clear (there's nothing whatever murky) that Whites in the US are effectively 100% White and non-Whites are very mixed. And this is no big surprise because almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive, so admixture by Whites with non-Whites produces something that does not look White and will not (absent great wealth or some other distinction) have a very strong likelihood of breeding with a White in the next generation, resulting in some sort of "bleaching" effect--in Mexico of course the "bleaching" has been much more dramatic among the upper crust and even there chances are low of anything like more than a 10% non-White component among the "Whites" of mexico.

    Historically, the only option for a half-breed (White-Black, White-Indian) would be to breed with another non-White and thereby cement his descendents as non-White. The future obviously will be different as the proportion of 100% Whites (traditional Whites) is becoming smaller and smaller--very possibly, as in much of central and south America, there will be a much more flexible approach to Whiteness but all the time the upper crust will always be pressing for greater "bleaching" so that in the end I'm not sure that much will be different other than a country where nearly every White was 100% White will become a country where most Whites are merely 90% White.

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had "Indian" blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising. The Anglos always had their own girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn't breed.

    There is one aspect of paper and The New York Times article which I think is worth commenting on:

    Most Americans with less than 28 percent African-American ancestry say they are white, the researchers found. Above that threshold, people tended to describe themselves as African-American.

    Katarzyna Bryc, a 23andMe researcher and co-author of the new study, didn’t want to speculate about why people’s sense of ethnic identity pivots at that point.

    I will speculate. The 28 percent proportion is about where African ancestry becomes salient, or not. In a de facto sense today the law of hypodescent applies only those who have visible African ancestry. In the United States these individuals are classified as black, no matter the preponderance of their lineage. A good example here is Rashida Jones, the daughter of Quincy Jones and Peggy Lipton. Quincy Jones has had some genetic analysis done, and he is about 2/3 African and 1/3 European. The expected value then for Rashida Jones is that she is 1/3 African in ancestry, though that may vary up or down a bit (her mother is an Ashkenazi Jew). Rashida Jones regularly plays white characters in film and television, and she does so because African features are not very evident in her. In contrast, her sister Kidada is just a bit more African in her features, and profiles of them growing up have indicated that while Rashida identified with her Jewish side (and still does), Kidada felt more black. In contrast, people who are 1/4th Asian, such as Keanu Reeves, are not subject to hypodescent in the United States, because Asian features are not as salient to white and black Americans, and white supremacy in the American South was generally aimed at blacks (my friend David Boxenhorn, who is Ashkenazi Jewish, finds it amusing that both my children have lighter eyes than any of his children).

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/american-racial-boundaries-are-quite-distinct-for-now/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Jones probably has had work done, esp. on her nose:

    http://www.hollywood.com/news/celebrities/20268877/parks-rec-star-rashida-jones-geeky-yearbook-photo

    where she look more mulatto.

    Did you mean darker eyes? The way you have it sounds like what you would expect.
  51. Skip Gates is 60% European. His last two wives have been 100% European. Racial Grievance peddling is, evidently, a 9-5 occupation, not a way of life.

    Read More
  52. I didn’t think NY state allowed you to get results sent to you? No, not the Fed restriction about disease precursors, but ANY results. I know a few people that wanted to do this for family members for Christmas but they couldn’t. If true, that is quite a gene pool to exclude. I imagine the Indian mixture might go up a small amount given the upstate casino population.

    Read More
  53. @Simon in London
    "almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive"

    Not vs east-Asian.

    BTW among my in-laws the half Japanese half Afro-American dad looks conventionally black. His half white quarter Japanese quarter Afro-American children look white by British standards. By American standards I think his half-white son still looks white but I guess his daughter looks somewhat indeterminate, probably likely taken for Hispanic, in Latin America she'd be a quadroon I guess.

    “Not vs east-Asian.”

    All the examples I can think of the mix of White and Eastern Asian results in a not very White looking person–the person looks, for lack of a better word, “Eurasian”. I’m thinking of Derbyshire’s children, the Gosselin children–no White person 50, 100 or 200 years ago would have looked at them and said they were White. I’m sure Asians would have said the opposite–those children are not Asian, but we’re talking about why Whites in the US are effectively 100% White so that’s not really the question. It’s pretty clear however that the “bleaching” can occur much faster with the Eurasian than the Eurafrican and so the 1/4 Asian Keanu Reeves easily passes as White as does the 1/8th Burmese Kate Beckinsale.

    Read More
  54. Averages are very misleading because no one is an “average” person. I’m guessing that whites with black ancestry fall into certain well defined groups – Creoles from New Orleans, “white” Cubans, etc. and again most of the rest of us have none at all. So the statement that the average white American is .19% black is totally misleading.

    Is there anything not accurate in this statement? (i say it is correct). The Times doesn’t think this is part of the explanation, or something. If they at the Times are concerned they have nothing to worry about! because white Americans themselves do not like the idea of white identity! or wait, actually they do like white identity in the abstract but the blood and guts of it is just too messy.

    And that really is the long and the short of it. White people love being white, and they want everyone else to experience the greatness of it, but let’s not anyone get hurt! Can anyone be a swapple or does one have to be tender trim and good looking?

    Garrison Keillor in one of his storytime stories and this was broadcast across the public airwaves on NPR, actually goes there and talks about the race of those lonely bachelor farmers being a good thing that makes them who they are, and yet at the same Keillor is an uber liberal. It is not necessarily a contradiction, but it is self-abnegating.

    We are great, we self abnegate!
    To the bar to drown and don’t be late!

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had “Indian” blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising.

    Ah yes, some “exotic” blood.

    Before diversity, there was exotic.

    Those were exotic times we were living in.

    Exotic women, they are everywhere these days!

    Read More
  55. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Handle
    Think what you could do with this admixture data, correlated with some other test score or life outcome data.

    The progressive theory of racial disparity is hypodescent discrimination. Everyone who looks black enough is subject to the same amount of oppression, even Gates himself.

    That theory would predict something like a sharp discontinuity between all people who appear black enough and all people who appear white enough.

    On the other hand, HBD would predict a tight correlation between European admixture and scores or outcomes, and a smooth, continuous transition from the West African Mean to the European Mean.

    It's the ultimate test of the nature (genes) or nurture (social oppression) debate.

    Now that deserves a kickstarter.

    I suspect we can even get someone like Gates or Oprah to do this test, if you frame it as if one is trying to prove the reality of the impact of unjust discrimination, once and for all, to that stubborn remnant of ignorant, wicked haters out there.

    I suspect we can even get someone like Gates or Oprah to do this test, if you frame it as if one is trying to prove the reality of the impact of unjust discrimination, once and for all, to that stubborn remnant of ignorant, wicked haters out there.

    As soon as they notice the results the data will be suppressed.

    Indeed, they might already know what the data will show and likely could not be tricked into supporting such research.

    Read More
  56. @syonredux

    There is one aspect of paper and The New York Times article which I think is worth commenting on:

    Most Americans with less than 28 percent African-American ancestry say they are white, the researchers found. Above that threshold, people tended to describe themselves as African-American.

    Katarzyna Bryc, a 23andMe researcher and co-author of the new study, didn’t want to speculate about why people’s sense of ethnic identity pivots at that point.

    I will speculate. The 28 percent proportion is about where African ancestry becomes salient, or not. In a de facto sense today the law of hypodescent applies only those who have visible African ancestry. In the United States these individuals are classified as black, no matter the preponderance of their lineage. A good example here is Rashida Jones, the daughter of Quincy Jones and Peggy Lipton. Quincy Jones has had some genetic analysis done, and he is about 2/3 African and 1/3 European. The expected value then for Rashida Jones is that she is 1/3 African in ancestry, though that may vary up or down a bit (her mother is an Ashkenazi Jew). Rashida Jones regularly plays white characters in film and television, and she does so because African features are not very evident in her. In contrast, her sister Kidada is just a bit more African in her features, and profiles of them growing up have indicated that while Rashida identified with her Jewish side (and still does), Kidada felt more black. In contrast, people who are 1/4th Asian, such as Keanu Reeves, are not subject to hypodescent in the United States, because Asian features are not as salient to white and black Americans, and white supremacy in the American South was generally aimed at blacks (my friend David Boxenhorn, who is Ashkenazi Jewish, finds it amusing that both my children have lighter eyes than any of his children).
     
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/american-racial-boundaries-are-quite-distinct-for-now/

    Jones probably has had work done, esp. on her nose:

    http://www.hollywood.com/news/celebrities/20268877/parks-rec-star-rashida-jones-geeky-yearbook-photo

    where she look more mulatto.

    Did you mean darker eyes? The way you have it sounds like what you would expect.

    Read More
  57. @Anon
    I was always told I was as much as 1/16th Native American... turns out it was 0%. I did however come to find that I'm 4% Central Asian -- and I haven't the foggiest notion of where it comes from. Speaking of which, Steve, Asian is where that"missing" 1% you couldn't find is from, I presume.

    “I’m 4% Central Asian — and I haven’t the foggiest notion of where it comes from.”

    Genghis Khan

    Read More
  58. @syonredux

    Fear of a White Planet

    One of the main facts about American life is hypodescent, “the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed-race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.” Barack Obama & the Kenyan politician Raila Odinga (who, probably falsely, claims to be Obama’s first cousin) are both “black,” despite the fact that when compared to each other Obama’s substantial European ancestry is rather clear. I recall years ago watching the Oprah Winfrey television show where they were discussing the issue of self-hatred with a young black woman who was attempting to become impregnated by a white man (any white man) so that her children would “look white” and be beautiful. An adoption counselor rose up and told this young woman that her agency had many biracial children who they were attempting to place, and “none of them look white, they all look black.” The clear and present background axiom here is that the power of black phenotype ensured the futility of this young woman’s “quest.”


    In hindsight it seems to me that these perceptions are mostly socially constructed. Years ago I had a friend who was of mixed European and Japanese origin who was raised in Japan. I recall once that someone stated that they were surprised that her father was a white American, as she looked “totally Japanese.” My friend got irritated, and replied that that was rather interesting as growing up in Japan people would tell her how white she looked. Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context; in Japan my friend’s white characteristics were very salient, while in the United States her Japanese ones were. The norms of reference were socially conditioned, so the scaling of phenotype did not have a linearly proportional effect on perception in identity. In other words, a rather small absolute physical deviation from the social norm can elicit strong relative perceptions of difference.

    All that being said, phenotypes do not emerge just out of our own minds, rather, they often genetically controlled. I have posted a fair amount on skin color because within the last 5 years we’ve really figured out how it shapes the normal range of human variation. In short, about half a dozen loci seem to account for nearly all the between population differences in complexion. But I was talking to a friend today and explained how I realized recently that the nature of the genetic architecture was actually rather counterintuitive from an American perspective. In short, whiteness is dominant!

    More precisely, I noticed that two of the loci of largest effect, SLC24A5 and KITLG, manifest a dominance component in terms of lightening skin color. In other words, if you took a West African and a Northern European their offspring would exhibit a lighter complexion than you would expect from simply blending the two phenotypes.


    In the case of SLC24A5 an ancestral guanine base mutated into an adenine at a particular position. For KITLG the reverse occurred. These changes resulted in an operational loss of function in relation to the melanin production for humans so that skin became lighter, and the variant was picked up and driven toward fixation among Europeans by natural selection. The table above illustrates the values of decrease in M index as you substitute an allele on the locus; as you can see, there are diminishing returns. This means that the heterozyogte state is closer to one than the other when taken against a genetic background. Fortunately for us I don’t need to get into statistical assumptions about averaging when comparing Europeans and Africans when it comes to skin color genes; the two populations have very different genetic backgrounds in reference to the variance we’re interested in. For SLC24A5 Europeans and West Africans exhibit disjoint allelic states, almost all Europeans carry the derived variant, while almost all Africans carry the ancestral. For KITLG the numbers are not as extreme, with each population having an 80-95% proportion for the major allele, but the minor allele frequencies are rare enough that its homozygotes are extant on the order of 1%. In other words, if an African and a Northern European produced offspring chances are they would be heterozygotes on these loci.

    We know that West Africans average around 60 for their M Index, while Europeans around 30. That’s a 30 unit spectrum. Adding up the unit effects above you see that SLC24A5 and KITLG account for 16 of them, in other words, over half of the between population variation in skin color in regards to West Africans and Europeans can be attributed to differences on these two genes! Let’s assume that additivity and independence apply to the 14 units not accounted for by these two genes. What does the dominance effect manifest on SLC24A5 and KITLG tell us in regards to the expectation for the offspring?

    This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population). It should be noted though that the dominance effect would definitely aid in the spread of these alleles through a population because of their immediate exposure to selection due to their strong expression in heterozygote genotypes.

    I think this is all rather interesting because at least judging from emails I receive the general perception is that dark skin is a dominant trait. This is true, if you bin the phenotypes into “dark” and “white,” so that the latter only includes complexions around a narrow range of 30 melanin units. In contrast, when you examine the issue quantitatively it doesn’t turn out that way at all. At a coarse first glance a blending/additive model seems to be appropriate for modeling skin color as a quantitative trait, but upon closer inspection dominance effects need to be noted. Instead of being buried in a rising tide of color, a panmictic world would exhibit a stronger effect of au lait. Next time someone brings up the blondes going extinct meme, you might want to point this out (after explaining the nature of the expression of complex traits in diploid organisms first of course).

     

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/#.VJweisAMA

    “Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context”: Jesus, he’s an affected wee bugger, isn’t he? And he takes half a paragraph to make a point worth at most one sentence.

    Read More
  59. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @syonredux

    Fear of a White Planet

    One of the main facts about American life is hypodescent, “the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed-race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.” Barack Obama & the Kenyan politician Raila Odinga (who, probably falsely, claims to be Obama’s first cousin) are both “black,” despite the fact that when compared to each other Obama’s substantial European ancestry is rather clear. I recall years ago watching the Oprah Winfrey television show where they were discussing the issue of self-hatred with a young black woman who was attempting to become impregnated by a white man (any white man) so that her children would “look white” and be beautiful. An adoption counselor rose up and told this young woman that her agency had many biracial children who they were attempting to place, and “none of them look white, they all look black.” The clear and present background axiom here is that the power of black phenotype ensured the futility of this young woman’s “quest.”


    In hindsight it seems to me that these perceptions are mostly socially constructed. Years ago I had a friend who was of mixed European and Japanese origin who was raised in Japan. I recall once that someone stated that they were surprised that her father was a white American, as she looked “totally Japanese.” My friend got irritated, and replied that that was rather interesting as growing up in Japan people would tell her how white she looked. Obviously these sorts of gestalt perceptions are scaffolded by social context; in Japan my friend’s white characteristics were very salient, while in the United States her Japanese ones were. The norms of reference were socially conditioned, so the scaling of phenotype did not have a linearly proportional effect on perception in identity. In other words, a rather small absolute physical deviation from the social norm can elicit strong relative perceptions of difference.

    All that being said, phenotypes do not emerge just out of our own minds, rather, they often genetically controlled. I have posted a fair amount on skin color because within the last 5 years we’ve really figured out how it shapes the normal range of human variation. In short, about half a dozen loci seem to account for nearly all the between population differences in complexion. But I was talking to a friend today and explained how I realized recently that the nature of the genetic architecture was actually rather counterintuitive from an American perspective. In short, whiteness is dominant!

    More precisely, I noticed that two of the loci of largest effect, SLC24A5 and KITLG, manifest a dominance component in terms of lightening skin color. In other words, if you took a West African and a Northern European their offspring would exhibit a lighter complexion than you would expect from simply blending the two phenotypes.


    In the case of SLC24A5 an ancestral guanine base mutated into an adenine at a particular position. For KITLG the reverse occurred. These changes resulted in an operational loss of function in relation to the melanin production for humans so that skin became lighter, and the variant was picked up and driven toward fixation among Europeans by natural selection. The table above illustrates the values of decrease in M index as you substitute an allele on the locus; as you can see, there are diminishing returns. This means that the heterozyogte state is closer to one than the other when taken against a genetic background. Fortunately for us I don’t need to get into statistical assumptions about averaging when comparing Europeans and Africans when it comes to skin color genes; the two populations have very different genetic backgrounds in reference to the variance we’re interested in. For SLC24A5 Europeans and West Africans exhibit disjoint allelic states, almost all Europeans carry the derived variant, while almost all Africans carry the ancestral. For KITLG the numbers are not as extreme, with each population having an 80-95% proportion for the major allele, but the minor allele frequencies are rare enough that its homozygotes are extant on the order of 1%. In other words, if an African and a Northern European produced offspring chances are they would be heterozygotes on these loci.

    We know that West Africans average around 60 for their M Index, while Europeans around 30. That’s a 30 unit spectrum. Adding up the unit effects above you see that SLC24A5 and KITLG account for 16 of them, in other words, over half of the between population variation in skin color in regards to West Africans and Europeans can be attributed to differences on these two genes! Let’s assume that additivity and independence apply to the 14 units not accounted for by these two genes. What does the dominance effect manifest on SLC24A5 and KITLG tell us in regards to the expectation for the offspring?

    This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population). It should be noted though that the dominance effect would definitely aid in the spread of these alleles through a population because of their immediate exposure to selection due to their strong expression in heterozygote genotypes.

    I think this is all rather interesting because at least judging from emails I receive the general perception is that dark skin is a dominant trait. This is true, if you bin the phenotypes into “dark” and “white,” so that the latter only includes complexions around a narrow range of 30 melanin units. In contrast, when you examine the issue quantitatively it doesn’t turn out that way at all. At a coarse first glance a blending/additive model seems to be appropriate for modeling skin color as a quantitative trait, but upon closer inspection dominance effects need to be noted. Instead of being buried in a rising tide of color, a panmictic world would exhibit a stronger effect of au lait. Next time someone brings up the blondes going extinct meme, you might want to point this out (after explaining the nature of the expression of complex traits in diploid organisms first of course).

     

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/#.VJweisAMA

    It is amusing that Razib was talking about a trait that seems to involve the different alleles a few genes (maybe 2-10) when all the really important things in modern live revolve around thousands.

    Moreover, Cochran suggests that it takes something of the order 28 generations to change a population mean by one SD given truncation selection of 3.5% of an SD per generation (along with only 50% heritability).

    Given the costs of a large brain (and the fact that any group that developed more efficient brains would see other groups appropriate that development through inbreeding) am I surprised that Razib does not want to talk about IQ differences?

    Read More
  60. What I find funny, is to look at some of the other articles by people of the NYT tribe when discussing their own roots, and watch how the discussion is about how non-murky their own (actually murky) ancestry is….

    Read More
  61. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Honesthughgrant
    Wow, those Indians sure were good breeders! I swear every white Texan and Southern Boy is at LEAST 1/8 Indian.

    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    Actually it was the white guys lovin’ them some squaw on the side, but of course in these days and times, its spun to be the opposite.

    Read More
  62. Let’s get a Kickstarter campaign to get Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren tested!

    Merry Christmas to all.

    Read More
  63. By the way, I thought you all might be interested in the recent Twitter storm led by TNC against old bear Andrew Sullivan over TNR reviewing “racist” material. It seems to be a microcosm of the young, often vibrant, totalitarian Left of today’s contempt for the old Left that paid homage to liberalism at times. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/23/excuse-me-mr-coates-ctd/

    Read More
  64. @Magic
    The OP says:

    "The way this is phrased is extremely misleading. Because thinking about race lowers everybody’s IQ a couple of standard deviations, Zimmer should have worked harder to avoid inserting another canard into the conventional wisdom.

    Here’s how a lot of people are going to misinterpret this 28% threshold notion: the average person who is 27% black identifies as white."

    But the paper shows that the average person who is 27% black in the study DOES identify as white.

    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5
    See Figure 5.

    The way this is phrased is extremely misleading. Because thinking about race lowers everybody’s IQ a couple of standard deviations, Zimmer should have worked harder to avoid inserting another canard into the conventional wisdom.

    When Zimmer does stuff like this, it’s not a matter of working hard or not. His political orientation suggests that he’s more likely to be deliberately obscuring the truth. His “Parasite Rex” — otherwise a very interesting book well worth reading — includes several pages of gratuitous and nasty political correctness. Recently, following the horiz0ntal transmission of ebola to the US, Zimmer tweeted his hope that the African virus would give Euro-Americans their just desserts for stealing the Indians’ land.

    He’s a science writer like Matt Ridley, except that he’s at a rather different point on the philanthropy/misanthropy scale and the science-as-truth/science-as-politics scale.

    Read More
  65. I can think of a number of reasons white people might (mistakenly) think they are of mixed race heritage, and I will set those forth. But first a couple of other observations. #1 – “Five Civilized Tribes” is accepted nomenclature for the five tribes in the Southeast that I mentioned earlier. #2 – Stigma was attached to Native American ancestry certainly after Indian Removal got going, around 183o. It’s not something that you would have bragged about on the frontier.

    As for reasons why whites, especially in the South or along the Appalachians might think they are partly non-white:

    If your family has been here since Colonial times (or even back to the 1600′s) there are going to be gaps in the record, one way of explaining that is non-white contacts.

    I think part of it too is an expression of kinship. In other words, if you have family lore about interacting with non-whites going back a long time you are more likely to feel kinship to non-whites whether you are actually biologically related or not.

    There is also the fact of biological kinship that won’t touch you directly. For example, I have an ancestor who owned slaves, just knowing that suggests to me that I have some African American cousins out there. I have other ancestors who married, had children, then left their wives, and started other non-white families (or mixed race families). These people won’t show up in my genealogical profile, but they are my cousins nonetheless.

    In my own family, we have old legends, and portraits, including old tintypes, that indicate ancestors who don’t exactly look white, not only in terms of skin tone (dark or darker) but also such things as shape of the eyes, brow, mouth, lips, etc. I don’t think that’s unique to have one or two distant ancestors who many (in any given family) might think have a “hint of the tar brush” (as the saying goes). When those same ancestors have a screwed up genealogy, including, in more than one case, deliberate deception, that gets one to thinking.

    Of course all of this could be solved in any given family with a “23andme” type analysis. But since I am not interested in opening a casino, or bragging, I don’t think it is relevant. In other words, when I found out about my own ancestors’ interactions with non-whites, whether Native American, African American, or even Asian American, 1, 2, 3, and almost 400 years ago, that gives me a sense of kinship with those other populations, more so than any % in my blood. Merry Christmas to all, and especially our host!

    Read More
  66. @SPMoore8
    Up until about 1830 intermarriage between whites and the "five civilized tribes" (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) was not uncommon, or so I have read. Nor was it uncommon among French Canadians, who then might migrate south. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is significant mixture in the South, particularly SW VA, TN, NC and SC, GA, AL, and MS, especially to the extent that you follow the Appalachians. That's where we get the "Melungeons" from.

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there's a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons. James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it's almost a given.

    Furthermore, I know a lot of Oklahomans and there’s a lot of mixture there, too, for fairly obvious reasons.

    Yes, there is. Oddly, though, there are an amazing number of blued-eyed people in Oklahoma. There are even people with Indian ancestry who claim there is such a thing as “dominant” blue eyes.

    James Garner was the most famous from that neck of the woods, but if you know a lot of Oklahomans it’s almost a given.

    Rockford’s favorite alias was almost exactly the same as the name of my wife’s half-breed ancestor who was known by people still living.

    Read More
  67. @Jack D
    For some reason, it has never been shameful to have Indian ancestors in the US, neither among blacks nor among whites, even upper class whites. Indians I guess were brave warriors and had claim to being here first, so it was OK to have them in your family tree (whereas for a white person to have ANY black blood was a shameful secret and not something that you would ever admit in public). In Gates's TV show, just about everyone (aside from the recent immigrants like the Jews) claims Indian ancestry but few actually have any (to the point that it is funny). Blacks especially, since it is pretty clear that few are 100% African, prefer to claim Indian blood rather than the blood of the hated white man.

    What I find interesting is that the WN types find Indian ancestry to be far more acceptable than part-East Asian ancestry. I guess this is just a rare example of racialists ignoring HDB completely. Given that pure Native-Americans have lower IQ, lower educational achievement, and higher crime than East Asians, one would think they would prefer mixing with the latter rather than the former, in instances where they would accept mixing at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Probably because the possible historical context where many white americans suspect have amerindian ''blood''.

    White-americans racialists, i think, tend to think about its own ethnicity where old possible mèlange could be happen. East asians aren't inside this historical context.
  68. Have to agree with you 100%. My own genealogical research indicates that the early settlers, especially Scotch Irish in the South and French in the North (Canada) intermarried a lot. Partly because “race” wasn’t so much on the table in the first place, but also because of the shortage of women.

    There’s also the fact that the frontier allowed a lot of “passing.”

    It also makes race less salient; it makes people more indivualistic; it selects for people capable of engaging in non-tribe-based reciprocal altruism. Pioneers are not competing with other groups, and largely they are not even competing with other human individuals. To a large extent, they are competing against non-humans and hostile environments.

    MacDonald’s “What makes Western Culture Unique” talks about this (and a lot more):

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/OccidentalQuarterly-2002q2-00009

    Jim Bowery’s brilliant “Race, Gender, and the Frontier” also touches on this.

    Hell, you can get the flavor of this just by watching The Outlaw Josey Wales.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It also makes race less salient;
     
    debatable. I would argue that the it is the ratio of White women to White men that is by far the most significant factor. Hence, Massachusetts Bay, which had a nearly 50/50 gender ratio among the English settlers, had less miscegenation than, say, Mexico, where Spanish men far outnumbered Spanish women.

    it makes people more indivualistic;
     
    Again, debatable. The Massachusetts frontier was marked by a more communitarian ethos, with town life as the ideal.

    it selects for people capable of engaging in non-tribe-based reciprocal altruism.
     
    Again, debatable. The New England frontier was marked by a strongly tribal focus (English vs Amerind).

    Pioneers are not competing with other groups
     
    ,

    Again, debatable. The English pioneers in New England were engaged in a racial struggle against the Amerinds and the French.

    Jim Bowery’s brilliant “Race, Gender, and the Frontier” also touches on this.
     
    "[B]rilliant" is not the term that springs to my mind after reading it.....

    Hell, you can get the flavor of this just by watching The Outlaw Josey Wales.
     
    Based on a novel written by the author of The Education of Little Tree....
  69. People overestimate how many people in Louisiana were “Passing”. Some people try to paint Louisiana as being as Multiracial as Latin America.

    Which people? I’ve never heard anyone make such a claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    The "passing" stuff is mostly a slander by August Wilson against Jelly Roll Morton. Morton never "passed" ... but Wilson being from NYC had no comprehension on just how a Black man in segregated New Orleans could walk around and not even speak to a White person. Or need to. There were Black doctors, dentists, lawyers, banks, accountants, mechanics, carpenters, cooks, places to eat, etc.

    No, you can listen yourself to the recently re-released Library of Congress records of Jelly Roll Morton -- he never "passed" but as a Black guy had often very little to do with Whites in his daily life save when they came to clubs he played in to listen to him.

    New Orleans had been massively Black majority since the 1780s, so slaves and then freedmen were given considerable latitude particularly after the Haitian revolution; but no one pretended Black people were White and "passing" was not very common. Separate spheres however was common.
  70. @Simon in London
    "almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive"

    Not vs east-Asian.

    BTW among my in-laws the half Japanese half Afro-American dad looks conventionally black. His half white quarter Japanese quarter Afro-American children look white by British standards. By American standards I think his half-white son still looks white but I guess his daughter looks somewhat indeterminate, probably likely taken for Hispanic, in Latin America she'd be a quadroon I guess.

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney

    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:

    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    While I'm hesitant to rely on anecdotal evidence, I think there may be something to what you wrote. I suspect it is largely because of the eyes. Asian epicanthal folds as probably viewed as the strongest salient feature for confirming Asian ancestry in people of mixed ancestry, and SE Asians tend to have eyes which appear more open and with less pronounced epicanthal folds (possibly the result of less Mongol DNA spreading there)= more Western-like in appearance so their kids when mating with Westerners are less likely to look "Asian" as the Asian side of the mix is less likely to be contributing eyes that appear to be what is commonly thought of "Asian" looking.
  71. @OsRazor
    As Sailer said, it's pretty clear (there's nothing whatever murky) that Whites in the US are effectively 100% White and non-Whites are very mixed. And this is no big surprise because almost all White genetic physical markers are recessive, so admixture by Whites with non-Whites produces something that does not look White and will not (absent great wealth or some other distinction) have a very strong likelihood of breeding with a White in the next generation, resulting in some sort of "bleaching" effect--in Mexico of course the "bleaching" has been much more dramatic among the upper crust and even there chances are low of anything like more than a 10% non-White component among the "Whites" of mexico.

    Historically, the only option for a half-breed (White-Black, White-Indian) would be to breed with another non-White and thereby cement his descendents as non-White. The future obviously will be different as the proportion of 100% Whites (traditional Whites) is becoming smaller and smaller--very possibly, as in much of central and south America, there will be a much more flexible approach to Whiteness but all the time the upper crust will always be pressing for greater "bleaching" so that in the end I'm not sure that much will be different other than a country where nearly every White was 100% White will become a country where most Whites are merely 90% White.

    The fact that so few Whites who thought they had "Indian" blood turn out to have anything exotic about them is pretty hilarious, but hardly surprising. The Anglos always had their own girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn't breed.

    The Anglos always had their own [Indian] girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn’t breed.

    I don’t think so. There was always only a limited time-frame when whites had an opportunity and motive to intermix with Indians on the frontier. That was when they (whites) were in an equal or subordinate position. Subordinate meaning they were captives of or “escapees”* to tribes who still possessed their historic power base, or traders interacting with powerful tribes. Equal as in a white man whose only possessions were a Hawken rifle, a “possibles” bag and perhaps an ax, who ventured into the wilderness and needed allies and a helpmeet to survive.
    Once the Indians had been defeated, the pitiful and few survivors were driven out or isolated on reservations, and only outcast whites or long-time white associates (such as old beaver trappers, buffalo hunters and mountain men who had married into the tribe) would have personal relations with them.
    In my case, my documented European ancestors (Swiss, German, Danish, Dutch, Scandanavian-Norman) all came to America between roughly 1730 and 1830, generally landing in Philadelphia. That meant that they were arriving in a settled community and they had to push on westward to find farming land and opportunities to establish themselves.
    The result was that they were frontiersmen and by necessity dealt with still-powerful Indian tribes as subordinates or equals. One, a homesteader in the Ohio river valley area, whose white family was massacred by Shawnees, subsequently married a Delaware Indian and they drifted west together. He died in 1808. Another, a trader, married into the Cheyenne to facilitate his business dealings. He died in 1846. My direct ancestral line had arrived in Oregon Territory by the 1840s, and moved down into California with the Gold Rush. In all that time since arriving on the Pacific coast, there was never another intermixture with Indians. I assume that’s because the California Indians were both poor and powerless and there was no incentive to do so.
    As far as family looks go, I am blonde and bluish-gray-eyed, as was my mother. My father had brown hair and blue eyes as did my maternal grandfather and grandmother. My paternal grandmother had auburn hair and hazel eyes. My paternal grandfather had black hair. I don’t remember what color his eyes were.

    *Historian of the West Bernard DeVoto once wrote that he had compiled a list of 1,000 white men who had run away to join the Indians of the Far West before about 1840. After that he stopped counting. He found not one single white woman who had run away to join the Indians, though quite a few were captured by Indians and lived out their lives among them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Sam Houston spent a few years with an Indian tribe between being governor of Tennessee and governor of Texas.
  72. SPMoore8 – I’m breaking my no-more-commenting-at-Steve’s-blog to correct your repetition of an historical fiction as fact. The self-proclaimed “melungeons” have been proven, by DNA analysis, to be the product of black male ancestors and White females (google it).

    Given that 23&Me’s customer base is self-selected, as Steve notes, these mixed-race percentages are quite misleading. There’s no way the average Mexican here in Texas is 65% European. Eva Longoria is something like 73 percent, and her latino ancestry is quite visible. Additionally, a LOT of 23&Me and other genetic testing firms customer base consists of Ashkenazi Jews. My husband ended up possessing about 12% Ashkenazi genes and 23&Me listed hundreds of purported 4-5 cousins, all Jewish – i.e. no one from his Italian/Irish ancestors. Per our results at 23&Me, I’m approximately .3% North African ancestry and he is <.1%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The facts of the matter pertaining to the "Melungeons" is not as clear cut as you would have it, read the target article

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html


    The study does not rule out the possibility of other races or ethnicities forming part of the Melungeon heritage, but none were detected among the 69 male lines and 8 female lines that were tested. Also, the study did not look for later racial mixing that might have occurred, for instance with Native Americans.
     
    The usage of the term is used very broadly to mean any bi-racial or particularly tri-racial mix, based on the mixture in SW VA and E TN. In my own family, and among my friends, it is also used to denote the broader term. But after all the SW VA / E TN set is a relatively small set.

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don't know.

    Two other points on this racial angle.

    The first is that in the last analysis I think genetics is a bit like IQ. In other words, your genetic heritage by the numbers may tell you exactly what your mixture is, but if it doesn't match up to the actual life experiences of your ancestors, and whatever they passed on to you, it is basically meaningless.

    The second point -- and this pertains to our European ancestry as well -- is that a significant number of births are illegitimate, or not as direct as one might think. We like to think genealogy is clean and easy to grasp. It is anything but.

  73. Steve, did you or any family get yours done?

    .4% Native American, .1% Japanese here; expected to be 100% white. Strongest family base turned out to be in Virginia, so figure it comes from there.
    My biggest surprise was mundane compared to some of the stories I’ve heard… My great-grandfather is unknown. We just kind of assumed he was generic Southerner/British, but, very long story short, he appears to be Polish.
    Dienekes’s tool at gedmatch helped those of us whose central European ancestry gets locked into 23andme’s “broadly” European categories. In my case, it was 27%, or roughly 2 great-grandparents.

    Other:
    *All of my roughly dozen white relatives are substantially British.
    *None except my brother and I have any Indian ancestry.
    *Only 1 is part black: my Southern first cousin at .2%
    *Most common “ethnic” ancestry is Ashkenazi.
    *Personally, I feel some loss that I’m not as British as I thought at the expense of being more Slavic.
    *The very, VERY first thing my husband said in response to finding out I was less than 50% British (!) was that “maybe its just me, but they’ve never seemed to be that good looking.”

    BTW, in response to a couple comments upthread about Indian ancestry: I can’t wait to put that to rest with regards to my husband.
    He is clearly part ethnic. Supposedly, his great-great grandmother was full Indian. My mother-in-law knew her as a child and has doubts. One day as a child, in a smart aleck manner, she told a grandmother that she doubted this story and that she suspected “Indian” was really “Black” and her grandma chased her around the house to spank her.
    I found the census records for her and her parents and they say “white”.

    Read More
  74. Irritating that the Narrative writes whatever it wants regardless of what the science actually says.

    Read More
  75. attilathehen [AKA "Rose"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Carl Zimmer is Jewish. He’s well aware of the high intermarriage rates of Jews with black and Asians and is slyly trying to question white gentiles about their racial lines. As more people become aware of Jews as now being non-white, we will see more articles like this from Jews. William Frey at Newsweek wrote an article about the coming non-white majority. He is Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Any proof for your assertion that William Frey is Jewish? The surname "Frey" isn't just found among Jews.

    The ancestry of most living Jews is similar to that of their ancestors. The Jewish intermarriage rate has only been significant for the last 30 years or so, and some of the intermarried are middle aged and older people on their second+ spouses with children from first marriages to Jews. If you have any statistics to back up your assertions, please lay them out. Otherwise, you repeatedly make hysterical assertions. And by the way, why do you assert that some Jews marrying Asians or African-Americans makes all Jews non-white, but some non-Jewish whites marrying African-Americans or Asians doesn't have the same affect on the non-Jewish white population? It's not going to turn out how you think, anyway. In 100 years, the vast majority of people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. or its successor nations will be ultra-Orthodox Jews who have nearly pure Jewish ancestry. We secular Jews are having few children, and their attachment to Judaism lessens every generation. I don't expect that the religious strictures and closed community of ultra-Orthodoxy will be more attractive to ethnic outlier half-Jews and quarter-Jews than they are to pur sang Ashkenazis like me who could actually blend into that world if we had to.
  76. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    For a black (or indian) trying to pass for white, it’s likely it was mostly done by mixed-race women. Women of all races have lighter skin than their men do, and a woman’s social status in the 1700s and 1800s was generally taken from the man she married, not so much determined from her own birth status unless she was upper class. Also, a pioneer society which is mobile makes it easy to hide your background, especially since grandparents who might give your race away tended to die off a bit earlier than they do nowadays.

    Read More
  77. Can someone please get Gates to invite Ben Jealous on his program?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ezra
    "Can someone please get Gates to invite Ben Jealous on his program?"

    Ben Jealous has been on Finding Your Roots. After reading his admixture report, Skip Gates called the President of the NAACP, "the whitest black man I have ever met." This was not really a surprise since his father was from a wealthy Boston Brahmin family and his mother was part of the mixed race elite of Richmond.
  78. Merry Christmas.

    I normally am not interested in my ancestors or my genetics. But my Swedish descended friend asked me for my 23andme results this week so I’m current on my various genetic components. I’m pure. All Irish and British and a dash of something else (which I can’t remember).

    My Swedish friend looks to me for genetic wisdom (big mistake). But this holiday season I was able to comfort him. I told him having some Finnish ancestry wasn’t the worst thing imaginable.

    In fact as I noodle about the web I seldom run across people worried about or proud of their black genes. The major topic seems to be their Neanderthal component. Many people conflate the fact that the Neanderthal brain was a bit bigger than the Sapiens brain with the fact that Africans don’t have much if any Neanderthal ancestry and they conclude that they are smart because they have that oh so valuable Neanderthal heritage.

    This seems to be becoming a popular delusion. Greg Cochran wrote on Sapiens (Cro-Magnon – Neanderthal admixture) years ago. I think he predicted that the results Pääbo got. But he never said that.

    He said the Sapiens coming out of Africa were likely to have picked up a little Neanderthal genes that had been selected for local advantages. That advantage it seems to me is likely to be some cold adaptations not better or bigger brains. After all Europe was in an Ice Age and the Cro-Magnons had recently come up from Central Africa.

    For all my adult life the questions about admixture of the Neanderthals and Sapiens has been a contentious topic. You would think that all that’s over now.

    I can’t quite understand why some para-military Republicans don’t just grab Elizabeth Warren and extract some of her spit. That would be very entertaining footage on the evening news. But I guess half the fun of politics is endless debates with no facts and no resolution. In that same vein I’ve wondered why the interminable debate over water boarding isn’t resolved by some tests with a dolorimeter. When I was in the Army they made me go through the tear-gas room and that was certainly unpleasant. At the time I would have called it torture. But we have instrumentation for things like water boarding and Elizabeth Warren’s spit. We don’t have to squabble.

    Finally there is one other way that whites contract black blood. I’m thinking of the first act of ‘Showboat’. There should be a modern updating of that plot device with a white vampire and a black victim. What’s Ann Rice doing these days?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wakuna
    The reality is that while neanderthals have larger brains than the modern human average, this wasn't the case when they existed, or even further back. Cro-magnons and neanderthals were virtually identical with brain size, and humans throughout the world a few tens of thousands of years ago and earlier had larger brains than they do now, even in africa and australia. People have a very bizarre, often fetishistic attitude towards neanderthals in these circles. I agree The only actual advantage I can see neanderthals contributing to humans back then were climactic adaptations, and possibly disease resistance.
  79. @ben tillman

    Have to agree with you 100%. My own genealogical research indicates that the early settlers, especially Scotch Irish in the South and French in the North (Canada) intermarried a lot. Partly because “race” wasn’t so much on the table in the first place, but also because of the shortage of women.

    There’s also the fact that the frontier allowed a lot of “passing.”
     
    It also makes race less salient; it makes people more indivualistic; it selects for people capable of engaging in non-tribe-based reciprocal altruism. Pioneers are not competing with other groups, and largely they are not even competing with other human individuals. To a large extent, they are competing against non-humans and hostile environments.

    MacDonald's "What makes Western Culture Unique" talks about this (and a lot more):

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/OccidentalQuarterly-2002q2-00009

    Jim Bowery's brilliant "Race, Gender, and the Frontier" also touches on this.

    Hell, you can get the flavor of this just by watching The Outlaw Josey Wales.

    It also makes race less salient;

    debatable. I would argue that the it is the ratio of White women to White men that is by far the most significant factor. Hence, Massachusetts Bay, which had a nearly 50/50 gender ratio among the English settlers, had less miscegenation than, say, Mexico, where Spanish men far outnumbered Spanish women.

    it makes people more indivualistic;

    Again, debatable. The Massachusetts frontier was marked by a more communitarian ethos, with town life as the ideal.

    it selects for people capable of engaging in non-tribe-based reciprocal altruism.

    Again, debatable. The New England frontier was marked by a strongly tribal focus (English vs Amerind).

    Pioneers are not competing with other groups

    ,

    Again, debatable. The English pioneers in New England were engaged in a racial struggle against the Amerinds and the French.

    Jim Bowery’s brilliant “Race, Gender, and the Frontier” also touches on this.

    “[B]rilliant” is not the term that springs to my mind after reading it…..

    Hell, you can get the flavor of this just by watching The Outlaw Josey Wales.

    Based on a novel written by the author of The Education of Little Tree.

    Read More
  80. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Thank you. In Mexico there are a scant few Mexican nationals of mostly white DNA, but they guard those genes rigorously and do not intermarry darker. Almost all are 100% Castillian Spanish, the descendants of explorers.

    The blondes you see all over Mexican telenovelas get the hair color from a bottle, not an ancestor. Most South Americans and Mexicans are of direct, indiluted Meso-American Indian ancestry with less white ancestry than most black Americans, who were exposed to white colonists far earlier and for far longer, have. The average Mexican who immigrates to the US is very dark, lacks Caucasian facial features and ectomorphic body type, and tends to be short in stature, short-waisted, with flat butts, flat faces, spiky hair, and unusually long arms. They look exactly like Inca and Mayan temple wall illustrations: the ones where fellows in bright toucan feather headdresses are lifting their curved arms skyward to some sun god who demands blood.

    These features are deliriously nonwhite, and Mexicans need to stop lying.

    Yet these wall-scrawlers and crime magnets insist their race, not their language, is “Spanish” and are absolutely obsessed with race, proudly certain they are whiter and better than black Americans who mixed with whites centuries before the first white sales wagon finally reached their dusty, obscure ancestral village – you know the one: it has an X somewhere in the middle of its name, pronounced as an H.

    I am black and I submitted DNA to 23andme. It turns out I am more than 30 percent white. The average Mexican is typically less than 5% so. These are largely illiterate people from very small, remote, low-tech villages hundreds of miles between in a vast, low-resource land of little historic interest to Europeans anywhere northeast of Spain or Portugal.

    The odds of a white arriving there, then either plucking humble bar-wench Consuela out Pocahontas-style into a better life elsewhere, or especially staying there to abandon higher society and raise thousands of children with her, are identically ridiculously remote.

    Yet Mexican migrant workers continue to insist they are “el mejor de los mayates”.

    An example: a 50-something Mexican male, black as a raisin, and riding a bicycle, cut my car off dangerously in traffic the other day and when I gave him a shocked look, he shouted the N word, flipped a bird, sneered and wheelied off. This example of Latino racism is not unique, nor is it rare.

    It happens to be the sole reason George Zimmerman hunted and poached Trayvon Martin. Martin was meant as a trophy kill to please whites, whom Jorge anxiously still hopes will pat him on the head and invite him to become one of them. Remember Leonard Bernstein’s song:

    “Everything good in America, I want to be in America…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Sir, you are quite correct, except that there are more pure Whites in Mexico than most people think, and not all Spaniards. At one time fair numbers of Germans, Czechs, and Poles came in also and few of them left. Also there are many "light mestizos" who leave Mexico at much lower percentages than indios and dark mestizos. Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal to the US are actually middle to dark mestizos. Pure indios just don't have the ability to fit in at all, or at least the ones from the more numerous tribes don't. Light mestizos tend to do okay in Mexico, although narcotraficante violence and the prospect of supervisory or bilingual customer contact jobs in the US has brought some in.

    Pierce thought Mexico was ten percent White, twenty percent pure indio and the rest a continuum of mestizo. I think there are a few more indios than that, but the principle is right.
    , @granesperanzablanco
    Total nonsense regarding Mexican racial components. There are many studies on the matter if you cared to look
  81. @ben tillman

    People overestimate how many people in Louisiana were “Passing”. Some people try to paint Louisiana as being as Multiracial as Latin America.
     
    Which people? I've never heard anyone make such a claim.

    The “passing” stuff is mostly a slander by August Wilson against Jelly Roll Morton. Morton never “passed” … but Wilson being from NYC had no comprehension on just how a Black man in segregated New Orleans could walk around and not even speak to a White person. Or need to. There were Black doctors, dentists, lawyers, banks, accountants, mechanics, carpenters, cooks, places to eat, etc.

    No, you can listen yourself to the recently re-released Library of Congress records of Jelly Roll Morton — he never “passed” but as a Black guy had often very little to do with Whites in his daily life save when they came to clubs he played in to listen to him.

    New Orleans had been massively Black majority since the 1780s, so slaves and then freedmen were given considerable latitude particularly after the Haitian revolution; but no one pretended Black people were White and “passing” was not very common. Separate spheres however was common.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Ah, Whiskey, I think I've finally got you pegged.

    Today you're a presumably middle-aged man who possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of jazz history while simultaneously harboring complicated emotions concerning women and black men.

    In your younger years you must've been a veritable jazzgasmkind of fella.

  82. Correction, August Wilson did NOT write “Jelly’s Last Jam.” He was however adamant that Morton “passed” which is nonsense to those who knew him — and his pallbearers included Kid Ory, Mutt Carey, and Ed Garland. Ironically, Morton was refused admittance when stabbed to an all-White LA hospital, he had to go to a Colored one.

    Which is a point of supreme irony. Passing and enforcement of same comes from those seeking power to define who is or is not a particular race for power. Whites certainly did not consider Morton White, otherwise he’d been admitted to the White hospital. Blacks now are defining those as “not Black enough” as outside the race.

    For example, Black Power nationalists considered Louis Armstrong “not really Black” because he was not posturing and posing like they were. Meanwhile Armstrong famously insisted he would not perform to segregated audiences in his New Orleans return. And the man lived after all, in Harlem.

    Prior to about 1950 or so much of the resistance to marginal cases identifying as White came from Whites, now it is Blacks defining behavior and actions as defining “Black” or “White” … Chris Rock when he was funny used to mine this vein for comedy gold. I.E. when keeping it real goes wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    http://www.louisarmstronghouse.org/visiting/overview.htm

    Louis Armstrong-- He lived in a house in Queens after 1943
  83. @Jack D
    The 1 in 512 thing is not right because black blood is not evenly distributed. If the average is .19% but 97% of whites have zero (as you say), then the 3% that have some have a LOT more than .19% - 33 times as much or 6.33% on average, for those who have any at all (.97x0%+.03x6.33%) = .19%.

    By the time of the great urban immigrant wave of the late 19th/early 20% century, miscegenation was highly looked down upon (and illegal in many places) until the 1960s so most of those immigrants (Italians , Jews, etc.) are 0% black.

    Averages are very misleading because no one is an "average" person. I'm guessing that whites with black ancestry fall into certain well defined groups - Creoles from New Orleans, "white" Cubans, etc. and again most of the rest of us have none at all. So the statement that the average white American is .19% black is totally misleading. The median white American has NO black ancestry at all, and a small tail group of 6 million are between .01 and 25% black. Even this group is not uniform - those who have 12 or 25% (for example Obama's children if he had married his white girlfriend) are from a small group of recent formation and then there must be a larger group (since the average is only 6%) that has significantly less than 6%. If there was an even distribution from .01 to 25%, the average (among those who have any black genes at all) would be 12.5% but it's half that.

    Pre-Civil War northern blacks were 100% African. All those photos of black Union troops don’t lie. So all the mixing happened first in the south, and not in the way of popular opinion.

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only–which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well, who then had that example to work from. Those relatively small number of slaves who were largely white became wildly successful reproductively after the war–with blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only–which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well,
     
    Yeah. This is a dirty secret about race relations. Very uncomfortable for black folks to talk about around white folks (unless you are an honorary insider, like me). Lots of black women bred with white men for standard female reasons: better outcome for the kids, monetary support, etc.

    My Southern black wife (mocha, maybe 40% black, identifies black) has plenty of family documentation--wills, photos, court transcripts--regarding the white ancestors mixed throughout her family's history and how they provided for their families. It was quite common. That Mandingo/Roots evil-slavemaster-raping-black-slaves-in-the-slave-quarters stuff is purely for popular consumption. Black folks know better.

    Whenever you see a black man agitating about Reparations, he is really expressing daddy issues: he is upset because he never got a fair share of his white g'g'grandaddy's estate.
  84. @Major Problem
    The Anglos always had their own [Indian] girls not too far away. What bastards they produced out on the plains or elsewhere probably didn’t breed.

    I don't think so. There was always only a limited time-frame when whites had an opportunity and motive to intermix with Indians on the frontier. That was when they (whites) were in an equal or subordinate position. Subordinate meaning they were captives of or "escapees"* to tribes who still possessed their historic power base, or traders interacting with powerful tribes. Equal as in a white man whose only possessions were a Hawken rifle, a "possibles" bag and perhaps an ax, who ventured into the wilderness and needed allies and a helpmeet to survive.
    Once the Indians had been defeated, the pitiful and few survivors were driven out or isolated on reservations, and only outcast whites or long-time white associates (such as old beaver trappers, buffalo hunters and mountain men who had married into the tribe) would have personal relations with them.
    In my case, my documented European ancestors (Swiss, German, Danish, Dutch, Scandanavian-Norman) all came to America between roughly 1730 and 1830, generally landing in Philadelphia. That meant that they were arriving in a settled community and they had to push on westward to find farming land and opportunities to establish themselves.
    The result was that they were frontiersmen and by necessity dealt with still-powerful Indian tribes as subordinates or equals. One, a homesteader in the Ohio river valley area, whose white family was massacred by Shawnees, subsequently married a Delaware Indian and they drifted west together. He died in 1808. Another, a trader, married into the Cheyenne to facilitate his business dealings. He died in 1846. My direct ancestral line had arrived in Oregon Territory by the 1840s, and moved down into California with the Gold Rush. In all that time since arriving on the Pacific coast, there was never another intermixture with Indians. I assume that's because the California Indians were both poor and powerless and there was no incentive to do so.
    As far as family looks go, I am blonde and bluish-gray-eyed, as was my mother. My father had brown hair and blue eyes as did my maternal grandfather and grandmother. My paternal grandmother had auburn hair and hazel eyes. My paternal grandfather had black hair. I don't remember what color his eyes were.

    *Historian of the West Bernard DeVoto once wrote that he had compiled a list of 1,000 white men who had run away to join the Indians of the Far West before about 1840. After that he stopped counting. He found not one single white woman who had run away to join the Indians, though quite a few were captured by Indians and lived out their lives among them.

    Sam Houston spent a few years with an Indian tribe between being governor of Tennessee and governor of Texas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Actually,

    He went southwest, where he lived for a few years with the Cherokee tribe led by Ahuludegi (also spelled Oolooteka) on Hiwassee Island, on the Hiwassee River above its confluence with the Tennessee. Ahuludegi had become hereditary chief after his brother moved west; the European Americans called him John Jolly. He became an adoptive father to Houston, giving him the Cherokee name of Colonneh, meaning "the Raven".[12] Houston learned fluent Cherokee while living with the tribe. He visited his family in Maryville every several months. He returned to Maryville in 1812, and at age 19, Houston founded a one-room schoolhouse in Blount County between his town and Knoxville.[9] This was the first school built in Tennessee.

    Within a couple of years, he was a decorated officer in the War of 1812, and a friend of Andrew Jackson's, all by the age of 21 , and his life continues from one amazing achievement after another after that, including a stint between governorship of TN and his taking of Texas and founding the Texas Republic as a Cherokee lobbyist.

    George Washington, my ass. This man was simply on another level.
    , @athEIst
    He was governor of Tennessee only two years. He then led the Texans to independence from Mexico and was President of Texas twice, Senator from Texas for a long while, and then Governor of Texas until impeached for his refusal to agree to the secession of Texas. His second wife was an Indian.
  85. @Steve Sailer
    Sam Houston spent a few years with an Indian tribe between being governor of Tennessee and governor of Texas.

    Actually,

    He went southwest, where he lived for a few years with the Cherokee tribe led by Ahuludegi (also spelled Oolooteka) on Hiwassee Island, on the Hiwassee River above its confluence with the Tennessee. Ahuludegi had become hereditary chief after his brother moved west; the European Americans called him John Jolly. He became an adoptive father to Houston, giving him the Cherokee name of Colonneh, meaning “the Raven”.[12] Houston learned fluent Cherokee while living with the tribe. He visited his family in Maryville every several months. He returned to Maryville in 1812, and at age 19, Houston founded a one-room schoolhouse in Blount County between his town and Knoxville.[9] This was the first school built in Tennessee.

    Within a couple of years, he was a decorated officer in the War of 1812, and a friend of Andrew Jackson’s, all by the age of 21 , and his life continues from one amazing achievement after another after that, including a stint between governorship of TN and his taking of Texas and founding the Texas Republic as a Cherokee lobbyist.

    George Washington, my ass. This man was simply on another level.

    Read More
  86. @Honesthughgrant
    Wow, those Indians sure were good breeders! I swear every white Texan and Southern Boy is at LEAST 1/8 Indian.

    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    No, overwhelmingly mixing was white males and native females. I had uncles and cousins in the Army that used to hook up with the half-white Bettie Page trailer types when based at the southwestern forts, and I know of at least one child so fathered. Old Sarge paid child support, but marriage would have been out of the question. If an auntie or niece had been putting out for some Indian she’d have been disowned and I wouldn’t have heard of it. The so called double standard was just common sense in those days and the women knew there was a big difference between what was OK for them and for the boys.

    Besides, very few native men really appeal to white women. They don’t work, they are drunks and they are rough and unsatisfactory bed companions. Men, being much less fussy as to with whom they will do it with, find native women more satisfactory, and native girls especially if they are half white are usually somewhat clean and will present themselves invitingly. Although satisfactory as bedmates, marrying one leads to misery for most white men who do and most know it. I have worked with more than one white man who married a part-Indian woman, and every one of them regretted every aspect of the relationship except the sex. Bettie Page turns into Rosie O’Donnell or worse pretty fast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chief

    Darfur Said:

    I have worked with more than one white man who married a part-Indian woman, and every one of them regretted every aspect of the relationship except the sex. Bettie Page turns into Rosie O’Donnell or worse pretty fast.
     
    This is generally true.

    I've often wondered if the stereotype of Indian alcoholism isn't directly tied to the fact that Indian men usually marry Indian women. It also might explain why, back in the day, a number of indian men left their tribes to work as scouts for the american army. Pointing out the encampment of your ex-wife to angry US soldiers must have been a favorite native-american pastime.
  87. @Anonymous
    Thank you. In Mexico there are a scant few Mexican nationals of mostly white DNA, but they guard those genes rigorously and do not intermarry darker. Almost all are 100% Castillian Spanish, the descendants of explorers.

    The blondes you see all over Mexican telenovelas get the hair color from a bottle, not an ancestor. Most South Americans and Mexicans are of direct, indiluted Meso-American Indian ancestry with less white ancestry than most black Americans, who were exposed to white colonists far earlier and for far longer, have. The average Mexican who immigrates to the US is very dark, lacks Caucasian facial features and ectomorphic body type, and tends to be short in stature, short-waisted, with flat butts, flat faces, spiky hair, and unusually long arms. They look exactly like Inca and Mayan temple wall illustrations: the ones where fellows in bright toucan feather headdresses are lifting their curved arms skyward to some sun god who demands blood.

    These features are deliriously nonwhite, and Mexicans need to stop lying.

    Yet these wall-scrawlers and crime magnets insist their race, not their language, is "Spanish" and are absolutely obsessed with race, proudly certain they are whiter and better than black Americans who mixed with whites centuries before the first white sales wagon finally reached their dusty, obscure ancestral village - you know the one: it has an X somewhere in the middle of its name, pronounced as an H.

    I am black and I submitted DNA to 23andme. It turns out I am more than 30 percent white. The average Mexican is typically less than 5% so. These are largely illiterate people from very small, remote, low-tech villages hundreds of miles between in a vast, low-resource land of little historic interest to Europeans anywhere northeast of Spain or Portugal.

    The odds of a white arriving there, then either plucking humble bar-wench Consuela out Pocahontas-style into a better life elsewhere, or especially staying there to abandon higher society and raise thousands of children with her, are identically ridiculously remote.

    Yet Mexican migrant workers continue to insist they are "el mejor de los mayates".

    An example: a 50-something Mexican male, black as a raisin, and riding a bicycle, cut my car off dangerously in traffic the other day and when I gave him a shocked look, he shouted the N word, flipped a bird, sneered and wheelied off. This example of Latino racism is not unique, nor is it rare.

    It happens to be the sole reason George Zimmerman hunted and poached Trayvon Martin. Martin was meant as a trophy kill to please whites, whom Jorge anxiously still hopes will pat him on the head and invite him to become one of them. Remember Leonard Bernstein's song:

    "Everything good in America, I want to be in America..."

    Sir, you are quite correct, except that there are more pure Whites in Mexico than most people think, and not all Spaniards. At one time fair numbers of Germans, Czechs, and Poles came in also and few of them left. Also there are many “light mestizos” who leave Mexico at much lower percentages than indios and dark mestizos. Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal to the US are actually middle to dark mestizos. Pure indios just don’t have the ability to fit in at all, or at least the ones from the more numerous tribes don’t. Light mestizos tend to do okay in Mexico, although narcotraficante violence and the prospect of supervisory or bilingual customer contact jobs in the US has brought some in.

    Pierce thought Mexico was ten percent White, twenty percent pure indio and the rest a continuum of mestizo. I think there are a few more indios than that, but the principle is right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal to the US are actually middle to dark mestizos. The legal ones were Spanish.
     
    Historically the illegal ones were the more mestizo looking and we got few pure Indians from Mexico and the Central American nations which have even higher percentages of pure Indians that don't speak Spanish. With Obama the barriers to entry are getting non-existent so we were flooded last summer by indios from highland villages in El Salvador, Guatemala etc. These villages are where Indian languages are spoken with many not knowing Spanish.

    But all during Bush and Obama admins the Mexican and Central American invaders have been getting more mestizo and more Indian due to willful deterioration of immigration enforcement. The Mexican illegals we used to get 40-50 years ago tended to be more Spanish and from Northern Mexico. These "whiter" Mexicans were the cooks, housekeepers, gardeners, that the fabulous Bush boys grew up with in Houston, Texas that conditioned them to favor Mexican immigration legal and illegal.
    Back then Central American immigration (legal and illegal) was minor compared with what we got from Mexico

  88. The Gullah are a subgroup of African Americans. I read that they average over 90 percent Sub Saharan African ancestry, which would make them the African American group who on average have the least amount of Caucasian admixture.

    Read More
  89. Nobody wants to hear about your personal genetic mix. Or about your back problems. Or kids.

    Read More
  90. @Whiskey
    Correction, August Wilson did NOT write "Jelly's Last Jam." He was however adamant that Morton "passed" which is nonsense to those who knew him -- and his pallbearers included Kid Ory, Mutt Carey, and Ed Garland. Ironically, Morton was refused admittance when stabbed to an all-White LA hospital, he had to go to a Colored one.

    Which is a point of supreme irony. Passing and enforcement of same comes from those seeking power to define who is or is not a particular race for power. Whites certainly did not consider Morton White, otherwise he'd been admitted to the White hospital. Blacks now are defining those as "not Black enough" as outside the race.

    For example, Black Power nationalists considered Louis Armstrong "not really Black" because he was not posturing and posing like they were. Meanwhile Armstrong famously insisted he would not perform to segregated audiences in his New Orleans return. And the man lived after all, in Harlem.

    Prior to about 1950 or so much of the resistance to marginal cases identifying as White came from Whites, now it is Blacks defining behavior and actions as defining "Black" or "White" ... Chris Rock when he was funny used to mine this vein for comedy gold. I.E. when keeping it real goes wrong.

    http://www.louisarmstronghouse.org/visiting/overview.htm

    Louis Armstrong– He lived in a house in Queens after 1943

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Thanks. I stand corrected. My NYC knowledge is hazy being an Angelino.
  91. @Clyde
    Tina Turner --lots of Indian
    Joe Jackson -- same (Michael Jackson's father)
    Same for the Jackson Five and the sisters
    Neil Young looks a bit
    Gene Clark (Byrds) looks part Indian. He's from Oklahoma
    Condaleeza Rice seems part Indian.

    Jeremiah Wright (Obama's preacher) looks very white. He was in the US Navy elite and >>

    "The first photograph was taken during the hospitalization of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. Jeremiah Wright, in his official capacity as military medical personnel, assists in the medical procedure and is standing next to the president on the gurney. A letter of commendation to Rev. Wright from Vice Admiral George Burkley, the president's personal physician is also posted to the site."

    The Mocha elite:
    Eric Holder and his wife
    Jeh Johnson -- Open borders saboteur
    Valarie Jarret
    Kamala Harris

    Jeremiah Wright looks a lot like former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    No he doesn't . He looks like minor Negro royalty.
  92. @Steve Sailer
    Jeremiah Wright looks a lot like former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.

    No he doesn’t . He looks like minor Negro royalty.

    Read More
  93. @OptingOut
    SPMoore8 - I'm breaking my no-more-commenting-at-Steve's-blog to correct your repetition of an historical fiction as fact. The self-proclaimed "melungeons" have been proven, by DNA analysis, to be the product of black male ancestors and White females (google it).

    Given that 23&Me's customer base is self-selected, as Steve notes, these mixed-race percentages are quite misleading. There's no way the average Mexican here in Texas is 65% European. Eva Longoria is something like 73 percent, and her latino ancestry is quite visible. Additionally, a LOT of 23&Me and other genetic testing firms customer base consists of Ashkenazi Jews. My husband ended up possessing about 12% Ashkenazi genes and 23&Me listed hundreds of purported 4-5 cousins, all Jewish - i.e. no one from his Italian/Irish ancestors. Per our results at 23&Me, I'm approximately .3% North African ancestry and he is <.1%.

    The facts of the matter pertaining to the “Melungeons” is not as clear cut as you would have it, read the target article

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html

    The study does not rule out the possibility of other races or ethnicities forming part of the Melungeon heritage, but none were detected among the 69 male lines and 8 female lines that were tested. Also, the study did not look for later racial mixing that might have occurred, for instance with Native Americans.

    The usage of the term is used very broadly to mean any bi-racial or particularly tri-racial mix, based on the mixture in SW VA and E TN. In my own family, and among my friends, it is also used to denote the broader term. But after all the SW VA / E TN set is a relatively small set.

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don’t know.

    Two other points on this racial angle.

    The first is that in the last analysis I think genetics is a bit like IQ. In other words, your genetic heritage by the numbers may tell you exactly what your mixture is, but if it doesn’t match up to the actual life experiences of your ancestors, and whatever they passed on to you, it is basically meaningless.

    The second point — and this pertains to our European ancestry as well — is that a significant number of births are illegitimate, or not as direct as one might think. We like to think genealogy is clean and easy to grasp. It is anything but.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    German-Jewish peddlers worked in small towns throughout the South in the third quarter of the 19th century.
    , @ben tillman

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don’t know.
     
    Could have been a peddler or a plantation owner.

    The Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for "Agriculture" from 1901 says the following:


    On the virgin soil of America the Jews were among the pioneers of Agriculture. While Louis de Torres introduced tobacco into use for civilized mankind (Kayserling, "Columbus," p. 95), Jews transplanted the sugar-cane from Madeira to Brazil in 1548 (according to Fishell; see M. J. Kohler "Publ. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc." ii. 94) or in 1531 (Lindo, in G. A. Kohut's article, ibid. iii. 135; compare Joseph ha-Kohen, in R. Gottheil's translation, ibid. ii. 133). During the seventeenthcentury the sugar industry was monopolized by the Jews, and with their expulsion from Brazil it was transplanted to the West Indies, where, in 1663, David de Mercato's invention of new sugar-mills benefited the sugar-trade in Barbados. The Jews in Georgia, chief among them Abraham de Lyon, transplanted vine and silk culture from Portugal to America ("Publ. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc." i. 10). But while De Lyon cherished great expectations in that direction, the Jews of Georgia in general found the production of indigo, rice, corn, tobacco, and cotton more profitable (ibid. p. 12). In fact, the cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.
     
    The entry is here:

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/910-agriculture

    Wikipedia discusses the encyclopedia's publication, editorial board, and scholarship here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Encyclopedia

  94. @Jefferson
    "But the paper shows that the average person who is 27% black in the study DOES identify as white. "

    Any so-called "White" person in the U.S who has as much as 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture is most likely either North African like Egyptian for example or Latin American like Cuban for example.

    You are not going to find any WASP, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, or Jew White in the U.S with anywhere near 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture.

    You are not going to find any WASP, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, or Jew White in the U.S with anywhere near 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture.

    You might find ones who consider themselves to be White, but the opinion of others might be quite different.

    Read More
  95. @Handle
    Think what you could do with this admixture data, correlated with some other test score or life outcome data.

    The progressive theory of racial disparity is hypodescent discrimination. Everyone who looks black enough is subject to the same amount of oppression, even Gates himself.

    That theory would predict something like a sharp discontinuity between all people who appear black enough and all people who appear white enough.

    On the other hand, HBD would predict a tight correlation between European admixture and scores or outcomes, and a smooth, continuous transition from the West African Mean to the European Mean.

    It's the ultimate test of the nature (genes) or nurture (social oppression) debate.

    Now that deserves a kickstarter.

    I suspect we can even get someone like Gates or Oprah to do this test, if you frame it as if one is trying to prove the reality of the impact of unjust discrimination, once and for all, to that stubborn remnant of ignorant, wicked haters out there.

    On the other hand, HBD would predict a tight correlation between European admixture and scores or outcomes, and a smooth, continuous transition from the West African Mean to the European Mean.

    It’s the ultimate test of the nature (genes) or nurture (social oppression) debate.

    “HBD” does not include an assumption that Whites who mate with Blacks are, on average, exactly equal to the White average.

    Read More
  96. @Steve Sailer
    Sam Houston spent a few years with an Indian tribe between being governor of Tennessee and governor of Texas.

    He was governor of Tennessee only two years. He then led the Texans to independence from Mexico and was President of Texas twice, Senator from Texas for a long while, and then Governor of Texas until impeached for his refusal to agree to the secession of Texas. His second wife was an Indian.

    Read More
  97. @EriK
    Can someone please get Gates to invite Ben Jealous on his program?

    “Can someone please get Gates to invite Ben Jealous on his program?”

    Ben Jealous has been on Finding Your Roots. After reading his admixture report, Skip Gates called the President of the NAACP, “the whitest black man I have ever met.” This was not really a surprise since his father was from a wealthy Boston Brahmin family and his mother was part of the mixed race elite of Richmond.

    Read More
  98. “Jeremiah Wright looks a lot like former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.”

    If they both took a DNA test and the results revealed similar percentages of Sub Saharan and European ancestry on both men but one self identifies as “White” while the other self identifies as “Black”, liberals would use this as an example of how race is a social construct because here you have two people with similar ancestry yet they both self identify as completely different races from each other.

    Read More
  99. @Former Darfur
    Sir, you are quite correct, except that there are more pure Whites in Mexico than most people think, and not all Spaniards. At one time fair numbers of Germans, Czechs, and Poles came in also and few of them left. Also there are many "light mestizos" who leave Mexico at much lower percentages than indios and dark mestizos. Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal to the US are actually middle to dark mestizos. Pure indios just don't have the ability to fit in at all, or at least the ones from the more numerous tribes don't. Light mestizos tend to do okay in Mexico, although narcotraficante violence and the prospect of supervisory or bilingual customer contact jobs in the US has brought some in.

    Pierce thought Mexico was ten percent White, twenty percent pure indio and the rest a continuum of mestizo. I think there are a few more indios than that, but the principle is right.

    Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal to the US are actually middle to dark mestizos. The legal ones were Spanish.

    Historically the illegal ones were the more mestizo looking and we got few pure Indians from Mexico and the Central American nations which have even higher percentages of pure Indians that don’t speak Spanish. With Obama the barriers to entry are getting non-existent so we were flooded last summer by indios from highland villages in El Salvador, Guatemala etc. These villages are where Indian languages are spoken with many not knowing Spanish.

    But all during Bush and Obama admins the Mexican and Central American invaders have been getting more mestizo and more Indian due to willful deterioration of immigration enforcement. The Mexican illegals we used to get 40-50 years ago tended to be more Spanish and from Northern Mexico. These “whiter” Mexicans were the cooks, housekeepers, gardeners, that the fabulous Bush boys grew up with in Houston, Texas that conditioned them to favor Mexican immigration legal and illegal.
    Back then Central American immigration (legal and illegal) was minor compared with what we got from Mexico

    Read More
  100. @Hunsdon
    On the one hand: It's nice to see Truth back. As I've said for years, I'll take Truth over Whiskey any day . . . .

    On the other hand: JFK? And as far as the actual pic goes, sons from different mothers seems like a two-timing stretch for J Edgar.

    O.J. Simpson should pose with Obama: a halfback and a half-black!

    Read More
  101. @Former Darfur
    I guess those white Texan and Southern girls really loved some Native American action.

    No, overwhelmingly mixing was white males and native females. I had uncles and cousins in the Army that used to hook up with the half-white Bettie Page trailer types when based at the southwestern forts, and I know of at least one child so fathered. Old Sarge paid child support, but marriage would have been out of the question. If an auntie or niece had been putting out for some Indian she'd have been disowned and I wouldn't have heard of it. The so called double standard was just common sense in those days and the women knew there was a big difference between what was OK for them and for the boys.

    Besides, very few native men really appeal to white women. They don't work, they are drunks and they are rough and unsatisfactory bed companions. Men, being much less fussy as to with whom they will do it with, find native women more satisfactory, and native girls especially if they are half white are usually somewhat clean and will present themselves invitingly. Although satisfactory as bedmates, marrying one leads to misery for most white men who do and most know it. I have worked with more than one white man who married a part-Indian woman, and every one of them regretted every aspect of the relationship except the sex. Bettie Page turns into Rosie O'Donnell or worse pretty fast.

    Darfur Said:

    I have worked with more than one white man who married a part-Indian woman, and every one of them regretted every aspect of the relationship except the sex. Bettie Page turns into Rosie O’Donnell or worse pretty fast.

    This is generally true.

    I’ve often wondered if the stereotype of Indian alcoholism isn’t directly tied to the fact that Indian men usually marry Indian women. It also might explain why, back in the day, a number of indian men left their tribes to work as scouts for the american army. Pointing out the encampment of your ex-wife to angry US soldiers must have been a favorite native-american pastime.

    Read More
  102. 87

    I’m from upstate NY. I sent my sample to 23andMe years ago, and you are correct about NYS’s laws. However, they didn’t stop the kit being delivered, and I mailed the sample from Vermont just to be safe. The results are online, so unless NYS is blocking websites now… Anyhow, as others have pointed out, there is probably selection bias in these results.

    Read More
  103. prosa123 [AKA "Peter"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Based on, admittedly, a limited number of cases, 1/8th seems to be a fairly reasonable dividing line when it comes to black/white identity. In other words, a person who is 1/8th or less black, the remainder being white, will look pretty much all white. There might be some hints as to his or her black ancestry, if you know what to look for, but no more than you’ll occasionally see in people who are fully white. People who are more than 1/8th black generally do have more obvious black ancestry.
    With Asian ancestry, the dividing line seems to be 1/4.

    Read More
  104. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D
    The 1 in 512 thing is not right because black blood is not evenly distributed. If the average is .19% but 97% of whites have zero (as you say), then the 3% that have some have a LOT more than .19% - 33 times as much or 6.33% on average, for those who have any at all (.97x0%+.03x6.33%) = .19%.

    By the time of the great urban immigrant wave of the late 19th/early 20% century, miscegenation was highly looked down upon (and illegal in many places) until the 1960s so most of those immigrants (Italians , Jews, etc.) are 0% black.

    Averages are very misleading because no one is an "average" person. I'm guessing that whites with black ancestry fall into certain well defined groups - Creoles from New Orleans, "white" Cubans, etc. and again most of the rest of us have none at all. So the statement that the average white American is .19% black is totally misleading. The median white American has NO black ancestry at all, and a small tail group of 6 million are between .01 and 25% black. Even this group is not uniform - those who have 12 or 25% (for example Obama's children if he had married his white girlfriend) are from a small group of recent formation and then there must be a larger group (since the average is only 6%) that has significantly less than 6%. If there was an even distribution from .01 to 25%, the average (among those who have any black genes at all) would be 12.5% but it's half that.

    Yes to all you said.

    The problem with talking about “white Americans” is that there really is no such thing. The conditions that prevailed in 17th century Virginia do not pertain to 19th century Kentucky, to 20th century Pennsylvania, etc. Each area had its peculiarities.

    Here’s an example. Seventeenth century Virginia (not the US, a colony of Britain) had Indians, free whites, indentured whites, indentured blacks, and black slaves. The legal status of blacks wasn’t settled until 1662, when the Virginia House of Burgesses ruled partus sequitur ventrem.

    Before that, intermarriage between freed black and white indentured servants was not uncommon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Key_Grinstead

    A “black” descendant of William and Elizabeth:

    http://image1.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2008/91/24568237_120707520109.jpg

    Read More
  105. @Truth



    Didn’t you argue a few months ago that J Edgar Hoover had Black ancestors? (I disagreed).

     

    Below is an iconic photo of JFK with Larry Csonka and OJ Simpson. They look like his two sons from different mothers.

    http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2007/07/photo-of-the--2.html

    Oh my gosh, that is funny!

    Read More
  106. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Heather Mac Donald says that of the 6,261 black homicide victims in 2013, approximately 200 were killed by police:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1222hm.html

    Read More
  107. ” People who are more than 1/8th black generally do have more obvious black ancestry.”

    Yeah I agree that Negro features become quite obvious in people who genetically have more Black ancestry than an Octoroon.

    That is why I have a hard time believing that people with 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture are passing for White.

    Read More
  108. Big Bill [AKA "The Shyster"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jefferson
    "Here’s another way to think of it. If the average self-identified black is 73.2% black and the average self-identified white is 0.19% black, then the average black in America is 385 times blacker than the average white. That doesn’t seem very murky to me."

    Is 0.19% Black considered Negro enough for affirmative action purposes ?

    Is 0.19% Black considered Negro enough for affirmative action purposes ?

    It sounds like “One Drop” to me. :)

    However, if you mean “affirmative action” in the get-contracts-and-free-money-from-the-government sense, I doubt it.

    In order to qualify for racial set-asides, for example, you have to be certified “Negro” by an official Negro certification agency approved by the Feds. They will do home visits, look at your birth certificate and driver’s license, check your skin color, ask if you are a member of the NAACP, AKA, Boule, etc., do a home inspection (e.g. African masks on the walls? Orange/green/black prints or furnishings? photos of dark-skinned relations, etc.).

    It isn’t to say that hi-yalla one-droppers CAN’T be officially certified as “Negro”, but it is very, very hard. If you look white and act white there is very little chance. “Self-identification” just doesn’t work.

    There are Negro certification agencies in pretty much all the major US cities.

    Read More
  109. @Jack D
    For some reason, it has never been shameful to have Indian ancestors in the US, neither among blacks nor among whites, even upper class whites. Indians I guess were brave warriors and had claim to being here first, so it was OK to have them in your family tree (whereas for a white person to have ANY black blood was a shameful secret and not something that you would ever admit in public). In Gates's TV show, just about everyone (aside from the recent immigrants like the Jews) claims Indian ancestry but few actually have any (to the point that it is funny). Blacks especially, since it is pretty clear that few are 100% African, prefer to claim Indian blood rather than the blood of the hated white man.

    That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. How sad that the situation has degenerated so much since.
    As for not worrying about a bit of Indian blood (from the civilised tribes of course): of course one is or would be proud of such blood. These were warriors and they even beat us quite a number of times.
    The blacks never consistently managed that back in Africa; here, of course, they were slaves, and no one wants to be descended from those.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. "

    The War Nerd has lost it, or I am soured on him now. But he did have an article on Liberia and what happened with the freed slaves returned to Africa (Liberia, not sure if there was another state).

    It was kind of Confederacy Africa down to the mutton chops in the portraits.

    I'm too lazy to find a link to it, while I think he still writes all of his stuff isn't in one place anymore, and this article is older than five years.

    I have a position that is kind of related to this. I am from the Southern US, family has been ... for a long time.

    But I wish to god, that slave one was never brought over to this country. So much so that I really don't have much sympathy for the Confederacy.

    Although the part of it that was (and still is) a culture clash with the North, well I think that is pretty cool. A discussion of this from the "Yankee" viewpoint, ie the "busybodies" of North America can be found in the Colin Woodard book discussed here:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/05/colin-woodard-s-eleven-nations-shows-a-less-than-united-states.html

    I thought it was really good till he started on post Civil War history, then he kind of started stopped being objective (beam in his own eye kind of thing).

    Man, thinking about that book makes me want to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, eat some pork rinds, and just generally be as un-New England as I can possibly be. Maybe I can pee on a picture of JFK or something.
    , @Jack D
    You make it sound that it is self-evident that you would want to be part Indian but of course, it is really an open question that depends on how you perceive Indian culture - it's all a question of "spin". Just because some were warriors doesn't automatically make them desirable ancestors. The Zulus beat the British in S. Africa a number of times also. There are still some war-like tribes in the jungle in Brazil but no one is seeking them out to be sperm donors.

    In Mexico, the DNA evidence shows that the mestizos (who are the majority of the population there) were mostly the product of Indian mothers and Spanish (white) fathers. I suspect the same would be true in the US. White men did not marry/have sex with these Indian women because they admired the war like qualities of their fathers and brothers. Rather, these were the women who were most available to them on the frontier.

    Admiring the war like qualities of Indians is better done from a remove of time and space. When they are exercising their war-like qualities on your scalp, they just seem like savages and not at all admirable.

    Of course you don't really get to pick and choose your ancestors (though you can, as long as you don't take the DNA test, invent them ala Elizabeth Warren) so you might as well view them in a positive light whoever they are. To some (limited) extent, the "race as a social construct" people are right. If you have 16 or 32 ancestors and 1 of them is an Indian and you think of yourself as Indian (or a "little bit" Indian) instead of "almost all white" then you are socially constructing your identity by picking and choosing. The truth is that most of us have very boring lineages - lots of peasants hoeing weeds. Lincoln said that God must love the common people because he made so many of them. Even if one of your ancestors was Sitting Bull himself, that leaves a whole bunch of potato diggers that make up most of your DNA. It's like re-incarnation - when people say that they are reincarnated, their ancestor is always Julius Caesar or Charlemagne, it's never Rufus, the guy with a little patch of barley out in the countryside.
  110. “The usual estimate is that African-Americans are about 80% black. I’d suspect that this lower figure here may be an artifact of the selection process: paying to have your DNA analyzed probably appeals more to wealthier and whiter African-Americans, such as Henry Louis Gates.”

    There probably is a correlation between class and the level of Caucasian admixture in the African American community. I notice that on average the Black underclass looks darker than the talented tenth.

    You are more likely to find Mulato/Quadroon looking High Yellas among the talented tenth than you are in the housing projects/section 8 housing.

    Have you noticed that most Black males from the underclass who get shot and killed by the police do not look like they have significant Caucasian admixture ? Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Michael Brown, etc do not have Mulato/Quadroon looking phenotypes.

    Michael Brown looks closer to the average Haitian in phenotype than he does to the average Dominican.

    While the African American talented tenth on average look closer to the average Dominican in phenotype than they do to the average Haitian.

    Read More
  111. Big Bill [AKA "Race Traitor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @james wilson
    Pre-Civil War northern blacks were 100% African. All those photos of black Union troops don't lie. So all the mixing happened first in the south, and not in the way of popular opinion.

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only--which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well, who then had that example to work from. Those relatively small number of slaves who were largely white became wildly successful reproductively after the war--with blacks.

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only–which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well,

    Yeah. This is a dirty secret about race relations. Very uncomfortable for black folks to talk about around white folks (unless you are an honorary insider, like me). Lots of black women bred with white men for standard female reasons: better outcome for the kids, monetary support, etc.

    My Southern black wife (mocha, maybe 40% black, identifies black) has plenty of family documentation–wills, photos, court transcripts–regarding the white ancestors mixed throughout her family’s history and how they provided for their families. It was quite common. That Mandingo/Roots evil-slavemaster-raping-black-slaves-in-the-slave-quarters stuff is purely for popular consumption. Black folks know better.

    Whenever you see a black man agitating about Reparations, he is really expressing daddy issues: he is upset because he never got a fair share of his white g’g’grandaddy’s estate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Apparently white liberal journalists don't and I suspect younger blacks, having been raised on the Narrative, don't either.

    Just now I looked up an article about Lawrence Dennis, the mulatto American fascist who passed for white.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/04/usa.race

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    "Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. "

    Got that - rape was a PERVASIVE practice. Probably (and this is just a guess) 1 in 5 black women was raped by her master - it was just as bad for slaves in the South back then as it is for American college women today.
  112. The New York Times and other liberal media outlets are trying to paint White America as being racially murky, but apparently we are not racially murky enough to qualify for affirmative action programs and be protected under hate crime laws.

    Read More
  113. @Gaius Baltar

    paying to have your DNA analyzed probably appeals more to wealthier and whiter African-Americans, such as Henry Louis Gates.
     
    Yes, and that is to the extent that common, lower-class blacks (the vast majority) have even heard of such a thing.

    I worked for a city housing authority back in the 90s right before they started demolishing many of the housing projects. I noticed that the blacks in the projects seemed to be darker on average than middle class blacks I encountered. It was also very rare to see a fair skinned black in "the hood". The blacks who look like Henry Louis Gates, Vincent Gray or Sharon Pratt Kelly tend to live in white neighborhoods.

    I would like to see the 23andMe project do their genetic testing in places like Ferguson, MO and SouthEast DC east of the Anacostia River. I bet the number would be closer to 90% African ancestry amongst those isolated populations.

    The blacks I taught in high school in the late ’70s in LA were uniformly light colored, and could be described as middle class. They had both parents at home and their fathers had decent jobs.
    One year a coal black kid was recruited to play on the football team. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, an animal. The school was about one-quarter black, and the black students of the sort I have just described were embarrassed and horrified. They did not identify with him, and they did not appreciate it when they discovered that white liberals (i.e., all the other teachers in the school) expected them to. I hinted, right wing monster that I was, that their attitude was both understandable and honorable, and they appreciated that. I hate to think what forty years of unforgiving Leftism might have done to their youthful clear vision and common sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gaius Baltar
    I think that middle and upper class, fair skinned blacks (such as White House adviser Valerie Garrett or former DC mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly) are still privately embarrassed by the lower-classed, darker masses. But they would NEVER say it except perhaps around themselves. They would never marry amongst the lower classes and they live as far away from them as possible. They tend to be hypersensitive about exposing their children to the negative aspects of black culture - which is why they want to keep them away from the darker masses.

    The problem with these people is that they all benefit from the victim narrative and partake in it when it is expedient for them to do so.

    For more reading on this, see "Our Kind of People" by Lawrence Graham
  114. “If you have to go back to the 1700s to find a black ancestor that probably means there wasn’t one as the black population of Europe at that time was negligible. The black genes probably date back to the time of the Roman Empire”

    Are you talking about the Moors ?

    Read More
  115. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I would be absolutely fascinated to see a dna test run on same fragment of organic matter left behind by Richard Nixon
    Ever since reading in a long lost and astonishingly elusive magazine article aeons ago that the Jowlhound himself was Albanian on the maternal side, the subject of Nixon’s ethnicity has obsessed me. The more I look at photos of Nixon the more intrigued I get. Clearly, Nixon never was of pure British/Irish ancestry despite the claims and fabricated genealogies. Something dark near eastern/mediterranean is lurking there
    I remember my mother always said that Nixon was a ‘Greek’ man based solely on her initial impressions of her looks. ‘Greek’ was always het description of choice for a so called ‘dark european’ with a noticeable swarthy admixture somewhere.

    Read More
  116. “It sounds like “One Drop” to me. :)

    However, if you mean “affirmative action” in the get-contracts-and-free-money-from-the-government sense, I doubt it.

    In order to qualify for racial set-asides, for example, you have to be certified “Negro” by an official Negro certification agency approved by the Feds. They will do home visits, look at your birth certificate and driver’s license, check your skin color, ask if you are a member of the NAACP, AKA, Boule, etc., do a home inspection (e.g. African masks on the walls? Orange/green/black prints or furnishings? photos of dark-skinned relations, etc.).

    It isn’t to say that hi-yalla one-droppers CAN’T be officially certified as “Negro”, but it is very, very hard. If you look white and act white there is very little chance. “Self-identification” just doesn’t work.

    There are Negro certification agencies in pretty much all the major US cities.”

    I am Calabrian and Sicilian. Can the government issue me an official Negro certificate if I show them the Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken scene in “True Romance” ?

    Read More
  117. “I don’t know which way the sample’s biases push this figure for whites”

    I would guess that the whites who do this are more likely to have some non-white genes. For myself, I have considered (but never actually gotten around to) doing this primarily because I would like to know if there is any truth to my own family’s lore of some native American ancestry. I already mostly know about my European ancestry from traditional geneology, it’s the “secret” ancestry that genetic testing might reveal that makes it appealing.

    Read More
  118. “I would be absolutely fascinated to see a dna test run on same fragment of organic matter left behind by Richard Nixon
    Ever since reading in a long lost and astonishingly elusive magazine article aeons ago that the Jowlhound himself was Albanian on the maternal side, the subject of Nixon’s ethnicity has obsessed me. The more I look at photos of Nixon the more intrigued I get. Clearly, Nixon never was of pure British/Irish ancestry despite the claims and fabricated genealogies. Something dark near eastern/mediterranean is lurking there
    I remember my mother always said that Nixon was a ‘Greek’ man based solely on her initial impressions of her looks. ‘Greek’ was always het description of choice for a so called ‘dark european’ with a noticeable swarthy admixture somewhere.”

    If Richard Nixon did have Middle Eastern or Southern European ancestry in his family tree, it does not make him Black. It just makes him Non Nordic Aryan.

    Richard Nixon was still labeled as a racist by many Black Americans who thought his administration kept Blacks in poverty, so apparently his “dark complexion” did not shield him from racism accusations.

    Read More
  119. “That is why I have a hard time believing that people with 27 percent Sub Saharan African admixture are passing for White.”

    Rashida Jones is probably the most famous example – she is around 1/3 black but generally plays white characters. And the only reason we know she is part black is because her father is famous. A non-celebrity with her background and appearance could easily slip into being white without any suspicion.

    Read More
  120. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What’s happening on Wall Street…

    Isn’t it supply side economics?

    But Liberals don’t say so because Obama does it.

    And Conservatives don’t say so because Obama does it.

    Read More
  121. Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney

    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1&#8243;

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney

    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:

    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1

    Here is a picture of a Republican politician named John Ensign who is 1/8 Filipino. Despite having a little of Pinay in him, phenotype wise he would stick out like a sore thumb in The Philippines. He has a better chance of blending in Poland phenotype wise.

    http://noethics.net/News/images/stories/ensign.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Actressses Meg and Jennifer Tilly (real name Chan) generally play Caucasian parts even though they are 1/2 Chinese. If you point out their Asian ancestry and look for hints of it in their appearance, it is somewhat detectable, but if you don't know about it in advance you might miss it. Then again, I don't know how much cosmetic surgery they may have had.

    OTOH, some friends of mine are a Chinese-Jewish couple and their son looks unmistakably Asian. It was a little strange attending the bar mitzvah of an Asian looking boy but I suppose stranger things have happened.

    , @jon
    "Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about."

    It all comes down to the epicanthic fold - East Asians have it, S and SE Asians don't. So although the S/SE Asians tend to have much darker skin, their mixed children typically look more "white."
  122. A footnote in my copy of the essays of Montaigne: “Saint Jerome tells of a woman who, accused of adultery for giving birth to a black child, was absolved when Hippocrates explained that she had a picture of a dark man hanging in her room by her bed.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Hippocrates was a wise man. Adultery in those days was probably punished by stoning the woman to death. If he could save her life (as he was sworn to do) by telling some BS story and people believed him, more power to him.

    People here are all obsessed about the "truth" but white lies have their place. Unfortunately, modern liberals have no idea where that place is and so lie about everything as long as it appears to them to be to their short term advantage. It's also important to know what lies you can really get away with (who was going to contradict the greatest medical authority of his era?) and which ones you will get caught on and end up looking like a fool (Jackie, Erdely). What's really amazing to me is that while scientific knowledge has advanced greatly, understanding of such philosophical matters (such as when it is appropriate to lie) has not advanced one whit and in fact has gone backward. Of course, in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.
  123. @Anonymous
    Thank you. In Mexico there are a scant few Mexican nationals of mostly white DNA, but they guard those genes rigorously and do not intermarry darker. Almost all are 100% Castillian Spanish, the descendants of explorers.

    The blondes you see all over Mexican telenovelas get the hair color from a bottle, not an ancestor. Most South Americans and Mexicans are of direct, indiluted Meso-American Indian ancestry with less white ancestry than most black Americans, who were exposed to white colonists far earlier and for far longer, have. The average Mexican who immigrates to the US is very dark, lacks Caucasian facial features and ectomorphic body type, and tends to be short in stature, short-waisted, with flat butts, flat faces, spiky hair, and unusually long arms. They look exactly like Inca and Mayan temple wall illustrations: the ones where fellows in bright toucan feather headdresses are lifting their curved arms skyward to some sun god who demands blood.

    These features are deliriously nonwhite, and Mexicans need to stop lying.

    Yet these wall-scrawlers and crime magnets insist their race, not their language, is "Spanish" and are absolutely obsessed with race, proudly certain they are whiter and better than black Americans who mixed with whites centuries before the first white sales wagon finally reached their dusty, obscure ancestral village - you know the one: it has an X somewhere in the middle of its name, pronounced as an H.

    I am black and I submitted DNA to 23andme. It turns out I am more than 30 percent white. The average Mexican is typically less than 5% so. These are largely illiterate people from very small, remote, low-tech villages hundreds of miles between in a vast, low-resource land of little historic interest to Europeans anywhere northeast of Spain or Portugal.

    The odds of a white arriving there, then either plucking humble bar-wench Consuela out Pocahontas-style into a better life elsewhere, or especially staying there to abandon higher society and raise thousands of children with her, are identically ridiculously remote.

    Yet Mexican migrant workers continue to insist they are "el mejor de los mayates".

    An example: a 50-something Mexican male, black as a raisin, and riding a bicycle, cut my car off dangerously in traffic the other day and when I gave him a shocked look, he shouted the N word, flipped a bird, sneered and wheelied off. This example of Latino racism is not unique, nor is it rare.

    It happens to be the sole reason George Zimmerman hunted and poached Trayvon Martin. Martin was meant as a trophy kill to please whites, whom Jorge anxiously still hopes will pat him on the head and invite him to become one of them. Remember Leonard Bernstein's song:

    "Everything good in America, I want to be in America..."

    Total nonsense regarding Mexican racial components. There are many studies on the matter if you cared to look

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wakuna
    I bet that post is a troll. I first started to roll my eyes at the claim mexicans have flat faces, although the claim most mexicans are virtually pure amerind was pretty hilarious too. Then came the part where he said he was black, and while blacks in these circles tend to be pretty neurotic, this screed would be truly a first.
  124. White people interpreting disappointing 23andme results about that Indian princess ancestor don’t be sad. It is very possible grandma was not lying to you. You can have genealogical ancestors who are no longer genetic ones quite quickly in your family tree. One Indian in colonial times in your tree would drift away very easily and likely be undetectable.

    In a population like Mexican Mestizos the native heritage is more or less fixed in many if not most ancestors and you can see this in the results with bits of native ancestry dispersed all over a person’s genes from recombination. Much like African Americans or other mixed groups like central Asians

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I understand that in pre-DNA testing days, lying about paternity was fairly common so that the great-grandfather who appears on your family tree is not necessarily your genetic great grandfather. I suppose there were cases of secret adoptions and such (it was not unusual for the offspring of knocked up teens to be raised as the children of their grandmothers and to be told that their mothers were really their sisters), but generally speaking, most of the people who appear on the matrilineal side of your family tree really are your genetic ancestors - this is something that is pretty hard to fake.
    , @WhatEvvs

    One Indian in colonial times in your tree would drift away very easily and likely be undetectable.
     
    As would one black ancestor.
  125. @Clyde
    http://www.louisarmstronghouse.org/visiting/overview.htm

    Louis Armstrong-- He lived in a house in Queens after 1943

    Thanks. I stand corrected. My NYC knowledge is hazy being an Angelino.

    Read More
  126. @David
    A footnote in my copy of the essays of Montaigne: "Saint Jerome tells of a woman who, accused of adultery for giving birth to a black child, was absolved when Hippocrates explained that she had a picture of a dark man hanging in her room by her bed."

    Hippocrates was a wise man. Adultery in those days was probably punished by stoning the woman to death. If he could save her life (as he was sworn to do) by telling some BS story and people believed him, more power to him.

    People here are all obsessed about the “truth” but white lies have their place. Unfortunately, modern liberals have no idea where that place is and so lie about everything as long as it appears to them to be to their short term advantage. It’s also important to know what lies you can really get away with (who was going to contradict the greatest medical authority of his era?) and which ones you will get caught on and end up looking like a fool (Jackie, Erdely). What’s really amazing to me is that while scientific knowledge has advanced greatly, understanding of such philosophical matters (such as when it is appropriate to lie) has not advanced one whit and in fact has gone backward. Of course, in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs

    in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.
     
    Oh dear, you've invalidated the premise of Christian marriage, which requires that a woman legally swear to do all sorts of tough stuff.

    Perhaps you can think of a better arrangement, one that involves a woman being handed off to a husband, with no say in the matter?

    Or maybe we can help things along with modern technology. Chemical lobotomies?

    I wouldn't be so fast to write off the Democratic party. They are falling apart now under the stress of having responsibility, but the answer to rabid, rad-feminism isn't genuinely misogynistic crap like this. It's kind of a turn off.
  127. @granesperanzablanco
    White people interpreting disappointing 23andme results about that Indian princess ancestor don't be sad. It is very possible grandma was not lying to you. You can have genealogical ancestors who are no longer genetic ones quite quickly in your family tree. One Indian in colonial times in your tree would drift away very easily and likely be undetectable.

    In a population like Mexican Mestizos the native heritage is more or less fixed in many if not most ancestors and you can see this in the results with bits of native ancestry dispersed all over a person's genes from recombination. Much like African Americans or other mixed groups like central Asians

    I understand that in pre-DNA testing days, lying about paternity was fairly common so that the great-grandfather who appears on your family tree is not necessarily your genetic great grandfather. I suppose there were cases of secret adoptions and such (it was not unusual for the offspring of knocked up teens to be raised as the children of their grandmothers and to be told that their mothers were really their sisters), but generally speaking, most of the people who appear on the matrilineal side of your family tree really are your genetic ancestors – this is something that is pretty hard to fake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @granesperanzablanco
    You don't understand the point I'm making. On average you are 50% related to each parent and 25% to each grandparent. Work backwards and you'll see you may be unrelated genetically to a recent genealogical ancestor. Add to that 23andme is using an algorithm to look for patterns common to racial groups and you can see how an Indian princess in colonial times could become undetectable in one's 23andme results
  128. The only pre-1965 immigration act Non Hispanic White group in America who are racially murky are the Melungeons. But the Melungeons occupy only a small geographic section of The United States, which is Eastern Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky.

    The Melungeons do not make up a huge chunk of America’s 196 million Non Hispanic Whites. If you have never step foot in Kentucky and or Tennessee, odds are you have never met a Melungeon. That is how small their numbers are.

    Read More
  129. @Hapalong Cassidy
    What I find interesting is that the WN types find Indian ancestry to be far more acceptable than part-East Asian ancestry. I guess this is just a rare example of racialists ignoring HDB completely. Given that pure Native-Americans have lower IQ, lower educational achievement, and higher crime than East Asians, one would think they would prefer mixing with the latter rather than the former, in instances where they would accept mixing at all.

    Probably because the possible historical context where many white americans suspect have amerindian ”blood”.

    White-americans racialists, i think, tend to think about its own ethnicity where old possible mèlange could be happen. East asians aren’t inside this historical context.

    Read More
  130. @Jefferson
    "@Simon in London

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1"


    @Simon in London

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1

    Here is a picture of a Republican politician named John Ensign who is 1/8 Filipino. Despite having a little of Pinay in him, phenotype wise he would stick out like a sore thumb in The Philippines. He has a better chance of blending in Poland phenotype wise.
    http://noethics.net/News/images/stories/ensign.jpg

    Actressses Meg and Jennifer Tilly (real name Chan) generally play Caucasian parts even though they are 1/2 Chinese. If you point out their Asian ancestry and look for hints of it in their appearance, it is somewhat detectable, but if you don’t know about it in advance you might miss it. Then again, I don’t know how much cosmetic surgery they may have had.

    OTOH, some friends of mine are a Chinese-Jewish couple and their son looks unmistakably Asian. It was a little strange attending the bar mitzvah of an Asian looking boy but I suppose stranger things have happened.

    Read More
  131. “As more people become aware of Jews as now being non-white, we will see more articles like this from Jews.”

    Jews being seen as Nonwhite is mostly a Stormfront/Vanguard News Network/The Unz, etc thing. Most White Gentiles who do not post on these forums see Jews as Whites who practice a different religion. Similar to how The Unz sees Bosnians as Whites who practice a different religion.

    Most Americans do not see the half Jew amd half Gentile Ferris Bueller as being Multiracial just like Hussein Obama. To most Americans, Ferris Bueller is not seen as a product of racial miscegenation like Hussein Obama is. Ferris Buller is just a Honky Cracka in the eyes of most Americans.

    If you go to the article titled “Multiracial Americans” on Wikipedia, you only see celebrities who are a mixture of Caucasoid with Negroid or Mongoloid.

    Read More
  132. Dennis, like Seward Collins, found to his chagrin that the “elite which was to save civilization eventually turned out to be a collection of stumblebums and psychopaths, united primarily by an obsessive fear of an imaginary Jewish conspiracy. What began as an intimation of the apocalypse ended as squalid farce.”

    Gee, that sounds just like the comments section of one blogger I know.

    Read More
  133. @Jefferson
    "@Simon in London

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1"


    @Simon in London

    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1

    Here is a picture of a Republican politician named John Ensign who is 1/8 Filipino. Despite having a little of Pinay in him, phenotype wise he would stick out like a sore thumb in The Philippines. He has a better chance of blending in Poland phenotype wise.
    http://noethics.net/News/images/stories/ensign.jpg

    “Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about.”

    It all comes down to the epicanthic fold – East Asians have it, S and SE Asians don’t. So although the S/SE Asians tend to have much darker skin, their mixed children typically look more “white.”

    Read More
  134. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @attilathehen
    Carl Zimmer is Jewish. He's well aware of the high intermarriage rates of Jews with black and Asians and is slyly trying to question white gentiles about their racial lines. As more people become aware of Jews as now being non-white, we will see more articles like this from Jews. William Frey at Newsweek wrote an article about the coming non-white majority. He is Jewish.

    Any proof for your assertion that William Frey is Jewish? The surname “Frey” isn’t just found among Jews.

    The ancestry of most living Jews is similar to that of their ancestors. The Jewish intermarriage rate has only been significant for the last 30 years or so, and some of the intermarried are middle aged and older people on their second+ spouses with children from first marriages to Jews. If you have any statistics to back up your assertions, please lay them out. Otherwise, you repeatedly make hysterical assertions. And by the way, why do you assert that some Jews marrying Asians or African-Americans makes all Jews non-white, but some non-Jewish whites marrying African-Americans or Asians doesn’t have the same affect on the non-Jewish white population? It’s not going to turn out how you think, anyway. In 100 years, the vast majority of people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. or its successor nations will be ultra-Orthodox Jews who have nearly pure Jewish ancestry. We secular Jews are having few children, and their attachment to Judaism lessens every generation. I don’t expect that the religious strictures and closed community of ultra-Orthodoxy will be more attractive to ethnic outlier half-Jews and quarter-Jews than they are to pur sang Ashkenazis like me who could actually blend into that world if we had to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Frey is a German name that can be either Jewish or non-Jewish. Names like Zimmer, Zimmerman, Beck, Becker, Adler follow this same pattern. I speak German and when I hear a last name that can go either way, I ask the person their religion. If they say they are atheists then I ask their ethnicity and can easily determine then if they are Jewish. Europeans from Europe do not consider Jews white.

    Below is a list of famous Jewish and non-white couplings. This is the tip of the iceberg. Where I live there are many Jew-black-Asian marriages among the ordinary. Many of these couplings started in the 1940s to the present day. The Chicago Tribune ran an article a couple of weeks ago about the "nonwhite Jews" predominating now. The "white Jews" are dwindling down to nothing. Also, intermarriage between Ethiopian Jews in Israel is heavily promoted by government.

    When gentile whites (European/Caucasians) marry blacks or Asians they are non-white. John Derbyshire's children are excellent examples of this. His daughter is an Obama voter and supporter. Derb is a Sinophile and philosemite. I am sure his daughter will marry a black Jew. Also, the half-whites always go against the whites. And a black who is part white will never be accepted by whites. The one-drop rule is powerful not just in the USA but in Latin America and the rest of the world.

    As for the Hassidic/Orthodox Jews. There is intermarriage between blacks and Puerto Ricans in New York. It's a little harder to get numbers, but the Hassids I've seen are very dark. Also, they have low iqs so your "100 years" prediction is useless.

    Famous couples: Martin-Martine Rothblatt (Jew(ess???)- black wife); Shelby Steele historian - black father, Jewish mother; Bliss Broyard (black) Jewish husband; Paul Krugman (Jew) black wife; Drake (rapper) Jewish mother, black father; Lenny Kravitz (Jewish father, black mother); Idina Menzel (Jewish singer, black husband); Marianne Pearl - (Dutch Jewish father, black Cuban mother); Kitt Shapiro (Eartha Kitt's black daughter), Jewish husband), Monique Pean jewelry maker (Jewish mother, black father); Rod Carew - black basesball player, Jewish wife; Lisa Bonet - actress, Jewish mother, black father; Naomi Schaefer Riley (Jewess with a black husband), Andrea Mitchell (first husband black), Harry Belfonte - Jewish wife; Lena Horne Jewish husband; Sidney Lumet - black ex-wife, Lena Horne's daughter; Ashley Madekwe black actress -Jewish husband Iddo Goldberg; Rashida Jones - actress, father Quincy Jones - Jewish mother Peggy Lipton; .

    Woody Allen, Oliver Stone, Mark Zuckerberg, Les Moonves (NBC president), Sam Kass (ex White House chef); Noah Feldman (NYT reporter); George Soros - all Jews married to Asian women.

    Amy Chua -Asian, Jewish husband; Connie Chung - Asian, Jewish husband Maury Povich;
  135. The whole “I’ve got a Pocahontas in my family background ” is always good for a laugh. Right, you got some Cherokee blood but it’s not ’cause your Great Great Grandma had some Indian action. No, its always some willing Indian squaw, who became Mrs. Captain John Smith.

    Now, we know why the East Coast Native Americans died out, its all because they married white men and had bi-racial kids.

    LOL!

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The whole “I’ve got a Pocahontas in my family background ” is always good for a laugh. Right, you got some Cherokee blood but it’s not ’cause your Great Great Grandma had some Indian action. No, its always some willing Indian squaw, who became Mrs. Captain John Smith.
     
    Sure, "always". My wife's "Great Great Grandma" was a missionary's daughter who married a Choctaw.
  136. “Actressses Meg and Jennifer Tilly (real name Chan) generally play Caucasian parts even though they are 1/2 Chinese. If you point out their Asian ancestry and look for hints of it in their appearance, it is somewhat detectable, but if you don’t know about it in advance you might miss it. Then again, I don’t know how much cosmetic surgery they may have had.”

    I have seen 2 films where Meg Tilly plays a mother and that is “Liar Liar” and “House Arrest” and in both films her kids look Caucasian and not Oriental.

    I have never seen a movie where she plays the mother of kids with Oriental looking phenotypes.

    Read More
  137. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    The facts of the matter pertaining to the "Melungeons" is not as clear cut as you would have it, read the target article

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html


    The study does not rule out the possibility of other races or ethnicities forming part of the Melungeon heritage, but none were detected among the 69 male lines and 8 female lines that were tested. Also, the study did not look for later racial mixing that might have occurred, for instance with Native Americans.
     
    The usage of the term is used very broadly to mean any bi-racial or particularly tri-racial mix, based on the mixture in SW VA and E TN. In my own family, and among my friends, it is also used to denote the broader term. But after all the SW VA / E TN set is a relatively small set.

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don't know.

    Two other points on this racial angle.

    The first is that in the last analysis I think genetics is a bit like IQ. In other words, your genetic heritage by the numbers may tell you exactly what your mixture is, but if it doesn't match up to the actual life experiences of your ancestors, and whatever they passed on to you, it is basically meaningless.

    The second point -- and this pertains to our European ancestry as well -- is that a significant number of births are illegitimate, or not as direct as one might think. We like to think genealogy is clean and easy to grasp. It is anything but.

    German-Jewish peddlers worked in small towns throughout the South in the third quarter of the 19th century.

    Read More
  138. @A little bit Indian
    The blacks I taught in high school in the late '70s in LA were uniformly light colored, and could be described as middle class. They had both parents at home and their fathers had decent jobs.
    One year a coal black kid was recruited to play on the football team. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, an animal. The school was about one-quarter black, and the black students of the sort I have just described were embarrassed and horrified. They did not identify with him, and they did not appreciate it when they discovered that white liberals (i.e., all the other teachers in the school) expected them to. I hinted, right wing monster that I was, that their attitude was both understandable and honorable, and they appreciated that. I hate to think what forty years of unforgiving Leftism might have done to their youthful clear vision and common sense.

    I think that middle and upper class, fair skinned blacks (such as White House adviser Valerie Garrett or former DC mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly) are still privately embarrassed by the lower-classed, darker masses. But they would NEVER say it except perhaps around themselves. They would never marry amongst the lower classes and they live as far away from them as possible. They tend to be hypersensitive about exposing their children to the negative aspects of black culture – which is why they want to keep them away from the darker masses.

    The problem with these people is that they all benefit from the victim narrative and partake in it when it is expedient for them to do so.

    For more reading on this, see “Our Kind of People” by Lawrence Graham

    Read More
  139. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African.

    Were they really scientists or just glorified office workers?

    Read More
  140. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Whiskey
    The "passing" stuff is mostly a slander by August Wilson against Jelly Roll Morton. Morton never "passed" ... but Wilson being from NYC had no comprehension on just how a Black man in segregated New Orleans could walk around and not even speak to a White person. Or need to. There were Black doctors, dentists, lawyers, banks, accountants, mechanics, carpenters, cooks, places to eat, etc.

    No, you can listen yourself to the recently re-released Library of Congress records of Jelly Roll Morton -- he never "passed" but as a Black guy had often very little to do with Whites in his daily life save when they came to clubs he played in to listen to him.

    New Orleans had been massively Black majority since the 1780s, so slaves and then freedmen were given considerable latitude particularly after the Haitian revolution; but no one pretended Black people were White and "passing" was not very common. Separate spheres however was common.

    Ah, Whiskey, I think I’ve finally got you pegged.

    Today you’re a presumably middle-aged man who possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of jazz history while simultaneously harboring complicated emotions concerning women and black men.

    In your younger years you must’ve been a veritable jazzgasmkind of fella.

    Read More
  141. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “OTOH, some friends of mine are a Chinese-Jewish couple and their son looks unmistakably Asian.”

    Assuming the mother was Chinese, he got all his X-linked characteristics from her.

    Amy Chua’s kids are both girls and get 50% of their X-linked characteristics from a Chinese mother and a white father. To me they look more white than Chinese, IMO.

    Sophia is planning to join the Army after graduating from Harvard. Now, that is interesting. Is she sui generis or is joining the army now considered prestigious?

    I sometimes wonder if Chua isn’t on the Asperger’s spectrum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    I sometimes wonder if Chua isn’t on the Asperger’s spectrum.
     
    Who isn't these days? Being in spectrum seems more common than a few decades ago along with children having dire food allergies and kindergartners wearing eyeglasses. The first time I read that Bill Gates is Aspergy it hit me how right this was. There are accounts of him rocking back and forth in meetings. Like a youngster. I doubt he cares about his foundation which is really the Melinda Gates Foundation
    , @Jack D
    No, the mother is the Jewish one. Does it really make a difference in appearance if it's the mother vs. the father? Are any of the appearance traits even on the X or Y chromosomes?

    The father actually had a 19th century white English ancestor (a fascinating story in itself) but there's no sign of that in his appearance.
  142. @A little bit Indian
    That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. How sad that the situation has degenerated so much since.
    As for not worrying about a bit of Indian blood (from the civilised tribes of course): of course one is or would be proud of such blood. These were warriors and they even beat us quite a number of times.
    The blacks never consistently managed that back in Africa; here, of course, they were slaves, and no one wants to be descended from those.

    “That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. ”

    The War Nerd has lost it, or I am soured on him now. But he did have an article on Liberia and what happened with the freed slaves returned to Africa (Liberia, not sure if there was another state).

    It was kind of Confederacy Africa down to the mutton chops in the portraits.

    I’m too lazy to find a link to it, while I think he still writes all of his stuff isn’t in one place anymore, and this article is older than five years.

    I have a position that is kind of related to this. I am from the Southern US, family has been … for a long time.

    But I wish to god, that slave one was never brought over to this country. So much so that I really don’t have much sympathy for the Confederacy.

    Although the part of it that was (and still is) a culture clash with the North, well I think that is pretty cool. A discussion of this from the “Yankee” viewpoint, ie the “busybodies” of North America can be found in the Colin Woodard book discussed here:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/05/colin-woodard-s-eleven-nations-shows-a-less-than-united-states.html

    I thought it was really good till he started on post Civil War history, then he kind of started stopped being objective (beam in his own eye kind of thing).

    Man, thinking about that book makes me want to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, eat some pork rinds, and just generally be as un-New England as I can possibly be. Maybe I can pee on a picture of JFK or something.

    Read More
  143. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hipster
    I am a white American with about 3-5% Sub Saharan African (black) ancestry. This indicates that a great great great grandparent was black.

    It was a surprise and no one in my family suspected it. My mother is about 6-8% African American. Her mother was presumably about 12%.

    Our family had a story about being part Native American. I suppose that someone in the 1800s made up that lie to try to "pass" and it carried down through the generations.

    But I have photos of my great grandfather, who would have been about 1/4 black, and he looked white as anyone.

    Maybe that white grandfather is not your grandfather.

    Read More
  144. @Big Bill

    A female house negro like Sally Hemmings, 3/4 to 7/8 white, could improve herself by having white children only–which she did, and guarantee a better arrangement for her children as well,
     
    Yeah. This is a dirty secret about race relations. Very uncomfortable for black folks to talk about around white folks (unless you are an honorary insider, like me). Lots of black women bred with white men for standard female reasons: better outcome for the kids, monetary support, etc.

    My Southern black wife (mocha, maybe 40% black, identifies black) has plenty of family documentation--wills, photos, court transcripts--regarding the white ancestors mixed throughout her family's history and how they provided for their families. It was quite common. That Mandingo/Roots evil-slavemaster-raping-black-slaves-in-the-slave-quarters stuff is purely for popular consumption. Black folks know better.

    Whenever you see a black man agitating about Reparations, he is really expressing daddy issues: he is upset because he never got a fair share of his white g'g'grandaddy's estate.

    Apparently white liberal journalists don’t and I suspect younger blacks, having been raised on the Narrative, don’t either.

    Just now I looked up an article about Lawrence Dennis, the mulatto American fascist who passed for white.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/04/usa.race

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    “Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. ”

    Got that – rape was a PERVASIVE practice. Probably (and this is just a guess) 1 in 5 black women was raped by her master – it was just as bad for slaves in the South back then as it is for American college women today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    “Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. ”
     
    Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? I think it's reasonable to presume that it did happen, but there's no way to know how often. Is the inference that it was "pervasive" a case of projection by a media corps that includes people like Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames?

    http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/10/30/the-exile-guys-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/

    Is raping one's slaves what they would do?
  145. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Nixon always reminded me of ‘Bert’ in that Muppet double act ‘Bert and Ernie’ – it’s something about that so called ‘dark European look’ ie black hair, dark completion and some rather stern facial features. It’s a look that personally I’ve always associated with mental toughness and harsh unsentimentality.
    Rudolph Hess had a bit of that look about him too. Only comparatively recently I learned that Rudolph Hess’s mother was Greek. So his looks were never German at all.

    Read More
  146. @WhatEvvs
    "OTOH, some friends of mine are a Chinese-Jewish couple and their son looks unmistakably Asian."

    Assuming the mother was Chinese, he got all his X-linked characteristics from her.

    Amy Chua's kids are both girls and get 50% of their X-linked characteristics from a Chinese mother and a white father. To me they look more white than Chinese, IMO.

    Sophia is planning to join the Army after graduating from Harvard. Now, that is interesting. Is she sui generis or is joining the army now considered prestigious?

    I sometimes wonder if Chua isn't on the Asperger's spectrum.

    I sometimes wonder if Chua isn’t on the Asperger’s spectrum.

    Who isn’t these days? Being in spectrum seems more common than a few decades ago along with children having dire food allergies and kindergartners wearing eyeglasses. The first time I read that Bill Gates is Aspergy it hit me how right this was. There are accounts of him rocking back and forth in meetings. Like a youngster. I doubt he cares about his foundation which is really the Melinda Gates Foundation

    Read More
  147. I have never seen a movie where she plays the mother of kids with Oriental looking phenotypes.

    And how many movies have you seen with “kids with Oriental phenotypes” alone?

    Hollywood, and America in general, considers Asians dull unless they are swinging a ninja sword.

    And BTW:

    Of all of the stupid shit I read daily on the site, I would say, that quite possibly the stupidest is that Rhett Butler was:

    A) Coming by the slave quarters with port, flowers and poetry to romance the panties off Hattie.

    Or:

    B) Hattie was just so overcome with lust when he walked by that she forced herself on him!

    Let me give you a little reality check here; The “official” relationship between slavemaster and slave was one of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, nothing more, nothing less.

    Now certainly, humans are humans and there were exceptions to the rule, heartfelt relationships, etc. but, the %25 percent white heritage in long-term African Americans has been proven to have come from the maternal line (for the most part), and Rhett had no moral, legal or societal reason to “romance” a slave. This would have, generally speaking, been like a young white cowboy on a 4-month cattle drive “romancing” a sheep.

    Slave ownership was a matter of giving your slaves an unattainable daily quota of cotton, then beating them after a 12 hour day…when they didn’t achieve it.

    As to point “B”, certainly, women are attracted to the richest guys, but voluntarily initiating a relationship with with a slave master by turning on one’s “feminine wiles” would have certainly caused a problem with EVERYONE in a slave’s inner circle; male relatives, boyfriend, HUSBAND, (yes slaves got married), mother, master’s wife, overseer, other children, on both sides, elders, etc., so what are the logical odds of a relationship ensuing, and of a child actually being taken to term, and of the baby reaching child-bearing status of his/her own?

    No, the only logical answer is that there was PLENTY of rape, or somewhat rape, and it was the situation the majority of the time.

    Remember, this was 400 -150 years ago. And start making sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "No, the only logical answer is that there was PLENTY of rape, or somewhat rape, and it was the situation the majority of the time."

    So your notion of "somewhat rape" is different from Whoopi Goldberg's notion of "rape-rape" but on the same spectrum?

    Apparently, to blacks, rape is like jazz, if you have to ask what it is, you'll never know.

    Or you won't know until they tell you.
  148. @WhatEvvs
    "OTOH, some friends of mine are a Chinese-Jewish couple and their son looks unmistakably Asian."

    Assuming the mother was Chinese, he got all his X-linked characteristics from her.

    Amy Chua's kids are both girls and get 50% of their X-linked characteristics from a Chinese mother and a white father. To me they look more white than Chinese, IMO.

    Sophia is planning to join the Army after graduating from Harvard. Now, that is interesting. Is she sui generis or is joining the army now considered prestigious?

    I sometimes wonder if Chua isn't on the Asperger's spectrum.

    No, the mother is the Jewish one. Does it really make a difference in appearance if it’s the mother vs. the father? Are any of the appearance traits even on the X or Y chromosomes?

    The father actually had a 19th century white English ancestor (a fascinating story in itself) but there’s no sign of that in his appearance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    No, the mother is the Jewish one. Does it really make a difference in appearance if it’s the mother vs. the father? Are any of the appearance traits even on the X or Y chromosomes?

    I stand corrected and...bemused.

    Yes it does make a difference.

    Phenotypic traits are distributed among the autosomals (1-22) and the sex chromosomes (the infamous 23rd pair) randomly, but X linkage is crucial in how you inherit disease. Think of hemophiliacs.

    My knowledge of exactly which genes are on the X chromosome is entirely derived from the internet. There are many more on the X than on the Y:

    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes
    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/Y/show/Genes

    But I don't think it's that simple - there aren't "Phenotype genes" per se - to my knowledge. A gene that controls a subtle protein expression function (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/TRAPPC2) could affect phenotype - that's my guess, anyway.

    I was speaking in a more crude fashion - boys resemble their mother because they inherit their one X chromosome from mom. But in this case, I was flat out wrong.
  149. While Rudolph Hess grew up in Egypt, he was 100 % bavarian. Nothing exotic about Hess, just rugged features and dark hair. Same with Nixon, definitely “British” features. As for Bob Barr, I don’t see anything negroid about him.
    A good rule of thumb with Whites displaying unusual features bordering on the exotic is to wonder whether they would stand out in the part of Europe they’re supposed to come from. Of course, a significant acquaintance with Europe and its phenotypic diversity helps.

    Read More
  150. @Jack D
    Apparently white liberal journalists don't and I suspect younger blacks, having been raised on the Narrative, don't either.

    Just now I looked up an article about Lawrence Dennis, the mulatto American fascist who passed for white.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/04/usa.race

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    "Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. "

    Got that - rape was a PERVASIVE practice. Probably (and this is just a guess) 1 in 5 black women was raped by her master - it was just as bad for slaves in the South back then as it is for American college women today.

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    “Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. ”

    Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? I think it’s reasonable to presume that it did happen, but there’s no way to know how often. Is the inference that it was “pervasive” a case of projection by a media corps that includes people like Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames?

    http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/10/30/the-exile-guys-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/

    Is raping one’s slaves what they would do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's only projection for the men. For the women it's fantasy.

    Keep in mind however, that according to modern feminist doctrine, almost all sex (between men and women) can be defined as rape, especially in any situation of unequal power, such as master and slave. If massa says (as Jefferson apparently did) "you can come live with me in the big house and travel the world and your children will be given their freedom", is this not rape, I ask you?
    , @Big Bill

    Is raping one’s slaves what they would do?
     
    Of course not. Women marry/breed up. Always have, always will. My black wife's family knows several white guys in their ancestry. So do their black acquaintances. There is one mystery white guy who got her unmarried great-granny pregnant a bunch of times but he took care of her and the kids. A good decision on granny's part. That Plantation-Master-raping-his-slaves myth lets white women and blacks (especially black men) save face.
  151. I’m not going to link it, but the i09 (Jezebel’s “science” web mag) article on this study is an interesting exercise in denial to the point of insanity. Do yourself a favor and read the comments, too.

    Read More
  152. @Honesthughgrant
    The whole "I've got a Pocahontas in my family background " is always good for a laugh. Right, you got some Cherokee blood but it's not 'cause your Great Great Grandma had some Indian action. No, its always some willing Indian squaw, who became Mrs. Captain John Smith.

    Now, we know why the East Coast Native Americans died out, its all because they married white men and had bi-racial kids.

    LOL!

    The whole “I’ve got a Pocahontas in my family background ” is always good for a laugh. Right, you got some Cherokee blood but it’s not ’cause your Great Great Grandma had some Indian action. No, its always some willing Indian squaw, who became Mrs. Captain John Smith.

    Sure, “always”. My wife’s “Great Great Grandma” was a missionary’s daughter who married a Choctaw.

    Read More
  153. @A little bit Indian
    That last point may be true now, but when I taught high school in Los Angeles from 1976-78 I was very amused (and pleased) to note how proud a number of my black students were if they could prove white ancestry, particularly if it was from a Confederate officer or Southern slave holder. One in particular had a provable male line descent from a Confederate colonel whose name he actually bore. How sad that the situation has degenerated so much since.
    As for not worrying about a bit of Indian blood (from the civilised tribes of course): of course one is or would be proud of such blood. These were warriors and they even beat us quite a number of times.
    The blacks never consistently managed that back in Africa; here, of course, they were slaves, and no one wants to be descended from those.

    You make it sound that it is self-evident that you would want to be part Indian but of course, it is really an open question that depends on how you perceive Indian culture – it’s all a question of “spin”. Just because some were warriors doesn’t automatically make them desirable ancestors. The Zulus beat the British in S. Africa a number of times also. There are still some war-like tribes in the jungle in Brazil but no one is seeking them out to be sperm donors.

    In Mexico, the DNA evidence shows that the mestizos (who are the majority of the population there) were mostly the product of Indian mothers and Spanish (white) fathers. I suspect the same would be true in the US. White men did not marry/have sex with these Indian women because they admired the war like qualities of their fathers and brothers. Rather, these were the women who were most available to them on the frontier.

    Admiring the war like qualities of Indians is better done from a remove of time and space. When they are exercising their war-like qualities on your scalp, they just seem like savages and not at all admirable.

    Of course you don’t really get to pick and choose your ancestors (though you can, as long as you don’t take the DNA test, invent them ala Elizabeth Warren) so you might as well view them in a positive light whoever they are. To some (limited) extent, the “race as a social construct” people are right. If you have 16 or 32 ancestors and 1 of them is an Indian and you think of yourself as Indian (or a “little bit” Indian) instead of “almost all white” then you are socially constructing your identity by picking and choosing. The truth is that most of us have very boring lineages – lots of peasants hoeing weeds. Lincoln said that God must love the common people because he made so many of them. Even if one of your ancestors was Sitting Bull himself, that leaves a whole bunch of potato diggers that make up most of your DNA. It’s like re-incarnation – when people say that they are reincarnated, their ancestor is always Julius Caesar or Charlemagne, it’s never Rufus, the guy with a little patch of barley out in the countryside.

    Read More
  154. @ben tillman

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    “Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. ”
     
    Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? I think it's reasonable to presume that it did happen, but there's no way to know how often. Is the inference that it was "pervasive" a case of projection by a media corps that includes people like Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames?

    http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/10/30/the-exile-guys-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/

    Is raping one's slaves what they would do?

    It’s only projection for the men. For the women it’s fantasy.

    Keep in mind however, that according to modern feminist doctrine, almost all sex (between men and women) can be defined as rape, especially in any situation of unequal power, such as master and slave. If massa says (as Jefferson apparently did) “you can come live with me in the big house and travel the world and your children will be given their freedom”, is this not rape, I ask you?

    Read More
  155. i’ve long viewed hypodescent as a fad. the standard in practice throughout most of history seems that if you look white then you’re in the club, generally. it’s the same today in my experience. my sister looks like a typical mulatto and considers herself mixedrace, whereas i’m just a white guy (based on my appearance everyone assumes irish/english – which is mostly true) who happens to have a black grandmother. same ancestry, different races. i do wonder how long, if ever, it will take los Estados Unidos to change their census forms on race. With the increasing amount of latin americans you’d think they’d adopt the according racial categories.

    Read More
  156. “Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? ”

    Are you historically inept? Wait, don’t answer that question, I already know the answer.

    This 1662 law demonstrates that miscegenation was a major issue in Virginia.

    Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted…that all children born in this country are held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother; and that if any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.

    Here is one specific example. An unnamed former slave that was enslaved in Louisiana also recounted instances of sexual relations between slaveholders and enslaved females as well as mulatto births:

    … Now sometimes, if you was a real pretty young gal, somebody would buy you without knowin’ anythin’ ’bout you, just for yourself. Before my old marster died, he had a pretty gal he was goin’ with and he wouldn’t let her work nowhere but in the house, and his wife nor nobody else didn’t say nothin’ ’bout it; they knowed better. She had three chillun for him and when he died his brother come and got the gal and the chillun. One white lady that lived near us at McBean slipped in a colored gal’s room and cut her baby’s head clean off ’cause it belonged to her husband. He beat her ’bout it and started to kill her, but she begged so I reckon he got to feelin’ sorry for her. But he kept goin’ with the colored gal and they had more chillun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    “Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? ”

    Are you historically inept? Wait, don’t answer that question, I already know the answer.
     
    Ha ha. How embarrassing for you.

    The antecedent of "this" is "the practice of masters raping their slaves".

    This 1662 law demonstrates that miscegenation was a major issue in Virginia.
     
    But the people you responded to were talking about rape, not miscegenation.
  157. Off topic….

    The Berkeley Missouri police shooting has disappeared from the New York Times. Like it didn’t happen.

    Same with the Louisiana Mall shooting. Black on Black and who gives a damn.

    But, given the high profile of ‘cop shoots black’, every case for a few months will get news coverage. And most of them will be bona fide thugs with records, maybe in the act of committing a felony, and armed. Every 72 hours on average, a policeman kills a black person … 100 times a year. But most of them will not be clearly harmless or unarmed teens with no serious records.

    An empirically weak narrative is not sustainable. Too many facts get in the way.

    On topic …..

    My personal genealogy was easy to do back to 1790′s when they first came to the US. For the last several generations, multiple ancestors have been interested in it and it was done. Among other reasons, 100 years ago, tracing linage back to the revolutionary war was considered important. Not so much for the DAR or the social register, but people with the bad luck to be descendants of Confederates had a very strong desire to prove their American background to further legitimize their Confederate ties. Part of the ‘lost cause’ revisionism — decreasing the moral stigma of being on the wrong side of history — which in some ways was as painful as the experience of losing a war.

    One of the interesting episodes was in the mid 19th century, a marriage to an Irish Catholic woman was considered at minimum a mild scandal.

    Read More
  158. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D
    No, the mother is the Jewish one. Does it really make a difference in appearance if it's the mother vs. the father? Are any of the appearance traits even on the X or Y chromosomes?

    The father actually had a 19th century white English ancestor (a fascinating story in itself) but there's no sign of that in his appearance.

    No, the mother is the Jewish one. Does it really make a difference in appearance if it’s the mother vs. the father? Are any of the appearance traits even on the X or Y chromosomes?

    I stand corrected and…bemused.

    Yes it does make a difference.

    Phenotypic traits are distributed among the autosomals (1-22) and the sex chromosomes (the infamous 23rd pair) randomly, but X linkage is crucial in how you inherit disease. Think of hemophiliacs.

    My knowledge of exactly which genes are on the X chromosome is entirely derived from the internet. There are many more on the X than on the Y:

    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes

    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/Y/show/Genes

    But I don’t think it’s that simple – there aren’t “Phenotype genes” per se – to my knowledge. A gene that controls a subtle protein expression function (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/TRAPPC2) could affect phenotype – that’s my guess, anyway.

    I was speaking in a more crude fashion – boys resemble their mother because they inherit their one X chromosome from mom. But in this case, I was flat out wrong.

    Read More
  159. For those such as the contributors to the Unz Review and NYT hoping for and predicting more miscegenation for the awful “too white” American and European populations I’m afraid that widespread availability of DNA testing may backfire and result in unintended consequences. Many Han Chinese, Hindu Brahmins, Koreans, Japanese, and Whites will avail themselves of the new technology to ensure that their prospective mates are genetically “pure,” or as we used to say, are “well-bred” or have “good genes.” While this is all based on purely subjective aesthetic values, the White one definitely runs along these lines:

    Beautiful:

    http://img0.ndsstatic.com/wallpapers/158c4844541eb98f7e03adba44b8a8de_large.jpeg

    Not so beautiful:

    http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lindagreenhouse3.jpg

    Downright ugly:

    http://news.aboriginalartdirectory.com/photos/womens_law_image1.jpg

    Many of the dark skinned masses from the Indian subcontinent and most blacks seem to seem to ascribe to the same sexual preferences for blonde blue-eyed girls as so obviously practiced by big-time Negro athletes, Jewish professors, co-religionist Wall Street managing partners and movie producers, along with successful Bengali engineers and Arab potentates.

    Oh, the irony of it all! The very best clubs will require not only a six figure initiation fee but a DNA test to boot! LOL The Social Register may be very well in for a revival of its fortunes if they include certain particular haplogroups of their members in addition to their prep school alma mater.

    Read More
  160. Race is both a social construct and a biological reality.

    When SJW’s say that race is a social construct, they are not wrong. It is interesting, why and how there is attached the implication to that statement: that because race is a social construct (which it is), then therefore it is not a biological reality. There is absolutely no need for race to be one or the other of those things.

    And of course in fact it is very much a conjunction of the two. Race is the conjunction of those two forces: the social forces that are groups of people and their relations and how they forge their future from the blood and guts at hand.

    Race is a social construct made of blood and guts. Race is the next level up. Speciation occurs in non-sentient life forms, but its occurrence in sentient creatures is a different kettle of fish. There becomes that conscious striving.

    Race consciousness is the next level up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Race is a social construct when people with different continents and cultures have ethnic and racial similarities, like abobos and african negroes, levantines or copts and bulgarians or spaniards. When the ''colors'' of continuum begin change to blue from green.
    , @nikcrit
    The idea that the races cannot live together is not new. How it came to be the default opinion that they can and should is a question for others.

    I don't think co-existence is impossible; actually, i think the swpl-black appeasements you describe are people like you, those who'd prefer not to interact. But unlike you, they have some ambivalence about it, so they act otu their own kabuki-like theatrics-cum-hysterics, thus vindicating whatever racial demons they feel compelled by.
    I don't see or live by racial absolutism, and i don't feel i'm some impractical dreamer; black america, by alnd large, are hybrids of africans and europeans...they are the genetic counterpoint to what you claim to be a sociological default of race in America. And i think the Twin Cities exemplifies that point more than many other cities do.
  161. attilathehen [AKA "Rose"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Any proof for your assertion that William Frey is Jewish? The surname "Frey" isn't just found among Jews.

    The ancestry of most living Jews is similar to that of their ancestors. The Jewish intermarriage rate has only been significant for the last 30 years or so, and some of the intermarried are middle aged and older people on their second+ spouses with children from first marriages to Jews. If you have any statistics to back up your assertions, please lay them out. Otherwise, you repeatedly make hysterical assertions. And by the way, why do you assert that some Jews marrying Asians or African-Americans makes all Jews non-white, but some non-Jewish whites marrying African-Americans or Asians doesn't have the same affect on the non-Jewish white population? It's not going to turn out how you think, anyway. In 100 years, the vast majority of people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. or its successor nations will be ultra-Orthodox Jews who have nearly pure Jewish ancestry. We secular Jews are having few children, and their attachment to Judaism lessens every generation. I don't expect that the religious strictures and closed community of ultra-Orthodoxy will be more attractive to ethnic outlier half-Jews and quarter-Jews than they are to pur sang Ashkenazis like me who could actually blend into that world if we had to.

    Frey is a German name that can be either Jewish or non-Jewish. Names like Zimmer, Zimmerman, Beck, Becker, Adler follow this same pattern. I speak German and when I hear a last name that can go either way, I ask the person their religion. If they say they are atheists then I ask their ethnicity and can easily determine then if they are Jewish. Europeans from Europe do not consider Jews white.

    Below is a list of famous Jewish and non-white couplings. This is the tip of the iceberg. Where I live there are many Jew-black-Asian marriages among the ordinary. Many of these couplings started in the 1940s to the present day. The Chicago Tribune ran an article a couple of weeks ago about the “nonwhite Jews” predominating now. The “white Jews” are dwindling down to nothing. Also, intermarriage between Ethiopian Jews in Israel is heavily promoted by government.

    When gentile whites (European/Caucasians) marry blacks or Asians they are non-white. John Derbyshire’s children are excellent examples of this. His daughter is an Obama voter and supporter. Derb is a Sinophile and philosemite. I am sure his daughter will marry a black Jew. Also, the half-whites always go against the whites. And a black who is part white will never be accepted by whites. The one-drop rule is powerful not just in the USA but in Latin America and the rest of the world.

    As for the Hassidic/Orthodox Jews. There is intermarriage between blacks and Puerto Ricans in New York. It’s a little harder to get numbers, but the Hassids I’ve seen are very dark. Also, they have low iqs so your “100 years” prediction is useless.

    Famous couples: Martin-Martine Rothblatt (Jew(ess???)- black wife); Shelby Steele historian – black father, Jewish mother; Bliss Broyard (black) Jewish husband; Paul Krugman (Jew) black wife; Drake (rapper) Jewish mother, black father; Lenny Kravitz (Jewish father, black mother); Idina Menzel (Jewish singer, black husband); Marianne Pearl – (Dutch Jewish father, black Cuban mother); Kitt Shapiro (Eartha Kitt’s black daughter), Jewish husband), Monique Pean jewelry maker (Jewish mother, black father); Rod Carew – black basesball player, Jewish wife; Lisa Bonet – actress, Jewish mother, black father; Naomi Schaefer Riley (Jewess with a black husband), Andrea Mitchell (first husband black), Harry Belfonte – Jewish wife; Lena Horne Jewish husband; Sidney Lumet – black ex-wife, Lena Horne’s daughter; Ashley Madekwe black actress -Jewish husband Iddo Goldberg; Rashida Jones – actress, father Quincy Jones – Jewish mother Peggy Lipton; .

    Woody Allen, Oliver Stone, Mark Zuckerberg, Les Moonves (NBC president), Sam Kass (ex White House chef); Noah Feldman (NYT reporter); George Soros – all Jews married to Asian women.

    Amy Chua -Asian, Jewish husband; Connie Chung – Asian, Jewish husband Maury Povich;

    Read More
  162. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    Simon, that depends which type of Asian you are talking about. Half-Koreans tend to look more Asian than White.

    Half-Korean Actor/Model Daniel Henney
    http://www.showwallpaper.com/exshow.php?exname=Daniel_Henney_050014

    While half-Asians of SE Asian descent tend to look more White.

    Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselaer:
    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004971/mediaindex?rmconst=rm55738880&ref_=m_nmmi_mi_nm_evt_1

    While I’m hesitant to rely on anecdotal evidence, I think there may be something to what you wrote. I suspect it is largely because of the eyes. Asian epicanthal folds as probably viewed as the strongest salient feature for confirming Asian ancestry in people of mixed ancestry, and SE Asians tend to have eyes which appear more open and with less pronounced epicanthal folds (possibly the result of less Mongol DNA spreading there)= more Western-like in appearance so their kids when mating with Westerners are less likely to look “Asian” as the Asian side of the mix is less likely to be contributing eyes that appear to be what is commonly thought of “Asian” looking.

    Read More
  163. @Corvinus
    "Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? "

    Are you historically inept? Wait, don't answer that question, I already know the answer.


    This 1662 law demonstrates that miscegenation was a major issue in Virginia.

    Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted...that all children born in this country are held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother; and that if any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.


    Here is one specific example. An unnamed former slave that was enslaved in Louisiana also recounted instances of sexual relations between slaveholders and enslaved females as well as mulatto births:

    … Now sometimes, if you was a real pretty young gal, somebody would buy you without knowin’ anythin’ ’bout you, just for yourself. Before my old marster died, he had a pretty gal he was goin’ with and he wouldn’t let her work nowhere but in the house, and his wife nor nobody else didn’t say nothin’ ’bout it; they knowed better. She had three chillun for him and when he died his brother come and got the gal and the chillun. One white lady that lived near us at McBean slipped in a colored gal’s room and cut her baby’s head clean off ’cause it belonged to her husband. He beat her ’bout it and started to kill her, but she begged so I reckon he got to feelin’ sorry for her. But he kept goin’ with the colored gal and they had more chillun.

    “Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? ”

    Are you historically inept? Wait, don’t answer that question, I already know the answer.

    Ha ha. How embarrassing for you.

    The antecedent of “this” is “the practice of masters raping their slaves”.

    This 1662 law demonstrates that miscegenation was a major issue in Virginia.

    But the people you responded to were talking about rape, not miscegenation.

    Read More
  164. @SPMoore8
    The facts of the matter pertaining to the "Melungeons" is not as clear cut as you would have it, read the target article

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html


    The study does not rule out the possibility of other races or ethnicities forming part of the Melungeon heritage, but none were detected among the 69 male lines and 8 female lines that were tested. Also, the study did not look for later racial mixing that might have occurred, for instance with Native Americans.
     
    The usage of the term is used very broadly to mean any bi-racial or particularly tri-racial mix, based on the mixture in SW VA and E TN. In my own family, and among my friends, it is also used to denote the broader term. But after all the SW VA / E TN set is a relatively small set.

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don't know.

    Two other points on this racial angle.

    The first is that in the last analysis I think genetics is a bit like IQ. In other words, your genetic heritage by the numbers may tell you exactly what your mixture is, but if it doesn't match up to the actual life experiences of your ancestors, and whatever they passed on to you, it is basically meaningless.

    The second point -- and this pertains to our European ancestry as well -- is that a significant number of births are illegitimate, or not as direct as one might think. We like to think genealogy is clean and easy to grasp. It is anything but.

    The article itself was not revelatory to me, since I never thought the Portuguese explanation was a particularly good one. On the other hand, I remember meeting an old man who also had southern roots, and he assumed, bi-racial, but later found out that his GGfather was Jewish. So what was a Jewish guy doing in rural Alabama in 1850? I don’t know.

    Could have been a peddler or a plantation owner.

    The Jewish Encyclopedia’s entry for “Agriculture” from 1901 says the following:

    On the virgin soil of America the Jews were among the pioneers of Agriculture. While Louis de Torres introduced tobacco into use for civilized mankind (Kayserling, “Columbus,” p. 95), Jews transplanted the sugar-cane from Madeira to Brazil in 1548 (according to Fishell; see M. J. Kohler “Publ. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc.” ii. 94) or in 1531 (Lindo, in G. A. Kohut’s article, ibid. iii. 135; compare Joseph ha-Kohen, in R. Gottheil’s translation, ibid. ii. 133). During the seventeenthcentury the sugar industry was monopolized by the Jews, and with their expulsion from Brazil it was transplanted to the West Indies, where, in 1663, David de Mercato’s invention of new sugar-mills benefited the sugar-trade in Barbados. The Jews in Georgia, chief among them Abraham de Lyon, transplanted vine and silk culture from Portugal to America (“Publ. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc.” i. 10). But while De Lyon cherished great expectations in that direction, the Jews of Georgia in general found the production of indigo, rice, corn, tobacco, and cotton more profitable (ibid. p. 12). In fact, the cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.

    The entry is here:

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/910-agriculture

    Wikipedia discusses the encyclopedia’s publication, editorial board, and scholarship here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Encyclopedia

    Read More
  165. @Jack D
    I understand that in pre-DNA testing days, lying about paternity was fairly common so that the great-grandfather who appears on your family tree is not necessarily your genetic great grandfather. I suppose there were cases of secret adoptions and such (it was not unusual for the offspring of knocked up teens to be raised as the children of their grandmothers and to be told that their mothers were really their sisters), but generally speaking, most of the people who appear on the matrilineal side of your family tree really are your genetic ancestors - this is something that is pretty hard to fake.

    You don’t understand the point I’m making. On average you are 50% related to each parent and 25% to each grandparent. Work backwards and you’ll see you may be unrelated genetically to a recent genealogical ancestor. Add to that 23andme is using an algorithm to look for patterns common to racial groups and you can see how an Indian princess in colonial times could become undetectable in one’s 23andme results

    Read More
  166. Work backwards and you’ll see you may be unrelated genetically to a recent genealogical ancestor.

    Good point. It is almost a certainty that you will have lost any and all traces of some of your ancestors if you go back as far as 9 generations. Paradoxically it is almost certain that every white person alive today is descended from Charlemagne to a probability of 99.999 +% although you may not share any DNA sequences with him. There were not enough Europeans alive in 800 AD to give you a unique great-grandparent for every potential slot at the time. The number of potential ancestors fans out the further you go back in time whereas the actual population tree is a pyramid fanning out in the opposite direction to the present and neither tree accounts for bottlenecks like the Black Death.

    Read More
  167. Ben, you are a fool.

    The Virginia law I specified underscores the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types, via by natural relations or by rape. Hence, the law decidedly deals with miscegenation.

    “In fact, the cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”

    First, you are relying exclusively on a source from 1906 without any additional documentation.

    Second, the word “wholly” means “entirely”. It would appear that this source would distinctly refute this particular claim.

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/wiesenthal.center/ftp.py?orgs/american/wiesenthal.center//web/historical-facts

    
Only ten percent of the 150,000 American Jews at the time of the Civil War lived in the South. Southern Jews who owned slaves were overwhelmingly
    “smallholders” concentrated in cities, not in the plantation districts containing ninety percent of the enslaved population. For example, there were only four Jews — less than one-tenth of one percent — among the 11,000 Southerners who in 1830 owned fifty or more slaves.

    Rabbi Bertram W. Korn, “Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South, 1789-1865,” in The Jewish Experience in America, ed. Abraham J. Karp (Waltham, MA: American Jewish Historical Society, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 18

    Third, this source states that Georgian colonists were PROHIBITED from owning slaves. As a result, a large contingent of Jewish families left Georgia to resettle in the Carolinas. While this law was eventually repealed n 1749, there were four Jewish families–Sheftall, Lyons, Lucena, Minis–in Georgia which owned between 8-20 slaves each, compared to the dozens of non-Jewish families during colonial times that engaged in slavery. Wholly? I think not.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Savannah.html

    Fourth, according to Wikipedia, 1.25% of Jews owned slaves in the South, and they were used primarily in business or domestic settings rather than on plantations.

    Fifth, any and all parts of a source regardless of recognition by scholars of that source as being “remarkable” may be proven inaccurate or false by subsequent research, which I clearly demonstrated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Ben, you are a fool.

    The Virginia law I specified underscores the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types, via by natural relations or by rape. Hence, the law decidedly deals with miscegenation.
     
    No kidding, Emily Littella, but we're not talking about miscegenation.
  168. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D
    Hippocrates was a wise man. Adultery in those days was probably punished by stoning the woman to death. If he could save her life (as he was sworn to do) by telling some BS story and people believed him, more power to him.

    People here are all obsessed about the "truth" but white lies have their place. Unfortunately, modern liberals have no idea where that place is and so lie about everything as long as it appears to them to be to their short term advantage. It's also important to know what lies you can really get away with (who was going to contradict the greatest medical authority of his era?) and which ones you will get caught on and end up looking like a fool (Jackie, Erdely). What's really amazing to me is that while scientific knowledge has advanced greatly, understanding of such philosophical matters (such as when it is appropriate to lie) has not advanced one whit and in fact has gone backward. Of course, in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.

    in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.

    Oh dear, you’ve invalidated the premise of Christian marriage, which requires that a woman legally swear to do all sorts of tough stuff.

    Perhaps you can think of a better arrangement, one that involves a woman being handed off to a husband, with no say in the matter?

    Or maybe we can help things along with modern technology. Chemical lobotomies?

    I wouldn’t be so fast to write off the Democratic party. They are falling apart now under the stress of having responsibility, but the answer to rabid, rad-feminism isn’t genuinely misogynistic crap like this. It’s kind of a turn off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    More hate facts I suppose. I was describing a historical fact - that only free adult males could appear as witnesses in Greek courts. Apparently it's misogynistic nowadays to present historical facts.

    At the risk of presenting more hate facts, I will mention that there was a process in Greek courts known as proklesis eis basanon, whereby a slave would be tortured in order to elicit statements that were more likely to be true and thus admissible in court (topsy turvy from our modern view that statements under torture are not trustworthy). Without duress, a slave might lie because he was told to do so by his master or to receive some reward, but it was thought that you could beat the truth out of him. This is the same way that (some) police in the US used to get confessions from criminals within living memory.

    http://www.teoriaestoriadeldirittoprivato.com/index.php?com=statics&option=index&cID=81

    As far as I know, torture was not applied to free women, only to slaves, but the Greeks generally felt that women should appear outside the home as little as possible. If you look at crowd photos in the West up to the time of WWI if not later, you will see that even a recently as a century ago, this remained the norm (and in many 3rd world places is STILL the norm today). Basically what happened in the West is that we killed off and crippled so many of our men in industrialized wars that women had no choice but to appear in public and take on formerly male roles (especially given that modern industry demanded lots of bodies). It's brilliant that we are able to brainwash women into thinking that they are joining the workforce because they WANT to, rather than because they really don't have a choice. Too bad that the end result of this is that we fail to produce the next generation and that they few children who are born to more intelligent women get raised by illiterate mestizos instead of by their own mothers, who are out working.

    So I would posit that the situation that prevails in the West today is actually some sort of historical aberration and that the arrangements in ancient Greece were (without imposing value judgments such as "better" which might cause you to get the vapors) more typical of most human societies from the dawn of time until quite recently when modern technology "improved" to the point where we could kill and main millions of men.
  169. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @granesperanzablanco
    White people interpreting disappointing 23andme results about that Indian princess ancestor don't be sad. It is very possible grandma was not lying to you. You can have genealogical ancestors who are no longer genetic ones quite quickly in your family tree. One Indian in colonial times in your tree would drift away very easily and likely be undetectable.

    In a population like Mexican Mestizos the native heritage is more or less fixed in many if not most ancestors and you can see this in the results with bits of native ancestry dispersed all over a person's genes from recombination. Much like African Americans or other mixed groups like central Asians

    One Indian in colonial times in your tree would drift away very easily and likely be undetectable.

    As would one black ancestor.

    Read More
  170. @Truth

    I have never seen a movie where she plays the mother of kids with Oriental looking phenotypes.
     
    And how many movies have you seen with "kids with Oriental phenotypes" alone?

    Hollywood, and America in general, considers Asians dull unless they are swinging a ninja sword.

    And BTW:

    Of all of the stupid shit I read daily on the site, I would say, that quite possibly the stupidest is that Rhett Butler was:

    A) Coming by the slave quarters with port, flowers and poetry to romance the panties off Hattie.

    Or:

    B) Hattie was just so overcome with lust when he walked by that she forced herself on him!

    Let me give you a little reality check here; The "official" relationship between slavemaster and slave was one of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, nothing more, nothing less.

    Now certainly, humans are humans and there were exceptions to the rule, heartfelt relationships, etc. but, the %25 percent white heritage in long-term African Americans has been proven to have come from the maternal line (for the most part), and Rhett had no moral, legal or societal reason to "romance" a slave. This would have, generally speaking, been like a young white cowboy on a 4-month cattle drive "romancing" a sheep.

    Slave ownership was a matter of giving your slaves an unattainable daily quota of cotton, then beating them after a 12 hour day...when they didn't achieve it.

    As to point "B", certainly, women are attracted to the richest guys, but voluntarily initiating a relationship with with a slave master by turning on one's "feminine wiles" would have certainly caused a problem with EVERYONE in a slave's inner circle; male relatives, boyfriend, HUSBAND, (yes slaves got married), mother, master's wife, overseer, other children, on both sides, elders, etc., so what are the logical odds of a relationship ensuing, and of a child actually being taken to term, and of the baby reaching child-bearing status of his/her own?

    No, the only logical answer is that there was PLENTY of rape, or somewhat rape, and it was the situation the majority of the time.

    Remember, this was 400 -150 years ago. And start making sense.

    “No, the only logical answer is that there was PLENTY of rape, or somewhat rape, and it was the situation the majority of the time.”

    So your notion of “somewhat rape” is different from Whoopi Goldberg’s notion of “rape-rape” but on the same spectrum?

    Apparently, to blacks, rape is like jazz, if you have to ask what it is, you’ll never know.

    Or you won’t know until they tell you.

    Read More
  171. @granesperanzablanco
    Total nonsense regarding Mexican racial components. There are many studies on the matter if you cared to look

    I bet that post is a troll. I first started to roll my eyes at the claim mexicans have flat faces, although the claim most mexicans are virtually pure amerind was pretty hilarious too. Then came the part where he said he was black, and while blacks in these circles tend to be pretty neurotic, this screed would be truly a first.

    Read More
  172. @Pat Boyle
    Merry Christmas.

    I normally am not interested in my ancestors or my genetics. But my Swedish descended friend asked me for my 23andme results this week so I'm current on my various genetic components. I'm pure. All Irish and British and a dash of something else (which I can't remember).

    My Swedish friend looks to me for genetic wisdom (big mistake). But this holiday season I was able to comfort him. I told him having some Finnish ancestry wasn't the worst thing imaginable.

    In fact as I noodle about the web I seldom run across people worried about or proud of their black genes. The major topic seems to be their Neanderthal component. Many people conflate the fact that the Neanderthal brain was a bit bigger than the Sapiens brain with the fact that Africans don't have much if any Neanderthal ancestry and they conclude that they are smart because they have that oh so valuable Neanderthal heritage.

    This seems to be becoming a popular delusion. Greg Cochran wrote on Sapiens (Cro-Magnon - Neanderthal admixture) years ago. I think he predicted that the results Pääbo got. But he never said that.

    He said the Sapiens coming out of Africa were likely to have picked up a little Neanderthal genes that had been selected for local advantages. That advantage it seems to me is likely to be some cold adaptations not better or bigger brains. After all Europe was in an Ice Age and the Cro-Magnons had recently come up from Central Africa.

    For all my adult life the questions about admixture of the Neanderthals and Sapiens has been a contentious topic. You would think that all that's over now.

    I can't quite understand why some para-military Republicans don't just grab Elizabeth Warren and extract some of her spit. That would be very entertaining footage on the evening news. But I guess half the fun of politics is endless debates with no facts and no resolution. In that same vein I've wondered why the interminable debate over water boarding isn't resolved by some tests with a dolorimeter. When I was in the Army they made me go through the tear-gas room and that was certainly unpleasant. At the time I would have called it torture. But we have instrumentation for things like water boarding and Elizabeth Warren's spit. We don't have to squabble.

    Finally there is one other way that whites contract black blood. I'm thinking of the first act of 'Showboat'. There should be a modern updating of that plot device with a white vampire and a black victim. What's Ann Rice doing these days?

    The reality is that while neanderthals have larger brains than the modern human average, this wasn’t the case when they existed, or even further back. Cro-magnons and neanderthals were virtually identical with brain size, and humans throughout the world a few tens of thousands of years ago and earlier had larger brains than they do now, even in africa and australia. People have a very bizarre, often fetishistic attitude towards neanderthals in these circles. I agree The only actual advantage I can see neanderthals contributing to humans back then were climactic adaptations, and possibly disease resistance.

    Read More
  173. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Commenter 152,
    I’ve lived my entire life in England. In all my long years I’ve only left this land for a sum total of one month. I know and have met a great number of Englishmen, I’ve encountered countless thousands in the street and god knows where else.
    I can honestly tell you I’ve never seen a real Englishman who remotely resembles Richard Nixon. If I encountered him in a crowd, even in these days of mass immigration, he’d stick out like a sore thumb. To put it bluntly, he hasn’t got the sort of face I’d recognise on the lads riding in the cab of the scaffolders’ lorry as it passes me on the High Street.

    Read More
  174. @ anonymous 177

    I said British, not necessarily English. Cornish or Welsh. Maybe South Western English, Devon, Avon, Somerset, etc.. But yeah, Nixon had a weird nose. His background was mostly English, though.

    http://ethnicelebs.com/richard-nixon

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How similar was Nixon's nose to that of Bob Hope, who was born in England? Ann Hathaway and Jessica Chastain in Interstellar both have ski jump noses.
  175. @BB753
    @ anonymous 177

    I said British, not necessarily English. Cornish or Welsh. Maybe South Western English, Devon, Avon, Somerset, etc.. But yeah, Nixon had a weird nose. His background was mostly English, though.

    http://ethnicelebs.com/richard-nixon

    How similar was Nixon’s nose to that of Bob Hope, who was born in England? Ann Hathaway and Jessica Chastain in Interstellar both have ski jump noses.

    Read More
  176. Steve, it could be mere coincidence, but Bob Hope’ s father was from Somerset and his mother from Wales.

    Read More
  177. @Corvinus
    Ben, you are a fool.

    The Virginia law I specified underscores the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types, via by natural relations or by rape. Hence, the law decidedly deals with miscegenation.


    “In fact, the cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”

    First, you are relying exclusively on a source from 1906 without any additional documentation.


    Second, the word “wholly” means “entirely”. It would appear that this source would distinctly refute this particular claim.

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/wiesenthal.center/ftp.py?orgs/american/wiesenthal.center//web/historical-facts

    
Only ten percent of the 150,000 American Jews at the time of the Civil War lived in the South. Southern Jews who owned slaves were overwhelmingly
    "smallholders" concentrated in cities, not in the plantation districts containing ninety percent of the enslaved population. For example, there were only four Jews -- less than one-tenth of one percent -- among the 11,000 Southerners who in 1830 owned fifty or more slaves.

    Rabbi Bertram W. Korn, "Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South, 1789-1865," in The Jewish Experience in America, ed. Abraham J. Karp (Waltham, MA: American Jewish Historical Society, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 18


    Third, this source states that Georgian colonists were PROHIBITED from owning slaves. As a result, a large contingent of Jewish families left Georgia to resettle in the Carolinas. While this law was eventually repealed n 1749, there were four Jewish families--Sheftall, Lyons, Lucena, Minis--in Georgia which owned between 8-20 slaves each, compared to the dozens of non-Jewish families during colonial times that engaged in slavery. Wholly? I think not.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Savannah.html



    Fourth, according to Wikipedia, 1.25% of Jews owned slaves in the South, and they were used primarily in business or domestic settings rather than on plantations.


    Fifth, any and all parts of a source regardless of recognition by scholars of that source as being “remarkable” may be proven inaccurate or false by subsequent research, which I clearly demonstrated.

    Ben, you are a fool.

    The Virginia law I specified underscores the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types, via by natural relations or by rape. Hence, the law decidedly deals with miscegenation.

    No kidding, Emily Littella, but we’re not talking about miscegenation.

    Read More
  178. @WhatEvvs

    in Hippocrates time, it was well understood that women were congenital liars ruled by emotions and that their testimony could not be trusted any more than that of children or slaves.
     
    Oh dear, you've invalidated the premise of Christian marriage, which requires that a woman legally swear to do all sorts of tough stuff.

    Perhaps you can think of a better arrangement, one that involves a woman being handed off to a husband, with no say in the matter?

    Or maybe we can help things along with modern technology. Chemical lobotomies?

    I wouldn't be so fast to write off the Democratic party. They are falling apart now under the stress of having responsibility, but the answer to rabid, rad-feminism isn't genuinely misogynistic crap like this. It's kind of a turn off.

    More hate facts I suppose. I was describing a historical fact – that only free adult males could appear as witnesses in Greek courts. Apparently it’s misogynistic nowadays to present historical facts.

    At the risk of presenting more hate facts, I will mention that there was a process in Greek courts known as proklesis eis basanon, whereby a slave would be tortured in order to elicit statements that were more likely to be true and thus admissible in court (topsy turvy from our modern view that statements under torture are not trustworthy). Without duress, a slave might lie because he was told to do so by his master or to receive some reward, but it was thought that you could beat the truth out of him. This is the same way that (some) police in the US used to get confessions from criminals within living memory.

    http://www.teoriaestoriadeldirittoprivato.com/index.php?com=statics&option=index&cID=81

    As far as I know, torture was not applied to free women, only to slaves, but the Greeks generally felt that women should appear outside the home as little as possible. If you look at crowd photos in the West up to the time of WWI if not later, you will see that even a recently as a century ago, this remained the norm (and in many 3rd world places is STILL the norm today). Basically what happened in the West is that we killed off and crippled so many of our men in industrialized wars that women had no choice but to appear in public and take on formerly male roles (especially given that modern industry demanded lots of bodies). It’s brilliant that we are able to brainwash women into thinking that they are joining the workforce because they WANT to, rather than because they really don’t have a choice. Too bad that the end result of this is that we fail to produce the next generation and that they few children who are born to more intelligent women get raised by illiterate mestizos instead of by their own mothers, who are out working.

    So I would posit that the situation that prevails in the West today is actually some sort of historical aberration and that the arrangements in ancient Greece were (without imposing value judgments such as “better” which might cause you to get the vapors) more typical of most human societies from the dawn of time until quite recently when modern technology “improved” to the point where we could kill and main millions of men.

    Read More
  179. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    But it’s the entirety, the generality of Nixon’s face that exercises me – this combined with black hair and a sallow complexion. Even the deep voice.
    Sorry, but he just strongly reminds me of one of those nebulous ‘dark whites’ of doubtful ethnicity that seem to pop up in various regions of the USA and California in particular. Not soft featured like a Spaniard or Italian,but rather harsh featured and harsh voiced, and dare I say it, harsh-minded. ‘Eastern Med’ screams out at me – a touch of the Anatolian, what the geneticists call ‘basal Eurasian’ , Hittite or whatever, the ancient people who were the true originators of civilisation. I don’t know, it’s gut instinct on my part really, but there’s definitely ‘something in him’ as people say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The character actor who most looks like Nixon, Dan Hedaya, is of Syrian Jewish background.

    But Europeans have a lot of Fertile Crescent ancestry due to farmers migrating west.

  180. @Anonymous
    But it's the entirety, the generality of Nixon's face that exercises me - this combined with black hair and a sallow complexion. Even the deep voice.
    Sorry, but he just strongly reminds me of one of those nebulous 'dark whites' of doubtful ethnicity that seem to pop up in various regions of the USA and California in particular. Not soft featured like a Spaniard or Italian,but rather harsh featured and harsh voiced, and dare I say it, harsh-minded. 'Eastern Med' screams out at me - a touch of the Anatolian, what the geneticists call 'basal Eurasian' , Hittite or whatever, the ancient people who were the true originators of civilisation. I don't know, it's gut instinct on my part really, but there's definitely 'something in him' as people say.

    The character actor who most looks like Nixon, Dan Hedaya, is of Syrian Jewish background.

    But Europeans have a lot of Fertile Crescent ancestry due to farmers migrating west.

    Read More
  181. @Suburban_elk
    Race is both a social construct and a biological reality.

    When SJW's say that race is a social construct, they are not wrong. It is interesting, why and how there is attached the implication to that statement: that because race is a social construct (which it is), then therefore it is not a biological reality. There is absolutely no need for race to be one or the other of those things.

    And of course in fact it is very much a conjunction of the two. Race is the conjunction of those two forces: the social forces that are groups of people and their relations and how they forge their future from the blood and guts at hand.

    Race is a social construct made of blood and guts. Race is the next level up. Speciation occurs in non-sentient life forms, but its occurrence in sentient creatures is a different kettle of fish. There becomes that conscious striving.

    Race consciousness is the next level up.

    Race is a social construct when people with different continents and cultures have ethnic and racial similarities, like abobos and african negroes, levantines or copts and bulgarians or spaniards. When the ”colors” of continuum begin change to blue from green.

    Read More
  182. “No kidding, Emily Littella, but we’re not talking about miscegenation.”

    [Laughs] Fred Garman, the text from that law states” any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.” Since the words are too big for you to understand, I am more than willing to help. Fornication means sex. Sex between whom? A white man/woman with a black man/woman. Miscegenation is “the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types.” The law is explicitly clear in its intention to make sure whities and darkies did not mix.

    Now, if you want to continue your charade as an uneducated man and prostitute logic, feel free to entertain us further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    [Laughs] Fred Garman, the text from that law states” any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.” Since the words are too big for you to understand, I am more than willing to help.
     
    Quit trolling. We were talking about rape, not miscegenation.
  183. Steve:

    I’ve taken 23 and Me’s test, and it showed me to be 1/64th black (1.5%). This is exactly right, as this ancestry came from one of my Great-Great-Great Grandfathers shacking up in town with one of his former mullato house slaves in the immediate post-Civil War period after their two planatations were burned down by Union Troops. Having lost everything and seen the society his ancestors had help create (his lineage included a Congressman and various military officers from Capitain to General from the Civil War, Indian Wars, War of 1812, and War for Independence) literally go up in smoke, he decided to give society the middle finger and shack up with the woman he loved and make lots of babies. One of their daughters, who was now 1/4th black (Quadroon), married a Norwegian sailor who jumped ship in Jacksonville, where she had moved to put some distance between herself and her racial past.

    While the couple was still excluded from polite Jacksonville society due to her being not white, their children were white enough (specifically they were Octaroons) and far enough removevd geographically and racially from the event of miscegenation that they were able to make up a story of the mullato house girl actually being a Seminole Princess (she certainly looked the part in the photos of her I have seen, and she was exceedingly beautiful). This worked well enough to allow their children to marry into polite society, with my particular ancestor marrying into a regular English family. Their children, who were 1/16th black looked for all the world as white as anyone else with blonde hair and blue eyes and the only latent indicators of any different ancestry being a propensity to tan easily and some very curly hair. Of course, 1/16th (6%) was the traditional point of being permitted to ignore the offending ancestry completely in American law. With that, my grandmother was able to marry into an upper class Anglo-Norman family.

    As to the rest, I can trace my ancestry back on all lines about 8-13 generations, generally to the 1500-1700′s in Europe and generally to the parents or grandparents of the initial immigrant. One line can be traced back through England and Normandy to its Danish roots in the Norman invasion of Normady. Its all blindingly white, with nary a minority of any sort to be seen in the records.

    A 0.1% ancestry takes you back about 10 generations to where you have 1024 ancestors, which for most Americans living today is the period of 1650 to 1750. Two things worth noting. If the event of mixing with an Indian or Black took place just one generation before then, it is easy enough for the 0.1% of genetic material to simply not be handed on at all during the DNA recombination. It would be impossible to show it happened. The other thing I wonder is given the incidence of the R1 Y chromosomes and X mitochondrial chromosomes among eastern Indians, how many of them were already part “European” of some sort per the Solutrean hypothesis? The early descriptions of Indians in English and French America describe tall handsome people who looked nothing like the Indians of Mexico, the American West, South America, or Alaska beyond sharing a somewhat darker skin tone. If true, this would make detecting Indian ancestry even more difficult for any white who bred with an Indian in the period up to 1750.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Of course, 1/16th (6%) was the traditional point of being permitted to ignore the offending ancestry completely in American law. With that, my grandmother was able to marry into an upper class Anglo-Norman family.
     
    This hints at the problem we face in the coming years. What if you or your children do not wish to "ignore" your ancestry, but "celebrate" it? In particular, what if your employer is committed to diversity and promoting "minority" managers? What if you want a city contract for your paving business which is only available to "minority-owned" companies? What if your daughter could easily win a "minority" scholarship to college?

    In a Western culture that wallows in self-definition to the extent that "boys" demand to be publicly called "girls" just because they "feel like a girl" who can gainsay your "blackness" if you decide to assert it--especially if you have the scientific DNA proof?

    Think of the moral cachet your new race gives you. When you move to a nicer neighborhood you are no longer engaging in evil "white flight". Nope. You are a noble fighter for "integration".
  184. A White liberal woman on City-Data is all giddy with excitement once she sound out she is 0.2% Sub Saharan African. Anything below 1 percent is just noise.

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/genealogy/2039888-no-native-american-23andme-result.html

    Now she is talking about how proud she is to be an African American because of that very miniscule 0.2% which is likely noise. Even the average Mexican has more Sub Saharan African admixture than her yet very few Mexicans go around self identifying themselves as Black.

    This chick is a fake Negra the same way Elizabeth Warren is a fake Amerindian.

    Read More
  185. “A White liberal woman on City-Data is all giddy with excitement once she sound out she is 0.2% Sub Saharan African. Anything below 1 percent is just noise.”

    I suspect that even .1% Sub Saharan African scored on 23andme is real and not “noise”, because it is farily common among US whites and almost non-existant in UK and German whites.

    Read More
  186. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sunbeam
    I'm kind of surprised at the low incidence of American Indian ancestry in the white population.

    Many whites in the American South believe they have Indian ancestry. This is a common conception, and I believe there is even some kind of mockery of it as a mistaken notion.

    But anecdotally my mother does do genealogy research (? Guess that is the right word, more like bookkeeping). And she has found a number of incidences of Indian ancestry, sometimes full blooded Indian, more often though some name pops in that is listed or was described as "half Indian," though I gather that may actually mean having black ancestry in some cases.

    Now this isn't scientific. Maybe these are unusual incidences that she just notes because of their rarity or something.

    But from common belief (the Indian ancestry thing), and what she has said of her work I find this data somewhat surprising. Honestly I would have guessed most whites from the South would have had around 2 or 3 % Indian ancestry.

    Geez, if you go to the mountain areas (western North Carolina, East Tennesse, East Kentucky) you see a lot of people that if you squinted your eyes seem kind of Indian looking in a way.

    Maybe my imagination though, but I had always assumed there was more intermarriage in those areas.

    And as a totally unscientific anecdote, I have relatives from Tennessee. None of them can grow facial hair (they've tried the beard thing, but it just never works for them). That is another thing I kind of associate with having Indian ancestry, because the family in question generally believes certain ancestors were Indians (to the point where they have years and names).

    Anyway, blather off. I don't really think it means anything, but a number of people totally identify as white, but also have the belief that they have some portion of non-white ancestry. Perhaps wrongly I had some belief about myself on the Indian issue, but it just meant nothing to my personal self-identity.

    Incidentally, don't Europeans have some incidence of African ancestry? I mean if you did this same kind of test in Spain or Italy wouldn't you get comparable number for African ancestry to white Americans?

    Like Sunbeam, I believe this study to be badly flawed. I have always thought that a tremendous proportion of white people in the South have some portion of Indian blood in them from one of the five Civilized Tribes. I believe this because most of the people I have ever talked to around here claim to be part Indian, usually Cherokee. I live in Arkansas, near the Oklahoma border.
    Prior to the Civil War, Cherokees owned black slaves, and brought the slaves with them on the Trail of Tears. The only known slave owner in my ancestry was a full blooded Cherokee. Sometime after the war, the federal government classified the freed black slaves of Indians not as blacks, but as Indians. That is why, to this day, you have obviously black individuals running around claiming to be Indians.

    Read More
  187. @Corvinus
    "No kidding, Emily Littella, but we’re not talking about miscegenation."

    [Laughs] Fred Garman, the text from that law states" any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act." Since the words are too big for you to understand, I am more than willing to help. Fornication means sex. Sex between whom? A white man/woman with a black man/woman. Miscegenation is "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." The law is explicitly clear in its intention to make sure whities and darkies did not mix.

    Now, if you want to continue your charade as an uneducated man and prostitute logic, feel free to entertain us further.

    [Laughs] Fred Garman, the text from that law states” any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.” Since the words are too big for you to understand, I am more than willing to help.

    Quit trolling. We were talking about rape, not miscegenation.

    Read More
  188. ““A White liberal woman on City-Data is all giddy with excitement once she sound out she is 0.2% Sub Saharan African. Anything below 1 percent is just noise.”

    I suspect that even .1% Sub Saharan African scored on 23andme is real and not “noise”, because it is farily common among US whites and almost non-existant in UK and German whites.”

    FALSE because Sub Saharan African admixture below 1 percent pops up in some European Whites and not just New World Whites. But like I said, Sub Saharan African admixture below 1 percent is just noise.

    Read More
  189. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’m glad you are returning to the subject of individual identity. As ore and more benefits and sanctions are handed out based on race, this problem is going to expand.

    What we are going to see is a dusting-off of old state and federal law regarding the definition of race and that is going to be ugly. Each legal system currently has its own definition of race, and the definitions are all over the map. There is no such thing as a generally accepted “one drop rule”.

    So what happens when someone who meets the legal definition of “black” in Minnesota is legally defined as “white” in Mississippi?

    What happens when some light-skinned individual is denied a racial set-aside contract and challenges the denial in court with DNA evidence that he 1.12% black?

    What does your employer and the EEOC do when you change your race to “black” and ask your employer to update their records? If they refuse in the face of your scientific DNA evidence, they have to provide some reasoned legal basis for doing so.

    Pass the popcorn.

    Read More
  190. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew
    Steve:

    I've taken 23 and Me's test, and it showed me to be 1/64th black (1.5%). This is exactly right, as this ancestry came from one of my Great-Great-Great Grandfathers shacking up in town with one of his former mullato house slaves in the immediate post-Civil War period after their two planatations were burned down by Union Troops. Having lost everything and seen the society his ancestors had help create (his lineage included a Congressman and various military officers from Capitain to General from the Civil War, Indian Wars, War of 1812, and War for Independence) literally go up in smoke, he decided to give society the middle finger and shack up with the woman he loved and make lots of babies. One of their daughters, who was now 1/4th black (Quadroon), married a Norwegian sailor who jumped ship in Jacksonville, where she had moved to put some distance between herself and her racial past.

    While the couple was still excluded from polite Jacksonville society due to her being not white, their children were white enough (specifically they were Octaroons) and far enough removevd geographically and racially from the event of miscegenation that they were able to make up a story of the mullato house girl actually being a Seminole Princess (she certainly looked the part in the photos of her I have seen, and she was exceedingly beautiful). This worked well enough to allow their children to marry into polite society, with my particular ancestor marrying into a regular English family. Their children, who were 1/16th black looked for all the world as white as anyone else with blonde hair and blue eyes and the only latent indicators of any different ancestry being a propensity to tan easily and some very curly hair. Of course, 1/16th (6%) was the traditional point of being permitted to ignore the offending ancestry completely in American law. With that, my grandmother was able to marry into an upper class Anglo-Norman family.

    As to the rest, I can trace my ancestry back on all lines about 8-13 generations, generally to the 1500-1700's in Europe and generally to the parents or grandparents of the initial immigrant. One line can be traced back through England and Normandy to its Danish roots in the Norman invasion of Normady. Its all blindingly white, with nary a minority of any sort to be seen in the records.

    A 0.1% ancestry takes you back about 10 generations to where you have 1024 ancestors, which for most Americans living today is the period of 1650 to 1750. Two things worth noting. If the event of mixing with an Indian or Black took place just one generation before then, it is easy enough for the 0.1% of genetic material to simply not be handed on at all during the DNA recombination. It would be impossible to show it happened. The other thing I wonder is given the incidence of the R1 Y chromosomes and X mitochondrial chromosomes among eastern Indians, how many of them were already part "European" of some sort per the Solutrean hypothesis? The early descriptions of Indians in English and French America describe tall handsome people who looked nothing like the Indians of Mexico, the American West, South America, or Alaska beyond sharing a somewhat darker skin tone. If true, this would make detecting Indian ancestry even more difficult for any white who bred with an Indian in the period up to 1750.

    Of course, 1/16th (6%) was the traditional point of being permitted to ignore the offending ancestry completely in American law. With that, my grandmother was able to marry into an upper class Anglo-Norman family.

    This hints at the problem we face in the coming years. What if you or your children do not wish to “ignore” your ancestry, but “celebrate” it? In particular, what if your employer is committed to diversity and promoting “minority” managers? What if you want a city contract for your paving business which is only available to “minority-owned” companies? What if your daughter could easily win a “minority” scholarship to college?

    In a Western culture that wallows in self-definition to the extent that “boys” demand to be publicly called “girls” just because they “feel like a girl” who can gainsay your “blackness” if you decide to assert it–especially if you have the scientific DNA proof?

    Think of the moral cachet your new race gives you. When you move to a nicer neighborhood you are no longer engaging in evil “white flight”. Nope. You are a noble fighter for “integration”.

    Read More
  191. Big Bill [AKA "Southern Man"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @ben tillman

    The Guardian reporter explains why so many American blacks are on the light side thusly:

    “Despite laws against miscegenation, the pervasive practice of masters raping their slaves had produced a large number of light-skinned people. ”
     
    Is there any actual historical account of even a single instance of this? I think it's reasonable to presume that it did happen, but there's no way to know how often. Is the inference that it was "pervasive" a case of projection by a media corps that includes people like Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames?

    http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/10/30/the-exile-guys-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/

    Is raping one's slaves what they would do?

    Is raping one’s slaves what they would do?

    Of course not. Women marry/breed up. Always have, always will. My black wife’s family knows several white guys in their ancestry. So do their black acquaintances. There is one mystery white guy who got her unmarried great-granny pregnant a bunch of times but he took care of her and the kids. A good decision on granny’s part. That Plantation-Master-raping-his-slaves myth lets white women and blacks (especially black men) save face.

    Read More
  192. Somebody may have asked this already (I don’t have time or interest in reading nearly 200 “my aunt says she’s part Indian, but..” comments):

    How are they determining who is white and who is black for purposes of this statistical analysis? For example, if 1 of 100 self-identified whites claimed they were white when they were in fact black, that would yield a result of 1% of whites having 1% african genes wouldn’t it? Similarly, a “white” who was 30% black would heavily skew a small sample. And if it’s not self-identification, where’s the cut-off? 51%/49%?

    Can we really draw any conclusions from the information we have?

    Read More
  193. @Hipster
    I am a white American with about 3-5% Sub Saharan African (black) ancestry. This indicates that a great great great grandparent was black.

    It was a surprise and no one in my family suspected it. My mother is about 6-8% African American. Her mother was presumably about 12%.

    Our family had a story about being part Native American. I suppose that someone in the 1800s made up that lie to try to "pass" and it carried down through the generations.

    But I have photos of my great grandfather, who would have been about 1/4 black, and he looked white as anyone.

    yeah–I did 23andMe and got 0.7% sub Saharan African, close to 2^-7. We also have a Native American story, which I hear is a common cover. Interesting. Maybe some day I’ll get my parents typed and get a little closer to understanding the story.

    Read More
  194. @Suburban_elk
    Race is both a social construct and a biological reality.

    When SJW's say that race is a social construct, they are not wrong. It is interesting, why and how there is attached the implication to that statement: that because race is a social construct (which it is), then therefore it is not a biological reality. There is absolutely no need for race to be one or the other of those things.

    And of course in fact it is very much a conjunction of the two. Race is the conjunction of those two forces: the social forces that are groups of people and their relations and how they forge their future from the blood and guts at hand.

    Race is a social construct made of blood and guts. Race is the next level up. Speciation occurs in non-sentient life forms, but its occurrence in sentient creatures is a different kettle of fish. There becomes that conscious striving.

    Race consciousness is the next level up.

    The idea that the races cannot live together is not new. How it came to be the default opinion that they can and should is a question for others.

    I don’t think co-existence is impossible; actually, i think the swpl-black appeasements you describe are people like you, those who’d prefer not to interact. But unlike you, they have some ambivalence about it, so they act otu their own kabuki-like theatrics-cum-hysterics, thus vindicating whatever racial demons they feel compelled by.
    I don’t see or live by racial absolutism, and i don’t feel i’m some impractical dreamer; black america, by alnd large, are hybrids of africans and europeans…they are the genetic counterpoint to what you claim to be a sociological default of race in America. And i think the Twin Cities exemplifies that point more than many other cities do.

    Read More
  195. […] Sailer: “the big surprise has been how white are American whites“ […]

    Read More
  196. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    DNA does not lie, but its truth is often elusive. Weinrich was one of 87 people who received incorrect results last month because of a laboratory mix-up involving customers of 23andMe, a testing company backed in part by Google. The Mountain View, Calif., testing company says it regrets the incident and noted that it spotted the mistakes quickly, notified the clients and has taken steps to prevent future errors.

    Read More
  197. […] 97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/ There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.