GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-07 > 1058825972
From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest V03 #474
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, I agree with everything you say below and suspect that many of your comments apply to my mother - in - law's 100% Southern Appalachian heritage (woops, Alabama is not in the Appalachians - make that 90%). This is a very unfortunate situation, and as a genealogist, it poses what might be insurmountable problems.
I had initially hoped that the DNAPrint test would provide the suspected Native North American result with respect to my mother - in - law (which it did - 10%), then I could bull my way through the documentary sources and locate the source of the Native DNA. Two major problems. One you outlined below. The second, the DNAPrint test is wholy unreliable for minority ancestry. No matter what figures you have, they are suspect. The test does not perform "well" below 50% ancestry, Native American alleles are showing up in India, Russia and Korea; and East Asian alleles are showing up at relatively high rates where they "shouldn't" (e.g., among some PA Dutch). These problems simply confuse an already chaotic picture.
I guess I can thank my lucky stars that the British were very meticulous in their centralized record keeping, and that by comparison Canadians (such as myself) have a much easier time documenting Native American ancestors (mine back to the mid 1600s).
I wish there was an answer that would prove satisfactory - however even if the DNAPrint test did what it was supposed to do, it cannot tell us anything about the tribe(s) / Nation(s) of Native ancestors; at least not yet.................
dfeedspm <> wrote:
I suspect very strongly that John Chandler will wish to offer a comment of
two on the statistical - probability aspect of your question.
My two cents, for what they are worth, are that the results at any of these levels noted below are essentially meaningless unless you have confirmation (cross - validation) from other sources - such as a fully documented genealogy."
This is a gray area, that will not allow current geneological methodology reliance on "offical documentation" to solve due to the below factors.
Respective to the Southeast U.S, if this fully documented geneology validation is based on Census records as to "race", that validation should be rejected as positive proof of ancestrial "race", as the census is inaccurate for racial description of southern families who have been in North America for the past 400 years. i.e, The Faircloth family of former US Senator Faircloth from Sampson County NC, is listed as white in the census records, they have assimulated Coree Indian lines, these lines assimulated into white family groups, and the Faircloths are indicated as white in the census.
If the Faircloths took a DNA print test, it would indicate NA percentages and would create a variance from avalable official census indication of racial status.
In addition there was a hugh slave trade of Indians in the eastern US, some of those contributed genetic factors to modern "white people", some of those slaves were taken to Europe and sold there, if white people with unknown Indian slave ancestors took a DNA print test, then they would have variances that differ from official census records as to race.
See this link for an essay on the assimulation of Indians in the South East U.S. into "white status on census records.
"There are simply far too many people testing "positive" for Native American who have no paper trail whatsoever to support these findings."
See the above, in addition, courthouses were burned intentionally and non intentionally in the south, part of the result was destruction of paper trails as to racial identification records.
In my own opinion, this NA variance stems from several areas.
One is the ignorance of the history of genocidal assimulation of indians into white lines, in order to pass as white to survive, in addition, non understanding of the scope of the Indian slave trade and the integration of the historical facts of genocidal assimulation into geneology, to allow full understanding of who we actually are.
Another is refusal to consider the census as invalid for racial identification.
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
Dr. David K. Faux, P.O. Box 192, Seal Beach, CA, 90740, USA
|Re: [DNA] Re: GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest V03 #474 by David Faux <>|