because you've never asked.
Why do some black people claim obviously mixed people as black?
- Thread starter Prynce
- Start date
because you've never asked.
IllmaticDelta
Veteran
- According to Ancestry.com, the average African-American is 65 % sub-Saharan African, 29 % European and 2 % Native American.
- According to 23andme.com, the average African-American is 75 % sub-Saharan African, 22 % European and only 0.6 % Native American.
- According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African-American is 72.95 % sub-Saharan African, 22.83 % European and 1.7 % Native American.
- According to National Geographic’s Genographic Project, the average African-American is 80 % sub-Saharan African, 19 % European and 1 % Native American.
- According to AfricanDNA, the average African-American is 79 % sub-Saharan African, 19 % European and 2 % Native American.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
I don't ask self-evident questions. I know how mulattos look and I have never seen a mulatto that looks like the above 2 women. Show me their DNA tests.
IllmaticDelta
Veteran
it's both random and fixed to varying degrees. It's get more random when dealing with multi generational mixed and more fixed when dealing with "pure"types
there are ethnic "white"people who look "blackish"
the black woman and black man are biracial while the white looking girl is half white
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
This data is slanted and incorrect because African Americans that submit their DNA to testing are usually richer and less black than the average African American population. This is a study which integrates anthropological data, which is less biased and more representative of the average African American across the country. African American groups are also split according to exact geography for further pinpoint purposes:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707616280
Populations tested:
As you can see, African Americans are nowhere close to 35% cac ancestry on average. That's absurd for most everywhere (like I implied earlier). Your DNA testing numbers are way off.
Last edited:
IllmaticDelta
Veteran
This data is slanted and incorrect because African Americans that submit their DNA to testing are usually richer and less balck than the average African American population. This is a study which integrates anthropological data, which is less biased and more representative of the average African American across the country
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707616280
National Geographic’s Genographic Project isn't biased
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
National Geographic’s Genographic Project isn't biased
All of Ancestry.com, 23andme, FamilyTreeDNA, and probably Geographic get their samples from people who submitted their DNA a few years ago when DNA was expensive and just coming into the mainstream. Back then only pendants and richer people were interested enough and could afford to do it. At base your data is biased and unreliable. My study, meanwhile, is actual peer-reviewed scientific literature accepted into the American Journal of Human Genetics. My study uses real anthropological samples taken from people on the ground, giving far more accurate results than yours (which isn't a scientific study which controls for variables but rather more like a pendant's survey):
Estimating African American Admixture Proportions by Use of Population-Specific Alleles
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707616280
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
It's not. People with greater degrees of black or white ancestry have greater or lesser degrees of black and white features. Randomness does increase with multigenerational mixing but this does not make admixture truly random or even close to truly random. If what you say were true, then we wouldn't be able to distinguish African Americans from, say, Brazilians, whom are also multigenerationally mixed. But I bet if I put the average African Americans next to average Brazilians, you could tell almost to the man who is African American and who is Brazilian. This is because Brazilians have different racial percentages to African Americans. Racial DNA and proportion correlates with racial features.
There are always exceptions and abnormalities but in general what Is aid is right. Some features which black people have also aren't unique to blacks, just generally part of black racialdom (for example, big lips aren't exclusive to blacks).
Can you show me some proof?
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
it's not a fraction, it's the majority who are multi gen admixed
Do you not comprehend what I posted? A Sambo in Jamaica isn't a Native and Black mix.
So in addition to black and white there were five other grades of colour:
Defining Skin Colour - The Jamaican Colonial Experience • Jamaican Echoes
- Mulatto (Negro/Black + White
- Sambo (Negro/Black + Mulattto)
- Quadroon (Mulatto + White)
- Mustee (Quadroon + White)
- Musteephino (Mustee + White)
wtf are you talking about. I slayed you again
you think if you keep repeating this baseless generalizations wil make it more true the next time your repeat it or something? who you really trying to convince me oro youself
....mixed breeds have always been a fraction/sub group(minority and never enough to define the whole which is reflected in the fact since African original people first set foot in this country until now biracials never being documented exceeding single digits of AAs as a whole hardly enough to mongrelize the whole ethnic group
What doe that hoax breakdown of Blair Underwood's ancestry have to do with AAs as a whole?
white supremacist behind those test are clearly trolling low esteem AAs for shyt and giggles and monetary gain:...only a fool would take cac backed genetic studies on black people serious after this abomination:
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
LONDON | BY ALICE BAGHDJIAN
A worker arranges a replica of a sarcophage of Pharaoh Tutankhamun ahead of the opening of a major exhibition on the Ancient Egypt called 'Tutankhamun, his Tomb and his Treasures' in Brussels April 11, 2011.
REUTERS/YVES HERMAN
Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.
The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA.
"It was very interesting to discover that he belonged to a genetic group in Europe -- there were many possible groups in Egypt that the DNA could have belonged to," said Roman Scholz, director of the iGENEA Centre.
Around 70 percent of Spanish and 60 percent of French men also belong to the genetic group of the Pharaoh who ruled Egypt more than 3,000 years ago.
"We think the common ancestor lived in the Caucasus about 9,500 years ago," Scholz told Reuters.
It is estimated that the earliest migration of haplogroup R1b1a2 into Europe began with the spread of agriculture in 7,000 BC, according to iGENEA.
However, the geneticists were not sure how Tutankhamun's paternal lineage came to Egypt from its region of origin.
The centre is now using DNA testing to search for the closest living relatives of "King Tut."
"The offer has only been publicised for three days but we have already seen a lot of interest," Scholz told Reuters.
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
but let me guess...by your logic King Tut was multi generational mixed with European cavemen
-i've seen sambo admixture traditionally defined as black+native American in the Caribbean and Latin America but my point still stands......mixed breeds were almost certainly even smaller a minority in Jamaican than the AA community
what does posting a chart of the different combination of mutt supposed to prove
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
it's not a minority when
another example for you, Michell Obama
Media
New York Times Syndicate
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/22/us/first-lady-family-q-and-a.html?_r=0
ofcourse they are...most AAs aren't defined as admixed
how is posting propaganda of alleged(unproven) admixture of single celebrity figures validate the claim all AAs are admixed
...
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
you mean one of their parents is a pinky or did they let 23andme/ancestry.com scam artist hustle them
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
this is exactly what i thought...this creepy cac so blinded and delusion he's claiming one of the little Hindu nikkas from Slum Dog Millionaire and all Jamaicans mulattos
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
Michelle is a mammy and married to a half cac white house nikka but i'm skeptical on this
if woods did a documentary claiming Harriet Tubman was a mulatto your dumbas would eat it up without questiona and refrence her as an example of AAs historical mixed identity
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
Not true because as with any mix, there are variations. Some could be dark and some can look "redbone" while other's look "medium".Mixing can be very random.The boy in this picture is like 35% Euro, the mom is like 55- 60% euro and the daughter (his sister) is like 70% euro
this guy is like 60% white
idk about all that but confident you 100% Caucazoid Neanderthal
Sauanaffe Tustunnagee
Banned
why are nikkas still referencing cac backed genetic studies/scams as a legitimate tool to get an accurate view of black people's roots