Started By
Message
re: What percent Native American are you? Which tribe?
Posted on 5/29/18 at 8:26 am to TRUERockyTop
Posted on 5/29/18 at 8:26 am to TRUERockyTop
Surprised nobody has said 100% Slap-a-ho yet.
0
Posted on 5/29/18 at 9:05 am to TRUERockyTop
Great-Great Grandmother was 100% Cherokee...we have old pictures of her and it is mentioned in a family genealogy book (my mom has told me stories of knowing her when she was very young). If none of my other ancestors had any Indian in them, it would make me 6.25%.
Posted on 5/29/18 at 12:22 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The only contaminant was a Norwegian
You misspelled "saving grace".
Posted on 5/29/18 at 11:06 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
NB4 bunch of white folks claim to be part Cherokee because they feel guilty about their whiteness
My maternal great, great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee.
This post was edited on 5/29/18 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 5/30/18 at 2:00 am to TRUERockyTop
0% according to 23andme and Ancestry despite the usual family myths. Another "super cracker" I guess. 
This post was edited on 5/30/18 at 2:14 am
Posted on 5/30/18 at 6:44 am to northshorebamaman
I also had the Cherokee myth. On my mothers side. I have several physical features that made me believe. Including difficulty growing facial hair and lactose intolerance.
But 0.0% per a DNA test. My mama, who is not a liberal by any definition, seemed a little disappointed.
I’m not sure why that myth has had so much attraction to so many of us down south. I don’t think it is white guilt for most.
I’m 86% British, 8% Irish/Scotch/Welsh, and a few others. No American Indian.
But 0.0% per a DNA test. My mama, who is not a liberal by any definition, seemed a little disappointed.
I’m not sure why that myth has had so much attraction to so many of us down south. I don’t think it is white guilt for most.
I’m 86% British, 8% Irish/Scotch/Welsh, and a few others. No American Indian.
Posted on 5/30/18 at 6:30 pm to northshorebamaman
So a couple questions about those genetic tests for someone smart to answer:
1. Are genetics/DNA passed down 50/50 every time? I mean, if we take a Russian person and an African person and they have a kid is it possible that their child could be 75% African genetics? I feel like the answer to this is yes, some traits are obviously dominant over others when it comes to phenotypes, but does that show up in genetic profiling?
I guess what I'm getting at is that is it possible that if we took a single generation of northshorebamaman's ancestors might we find that say, only 4% of them were French & German, but the mix just was higher in his genetics?
and...
2. How exactly do they determine the control or source populations they've tested from these places to say, ok you're British, or French, or German. I'm not even sure what British is ethnically speaking...the original Celtic inhabitants? They've been mixed with so many populations, Latins, Danes, Angles, Saxons, Normans....that I imagine it would be hard to isolate them. The British are the most obvious issue I can think of but that's also true, to a lesser extent, with the French and Germans. How can you be certain that the DNA they're comparing it to is actually what they say it is?
1. Are genetics/DNA passed down 50/50 every time? I mean, if we take a Russian person and an African person and they have a kid is it possible that their child could be 75% African genetics? I feel like the answer to this is yes, some traits are obviously dominant over others when it comes to phenotypes, but does that show up in genetic profiling?
I guess what I'm getting at is that is it possible that if we took a single generation of northshorebamaman's ancestors might we find that say, only 4% of them were French & German, but the mix just was higher in his genetics?
and...
2. How exactly do they determine the control or source populations they've tested from these places to say, ok you're British, or French, or German. I'm not even sure what British is ethnically speaking...the original Celtic inhabitants? They've been mixed with so many populations, Latins, Danes, Angles, Saxons, Normans....that I imagine it would be hard to isolate them. The British are the most obvious issue I can think of but that's also true, to a lesser extent, with the French and Germans. How can you be certain that the DNA they're comparing it to is actually what they say it is?
Posted on 5/30/18 at 8:23 pm to KSGamecock
I can't answer most of that. I did the test mainly for entertainment but also because my father was adopted.
I believe they mostly use samples from different areas to isolate genes. In other words, there isn't an Irish gene, but they look for matching markers from those places that show genetic patterns specific to geographic areas.
Or not. I'm not really sure.
quote:
How exactly do they determine the control or source populations they've tested from these places to say, ok you're British, or French, or German. I'm not even sure what British is ethnically speaking...the original Celtic inhabitants?
I believe they mostly use samples from different areas to isolate genes. In other words, there isn't an Irish gene, but they look for matching markers from those places that show genetic patterns specific to geographic areas.
Or not. I'm not really sure.
This post was edited on 5/30/18 at 8:31 pm
Posted on 5/30/18 at 8:43 pm to KSGamecock
This is from the 23andMe site:
quote:
To determine your ancestral breakdown, we use an algorithm that individually looks at short pieces of DNA across your genome. We compare each piece to DNA sequences from 31 ancestral reference populations from around the world, which include over 10,000 individuals with known ancestry. When a piece of your DNA resembles the DNA from a specific reference population with a high degree of certainty, it is assigned to that population. Sometimes a piece of DNA resembles reference DNA from several populations, in which case it is assigned to a "broad" ancestry (e.g. Northwestern European). The results of these assignments are tallied across your genome to determine your results.
quote:
To determine your recent ancestor locations, we look for identical pieces of DNA that you have in common with individuals of known ancestry from over 120 countries and territories in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania. If you share identical DNA segments with five or more individuals from a specific location (excluding your close relatives), that location is assigned to you. The strength of that assignment (the "match strength") is determined by how much of your DNA you share with people from that location, adjusting for the number of people that we compared you with. When interpreting your results, keep in mind the following:
- Country borders have changed a lot even within the past 100 years, which can sometimes produce counter-intuitive results.
- If you don't see an expected ancestry location, that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have ancestors who lived there. It could simply mean that you do not have enough shared DNA with our reference dataset for us to confidently assign that location to you.
- We determine these results in real time, meaning that new locations can arise as our database grows and you should expect to see changes to your results over time.
This post was edited on 5/30/18 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 5/30/18 at 8:45 pm to northshorebamaman
Interesting, thank you for sharing.
Posted on 5/30/18 at 8:58 pm to madmaxvol
What did you spend your distribution money on?
Posted on 5/30/18 at 9:04 pm to dirtsandwich
My mother-in-law claimed Cherokee lineage. When my brother-in-law did a 23 and me test earlier this year, it showed no Native American genealogy, and all Northern European. The mother-in-law was disappointed.
Posted on 5/31/18 at 12:01 am to DownSouthJukin
quote:
My mother-in-law claimed Cherokee lineage. When my brother-in-law did a 23 and me test earlier this year, it showed no Native American genealogy, and all Northern European. The mother-in-law was disappointed.
As far as I know, my own family has no Native Americans, but when my daughter did a 23 and me DNA test, she showed more Native American DNA than my son in law, whose genetic background definitely contains some NA. It must come from my wife's side somewhere.
My son in law is verifiably part Cherokee and can trace lineage to the Dawes Rolls, however, that ancestry is far enough back that his DNA test shows less than 1% Native American.
In all honesty, if your ancestors are from southern Appalachia, there's a pretty good chance your grandmother isn't lying about her NA ancestry. After the frontier battling ended, the immigrant Scots and Cherokees banged like rabbits. Probably moreso than any other native/immigrant groups. But once you're six or seven generations away, the DNA from a single ancestor becomes within the margin of error of the test.
This post was edited on 5/31/18 at 8:31 am
Posted on 6/2/18 at 2:08 pm to TRUERockyTop
1/16 Hekawi AKA Fugawi tribe.
Posted on 6/2/18 at 7:40 pm to TRUERockyTop
I've been told Iroquois on my mom's side and Seminole on my dad's, but i never cared enough to verify for myself.
I've got a renewed interest in my own genealogy now that I have a kid. I know he has a rich freaking heritage.
I've got a renewed interest in my own genealogy now that I have a kid. I know he has a rich freaking heritage.
This post was edited on 6/2/18 at 8:03 pm
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News