Gene Drift In America – Whites & Blacks Blending

There’s an interesting article on race in America. Despite all the hoopla about racism, there’s some pretty clear evidence that folks are just not feeling very racist in the bedroom. Genes tend to drift between populations when there is some mixing, and it doesn’t take much over time for things to get fairly mixed.

They have a couple of graphs from data collected by “23 And Me” and made into population maps.

Black And White In America: Study Reveals Many Americans Have Mixed Race Background They Were Unaware Of
Dec 18, 2014 05:46 PM By Dana Dovey

Earlier this year, National Geographic made headlines with its “Changing Face of America” article. The story explained that America was becoming more comfortable with interracial relationships, and as a result, the future would be made up of a group of people with features from multiple races. A new study has challenged this hypothesis and suggested that this “mixed race future” is already here. We just never realized it.
The study found that, as expected, people tended to identify with the race that made up the majority of their background. However, for many, this self-identification was not completely accurate. According to the press release, the team estimated that as many as six million Americans who identify as white from a European background carry African ancestry and as many as five million self-described European white Americans have Native American ancestry.
Similar results have been found, with one article published by The Guardian stating that one out of every three self-identifying white Americans have between two to 20 percent African genes, and 23andMe wrote on their blog that due to the process of slavery the average black American has around only 73 percent African DNA.

Percentage African Genes in African Americans

Percentage African Genes in African Americans

Percent of White Population with African Genes

Percent of White Population with African Genes

I think it’s pretty clear that down in the south, despite what folks were saying, there was something else going on when the lights went out…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Biology Biochem, Human Interest and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Gene Drift In America – Whites & Blacks Blending

  1. Larry Ledwick says:

    Now that travel barriers are largely eliminated (genetic isolation is very difficult now in most of the developed world with the minor exception of a few culturally approved xenophobic societies like the Japanese in Japan) It is pretty much inevitable that over time humans will move toward a generic mongrel human, just like dogs all over the world revert to a stereotype feral dog conformation similar to the African wild dog and the Australian cattle dog, losing the breed specific traits of the common human derived breeds.

    Humans should do the same over time.

  2. ossqss says:

    23andMe is a business. How many customers do they actually have documented , and from where, for the statistics shown?
    The population of Georgia and South Carolina is around 17+ million, what is the demographic sample used by this business on display is the question?

  3. ossqss says:

    BTW, I am a mutt of sorts myself, but smell definitive sampling bias in these ambiguous and vague stats…

    Just sayin….. but I may be wrong……

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    The number is in the linked article. I thought it was a dry part so left it out. Something like 160,000 sample size. Much much more than enough.

    The bigger issue would be selection bias. Folks with quasi-known mixed ancestry are much more likely to “want to know” than folks like me where I’m certain of about 94% of my ancestry (and the other bit isn’t all that unknown – we know genotype just not country of origin).

    In general, statistical validity comes with a sample size of 1200 or larger. They have a couple of orders of magnitude more than that…

    I’m also pretty sure the African mix ratio is close to right. Just looking at the phenotypes of American Blacks vs those in Sub-Saharan Africa (pre-colonial photos or remote populations today) it’s obvious there is significant mixture. Few “jet black” here, more there. Lots of “intermediate” features here, few there – much more tribal uniformity. As to there being up to 12 percent of the white population that might have 1% or 2% of African genes in the south, I don’t doubt that at all either. Take one plantation owner who has a mistress, then that 1/2 black kid has a ‘hook-up and that 1/4 black generation (all of about 45 years after the START of slavery here) with a ‘fan-out of about 6:1 (common child : parent ratio for my parents generation was closer to 10 :1 so a conservative number) would, in 4 x 30 year generations, or 120 years, be about 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 descendants who would “pass as white” and had large motivation to do so. 1296 conservatively.

    At 1/4 black it’s clearly mixed race, but not so clear which. At 1/8 there are often white skinned kids. Beyond that it becomes increasingly hard to detect a racial type at all.

    Look at Meghen & Harry. She looks nearly white. Sort of “deep tan” or “vaguely Mexican tan”. Her Mom is Black, but my guess is about 1/2 to 2/3 Black. When Meghen has kids, they will look quite white. Then that “trace of African genes” will multiply out for generations to come.

    Do note that the “whites who have African genes” map has a “funny” thing it is measuring. While the Blacks map measures “% of African GENES”, the Whites map measures “% or Whites with ANY African genes over a minimal threshold” So very different things being measured. And clearly far more white genes moved into the black population than black genes into the white population (then slowly spread out even if thinly).

    It is quite possible that my family will be an example of that. My Son married a Puerto Rican lady. Her Dad is fairly dark and large, her mom is Dutch. When I look at her Dad, I think I see a bit of Africa. Hispanics are usually not that large, nor that dark, and there are some bone patterns that look less Hispanic. I’d *guess* maybe 1/8 African. But nobody knows. When I asked the answer was “Well, it’s Puerto Rico so who knows”. Now my grandson is a blond blue eyed kid. BUT it is very possible he could have something like 1/32 or 1/64 African genes. (IF so, I hope it’s the long legs able to jump genes, being as I’m short legged… ) Yet nobody in that lineage will think they are Black or even might be. At most they will identify as somewhat Hispanic.

    Another example would be a college roomie. He has sort of unruly kinky hair, but otherwise has a German name and is basically white complected but tans well. Near as I can tell he’s always identified as white. When I met his mom, she’s about 1/2 black I’d guess. Identified as mixed race and acknowledged Black ancestry. Yet look at the Grandkids with their German names and blue eyes and you do not think “Part African”…

    So how many people in America know ALL their great grandparents races? I don’t even know the names of mine. Now move it back 3 more generations and ask again… America is over 200 years old as a nation, longer as colonies. At 30 year generation times, that’s about 7 generations.
    Me, parent, grandparent, great-grand parent, great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-great-grandparent.
    1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.

    Can you name all 64 of your 7th above? Their country of origin, race, and physical type? I can’t.

    We do know a lot of slave owners were fond of female slaves. We do know many slave families have direct ancestry in their families to their “owners”. We do know that many “mixed race” folks during the era of Jim Crow had a large incentive to “pass as white” if they could.

    So I’m just not seeing all the reason why those numbers are not quite reasonable.

  5. cdquarles says:

    Don’t forget the ‘one drop’ rule that held sway, and not only in the Old South, just 100 years ago. There are a lot of “whites” who are “black” because of that. Also, in the past, generation times were 15 to 20 years, not 30. Boomers, for instance, were born in 1946 through 1963.

    Per my grandfather, who raised me after my dad’s death; and who was born in 1895 in the Old South: “White’s alright. Yellow’s a good fellow. Brown, stick around. Black, get back.” I have relatives, per family lore that were Indian chiefs, USA state politicians, and black slaves, whether from here or from the Caribbean.

  6. cdquarles says:

    Also, don’t forget, that there were quite a few Free Black slave owners of blacks, in the Old South, prior to roughly 1840. The Indians that refused to be forced west via the (several) Trail of Tears, mixed in with the whites and mixed folk, too.

    I certainly can’t name 7 generations fully. Only one part of my family was traced back to 1700s Harris County North Carolina, and it was mixed off and on throughout. That part was the family of my dad’s mother and her sister. Otherwise, I can’t go further back, with any reasonable accuracy, past the grandparents (1890s). Of my dad’s generation, there are only two left that I know of. Of my mom’s, just one. Of my mom’s mom, there are just two second cousins left. Of my dad’s dad? I don’t know at all. He died young and that information was lost with him.

  7. E.M.Smith says:


    Sounds like your mix is what my family has become. While my Mum was straight from England and my Dad was German / Irish mix from Iowa, my Sister married a guy with high cheekbones and supposedly about 1/4 American Indian. Their kid, my nephew, is a blond blue eyed guy but has GREAT “bone structure” and girls just love him… Then I’ve mentioned my line is now 100% blended in with Hispanic and probably some African. About the only thing we don’t know we’ve got yet, in the next generation, is some Asian. ( I missed my chance… when I “made my move” on the Chinese girl I had a crush on, she’d already hooked up with a Black Guy…. My generation seems particularly willing to go for the “exotic other”) .

    In my High School class, the two Japanese guys each have white spouses. The Hispanics seem to blend in with anyone else. Then the very white blond Homecoming Queen married a black guy.

    Frankly, I give it about 2 more generations of mixing and there’s going to be too much mush to keep the fractional math straight. My family is already down to the 1/16ths that I know of.

    The same thing seems to be happening in Brazil. I taught ESL to a bunch of Brazilian kids. My assessment from looking at them was that there was a significant amount of light skin with kinky hair and dark skin with European features and it looked like maybe 20% were a “pure type” … meaning one more generation and it’s all Mutt.

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    That will be the step that finally breaks down racism when the populations of all major countries have merged in the generic “mutt” humans and you cannot pinpoint folks heritage by looking at them. Then the hard wired tribal affiliation will be broad enough that folks look to some other means of identifying who is in their tribe and who is not.

    That genetic drive to affiliate with your own tribe is derived from 2+ million years of selective mutation it will not go away any time soon, but it could be blunted as people share more and more common traits and customs.

    Maybe another 300 years or so with modern travel and freedom of movement will get there.

  9. H.R. says:

    Let me toss in a couple of pennies worth.

    I have two nephews that are 1/2 white and 1/2 pretty much black, both males. I haven’t asked the question of both of them, but I was talking politics with one of them and threw in the question of how he thought the first 1/2-white President was doing. Things led to other things and he let me know how he liked to be identified; as ‘colored’ (I’ll not go into what he thought about Obama.)

    It seems there’s a South African entertainer that he heard and likes that settled it for him. In S. Africa, you are either black, white, or if there was any intermarriage, colored. It was purely descriptive.

    When the entertainer came to NYC, he said he found it odd that people were shushing him for referring to himself as colored. Anyone from the U.S. will know all the angst, whispers, negative connotations, PC BS, black power movements, laws, and whatnot associated with the term ‘colored.’ He had no clue whatsoever. My nephew liked the descriptor, and without all the associated manufactured divisive bullshit attached to the term ‘colored’, embraces it as the most accurate description of himself. I love that kid!

    My other mixed descent nephew never gives it a thought. He is a handsome devil with the best features of blacks and whites, well grounded financially and politically (recognizes the Democrat plantation, very much entrepreneurial), a former Marine who loves the U.S. and serves as a Deputy County Sheriff. Never gives the first thought to ‘race.’ It just isn’t in him. Look up colorblind in the dictionary if you want to see a picture of my nephew.

    My anecdotal 2¢.

    My son married a Chinese woman who came to the U.S. 20 years ago at age 19 to attend University. She is now a U.S. citizen and did so (before marriage!) because she wanted to show the missus and me that she was not marrying our son for citizenship. She is our daughter.

    No grand-kids for us or her Chinese parents; reproductive issues of putting off childbearing for careers and probably some of the societal/environmental/dietary/OTC drug issues brought up on this blog. It is a BIG-BIG cultural issue for her parents and a highly disappointing issue for the missus and me. That would have produced a Chinese-Scottish-German- Czech-English-American Indian kid. Put an X through that gene mixture, folks.

    Me – 100% German through my father. 50% Czech 50%English through my mother.
    Wife: 100% Scottish through her naturalized mother. Scottish with an unknown % of American Indian through her father.

    And don’t forget… I always fill out the government forms with ‘Native American’ because I was born nowhere else but here.

  10. jim2 says:

    So what are the Dimowits going to do when the races and ethnicities are not delineable?

  11. H.R. says:

    @Larry L: Good points about tribal identity. Hard to deny our hard-wiring.

    My tribe is AMERICAN. I really don’t identify with my relatively undiluted ethnic past (thanks, mom & dad). I do have a little trouble with people who don’t identify as American, regardless of color, ethnic, or national background. Americans. That’s my tribe.

  12. jim2 says:

    Or, as Eddie Murphy’s character said: “Hey, where are da white women at?”

  13. John F. Hultquist says:

    23&me seems to push the Neanderthal markers — at least in the one I was shown.

    I was told not to call a person black (although I am called white), but to say a person of color.
    However, go to this site

    … and you can see the memo hasn’t gotten circulated too far.

  14. ossqss says:

    Ha, good assement HR , “Native American” . Indesputable Fact for me too!

    Quick story for ya. My neighbor was looking for small business support several years ago, and thought he could get a Native American benefit from what his family told him. He did the DNA thing back then and the results came back a bit different than his elders indicated. He ended up being part Chinese not the other!

    No BS, we still give him “Grass Hopper” greetings to this day when we meet. ; -)

    No, he didn’t get the SBA loan either…..

    I guess that could be a case of Fake Genes. LOL

  15. E.M.Smith says:


    I’m pretty sure the fractional arithmetic breaks down with this generation. I’ve got a tendency to being compulsive on details and already have a 1/4 “kind of indeterminate”. Mum: English (that is itself a mix of Vikings, Britons, French, Germans, and who knows what else), Dad: German / Irish / Else. The German is the Amish Grandma of mine and pretty clear. Then the Irish is from his two grandparents who came over in the 1800s. Then there’s the Else Clause.

    The Smith name comes from a guy who got off a boat in Virginia in the 1700s. He worked iron for a living, so was a Smith. We have a physical description (big white guy with a big nose and reddish hair) but that’s it. Country of origin? Unknown. Now we also know that between the 1700s and late 1800s that line picked up “some French”, but details are sketchy.

    Now my kids get a simpler story than most, as my spouse is also an English / Irish / ?French mix, so we get to simplify the details, but the math got complicated enough that my kids just kept the labels and not the fractions…

    Step forward to the grandkid… Now you’ve got so many fractional parts, and another few descriptors, and a big unknown in just what a Puerto Rican mix is made off… At that point he’s got something like 1/2 to 3/4 a bunch of little fractions and 1/4 to 1/2 “mutt”. I’m pretty certain all he’s going to say is “I’m ‘Merican”. I do that now to many questions.


    Well, as I pointed out, I’ve discovered that per US Rules I can say I’m Hispanic.

    So I’ve been wondering if I ought to fill out things with Hispanic or ‘Merican…

    I grew up speaking some Spanish and now I watch Spanish language TV from time to time. My favorite foods include a fair amount of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other Latin dishes. I was born in a State that was a part of the former Spanish Empire (that alone makes me Hispanic per the rules).

    I don’t really get asked much for that (as I’m not filling out applications for things), but I’m really tempted if I ever see one again…

    Growing up, as my Mum was 100% British, I thought of myself as “sort of British”. Then I did the usual thing of “going back to the old country”. Trip to England. It was there I realized that no, I’m an American. Some small bits of it were familiar, but I was clearly an alien there.

    That’s the one thing we all here share. That sense of “out of place” in whatever “Old Country” our ancestry calls to us from. It does not matter if you are 100% Chinese or Japanese or German or Iranian Muslim or whatever genetically. Having grown up in the USA you may well feel “out of place”, but when you go visit the country of origin of your parents, you will suddenly feel American first.


    They will continue to use the politics of division.

    WHITE (vs everybody else)
    BLACK (vs everybody brown or white)
    etc etc.

    If any one gets small response they will just invent a new one. Like whatever the current alphabet soup is for LGBTQ-mft…

    @John F:

    The preferred description changes with the wind. You WILL be given dirty looks and name calling no matter what you use. Why? Because the purpose is to engender guilt and have a reason to insult you. So take your pick from Black, Colored, African-American, whatever, and all those who picked the other one will find you offensive. Purpose served, generate feelings of being offended.


    Your neighbor needs to be very careful about accepting the test results unquestioningly.

    Realize that a gene type is NOT a nationality. That’s the first thing they do wrong. So when they say “You have 20% Russian ancestry” they are flat out lying. It really means “You have 20% R1a male markers and related haplogroup” or something similar. Now that tends to be more common in Russians than in Irish, but it does not match totally. A person might have a Russian gene type, but have ancestry that spent the last 300 years in England.

    Then, many genes travel unchanged for a long time. The Y and Mitochondrial genes in particular are often used to assign types or groups, but all your OTHER genes are not bound to them.

    So for me I could be either R1b (lots and lots of Celtic ancestors) or I could be R1a (German side) OR (and this is the BIG OR) since that Smith that got of the boat is a big unknown and the Y chromosome I have came from him:

    It is very possible I’m ANY Y type on the planet.

    He could have a 1/2048 Mongolian ancestry for all we know and be 2047/2048 Slavic, but have passed on a Y from Gengis Khan. (If, say, he was a Hungarian smith that got off the boat and somewhere in his deep past his patrilineal line lead back to The Golden Hoard).

    That would NOT make me “Mongolian”, but would mark me as such, despite being almost entirely English / Irish / German mix. Proven and known.

    Take, for example, just Spain. Rome picked up most of the Jews they could find and shipped them off to Spain. Germans (Goths) ran through on their way to North Africa. Phoenicians were all along the coasts in the early periods. Then the Muslim Hoard overran the place for a few hundred years. Now, you can pick up someone from the coastal area and they will test as Irish as that’s the origin of the Irish gene set. They can have ancestry from that patch of dirt going back 5000 years. Or just a bit inland you can have ancestry tracing back to Egypt. Or have some German from those Goths. Or damn near anything else from all the Romans who wandered through. Or Jewish.

    All of them from folks who have lived in Spain for at least 300 years. Most likely much more. Is it not more accurate to say they are Spanish nationality?

    The reality is that with several massive empires moving people all over Europe for a few thousand years, most of Europe is really made of Euro-Mutts. There are pockets of “pure types”, but they are small batches and usually remote. Regional enclaves.

    Take my mother. Pure English. But we know her ancestry is part Celts and part Vikings. And part God Only Knows. What would her genetic markers make of her “Nationality”? And thus mine? Depends on some random allotment along the way. Could test is Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Dutch, French, Breton, etc. etc. The reality is she is English.

    So your friend was typed as Chinese. That does NOT mean his family history is wrong. It can just mean that his great-great-great-grandmother picked up a Chinese husband back when China was sending a lot of men only over here, then the rest of the “blend” that is him happened over time, and the test picked up some Asian type genes but could not properly assign the Asian batch to one of those two sources in Asia. (Most American Natives have Asian origin genes…)

    I think there is great harm being done by folks believing the fictions being presented as fact from gene testing companies instead of preserving their family stories. While it might be useful for someone with a family history through 100 years in Mexico and another 200 in Spain to find they have 25% Jewish ancestry, that does not make them a Jew. Nor does it mean their family history is not “From Spain”. I can simply mean that some guy was stuck in Spain by a Roman Emperor and decided he liked the taste of bacon so joined the Catholic church.

  16. philjourdan says:

    How can Sean King and Rachel Dolezal get away with race fraud? Because the line between races is disappearing. Indeed, other than blacks fresh off the plane from Africa, most blacks in the US are not “black”, but varying degrees of brown.

    Only 12% of whites in the south? My bet is it is actually a lot higher. 10 generations back you have 1000 ancestors. And that is only about 250 years. Long after the settling of this country. With that many ancestors, I bet there may be a few in there that are not pure. I know mine are not.

  17. philjourdan says:

    @H.R. – “It seems there’s a South African entertainer that he heard and likes that settled it for him. In S. Africa, you are either black, white, or if there was any intermarriage, colored. It was purely descriptive.”

    Read Michener’s “The Covenant”. It actually gives you a good history of SA.

  18. cdquarles says:

    As a corollary to the saying from my granddad, back then, using White, Colored or Negro were fine, as you were usually considered “American” if not otherwise noted. That’s why I dislike African-American, when discussing Americans

    The other “N” word, was not. It was a descriptor of a person’s or a group’s behavior, just like being called a “thug” was derogatory. NB that ‘race’ or ‘color’ didn’t matter. Oh how we have fallen in my own lifetime.

  19. cdquarles says:

    Interestingly enough, though EM, I’d say that there are visible differences between western Amerinds and eastern ones. The eastern ones look a lot more European with some Asian and some African (a continent!) than the western ones do. There is a registered tribe here that all look fully European, with the band being a branch of the Muscogee, aka Creek, tribe. The Amerind part of my ancestry is part Cherokee, part Creek and part Choctaw … with one said to have been a Choctaw chief’s daughter.

  20. E.M.Smith says:


    Thanks to the colonial era, even modern blacks in Africa are not pure black, unless from minor tribes out in the boonies. Look for specific traits and it becomes clear. The broad shoulders big but short legs look comes right out of Neanderthal build. It is NOT native to Africa. Their build is epitomized by the Nilotic peoples:

    Tall and relatively thin. Very little body fat. Black as coal. More prognathism (butt sticks out – more butt muscles so better at jumping and running) along with very long legs.

    Yet look at modern Africans, especially in cities, and you will find shorter fatter people with a lighter shade of dark.

    South African school kids:

    So the ones getting off the plane have to be from out in the boonies, or remote parts of Africa that were uninteresting to European Colonial powers to be “pure” blacks…

    Per 12% of whites:

    They had a cut off of 1% or 2% so anything less than that was not counted.

    1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 1/32 1/64 1/128 <= last one not counted. So after 6 generations from the crossing they would say you were "Pure white". That’s about 120 to 180 years ago. You must have a cut off at some point, because, as you pointed out, go back far enough your ancestor count exceeds the population of the world then and you are related to 100% of everyone today…


    I get over 4 Billion at 2^32 so figure on the standard 30 year generation (yes, I know, it was as fast as 15 years in the deeper past, I'm being conservative here) that's all of 32 x 30 = 960 years. As that was about the population of the whole world until recently, you are essentially related to everyone who was alive then. (Remember that Rome brought slaves into Europe before then so there was already some cross continental mixing going on…)

    If you run this out to 12,000 / 30 = 400 generations, 12 kya, end of the last Ice Age Glacial, you have a number that makes your head spin. Now, in reality, back a few hundred years ago many places had isolated valleys and small communities where there wasn't much 'mixing out' or we would not have races as we know them today, so the degree of that mixing that happened via the one guy who was carted from an American Indian tribe to, say, Europe was very small. Yet it happened. Similarly there is good evidence for a Japanese origin of a native Peruvian tribe and there are redheads in China, so that mixing DID happen.

    It is just that "for all practical purposes" your very ancient Chinese or Watusi or Pharonic ancestor didn't leave a significant genetic trace in you today.

    Which gets back to my whole complaint about assigning country of origin to genetic types when the people of Europe ran all over the place for 2000 years, more for 12,000 years, and most of the countries didn't exist 1000 or 2000 years ago. (THE country for most of Europe was Roman Empire… even down into North Africa and the Levant). So when your ancestor from, say, Crete in the Roman Empire moved to Iberia (one boat ride away) 1800 years ago, and decided to stay, doesn't that mean you are more Spanish than from Crete?

    It is just that confounding genetic origin history with nationality history is wrong.

    Oh Well.

  21. E.M.Smith says:


    Had a lady working for me once who wanted time to go back east for a tribal get together. I had noticed her “Indian bead” jewelry choices but said nothing (as managers get whacked for social niceties these days). I commented “Your tribe has a very European look.” (taking a BIG risk that it could offend, but she seemed ‘not that type’).

    Her response was an effusive thank you for NOT saying “you don’t look Indian” or “you can’t be Indian” that are the usual reaction. She went on to say her whole tribe were relatively pure Indians and had ALWAYS looked as they do. To me, it is a bit of a Basque kind of look. Dark hair and eyes, a bit of an Asian eye look to some of them.

    IMHO those tribes are THE best evidence for a group of early arrivals from Europe (PRIOR to the present Europeans who killed off most of them in Europe, too…) and populating North America in the east. The arrivals from Asia have a VERY Asiatic look to them, not at all like Eastern or Caribbean natives.

    Unfortunately, I think 2 major horrors hit those folks. The Clovis People were largely wiped out by an impact into the ice shield of Canada causing the Younger Dryas, then recovery would involve some mixing with the Asian source Indians. After that, the arrival of Modern Europeans was a disease disaster as they were not naturally immune to the diseases those dirt bags brought with them. Measles. Plague. Influenza. That’s what killed off most of the Native American population. Then the “Men with guns” finished off some of the rest (and many just moved into the new society as evidence your ancestry and my nephew…)

    When you look at old paintings and even some photos of the native American population from the first contact, before any significant genetic mixing could have happened, it’s very clear that the Native Americans range from Asiatic to essentially European types as you grade across the continent.

    From the Mohawk wiki:

    From the Navajo wiki:

  22. p.g.sharrow says:

    Yes, North America seems to have been a human melting pot for a very long time. In a few hundred years we will all look like the “Indians” of the American southeast. Being an “Afro” is already becoming more a cultural thing the a racial description. Ben Franklin taught us to think ourselves as”Americans” IMHO a concept that must be pursued…pg

  23. philjourdan says:

    @E.M. – You math is sound, your counting…..

    You went back 32 generations go get to 4b, but 1000 years ago (or even 500 years ago with a more conservative length of a generation) there were not 4b on the planet! We just topped 1b a little over 200 years ago.

    But it does demonstrate that while you are a “Smith” and I am a “Jourdan”, that name may be a small percentage of our true heritage (just luck of the draw of the male members – but only in some societies as Hispanic does not work that way for females).

  24. E.M.Smith says:

    I deliberately chose 4 Billion as an over the top number. Remember that whole “being conservative” thing?…

  25. agimarc says:

    All this is going to make the family business of the racialists a bit more difficult to hand over to the next generation, not that they won’t give it the old college try. Always nice to see an obsolete business model fail over time. Cheers –

  26. E.M.Smith says:

    Per P.G.s “Indians of the South East”, here’s a couple of samples. From the Caribbean:

    From the Cherokee (originally in the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Georgia, now mostly in Oklahoma)

  27. E.M.Smith says:

    Does look “about right” when I run forward a mental morph of types…

    Wonder if that’s how it happened the last time…

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    Chocktaw and others across the south (Mississippi / Louisianna) look a little more mixed with some quite European looking and some a bit more Asiatic. Guess the Old Miss was likely a throttle on mixing of the two main types…


    Chocktaw code talkers from W.W.I (!) that predates the Navajo Code Talkers… Must be a story there…

    From 1864 the principle chief (who went to D.C. and is buried there in the congressional cemetary)

    Photo of 2 girls showing a little more Asiatic traits, but still not looking Asian:

    A Shawnee and Choctaw Chief set:

    There’s actually a fair amount of material, both early photos and drawings done with correct presentation in mind, from the early years before much genetic drift. It think it’s pretty darned clear that the “Iconic” Asiatic looking Indian is only from a few western tribes.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like by the time you get to the Dakotas and the area of Wyoming you reach the blended Asiatic / Euro look. The “classical” stereotype of what an Indian looks like. The Sioux:

    Photo’s of some Chiefs. Note the very straight very European nose, with only slightly epicanthic folded eyes. (Click to embiggen, a lot…)

    And, of course, the archetype. Sitting Bull. A Lakota Sioux.

  30. D. J. Hawkins says:

    I hit the site quite a while ago. 15 of my 16 great-grand parents hail from the Auld Sod. The last one comes from Wales. Now, there was certainly a lot of gene-mixing going on in Ireland. I don’t have the red hair and large bone structure one classically associates with the beefy Irishman. I’m short, very fair-complected with (formerly) dark hair, more typical of the Gaelic peoples that inhabited Ireland before the Danes got there.

Comments are closed.