Prompt from what haplogroups consist Y-DNA "white"-not europeans: USA, canadians, aus

B

BM-31

Junior Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Prompt from what haplogroups consist Y-DNA "white"-not europeans: USA, canadians, aus

"white"-USA peoples, "white"-canadians peoples, "white"-australians peoples? I heard that "white"-americans USA are not faultlessly white as 30 % of the african blood have been found out in them
 
There are no "white" haplogroups. For example R1b, the most common haplogroup in western Europe, is also very common in central Africa.
 
German haplogroup "I" same not white race?

I want that to me would announce from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians
 
BM-31 said:
German haplogroup "I" same not white race?
I want that to me would announce from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians
Click to expand...

That's about all the haplogroups in the world.
 
Maciamo You know the answer to this question or not: "from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians " References (site) to the official data on these people are necessary to me
 
Yes, i've read that white-americans on average have 2% sub-saharian admixture based on Autosomal DNA
 
Maciamo said:
There are no "white" haplogroups. For example R1b, the most common haplogroup in western Europe, is also very common in central Africa.
Click to expand...
but it is not the same branch of R1b. Europeans have the M269 branch
 
BM-31 said:
"white"-USA peoples, "white"-canadians peoples, "white"-australians peoples? I heard that "white"-americans USA are not faultlessly white as 30 % of the african blood have been found out in them
Click to expand...

Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.
 
Cambria Red said:
Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.
Click to expand...

In the past there was a very rigorous social stigma (with attendant severe economic and social consequences) attached to what was called "miscegenation" (racial mixing). It prevented it from ever becoming widespread. As a result, there are few North American whites who have any real proportion of Subsaharan African ancestry.

On the other hand, there is a fairly substantial number of North American blacks who have European ancestry, usually on the y-dna side.

That social stigma and its consequences have eased in recent years, so white/black mixing is becoming more frequent than it used to be, but it's still not that widespread.
 
Maciamo Has decided to ignore criticism of the USA:)
Wilhelm said:
Yes, i've read that white-americans on average have 2% sub-saharian admixture based on Autosomal DNA
Click to expand...

Not 2 % and 30 % of percent of the black person I have read article that the american contains an anglo-saxon origin. You know where it is possible to look a picture of DNA of "white" people of the USA?
 
Cambria Red said:
Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.
Click to expand...

I have read this information in one article, there was said that such result about DNA of "white" Americans has been revealed after the spent genetic researches in the late sixties years . In article it is not enough about that was told, the organisation name has not been named. There have written that "the white" american became on 30 % the afro-american. Whence you know, what it is a lie? You know the truth about a DNA-picture of "white" Americans of the USA? So tell this truth and confirm the words with a reference to the source (site). Give the reference to the data of Americans of an Anglo-Saxon origin and then all my questions will disappear.You cite the data on DNA of americans, you mean know about DNA to a picture of the American. Well, then give the reference to a full picture of DNA of Americans.
 
Huh?

Forgive me, but what exactly is the original question? Is it..."Do Americans who self-identify themselves as 'white' actually have upwards of 30% saharan DNA"? Being a member of 23andme and deCODEme, and frequent forum contributor to both sites, I would say absolutely not.

I think that African Americans often have 30% (or more) of European DNA, but your average WASP (euphamism for White Anglo Saxon Protestant, but I'm using it in the place of average white person from the USA) has little, or most often no Saharan or Asian DNA. deCODEme is more generous w/Asian and African DNA and most self-identified Europeans have a small percentage of each. Me: 100% Euro 23andme; deCODEme 97% Euro, 3% African and Asian. I have recent immigrants as ancestors (post 1850), and folks from the colonial period seem to have a higher chance of both African and Asian (native American) DNA, but nowhere near 30% based on the many posts on the subject.

So the obvious question is if blacks have a substantial amount of Euro DNA, then surely whites must mirror this, right? No...at least not yet. You have to realize that segregation was common, and mandatory in some states and marrying between races was very uncommon, and illegal in some states. This only started to change significantly in the 50's and 60's. If a mulatto child was born, that child was considered black, most likely segregated in black communities and had children within that community. There were exceptions of course, but for the most part, DNA flowed one way between white and blacks in the US, and stayed that way for a long time. I suspect with changes in society, and some time, you'll find that will change.

So, in conclusion, I think that 30% is not for "white" people, but actually "black" people from the USA.
 
Nasturtium I wish that I had been given a reference to data on the DNA of "white" USA, on which there are about Europeans eupedia. com
Not about "black" people in that article was talking about. It spoke about the "white" people. Because of the segregation of "black"
"white" is not able to mingle with them?And yet, strangely, surprisingly but for the article about American DNA turns out that Americans are mixed in their blood of blacks.This may happen as surprising as the fact that Russian does not have any significant mongoloydnyh gene itself, not looking at the fact that Russia was the mongol-tatar yoke.
We have russian finno-ugric asian 25%, but this is not tatar mongoloydnost.And these 25% belong to the North European part of Russia. In the genetic history of the amazing logical accidents happen, such as from the bottom of this example with the Russian - they are not mixed with non-white people and I am "white" USA - are mixed with non-white peoples ak expected
 
You have not been paying attention to the answers you have received.
 
BM-31-

I still disagree with the assertion that "white" people (anywhere) have such a large percentage of African DNA but I decided to try and find your source. I didn't...but this is the closest I got:

"According to the study all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans consistent with the hypothesis that all non-Africans are descended from a single African population. Europeans are most closely related to East Asians and least related to Africans. However of all the non-African populations, Europeans are most closely related to Africans. As the genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) is shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6) and even much shorter than the Genetic distance from Africa to Australia. Cavalli-Sforza proposes that the simplest explanation for this short genetic distance is that substantial gene exchange has taken place between the nearby continents. Cavalli-Sforza also proposes that both Asian and African populations contributed to the settlement of Europe which began 40 000 years ago. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Europe has a genetic variation in general of about a third of that of other continents.[1][2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people/Archive_19

"white" people from the USA are decended from white European ancestors. If the assertion above is true (don't know, don't care), and Europeans are the most closely related to Africans based on genetic distance, than fine. But I believe you are saying something entirely different...and false...regardless if you once had a link for it. A wise person once told me..."Believe nothing you read, and only half of what you see". Sage advice.
 
Nasturtium I read that people here have written that "white" americans do not have 30% afro-american blood. They repeated the words of the previous people and neither of them gave me a link to the DNA of the USA.
 
Nasturtium You, like, whatever, I gave a link to it, which stated that "white" Americans are 30% of afro-americans? That link w w w. kommersant. ru / doc.aspx? DocsID=611986
 
how can that be,does that mean that for ex. Tom Cruise can be of black origin
 
Joro said:
how can that be,does that mean that for ex. Tom Cruise can be of black origin
Click to expand...

No. The vast majority of white Americans have no African ancestry. African-Americans carry about 30% European ancestry.

Up until quite recently, there were serious social and economic penalties and stigmas associated with what was called miscegenation (mixing) between whites and blacks in the USA. That meant that the practice was never widespread and that when it did occur the offspring were regarded as black and became part of the black community.

Even today, when to a great extent things have changed, the practice is still not all that common.
 
I prefer to trust not to words, and proceedings references on which give. To me here only distances (it has made Nasturtium) the reference not on the official data, on simple conversation on wikipedia. I very strongly doubt that it is possible to name "white" USA anglo-saxons because they consist of different blood of DNA: irish, slavic, mediterranean and so on. It not anglo-saxons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top