PDA

View Full Version : How Far Back Does Ancestry Matter?



Adalheid
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 04:26 PM
I enjoy researching genealogy very much...I have completed a family tree on both my family and my husbands going back many generations. I was wondering how far back one should go before deciding to stop? I have gone pretty far though, but at what point are we all sharing common ancestors...the furthest back I go on on my paternal branch is between 25-31 generations...I regrettably do not understand a lot of history from 1200's-1600's Germany/Europe...just like to have a discussion on how far back some of you go...and how far back matters...

Plantagenet
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 04:37 PM
What do you mean by "does it matter?" That seems like a subjective value to me.

Go back as far as you can, but once you reach the 16th century things can get a little sketchy, unless of course you find you are related to a noble or royal house, in which case there are plenty of records you can trace all the way back to the early Middle Ages. And even then, generally when things become unreliable is prior to the 11th century, the era of Charlemagne and so on.

I would only decide to stop when you feel you don't wish to go on or when your interest wanes. For me, it all matters, but to you that may be different.

Adalheid
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 06:06 PM
I suppose that was an oddly worded question...

I guess what I was trying to say, does it matter who your 31st great grandfather was? I mean, at what point does it matter, because I have a lot of nobility in my ancestry dating 1600's and back...for example:

The English Crawthorne family dating back to 1200's in Yorkshire England

Multiple ties to Ladgraf family dating before 1550

17th great grandfather - Frederick IV of Meissen and Elector of Saxony

13th great grandfather - Philipp I Von Hessen, Deggendorf, Bayern, Germany

13th great grandfther - Count Bernhard Von Lippe DeLippe 1527, in Detmold, Lippe, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

Just a small section of some of the connections I have discovered.

Earliest being Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany, 1194 - 22nd great grandfather....whom many, many, many people are likely related to..

Do these people matter, in one's ancestry, or do the more recent generations matter, moreso?

Georgia
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 06:26 PM
A family member did some research and actually was able to go all the way back to 1389 using the family name. My grandfather gave me the written history of his family years ago going back to the sixteenth century. The same goes for the family on my mother's side. My husband's family tree goes back around the fifteenth century. My blood line is German, his blood line was English, Scottish, Irish and Norwegian. And it does matter...

Tom Schnadelbach
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 06:50 PM
All families are old. Some families just keep better records than others.
Most people, if they aren't adopted and look hard enough can find nobility or royalty in their ancestry.
Both my father's and my mother's lines are armigerous. (Had coats of arms)
Both lines fought in the crusades.
Mom's coat of arms is not that old. The one from which her's derives was only granted by Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary, Henry VIII's oldest daughter).
Betty Windsor is a distant relative, and we know how, which is a pity because her side of the family mixed.

And I live in a trailer in the rural south. My how the mighty have fallen.;)

By the way, if you can trace yourself back to Charlemagne, you can supposedly trace your family back to Adam and Eve since Chuck the Butcher was supposedly descended from King David and David's line is written in the Bible. That would mean, of course, that you were part, (gasp) hebrew (shudder) and a blood relative of Jesus.

feisty goddess
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 07:35 PM
As far as racial purity goes, I'd say about 10-20 generations depending on where the individual family hails from. If there were very few foreigners or the country was virtually ethnically pure at the time, then getting back to that time period and seeing that they appeared ethnically pure is sufficient. The problem with finding for example, that a German ancestor was supposedly 50% French is, without documentation they could have been a gypsy for all you know (and they could still be with so). It depends on the history of the country, family legends etc.; just use your best judgement. As far as hobby goes, just whenever you lose interest or it gets too difficult or you don't have the resources.

Mine is not even remotely sufficient since I'm American very far back, and I doubt that there is any reliable resource, even for a professional genealogist, but I plan to consult one someday when I have money to burn, and work out all the dead ends. The problem is, with many more recent immigrant ancestors, there is no information on their family back in Europe or anything because they just came over on a boat by themselves with nothing and sometimes they invented fake names or changed their names because of discrimination. I traced mine as far as it could go on as many sides as possible (I got back as far as 12 generations I think on one side) but lack the resources to research all sides of the family and go further. In the meantime I've relied on genetic testing, which is a pretty good indicator if you don't know past 10 or so generations. If you were going to utilize genetic testing to check for purity, 23 and me would not be sufficient, you would have to enter your genotypes into the Dodecad tool. Genetic testing shouldn't really be a replacement for ancestral lineage to check for purity, but it's definitely better than nothing if it's impossible to track your whole lineage.

The good thing about genetic testing is, it's easy to check for something specific, such as if you're worried about having a jew in the woodpile. 23 and me has a whole tool that searches for jewish ancestry matches throughout your genome, with the only problem being that its debatable whether it is able to pick up all the chromosomes your ancestors had. If you are young, like a teen or in your 20s, the results are prob optimal though because I imagine there is still a lot of information encoded onto fresh genes. The sooner you do a genetic test the better.

Thusnelda
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 08:59 PM
The tracking of the own family tree is something very interesting and important, but it becomes just incredible to imagine after 7 or 8 generations with so many ramifications and countless of great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers. :P

Well, we have an almost complete ancestry tree back to the late middle ages due to the place bound nature of most parts of our family and due to the family register (marriage, deaths, births) of the Church, but some white spots are still there.

The biggest "anomaly" in my ancestry tree is that I have a Swedish male great-great....-grandfather back in the times of the Thirty Years War which lasted from 1618 until 1648. That´s interesting in many ways because it must have been a Swedish soldier who went to Bavaria at that time, everything else would lack on a logical explanation. How that worked out with the different confessions and during wartime remains a complete mystery. Other parts of my family were country gentry or landowners, that´s not exactly resolved. Anyway, the last few generations of my family were rural farmers and workers so if parts of my early family had some money and status, they all wasted it! :D Clumsyness runs strong in my bloodline...

Olavssønn
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 09:33 PM
Genetic testing shouldn't really be a replacement for ancestral lineage to check for purity, but it's definitely better than nothing if it's impossible to track your whole lineage.

Well, why shouldn't it? Race is in the genes, after all. I think genetic testing is far more reliable than genealogical research for checking your racial elements. Genealogical research is no doubt a very interesting activity (I'd like to do more of it, but it obviously requires some real work to reach beyond the 1800's on all lines), but I can't see how genetic testing should be insufficient to check your racial background. It can actually be much more precise, since it has the advantage of showing very old genetic influences that could be almost impossible to document through genealogical research...

feisty goddess
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Well, why shouldn't it? Race is in the genes, after all. I think genetic testing is far more reliable than genealogical research for checking your racial elements. Genealogical research is no doubt a very interesting activity (I'd like to do more of it, but it obviously requires some real work to reach beyond the 1800's on all lines), but I can't see how genetic testing should be insufficient to check your racial background. It can actually be much more precise, since it has the advantage of showing very old genetic influences that could be almost impossible to document through genealogical research...

Well, I'm not really sure how precise it is in terms of checking what you get from EVERY ancestor. I've read papers that say it only tells you about the genes of 10% of your ancestors. I'm not sure if I'm just misunderstanding, but I don't think it tells you the ancestral information for every side of your family. If the latter is true, genealogical research is more thorough, but in terms of what the average person is able to do, I'm sure genetic testing is more precise. The OP asks, "how far back does ancestry matter," and it certainly matters farther back and on more sides than we can be sure genetic testing probably examines. Let's say someone who suspects they have a g-grandfather x8 who was a crypto jew because of a last name gets no results that should suggest that is true. This is because it is on a certain side of the family that it is not able to detect very far back, I don't remember exactly what it is though but there are some things they can't test.

Olavssønn
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 09:57 PM
Well, I'm not really sure how precise it is in terms of checking what you get from EVERY ancestor. I've read papers that say it only tells you about the genes of 10% of your ancestors. I'm not sure if I'm just misunderstanding, but I don't think it tells you the ancestral information for every side of your family. If the latter is true, genealogical research is more thorough, but in terms of what the average person is able to do, I'm sure genetic testing is more precise. The OP asks, "how far back does ancestry matter," and it certainly matters farther back and on more sides than we can be sure genetic testing probably examines.

I guess someone can be 100% European (for example) genetically speaking, and still have some distant non-European ancestor(s). But would that really matter, if the influence have been bred out, so to speak?

Remember that you do not necessarily have important genetic influence from every ancestor that you are able to trace by genealogical research. Some elements will sooner or later be bred out and disappear from the genome, due to new genetic input...

feisty goddess
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 10:05 PM
I guess someone can be 100% European (for example) genetically speaking, and still have some distant non-European ancestor(s). But would that really matter, if the influence have been bred out, so to speak?

Remember that you do not necessarily have important genetic influence from every ancestor that you are able to trace by genealogical research. Some elements will sooner or later be bred out and disappear from the genome, due to new genetic input...

If that were the case they wouldn't really be 100% European genetically anyway, they would just think they are.

I'm sure it matters to some people. Just because it doesn't influence what you look like doesn't mean it is obsolete. For example, if I dated a man who found out he had an African slave ancestor 10-13 generations back, I think I would break up with him. If it was something meditteranean, I could maybe live with that, but unless it's ancient like during neolithic times, I don't think someone can call themselves racially pure if they come from a non-European ancestor. I am not saying I'm incapable of having some swarthy mediterranean in the woodpile somewhere, just that it SHOULD MATTER. If someone with beautiful, good, pure, amazing genes marries someone who is questionable farther back, I think that's sad.

I think its best to approach ancestry with an objective, "if it could physically happen, it is possible." It's less possible for Europeans to have distant ancestors of other races, so this doesn't apply to them in the same way, unless you're talking about gypsies or people from the middle east. It IS physically possible for White Americans to have non-European ancestors in the woodpile, because they were around Indians and slaves for a long time, so every American should be treated as questionable until they have proven themselves, no matter how they look or what they think they are. It's called racial hygiene, when you think there could possibly be germs, you should wash your hands, and if you don't, you WILL eventually get sick.

Olavssønn
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 10:12 PM
I'm sure it matters to some people. Just because it doesn't influence what you look like doesn't mean it is obsolete. For example, if I dated a man who found out he had an African slave ancestor 10-13 generations back, I think I would break up with him. If it was something meditteranean, I could maybe live with that, but unless it's ancient like during neolithic times, I don't think someone can call themselves racially pure if they come from a non-European ancestor. I am not saying I'm incapable of having some swarthy mediterranean in the woodpile somewhere, just that it SHOULD MATTER. If someone with beautiful, good, pure, amazing genes marries someone who is questionable farther back, I think that's sad.

Well, I'm not saying that it wouldn't matter to ones understanding of ones total ancestral history, I'm just saying it wouldn't matter from a strictly racial-biological perspective. So it would be a difference between a more metaphysical understand of personal racial belonging on the one hand, and the strictly genetic definition of racial differences on the other.

Adalheid
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 10:15 PM
The sooner you do a genetic test the better.

Good idea. I've always wanted to do it. That being said I have traced every branch my genealogy at least ten generations without any strange surprises. I actually found tracing American genealogy significantly easier than Canadian. My father is an American, my mother Canadian. The Americans keep better records than up here. It's infuriating trying to find anything here, one must dig, and dig and dig to make a small breakthrough. Thankfully, when it comes to my own genealogy that wasn't as hard. Trying to find my husband's was more challenging because he comes from a line of Scandinavian settlers that avoided the church...not a bad thing, but the church certainly did help with records.

By the way...does anyone have any suggestion for Scandinavian genealogy? We've found it hard because of how last names aren't always carried on...

Todesritter
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 10:33 PM
Family history can lie, it can be a fiction, completely or in part from some branch of a person's family, like any history, being only as accurate as the sources available.

Even barring cases where a person or a generation of a family may create a fiction for racial reasons*, things like poorly tracked adoptions or female ancestors secretly having a child with someone else different than their legal husband (I've read of this issue for instance with family history/ancestry in several cases where a young man married a young woman who was already pregnant, for loved, or a young woman from a wealthier family's parents offered money to avoid scandal, or where a first husband dies in war & his friend marries the widow, intentionally or unintentionally falsely attributing paternity of the eldest child to the later man in the family tree) in a previous generation introduces an increasing margin of error the further back one goes.

Genetic testing does not have these ambiguities.

* See "Melungeons" for a classic American example of this: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120526/NEWS21/305260028/Melungeons-aren-t-who-they-thought-they-were

Sehnsucht
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Yeah, it could be possible I will never know who one of my biological great great grandfathers are. The man's surname on the birth certificate is different to the child's, who retained their mothers surname.

What seems like obvious illegitimacy already.:|

Todesritter
Monday, June 25th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Yeah, it could be possible I will never know who one of my biological great great grandfathers are. The man's surname on the birth certificate is different to the child's, who retained their mothers surname.

What seems like obvious illegitimacy already.:|

Exactly, there can be all sorts of holes or inaccuracies in the classic ancestry/family history through no fault or intentional deception sometimes of the ancestors and definately never a dishonor for the descendants living in the present for whom the inaccuracy is unknown.

Now that genetic testing is available though, the problematic unknown accuracy of family ancestry can be avoided, at least for racial & ethnic questions.

Olavssønn
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 01:09 PM
I think its best to approach ancestry with an objective, "if it could physically happen, it is possible." It's less possible for Europeans to have distant ancestors of other races, so this doesn't apply to them in the same way, unless you're talking about gypsies or people from the middle east. It IS physically possible for White Americans to have non-European ancestors in the woodpile, because they were around Indians and slaves for a long time, [...]

This does actually to some degree apply to Europeans as well. Southern Europeans do often have a minor African influence, a lot of Eastern Europeans and Northern Europeans have some North Asian (or Siberian) genetic influence (in Scandinavians probably due to contact with the Saami, who are predominantly European genetically speaking, but have a considerable Siberian influence - probably around 10% and higher) etc.
As a honest person, I shall readily admit that this to some degree also applies to myself. I did for a while think I was 100% Europid, getting back such results from 23andMe's analysis and dr. Doug McDonald (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg163/scaled.php?server=163&filename=mcdonaldancestrypaintin.png&res=landing). However, the more detailed results from Dodecad told another story, and it seems I might actually have between 1-2% non-Europid influence, Siberian (the Norwegian average in Dodecad K12b is 1%), if Dodecad's analysis have got it correct. Absolutely nothing to be proud of whatsoever, but the facts do not care about our feelings, unfortunately. As any ethnically or racially aware person, I would prefer to be 100% Europid genetically, but I just have to accept that I have this small influence from Siberia. It does not change either my concern for my people, or my identity in an ethnic sense.
In a racially aware scenario, I'm in favor of positive eugenics by supporting the best couples to have more children than others, for example.

hyidi
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 01:42 PM
A DNA test would be the icy on the cake. Records can provide you with details some kind of knowledge but can not detect what blood they are carrying.

For an example, English and Germans had be migrated to each other countries for the last past hundreds hundreds of years, no-one really knows if your ancestors are true English or German until you get a DNA test. Fact- The British Royal family 'prior to WW1' were from German decent or even fully blood Germans! I'm not joking,that's the truth (can't remember which one)

European migration into Europe been going on for a long time,even French and Italians had priority into entering Germanic countries. The Romans conquered Britain passing their genetics through the English and Germans that migrated to Britain.

I don't even know how much British Isle blood my dad's family are carrying. Any one of them could be product of an migrant from France, Italy, German, Swiss, Norwegian, Finland, Russia (I hope not) etc... but, until DNA is done,I can only claim British' that's were my fathers family were born and my Aussie mum father came from,but,that does not tell me the whole truth of my bloodline.

In modern times,I think DNA is the best bet. Tracing your family would be a lot of fun and we all should do it. See what our Ancestors were up too, why they migrated? or If your family never travel afar abroad:- (100% English, one English's man's family never traveled afar, he turned out 100% English) the other proclaim white English had other European blood and exotic blood,even though, they thought they were 100% English.

Gustaaf
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Well, I'm not really sure how precise it is in terms of checking what you get from EVERY ancestor. I've read papers that say it only tells you about the genes of 10% of your ancestors.

I think autosomal tests check all sides of your family, but, since we have millions of ancestors, at some point the input of any individual ancestor is going to be minute. 10% of ancestors doesn't make much sense, because the number of ancestors we have multiplies each generation.

http://www.dna-worldwide.com/ancestry-testing/ethnic-ancestry-testing/

This site claims to test all sides of your family.

Adalheid
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 02:15 PM
no-one really knows if your ancestors are true English or German until you get a DNA test.

I have done enough research to this point where I know for a fact who my relations are on all branches dating back 300 years, at minimum. My great, great, great grandfather from Norway's branch disappeared completely for me, and I have discovered some French on my English father's side five generations ago.

The fact that some of you are saying that you'd question someone's race after finding out some 13 generations or roughly 400 years ago there was a non-European in the family frightens me. I'm all about racial purity, but at what point are we completely setting ourselves up for failure.

Just because 1 person in 8192 ancestors chose an unsavory partner doesn't make you a non-Germanic person.

Do you know what works out to? 0.0001% of one's lineage that is non-European 13 generations back.

Give me a break. We can't even allow ourselves a tenth of tenth of a single percent before we start casting each other off as mixed?

This might make me unpopular, but I would have no issue whatsoever marrying and having children with someone who has 8191 amazing ancestors....someone who is 99.9999% Swedish, or German or what have you.

It's not even a a quarter of a single percent!

That's just my opinion.

Wulfaz
Wednesday, June 27th, 2012, 05:48 PM
Exactly, there can be all sorts of holes or inaccuracies in the classic ancestry/family history through no fault or intentional deception sometimes of the ancestors and definately never a dishonor for the descendants living in the present for whom the inaccuracy is unknown.

Now that genetic testing is available though, the problematic unknown accuracy of family ancestry can be avoided, at least for racial & ethnic questions.

It is absolutely right. I red somwhere that in nowadays US the 10% of children are not from the own father. A study say that in the US are 300'000 parental tesing in a year and 28% of this sign a different father. In Africa it is more higher. Jared Diamond wrote in The Third Chimpnazee that a scientist in 1940 saw that the 10% of childrens had different father and he didn't dare to speak about it in publicity.

Well, the genetic testing is a part of the whole thing as the typological classification of the individual and own kinship is useful and necessary too.




The biggest "anomaly" in my ancestry tree is that I have a Swedish male great-great....-grandfather back in the times of the Thirty Years War which lasted from 1618 until 1648. That´s interesting in many ways because it must have been a Swedish soldier who went to Bavaria at that time, everything else would lack on a logical explanation. How that worked out with the different confessions and during wartime remains a complete mystery.

Probably it happened around 1632-34 when the swedish troops were penetrated in Bavaria. Well, I think that it was not necessary that your forefather stayed there. Maybe he went back to Sweden or he was killed at Nördlingen or other battles.

Gustaaf
Wednesday, June 27th, 2012, 07:20 PM
The number of ancestors doubles each generation, so it's impossible to keep track of them all after a point. What really matters is your connection to your ancestors. If you feel a profound connection with them instead of just head counting them, that's a start. Obviously, if you know you have a non Germanic ancestor, then that moots the rest, but I believe this can be felt. Nobody here then could possibly be part non-Germanic in my opinion, because they wouldn't have the innate need to gather with their own.

Thunir
Wednesday, June 27th, 2012, 07:39 PM
I myself have non-Germanic blood, which is listed in my ancestry. I nevertheless feel deeply connected to my Germanic component and base my ethnic self-conception on it; I do not believe for a moment that the distant non-Germanic elements in my ancestry in any way cancel out or lessen my right to spiritual, cultural and indeed ethnic self-identification as Germanic.

feisty goddess
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 03:47 AM
This does actually to some degree apply to Europeans as well. Southern Europeans do often have a minor African influence, a lot of Eastern Europeans and Northern Europeans have some North Asian (or Siberian) genetic influence (in Scandinavians probably due to contact with the Saami, who are predominantly European genetically speaking, but have a considerable Siberian influence - probably around 10% and higher) etc.
As a honest person, I shall readily admit that this to some degree also applies to myself. I did for a while think I was 100% Europid, getting back such results from 23andMe's analysis and dr. Doug McDonald (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg163/scaled.php?server=163&filename=mcdonaldancestrypaintin.png&res=landing). However, the more detailed results from Dodecad told another story, and it seems I might actually have between 1-2% non-Europid influence, Siberian (the Norwegian average in Dodecad K12b is 1%), if Dodecad's analysis have got it correct. Absolutely nothing to be proud of whatsoever, but the facts do not care about our feelings, unfortunately. As any ethnically or racially aware person, I would prefer to be 100% Europid genetically, but I just have to accept that I have this small influence from Siberia. It does not change either my concern for my people, or my identity in an ethnic sense.
In a racially aware scenario, I'm in favor of positive eugenics by supporting the best couples to have more children than others, for example.

If you have Scandinavian ancestry, such as Norwegian or Swedish, having a little Siberian is very possible, but I don't think Europeans have to worry about it to the extent Americans do.

I always thought there were a lot of inaccuracies going on with Dr. Mcdonald. The results I got from him were just weird and didn't match up with the ones I got on Dodecad. I was not getting much evidence for the trace of Middle Eastern Mcdonald said I was showing. My African admixture results are just slightly higher than most people's on Dodecad and Eurogenes but that doesn't necessarily point to a slave ancestor in the woodpile, since perfectly white people in England for example can show that amount. Who knows, maybe there is some heeb very far back on my Polish side, which is quite possible for anyone with Polish ancestry but the church records didn't suggest so when I looked at them. My genetic results were pretty clear, but not as clear as I expected. When they're doing this kind of thing, most people get some suprises, so I was kind of expecting something like that anyway.

feisty goddess
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 05:27 AM
I have done enough research to this point where I know for a fact who my relations are on all branches dating back 300 years, at minimum. My great, great, great grandfather from Norway's branch disappeared completely for me, and I have discovered some French on my English father's side five generations ago.

The fact that some of you are saying that you'd question someone's race after finding out some 13 generations or roughly 400 years ago there was a non-European in the family frightens me. I'm all about racial purity, but at what point are we completely setting ourselves up for failure.

Just because 1 person in 8192 ancestors chose an unsavory partner doesn't make you a non-Germanic person.

Do you know what works out to? 0.0001% of one's lineage that is non-European 13 generations back.

Give me a break. We can't even allow ourselves a tenth of tenth of a single percent before we start casting each other off as mixed?

This might make me unpopular, but I would have no issue whatsoever marrying and having children with someone who has 8191 amazing ancestors....someone who is 99.9999% Swedish, or German or what have you.

It's not even a a quarter of a single percent!

That's just my opinion.

Well, it kind of depends on what it is. I wouldn't consider them non-Germanic, that's not what I said, I just wouldn't consider them PURE Germanic. I wouldn't consider them "mixed" race or anything because that denotes that it is affecting their appearance which, at that amount would most definitely not. I just think there is a type of person who should be VERY careful who they marry, that's all. If all the people who are only Germanic or Northern European since pretty much the beginning of everything become extinct, I think the thought of our culture ever prevailing is a joke. I like to be objective, and call things what they are. I don't want to offend someone, but when people say they're 100% Germanic and they're technically not it doesn't make a lick of sense to me, that's all. I'm probably not 100% Germanic till the beginning of time (lol) and it doesn't offend me.

vordringende
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 06:12 AM
Not to undermine the importance of ancestry but I believe that without considerable engagement with one's forefathers with one's forefathers' weltanschauung and its maintenance no amount of this or that blood is going to make you more or less Germanic than others. I believe race is a metaphysical as well as a biological component of our make-up. I'm not saying that one might transcend or subvert their race only that too much emphasis on biology is missing the point. Those whose treachery and idiocy and degeneracy function in opposition to our struggle to preserve our people are not German no matter how pure their blood how pure their biology because their geist is not German.

Frostbite
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 07:11 AM
Someone having distant non-Germanic (but still European) ancestry is ok to me. It's pretty common in the U.S to be all white, but just different white ethnicites.

I don't really mind someone in the U.S to have a small amount of indian in them. If their great-great-great etc grandparent was an indian, I think that's ok because not only is it SO diluted, it's incredibly common. In my experience at least, it's difficult to find someone who doesn't have a tiny bit if indian in them especially if their family has been here for a few hundred years. It's usually so small it doesn't even count when it comes to joining a tribe. To me, having an indian ancestor from a few generations back doesn't make you mixed race.

Although if it was black or something it would bug me. I don't know why indian doesn't bother me.


I would like to get a DNA test because I'd like to know for sure what's in me.

Todesritter
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 06:14 PM
I myself have non-Germanic blood, which is listed in my ancestry. I nevertheless feel deeply connected to my Germanic component and base my ethnic self-conception on it; I do not believe for a moment that the distant non-Germanic elements in my ancestry in any way cancel out or lessen my right to spiritual, cultural and indeed ethnic self-identification as Germanic.

I don't know the specifics beyond what you've listed, BUT also something to consider, there are many different kinds of Italian. If your Italian ancestor were from Sicily for instance that might have more gravity in terms of pulling your phenotype out of alignment with ideal or even typical Germanic biological & appearance parameters. However, particularly in the north, there are many 'Italians' who are in essence the fruit of X-generations of culturally brainwashed Germans/Germanic or Celtic blood, in whole or in part. Also there are strong indications that the original Italic peninsula inhabitants from Roman times or before we're much fairer, and some of this stock has survived relatively unmixed. So if your Italian ancestry were any of this later type and/or your phenotype, your genetic expression of your blood ancestry is consistent with a typical northerner, I certainly would not feel myself any lesser were I in your shoes.

Incidentally, I've seen this type of potential concern pop up over individuals with "Slavic" ancestors, and my take is similar. Not all Ukrainians or Poles are created equal, while some are indeed definately 'exotic' biologically to some significant level, others are consistent biologically with Germans I've met, and likewise with the Italians, some small but significant minority of their modern populations are either directly descended from Germanic populations or at least so purely descended from the pre-mixed original fairer old Slavic folk as to be difficult to distinguish from other nordic/'nordish' people.

In this case I'd feel rather stupid & petty if I chose to regard a friend with one blond, blue eyed "Ukrainian" great-grandmother with the maiden name of 'Löwe' as though he or she were somehow lesser than myself.

In the end, if you are derived from ancestry so exotic as to make you foreign eugenically, and you are culturally Germanic, I don't think having minor ancestry from a neighboring country but outside the modern boundaries of what is considered Germanic should cause folks to 'tar & feather' you.

Wulfaz
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 06:47 PM
Incidentally, I've seen this type of potential concern pop up over individuals with "Slavic" ancestors, and my take is similar. Not all Ukrainians or Poles are created equal, while some are indeed definately 'exotic' biologically to some significant level, others are consistent biologically with Germans I've met, and likewise with the Italians, some small but significant minority of their modern populations are either directly descended from Germanic populations or at least so purely descended from the pre-mixed original fairer old Slavic folk as to be difficult to distinguish from other nordic/'nordish' people.

Well, the origin of the Slavics are quite interresting as the earliest are described by Slavic and non-Slavic authors as tall, blond, long- and narrow-headed ones. However these ones later mixed with the local Cromagnid and incomer Mongolid ones in East-Europe, but don't all of them. This is the reason why some Slavic one looks like a Ancient Greek/Germanic God and why some otherone looks like a Tatar raider. But note, this Germanic-like ones are not necessary to have any Germanic ancestor like as the Spanish, Italien individuals with lighter pigmentation and Nordid or Cromagnid traits might be rather the descendants of the original uxmixed inhabitans or the Celts, Latins than the handful Germanic conquerors.

F.e. Konstantin Vasilyev the great russian painter truly looked like Nordid without any Asian admixture. (Well, he had some Cromagnid feature obiviously.) Side by side the Russian or other Slavic individuals sometimes upload laughable strongly Cromagnid- or Mongolid influenced ones as "East-Nordid".

http://www.bibliotekar.ru/Kvasiliev/index.files/image001.jpg

http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/2/0/398/398902_Vasilyev_Avtoportret_1976.jpg

feisty goddess
Friday, June 29th, 2012, 01:58 AM
Someone having distant non-Germanic (but still European) ancestry is ok to me. It's pretty common in the U.S to be all white, but just different white ethnicites.

I don't really mind someone in the U.S to have a small amount of indian in them. If their great-great-great etc grandparent was an indian, I think that's ok because not only is it SO diluted, it's incredibly common. In my experience at least, it's difficult to find someone who doesn't have a tiny bit if indian in them especially if their family has been here for a few hundred years. It's usually so small it doesn't even count when it comes to joining a tribe. To me, having an indian ancestor from a few generations back doesn't make you mixed race.

Although if it was black or something it would bug me. I don't know why indian doesn't bother me.


I would like to get a DNA test because I'd like to know for sure what's in me.

I don't think it's nearly as common as you make it out to be. It depends on the amount of ancestry you have that is "old old" American. The more you have of this, the more your odds go up. If you're like me and have some Ellis island ancestors, some fairly recent ancestors, some before it was only the colonies, as well as old American it's not as likely.

I just think it sounds silly to make an exception for Indian blood simply because it's common. What if someone said, I'm a little bit Jew am I still pure Germanic? Indians are much farther from Germanics in genetic similarity than part caucasoid jews are. What if having a little bit of Jewish blood became the common admixture to brag about? That wouldn't go over too well on here.

Frostbite
Friday, June 29th, 2012, 02:31 AM
I think after a certain point it just gets bred out. If you had a Jewish ancestor 12 generations or more ago, do those genes still even exist?

I don't know about you, but I have yet to meet a white person who didn't have distant indian ancestry.

I'm not saying being mixed is a good thing, but I think it's foolish to cut someone off from their heritage just because of an extremely distant relation.

Esther_Helena
Friday, June 29th, 2012, 02:54 AM
I don't have time to post it all, but think about it. Now, obviously all our genes come from someone and with recombination it's not exact. Let's pretend that despite how many actual genes we have, we inherit an exact equal amount from each ancestor.
Genetically you're 100% you.
50% your parents
100/2 = 50
50/2 = 25, 25% your grandparents.
I think I worked it out to about 30 generations where you don't inherit anything.
Although going back to 30 generations is difficult and imho - kind of nitpicky.

Hilderinc
Friday, June 29th, 2012, 03:15 AM
I don't know about you, but I have yet to meet a white person who didn't have distant indian ancestry.

I have yet to meet a person who could substantiate their Amerindian ancestor story.

Interestingly enough, my family has been here for 380 years and there aren't any stories about any exotic ancestors.

feisty goddess
Friday, June 29th, 2012, 03:20 AM
I don't have time to post it all, but think about it. Now, obviously all our genes come from someone and with recombination it's not exact. Let's pretend that despite how many actual genes we have, we inherit an exact equal amount from each ancestor.
Genetically you're 100% you.
50% your parents
100/2 = 50
50/2 = 25, 25% your grandparents.
I think I worked it out to about 30 generations where you don't inherit anything.
Although going back to 30 generations is difficult and imho - kind of nitpicky.

Personally, I do know that bad genes come to haunt many generations later. This doesn't have much to do with racial stuff, but I had some congenitally missing teeth, which is a genetic condition that was common in the French nobles because of their inbreeding. I think the ancestor was about 12 or 13 generations back, maybe later. There isn't a single person in the family who has it, going back as many generations as there are photographs, but it was hell of a thing to inherit that caused me a load of psychological problems and bad memories and not to mention thousands of dollars in dental bills for my parents to worry about. It is probably something that skips many generations after that once it shows up in a person because that's what it's like with cousin marriages but the genes you inherit from distant ancestors DO matter. That's all I have to say.

I think that you have a point when you say that after 30 generations, you don't really inherit anything from an ancestor, but with Americans it is more recent than that and I think to be called purely ethnically Germanic, you have to be purely descended from the history of that continent.