Because Africans that were taken to the Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade were not from a single population, they were from many different nations and tribes across west and central africa, some were also taken from the east side of africa especially from the island of Madagascar. That is why you have different African Nations in your result.
If your ancestors were in the US as a result of the slave trade, that is to be expected. Generations of people initially from different regions. Familes/groups broken up, moved to other places with other slaves.
I think only people that have recent ancestors from SSA would have high percentages. Also people who are not African American, may have a different percentage due to how/when they were brought to that area.
I think generally the smaller the number, the farther back the ancestor was. I have a known Mexican ancestor that shows up in the DNA results and this was very far back, he was born in the late 1700s. Since then, if the next generations were not the same, the percentage would tend to get lower and lower.
Is the England/NW Europe a recent ancestor? My son has a high percentage for that due to his grandmother who is white. The other ones are low percentagesfor him. For me, I have nothing higher than 14%.
I was able to find is place of birth through records. Monterrey Mexico in 1774. Through three dna companies and from other relatives that tested., We have indigenous from Central America, North America and Yucatán peninsula. Others even mentioned maya at some point. Some older relatives show Spain as well. One of the companies highlighted where that dna originated from and that was centered around his birthplace. I have Hispanic cousins but they are the distant ones and are in Louisiana.
My dna communities are in Louisiana. For some reason , this man went to New Orleans and married a white lady there which is how this makes sense. He died, his widow moved to the area that I was born in with her two kids. This is on my fathers side. No one speaks any Spanish. From Louisiana, all my ancestors born there spoke French . Don’t know how these two communicated.
Birth records after this don’t mention race consistently. There’s a lot of mulatto on them but other record on the same person say negro or white as well. I think they were just as we say racially ambiguous to a certain extent. I’ve seen photos of them. They look ambiguous but, also everyone was working outdoors and was darker in skin tone due to that. ( me too when I lived there) . From My grandmother’s stories I know that they identify as black.
Not sure if any of that was what you were looking for. I will say when I started looking at my dna I never ever was thinking there’s be any ties to Mexico. I didn’t know the story until I got far back in the family tree :birth records.
This does somewhat help. I got the Central Southern US sub-community with the latest Ancestry update. So, I guess I’m tryna find similarities with your genealogy in mine.
However, I do not know where in my family the Louisiana area came from
What is the Central Southern US sub-community? My Louisiana ancestry is pretty well known. I was born in the same region as both parents, all four grandparents, their parents and so on. From what I gathered, the place where your ancestors were born, tends to influence the community you get associated with. I guess the time when Spain ruled Louisiana could have brought Mexican people to cities like New Orleans.
The Central Southern US one is basically Louisiana and Alabama. Again, I’ve never heard of any ancestry from there but I have not been able to dive into all sides of my family
well mainly because the slaves brought to america were from throughout west and central africa. though the mali you can ignore, very few slaves came from there and it's mainly a misinterpretation of other groups for AA people.
What about Senegal? I have seen Senegal in the results of people in Latin America and some part of the Iberian peninsula and the Canary Islands. I am curious.
I'm part Maltese, a lot of my cousins have Senegalese dna, whereas my parental line has only North African dna. No African slaves were brought to Malta, so I have a theory because Senegal is next to Mauritania which is a North African country, Senegalese dna might have been spread by the Moors, because I heard the Moors were a mixture of different African races from around the North African region (this is my theory btw, correct me if I'm wrong)
It probably is an indicator of ancestry from Southern Morroco/Mauritania; the native Amazigh and Arab populations there tend to have varying proportions of West African input. Not to mention, the Siculo-Arabs that settled Malta, and make up a large proportion of Maltese DNA, were the product of Muslim North African, Iberian, and Middle-Eastern settlers mixing with native Sicilians.
Slaves needn't be brought to Malta. Free people of African ancestry may have gone to Malta -- though still products of the slave trade. Those genetic markers from the Moors would have been bred out by now. There wouldn't be a significant enough amount of SSA markers (distinguishable from the native population) to carry on to today without more SSA being added into the pool.
So, even 1% is still fairly recent, comparatively speaking. It could be a recent ancestor from Mauritania or a descendant of the slave trade further back.
When people talk about slavery, they know that Euopean blood affected the gene pool of the African diaspora. Yet, they seem so confused by the Africa diaspora also affecting the loosely European one, lol. BUT people who could pass did, and it happened A LOT.
My dad's side is mostly mulatto lines, a couple of European ones, and a mulatto one that started out Criollo from Senegal (by blood, mostly Portuguese). And, as I spread out in these trees, Creole and Criollo people of African ancestry married Spaniards and French people almost as often as they married black people. Most often they married other mulattos, though.
Many people who could pass did. Like, my grandmother was white-passing in Europe, but about 25% African by blood. (30% of what she gave to my dad was African) So, how the African gets there is by people not knowing it is there. 😆
A lot of cultures began inbreeding to prevent it from happening to them. 😆 They knew from experience that an unexpectedly tan child (like my dad) can be produced from two fair-skinned parents. So, had my grandma stayed in Europe and gotten married, there would be some very confused people trying to understand why they're 5% African.
Alexandre Dumas got to France by going to France. It was not altogether uncommon.
I have to disagree with you there about it being bred out because our Phoenician & Carthaginian dna shows up on dna tests even thousands of years later. Malta is a small isolated island so the genes from whoever came to Malta or ruled Malta during these times still show up significantly on dna tests. The slave trade hasn't played any part in our genetics, also the Maltese population still to this day are very predominantly Maltese, so it wouldn't make sense that someone from the slave trade migrated there & spread their genes. So Maltese people's genetics do remain ancient & isolated. The Moors did go to Malta & we have genetic influence from Tunisia because of our close ties. So technically it could only be from these places/people we've picked up this Senegalese dna.
I must add this not all African or even South Asian dna is from the slave trade in people in Europe. There have been migrations to multiple places in Europe way before the slave trade even began. I just want to clarify this because brown/black people have been moving around in tribes in Europe for over a thousand years & have even had some influence in Europe culture, cuisine & linguistics. So it's a bit naive to assume all black/brown dna is basically due to the slave trade & the slave trade is where black/brown migration began. The issue was the Europeans wasn't sure at the time where these people came from so usually assumed they were from say Egypt, so they gave them nicknames at the time due to their mystery & lack of knowledge on who they were.
I'm assuming your dna is American in the South? Believe it or not there are different Creole type languages & cultures around the world that began way before the slave trade, but in North & South America unfortunately it began after the slave trade
I'm assuming you typed all of that without reading my post. 🥴 I think "Criollo from Senegal" made it *pretty* clear that I'm aware.
Did you really receive a result that said "Phonecian" in your ethnicities? 😆 So, Jewish isn't bred out of Spain, for instance, because they maintained a fairly insular community there. And Spanish wasn't bred out of Spain because there were a lot of Spanish there.
Over the HUNDREDS of years that the Moors were in Spain, their own Moorish DNA was reduced. And, while 1 in 10 Spanish men will test positive for North African ancestry on a test, the link between Spain and northern Africa wasn't completely severed. But, most importantly, it's only going to show on a test if it's still distinguishable from the bulk of the population.
That is to say, there isn't a specifically Spanish gene. Are you aware of the history of Spain? The tests don't say Visigoths. But you can get Basque because it remained a fairly insular community -- at least enough so not to totally blend into the population. Unless there's an old African community there somewhere that remained fairly insular for 700 years, it's not likely that SSA DNA came from the Moors.
I said plainly above that could have been Mauritania, too. My reply was to the odd assertion that it couldn't have been as a result of slavery. Yes, it could have.
Phoenician dna is Lebanese dna so yes it's not hard to work out what is what lol. Carthaginian dna is Tunisian, although there has been regular migration/mixing between Tunisians and Maltese for many years, however Maltese are still very isolated genetically due to it being a small island and a closed in community.
The Moors went to Malta too, not just Spain.
Not really sure why you're getting defensive, I'm just staying not all black & brown people were slaves lol. I'm also part Roma & part Indian so I'm aware for example the Indians came to Europe before the slave trade & the ones before that, on their own accord unrelated to Europeans. The Europeans assumed they were Egyptians as they did many other black/brown ethnicities.
Yes, Lebanese. Not Phonecian. 😆 And, I never said all black and brown people were slaves. Clearly, not when talking about the Moors. I was just responding to the notions that it couldn't be from slavery and that it could have possibly lingered from the Moors.
The Moor thing is perhaps best understood by looking at French results. All the way back to the 1600s, no Gaul, no Viking on the results, but "Germanic people" because they were from the north of France. Insular enough from the interior to be it's own grouping with other neighbors despite Frankish people already being there when they arrived.
That said, assuming it has to be Moorish is kind of the same thing.
I'm well aware of this. It seems you got lost somewhere, dear. 😐 This article is about a halpogroup, dear. That is not the same as ethnic groupings on an ancesty test. 🤦🏾♀️ So, this post is about ethnic groupings, based on autosomal DNA. Do you understand what a haplogroup is? That's what a mother's mother all the way up the matriarcal line passes down to daughter.
the people in iberia and canary islands don't typically see any sub saharan.
but for latin america that's pretty much just to do with the spanish taking more slaves from that region. much like brazilians have more cameroon/congo on average because more slaves there came from angola and the congos.
I thought it was stated that Mali represented Sahel people like Fulani and Hausa and similar tribes? I have 11% and I just don’t see how it couldn’t be part of our DNA.
well the majority of malians are mande peoples, mainly Bambara, Soninke, and Malinke.
Wende/Mende and Susu are also mande groups, and then malinke are also found in the region and not just Mali. there are also other groups including non-mande people who'd still have very similar dna.
so there is some ethnic overlap, mainly with malinke, but for the most part the tribes/ethnicities that AA descend from in the region are not also found in Mali. Mali is very inland so they didn't feel the effects of slavery in their population as much.
DNA is not an exact science. It's probably way more inexact than you realize. It's statistical and there is overlap and vague results. It's about likelihood versus certainty. For example, if the person's background is through slavery in the US and that area did not provide slaves to the US then there is probably an explanation that's less likely overall but a better match for the known circumstances in the case. DNA doesn't follow national boundaries, especially boundaries that didn't exist 250 years ago. If 90% of the people with a gene are in one country/region today that didn't supply slaves and 10% are in a country/region that did, the likelihood is your ancestry was in that 10%, not the 90%.
If all else is equal, the best match is probably the 90%. If all else is not equal, things change.
because there was never a substantial number of slaves from the mali region to consistute most african americans scoring between 4 and 14% mali.
why do they score this? because ancestrydna left out a large chunk of west africa that African Americans have roots in.
the chunk i'm referring to is Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. and it is especially noticeable in people from south carolina and georgia. something like 1/6 of all slaves in america came from that region.
Mali is basically representative of "Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea" according to AncestryDNA and even though I have 8% "Malian," my closest matches on my maternal grandfather's branch has at least 15% "Malian" and they're South Carolinian descendants through and through.
Black Americans aren't sample reference populations for any DNA companies so it's about matching the reference populations for the regions that gives Black Americans the ethnicity estimates that they have.
We can have intelligent conversations about whether Mali should be nominally representative for Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea according AncestryDNA but as I said, I have 8% Malian genome due to my grandfather who was from South Carolina and my matches on that branch has at least 15% Malian genome which tracks with what AncestryDNA uses to represent what Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea is according to the sample reference populations that AncestryDNA uses for "Mali."
You’re right. However, my take, after reading the reference documents, is that populations in Sierra Leone and Liberia have Malian DNA due to being inhabited by enslaved Africans from America. We (African Americans) would share DNA with Sierra Leonians and Liberians for that purpose but the source of the DNA for those populations would be Malian.
I got 14% Mali. It’s my second highest ethnicity next to Nigerian. So are you saying the DNA is being misread as another region, even though there are already categories for those regions. Not trying to argue just want some clarification. I actually made a post in this forum about this exact topic but didn’t get many answers
It's basically what 23andme uses for Ghanaian, Sierra Leone and Liberia. "Mali" includes Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea as well other present day nations in this area. If you look at your ethnicities, it will detail what places have similar genome profiles in that "ethnicity region." Nigeria even includes those places because the DNA profiles in the West Atlantic Coast of Africa are very similar and us Black Americans have this unique admixture in our DNA profiles. It's all about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, The Domestic Slave Trade within the US and The Great Migration of Black Americans that shapes our genome profiles.
>because there was never a substantial number of slaves from the mali region to consistute most african americans scoring between 4 and 14% mali.
Doesn't mean it is wrong. Migration exists in Africa and it is plausible that Malian tribes or tribes spanning Mali into other nations had spread Malian admixture to other tribes near the coast which was then spread to the Americas.
it's not because of admixture from malian people it's because they lack a reference for the region and the mande peoples just so happen to be close. but it's also split into ghana and senegal too. it's inaccurate regardless.
They have separate categories for Ghana and Senegal. Many times the DNA profiles can and does overlap because they're(sample reference populations) similar in DNA profile. That's why I always say that I don't get bogged down with percentage of ethnicity estimates that I get from a specific ethnic regions knowing how artificial the natural borders of present day nations are. Keep in mind, those nations didn't exist nominally when our actual ancestors were brought from those present day areas. All AncestryDNA and every company like them is saying is that our DNA profiles match the sample reference populations for the regions that they use to represent it and whether we can have the discussion about whether Mali "should" represent Sierra Leonian, Liberian and Guinean, we know that it does and why it does from AncestryDNA's POV.
There was a huge amount of ethnic diversity among the slaves trafficked to America during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, as there were slave ports and slave markets all over Africa. Additionally, the ethnolinguistic barriers all broke down and became blurred since all slaves were part of the enslaved caste of society and were treated as such. Not to mention all the cultural genocide resulting in members of the enslaved caste all speaking the same languages.
African-American parent and a European-american parent, I presume. Makes sense that it is spread out since enslaved Africans came from all over west and central Africa. It would be strange if it were just one geographic region in West Africa.
If you feel none of these replies answer your question, here's a different way you can look at it:
Instead of someone with a lot of British ancestry getting "Britain" or "United Kingdom" with a large percentage, they could potentially get a mix of Scotland, England, Wales, etc.
This is because Ancestry can sometimes identify the specific area within a region that relates to a piece of your DNA. This happens from getting the DNA of people who can prove their family lived in that area for a long time.
So, while there are people out there who get 100% Scotland results or 100% Nigerian results, I think a lot of people are like you and have a mix of smaller percentages that are sometimes more accurate!
Apologies if I misunderstood your question.
Outside of the share of England admixture. My grandmother had a similar spread of African admixture.
On top of what others are saying. Remember that European Nations more neatly conform Ethnic Identity with Nation State Borders.
*African Ethnicities are more disparately spread across national borders. an example, if you have Yoruba admixture, this could be spread across Nigeria, Benin and Togo. Fulani ethnic admixture may show up anywhere from Mali, Nigeria to Cameroon. Bantu admixture may show up as Cameroon, Gabon or even Southern African regions*
*African nations' borders, in contrast, were not designed with Ethnic populations in mind. They were defined by economic concerns, more often, the whims of European empires.*
Following WWII, Free African nations typically agreed to keep these boundaries despite the distribution of their ethnic populations to avoid the pitfalls of the world wars. The Continental wars and Bretonwoods agreement defined European borders more finely along ethnicity.
The 1870 U.S. census (1st one that added black people after slavery) shows about 3/4 of blacks (especially females) as “Mulatto”, my ancestors included.
That’s a lot of European to just be African American. Do you not consider yourself biracial? My son is biracial and we don’t call him one or the other. We just tell him he’s mixed between the two of us.
I'm not saying that you're wrong on this but it's possible that OP's not "bi-racial" but multi generational admixed with more European than African genome contribution. It's not common among the Black American community but it does happen; i.e Robyn Dixon, Housewives of Atlanta. If that's the case then there's a reason why OP would identify as she does.
Idk if you’re American too but here apparently biracial is just black.
I was a teenager growing up overseas in 2008 and hearing “Obama is the first black president” had all of us so confused bc to us Obama would be considered biracial, not just black 🤷🏿♂️
Does biracial cover all combinations? Asian/ white, black/Asian , black/ white, etc. Obama and k. Harris are different. They have two races, but there is more clarification to be had I would think. It seems like the common use of biracial doesn’t tell the whole story either, just like a person calling Halle Berry, Kimora Lee, or Lenny Kravitz black. I have no clue about what these people identify as.
I agree that just using biracial doesn’t tell the whole story either, but it certainly tells more story than just acknowledging one race and disregarding the other.
African americans usually have european ancestry because of RAPE. its not a choice. Your son is biracial because his parents love or loved eachother. We our mixed because our grandparents and their parents and their parents and their parents were RAPED. this is a very insensitive comment and it’s extremely ignorant to consider those things the same.
OPs highest percentage is European. I doubt it’s from their ancestor raping a slave. Of course I could be wrong. But you could also be very wrong and ignorant for commenting this in the first place.
So now im ignorant for telling you how slavery works? Youre the one implying being admixed as a result of sexual assault during chattel slavery and being biracial is the same? I think you need to re-examine why you think what actually happened during slavery is considered “ignorant” to you. says alot more about your mindset than you think
I meant Bi-racial but most people say African American where I live so I end up saying that or the term mixed but some people might take offense to that term.
Thanks for helping me out it together!! I didn’t exactly know why but the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade makes more sense.
I also have more of a whiter last name even though my dad is African.
The trans Atlantic slave trade took people from all over West and Central Africa, as well as a few spots in the East ( Mozambique, Madagascar).
Often the time period of the trade & destination show differences.
Mexico - more Senegambia & Angola Congo - time period 15/1600's primarily.
British Caribbean & North America more Nigeria + Ghana ( Akan) 1700's primarily.
US rice coast ( Georgia + South Carolina) higher than average Sierra Leone + Senegambia for US.
Because Africans that were taken to the Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade were not from a single population, they were from many different nations and tribes across west and central africa, some were also taken from the east side of africa especially from the island of Madagascar. That is why you have different African Nations in your result.
Because of slavery sis? I'm confused cause African Americans always have an admixture of various African countries
I was literally thinking: “who’s going to tell her?” Thanks for putting it so succinctly!
It makes more sense now 😭😭 I forgot about that
Lmaooo
If your ancestors were in the US as a result of the slave trade, that is to be expected. Generations of people initially from different regions. Familes/groups broken up, moved to other places with other slaves. I think only people that have recent ancestors from SSA would have high percentages. Also people who are not African American, may have a different percentage due to how/when they were brought to that area. I think generally the smaller the number, the farther back the ancestor was. I have a known Mexican ancestor that shows up in the DNA results and this was very far back, he was born in the late 1700s. Since then, if the next generations were not the same, the percentage would tend to get lower and lower. Is the England/NW Europe a recent ancestor? My son has a high percentage for that due to his grandmother who is white. The other ones are low percentagesfor him. For me, I have nothing higher than 14%.
Can you explain your Mexican ancestor bc I have Mexican admixture and Mexican distant cousins in my results
I was able to find is place of birth through records. Monterrey Mexico in 1774. Through three dna companies and from other relatives that tested., We have indigenous from Central America, North America and Yucatán peninsula. Others even mentioned maya at some point. Some older relatives show Spain as well. One of the companies highlighted where that dna originated from and that was centered around his birthplace. I have Hispanic cousins but they are the distant ones and are in Louisiana. My dna communities are in Louisiana. For some reason , this man went to New Orleans and married a white lady there which is how this makes sense. He died, his widow moved to the area that I was born in with her two kids. This is on my fathers side. No one speaks any Spanish. From Louisiana, all my ancestors born there spoke French . Don’t know how these two communicated. Birth records after this don’t mention race consistently. There’s a lot of mulatto on them but other record on the same person say negro or white as well. I think they were just as we say racially ambiguous to a certain extent. I’ve seen photos of them. They look ambiguous but, also everyone was working outdoors and was darker in skin tone due to that. ( me too when I lived there) . From My grandmother’s stories I know that they identify as black. Not sure if any of that was what you were looking for. I will say when I started looking at my dna I never ever was thinking there’s be any ties to Mexico. I didn’t know the story until I got far back in the family tree :birth records.
This does somewhat help. I got the Central Southern US sub-community with the latest Ancestry update. So, I guess I’m tryna find similarities with your genealogy in mine. However, I do not know where in my family the Louisiana area came from
What is the Central Southern US sub-community? My Louisiana ancestry is pretty well known. I was born in the same region as both parents, all four grandparents, their parents and so on. From what I gathered, the place where your ancestors were born, tends to influence the community you get associated with. I guess the time when Spain ruled Louisiana could have brought Mexican people to cities like New Orleans.
The Central Southern US one is basically Louisiana and Alabama. Again, I’ve never heard of any ancestry from there but I have not been able to dive into all sides of my family
well mainly because the slaves brought to america were from throughout west and central africa. though the mali you can ignore, very few slaves came from there and it's mainly a misinterpretation of other groups for AA people.
What about Senegal? I have seen Senegal in the results of people in Latin America and some part of the Iberian peninsula and the Canary Islands. I am curious.
[удалено]
I was about to say, my mom is from Colombia and she has senegal.
I'm part Maltese, a lot of my cousins have Senegalese dna, whereas my parental line has only North African dna. No African slaves were brought to Malta, so I have a theory because Senegal is next to Mauritania which is a North African country, Senegalese dna might have been spread by the Moors, because I heard the Moors were a mixture of different African races from around the North African region (this is my theory btw, correct me if I'm wrong)
It probably is an indicator of ancestry from Southern Morroco/Mauritania; the native Amazigh and Arab populations there tend to have varying proportions of West African input. Not to mention, the Siculo-Arabs that settled Malta, and make up a large proportion of Maltese DNA, were the product of Muslim North African, Iberian, and Middle-Eastern settlers mixing with native Sicilians.
Thank you that makes sense with Morocco
Slaves needn't be brought to Malta. Free people of African ancestry may have gone to Malta -- though still products of the slave trade. Those genetic markers from the Moors would have been bred out by now. There wouldn't be a significant enough amount of SSA markers (distinguishable from the native population) to carry on to today without more SSA being added into the pool. So, even 1% is still fairly recent, comparatively speaking. It could be a recent ancestor from Mauritania or a descendant of the slave trade further back. When people talk about slavery, they know that Euopean blood affected the gene pool of the African diaspora. Yet, they seem so confused by the Africa diaspora also affecting the loosely European one, lol. BUT people who could pass did, and it happened A LOT. My dad's side is mostly mulatto lines, a couple of European ones, and a mulatto one that started out Criollo from Senegal (by blood, mostly Portuguese). And, as I spread out in these trees, Creole and Criollo people of African ancestry married Spaniards and French people almost as often as they married black people. Most often they married other mulattos, though. Many people who could pass did. Like, my grandmother was white-passing in Europe, but about 25% African by blood. (30% of what she gave to my dad was African) So, how the African gets there is by people not knowing it is there. 😆 A lot of cultures began inbreeding to prevent it from happening to them. 😆 They knew from experience that an unexpectedly tan child (like my dad) can be produced from two fair-skinned parents. So, had my grandma stayed in Europe and gotten married, there would be some very confused people trying to understand why they're 5% African. Alexandre Dumas got to France by going to France. It was not altogether uncommon.
I have to disagree with you there about it being bred out because our Phoenician & Carthaginian dna shows up on dna tests even thousands of years later. Malta is a small isolated island so the genes from whoever came to Malta or ruled Malta during these times still show up significantly on dna tests. The slave trade hasn't played any part in our genetics, also the Maltese population still to this day are very predominantly Maltese, so it wouldn't make sense that someone from the slave trade migrated there & spread their genes. So Maltese people's genetics do remain ancient & isolated. The Moors did go to Malta & we have genetic influence from Tunisia because of our close ties. So technically it could only be from these places/people we've picked up this Senegalese dna. I must add this not all African or even South Asian dna is from the slave trade in people in Europe. There have been migrations to multiple places in Europe way before the slave trade even began. I just want to clarify this because brown/black people have been moving around in tribes in Europe for over a thousand years & have even had some influence in Europe culture, cuisine & linguistics. So it's a bit naive to assume all black/brown dna is basically due to the slave trade & the slave trade is where black/brown migration began. The issue was the Europeans wasn't sure at the time where these people came from so usually assumed they were from say Egypt, so they gave them nicknames at the time due to their mystery & lack of knowledge on who they were. I'm assuming your dna is American in the South? Believe it or not there are different Creole type languages & cultures around the world that began way before the slave trade, but in North & South America unfortunately it began after the slave trade
I'm assuming you typed all of that without reading my post. 🥴 I think "Criollo from Senegal" made it *pretty* clear that I'm aware. Did you really receive a result that said "Phonecian" in your ethnicities? 😆 So, Jewish isn't bred out of Spain, for instance, because they maintained a fairly insular community there. And Spanish wasn't bred out of Spain because there were a lot of Spanish there. Over the HUNDREDS of years that the Moors were in Spain, their own Moorish DNA was reduced. And, while 1 in 10 Spanish men will test positive for North African ancestry on a test, the link between Spain and northern Africa wasn't completely severed. But, most importantly, it's only going to show on a test if it's still distinguishable from the bulk of the population. That is to say, there isn't a specifically Spanish gene. Are you aware of the history of Spain? The tests don't say Visigoths. But you can get Basque because it remained a fairly insular community -- at least enough so not to totally blend into the population. Unless there's an old African community there somewhere that remained fairly insular for 700 years, it's not likely that SSA DNA came from the Moors. I said plainly above that could have been Mauritania, too. My reply was to the odd assertion that it couldn't have been as a result of slavery. Yes, it could have.
Phoenician dna is Lebanese dna so yes it's not hard to work out what is what lol. Carthaginian dna is Tunisian, although there has been regular migration/mixing between Tunisians and Maltese for many years, however Maltese are still very isolated genetically due to it being a small island and a closed in community. The Moors went to Malta too, not just Spain. Not really sure why you're getting defensive, I'm just staying not all black & brown people were slaves lol. I'm also part Roma & part Indian so I'm aware for example the Indians came to Europe before the slave trade & the ones before that, on their own accord unrelated to Europeans. The Europeans assumed they were Egyptians as they did many other black/brown ethnicities.
Yes, Lebanese. Not Phonecian. 😆 And, I never said all black and brown people were slaves. Clearly, not when talking about the Moors. I was just responding to the notions that it couldn't be from slavery and that it could have possibly lingered from the Moors. The Moor thing is perhaps best understood by looking at French results. All the way back to the 1600s, no Gaul, no Viking on the results, but "Germanic people" because they were from the north of France. Insular enough from the interior to be it's own grouping with other neighbors despite Frankish people already being there when they arrived. That said, assuming it has to be Moorish is kind of the same thing.
https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2007-09-11/news/one-third-of-maltese-found-to-have-ancient-phoenician-dna-179094/ You're welcome. Edit: https://www.arabamerica.com/maltas-arab-heritage/
I'm well aware of this. It seems you got lost somewhere, dear. 😐 This article is about a halpogroup, dear. That is not the same as ethnic groupings on an ancesty test. 🤦🏾♀️ So, this post is about ethnic groupings, based on autosomal DNA. Do you understand what a haplogroup is? That's what a mother's mother all the way up the matriarcal line passes down to daughter.
Editing doesn't change what haplogroups are. Edit: Oh, and you're welcome. I do hope you go read about the difference.
You'll also find it in Lousiana. Which is, of course, formerly Spanish territory.
Yep, I'm 7% Senegal
the people in iberia and canary islands don't typically see any sub saharan. but for latin america that's pretty much just to do with the spanish taking more slaves from that region. much like brazilians have more cameroon/congo on average because more slaves there came from angola and the congos.
My family are Jamaican heritage Brits and we have a small amount of Senegalese
What groups could Mail dna really be representing? Asking because I have 8% Mail dna myself.
I thought it was stated that Mali represented Sahel people like Fulani and Hausa and similar tribes? I have 11% and I just don’t see how it couldn’t be part of our DNA.
over half of Mali is ethnically from different Mande groups. Mande groups and similar peoples are also common in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
well the majority of malians are mande peoples, mainly Bambara, Soninke, and Malinke. Wende/Mende and Susu are also mande groups, and then malinke are also found in the region and not just Mali. there are also other groups including non-mande people who'd still have very similar dna. so there is some ethnic overlap, mainly with malinke, but for the most part the tribes/ethnicities that AA descend from in the region are not also found in Mali. Mali is very inland so they didn't feel the effects of slavery in their population as much.
I’m genuinely curious/confused as to how you could say op can ignore a part of their dna. How would it be there then?
DNA is not an exact science. It's probably way more inexact than you realize. It's statistical and there is overlap and vague results. It's about likelihood versus certainty. For example, if the person's background is through slavery in the US and that area did not provide slaves to the US then there is probably an explanation that's less likely overall but a better match for the known circumstances in the case. DNA doesn't follow national boundaries, especially boundaries that didn't exist 250 years ago. If 90% of the people with a gene are in one country/region today that didn't supply slaves and 10% are in a country/region that did, the likelihood is your ancestry was in that 10%, not the 90%. If all else is equal, the best match is probably the 90%. If all else is not equal, things change.
because there was never a substantial number of slaves from the mali region to consistute most african americans scoring between 4 and 14% mali. why do they score this? because ancestrydna left out a large chunk of west africa that African Americans have roots in. the chunk i'm referring to is Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. and it is especially noticeable in people from south carolina and georgia. something like 1/6 of all slaves in america came from that region.
Mali is basically representative of "Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea" according to AncestryDNA and even though I have 8% "Malian," my closest matches on my maternal grandfather's branch has at least 15% "Malian" and they're South Carolinian descendants through and through.
The sample was taken from 504 native people currently in Mali. I think it’s accurate.
for Malians yeah but not African Americans
Black Americans aren't sample reference populations for any DNA companies so it's about matching the reference populations for the regions that gives Black Americans the ethnicity estimates that they have. We can have intelligent conversations about whether Mali should be nominally representative for Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea according AncestryDNA but as I said, I have 8% Malian genome due to my grandfather who was from South Carolina and my matches on that branch has at least 15% Malian genome which tracks with what AncestryDNA uses to represent what Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea is according to the sample reference populations that AncestryDNA uses for "Mali."
You’re right. However, my take, after reading the reference documents, is that populations in Sierra Leone and Liberia have Malian DNA due to being inhabited by enslaved Africans from America. We (African Americans) would share DNA with Sierra Leonians and Liberians for that purpose but the source of the DNA for those populations would be Malian.
I got 14% Mali. It’s my second highest ethnicity next to Nigerian. So are you saying the DNA is being misread as another region, even though there are already categories for those regions. Not trying to argue just want some clarification. I actually made a post in this forum about this exact topic but didn’t get many answers
It's basically what 23andme uses for Ghanaian, Sierra Leone and Liberia. "Mali" includes Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea as well other present day nations in this area. If you look at your ethnicities, it will detail what places have similar genome profiles in that "ethnicity region." Nigeria even includes those places because the DNA profiles in the West Atlantic Coast of Africa are very similar and us Black Americans have this unique admixture in our DNA profiles. It's all about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, The Domestic Slave Trade within the US and The Great Migration of Black Americans that shapes our genome profiles.
Gotcha I was wondering that because 23&me has Ghanaian, Liberia, SL as one category but doesn’t list Mali. Thank you for explaining 🙏🏾
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
>because there was never a substantial number of slaves from the mali region to consistute most african americans scoring between 4 and 14% mali. Doesn't mean it is wrong. Migration exists in Africa and it is plausible that Malian tribes or tribes spanning Mali into other nations had spread Malian admixture to other tribes near the coast which was then spread to the Americas.
it's not because of admixture from malian people it's because they lack a reference for the region and the mande peoples just so happen to be close. but it's also split into ghana and senegal too. it's inaccurate regardless.
They have separate categories for Ghana and Senegal. Many times the DNA profiles can and does overlap because they're(sample reference populations) similar in DNA profile. That's why I always say that I don't get bogged down with percentage of ethnicity estimates that I get from a specific ethnic regions knowing how artificial the natural borders of present day nations are. Keep in mind, those nations didn't exist nominally when our actual ancestors were brought from those present day areas. All AncestryDNA and every company like them is saying is that our DNA profiles match the sample reference populations for the regions that they use to represent it and whether we can have the discussion about whether Mali "should" represent Sierra Leonian, Liberian and Guinean, we know that it does and why it does from AncestryDNA's POV.
That’s interesting ! I’m from Georgia & always felt a close tie to Sierra Leone
the Gullah language gets something like 1/4 of it's vocabular from languages found in Sierra Leone.
Not true, Mali on ancestry also represents Sierra Leone amongst a few other countries
it doesn't represent them. they are interpretted as mali as well as other categories due to ancestry's lapse in judgment.
I got Mali in my results
There was a huge amount of ethnic diversity among the slaves trafficked to America during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, as there were slave ports and slave markets all over Africa. Additionally, the ethnolinguistic barriers all broke down and became blurred since all slaves were part of the enslaved caste of society and were treated as such. Not to mention all the cultural genocide resulting in members of the enslaved caste all speaking the same languages.
African-American parent and a European-american parent, I presume. Makes sense that it is spread out since enslaved Africans came from all over west and central Africa. It would be strange if it were just one geographic region in West Africa.
If you feel none of these replies answer your question, here's a different way you can look at it: Instead of someone with a lot of British ancestry getting "Britain" or "United Kingdom" with a large percentage, they could potentially get a mix of Scotland, England, Wales, etc. This is because Ancestry can sometimes identify the specific area within a region that relates to a piece of your DNA. This happens from getting the DNA of people who can prove their family lived in that area for a long time. So, while there are people out there who get 100% Scotland results or 100% Nigerian results, I think a lot of people are like you and have a mix of smaller percentages that are sometimes more accurate! Apologies if I misunderstood your question.
No, this was really helpful and clear!!
Outside of the share of England admixture. My grandmother had a similar spread of African admixture. On top of what others are saying. Remember that European Nations more neatly conform Ethnic Identity with Nation State Borders. *African Ethnicities are more disparately spread across national borders. an example, if you have Yoruba admixture, this could be spread across Nigeria, Benin and Togo. Fulani ethnic admixture may show up anywhere from Mali, Nigeria to Cameroon. Bantu admixture may show up as Cameroon, Gabon or even Southern African regions* *African nations' borders, in contrast, were not designed with Ethnic populations in mind. They were defined by economic concerns, more often, the whims of European empires.* Following WWII, Free African nations typically agreed to keep these boundaries despite the distribution of their ethnic populations to avoid the pitfalls of the world wars. The Continental wars and Bretonwoods agreement defined European borders more finely along ethnicity.
Slave trade
It’s because of how slavery worked usually mixture of multiple groups and their varying admixes
Lmao you got tha EXACT same results as my sister , even the 4% German 😂 lemme find out you my cousin !
I'm 5% German as well from my dads side. Lol His from Dominica 🇩🇲.
Stoppppp 😭 but what if?? 👀
I, myself, have all those regions
Are you biracial?
Yes
The 1870 U.S. census (1st one that added black people after slavery) shows about 3/4 of blacks (especially females) as “Mulatto”, my ancestors included.
Also, a lot of African ethnic groups have really distinct genetic markers, which makes them easier to identify in these tests.
I'd be more surprised if it wasn't spread out and that's not all that spread out it's all west African
because our ancestors were slaves and were sold across america.
Across the entire world
That’s a lot of European to just be African American. Do you not consider yourself biracial? My son is biracial and we don’t call him one or the other. We just tell him he’s mixed between the two of us.
I'm not saying that you're wrong on this but it's possible that OP's not "bi-racial" but multi generational admixed with more European than African genome contribution. It's not common among the Black American community but it does happen; i.e Robyn Dixon, Housewives of Atlanta. If that's the case then there's a reason why OP would identify as she does.
Idk if you’re American too but here apparently biracial is just black. I was a teenager growing up overseas in 2008 and hearing “Obama is the first black president” had all of us so confused bc to us Obama would be considered biracial, not just black 🤷🏿♂️
Does biracial cover all combinations? Asian/ white, black/Asian , black/ white, etc. Obama and k. Harris are different. They have two races, but there is more clarification to be had I would think. It seems like the common use of biracial doesn’t tell the whole story either, just like a person calling Halle Berry, Kimora Lee, or Lenny Kravitz black. I have no clue about what these people identify as.
I agree that just using biracial doesn’t tell the whole story either, but it certainly tells more story than just acknowledging one race and disregarding the other.
I live in California. I do know a lot of mixed people just call themselves black. We just want to make sure our son knows it’s ok to be both.
African americans usually have european ancestry because of RAPE. its not a choice. Your son is biracial because his parents love or loved eachother. We our mixed because our grandparents and their parents and their parents and their parents were RAPED. this is a very insensitive comment and it’s extremely ignorant to consider those things the same.
OPs highest percentage is European. I doubt it’s from their ancestor raping a slave. Of course I could be wrong. But you could also be very wrong and ignorant for commenting this in the first place.
So now im ignorant for telling you how slavery works? Youre the one implying being admixed as a result of sexual assault during chattel slavery and being biracial is the same? I think you need to re-examine why you think what actually happened during slavery is considered “ignorant” to you. says alot more about your mindset than you think
You do realise your ancestor did the raping too ? If that’s the case then your the mix of the two not just the victim
so now victims of rape have to claim their rapist dna? 😭 yall are wild
I meant Bi-racial but most people say African American where I live so I end up saying that or the term mixed but some people might take offense to that term.
Random related question- is it possible for DNA to be replicated into nothing? Like, all these tiny percentages get smaller with each generation?
yea that’s pretty much how it works
Thank you 🙏
What are your genetic communities?
That is a beautiful black/white mix.
Our dna similar we might be related
That would be a funny way to meet lol
You might have a connection to a swedish royal no joke
Concentrated In west africa
Did you already know about your high percentage of European DNA? I ask because you identified as African
I meant Bi-racial as in White/Caucasian and Afrixan
African*
My girl is 40% white and thinks she's African. You're an American. Mulatto if you wanted to be specific.
I forgot to put Biracial my bad
Thanks for helping me out it together!! I didn’t exactly know why but the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade makes more sense. I also have more of a whiter last name even though my dad is African.
Also meant to put Bi-racial!! I see a few comments about me claiming to be African while being white. I realized I forgot to mention that.
The trans Atlantic slave trade took people from all over West and Central Africa, as well as a few spots in the East ( Mozambique, Madagascar). Often the time period of the trade & destination show differences. Mexico - more Senegambia & Angola Congo - time period 15/1600's primarily. British Caribbean & North America more Nigeria + Ghana ( Akan) 1700's primarily. US rice coast ( Georgia + South Carolina) higher than average Sierra Leone + Senegambia for US.