The Term African American

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Sista

Or shall I ask, with all that you know about who you are and where your roots mostly stem from, how do you define yourself? Or, are you, or are you not a mjority of African blood? Or do you not really know? I define my self as African, but I will accept African American as a defintion to describe who I am. I know for sure that the majority of my blood work is a drect Kin to Africa and Africans but I was born and raised in America.

Since you apparently know that the majority of your "blood" is predominantly African, I ask HOW do you know that. I ask this because A LOT of African-Americans seem to "know" that they are predominantly of African descent, and in fact that may not be the case. I think back to the PBS special that ran February 2006 where Henry Louis Gates Jr. did a DNA/bloodline trace of some African-American celebrities (Oprah, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, and so forth) and while some of them did have a DNA connection to some peoples of Africa, others like Quincy Jones and Whoopi Goldberg (YES Whoopi!) did not have a predominant "African" Heritage as read through their DNA.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

Since you apparently know that the majority of your "blood" is predominantly African, I ask HOW do you know that. I ask this because A LOT of African-Americans seem to "know" that they are predominantly of African descent, and in fact that may not be the case. I think back to the PBS special that ran February 2006 where Henry Louis Gates Jr. did a DNA/bloodline trace of some African-American celebrities (Oprah, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, and so forth) and while some of them did have a DNA connection to some peoples of Africa, others like Quincy Jones and Whoopi Goldberg (YES Whoopi!) did not have a predominant "African" Heritage as read through their DNA.

I did not see this particular special. So I don't know exactly what it claimed. But the problem with many things of this nature is simply that it isn't good science to claim that you can tell racial heritage through DNA testing. Good TV, maybe, but not good science. "Race" is not science - it's sociology. When the two start getting too mixed together (not that I believe they are ever truly separated, but it should at least be a goal), then things turn out very, very badly. JMO.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I did not see this particular special. So I don't know exactly what it claimed. But the problem with many things of this nature is simply that it isn't good science to claim that you can tell racial heritage through DNA testing. Good TV, maybe, but not good science. "Race" is not science - it's sociology. When the two start getting too mixed together (not that I believe they are ever truly separated, but it should at least be a goal), then things turn out very, very badly. JMO.

Originally Posted by Sista

I saw that show and I don't remember Whoopi 's situation but I am sure if her situation is what you say it was, I would have remembered.

Any how, if one is to test for African Ancestry, that test is different from any Native American or European DNA test, they are all separate so if Whoopi asked to be tested for her European ancestry, that is the test she would have been given. Another thing is this, depending on the test center they used, different testing centers have more or less African DNA. The test center they used just may have been one of those places that didn't yet acquire blood results from the Africans whoopi came from.

Any way, this is just something to think about, those kinds of shows are rigged and one has to be very careful not to believe everything they see on Television. It is not a secret that Whoopi only dates and marries white men, that part of the show could have been fixed in order to promote some type of propaganda. Who knows? Not that looks really say anything but I know this though, Whoopi look mo' African than me

I wasn't precluding that race is a "science" and I'm well aware that it is a sociological construction. I used the term race because it was the term floating around in the thread. So to clarify, according the the special, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well known author and Harvard University professor, compared the DNA a group of well know celebrities against the DNA of a subsection of the WORLD'S population (the basis of the comparison is that currently there is a "file" of the DNA of the world's people that has been compiled since the advent of genetics/DNA testing). The DNA, or rather the portion of a person's DNA that has been shown to related to ethnicity/heritage was compared to the "samples" that were currently housed and given the volunteers as a possible window of their culturo-historical roots.

And Sista, I do remember the special-very well in fact-and Whoopi was indeed surprised/shocked/unprepared for the results of her comparison. And while I do recognize that no test is fail proof, motivations, etc. I do lend a measure of validity to research and "testing" completed by HLG, supported by Harvard University, and presented via PBS. But that's just me. If it was that great television, it would have been broadcasted on other stations besides PBS .

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I wasn't precluding that race is a "science" and I'm well aware that it is a sociological construction. I used the term race because it was the term floating around in the thread. So to clarify, according the the special, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well known author and Harvard University professor, compared the DNA a group of well know celebrities against the DNA of a subsection of the WORLD'S population (the basis of the comparison is that currently there is a "file" of the DNA of the world's people that has been compiled since the advent of genetics/DNA testing). The DNA, or rather the portion of a person's DNA that has been shown to related to ethnicity/heritage was compared to the "samples" that were currently housed and given the volunteers as a possible window of their culturo-historical roots.

And Sista, I do remember the special-very well in fact-and Whoopi was indeed surprised/shocked/unprepared for the results of her comparison. And while I do recognize that no test is fail proof, motivations, etc. I do lend a measure of validity to research and "testing" completed by HLG, supported by Harvard University, and presented via PBS. But that's just me. If it was that great television, it would have been broadcasted on other stations besides PBS .

I'll have to see if I can find a copy - do you know the name of the program? It sounds interesting.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I'll have to see if I can find a copy - do you know the name of the program? It sounds interesting.

It was called "African-American Lives" and was a mini series that aired in February 2006. HLG didn't rely solely on the DNA testing, he also worked with the geneologies, oral histories, public documents, and his personal knowledge of Af-Am history and the slave trade to support or disprove each other/the DNA comparison.

[Honeykiss1974]

FYI (for everyone) - I saw the one with Oprah and it was great (and emotional). If memory serves me correctly, they are selling the DVD for each of the series. I seem to remember seeing that at the end of the show.

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I wasn't precluding that race is a "science" and I'm well aware that it is a sociological construction..

Sociological construction, please break down what that means to you? I would like to make sure that I am comprehending at the same perception, frame of mind as you? I just want to be sure of what that means to you, sociological construction?

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I used the term race because it was the term floating around in the thread. So to clarify, according the special, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well known author and Harvard University professor, compared the DNA a group of well know celebrities against the DNA of a subsection of the WORLD'S population (the basis of the comparison is that currently there is a "file" of the DNA of the world's people that has been compiled since the advent of genetics/DNA testing). The DNA, or rather the portion of a person's DNA that has been shown to related to ethnicity/heritage was compared to the "samples" that were currently housed and given the volunteers as a possible window of their culturo-historical roots.

Am I to get from this that Whoopi had a higher percentage of European decent as oppose to African decent? Because when I saw the show, it said nothing about percentages, only decent.

I am going to have to ask you for the source for which genetic testing center did Henry Louis gates use because I have researched many DNA testing centers and none of them have the worlds population of DNA on file let alone a subsection. It is not an easy thing to approach foreign people and ask them for their blood, so you can store it in your bank.

Any way, that wouldn't be an easy thing to do even if you had an interpret present. Some people will give up their blood for such a cause but not all of them. This is why most DNA testing centers do not have certain blood types and therefore cannot tell you about your ancestry if they do not have A DNA match for you on file. DNA testing centers for genetics makes that very clear before they test you for your DNA match.

Any way, how could it on one hand be world's population and sub section at the same time? Doesn't sound to specific or clear. I detect a huge flaw. Is it worlds population or a sub section of the world?

I need a source to check this out for my self.
As I finish up this post, I am googling, trying to find that source for my self, have any suggestions on where to start?

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

And Sista, I do remember the special-very well in fact-and Whoopi was indeed surprised/shocked/unprepared for the results of her comparison.

What exactly was the comparison?

[DSTCHAOS]

The term is actually "social construction." It should mean to Ch2tf what it means to everyone, regardless of how the definition is worded:

Constructs like race are not biological but are instead social designations and result in certain social interactions and meanings. We create meaning in our observed differences between people and exaggerate whatever differences there are.

As Luther said "a chair is still a chair, even if there's no one sitting there" because we decided that there is a such thing as a "chair."

[Sista]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The term is actually "social construction." It should mean to Ch2tf what it means to everyone, regardless of how the definition is worded:

I interpret this as an indirect insult. Did I word that correctly, if so, you should know what I mean?

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Constructs like race are not biological but are instead social designations and result in certain social interactions and meanings. We create meaning in our observed differences between people and exaggerate whatever differences there are.
As Luther said "a chair is still a chair, even if there's no one sitting there" because we decided that there is a such thing as a "chair."

Luther's song was a good analogy for what it seems like you are saying.
From your idea of Social designations/Social construction, this means a persons race can change randomly, even within a ten year period depending on other factors.

I do a lot of traveling and I am constantly learning things which gives me a different social outlook to life and the people I meet in this life. Is my race determined by my exaggerated differences in others? If so, I am very mixed up...LOL

Suppose I am an adaptable person who pretty much becomes, with no problems at all, a part of any culture I am in the company of for long periods of time. What if I am a Nomad who does not really have a place to call home? Home would be basically where I unpack my things at once I arrive and where ever I arrive, the people are always very much so different from me, yet I manage to blend in?

"a chair is still a chair, even if there's no one sitting there"
"a Negro is a Negroe, even when he has went to Harvard"


No matter what, he will never change because his physical characteristics tells a story about him.

If the chair is made of material lets say wood and no one is sitting in the chair, for what ever reason, the chair can be chopped up and used for firewood. Before it was a chair, it was a pile of cut up trees.

The Negro will be and was always a Negro.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Sista

Luther's song was a good analogy for what it seems like you are saying.
From your idea of Social designations/Social construction, this means a persons race can change randomly, even within a ten year period depending on other factors.

Yes, exactly - a person's race is not fixed. The same person may be considered black in America and white somewhere else (Brazil, perhaps?), and some other thing entirely some other place. There are "races" which other countries label that we don't here - the entire concept of race is extremely fluid.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Sista

I interpret this as an indirect insult. Did I word that correctly, if so, you should know what I mean?

Don't be so easily insulted. I like for people to get terms correct and for people to not debate over things that are undebatable. Simple as that. [/QUOTE]

[Wolfman]

The following link will clear up what was done and how they did it on the series, "African American Lives," which has been alluded to several times. They were well aware of the false claims that can be made concerning the implication of genetic data. This is why,above the solid tests they used, they employed an archaeogeneticist and a biological anthropologist, both experts on the population groups of the continent, to try to correlate geography/tribal group to the genetic data of the participants in the series.

An interesting (and funny!) aside: On this program a prominent biological geneticist consulted, a white prof. at Penn State, informs Dr. Gates how he had this test done on himself. The results showed a genetically significant percentage of his ancestry was African. He told this to his mother who told him not to tell anyone about this. His mother had been keeping this family secret which he was in the dark about--although he had no problem with this "revelation." Genes don't lie; but we have to be careful to interpret the results responsibly. But, it seems to me, this discussion is about culture.

"African Americans" have been blessed with a horrific gift: a common cultural heritage forged out of the the experience of slavery and it's aftermath that's made disparate people/tribal groups into a basic identity, with various subgroups and identities. This has been the foundation of a political solidarity that made the Civil Rights Movement possible--something that has inspired peoples all over the world in their struggles for freedom. I remember talking with Palestinians in the Old City of Jerusalem and they commonly referring to me as "brother"--many of whom would, by phenotype, be considered "white" in this country. "African American" culture is grounded in Africa but is also of the American experience. "African Americans" only have to travel to find out how American they are culturally; and non-Americans understand better than whites in this country how African American culture is at the core of "Americaness."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profile_gates.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/about.html
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/ANTH/faculty/fjackson --a biological anthropologist consulted on the series.

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

The following link will clear up what was done and how they did it on the series, "African American Lives," which has been alluded to several times. They were well aware of the false claims that can be made concerning the implication of genetic data. This is why,above the solid tests they used, they employed an archaeogeneticist and a biological anthropologist, both experts on the population groups of the continent, to try to correlate geography/tribal group to the genetic data of the participants in the series.

An interesting (and funny!) aside: On this program a prominent biological geneticist consulted, a white prof. at Penn State, tells Dr. Gates how he had had this test done on himself. The results showed a genetically significant percentage of his ancestry was African. He told this to his mother who told him not to tell anyone about this. His mother had been keeping this family secret which he was in the dark about--although he had no problem with this "revelation." Genes don't lie; but we have to be careful to interpret the results responsibly. But, it seems to me, this discussion is about culture.

"African Americans" have been blessed with a horrific gift: a common cultural heritage forged out of the the experience of slavery and it's aftermath that's made disparate people/tribal groups into a basic identity, with various subgroups and identities. This has been the foundation of a political solidarity that made the Civil Rights Movement possible--something that has inspired peoples all over the world in their struggles for freedom. I remember talking with Palestinians in the Old City of Jerusalem and they commonly referring to me as "brother"--many of whom would, by phenotype, would be considered "white" in this country. "African American" culture is grounded in Africa but is also of the American experience. "African Americans" only have to travel to find out how American they are culturally; and non-Americans understand better than whites in this country how African American culture is at the core of "Americaness."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profile_gates.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/about.html
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/ANTH/faculty/fjackson --a biological anthropologist consulted on the series.

Thanks for the links


by the way, good post.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Sista

Sociological construction, please break down what that means to you? I would like to make sure that I am comprehending at the same perception, frame of mind as you? I just want to be sure of what that means to you, sociological construction?

Meaning, there is no biological basis where one can distinguish different groups of people based on race. There is no single gene or set of genes that determines one as being white, black, asian, etc. The distinctions often alluded to when people speak of race or phenotypical, and at best they are far from perfect indicators of race. What one thinks of as being (racially) black, latino, asian, etc. was at one point prescribed.

Originally Posted by Sista

I am going to have to ask you for the source for which genetic testing center did Henry Louis gates use because I have researched many DNA testing centers and none of them have the worlds population of DNA on file let alone a subsection. It is not an easy thing to approach foreign people and ask them for their blood, so you can store it in your bank.

Any way, that wouldn't be an easy thing to do even if you had an interpret present. Some people will give up their blood for such a cause but not all of them. This is why most DNA testing centers do not have certain blood types and therefore cannot tell you about your ancestry if they do not have A DNA match for you on file. DNA testing centers for genetics makes that very clear before they test you for your DNA match.

Any way, how could it on one hand be world's population and sub section at the same time? Doesn't sound to specific or clear. I detect a huge flaw. Is it worlds population or a sub section of the world? When you had the test done, did you only test for African Ancestry or was it a much broader test like that done in the mini series?

I need a source to check this out for my self.
As I finish up this post, I am googling, trying to find that source for my self, have any suggestions on where to start?

I said a subsection of the world's population to indicate that not every single last person in the world has "donated" their DNA to be stored/tested, but that a representative sample of the DNA of the multitude peoples that populate the earth were used. As far as the name of the testing center that was used, I can't tell you with 100% accuracy, but if it is not mentioned in the mini-series, you can attempt to contact the various entities/individuals that worked on the project.

Originally Posted by Sista

What exactly was the comparison?

The comparison was the DNA of the individual participants to that of the samples on file.

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I said a subsection of the world's population to indicate that not every single last person in the world has "donated" their DNA to be stored/tested, but that a representative sample of the DNA of the multitude peoples that populate the earth were used.

That would be obvious that not every single last person in the world has donated their DNA. So are you saying that a percentage of people from every ethnic group in the world, continent to continent has donated DNA? That is what I am now understanding you to say.

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

The comparison was the DNA of the individual participants to that of the samples on file.

Individual participants? Were they of Euroepan decent?