You give more credence to a bureaucrat census-taker (lol) who in those days might have labelled practically anyone with brown skin, "mulatto", than your own mother & grandfather?
(I only doubt people who I know are not very intelligent, suffer from severe mental illness, are motivated by things like greed or lust, or are simply habitual liars. People do make mistakes, but you accused your grandfather of lying. Hmm.)
Also, I assure you that Indian ancestry didn't elevate a person's status to any higher levels than African ancestry did, in times past. My mother treated the subject like taboo. So, there was not much logic in choosing one over the other, to cover it up.
(How old are you? You didn't live through the Civil Rights movement, with all the riots & stuff, did you? You've been brought up on PC tolerance, & don't believe that discrimination even exists, do you?
Yet, you seem to think there would have been some reason for Native American ancestry to carry more status than African. Why? It isn't because it did so, many years ago! Only since the casinos made a bunch of Indians rich, has anyone really thought it might be a good thing...lol).
Also, since African DNA has a more ancient origin, doesn't it make logical sense that some percentage (however small or rare) of that mtDNA would have survived the processes of mutation, in practically ~any~ given demographic?
So logically, there ought to be nominal percentages of at least a few of the older haplogroups in the indigenous populations of nearly any geographic region. (Unless you also dispute the 'Out of Africa' theory of Human migration?)
To AnnTurner: I understand now (through my own research), that mothers' two X chromosomes are recombined in their ova. I appreciate your attempts to enlighten me on that detail.
However, can you give me solid referential *proof* that the mtDNA genome isn't also copied (having been preserved during the recombination process) in the X chromosomes? I understand that there are genes that haven't been decoded as of yet.
That may seem like a dumb question, but when I look online I find NO discussion about the possibility. It's as if no one knows, or no one has bothered to pose that question! (I would think it might be one of those questions that the experts would get quite often, from schoolchildren at least, and would want to explain to us lay people - especially if there really is an obvious answer.)
I understand that in fact most mitochondrial processes are coded in some of the nuclear genes. I suspect they're probably encoded in the *X* chromosomes of both, men & women. That must be the reason both men & women possess X chromosomes in their cells. (Logically, they shouldn't be found coded on Y chromosomes, but I suppose I could be mistaken.)