Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

I Told Deinekes'... But He Won't Be Told Anything

I replied to this blog on Deinekes, because I'm quite alarmed by what they're doing to Native Americans and to the supposed "scientific" definition of what it means to be an Amerindian.  You're damn right, it's important.  They've done not just American Indians of every tribe, but the whole World, a grave disservice, by manipulating the facts and by treating one particular set of Human beings as if we possess less mental and emotional ~integrity than all others.  They've done this to cover up their own lack of integrity, their greed.  What they're doing, is dismissing all DNA that doesn't fit their preconceived definition of Native American.  Regarding mtDNA, that means anything not in the A, B, C, or D clusters (they're also very surreptitiously sweeping the X cluster aside,  now too -- it is rarely mentioned at all, with the excuse being that they're studying only tribes not "known" to have that particular hg within the populations).

"No 'Amerindian' (either Northern or Southern), indicates the major flaws and blatant bias in your theory.  You can't force Native American DNA's definition to match "Siberian" or whatever.  You can't call that "science".  You can't allow some flimsy excuses for devaluing the testimony of Native Americans, compared with other ethnic groups -- that's discrimination, and it's just wrong.

"Here's just an example of how data is being manipulated by geneticists; notice the list of "alochtonous" haplogroups reported in this study... One of which happens to be my own, W1e (at least tentatively, until further testing or classification proves otherwise -- remember, at the beginning mine was reported by Family Tree DNA and the Genographic Project, as "X").  For years now, geneticists studying Native American DNA have been dismissing all data which doesn't fit their extremely narrow and prejudiced definition of the term.  More often than not however, there is little or no mention of what is really going on behind the scenes.  This paper is somewhat more revealing:
(Table 1)"

Deinekes won't be informed of the facts; when he disagrees with them, he simply kills the messengers.  I've been banned from that blog, so I have to discuss my concerns here.

UPDATE:  With typical inconsistency and confusion, Deinekes' allowed my comment to be published afterall.  P.Conroy's reply was interesting although very neatly pat, cut and dried; but extremely circuitous and ignorant of the facts in my case.  They don't seem to get the point, that my gg-grandmother was Cherokee who spoke the language and whose surname Bird, was also Anglicized Cherokee.  I believe it was Bryan Sykes who said, that mtDNA cannot be used to verify anyone's ethnicity, yet they again and again try to use it ~against my claim of Native American ancestry.  I'm not claiming that my mtDNA is Cherokee (it can be lots of things, depending on where certain ancestors ended up historically and geographically); only that my gg-grandmother from whom I inherited it was Cherokee.  Also, he doesn't at all attempt to answer my main complaint in my comment, which is the shoddy science behind the research and the discriminatory and frankly disrespectful attitudes they take with Native Americans.  These are attitudes that one doesn't often find in research of other ethnic groups.


"I see you are mtDNA W1e and your profile says your maternal ancestral name was "Bird".

"My Father has 9 mtDNA W as follows:
W1 x 4 - 2 Dutch and 2 Unknown
W1c x 5 - 3 German and 2 Irish

"My Mother has 11 mtDNA W as follows:
W1 x 8 - 1 Polish, 1 Scottish, 4 Irish, 2 Unknown
W1c x 3 - 2 Irish and 1 Unknown

"So the mtDNA haplogroup is mostly Irish, German or Dutch.

"Here is the distribution of the name "Bird" in Ireland:

"In some parts of the country it is of English descent, but in most of the country it is simply an Anglicization of the Irish name "Mac An Aen" (Literally "Son of the Bird"), which is sometimes listed today as:

"So I'd say your maternal Cherokee ancestry goes back to Ireland."

I'm supposed to be satisfied with such a facile, glib, and ignorant response?  I'm glad I didn't have to pay for that information.  Anyway, I get no indication whether or not my comments are being received over there (hence the confusion), but we'll see if this one gets published:

"pconroy, very generous of you to offer your interesting opinion about my personal ancestry, although that wasn't the main point of my comment.  I'd already gathered that there's probably a relationship between some Cherokee and some Irish or other indigenous types of Europeans, which I believe was pre-Columbian in origin.

"By the way, the Cherokee surname, "Bird", is yet another Anglicization: of the Cherokee matrilineal Bird Clan, "Anitsiskwa".  While it's unlikely that gg-grandmother was herself from that clan, her family somehow ended up with that surname anyway, as an adaptation to the Patriarchal system of family relationships.  (It's more likely that she or one of her female ancestors was ~married to a man from that particular clan, at the time the surname was adopted.)

""Bird" is a very, very common Cherokee surname, one of the Anglicized ones.  I've traced many branches of my family tree as far back as the 12th century; but that one is extremely difficult.  I can't get past my gg-grandmother's and her husband's (also Cherokee) generation, on that one.  All of the politics and racism surrounding Native Ancestry, both now and then, is a large part of the problem."

UPDATE:  According to my most recent mtDNA analysis at mitohap (James Lick's site), I'm probably an X2m1 now.  There are many similarities in my DNA, between both X and W clades (it contains the signature motifs for both groups) -- so, it's more difficult to classify without further testing.

No comments:

Post a Comment