No. I am 100% scandinavian since whenever, and knew that without a doubt from normal geneaology that I can follow down to late medieval times on many branches. I took the dna test to make sure that my maternal grandfather was who I thought. He was, and I am satisfied. DNA also says that my oldest ancestors to the most part are north european hunter-gatherers.
I think it's important to realize that these companies which charge for a given sample of genetic material for analysis have only a limited data base. Meaning, three quarters of the world to which to any test might respond is beyond the reach of the computers.
I think of it this way: Is a red rose a different "race" than a yellow rose? There may be a genetic factor that determines the color, but they are both beautiful. Same with people. How boring it would be without diversity. We are all one race, but we come in a lovely variety of colors and features.
I like the sentiment of what you're trying to say. Skampis is correct that roses are different species, they are of the same genius. So, the sentiment still holds true- appreciate the variety of the human race.
Nationality is 1) where you were born and 2) where you are a citizen and feel You belong. I used to work with a man from Serbia who came to Australia for a holiday. He told me that as soon as he got here he Knew this was where he belongs. He isnow an Australian citizen and considers himself to be Australian not Serbian.
Very interesting subject you are discusing . Not many people have the maturity to discuss this subject. DNA does not have anything to do with culture . That is racial profiling, completely subjective ,"biased" . Not all Africans are black. Someone can be native american practicing Judaism, but that does not make him Semitic. Again culture nor place of birth determine race . Thank you for sharing .
Thanks for watching and showing your appreciation for my work. If you find value in our work, consider checking out my videos about building a genetic family tree ruclips.net/p/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI Or my wife's videos about building a genealogical family tree. ruclips.net/video/Fx2Tff-R-yI/видео.html
Hello, I am more like your sister-in--law. Did a DNA test and I am 54.1% Mexican but then a whole hodge-podge of other ethnicities, Columbian, Peruvian, Pure Indigenous of the Americas (4.6% which I thought I was at least half), Italian, Eastern Slavic, English, Spanish (2.5% which shocked me I thought I was at least 50%), Jewish (another shock), Sri Lankan Tamil (very little but still a shock). I knew there was Italian on my mother's side so no surprise there. I'm in my 60s now but ever since I was in my twenties, people have always asked me "What am I" and have said I look Italian, and the older I got said I looked Middle Eastern, so I guess because of the wide mix, it makes sense that I could be mistaken for anything except pure White or pure Black, even though I know there is no such thing as pure anything, but you know what I mean. I don't know what to call myself anymore, what group would I fall into? My sister looks more Philipino and just sent her kit in and we are curious to see what her ethnic breakdown will be.
You know what the great thing is, you can be whatever you wish. My sister-in-law is Mexican-American. She loves that she has such diversity but her heritage is Mexican (because that's where she was born and lived for 15 years of her live) and American (because she's lived in the US since she was 16. Meanwhile, my wife claims that she's not German, English, etc. She claims that she's Texan. Granted she was only raised there and had two children in the state. But, she claims Texan as her heritage. Boy, long-time Texas residents are a wee bit too prideful, dont' you think?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics That's funny about your wife. Pure Texan all the way! My cousin moved to Texas from California and he just loves it. Must be something in the water. lol. I was born and raised in California, but he is trying ever so hard to get me to move to Texas! Anyway, thank you for your comments. I love watching your videos and learning more about DNA.
I took an Ancestry test and also uploaded my results to My Heritage. My parents are both Ashkenazi Jewish but on Ancestry, I came up with 39% DNA from West Africa (mainly Cameroon, Nigeria and Benin/Togo). On My Heritage it came out to about 37% African DNA. Both sites gave 1-2% North Africa with My Heritage classifying that North African DNA as Sephardic. I am not counting this as part of the African DNA as this can make logical sense based on migration patterns of Jews. Is it possible that this is an error? The other 50% (51% on Ancestry and 54% on My Heritage) is Ashkenazi/European Jewish. Meaning if African DNA comes up, is there an explanation that makes sense if you don’t have any African ancestry at all? Both sides of my family are recent immigrants. My maternal grandparents were born in Poland. My dad knew the Russian Jewish immigrant grandparents in his family.
Ashkenazi Jewish is a very recognizable genetic cluster due to due to strong endogamy among Jewish community, Ancestry are reliable for recent ethnicity prediction, if you have 39% West African, it does mean that you have some recent West African ancestors. However, its possible that an error occurred somewhere.
You have more west African than me. My father is African American. Maybe you should have a chat with your mother. Your results are indicative of someone with an African American parent
Update: One of my maternal ancestors, who was born to Irish immigrant parents, might have had some Iberian Peninsula ancestry. I have a picture of her in a newspaper clipping as a young woman with dark hair and thick dark eyebrows. There were people from that region who migrated to Ireland, if I'm not mistaken. In addition, there's a lot of overlap with North Africa.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics My DNA results weren't typically what I expected. None of my English/German showed up like it did for my sister's test. My test results almost didn't resemble who I thought I knew I was which is a really strange thing to say. My results were as follows and so far I can't seem to make any family connections from my admixture, except for maybe my Finnish which was a totally unexpected anomaly: Polynesian 82.1 Finnish 7.8 Indonesian/Malay/Philippines 4.8 North Africa 4.2 Nigeria 1.1 The Finnish percentage I suspect to come from my German side, and funnily enough I've been trying to find the parents of my 3great grandfather who emigrated to the islands some time during the mid-late 1800s during the German Administration in Samoa. It's been really frustrating because there are multiple online family trees attributed to this ancestor but every single tree point to different sets of parents hence parishes. The only clue I feel to take stock of is an old wedding photograph provided to our collective family on FB by a person who claims to be a German relative and who has verbally described the who is who in the photograph and an approximate date taken, and a family chronicles document with a list of various names, dates and comments spanning the late 1700s right up to 1940s. I was able to methodically take all the names and plug them into separate family trees/branches which was really useful for when I went through the chat description of the wedding photo itself. My Finnish result seems to corroborate the specific family branch that the photo had led me to, and not only that, I'm trying to determine which generation my ancestor would be attached to because two generations with the same first name of interest but dates don't quite match up in terms of likely births. The generation above that I had been contemplating, the "mother"s maiden name turns out to be Swedish and Finnish of all things! The timeliness of how all this information became highlighted to me and how my DNA results came back a week earlier than expected is just amazing. It makes me wonder if I have found the right branch and thus parents of my ancestor. The other thing though is I saw a 3rd cousin who is also a descendant of this ancestor had uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch so I ran a comparison hoping to see where we match up and it seems we do not match in my Finnish areas but we seem to match in the SE Asian parts!! So that's interesting and it means potentially I can narrow down again who this SE Asian marker comes from and it has to be the females on our paternal line of this family tree. I suspect knowing that our German heritage was Lutheran and given the vast admixture throughout Europe during the crusades that my North African percentage may not be so far fetched? Thank you for sharing your Mexican sister in law's DNA. Hers looks very colourful like mine, which is strange since I only had 5 groups really show up in my ethnicity. I'm waiting for my sister to upload her DNA to Gedmatch so that we can compare our shared segments and hopefully narrow things further for our genealogy. I need to understand Gedmatch!! I'll be going through your tutorials very closely. Thank you for being so generous in the content you make to help us beginners navigate the complex world of family history!
This was very well done, great work! Some folks may also not understand we mostly show dna results from the last few generations, generally. So there are ancestors we would not be aware of where their origins were from. Likewise, in some cases, dna has been past down to us for thousands of years, that we can identify. I'm referring to sites like mytrueancestry and such. When looking at all this, although not a complete picture, it is hard not to have a little humility in this world. That's if one is being sincere. Great work as always!
I have a question, If I got a hair from my dead father could a DNA kit extract the DNA from it if I put it in the DNA kit you send, Couldn't find anywhere to ask this question
On the one hand, it can, but I would not welcome the challenge of being an adoptee who is from a place like my sister-in-law. Where would she search with so much diveristy?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I suppose your mileage will vary with this. In the case of my family member she appears to be mixed race. Then being adopted by a US family we felt this was likely. So for awhile I searched to see if it was possible she has family in the US. When she took her 23andme test it came back like 98% Japanese and 2% Korean. Then I had to refocus my search and it became much harder but focused in a much smaller area. Your case would be more of a puzzle, I would look at the matches and compare her ethnic breakdown to her matches and also where they live. I would contact the closer matches and also ask about grandparents too. People move around. I would try to see if I could find any patterns.
I had my DNA tested from a couple of different companies, and uploaded to a few other companies, and the ethnicity estimates are only broadly similar in the main, but down around the sub-10% level the estimates from the several different companies show virtually no similarities at all, some estimating some non-european ancestry and some estimating only eurpoean ancestry, and of the ones that estimate a few percent non-european ancestry they don't agree with each other at all with regard to which non-european groups they may be (even differing with regard to continent.) One needs to take the ethnicity estimates with more than a pinch of salt. On the other hand, for identifying blood relatives they are amazingly powerful, in my case finding several long-lost relatives.
I have a question. Let’s say I wanted to know how white I am genetically but not ethnically (I don’t think ethnicity determines your skin color as one can be classified as African but that doesn’t make them black) how can I do that and is it possible? So if I wanted a dna test to show me how white I am (not ethnically) would that mean I want it to show my race? I know race has no genetic basis and if me wanting a dna test to show how white I means I want it to show me my race, then it probably won’t be able to do that. Also, can someone be fully of one skin color? I remember seeing a study saying that they had dna results showing black people who are as much as 99.9% black, does this mean people can be fully of one skin color as in 100% of a skin color with no skin other than that one skin color that they’re of?
In simpler words, can a dna test show me how much I am of a skin color and not just of how much I am of a region which is associated with a skin color? And is it possible to be 100% of a skin color as it’s possible to be 99.9 of a skin color?
I looked it up and apparently dna test can’t tell me my racial make-up and not even my ethnicity. It can only tell me how much of a chance I have of being an ethnicity, and that’s not the same as being that ethnicity since just because I have a chance at being something that doesn’t mean that I am that something. So I was wondering, if dna can’t tell me of what ethnicity I am (since it only gives a guess to how much of a chance I have of being that ethnicity) what can? Can I get a genotype test (if such thing even exists) to see how much I’m white
You are so correct. That's what Iike about DNA is that it's not political or bias, you are who your genetics are, but social constructs create race. Yep.
Very informative and contextual! But don't let the exceptions negate the rule which is to say that a celt and a slav are not as different as a slav and an east-Asian. There are broadly defined racial categories (European) and specifically defined racial categories (scandinavian) and thus race as a biological classification exists. ✌️
Your point leads into my teaching that says DNA tests help you connect at a continental level to your origins, but most locations beyond that becomes a bit dicey. We're comparing our DNA to people in reference populations who intermixed with others.
I know this is a year late due to just stumbling on this video; however, your comment regarding "don't let the exceptions negate the rule" would not apply here. Race as a biological classification has be debunked by Genetics time and time again. Yes, you can categorized everyone based on average differences and genetic markers...but that quite literally means everyone. Classification isn't strictly defined in DNA and broad traits such as skin tone, eye color, hair etc are shaped by environmental pressures not by some in innate subspecies categorization. The andamanes, Sami, Anui, San etc are all great examples of having traits that would put them in one racial box, while having DNA cluster that puts them much closer to a different region than traditional racial categories would have. And this is all to say that human genetic diversity is so small that a family of chimps tend to have more diversity. From that standpoint alone, it is very clear that "race" in the traditional sense is based largely (if not entirely in many cases) on social perception. Even the term "race" varies greatly from society to society.
Yes, that is exactly what they tell you. With the caveat that those people used as the reference population have at least a couple of generations of their ancestors all living in the same place.
This overlap (both phenotypic and genetic) between populations (like races, ethnic or geographic groups, etc.) is doubtless and well-known - it’s also called clinal or gradual variability. But it doesn’t mean that we cannot distinguish between races. Neither it means that races are senseless - even if it is a social concept. When we look at the rainbow, we can easily see 7 colors - despite that color chart is also a gradient without clean boundaries. Same with races - you will easily tell Andamanese from Finn (Baltic sub-race), although it’s not always easy to distinguish between Baltic and Atlantic sub-races (like, Finn and Scott). The key concept is to define races by probability-based population approach, instead of traditional typology approach. This means, you don’t attempt to identify clearly each person’s race based on his individual features. Instead, you study different populations to evaluate the population average and the variability range for key racial markers. As a result, you can assess the probability of exact person to belong to some race or sub-race, by comparing his features with population averages and ranges. Phenotypic markers (like, eye color, skin color, hair color and type, head and body metrics, etc.) are related to physical anthropology. There are also some biochemical markers like blood type, etc. But how does it all correlate with genetics? In theory, most of physical markers are encoded by genes. In practice, it’s not always understood, how exactly the specific marker is encoded. Sometimes, we even may estimate eye and hair color of neandertal man from his DNA test. But at most, it’s still a challenge for future studies. In Russia, I guess, racism never has been on top of our social issues (we’ve got a lot of other instead, though…). As such, public mind doesn’t mix up physical anthropology and racial studies with racism here. We have some great racial scientists - like Bunak, Alekseev and, in our time, Stanislav Drobyshevskiy. Stanislav is an expert on popular website antropogenez.ru/anthropology-engl/ There are also his lectures on racial science on ruclips.net/video/z1G9RlPq6s0/видео.html - unfortunately, in Russian only. And his books are also yet to be translated.
The problem with the rainbow analogy, is you don't see seven colors with distinct dividing lines. You see an entire spectrum of colors and the way the colors are aligned because of their electromagnetic wave properties, they blend together at the boundaries (i.e. yellow-orange is a different color than yellow or orange). The way that race has been talked about historically is always a definitive dividing line. Black, white, Asian. These are convoluted with geographic or geopolitical terms. No one has come up with a widely accepted definition of race that can be used to describe the human population.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Andy, I apologize for my late reply - I’ve just looked for some literature, to check my understanding. I really wonder why you are confused with all this. When we predict ancestry by DNA test results, we also realize that ethnic or geographic populations are blend together at their boundaries. It may confuse sometimes, but it doesn’t make ancestry prediction completely useless. It is not absolute, the probability is less then 100% - but it still makes sense! It’s important to define - what exactly do we mean when we talk about “races”. If someone considered races as "subspecies" of humanity, which were divided millions of years ago, internally homogeneous and strictly different from each other - this approach, of course, is nonsense, which has been refuted by archeology and paleogenetics, and has long been abandoned. Moreover, in scientific racial studies, the superiority of some races over others has not been seriously discussed for a long time. For a racial scientist (at least in Russia), the understanding of "race" is more consistent with the term "ancestry” - that is, a population with a common origin and geographic range, having a certain set of specific inherited traits, but interacting with other populations. This is not about “isolation” or even “superiority”. This is about diversity! This may be easily illustrated. When you see a person or, even better, a group of people of the same origin - you usually may roughly guess, where are they from, just by their appearance, without asking them anything (or testing their DNA). And your guess will usually be right or close to the truth. But the appearance is, in other words, a visual summary of racial parameters. So, racial parameters are good enough to predict ethnic or geographic origin. And predictable power is, itself, a well-accepted criterion of scientific objectivity. One more point is that White, Black, Asian, Hispanic - these are words from everyday use, but not scientific terms related to racial studies. If you told racial scientist about “Black race”, he would ask you, what did you mean? Congoid? Khoisan? Ethiopic? Dravidian (like Kamala Harris)? Melanesian? Papuan? Australian? Tasmanian? Andamanese? All these are distinct races, each defined by a list of parameters, not only by their skin color. When someone call another person “black” in New Orlean or in Capetown, or in Dehli, or in Jakarta - he means different things, depends on his own ethnic, religious or geopolitical reasons. But when racial scientist attributes a person (or fossils of a person) to Papuan race - he is based on the list of parameters (like cranial, body and limbs proportions, skin, eyes, hair, and even dental and dactylogram features), but not on his own personal reasons.
Also, Research the article "Is the Out of Africa Theory Out? in Scientific American on August 8, 2007. Says: An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia.
This is an interesting video. What you're saying is true in that race is a social construction and most people before the colonization of the New World went by tribe, ethnicity or today country. I've done AncestryDNA because I was adopted and wanted to find my biological relatives which I did and found a lot of things that confirmed my roots with my parental lineage on both sides. The interesting thing is that I define myself as a Pre Civil Black War Black American Population Descendant on both sides of my parental lineage aka "African American." Most of us from that population has numerous tribes that we're admixtured with mostly from West and Central Africa but with exceptions, we have European Admixture that is recent compared to other ethnicities but usually not as recent as our West and Central African Ancestry. The main issues are that because of this history, it's a natural thing to try to find what our true identity is as a community and that's where these discussions devolve into.
Excellent example of the confusing nature. Contrast your ancestry with former President Barack Obama. His father was Kenyan and his mother of European descent. Both you and he would be considered African American in common parlance. However, your genetic makeup is vastly different with almost no overlap. (Most people don't realize that the genetic difference between western Africans and eastern Africans is larger than the difference between Irish/Scottish and Balkan populations.) Africa is a wonderful case study in race/genetics. On the surface, (i.e. skin color) there are at least 5 distinct populations in Africa (not including the European colonists, some of whom have been there for nearly a thousand years). Taking away the North African/Middle Eastern and Madagascar/Indonesian populations which are clearly descendants of the East African population, there are still 3 major population groups who are as genetically dissimilar as any two population groups in the world. The only defining characteristic they have in common is dark skin and hair (and even that has a large variability in shades of black/brown).
Race is an artificial construct. However I did take a DNA test to identify the level of my European ancestry so I could narrow down little known family connections.
Race is defined by people and it can and has changed; so the best reason to take a DNA test is to find family relationships that we didn't know we had. That seems to be what you've discovered with your research.
Race is a variation within a species, basically the same shit as breed, just a more humanized version, basically, race is just a more humanized synonym of the word breed
The question is in regards to race you do see fundamental differences facial bone structures you see some fundamental differences in eye shapes you see some fundamental differences in color of skin varying depths of color so the way you're explaining this does not answer the questions of the things I mentioned above there has to be some distinct DNA differences especially in bone structure like somebody that has giganticism there is a DNA thing for that to indicate that somebody has this and that's why we get the few people that end up almost 9 ft tall they have that gene that turns something off and allows them to grow more but that would be a DNA example
What you're talking about isn't necessarily tied to race, as much as genes that call for these physical features. And many races will have 'unexpected' colors and features due to mutations. As stated in the video, race is defined by humans. However, you can see how physical features are either passed down, or mutated from parents.
No. Myself and my aunt who are Irish are suddenly Scottish with very little Irish as of last month on Ancestry. Yes I know we have close ties with Scotland. We were born and raised in Ireland, my family are well accounted for. Only Scottish I have found is one person in the early 1800's who then moved to Ireland
Nice presentation. It is informative to look in Wikipedia under Race (human categorization). The term originally meant those who spoke a common language. By the 17th century it was being used based on physical traits. It then states "race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning." Basically the term is untenable and based on pseudoscience. What does make sense is ethnicity, which is the term now being used by Ancestry, MyHeritage, etc. Ethnicity can be based on geography, religion, social customs, etc. For example, an African-American may share most of their DNA with someone from Nigeria, but the term African-American also includes recognition of an experience that includes slavery and its confrontation of biases in America. In my opinion when people refer to races-it is racist. So the answer to the question of whether DNA can prove your race the answer is yes. If you have 23 pairs of chromosomes you are part of the human race.
You can take a DNA test to link up with relatives, if they have taken DNA tests. That's the best reason to take a DNA test. If that doesn't help, let your life experiences and your loved ones shape your identity.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics we took the DNA test I have uploaded mine to my channel but it's super mixed so I don't know which race I identify with. Could it be biracial?
I've always said there is only 1 Race, & that is the Human Race. Colour / pigment of skin etc should not make anyone else less or more important than anyone else. we may have different classes of people & different Ethnicities, but as far as race is concerned, we are all one.
Thanks for sharing your sentiment. I think many people are trying to learn their connections to the past. Unfortunately, the specific heritage groups are not as easy to identify as many people hope.
On a technical level what you say makes sense and I completely agree. However I do think humans like to make distinctions and it is obvious when you see a Dark Skinned African and a Pale Skinned European that they are different, its noticeable. What is not nearly so noticeable or quantifiable are mixed people. Where does black end and white begin? That's where the racial aspect falls apart somewhat. Of course you can make distinctions but we shouldn't expect them to be all encompassing.
Hello, i am swabian and Hungarian, i live in the part that was called swabian-turkish part, people say i look VERY turkish even turkish people themselfes said it, the part im in was invaded by ottomans and was called that, does me being swabic here makes me a bit turkish?
I have never been checked, i do know im a bit swabian and Hungarian but i am not sure about turkish if people says i look like that and i live at the part of my country that had swabian-turkish people
How do mix people have a particular race! My ethnic groups are across Africa, Europe, Central Asia, Native American, and Southeast Asian. So basically I am to me genetically: Afroeuroasian, but in the New World since I also a Latin American background, I am Hispanic which basically means ancestors from two and three continents.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Oh yes, I agree. Race and heritage are different. You are doing a great job and love your videos. I am not expecting you to answer all of the questions about human genetics and migrations. lol I appreciate your honest feedback too.
there are people from different continents that display similar phenotypes race is not cut and dry Melanesians and Sub Saharan Africans have been lumped into black before even though Eurasians are more genetically close to Sub Saharan Africans than Europeans are
I was having a debate with someone , are Jews a race or religion ? My DNA test concluded I'm 20% Ashkanazi Jewish. But it doesn't say what percentage is Catholic , even though I have ancestors from the Irish Republic. Just shows me on the map where they were settled.
Jews can be a religion and a race. With Ashkenazi Jewish, they were a group that was rather isolated and intermarried so much that their genetic markers have become distinct from other Jewish communities. Thus, you can see that your DNA matches people from that particular region who practiced that faith. With Irish, they didn't intermarry and keep separate based on religion so you're not going to see Irish Catholic vs Irish Protestant in DNA markers.
@nutcracker2916 Jews can be caucasians, orientals (indigenous of America’s are coming from their dna), blacks. It’s like what happens in USA and Brazil, for example. Jews are NOT a “race”. Do NOT forget the World War II and all the RACISM against Jewish people, the n4zis (the National Socialist German’s Worker’s Party) used to consider them as another “race”.
Race is a term that is mostly used in U.S.A. At least officially. It is an English term that should be put on the "Taboo" list just as "Nigro" and "Black" have been. In fact you people who live in U.S.A. should work at getting those terms out of official use... Race, and every term that has been used to name "each race" Ethnicity is another term that should not be in use at all. Skin color is an adaptation to the environment... that is all. Human Sapient is a single species branch... the homo genus has only one living species in it and that single species has no sub-species. We are human. As for what markers are found on our DNA... The only thing that matters are what markers make those who have those markers more able to grow up and grow old... are the markers that are "good" to have.
You could have shown genetic clusters of what we consider races today on a pca and you would have been able to clearly differentiate them, with those between simply being mixed race. But you could say that those with minimal admixture from other groups still belong to the same racial group. And your illustration doesn't show how far away some races are from others, for e.g. Africans are super distant from every other group, but Europeans and Middle Easterners are not that far away. Race is real and any attempt to deny it is simply semantics.
Depends on who you talk to. Nationality is usually defined as citizenship or origin from a specific country. Race is really hazy because there is no clear cut delineator of race.
When it comes to ethnicity results, I'm not confident they are always accurate. However, with DNA matching to close relatives, DNA doesn't lie. But it always doesn't reveal the whole truth. That's where DNA-based family tree building skills are needed. ruclips.net/p/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI
@Racialist Slayer, actually studies have shown that east asians (a race) have the highest neanderthal dna out of any other race, so if races don't exist, wouldn't it make more sense for all humans to have no neanderthal dna rather than some breeds having more than others, since woke liberals like you think we all the same
@Racialist Slayer, also that 3-5% variance only applies to those with a small percentage of another race, for example, african americans on average have 15-25% anglo-saxon european dna based on the fact that they were raped during transatlantic slavery, so african americans are not pure black and therefore your argument does stand in some instance, but like i said, its hypocritical to think that human races are not like dog races when some humans have been isolated from each other for nearly millions of years, causing mutations to occur between those seperated humans
In reality, there aren't different races of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There's very little genetic diversity amongst humans living today compared with other species.
Am I the only one that thinks race is a social construct? Why wouldn't humans create the race ideology to make themselves feel like they belong to a certain group? Everyone just wants to be accepted and loved and for thousands of years it was easiest to do that with people that look like you and have your cultural values.
If by social construct you mean that race is specified because a group of people say that it is so, then yes, Race could be a social construct. However, DNA diverges as it has migrated with people around the globe and you can see where certain DNA can trace back to. I'm not sure that is a social construct as rather migration groups.
QOTD: Did you take a DNA test to determine your race or ethnicity?
Ethnicity
@@andreaa.g.giovannetti I took one for ethnicity, too.
No. I am 100% scandinavian since whenever, and knew that without a doubt from normal geneaology that I can follow down to late medieval times on many branches. I took the dna test to make sure that my maternal grandfather was who I thought. He was, and I am satisfied. DNA also says that my oldest ancestors to the most part are north european hunter-gatherers.
@@stardust86x You and me both! LOL!
i took one for race and it was 60% native and 29% caucasian, im mestiza
I think it's important to realize that these companies which charge for
a given sample of genetic material for analysis have only a limited data base.
Meaning, three quarters of the world to which to any test might respond is beyond the reach of the computers.
Which is why many of them are reaching out to different populations around the world and then updating their ethnicity estimate as new data comes in.
I think of it this way: Is a red rose a different "race" than a yellow rose? There may be a genetic factor that determines the color, but they are both beautiful. Same with people. How boring it would be without diversity. We are all one race, but we come in a lovely variety of colors and features.
The roses are literally different species dude. Whatever you said doesn't make sense
I like the sentiment of what you're trying to say. Skampis is correct that roses are different species, they are of the same genius. So, the sentiment still holds true- appreciate the variety of the human race.
@@skampis3554... still are roses.
I started dna testing to find origin of my surname, since then, i am using it to help find living cousins and breakdown brick walls
A fantastic reason to use DNA.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics what ia exactly Nationality?
What is Nationality?
Nationality is 1) where you were born and 2) where you are a citizen and feel You belong.
I used to work with a man from Serbia who came to Australia for a holiday. He told me that as soon as he got here he Knew this was where he belongs. He isnow an Australian citizen and considers himself to be Australian not Serbian.
Very interesting subject you are discusing . Not many people have the maturity to discuss this subject.
DNA does not have anything to do with culture . That is racial profiling, completely subjective ,"biased" .
Not all Africans are black.
Someone can be native american practicing Judaism, but that does not make him Semitic. Again culture nor place of birth determine race .
Thank you for sharing .
Thanks for watching and showing your appreciation for my work. If you find value in our work, consider checking out my videos about building a genetic family tree ruclips.net/p/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI
Or my wife's videos about building a genealogical family tree. ruclips.net/video/Fx2Tff-R-yI/видео.html
Love the background. Thank you, Steve.
Who is Steve?
Nicely described! A genealogist's perspective on this topic is valid and important. Thanks :))
My pleasure!
Hello, I am more like your sister-in--law. Did a DNA test and I am 54.1% Mexican but then a whole hodge-podge of other ethnicities, Columbian, Peruvian, Pure Indigenous of the Americas (4.6% which I thought I was at least half), Italian, Eastern Slavic, English, Spanish (2.5% which shocked me I thought I was at least 50%), Jewish (another shock), Sri Lankan Tamil (very little but still a shock). I knew there was Italian on my mother's side so no surprise there. I'm in my 60s now but ever since I was in my twenties, people have always asked me "What am I" and have said I look Italian, and the older I got said I looked Middle Eastern, so I guess because of the wide mix, it makes sense that I could be mistaken for anything except pure White or pure Black, even though I know there is no such thing as pure anything, but you know what I mean. I don't know what to call myself anymore, what group would I fall into? My sister looks more Philipino and just sent her kit in and we are curious to see what her ethnic breakdown will be.
You know what the great thing is, you can be whatever you wish. My sister-in-law is Mexican-American. She loves that she has such diversity but her heritage is Mexican (because that's where she was born and lived for 15 years of her live) and American (because she's lived in the US since she was 16.
Meanwhile, my wife claims that she's not German, English, etc. She claims that she's Texan. Granted she was only raised there and had two children in the state. But, she claims Texan as her heritage. Boy, long-time Texas residents are a wee bit too prideful, dont' you think?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics That's funny about your wife. Pure Texan all the way! My cousin moved to Texas from California and he just loves it. Must be something in the water. lol. I was born and raised in California, but he is trying ever so hard to get me to move to Texas! Anyway, thank you for your comments. I love watching your videos and learning more about DNA.
Love the ending man really makes one feel nostalgia in the flesh.
I took an Ancestry test and also uploaded my results to My Heritage. My parents are both Ashkenazi Jewish but on Ancestry, I came up with 39% DNA from West Africa (mainly Cameroon, Nigeria and Benin/Togo). On My Heritage it came out to about 37% African DNA. Both sites gave 1-2% North Africa with My Heritage classifying that North African DNA as Sephardic. I am not counting this as part of the African DNA as this can make logical sense based on migration patterns of Jews. Is it possible that this is an error? The other 50% (51% on Ancestry and 54% on My Heritage) is Ashkenazi/European Jewish. Meaning if African DNA comes up, is there an explanation that makes sense if you don’t have any African ancestry at all? Both sides of my family are recent immigrants. My maternal grandparents were born in Poland. My dad knew the Russian Jewish immigrant grandparents in his family.
Africans are the real Hebrews
Your African is higher than a grandparent %. Is it possible you have a non expected parent?
Ashkenazi Jewish is a very recognizable genetic cluster due to due to strong endogamy among Jewish community, Ancestry are reliable for recent ethnicity prediction, if you have 39% West African, it does mean that you have some recent West African ancestors.
However, its possible that an error occurred somewhere.
Or someone in ur family line white pass . Also not all mix kids look mix can look 100 like dad or 100 like mom
You have more west African than me. My father is African American. Maybe you should have a chat with your mother. Your results are indicative of someone with an African American parent
Update: One of my maternal ancestors, who was born to Irish immigrant parents, might have had some Iberian Peninsula ancestry. I have a picture of her in a newspaper clipping as a young woman with dark hair and thick dark eyebrows. There were people from that region who migrated to Ireland, if I'm not mistaken. In addition, there's a lot of overlap with North Africa.
Very true. There is a lot of overlap between the European area and North Africa thanks to sea travel.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics For sure! :-)
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics My DNA results weren't typically what I expected. None of my English/German showed up like it did for my sister's test. My test results almost didn't resemble who I thought I knew I was which is a really strange thing to say.
My results were as follows and so far I can't seem to make any family connections from my admixture, except for maybe my Finnish which was a totally unexpected anomaly:
Polynesian 82.1
Finnish 7.8
Indonesian/Malay/Philippines 4.8
North Africa 4.2
Nigeria 1.1
The Finnish percentage I suspect to come from my German side, and funnily enough I've been trying to find the parents of my 3great grandfather who emigrated to the islands some time during the mid-late 1800s during the German Administration in Samoa. It's been really frustrating because there are multiple online family trees attributed to this ancestor but every single tree point to different sets of parents hence parishes.
The only clue I feel to take stock of is an old wedding photograph provided to our collective family on FB by a person who claims to be a German relative and who has verbally described the who is who in the photograph and an approximate date taken, and a family chronicles document with a list of various names, dates and comments spanning the late 1700s right up to 1940s. I was able to methodically take all the names and plug them into separate family trees/branches which was really useful for when I went through the chat description of the wedding photo itself. My Finnish result seems to corroborate the specific family branch that the photo had led me to, and not only that, I'm trying to determine which generation my ancestor would be attached to because two generations with the same first name of interest but dates don't quite match up in terms of likely births. The generation above that I had been contemplating, the "mother"s maiden name turns out to be Swedish and Finnish of all things! The timeliness of how all this information became highlighted to me and how my DNA results came back a week earlier than expected is just amazing. It makes me wonder if I have found the right branch and thus parents of my ancestor.
The other thing though is I saw a 3rd cousin who is also a descendant of this ancestor had uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch so I ran a comparison hoping to see where we match up and it seems we do not match in my Finnish areas but we seem to match in the SE Asian parts!! So that's interesting and it means potentially I can narrow down again who this SE Asian marker comes from and it has to be the females on our paternal line of this family tree.
I suspect knowing that our German heritage was Lutheran and given the vast admixture throughout Europe during the crusades that my North African percentage may not be so far fetched?
Thank you for sharing your Mexican sister in law's DNA. Hers looks very colourful like mine, which is strange since I only had 5 groups really show up in my ethnicity. I'm waiting for my sister to upload her DNA to Gedmatch so that we can compare our shared segments and hopefully narrow things further for our genealogy. I need to understand Gedmatch!! I'll be going through your tutorials very closely. Thank you for being so generous in the content you make to help us beginners navigate the complex world of family history!
@@FamilyHistoryFanaticsThank you your comment seems to corroborate my suspicions around my 4.2% north African result!
No. The company is making a mistake.
This was very well done, great work! Some folks may also not understand we mostly show dna results from the last few generations, generally. So there are ancestors we would not be aware of where their origins were from. Likewise, in some cases, dna has been past down to us for thousands of years, that we can identify. I'm referring to sites like mytrueancestry and such. When looking at all this, although not a complete picture, it is hard not to have a little humility in this world. That's if one is being sincere. Great work as always!
Thanks for your feedback.
I have a question, If I got a hair from my dead father could a DNA kit extract the DNA from it if I put it in the DNA kit you send, Couldn't find anywhere to ask this question
Watch this video ruclips.net/video/zYkJckKpgrE/видео.html
My father's sister and first cousin each tested 99% European and 1% Indigenous American.
Was that expected?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Yes. My 6th great-grandmother was a full-blooded Monacan Indian.
This is very important if you're adopted. It can make a huge difference in the direction of your search.
On the one hand, it can, but I would not welcome the challenge of being an adoptee who is from a place like my sister-in-law. Where would she search with so much diveristy?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I suppose your mileage will vary with this. In the case of my family member she appears to be mixed race. Then being adopted by a US family we felt this was likely. So for awhile I searched to see if it was possible she has family in the US. When she took her 23andme test it came back like 98% Japanese and 2% Korean. Then I had to refocus my search and it became much harder but focused in a much smaller area.
Your case would be more of a puzzle, I would look at the matches and compare her ethnic breakdown to her matches and also where they live.
I would contact the closer matches and also ask about grandparents too. People move around. I would try to see if I could find any patterns.
I had my DNA tested from a couple of different companies, and uploaded to a few other companies, and the ethnicity estimates are only broadly similar in the main, but down around the sub-10% level the estimates from the several different companies show virtually no similarities at all, some estimating some non-european ancestry and some estimating only eurpoean ancestry, and of the ones that estimate a few percent non-european ancestry they don't agree with each other at all with regard to which non-european groups they may be (even differing with regard to continent.) One needs to take the ethnicity estimates with more than a pinch of salt.
On the other hand, for identifying blood relatives they are amazingly powerful, in my case finding several long-lost relatives.
Well said. Congrats on finding the long lost relatives.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thanks.
I have a question. Let’s say I wanted to know how white I am genetically but not ethnically (I don’t think ethnicity determines your skin color as one can be classified as African but that doesn’t make them black) how can I do that and is it possible? So if I wanted a dna test to show me how white I am (not ethnically) would that mean I want it to show my race? I know race has no genetic basis and if me wanting a dna test to show how white I means I want it to show me my race, then it probably won’t be able to do that. Also, can someone be fully of one skin color? I remember seeing a study saying that they had dna results showing black people who are as much as 99.9% black, does this mean people can be fully of one skin color as in 100% of a skin color with no skin other than that one skin color that they’re of?
In simpler words, can a dna test show me how much I am of a skin color and not just of how much I am of a region which is associated with a skin color? And is it possible to be 100% of a skin color as it’s possible to be 99.9 of a skin color?
I don’t know if this is this the correct way to say it but genotypically can a person be 100% of one skin color such as black or white?
I looked it up and apparently dna test can’t tell me my racial make-up and not even my ethnicity. It can only tell me how much of a chance I have of being an ethnicity, and that’s not the same as being that ethnicity since just because I have a chance at being something that doesn’t mean that I am that something. So I was wondering, if dna can’t tell me of what ethnicity I am (since it only gives a guess to how much of a chance I have of being that ethnicity) what can? Can I get a genotype test (if such thing even exists) to see how much I’m white
And why is it that dna companies have different ethnic results?
My moms Haplogroup is t2a1b,we are british,is this Haplogroup common in britain.What ethncites carry this Haplogroup?
Key that information into Google and you'll find better answers than I can give. Sorry I can't be of more help.
You are so correct. That's what Iike about DNA is that it's not political or bias, you are who your genetics are, but social constructs create race. Yep.
Thanks for watching.
Very informative and contextual! But don't let the exceptions negate the rule which is to say that a celt and a slav are not as different as a slav and an east-Asian. There are broadly defined racial categories (European) and specifically defined racial categories (scandinavian) and thus race as a biological classification exists. ✌️
Your point leads into my teaching that says DNA tests help you connect at a continental level to your origins, but most locations beyond that becomes a bit dicey. We're comparing our DNA to people in reference populations who intermixed with others.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I think that's right. Classification can be messy and imperfect but can still be useful categorically. Keep up the good work!
I know this is a year late due to just stumbling on this video; however, your comment regarding "don't let the exceptions negate the rule" would not apply here. Race as a biological classification has be debunked by Genetics time and time again. Yes, you can categorized everyone based on average differences and genetic markers...but that quite literally means everyone. Classification isn't strictly defined in DNA and broad traits such as skin tone, eye color, hair etc are shaped by environmental pressures not by some in innate subspecies categorization. The andamanes, Sami, Anui, San etc are all great examples of having traits that would put them in one racial box, while having DNA cluster that puts them much closer to a different region than traditional racial categories would have. And this is all to say that human genetic diversity is so small that a family of chimps tend to have more diversity. From that standpoint alone, it is very clear that "race" in the traditional sense is based largely (if not entirely in many cases) on social perception. Even the term "race" varies greatly from society to society.
Don't these tests also "not tell you where your ancestors are from but where your DNA is likely to be found on the globe today"? That still boggles me
Yes, that is exactly what they tell you. With the caveat that those people used as the reference population have at least a couple of generations of their ancestors all living in the same place.
This overlap (both phenotypic and genetic) between populations (like races, ethnic or geographic groups, etc.) is doubtless and well-known - it’s also called clinal or gradual variability. But it doesn’t mean that we cannot distinguish between races. Neither it means that races are senseless - even if it is a social concept. When we look at the rainbow, we can easily see 7 colors - despite that color chart is also a gradient without clean boundaries. Same with races - you will easily tell Andamanese from Finn (Baltic sub-race), although it’s not always easy to distinguish between Baltic and Atlantic sub-races (like, Finn and Scott).
The key concept is to define races by probability-based population approach, instead of traditional typology approach. This means, you don’t attempt to identify clearly each person’s race based on his individual features. Instead, you study different populations to evaluate the population average and the variability range for key racial markers. As a result, you can assess the probability of exact person to belong to some race or sub-race, by comparing his features with population averages and ranges.
Phenotypic markers (like, eye color, skin color, hair color and type, head and body metrics, etc.) are related to physical anthropology. There are also some biochemical markers like blood type, etc. But how does it all correlate with genetics? In theory, most of physical markers are encoded by genes. In practice, it’s not always understood, how exactly the specific marker is encoded. Sometimes, we even may estimate eye and hair color of neandertal man from his DNA test. But at most, it’s still a challenge for future studies.
In Russia, I guess, racism never has been on top of our social issues (we’ve got a lot of other instead, though…). As such, public mind doesn’t mix up physical anthropology and racial studies with racism here. We have some great racial scientists - like Bunak, Alekseev and, in our time, Stanislav Drobyshevskiy. Stanislav is an expert on popular website antropogenez.ru/anthropology-engl/
There are also his lectures on racial science on ruclips.net/video/z1G9RlPq6s0/видео.html - unfortunately, in Russian only. And his books are also yet to be translated.
The problem with the rainbow analogy, is you don't see seven colors with distinct dividing lines. You see an entire spectrum of colors and the way the colors are aligned because of their electromagnetic wave properties, they blend together at the boundaries (i.e. yellow-orange is a different color than yellow or orange). The way that race has been talked about historically is always a definitive dividing line. Black, white, Asian. These are convoluted with geographic or geopolitical terms. No one has come up with a widely accepted definition of race that can be used to describe the human population.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Andy, I apologize for my late reply - I’ve just looked for some literature, to check my understanding.
I really wonder why you are confused with all this. When we predict ancestry by DNA test results, we also realize that ethnic or geographic populations are blend together at their boundaries. It may confuse sometimes, but it doesn’t make ancestry prediction completely useless. It is not absolute, the probability is less then 100% - but it still makes sense!
It’s important to define - what exactly do we mean when we talk about “races”. If someone considered races as "subspecies" of humanity, which were divided millions of years ago, internally homogeneous and strictly different from each other - this approach, of course, is nonsense, which has been refuted by archeology and paleogenetics, and has long been abandoned. Moreover, in scientific racial studies, the superiority of some races over others has not been seriously discussed for a long time. For a racial scientist (at least in Russia), the understanding of "race" is more consistent with the term "ancestry” - that is, a population with a common origin and geographic range, having a certain set of specific inherited traits, but interacting with other populations. This is not about “isolation” or even “superiority”. This is about diversity!
This may be easily illustrated. When you see a person or, even better, a group of people of the same origin - you usually may roughly guess, where are they from, just by their appearance, without asking them anything (or testing their DNA). And your guess will usually be right or close to the truth. But the appearance is, in other words, a visual summary of racial parameters. So, racial parameters are good enough to predict ethnic or geographic origin. And predictable power is, itself, a well-accepted criterion of scientific objectivity.
One more point is that White, Black, Asian, Hispanic - these are words from everyday use, but not scientific terms related to racial studies. If you told racial scientist about “Black race”, he would ask you, what did you mean? Congoid? Khoisan? Ethiopic? Dravidian (like Kamala Harris)? Melanesian? Papuan? Australian? Tasmanian? Andamanese? All these are distinct races, each defined by a list of parameters, not only by their skin color. When someone call another person “black” in New Orlean or in Capetown, or in Dehli, or in Jakarta - he means different things, depends on his own ethnic, religious or geopolitical reasons. But when racial scientist attributes a person (or fossils of a person) to Papuan race - he is based on the list of parameters (like cranial, body and limbs proportions, skin, eyes, hair, and even dental and dactylogram features), but not on his own personal reasons.
I generally agree, its where the lines meet that is most blurry. I think racial concepts are fine as long as you are not absolutist about it.
Also, Research the article "Is the Out of Africa Theory Out? in Scientific American on August 8, 2007. Says: An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia.
Europeans coming from Asia doesn't disprove the Out of Africa. Asia is a big place and a portion of it happens to be between Africa and Europe.
This is an interesting video. What you're saying is true in that race is a social construction and most people before the colonization of the New World went by tribe, ethnicity or today country.
I've done AncestryDNA because I was adopted and wanted to find my biological relatives which I did and found a lot of things that confirmed my roots with my parental lineage on both sides.
The interesting thing is that I define myself as a Pre Civil Black War Black American Population Descendant on both sides of my parental lineage aka "African American." Most of us from that population has numerous tribes that we're admixtured with mostly from West and Central Africa but with exceptions, we have European Admixture that is recent compared to other ethnicities but usually not as recent as our West and Central African Ancestry.
The main issues are that because of this history, it's a natural thing to try to find what our true identity is as a community and that's where these discussions devolve into.
Excellent example of the confusing nature. Contrast your ancestry with former President Barack Obama. His father was Kenyan and his mother of European descent. Both you and he would be considered African American in common parlance. However, your genetic makeup is vastly different with almost no overlap. (Most people don't realize that the genetic difference between western Africans and eastern Africans is larger than the difference between Irish/Scottish and Balkan populations.)
Africa is a wonderful case study in race/genetics. On the surface, (i.e. skin color) there are at least 5 distinct populations in Africa (not including the European colonists, some of whom have been there for nearly a thousand years). Taking away the North African/Middle Eastern and Madagascar/Indonesian populations which are clearly descendants of the East African population, there are still 3 major population groups who are as genetically dissimilar as any two population groups in the world. The only defining characteristic they have in common is dark skin and hair (and even that has a large variability in shades of black/brown).
"Recent"? All ancestry goes back to the first humans.
Since we all came from Africa does every human have some African DNA? And if we all came from Africa from whom did we get non-African DNA from?
No, we did not all come from Africa. This is a "theory" only. And not a good one. Furthermore: there 's no "african DNA", or "european DNA", etc.
Crazy how this video was posted today a year ago
Yep. It's crazy.
Race is an artificial construct. However I did take a DNA test to identify the level of my European ancestry so I could narrow down little known family connections.
Race is defined by people and it can and has changed; so the best reason to take a DNA test is to find family relationships that we didn't know we had. That seems to be what you've discovered with your research.
Money is also a social construct.
Perhaps social constructs developed from race, not the other way round.
Race is a variation within a species, basically the same shit as breed, just a more humanized version, basically, race is just a more humanized synonym of the word breed
The question is in regards to race you do see fundamental differences facial bone structures you see some fundamental differences in eye shapes you see some fundamental differences in color of skin varying depths of color so the way you're explaining this does not answer the questions of the things I mentioned above there has to be some distinct DNA differences especially in bone structure like somebody that has giganticism there is a DNA thing for that to indicate that somebody has this and that's why we get the few people that end up almost 9 ft tall they have that gene that turns something off and allows them to grow more but that would be a DNA example
What you're talking about isn't necessarily tied to race, as much as genes that call for these physical features. And many races will have 'unexpected' colors and features due to mutations. As stated in the video, race is defined by humans. However, you can see how physical features are either passed down, or mutated from parents.
No. Myself and my aunt who are Irish are suddenly Scottish with very little Irish as of last month on Ancestry. Yes I know we have close ties with Scotland. We were born and raised in Ireland, my family are well accounted for. Only Scottish I have found is one person in the early 1800's who then moved to Ireland
Genetically, Scottish and Irish are extremely similar. More so than Scandinavian and Southern European.
Skip to 9:33 to start to get the final results to the question.
Nice presentation. It is informative to look in Wikipedia under Race (human categorization). The term originally meant those who spoke a common language. By the 17th century it was being used based on physical traits. It then states "race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning." Basically the term is untenable and based on pseudoscience. What does make sense is ethnicity, which is the term now being used by Ancestry, MyHeritage, etc. Ethnicity can be based on geography, religion, social customs, etc. For example, an African-American may share most of their DNA with someone from Nigeria, but the term African-American also includes recognition of an experience that includes slavery and its confrontation of biases in America. In my opinion when people refer to races-it is racist. So the answer to the question of whether DNA can prove your race the answer is yes. If you have 23 pairs of chromosomes you are part of the human race.
Thanks for sharing your comments. Definitely something for us to consider.
Skip to 7:56 to start to get the answer to the question.
I honestly don't know who I am... I think I'll never figure out what race I truly am haha.
You can take a DNA test to link up with relatives, if they have taken DNA tests. That's the best reason to take a DNA test. If that doesn't help, let your life experiences and your loved ones shape your identity.
Same here. We're admixtures, actually.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics we took the DNA test I have uploaded mine to my channel but it's super mixed so I don't know which race I identify with. Could it be biracial?
@@1ivestreamer just asking are you gypsies?
I've always said there is only 1 Race, & that is the Human Race. Colour / pigment of skin etc should not make anyone else less or more important than anyone else. we may have different classes of people & different Ethnicities, but as far as race is concerned, we are all one.
Thanks for sharing your sentiment. I think many people are trying to learn their connections to the past. Unfortunately, the specific heritage groups are not as easy to identify as many people hope.
On a technical level what you say makes sense and I completely agree. However I do think humans like to make distinctions and it is obvious when you see a Dark Skinned African and a Pale Skinned European that they are different, its noticeable. What is not nearly so noticeable or quantifiable are mixed people. Where does black end and white begin? That's where the racial aspect falls apart somewhat. Of course you can make distinctions but we shouldn't expect them to be all encompassing.
Human is a species, not a race. Race is the subcategory within it, like having different breeds of Dogs.
Also, it's a lot more than just skin color.
stupid woke comments never fail to make me lose faith in humanity
@@darrellm9915, thank you
Hello, i am swabian and Hungarian, i live in the part that was called swabian-turkish part, people say i look VERY turkish even turkish people themselfes said it, the part im in was invaded by ottomans and was called that, does me being swabic here makes me a bit turkish?
I have never been checked, i do know im a bit swabian and Hungarian but i am not sure about turkish if people says i look like that and i live at the part of my country that had swabian-turkish people
At a genetic genealogy level, I don't think that would be very clearly defined. The reason is the reference population for this region underpresented.
How do mix people have a particular race! My ethnic groups are across Africa, Europe, Central Asia, Native American, and Southeast Asian. So basically I am to me genetically: Afroeuroasian, but in the New World since I also a Latin American background, I am Hispanic which basically means ancestors from two and three continents.
Race and heritage are different things. I can only direct you towards what DNA and genealogical records say your heritage might be.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Oh yes, I agree. Race and heritage are different. You are doing a great job and love your videos. I am not expecting you to answer all of the questions about human genetics and migrations. lol I appreciate your honest feedback too.
It's silly to say that race is a construct. Race is a group of people who display simular genotypes and phenotypic features.
That seems to be the argument of the day. What is the meaning of the word race.
there are people from different continents that display similar phenotypes
race is not cut and dry
Melanesians and Sub Saharan Africans have been lumped into black before even though Eurasians are more genetically close to Sub Saharan Africans than Europeans are
I was having a debate with someone , are Jews a race or religion ? My DNA test concluded I'm 20% Ashkanazi Jewish. But it doesn't say what percentage is Catholic , even though I have ancestors from the Irish Republic. Just shows me on the map where they were settled.
Jews can be a religion and a race. With Ashkenazi Jewish, they were a group that was rather isolated and intermarried so much that their genetic markers have become distinct from other Jewish communities. Thus, you can see that your DNA matches people from that particular region who practiced that faith. With Irish, they didn't intermarry and keep separate based on religion so you're not going to see Irish Catholic vs Irish Protestant in DNA markers.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thankyou for responding.
@nutcracker2916 Jews can be caucasians, orientals (indigenous of America’s are coming from their dna), blacks. It’s like what happens in USA and Brazil, for example.
Jews are NOT a “race”. Do NOT forget the World War II and all the RACISM against Jewish people, the n4zis (the National Socialist German’s Worker’s Party) used to consider them as another “race”.
So we are all a sub species of the Hominidae family?
That's about right.
Race is a term that is mostly used in U.S.A. At least officially. It is an English term that should be put on the "Taboo" list just as "Nigro" and "Black" have been. In fact you people who live in U.S.A. should work at getting those terms out of official use... Race, and every term that has been used to name "each race" Ethnicity is another term that should not be in use at all. Skin color is an adaptation to the environment... that is all.
Human Sapient is a single species branch... the homo genus has only one living species in it and that single species has no sub-species. We are human. As for what markers are found on our DNA... The only thing that matters are what markers make those who have those markers more able to grow up and grow old... are the markers that are "good" to have.
I appreciate your comment.
Race being purely a social construct puts trans-racial people in to a pretty different light. How is one okay and the other isnt?
You could have shown genetic clusters of what we consider races today on a pca and you would have been able to clearly differentiate them, with those between simply being mixed race. But you could say that those with minimal admixture from other groups still belong to the same racial group. And your illustration doesn't show how far away some races are from others, for e.g. Africans are super distant from every other group, but Europeans and Middle Easterners are not that far away. Race is real and any attempt to deny it is simply semantics.
What is difference between nationality and Race?
Depends on who you talk to. Nationality is usually defined as citizenship or origin from a specific country. Race is really hazy because there is no clear cut delineator of race.
Nationality is the country your born in and race is what variant of human are you
How an DNA test looks like? Results
There are lots of images on Google that best answer your question. Sorry I can't be of more help.
Also, as you know DNA tests cannot tell you what nation you come from.
That would be correct. At a regional/national level, they are not that good.
@1:16 Why must I it be called a “ White” board? Why not cal it a colorless board. 😜😝
What? I’m short, so I go for the low-hanging fruit. 🍌…
The white board is colored white. Thus, it's a white board. If it were a blue board, we would call it blue. Would it not?
All of this seems like lucky a guess.
When it comes to ethnicity results, I'm not confident they are always accurate. However, with DNA matching to close relatives, DNA doesn't lie. But it always doesn't reveal the whole truth. That's where DNA-based family tree building skills are needed. ruclips.net/p/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI
4:40 This is where you lost me. We absolutely did not come from apes.
Race is a variation within a species, basically the same shit as breed, basically, race is just a more humanized synonym of the word breed
Perhpas.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics, *perhaps*
@Racialist Slayer, actually studies have shown that east asians (a race) have the highest neanderthal dna out of any other race, so if races don't exist, wouldn't it make more sense for all humans to have no neanderthal dna rather than some breeds having more than others, since woke liberals like you think we all the same
@Racialist Slayer, also that 3-5% variance only applies to those with a small percentage of another race, for example, african americans on average have 15-25% anglo-saxon european dna based on the fact that they were raped during transatlantic slavery, so african americans are not pure black and therefore your argument does stand in some instance, but like i said, its hypocritical to think that human races are not like dog races when some humans have been isolated from each other for nearly millions of years, causing mutations to occur between those seperated humans
@Racialist Slayer, you do realize those pages are liberal biased right?
All this studies about race genetic in the end we are all from planet earth, in the end we all come out from the most beautiful place from MOM ,
In reality, there aren't different races of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There's very little genetic diversity amongst humans living today compared with other species.
Yeah, the closest thing to race that biology has is species. And we are all homo sapiens.
11% genetic diversity in humans compared to 27% genetic diversity in dogs, race is a variation within a species
@@angelicadayanafernandez1525 there is no biological basis for race
all humans are 99.9% genetically identical
Am I the only one that thinks race is a social construct? Why wouldn't humans create the race ideology to make themselves feel like they belong to a certain group? Everyone just wants to be accepted and loved and for thousands of years it was easiest to do that with people that look like you and have your cultural values.
If by social construct you mean that race is specified because a group of people say that it is so, then yes, Race could be a social construct. However, DNA diverges as it has migrated with people around the globe and you can see where certain DNA can trace back to. I'm not sure that is a social construct as rather migration groups.
The Out of Africa theory has been debunked.
Europeans coming from Asia doesn't disprove the Out of Africa. Asia is a big place and a portion of it happens to be between Africa and Europe.