I have a question. Have you ever reached out to or been contacted by a DNA match who is connected to you because of slavery? This came up on a Facebook forum. One African descendant contacted her match who was of European descendant and was rebuffed.
Through the years I have contacted a few genealogy hobbyists who were related to me and/or related to the slave holder of my ancestor. I have seldom had any issues from the contact. But I am not quick to reach out to those descendants who just may have clues to the lives of my ancestors held in captivity. It's a personal choice.
I also wonder how those European descendants feel when they find that they have relatives whose DNA is mostly sub Saharan African. Most of my DNA matches are not the same color as I am. Even though I am 71% African, the majority of my matches come from my 26% Irish/Great Britain relatives. They have not reached out to me either. I assume it's because I have little to add to their search. I have been heartened, though, by some who have included my family on their data base.
I understand from what I see on genealogy television shows that many are appalled to find out that their ancestors were slave holders. I think the more egregious fact is that we are related because of institutional rape. That is a far worse thing to get your head around.
Showing posts with label DNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DNA. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Monday, July 6, 2015
Race, Ethnicity and Other Bugaboos
I have been silent about racism. There has been so much chatter about it, I didn't want to litter the web with more. And this blog is supposed to be more about ancestry than social issues. But I did name the sub-title of my blog "Genealogy in Black and White" for a reason. So. . .
I believe the conversation about racism should begin with the fact that "race" is a myth. Race is a social concept not a biological one. I was not upset that Rachel Dolezal, the Spokane president of the NAACP, identified herself as black. Neither am I upset that Jennifer Beals identifies herself as white. We are different colors and hues. We have different types of noses and mouths and hair. All those things can be altered artificially. And we all belong to different cultural and sub-cultural groups.We can adopt different practices and habits, interchange them. They are not set in stone. So I wish the conversation could begin as "we are all the same and all different,"
As far as ethnicity goes, maybe we're so into hyphens in this country because we're so mixed up. Everyone comes from somewhere else except for the native Americans. My own DNA test results said my heritage was mostly African, but nearly one third was made up of European. There was also traces of Asian and Amerindian. I chose not to identify myself as African-American even before I got those results. First, I don't like hyphens anyway. I am American by birth. Period. And even though I claim I'm Black, I'm really more of a caramel color.
Anyone from Africa, regardless of their color or hue, who becomes a citizen here could use the designation of African-American. Very few people call themselves European-American. They identify a country instead of a continent. Because of my slavery heritage, I don't know which African country to declare, although 26% of my DNA, the highest percentage, is from a Nigerian ancestor. But then 19% of my DNA, the second highest percentage, came from an Irishman.
I believe when we get around to talking, after beginning with "we are all the same." we should next say there is no difference that makes one a "real" American or "true" American more than another person. Born, raised or immigrated, we the People are ALL Americans.
I believe the conversation about racism should begin with the fact that "race" is a myth. Race is a social concept not a biological one. I was not upset that Rachel Dolezal, the Spokane president of the NAACP, identified herself as black. Neither am I upset that Jennifer Beals identifies herself as white. We are different colors and hues. We have different types of noses and mouths and hair. All those things can be altered artificially. And we all belong to different cultural and sub-cultural groups.We can adopt different practices and habits, interchange them. They are not set in stone. So I wish the conversation could begin as "we are all the same and all different,"
As far as ethnicity goes, maybe we're so into hyphens in this country because we're so mixed up. Everyone comes from somewhere else except for the native Americans. My own DNA test results said my heritage was mostly African, but nearly one third was made up of European. There was also traces of Asian and Amerindian. I chose not to identify myself as African-American even before I got those results. First, I don't like hyphens anyway. I am American by birth. Period. And even though I claim I'm Black, I'm really more of a caramel color.
Anyone from Africa, regardless of their color or hue, who becomes a citizen here could use the designation of African-American. Very few people call themselves European-American. They identify a country instead of a continent. Because of my slavery heritage, I don't know which African country to declare, although 26% of my DNA, the highest percentage, is from a Nigerian ancestor. But then 19% of my DNA, the second highest percentage, came from an Irishman.
I believe when we get around to talking, after beginning with "we are all the same." we should next say there is no difference that makes one a "real" American or "true" American more than another person. Born, raised or immigrated, we the People are ALL Americans.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
It's Not Easy Being Green
When I was in school, it was the custom to pinch anyone not wearing green on St. Patrick's Day. It had nothing to do with being Irish. I attended a Black segregated public school. However, I would proudly tell my fellow classmates that I really was Irish. This was the oral legend of my family.
Now with the aid of science and DNA testing, I have proof of my Irish heritage. According to ancestry.com, I am a whopping 19% Irish. I still don't know how, when or where, but I am definitely descended from several persons from Ireland. And my Irish ancestors reside behind my brick wall.
I know most of my Black ancestors back to 1825. I only know one White ancestral line up to that date. That is my Featherston line. There may be Irish roots there. The Featherstons did come from England so there may be Irish ties somewhere in that family tree.
What is unique about my Featherston ties is that the interracial union of my great grandparents occurred right after slavery. Those other earlier couplings were, more than likely, forced and they definitely were not documented.
Irish immigrants didn't have it easy when they first arrived here in America. People looked down on them, discriminated against them, called them "black" among other epitaphs. Some were even held as slaves. Of course, their road to equality cannot compare to Black American's tedious journey.
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about my Irish heritage. I'm no longer that young naive child that gladly pronounced that she was Irish. I don't resent it either. My feelings, like Black genealogy, is complicated.
Now with the aid of science and DNA testing, I have proof of my Irish heritage. According to ancestry.com, I am a whopping 19% Irish. I still don't know how, when or where, but I am definitely descended from several persons from Ireland. And my Irish ancestors reside behind my brick wall.
I know most of my Black ancestors back to 1825. I only know one White ancestral line up to that date. That is my Featherston line. There may be Irish roots there. The Featherstons did come from England so there may be Irish ties somewhere in that family tree.
What is unique about my Featherston ties is that the interracial union of my great grandparents occurred right after slavery. Those other earlier couplings were, more than likely, forced and they definitely were not documented.
Irish immigrants didn't have it easy when they first arrived here in America. People looked down on them, discriminated against them, called them "black" among other epitaphs. Some were even held as slaves. Of course, their road to equality cannot compare to Black American's tedious journey.
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about my Irish heritage. I'm no longer that young naive child that gladly pronounced that she was Irish. I don't resent it either. My feelings, like Black genealogy, is complicated.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Definition of Frustration
frustration [fruh-strey-shuh n] noun
1. when you get a new DNA match on ancestry and the match has no tree.
2. when your new DNA match has a tree and it is private.
3. when your DNA match has only two persons in their family tree
4. when your match has over 500 names in their tree and you still don't recognize any surnames.
1. when you get a new DNA match on ancestry and the match has no tree.
2. when your new DNA match has a tree and it is private.
3. when your DNA match has only two persons in their family tree
4. when your match has over 500 names in their tree and you still don't recognize any surnames.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Brick Walls
I have been researching for nearly 20 years now. I have made great discoveries but I'm still stuck behind the proverbial brick wall. My brick wall is visual.
I know all my great grandparents' names. I even know most of my great-grandparents' names. And there it stops. Except for five names, I know little or nothing of my great great great grandparents. And therein lies my problem.
I was so excited when I got my DNA results back from Ancestry.com. I received all these wonderful matches. I even have two circles with shared ancestors. The problem was that those shared ancestors were already known to me. Yes, it did confirm that Charles Featherston was my great grandfather and that was nice. However, I was hoping for something more enlightening. And that won't come until I can figure out more about my great great great grandparents.
Unfortunately, the DNA results has also confirmed another assumption I had made. I am alone in my family when it comes to this pursuit. My closest relatives to have their DNA tested, except for my uncle, are distant 4th cousins. That means we share --you got it-- an unknown great great great grandparent.
So I will continue to scour the records as I try to chip away at that wall and I will continue to pray that more of my cousins, closer cousins, catch this genealogy bug. It could happen.
I know all my great grandparents' names. I even know most of my great-grandparents' names. And there it stops. Except for five names, I know little or nothing of my great great great grandparents. And therein lies my problem.
I was so excited when I got my DNA results back from Ancestry.com. I received all these wonderful matches. I even have two circles with shared ancestors. The problem was that those shared ancestors were already known to me. Yes, it did confirm that Charles Featherston was my great grandfather and that was nice. However, I was hoping for something more enlightening. And that won't come until I can figure out more about my great great great grandparents.
Unfortunately, the DNA results has also confirmed another assumption I had made. I am alone in my family when it comes to this pursuit. My closest relatives to have their DNA tested, except for my uncle, are distant 4th cousins. That means we share --you got it-- an unknown great great great grandparent.
So I will continue to scour the records as I try to chip away at that wall and I will continue to pray that more of my cousins, closer cousins, catch this genealogy bug. It could happen.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Genealogical bread crumbs
I'm trying to see if DNA can chip away my brick walls. I was a little disappointed that I wasn't able to come up with anything new after the inspirational conference I had attended. So today I decided to concentrate on my Cotten family mysteries.
To recap, my great grandfather is Napoleon Cotten. His mother is Winnie Deer. It took me years to find them on the 1870 census mainly because I was looking for Cottens. Then on one of my searches I used only the first names and the state, Mississippi. Heritage Quest rewarded me with success. I found the whole family in 1870 in Amite County. The reason I couldn't find them before was because I wasn't looking for Andersons, the surname they were using in 1870.
I then tried to find them on various Amite county farms owned by Andersons. Moses Gordon Anderson became a person of interest in my mystery. He lived near Winnie in 1870. In 1860, he owned 40 slaves including a 100 year old woman named Sophia. On the slave schedule, following the tip I learned at the conference, I noticed a family group that corresponded to the ages of Winnie's family. There were discrepancies. There was a one year old male. On Winnie's tombstone and on the 1900 census, she is recorded with only three sons and a daughter. If this is Winnie, she is recorded on this slave schedule with four sons. Also the ages of the sons were a little off except for Napoleon's.
I then looked at the 1850 slave schedule. M. G. Anderson owns 23 slaves. They are separated into two groups. On the smaller group, there is a 15 year old female, the right age for Winnie, and possibly her oldest son Hiram at one year old.
I went back to 1840 and found Anderson with a new wife and seven slaves. I checked out his bride. Her name was Cynthia Carolyn Causey, daughter of Capt. William Causey and Susanna Jackson. The Captain had died in 1828 and left a will. He had sired many children. He also possessed many slaves. He willed only one, "negro girl named Mary" to his daughter Cynthia. Now I know Mary is a very common name and it means very little but it still gave me a glimmer of hope that this was Winnie's mother, Mary. And when I checked the 1840 census, Anderson owned only two female slaves-a child under 10 and a woman between 24 and 35 years old. Could this be Mary and Winnie?
I continued searching family trees for the Causeys on ancestry.com. I came across a familiar name. The woman who owned one of the Causey family trees was also a match to me through DNA!!!
I still have much to do to determine who was the shared ancestor. Her family tree had a surname that was also on my family tree-- Cain. We may be connected that way. Cynthia Causey's brother had married Lucretia Cain, a daughter of Isaiah Cain and sister to Mary Cain Cotten. These same surnames keep coming up. That is why I am holding out hope that this bread crumb trail will finally lead me to the ancestors of Winnie and Napoleon and knock down that brick wall.
To recap, my great grandfather is Napoleon Cotten. His mother is Winnie Deer. It took me years to find them on the 1870 census mainly because I was looking for Cottens. Then on one of my searches I used only the first names and the state, Mississippi. Heritage Quest rewarded me with success. I found the whole family in 1870 in Amite County. The reason I couldn't find them before was because I wasn't looking for Andersons, the surname they were using in 1870.
I then tried to find them on various Amite county farms owned by Andersons. Moses Gordon Anderson became a person of interest in my mystery. He lived near Winnie in 1870. In 1860, he owned 40 slaves including a 100 year old woman named Sophia. On the slave schedule, following the tip I learned at the conference, I noticed a family group that corresponded to the ages of Winnie's family. There were discrepancies. There was a one year old male. On Winnie's tombstone and on the 1900 census, she is recorded with only three sons and a daughter. If this is Winnie, she is recorded on this slave schedule with four sons. Also the ages of the sons were a little off except for Napoleon's.
I then looked at the 1850 slave schedule. M. G. Anderson owns 23 slaves. They are separated into two groups. On the smaller group, there is a 15 year old female, the right age for Winnie, and possibly her oldest son Hiram at one year old.
I went back to 1840 and found Anderson with a new wife and seven slaves. I checked out his bride. Her name was Cynthia Carolyn Causey, daughter of Capt. William Causey and Susanna Jackson. The Captain had died in 1828 and left a will. He had sired many children. He also possessed many slaves. He willed only one, "negro girl named Mary" to his daughter Cynthia. Now I know Mary is a very common name and it means very little but it still gave me a glimmer of hope that this was Winnie's mother, Mary. And when I checked the 1840 census, Anderson owned only two female slaves-a child under 10 and a woman between 24 and 35 years old. Could this be Mary and Winnie?
I continued searching family trees for the Causeys on ancestry.com. I came across a familiar name. The woman who owned one of the Causey family trees was also a match to me through DNA!!!
I still have much to do to determine who was the shared ancestor. Her family tree had a surname that was also on my family tree-- Cain. We may be connected that way. Cynthia Causey's brother had married Lucretia Cain, a daughter of Isaiah Cain and sister to Mary Cain Cotten. These same surnames keep coming up. That is why I am holding out hope that this bread crumb trail will finally lead me to the ancestors of Winnie and Napoleon and knock down that brick wall.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
A little faith. A lot of looking up
Since taking the DNA test, I have become completely hooked in using it to find my ancestors. Ancestry.com sent back hundreds of matches. Gedmatch.com, a wonderful utility site, has given me dozens of matches. And still I am no closer to discovering my roots. However, it is giving me hope.
I look at the matches. I look at their family trees, at least, the ones that have submitted trees, and most of them have names I don't recognize. I have deduced, since so many on the trees were born in Virginia or North Carolina, that these matches were made in slavery. Therein lies my dilemma. Slaves had no surnames. I only know three slave owner names for sure and they are definitely not my progenitors. I am not including Charles Featherston in that group. The dna results have proved he is my great great grandfather and he was not a slave owner.
But there is a silver lining. I am closer to learning some of my ancestors' surnames. I just have to go through every family tree, find the names that are mentioned the most and contact the tree owners. Of course, that will be tedious and many tree owners have that annoying habit of not replying to my emails. But if it was easy, would I be so obsessed?
I look at the matches. I look at their family trees, at least, the ones that have submitted trees, and most of them have names I don't recognize. I have deduced, since so many on the trees were born in Virginia or North Carolina, that these matches were made in slavery. Therein lies my dilemma. Slaves had no surnames. I only know three slave owner names for sure and they are definitely not my progenitors. I am not including Charles Featherston in that group. The dna results have proved he is my great great grandfather and he was not a slave owner.
But there is a silver lining. I am closer to learning some of my ancestors' surnames. I just have to go through every family tree, find the names that are mentioned the most and contact the tree owners. Of course, that will be tedious and many tree owners have that annoying habit of not replying to my emails. But if it was easy, would I be so obsessed?
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Fun with DNA
I have been skeptical and more than a little paranoid about DNA testing. I wasn't willing to give up my spit if the answers from the database were skewed by too small a sampling. Then out of the blue my maternal uncle took the test. I didn't even know he was that interested. My aunt said he was trying to keep up with me. Well, he one upped me when he got his DNA tested.
His results fascinated me. His DNA was 68% African, 30% European. The breakdown is as follows:
His results fascinated me. His DNA was 68% African, 30% European. The breakdown is as follows:
Cameroon/Congo 21%
Benin/Togo 17%
Mali 9%
Ivory Coast/Ghana
8%
Senegal 4%
Nigeria 2%
Africa North 1%
Africa Southeastern Bantu 5% and a little Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers
Ireland 17%
Great Britain 5%
European trace regions 8% including Scandinavian and Iberian penisula
Amerindian less than 1%
Asia Central less than 1%
Okay. Now I'm curious. What do we share? So I took the Ancestry DNA test. My results were similar but different. My DNA was 71% African and 27% European. The breakdown for me is as follows:
Cameroon/Congo 5%
Benin/Togo 10%
Mali 3%
Ivory Coast/Ghana 10%
Africa Southeastern Bantu 14%
Senegal 5%
Nigeria 26%
Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers 1%
Ireland 19%
Great Britain 6%
West Europe 2%
Amerindian less than 1%
Asia Central 1%
Lots of numbers and regions but what do they mean and how can they help me figure out my ancestors? Now "the game's afoot." This has renewed my enthusiasm. I want to know more.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Cotton/Cotten DNA
I also posted this on my web page at freewebs.
Today I received an email from a Michael Cotten. He is involved in a Cotton/Cotten DNA project. The purpose of the project is to create a database to help identify the various families bearing the Cotton or Cotten surname.
I have been sitting on the fence about DNA projects. On the negative side, the results cannot prove a paper trail. It costs. And it depends on the amount of people in the database. But on the positive side,in the future when the database is more extensive, it may be more conclusive. And of course, if few participate, the database can't grow. Plus, as it states on the Cotten webpage, it can help to back up research, and a negative result can disprove many incorrect assumptions.
According to Michael, the information I have on the origin of the Cotten name is false. He wrote, "You mentioned a Cotten family who was descended from a John de Cotentin. Unfortunately there was no such person. The "De Cotentin" descent was invented by a man named Matlock who drew up an extended fake genealogy."
So it seems like it's back to the drawing board. I found a pedigree for Joseph R. Cotten on familysearch.org but the url for the source is xtremechat.org. Very suspicious! The person who submitted the source went to a lot of trouble posting information that goes back to the 9th century but of course that doesn't mean he is correct or legit.
Although I don't believe we are related by blood to the Cottens, I am certain that they are the reason my grandfather chose that name. That is the reason why I am interested in the origin and the genealogy of the Joseph R. Cotten family.
Today I received an email from a Michael Cotten. He is involved in a Cotton/Cotten DNA project. The purpose of the project is to create a database to help identify the various families bearing the Cotton or Cotten surname.
I have been sitting on the fence about DNA projects. On the negative side, the results cannot prove a paper trail. It costs. And it depends on the amount of people in the database. But on the positive side,in the future when the database is more extensive, it may be more conclusive. And of course, if few participate, the database can't grow. Plus, as it states on the Cotten webpage, it can help to back up research, and a negative result can disprove many incorrect assumptions.
According to Michael, the information I have on the origin of the Cotten name is false. He wrote, "You mentioned a Cotten family who was descended from a John de Cotentin. Unfortunately there was no such person. The "De Cotentin" descent was invented by a man named Matlock who drew up an extended fake genealogy."
So it seems like it's back to the drawing board. I found a pedigree for Joseph R. Cotten on familysearch.org but the url for the source is xtremechat.org. Very suspicious! The person who submitted the source went to a lot of trouble posting information that goes back to the 9th century but of course that doesn't mean he is correct or legit.
Although I don't believe we are related by blood to the Cottens, I am certain that they are the reason my grandfather chose that name. That is the reason why I am interested in the origin and the genealogy of the Joseph R. Cotten family.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Race, Color, and Nationality
When it comes to certain labels in America, I am confused and I don't think I'm alone. It is not as simple as black and white, pun definitely intended.
The issue came up during our monthly genealogy meeting. I think it started because one of the members was displaying her DNA results. She was happy that her African roots had been identified but she was mystified that there was no trace of Native American DNA. She always believed she was part Indian. It forced her to accept her European ancestry. This led to a lively discussion about our collective identities.
I consider myself a Black American. Others see themselves as African-Americans. My confusion comes because I believe that anyone with ancestry from Africa and citizenship in America can be called African-American. Charlize Theron can be called African-American. And what about African slave descendants that live in the other Americas like Canada or Brazil? To compound my confusion, some people including some of my club members believe that Barack Obama can't be called an African-American or Black because he isn't descended from African slaves. But his father was African and he even knows what part of Africa from where he came unlike the majority of Black Americans. Crazy
When you add Native Americans into the mix it gets even more confusing. There are Black people with Native American genes and Whites who married Indians that are being denied their Indian heritage by the ruling tribal councils. Even though these individuals are descended from people on the Dawes Rolls (the Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes) and have documented proof of their ancestry, they aren't recognized as citizens of their tribes. Those that are disenfranchised are accusing the Indian tribal councils of racism.
There are other divisions in our society and within the sub-cultures. It was pointed out at the meeting that someone knew a lady who was American but whose parents were from Japan so she considered herself Japanese not American. Puerto Ricans consider themselves Puerto Rican, not Black or African-American even if they have ancestors from Africa.
I guess it comes with our melting pot culture. And it is a testament to our democratic society that we all sort of kind of get along even with all the labels and hyphens. But it sure would be less confusing without them.
The issue came up during our monthly genealogy meeting. I think it started because one of the members was displaying her DNA results. She was happy that her African roots had been identified but she was mystified that there was no trace of Native American DNA. She always believed she was part Indian. It forced her to accept her European ancestry. This led to a lively discussion about our collective identities.
I consider myself a Black American. Others see themselves as African-Americans. My confusion comes because I believe that anyone with ancestry from Africa and citizenship in America can be called African-American. Charlize Theron can be called African-American. And what about African slave descendants that live in the other Americas like Canada or Brazil? To compound my confusion, some people including some of my club members believe that Barack Obama can't be called an African-American or Black because he isn't descended from African slaves. But his father was African and he even knows what part of Africa from where he came unlike the majority of Black Americans. Crazy
When you add Native Americans into the mix it gets even more confusing. There are Black people with Native American genes and Whites who married Indians that are being denied their Indian heritage by the ruling tribal councils. Even though these individuals are descended from people on the Dawes Rolls (the Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes) and have documented proof of their ancestry, they aren't recognized as citizens of their tribes. Those that are disenfranchised are accusing the Indian tribal councils of racism.
There are other divisions in our society and within the sub-cultures. It was pointed out at the meeting that someone knew a lady who was American but whose parents were from Japan so she considered herself Japanese not American. Puerto Ricans consider themselves Puerto Rican, not Black or African-American even if they have ancestors from Africa.
I guess it comes with our melting pot culture. And it is a testament to our democratic society that we all sort of kind of get along even with all the labels and hyphens. But it sure would be less confusing without them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)