Very Interesting Article---Race and Genetics
October 31, 2005
Editorial Observer
Why Race Isn't as 'Black' and 'White' as We Think
By BRENT STAPLES
People have occasionally asked me how a black person came by a "white" name
like Brent Staples. One letter writer ridiculed it as "an anchorman's name"
and accused me of making it up. For the record, it's a British name - and
the one my parents gave me. "Staples" probably arrived in my family's
ancestral home in Virginia four centuries ago with the British settlers.
The earliest person with that name we've found - Richard Staples - was
hacked to death by Powhatan Indians not far from Jamestown in 1622. The name
moved into the 18th century with Virginians like John Staples, a white
surveyor who worked in Thomas Jefferson's home county, Albemarle, not far
from the area where my family was enslaved.
The black John Staples who married my paternal great-great-grandmother just
after Emancipation - and became the stepfather of her children - could
easily have been a Staples family slave. The transplanted Britons who had
owned both sides of my family had given us more than a preference for
British names. They had also given us their DNA. In what was an almost
everyday occurrence at the time, my great-great-grandmothers on both sides
gave birth to children fathered by white slave masters.
I've known all this for a long time, and was not surprised by the results of
a genetic screening performed by DNAPrint Genomics, a company that traces
ancestral origins to far-flung parts of the globe. A little more than half
of my genetic material came from sub-Saharan Africa - common for people who
regard themselves as black - with slightly more than a quarter from Europe.
The result that knocked me off my chair showed that one-fifth of my ancestry
is Asian. Poring over the charts and statistics, I said out loud, "This has
got to be a mistake."
That's a common response among people who are tested. Ostensibly white
people who always thought of themselves as 100 percent European find they
have substantial African ancestry. People who regard themselves as black
sometimes discover that the African ancestry is a minority portion of their
DNA.
These results are forcing people to re-examine the arbitrary calculations
our culture uses to decide who is "white" and who is "black."
As with many things racial, this story begins in the slave-era South, where
sex among slaves, masters and mistresses got started as soon as the first
slave ship sailed into Jamestown Harbor in 1619. By the time of the American
Revolution, there was a visible class of light-skinned black people who no
longer looked or sounded African. Free mulattos, emancipated by guilt-ridden
fathers, may have accounted for up to three-quarters of the tiny free-black
population before the Revolution.
By the eve of the Civil War, the swarming numbers of mixed-race slaves on
Southern plantations had become a source of constant anguish to planters'
wives, who knew quite well where those racially ambiguous children were
coming from.
Faced with widespread fear that racial distinctions were losing
significance, the South decided to define the problem away. People with any
ascertainable black ancestry at all were defined as black under the law and
stripped of basic rights. The "one drop" laws defined as black even people
who were blond and blue-eyed and appeared white.
Black people snickered among themselves and worked to subvert segregation at
every turn. Thanks to white ancestry spread throughout the black community,
nearly every family knew of someone born black who successfully passed as
white to get access to jobs, housing and public accommodations that were
reserved for white people only. Black people who were not quite light enough
to slip undetected into white society billed themselves as Greek, Spanish,
Portuguese, Italian, South Asian, Native American - you name it. These
defectors often married into ostensibly white families at a time when
interracial marriage was either illegal or socially stigmatized.
Those of us who grew up in the 1950's and 60's read black-owned magazines
and newspapers that praised the racial defectors as pioneers while mocking
white society for failing to detect them. A comic newspaper column by the
poet Langston Hughes - titled "Why Not Fool Our White Folks?" - typified the
black community's sense of smugness about knowing the real racial score. In
keeping with this history, many black people I know find it funny when
supposedly white Americans profess shock at the emergence of blackness in
the family tree. But genetic testing holds plenty of surprises for black
folks, too.
Which brings me back to my Asian ancestry. It comes as a surprise, given
that my family's oral histories contain not a single person who is described
as Asian. More testing on other family members should clarify the issue, but
for now, I can only guess. This ancestry could well have come through a
19th-century ancestor who was incorrectly described as Indian, often a
catchall category at the time.
The test results underscore what anthropologists have said for eons: racial
distinctions as applied in this country are social categories and not
scientific concepts. In addition, those categories draw hard, sharp
distinctions among groups of people who are more alike than they are
different. The ultimate point is that none of us really know who we are,
ancestrally speaking. All we ever really know is what our parents and
grandparents have told us.
Editorial Observer
Why Race Isn't as 'Black' and 'White' as We Think
By BRENT STAPLES
People have occasionally asked me how a black person came by a "white" name
like Brent Staples. One letter writer ridiculed it as "an anchorman's name"
and accused me of making it up. For the record, it's a British name - and
the one my parents gave me. "Staples" probably arrived in my family's
ancestral home in Virginia four centuries ago with the British settlers.
The earliest person with that name we've found - Richard Staples - was
hacked to death by Powhatan Indians not far from Jamestown in 1622. The name
moved into the 18th century with Virginians like John Staples, a white
surveyor who worked in Thomas Jefferson's home county, Albemarle, not far
from the area where my family was enslaved.
The black John Staples who married my paternal great-great-grandmother just
after Emancipation - and became the stepfather of her children - could
easily have been a Staples family slave. The transplanted Britons who had
owned both sides of my family had given us more than a preference for
British names. They had also given us their DNA. In what was an almost
everyday occurrence at the time, my great-great-grandmothers on both sides
gave birth to children fathered by white slave masters.
I've known all this for a long time, and was not surprised by the results of
a genetic screening performed by DNAPrint Genomics, a company that traces
ancestral origins to far-flung parts of the globe. A little more than half
of my genetic material came from sub-Saharan Africa - common for people who
regard themselves as black - with slightly more than a quarter from Europe.
The result that knocked me off my chair showed that one-fifth of my ancestry
is Asian. Poring over the charts and statistics, I said out loud, "This has
got to be a mistake."
That's a common response among people who are tested. Ostensibly white
people who always thought of themselves as 100 percent European find they
have substantial African ancestry. People who regard themselves as black
sometimes discover that the African ancestry is a minority portion of their
DNA.
These results are forcing people to re-examine the arbitrary calculations
our culture uses to decide who is "white" and who is "black."
As with many things racial, this story begins in the slave-era South, where
sex among slaves, masters and mistresses got started as soon as the first
slave ship sailed into Jamestown Harbor in 1619. By the time of the American
Revolution, there was a visible class of light-skinned black people who no
longer looked or sounded African. Free mulattos, emancipated by guilt-ridden
fathers, may have accounted for up to three-quarters of the tiny free-black
population before the Revolution.
By the eve of the Civil War, the swarming numbers of mixed-race slaves on
Southern plantations had become a source of constant anguish to planters'
wives, who knew quite well where those racially ambiguous children were
coming from.
Faced with widespread fear that racial distinctions were losing
significance, the South decided to define the problem away. People with any
ascertainable black ancestry at all were defined as black under the law and
stripped of basic rights. The "one drop" laws defined as black even people
who were blond and blue-eyed and appeared white.
Black people snickered among themselves and worked to subvert segregation at
every turn. Thanks to white ancestry spread throughout the black community,
nearly every family knew of someone born black who successfully passed as
white to get access to jobs, housing and public accommodations that were
reserved for white people only. Black people who were not quite light enough
to slip undetected into white society billed themselves as Greek, Spanish,
Portuguese, Italian, South Asian, Native American - you name it. These
defectors often married into ostensibly white families at a time when
interracial marriage was either illegal or socially stigmatized.
Those of us who grew up in the 1950's and 60's read black-owned magazines
and newspapers that praised the racial defectors as pioneers while mocking
white society for failing to detect them. A comic newspaper column by the
poet Langston Hughes - titled "Why Not Fool Our White Folks?" - typified the
black community's sense of smugness about knowing the real racial score. In
keeping with this history, many black people I know find it funny when
supposedly white Americans profess shock at the emergence of blackness in
the family tree. But genetic testing holds plenty of surprises for black
folks, too.
Which brings me back to my Asian ancestry. It comes as a surprise, given
that my family's oral histories contain not a single person who is described
as Asian. More testing on other family members should clarify the issue, but
for now, I can only guess. This ancestry could well have come through a
19th-century ancestor who was incorrectly described as Indian, often a
catchall category at the time.
The test results underscore what anthropologists have said for eons: racial
distinctions as applied in this country are social categories and not
scientific concepts. In addition, those categories draw hard, sharp
distinctions among groups of people who are more alike than they are
different. The ultimate point is that none of us really know who we are,
ancestrally speaking. All we ever really know is what our parents and
grandparents have told us.
Comments
-
Interesting article...I've never been questioned about my last name but many Latino friends in college tried to pronounce it like a Spanish name since they presumed I was Latina. I'm multi-generational mixed, and was easily accepted by Latino clubs/groups, but openly rejected by several Black groups that told me I would never know what it was like to be Black. Boy oh boy. I just received my "What Are You?" t-shirt in the mail last night, I think I will be sporting it to the next happy hour.
If you're interested in discussing multi-racial issues, you might want to visit www.swirlinc.org. Swirl was founded by a fellow New Yorker and while national, has a very active chapter here in the city.Swirl, Inc. is an anti-racist, grassroots organization that serves the mixed heritage community and aims to develop a national consciousness around mixed heritage issues to empower members to organize and take action towards progressive social change.
-
This IS really interesting. I wonder what the aftermath would be like if everyone in NYC had to take that test.
-
I'm fascinated. I know my family tree pretty well on both sides...or do I? I'd love to take that test, just out of sheer curiosity.
-
bluedove wrote: I'm fascinated. I know my family tree pretty well on both sides...or do I? I'd love to take that test, just out of sheer curiosity.
YEAH! Where can we take the test? [/screaminghoardofbarbarians] -
bluedove wrote: I'm fascinated. I know my family tree pretty well on both sides...or do I? I'd love to take that test, just out of sheer curiosity.
I remember reading (WSJ) about some of the testing that's going on... for a while, they were taking samples for free as they attempted to map things out. I think that they now charge 20 bucks or so, but I don't can't find the program that I'm thinking of!!! -
not to be too nerdy, but
"A little more than half of my genetic material came from sub-Saharan Africa"
should really read something like
"Of the 2% of genetic material that can be traced to different areas of origin, a little more than half of that came from sub-Saharan Africa"
The 2% is probably wrong, but our notions of race come from an incredibly tiny percentage of our total genetic makeup... -
www.ancestrybydna.com
-
Here's one of the articles that I was thinking of...
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1234560907772.html -
When I read about this test about a year ago, I really wanted to take it, but I think it costs a few thousand dollars....
-
RBG wrote: When I read about this test about a year ago, I really wanted to take it, but I think it costs a few thousand dollars....
From WSJ-National Geographic is selling a serviceâ€â€Âfor $99.95 plus shipping and handlingâ€â€Âin which people can send in their own DNA and find out where they fit on humanity's family tree. For example, it might show that a person's ancestors on the male line came out of Africa, through Central Asia and into a particular part of Europe.
-
RBG wrote: When I read about this test about a year ago, I really wanted to take it, but I think it costs a few thousand dollars....
$219 on that website above... -
lirio wrote: If you're interested in discussing multi-racial issues, you might want to visit www.swirlinc.org. Swirl was founded by a fellow New Yorker and while national, has a very active chapter here in the city.
I have to give a plug for swirl. I went to college with the founder and this is just another one of many amazing things she has put together.Swirl, Inc. is an anti-racist, grassroots organization that serves the mixed heritage community and aims to develop a national consciousness around mixed heritage issues to empower members to organize and take action towards progressive social change.
-
From Mixed Media Watch an off-shoot of Swirl:
http://www.addictedtorace.com/?p=7 wrote: Addicted to Race[/url], most of these DNA tests are extremely unreliable because they only reveal a tiny sliver of your ancestry. The Y-chromosome test, for example, only traces your patrilineal line (your father’s father’s father and so on). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the mitochondrial-DNA test only looks at your mother’s female ancestry. What this means is that you’re only getting information on about 1 in every 1,000 of your ancestors. So it’s by no means a comprehensive picture at all.
-
Perhaps I'm overly paranoid (let me readjust my tinfoil hat), but I'd be concerned about issues of privacy regarding my DNA. It's a bit like having my fingerprints on file. I'd need some serious reassurances that my DNA would be unlinked from my identifiers.That being said, I did give some DNA to Rockefeller University once. But that was before I'd thought much about privacy and DNA.
-
Medusa wrote: Perhaps I'm overly paranoid (let me readjust my tinfoil hat), but I'd be concerned about issues of privacy regarding my DNA. It's a bit like having my fingerprints on file. I'd need some serious reassurances that my DNA would be unlinked from my identifiers.That being said, I did give some DNA to Rockefeller University once. But that was before I'd thought much about privacy and DNA.
You're absolutely right to be concerned. If not for yourself, then for your children or grandchildren. If the DNA is kept and accessible to law enforcement...say 80 years from now, your great-grandkid commits a crime, refuses a DNA sample, yet prosecutors do some research and find that you gave up your DNA long ago, get a court order for it, your DNA could possibly be used to convict him. Case in point, Dennis Rader aka the BTK Killer got nailed because police convinced (some say fooled) his daughter into giving a sample of her DNA, which was then used to match her father's to the crime scene samples that were collected. They had some circumstantial evidence against him (a 3.5 disk mailed by BTK that had remnants of excel docs of church finances with Rader as the author), but it was the DNA match that screwed him. -
:shock:
But...if my grandchildren are murdering people...I kind of want them to get...caught... is that wrong? -
bluedove wrote: :shock:
Yes, but when George Bush IV is trying to track them down for aberrant political thought, and gets a DNA sample from a napkin at that known hotbed of "liberal" activity Heights Cafe, then you'll be sorry!
But...if my grandchildren are murdering people...I kind of want them to get...caught... is that wrong? -
Hahah, good point.
-
bluedove wrote: :shock:
Sure, but wouldn't you want them to have the same control over their DNA as we ostensibly do, regardless of their actions? The crime thing is just one possible use.
But...if my grandchildren are murdering people...I kind of want them to get...caught... is that wrong? -
Yes, of course. Your BTK analogy just threw me off there for a minute. I'm always amazed when people argue for personal privacy in defense of actual crimes. Of course there are a million other good reasons to protect it. I just disagree that that's one of them.
(ETA: And by "crimes" of course I mean the kind of crime that is--or at least should be--universally and undisputedly acknowledged as such, like torture, rape, and murder. Not whatever a current government decides to make illegal, some of which is almost criminal in and of itself [/tiny rant].)
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds






