It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tanga36
originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Tanga36
When the first threads about this started to appear, I spent some time googling and reading about Native American DNA. What I found is that there really is no such thing. A few trends, however did emerge.
The Indians are believed to mostly all come here from Asia to Alaska then gone south and spread out from there. Precolumbian Indians are believed to have Asiatic DNA markers. There are a few tribes of Mayan Indians with distinct DNA markers, perhaps some in Peru also. These tribes seem to have mixed into some American tribes so some of them have that. The DNA varies by region. Some eastern tribes have pretty distinct lineage but when you get to the southwest, Indian DNA is so mixed, it's not useful at all for determining tribal membership. Since the 1600's Native Americans have had so much intermarriage, there are very few individuals with pure blood of any tribe left. Indians counted not only people born from tribe parents as members but also spouses and adopted children.
When it comes to Cherokee DNA, you find different test results from nearly all other tribes. Their markers are not predominately Asian but Middle Eastern, North African, Berber, and Iberian. Apparently, they originated from the Mediterranean area not Asia.
This is all intriguing and wonderful information that is news to me, especially the part about the Cherokee having distinct markers that differentiate them from other tribes. This brings more questions to my mind. I was aware of some of that information but some of the other info really has my mind doing some somersaults, like why are the Cherokee so different? How did they get here? When did they get here? How did they remain separate from the other tribes?
I guess you have given me something new to delve into and attempt to figure out my new curiosities!
IMHO we need to re-evaluate our current views on the word and meaning of indigenous....we now have substantial volumes of evidence showing that there were peoples other than Native Americans IN AMERICA before the current tribes of Natives arrived....so the Red People are not indigenous to NA they TRAVELLED to NA...…
so the Red People are not indigenous to NA they TRAVELLED to NA...…
The corporate control is fabricated....the agreements signed are meaningless....the Treaties are meaningless...for the Indians were never indigenous....the wrongs committed against them cannot be quantified and excused using the word indigenous.....the Treaties were knowingly and fraudulently enacted....
The word indigenous was CREATED to cripple races...to undermine humanitys unity....and to MANIPULATE peoples.
There was a race war...atrocities were committed....millions and millions of people were killed and displaced....then illegal meaningless Treaties were signed.
originally posted by: LSU2018
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Tanga36
...This statement is a good reminder, not just to any specific individual, but to all of us Americans that our family's oral history is ultimately just a story...
Isn't this whole crazy world a mish-mash of stories?
She calls herself a Cherokee: and so many folks get upset, and reject her claim outright. "You're not! Your DNA proves it".
But if she decides to call herself a man: folks will go "Yes sir". Even though her DNA says she's a gendered female.
What up wit dat?
Well, actually, those who say she's not a Native American are the same ones that would still call her ma'am if she tried to say she were a boy. And those that say "well if she's 1/1024th then that settles it, she's a Native American!" are the same ones that would call her sir if she said she was a boy.