Originally posted by Jaellma
Ancestry.com has done an extensive study on the roots of Barack Obama and have discovered his mother has direct roots to a black American slave.
Not really surprising since quite a number of white Americans have black roots/ancestry even though some of them would not admit it or just plain
don't know this.
The Ancestry.com team did two years of research to puzzle this out and looked through thousands of pages of colonial records. The researchers got
the DNA from the Bunch family and, even without the documented connection to John Punch, they say they're very certain of their finding about the
president's slave ancestor on mother's side.
New evidence shows slave ancestry on
Obama's mother side
Your thread title is misleading. The article title is "Surprising link found in Obama's family tree
." I've been under the impression that
thread titles had to match the article title. Have I understood that incorrectly?
Your claim of "DNA evidence of slave ancestor on mother's side" is fully misleading; the article states "We found that, through DNA testing done by
members of the Bunch family, that their direct ancestors are of sub-Saharan African origin.
" - not that the President is directly related by
supported DNA evidence.
The evidence is wholly inconclusive because "Though records are incomplete
, the Ancestry.com genealogists say the slave John Punch is the only
likely person to have been the father of John Bunch, sometime before 1637." They "believe," though records are incomplete
= they don't KNOW.
An incomplete paper trail (which they admit) leaves nothing but supposition and supposition, even by the most advanced experts is just that:
It's like someone from NASA saying "I believe in extraterrestrial life" - many do, even experts in the space industry, but there's no proof; just
Further, while both males and females have mtDNA, only females carry it from female-to-female down the line. A male will inherit mtDNA from his
mother but it will not pass to his children. Source
. Similarly, paternal DNA (the Y chromosome)
passes father to son to son to son; a daughter will not inherit the Y chromosome DNA.
What does that mean? It means that DNA from John Punch/John Bunch did NOT pass to Stanley Anne Dunham Obama Soetoro, and, thus, to her son, our
President, that's what it means. No DNA evidence. Period. Except that the Bunches can be traced to sub-Saharan Africa.
Additionally, Three indentured servants—John Punch, James Gregory, and Victor —ran
away and were recaptured. James Gregory and Victor, both white, were given “thirty stripes” and an additional four years of servitude,
whereas John Punch, a Negro, was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life.
- the two white men had 4 years added to their indenture
while Punch had the remainder of his life added to his indenture. So, a "slave" for life? No; an indentured servant
for life, by
, implying an Appeal could
have been filed. Legal semantics? Probably, but very important when conveying history correctly.
It has been historically fully documented and accepted that John Casor was the first person fully enslaved for life; that is, a human being actually
OWNED by another human being; not indentured
for a period for life
) because Casor's "owner" claimed that there never was
indenture but that he "had ye Negro (for) his life."
At the end of the day, why this article and acting as though some great discovery has been made? The article clearly states " ... The bunch family
over the generations continued to intermarry with white people and just became white for all intents and purposes
" which brings us right back
around to the truth that President Obama has Z-E-R-O connection/shared roots with African Americans who self-identify as Blacks whose ancestors were
enslaved, except by marriage if Mrs. Obama's family has that history.
It strikes me as nothing but typical political crapola at campaign time in an effort to identify with a sector of the populace in order to pander for
votes. Or it's an incalculable coincidence that such superficial findings have been coalesced into an article deemed "newsworthy" just at this time.
All the article really documents is that there was no significant racial discrimination when the Colonies first started up; that all came after the
Casor (Anthony vs Parker) case.
None of us are "pure" anything - we ARE all related, though.
edit on 30-7-2012 by SeesFar because: it had to be done