Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290270633

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Pilgrim & Indian ancestors;GeneTree pre-Thanksgiving special
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:30:33 -0800
References: <><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

Possiblly, but here is the full quote Ann:

"We don't look Indian by any means, but to feel that, you get a sense of how
varied and rich your culture can be without your even knowing."

This is in accord with my experience, frequently hearing comments such as
this in relation to someone for example saying that their great great
grandfather was Native American. Any phenotypic expression from this
ancestor is likely to very "subtle" since the 1/16 would be masked almost
completely by say 15/16 European. A 9th great grandparent, well the chances
of them even being in the genetic tree is remote. It is not uncommon for
those who are paper tree descendants of Pocahontas to expect to see
something "of her" in for example a DNATribes test - or claim an "Anatolian
bump" somehow relates to this ancestor. Of course we live in a world where
anything is possible, but where probablity is often considered only if
convenient. My opinion only.

I am still unclear as to whether the "revelation" came from genealogy or DNA

David K. Faux.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Ann Turner <> wrote:

> You might be over-interpreting her remark -- she is simply noting "how
> varied and rich your culture can be without your even knowing."
> Ann
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 7:12 AM, David Faux <> wrote:
> > This statement from the article also reflects the profound ignorance of
> the
> > public in terms of phenotypic expression. Why should she expect that
> > having
> > an Indian (Native American) ancestor born in the late 1500s or early
> 1600s
> > (if in fact there has been not NPE in the intervening 400 years!) would
> > result in any traits that "look Indian".
> >

This thread: