Hope you have a happy Thanksgiving, if you celebrate such. It's my favorite holiday. I so miss those huge family meals. If you get to experience such, take LOTS of photos and ask your family lots of questions about your past. Bring a written-out family tree on poster board and have people fill it in - and record the stories they tell as they do so.
Ancestry.com redid its DNA testing methods, and then went back and retested all their DNA tests on files. In their first round, I was mostly Scottish and Irish and Scandanavian, plus mixes of lots of other stuff. I was delighted. But in this next round, it says I am 73% English.
Oh, the disappointment. Just English. Nothing special. Colonizers. Oppressors.
The idea of being associated with the people who have been in Ireland and Scotland for the last several hundred years thrilled me. The idea of being as much Greek and Roman as I was English thrilled me. But, wham, better science, and suddenly, I'm just English.
I wrote on Facebook how disappointed I was to be so boring, and an English friend responded:
But what IS English? We’re a complete mixture. Aside from 2000 years of trade with Europe and beyond, mixing with the Celts, we’ve been invaded by Vikings (Scandinavian), Romans (from anywhere in the Empire from North Africa to the Balkans and Germany to Spain) and the Normans (french people of Nordic origin) so actually you’re still desperately exotic, windswept and interesting!!...
Okay, maybe it's not so bad... and the reality is that the people I thought I was descended from in Ireland and Scotland didn't even build all the rock circles there - the people that built those were smaller, darker, and share genetic heritage with the people in Sardinia now - and, sadly, were completely wiped out by the people I thought I was related to.
The more I study ancestry, the more I see that there's no such thing as race, that we are all mutts. All of us. And there is SO much artificial construction in what gets defined as racial groups. And, yes, people have differences in their hair, skin, builds, shape of the face, vulnerability to disease... but not mental, emotional or creative capacities.
In other Ancestry.com news, I had a hard look at a 1880 census that I'd linked to one of my ancestors. And I realized it shows that the names of the two people I've been listing as my great, great grandmother's parents were, in fact, her GRANDparents. Meaning one of those older sisters of hers is, in fact, her mom. Later documents, including her death certificate, call those two people her parents and, yet, looking at the ages and the earliest document, I know it's not true. I know the 1880 census is very likely the truth, given the ages of those involved. I seem to be the only person among family on Ancestry.com that's noticed... other family trees have all gone with the later info. I've wondered if this is why my great-grandmother - who I knew - was oh-so-tight-lipped about her family history: maybe she knew her older "sister" was, in fact, her mom.
Ancestry doesn't make this kind of thing easy to incorporate. I had to delete an entire line of ancestry and start over in order to change a sibling to a parent.
I've also realized that my now great, great, great, great grandmother (there's now an extra "great" in there) is not from Ireland. My Mom told me that once upon a time, and there is someone with that name and around that time on Ancestry, but it's not her. That's something I wish someone had told me early on about doing genealogy: no matter how archaic and unique you think an ancestor's name is, you have to remember that, back in the day, there was very likely at least one person with that same name, living at the same time, and often, very nearby.
But the lines I want to know about most - my paternal grandmother's Dad's family - remain dead ends. I knew my great-grandfather, and I have no idea why, when I started doing genealogy, it was his family was I was so excited to trace. But they were poor and moved around a lot. There's just no documentation on who his people were.
What does it all mean, really? I don't know. I'll be frank: I don't like the idea of people choosing their identity exclusively through their ancestry. I cringe at people making comments that their ancestry somehow makes them more "in tune" with land or water, or specific land or water. Or people imply that they have a "special connection" to some kind of music because of their genetics. The culture you identify with absolutely influences you, and the culture you grew up with definitely conditions you to like, even love, certain things. So does your life experiences, which may be unique to you, different from others brought up in your culture. And as you encounter other cultures, through food, music, books, dance, movies and more, you are going to be further influenced to like, or feel a connection, to something. It's why I love seeing a Japanese American singing Bluegrass. Or a Black American singing Italian opera.
I loved Scotland the moment I crossed its Southern border on the back of Stefan's motorcycle. I dream of moving there. I was thrilled at the idea of being connected to the people that live there now, genetically, and I had hoped to find an ancestor who actually came from a specific town there, and visit that specific town someday. I loved that feeling of being Scottish. And now that I know I might not have any connection at all? I still love Scotland. I still dream of moving there.
My previous blogs on this topic:
Uncle Minnie
Rethinking "indigenous" & DNA results
Ethnic, cultural, gender identity - good luck with your definitions
What is Southern heritage? What is worth celebrating?
Showing posts with label heritage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heritage. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Monday, July 9, 2018
Rethinking "indigenous" & DNA results
Welp, not so fast. Not only because DNA tests are wildly misinterpreted and inaccurate with regards to what we think they are telling us (more on that later), but also because the people I'm descended from did not build those cairns and stone circles.
It was brown-eyed, brown-haired people with faces that are similar to those in Italy or Tunisia or the Middle East that built the stone monuments you see in Irish tourism ads. The genetic profile of these early Irish settlers indisputably originates in the Middle East. Their closest modern relatives — genetically — are the inhabitants of the Italian island of Sardinia. Nearly all of their tools and implements were made from natural products like stone and wood. They were farmers and they were lactose intolerant - they could not drink milk into adulthood without a lot of indigestive discomfort.
However, their DNA is almost entirely absent from the population of modern Ireland and Scotland - this absence indicates that at some point, these people, these stone circle builders, lost out to a new and very different population. In fact, they disappeared from most of Europe, except for Sardinia. For some reason, the descendants of those early Neolithic farmers were left undisturbed on Sardinia.
The DNA of the people that replaced these stone circle builders, the DNA held by the people we call Irish and Scottish today, appears to have originated in the steppes of what is now Ukraine and southern Russia. These newcomers had lactase persistence - they could drink milk into adulthood (as can I - looooove milk).
The genetic record indicates that the local population of stone circle builders was killed rather than that they integrated with the invaders - that may have been a result of war or a result of diseases brought by the newcomers for which the locals had no natural immunity. We may never know.
Here is the article from PRI that explains more. And here is a BBC article that explains it as well.
I still love those cairns and stone circles of Scotland, Ireland, Northern France and parts of England. I wanted so much to be descended from the creators of those. But I'm not - and neither are most of the people of Scotland and Ireland now.
And that brings me to another point: DNA tests. They are a lot of fun, they are based on science, but they are also subject to human interpretation, and I've been just as guilty of misinterpreting what they say as anyone. DNA tests do NOT tell you where your DNA comes from in the past - the tests tell you where on Earth your DNA is from TODAY.
My DNA results say my closest DNA matches are to the people of Ireland and Scotland NOW - not the people of Neolithic times that built those stone circles.
DNA testing companies chose a small number of people in a region to identify as their baseline genetic markers. That means that if there’s only a small number of, say, Central-Eastern African DNA samples that your DNA has been matched against, it’s less likely you’ll get a strong Central-Eastern African match, even if, in fact, you have ancestors from that region. That means that, in fact, you could be American Indian even if your DNA results don't say so.
And with all that said... I wonder... What is heritage? What is my heritage? What isn't my heritage? Is it only through being a direct descendant of a culture that I get to call that culture "mine", or does that kind of ownership or affiliation come from being brought up in that culture?
I don't know.
Other blogs on heritage, culture and who we think we are:
Ethnic, cultural, gender identity - good luck with your definitions
What does it mean to be "white" in the USA?
What is Southern heritage? What is worth celebrating?
Friday, June 24, 2016
Is globalization really new?
In various parts of Europe, and maybe beyond, you can find ceramics made hundreds of years ago from my husband's hometown in Germany.
There are Roman ruins in Northern Africa, and Roman soldiers included black Africans.
The Ottoman Empire stretched from Belgrade past Baghdad.
The Persian empire stretched to Macedonia.
Marcus Antonius, a Roman politician, commonly known as Mark or Marc Antony, died in Egypt.
When you were in school, you learned about all sorts of various tribes from far away invading some land, taking it over, integrating with locals and influencing culture. You yawned. You wondered what that had to do with your life now. You didn't realize that the point was: culture is never fixed. Europe, Asia and Northern Africa, at least, have always had multi-national economies, even "global" economies. There were ancient empires in Central and South America and sub Sahara Africa , swallowing tribes, changing borders, influencing - or even wiping out - cultures.
Globalization has been with us for a few thousand years. Political unrest in one part of the world has affected another, for better or worse, long before airplanes and cars and even steamer ships. Borders have shifted and reshifted and disappeared and been redrawn. Languages have come and gone. Tribes have formed, thrived and dispersed. Over and over and over. Yet we pretend we need to "get back" to a time that never existed, when borders were absolute, when we were isolated and prosperous.
I absolutely understand the love of a culture in which you are born and/or raised. You hear the music of your land, the language or accent of your home, you smell the food, and you feel your heart stir, you feel a sense of identity. I do. I mourn when a beloved restaurant closes in my home town, or another radio station that played the music I love changes formats, or that I have to curb my accent because, when I use it outside of my region, people can't understand me. But I also love it when someone in the Czech Republic says, upon learning I'm from Kentucky, "Horses!" Or when I meet a guy from Japan that plays bluegrass and talks lovingly about a pilgrimage he made to Kentucky years ago. I know these things will survive as long as there are people that love them and celebrate them. But I'm not going to force anyone to eat barbecue instead of burritos or hummus. I eat burritos. I eat hummus.
You might love your far away roots as well. Finding out that, genetically, I am 29% Celt, more than any other European tribe, gave me an emotional boost for Ireland and Scotland, two places I'd already fallen in love with from vacationing there, and I wear my Claddagh ring with pride in my genetic heritage. But does it really matter? I didn't grow up in Ireland or Scotland. No one in my family ever talked about Ireland or Scotland. The farthest back I ever heard anyone talk about the family was a great great grandparent or two - the story usually involved a wagon or a donkey or a farm, within the boundaries of the USA. I choose to identify with Ireland and Scotland. Would it be fair if I'd found out I was part Shawnee, to start identifying as native American? You can, and may, wear a Claddagh ring and not be from Ireland. That's fine. I don't mind. But identity is tricky. It's complicated. It's personal.
I love the English language. I really do. It's such a hodgepodge. And that word, hodgepodge, is so English. It's an alteration of hotchpotch and associated with hodge, an archaic British English term for an agricultural worker. Did you know that? If you didn't, does that make you less of an English speaker than me? I celebrate English by reading Shakespeare and John Steinbeck and Toni Morrison, and looking up word origins, and going to theater, and reading poetry, and trying to use proper grammar, and supporting literacy programs. I don't celebrate it by forcing people to speak it and getting angry when they don't. And my many English friends don't celebrate it by telling me I'm horrid for using American pronunciations and spellings (they just make fun of me). Yes, I think everyone in the USA that is a citizen, or wants to be, or that wants to live here for the rest of their lives, should be able to read and speak English. But I don't at all mind hearing instructions in another language as well. And I also think every USA citizen should delight in hearing other languages, and even learn another one. I'm not threatened by other languages, because I love my native language and celebrate it - why don't you? You can celebrate your heritage and not be a dick about it.
The global language used to be Greek. GREEK. Now, it's English, and more people on this Earth speak English than at any other time in human history. When the numbers of English speakers declines, give me a shout.
Projections show that new immigrants and their descendants will drive most USA population growth in the coming 50 years - just as they have for the past half-century (all my life). Non-Hispanic whites will remain the largest racial or ethnic group in the overall USA population, even in 2065, long after I'm dead, but non-Hispanic whites will become less than a majority. Among immigrants who arrived within the past five years, Asians already outnumber Hispanics, and there is a projected rise of Asians as our nation’s largest immigrant group (more on these numbers here). The projections also show a change in birth patterns, with a continuing dip in average lifetime births to Hispanic women and a slight rise in average lifetime births to Asian and white women. Today, average lifetime births to Hispanic women are markedly higher than to other groups, but the projections show that in 2065, Hispanics, whites, blacks and Asians would have similar fertility rates. Those projections lead some people in the USA to start breathing heavily, panic, and want to vote for extremists. And I just cannot understand why.
And I bring all this up as we all reel from the vote in the for-now-United Kingdom regarding membership in the European Union. The "leave" votes were from people who feel their language and food and values and even their history are under attack, who feel that intellectuals are a threat to their livelihoods and culture, and who feel left out of decision-making that does, very much, affect their lives. It's a vote based more on feelings than reality. But feelings matter. And woe to any politician, in Brussels or in Washington, D.C., that forgets that. The EU should employ the same participatory decision-making in Europe that it demands of projects it funds in the developing world. EU offices, you do a great job with social media - that's part of the reason people under 50 in the UK voted to stay in the EU. But you do a lousy job at traditional communications methods, and that's part of the reason people 50 and over voted to leave. Politicians, you MUST reach out. You must discuss. You must share. You must ask for feedback and show you have heard that feedback. Or you will have a revolution on your hands.
A friend posted this to Facebook, BEFORE the vote, and I think it's dead on:
Having been doing some canvassing it appears that we are heading for Brexit, but the reasons are peculiarly English and I can't cure anyone of that.
It is not because of Boris or his lying battlebus. I don't think anyone trusts him.
It is not because of Farage and his atrocious shit stirring. He is a dreadful human being and most people know this.
It is not because of the psychopathic Gove and his twisted view of the World. Would anyone let him look after their kids let alone the NHS?
It is not because there are so many wealthy people in Britain who won't be affected by the outcome and can afford the arrogance to ignore all the advice.
It is not because people believe any of the Brexit politicians. I don't think most people are really listening to what they are actually saying.
It is also not because anyone actually cares about the facts or figures or wrong or rights of the EU or any of the arguments. Most people support the EU and believe that it is generally good.
It seems to me that this Brexit vote is because people have had enough and don't care any more about the does and don'ts, they are going to have their day in court and the answer is basically 'anything politicians do not want.' People out there canvassing or working will tell you that the social contract between politicians and the people is broken and that the working man has had enough of shit jobs and shit lives and having to share the little with people who don't speak English and will sleep in their car, so if politicians ask them for a positive the answer is no, not for any good reason, but because it is not yes. Pretty much like the answer always is to them when they try and talk to politicians.
I do think right wing extremists are very much to blame for exploiting people's fears and misconceptions regarding this vote. But the EU is also to blame for this vote, for its poor job of communicating with its citizens, and its poor job of making people feel they are a part of the decisions being made about their lives. Let's face it: government and mainstream media are utterly out-of-touch. Back in 2005, I sat in Germany listening to pundits on CNN International and the BBC say over and over that there was no way French voters would reject the EU Constitution, and I thought, all the while, you guys are in for SUCH a shock. And when the French rejected that Constitution, those same pundits said, "Well, the Dutch will FOR SURE approve it." And, again, I shook my head in disbelief at how out-of-touch they were. And, boom, three days later, Dutch voters rejected the constitution by 61.6% of voters. And it's happened again, with Brexit. How does a fat, middle-aged girl from Kentucky know more than you, EU governments and CNN and BBC and all the rest, when it comes to how people feel and vote?!
I don't live a fear-based life - but oh-so-many people do, and not just in Europe. And rather than make fun of them, or dismiss them, or condemn them, it's time to start talking with them, as humans. If you don't, you can expect these same results when France votes or the Netherlands votes or whoever is next. Or in November right here in the USA...
There are Roman ruins in Northern Africa, and Roman soldiers included black Africans.
The Ottoman Empire stretched from Belgrade past Baghdad.
The Persian empire stretched to Macedonia.
Marcus Antonius, a Roman politician, commonly known as Mark or Marc Antony, died in Egypt.
When you were in school, you learned about all sorts of various tribes from far away invading some land, taking it over, integrating with locals and influencing culture. You yawned. You wondered what that had to do with your life now. You didn't realize that the point was: culture is never fixed. Europe, Asia and Northern Africa, at least, have always had multi-national economies, even "global" economies. There were ancient empires in Central and South America and sub Sahara Africa , swallowing tribes, changing borders, influencing - or even wiping out - cultures.
Globalization has been with us for a few thousand years. Political unrest in one part of the world has affected another, for better or worse, long before airplanes and cars and even steamer ships. Borders have shifted and reshifted and disappeared and been redrawn. Languages have come and gone. Tribes have formed, thrived and dispersed. Over and over and over. Yet we pretend we need to "get back" to a time that never existed, when borders were absolute, when we were isolated and prosperous.
I absolutely understand the love of a culture in which you are born and/or raised. You hear the music of your land, the language or accent of your home, you smell the food, and you feel your heart stir, you feel a sense of identity. I do. I mourn when a beloved restaurant closes in my home town, or another radio station that played the music I love changes formats, or that I have to curb my accent because, when I use it outside of my region, people can't understand me. But I also love it when someone in the Czech Republic says, upon learning I'm from Kentucky, "Horses!" Or when I meet a guy from Japan that plays bluegrass and talks lovingly about a pilgrimage he made to Kentucky years ago. I know these things will survive as long as there are people that love them and celebrate them. But I'm not going to force anyone to eat barbecue instead of burritos or hummus. I eat burritos. I eat hummus.
I love the English language. I really do. It's such a hodgepodge. And that word, hodgepodge, is so English. It's an alteration of hotchpotch and associated with hodge, an archaic British English term for an agricultural worker. Did you know that? If you didn't, does that make you less of an English speaker than me? I celebrate English by reading Shakespeare and John Steinbeck and Toni Morrison, and looking up word origins, and going to theater, and reading poetry, and trying to use proper grammar, and supporting literacy programs. I don't celebrate it by forcing people to speak it and getting angry when they don't. And my many English friends don't celebrate it by telling me I'm horrid for using American pronunciations and spellings (they just make fun of me). Yes, I think everyone in the USA that is a citizen, or wants to be, or that wants to live here for the rest of their lives, should be able to read and speak English. But I don't at all mind hearing instructions in another language as well. And I also think every USA citizen should delight in hearing other languages, and even learn another one. I'm not threatened by other languages, because I love my native language and celebrate it - why don't you? You can celebrate your heritage and not be a dick about it.
The global language used to be Greek. GREEK. Now, it's English, and more people on this Earth speak English than at any other time in human history. When the numbers of English speakers declines, give me a shout.
And I bring all this up as we all reel from the vote in the for-now-United Kingdom regarding membership in the European Union. The "leave" votes were from people who feel their language and food and values and even their history are under attack, who feel that intellectuals are a threat to their livelihoods and culture, and who feel left out of decision-making that does, very much, affect their lives. It's a vote based more on feelings than reality. But feelings matter. And woe to any politician, in Brussels or in Washington, D.C., that forgets that. The EU should employ the same participatory decision-making in Europe that it demands of projects it funds in the developing world. EU offices, you do a great job with social media - that's part of the reason people under 50 in the UK voted to stay in the EU. But you do a lousy job at traditional communications methods, and that's part of the reason people 50 and over voted to leave. Politicians, you MUST reach out. You must discuss. You must share. You must ask for feedback and show you have heard that feedback. Or you will have a revolution on your hands.
A friend posted this to Facebook, BEFORE the vote, and I think it's dead on:
Having been doing some canvassing it appears that we are heading for Brexit, but the reasons are peculiarly English and I can't cure anyone of that.
It is not because of Boris or his lying battlebus. I don't think anyone trusts him.
It is not because of Farage and his atrocious shit stirring. He is a dreadful human being and most people know this.
It is not because of the psychopathic Gove and his twisted view of the World. Would anyone let him look after their kids let alone the NHS?
It is not because there are so many wealthy people in Britain who won't be affected by the outcome and can afford the arrogance to ignore all the advice.
It is not because people believe any of the Brexit politicians. I don't think most people are really listening to what they are actually saying.
It is also not because anyone actually cares about the facts or figures or wrong or rights of the EU or any of the arguments. Most people support the EU and believe that it is generally good.
It seems to me that this Brexit vote is because people have had enough and don't care any more about the does and don'ts, they are going to have their day in court and the answer is basically 'anything politicians do not want.' People out there canvassing or working will tell you that the social contract between politicians and the people is broken and that the working man has had enough of shit jobs and shit lives and having to share the little with people who don't speak English and will sleep in their car, so if politicians ask them for a positive the answer is no, not for any good reason, but because it is not yes. Pretty much like the answer always is to them when they try and talk to politicians.
I do think right wing extremists are very much to blame for exploiting people's fears and misconceptions regarding this vote. But the EU is also to blame for this vote, for its poor job of communicating with its citizens, and its poor job of making people feel they are a part of the decisions being made about their lives. Let's face it: government and mainstream media are utterly out-of-touch. Back in 2005, I sat in Germany listening to pundits on CNN International and the BBC say over and over that there was no way French voters would reject the EU Constitution, and I thought, all the while, you guys are in for SUCH a shock. And when the French rejected that Constitution, those same pundits said, "Well, the Dutch will FOR SURE approve it." And, again, I shook my head in disbelief at how out-of-touch they were. And, boom, three days later, Dutch voters rejected the constitution by 61.6% of voters. And it's happened again, with Brexit. How does a fat, middle-aged girl from Kentucky know more than you, EU governments and CNN and BBC and all the rest, when it comes to how people feel and vote?!
I don't live a fear-based life - but oh-so-many people do, and not just in Europe. And rather than make fun of them, or dismiss them, or condemn them, it's time to start talking with them, as humans. If you don't, you can expect these same results when France votes or the Netherlands votes or whoever is next. Or in November right here in the USA...
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
I want a symbol for ALL of the South
I’m from Kentucky. I lived there for the first 22 1/2 years of my life. Kentucky was a slave state that stayed in the Union. Kentucky was the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Kentucky had more union divisions than confederate divisions, but I wonder some times if Kentuckians know this, as they love to talk about - and invent - Southern veterans among their ancestors. With such a mixed history, is Kentucky the South? I think it is. Having traveled extensively all over the USA, Kentucky, in my mind, fits better in the South, culturally speaking, than the midWest. I have always identified as a Southerner.
We don’t need the Confederate flag to represent the South. We never have. It represents only one group of people: white Southerners who believe Southern states had a right to enslave black Africans and their descendants. That is the heritage it represents, period. It's a hurtful symbol not only for black Americans, but for white Americans, like me, who find it a painful reminder of inhumanity that permeated the region I call my home. It represents the worst that white Southerners can be. To see it flown outside state legislatures, to see it a part of state's flags now, is disgusting.
There are so many better representatives of the South: our food, our music, our literature, our friendliness and kindness, our diversity, and on and on. People descended from African slaves are an integral part of the vibrant soul of the South, of the overall culture I love. I love it all. I love the South. And I think the South deserves its own symbol - because we are special, we are unique - but one that represents ALL people in the South and what’s best about us - all of us.
That’s a flag I’ll proudly fly.
I've also traveled all over the world, and it's disturbing to see the Confederate battle flag so popular in so many countries. I've seen it in parades, and sold in gift shops on hats. I've asked people if they know what it means. Some have no idea, and some say they think it means rebellion. But I've no doubt some of them know it's a symbol of oppression against black Americans - and that it's their legal way, in their countries, of expressing "white pride."
The battle over this flag and what it represents has to go worldwide. And we've also got to let people worldwide know the beautiful land and culture that is the South - they really have no idea.
Someone commented on a similar rant, "Are we going to eridacate[sic] the entire Civil War from our history also"? No. Just as Germany doesn't fly the flag that flew over its country and soldiers during World War II, but still remembers and acknowledges that war.
Also see: The meaning of the Confederate flag is best discerned in the words of those who bore it.
One more thing: the majority of Confederate states had armed military divisions fighting for the North. Yes, you read that right: people from each of nine Southern states banded together, under their Southern state identity, formed a military division, and fought for the Union during the Civil War. Only two non-Confederate states, California and West Virginia, had divisions fighting for the South (Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland, which also had at least one armed military division that fought for the South, each had rebellion groups that claimed to be a part of the Confederate government, and these were recognized by the Confederacy). So if you think the South has always been a unified in its hatred of Abraham Lincoln and the North, you would be wrong.
We don’t need the Confederate flag to represent the South. We never have. It represents only one group of people: white Southerners who believe Southern states had a right to enslave black Africans and their descendants. That is the heritage it represents, period. It's a hurtful symbol not only for black Americans, but for white Americans, like me, who find it a painful reminder of inhumanity that permeated the region I call my home. It represents the worst that white Southerners can be. To see it flown outside state legislatures, to see it a part of state's flags now, is disgusting.
There are so many better representatives of the South: our food, our music, our literature, our friendliness and kindness, our diversity, and on and on. People descended from African slaves are an integral part of the vibrant soul of the South, of the overall culture I love. I love it all. I love the South. And I think the South deserves its own symbol - because we are special, we are unique - but one that represents ALL people in the South and what’s best about us - all of us.
That’s a flag I’ll proudly fly.
I've also traveled all over the world, and it's disturbing to see the Confederate battle flag so popular in so many countries. I've seen it in parades, and sold in gift shops on hats. I've asked people if they know what it means. Some have no idea, and some say they think it means rebellion. But I've no doubt some of them know it's a symbol of oppression against black Americans - and that it's their legal way, in their countries, of expressing "white pride."
The battle over this flag and what it represents has to go worldwide. And we've also got to let people worldwide know the beautiful land and culture that is the South - they really have no idea.
Someone commented on a similar rant, "Are we going to eridacate[sic] the entire Civil War from our history also"? No. Just as Germany doesn't fly the flag that flew over its country and soldiers during World War II, but still remembers and acknowledges that war.
Also see: The meaning of the Confederate flag is best discerned in the words of those who bore it.
One more thing: the majority of Confederate states had armed military divisions fighting for the North. Yes, you read that right: people from each of nine Southern states banded together, under their Southern state identity, formed a military division, and fought for the Union during the Civil War. Only two non-Confederate states, California and West Virginia, had divisions fighting for the South (Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland, which also had at least one armed military division that fought for the South, each had rebellion groups that claimed to be a part of the Confederate government, and these were recognized by the Confederacy). So if you think the South has always been a unified in its hatred of Abraham Lincoln and the North, you would be wrong.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
My ancestry
I decided to spend some big bucks and get my DNA traced by Ancestry.com. It works by comparing your DNA to the DNA of people who are native to various region. Here's how they do the maternal lineage testing, and here's how they do the paternal lineage testing.
I've waited anxiously for six weeks for the results. And here they are:
100% Western European.
Yup. I am whiter than white. Whiiiiiiite. Super Celtic. Practically Neanderthal. How disappointing. I wanted to be American Indian!
Sigh.
The specifics:
Ireland/Scotland: 29%
Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, though also found in Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, the Baltic States, Finland): 22%
Europe West (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein): 18%
Great Britain (England): 16%
Italy/Greece: 14%
Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal): 1%
The Celts were early, dominate tribes of what is now Ireland/Scotland and North Western Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula. So, that’s my dominate ancestry, though I've got quite a lot of Germanic / Teutonic stuff going on as well.
The Italy/Greece thing is a stunner. That particular gene line is also found in France, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia, Romania, Turkey, Slovenia, Algeria, Tunisia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo. No way to know what tribe I'm related to: Achaean/Arcadian, Dorian, Aeolian and/or Ionian. I guess a couple of our ancestors moved from one of these countries and married up with other ancestors in France or the Iberian peninsula way back long long before Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.
So, fetch me my kilt and my bagpipes.
100% Western European.
Yup. I am whiter than white. Whiiiiiiite. Super Celtic. Practically Neanderthal. How disappointing. I wanted to be American Indian!
Sigh.
The specifics:
Ireland/Scotland: 29%
Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, though also found in Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, the Baltic States, Finland): 22%
Europe West (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein): 18%
Great Britain (England): 16%
Italy/Greece: 14%
Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal): 1%
The Celts were early, dominate tribes of what is now Ireland/Scotland and North Western Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula. So, that’s my dominate ancestry, though I've got quite a lot of Germanic / Teutonic stuff going on as well.
The Italy/Greece thing is a stunner. That particular gene line is also found in France, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia, Romania, Turkey, Slovenia, Algeria, Tunisia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo. No way to know what tribe I'm related to: Achaean/Arcadian, Dorian, Aeolian and/or Ionian. I guess a couple of our ancestors moved from one of these countries and married up with other ancestors in France or the Iberian peninsula way back long long before Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.
So, fetch me my kilt and my bagpipes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)