Hi Doug, you asked why the group members aren't responding to your e-mail and
suggest it may be because of the shock of not being lily white. I feel
compelled to respond.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but being shocked about my African
ancestry and not being "lily white" is no part of my silence. I not only
think it is logical, much as you articulated, that some of my ancestors would
be from Africa; I also think it is exciting to see the DNA map and all of the
places that are reflected in my DNA.
My reason for not joining the dialogue is because I am an academic, whose
training is rooted in the citing of sources and an almost knee-jerk reaction to
weigh the credibility of all information placed in front of me. With the
absence of that type of supporting detail in your message, I would be at loss
as to how I should respond.
I appreciate that you approach many of the topics on this list with great
enthusiasm and are willing to offer your insights to help other group members.
In this particular instance, I am curious about the assumptions on which your
statements are anchored. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting what you
wrote is bunk. I don't have the expertise to evaluate its veracity. I just
can't accept it wholesale without supporting documentation. For example, you
say:
> all it takes is one ancestor from the late 1600s to be from England or
> modern UK to appear as 1% European Islands DNA
Is that statement based on research that you could provide for us? Is it based
on reading you have done but don't remember exactly where? Or is it a
less-than-precise statement which serves to make the point that it doesn't take
very many people from a particular region to change one's DNA map? Any is
fine, but it would be helpful to understand the foundation to your general
statements, so I know how to evaluate it on the continuum from opinion to fact.
That is my reluctance to join in a conversation. I hope it is taken in the
spirit in which it is intended.
Deb, a.k.a. looking4roots51
Sent from my iPad
> On May 8, 2014, at 10:36 AM, wrote:
>
> I wrote the following privately, but I think others might find it interesting.
>
> I wonder why more people are not joining in with the conversation. I thought
> after I went into to much detail that there would be something by others.
>
> I think these results are way more recent, but old at the same time.
>
> For instance, probably the biggest thing that scared people to find is a
> black ancestor. There is no doubt about it, you and I must have a black
> ancestor to get those results. If we think about all the slavery in the
> Azores, that certainly seems logical. I know many of my ancestors owned
> slaves. Often it mentions the origins of those slaves in a general way like
> the Congo.
>
> Then we have many pais incognitos for expostos and for single women. Then I
> have documented two huge lines of slave descendants for both Pico and
> Terceira. Then you see the generally darker skin tones of the people from the
> Mediterranean basin which can be both middle eastern and African influences.
>
> By new and old I mean we can have an ancestor with DNA from a combination of
> Africa and Middle Eastern and found either as a slave or as an immigrant to
> the Azores from the 1600s. Maybe a legitimized exposto, son or daughter of a
> slave and her master was born in 1700. I don't have any legitimized ancestors
> that recent, but I have certainly seen them and the mother is incognita.
>
> As for another new and old exampl all it takes is one ancestor from the late
> 1600s to be from England or modern UK to appear as 1% European Islands DNAe,.
> And he might not be full English DNA, but might have been in Portugal for a
> couple generations with just 25% English DNA, but then you have 3 or 4 of
> them and now you get to 1% DNA from the year 1675 or so.
>
> For Jewish DNA, that is falling into the one I think we see as North Africa
> around Morocco and as around Jordan and Israel. I'm getting it on my mother's
> side in Hungary for Jordan, and on my father's side as maybe Berber or Jew
> from Morocco.
>
> If Sao Miguel is anything like Pico, there are many early settlers from just
> after the forced baptisms as new Christians. We see it from all the Y-DNA
> testing that is 100% proof they were there. I have one of these ancestors
> from Pico named Baltazar Vieira from Sao Mateus in the late 1500s, thanks to
> Antonio Faria's Y-DNA test. He has jumped head first into all this and is
> finding some fascinating evidence and information that he sends me privately.
> Then I have another with the name Bairos from Pico, I think. Will have to
> double check if he's my direct line, but I have many named Bairos and assume
> I must have some connection to him. But that doesn't actually mean Bairos is
> his direct paternal line. It could be from his mother who might be an old
> Christian.
>
> I'm seeing
