Talk Elections

According to this:

http://ethnicelebs.com/cory-booker

Booker took a DNA test for the “Finding Your Roots” show, and the results showed:

47% African
45% European
7% Native American (higher than Elizabeth Warren  :P )

It says that both his parents were black, and mentions only one white great-grandparent.  But if he’s 45% European, then he must have more white ancestry than that, though where that comes from is not explained anywhere.

It's quite obvious.


His African-American great-great-great-great-parents were probably the offspring of their white slave masters.

Most African-Americans with roots in slavery are 25-50% European.

Unlike the more recent African immigrants.

It's also why African-Americans are varying shades, and not all the very-dark skin tones of most native African citizens. (It also depends on country of origin... but hardly any African-Americans are purely African).

Obama's father was from a quite homogeneous area, whereas Booker's parents were not from there. Most African-Americans with roots in the country dating back into slavery do not have a solid African or black bloodline. Some of Booker's white ancestors wouldn't be recorded, because the slave masters didn't claim their children with slaves. For the most part, Obama is blacker than most African-Americans by genealogy.

Most "full" black people in America would be at least 25% European if they took a DNA test. Some might even be majority European.

Oh, I'm aware that there's plenty of non-African ancestry in most African-Americans, but "Obama is blacker than most African-Americans by genealogy"?  You mean *most* African-Americans are actually less than 50% African by ancestry?  That would surprise me.  I mean, even if there was a massive amount of cross-racial child creation, I'd assume that below a certain threshold of African ancestry (20%?  25%?) many (most?) would just identify as white.  And so they wouldn't even be counted as African-American in surveys.

The "blackness" of Obama being questioned is more about how he's not descended from anyone black who lived under slavery or Jim Crow.
(except for the very first slave in America, on his mother's side, but they've identified as white since the 1700s).

The above posters have already mentioned slavery and white masters breeding with their slaves. But is it really that surprising? Doesn't Booker have green or blue eyes? That should be a sign that he has a decent amount of European ancestry.

I had no idea I would have over 70% ancestry from Great Britain until I took a DNA test because the British ancestry in my family is so far back in my family tree that it was largely forgotten. Maybe this is also the case with Booker's ancestry.

What I meant was that Obama has more of a direct link to African lineage than most African-Americans who have been here for centuries. That would have been the better way to phrase it.

Has Obama taken one of these?


I know some blacks, including Jefferson's children, were three-quarters white. Jefferson's children, interestingly, were also his wife's half-nieces. I believe one of them had kids who were seven-eights white and whose descendants all married African-Americans. Being descended from someone born in 1860 who was seven-eighths white would make one pretty European.

On a similar note, North Africans, particularly Moroccans and Egyptians, have a surprising amount of ancient European ancestry. Mediterranean is often its own thing in genealogy test, as ancestry from Venice, Casablanca or Gibraltar, Istanbul, and Cairo all likely have a good amount of blood in common.

I think Jefferson's children were 7/8 white. If I remember correctly Sally Hemings was 1/4 black because her father was a white British man and her mother was a mulatto slave.

That's right. I was confused, obviously.

     This points to a major factor behind the "one drop" rule. Slave masters wanted to continue to hold their own illegitimate children as slaves. This has had the effect to this day of people who are far less than 50% black by ancestry being considered black and identifying as such.

Why is this even a thread?

Identity is not a simplistic matter of some random DNA test...

Identity has more to do with one's individual life experiences, family upbringing, communities, and in the case of many people, how they are perceived by others, regardless of "ethnic family heritage based upon DNA roots"....

Sure, if you want Native American Tribal benefits, there is a bit of a quota requiring proof of Native background, many countries in the world, including Germany until just recently required proof of ethnic German heritage, which led to a ton of Eastern Europeans getting to the front of the queue, while meanwhile 3rd generation Germans of Turkish decent were not allowed to be citizens, even though this was their home country....  

I digress.... and not sure if there is a Troll lurking under a bridge somewhere in MN, or this was accidentally posted to the wrong thread, or whatever else.

Although, the OPs thread title and question is extremely disturbing in the extreme, with some random White dude on the Forum somehow trying to create a false comparison of "Blackness" between Obama and Booker based upon DNA and genetic testing (WTF???), I will close with the fact the Barack Obama is the 3rd Irish-American President in the history of the United States, after JFK & Reagan.

As song by the famous Corrigan Brothers...."There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQn4eVdXy_w

Yes, and I'm waiting to learn the connection this has to the 2020 presidential election...

An equally good question.

Any interesting factoid about the background of likely 2020 candidates is worthy of discussion here IMHO.  Hence, why I also had a thread recently about Gillibrand knowing Chinese.  These are things that the media will presumably spend time talking about in two years, so of course we’re going to talk about it here first, since we’re paying attention to these candidates more closely than the MSM is.

Interestingly, Barack Obama is actually slightly more than 50% African -- research has suggested that his mother is descended from at least one freed black slave in 1600s Virginia named John Punch.

On the other hand, because of the prevalence of the "one drop rule" in 1700s-1900s America, regarding people who were 1/4 black as being fully so was fairly common, and there are probably many African-Americans who indeed are mostly European in their ancestry, being only 25-50% African in their ancestry, but still identify largely with the African-American community. The roulette wheel that is genetics can sometimes give very extreme examples (like current NC Congressman G.K. Butterfield, who is black but appears hardly any darker than Hillary Clinton).

Basically anyone in America, of any race, can accept that regardless of the details of his genetic makeup Cory Booker is clearly black in a racial sense.

Tell that to Rachel Dolezal.

The Slave Trade came through France and Great Britian anyways.  Which means Jamaica and Hispanola (Haiti), through the Louisiana Purchase and to New York state, where a lot of Jamaicans are from.  So, it really, doesn't matter, anyways.  As longs as one is an educated black male, who is ivyleagued.

I lways wondered why Barack identified as black anyway, rather than mixed race.