I have always questioned the validity of the DNA genetic testing. There are many unanswered questions related to DNA testing and determining a persona ancestry.
Nanibaa' Garrison is a bioethicist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children's Hospital. A Native American, she earned a PhD in the Department of Genetics at Stanford, with a dissertation focused on ancestry.
Here (in bold print) is what Ms. Nanibaa' Garrison has to say about DNA testing for "native American" ancestry:
Nanibaa' Garrison is a bioethicist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children's Hospital. A Native American, she earned a PhD in the Department of Genetics at Stanford, with a dissertation focused on ancestry.
Here (in bold print) is what Ms. Nanibaa' Garrison has to say about DNA testing for "native American" ancestry:
"It's really difficult to say that a DNA test would be able to identify how much Native American ancestry a person has," Garrison said."
"That's because determinations of ancestry are based on "ancestry-informative markers" -- genetic flags that offer probabilities of the likelihood of certain ancestries. Most of those markers, AIMs, are "based on global populations that are outside of the U.S.," she said, "primarily people of European descent, people of Asian descent and people of African descent."
"Those three populations are not enough to determine how much Native American ancestry a person has." There are some companies that are obtaining DNA from Native Americans to fill that gap -- but that's almost certainly not enough information to make that identification."
Remember how genetics works. You are a mix of your mother's genes and your father's -- some from each. They are themselves a mix of their parents, who are a mix of their parents. That 1/32nd takes us back five generations -- to, literally, one person's genes in a potential pool of 32 pairs. Even a test that was fine-tuned to pick out Native American identity might not find any, because the requisite markers simply may not have made the cut over multiple generations.
3 comments:
I hadn't heard that aspect of it, NM, but I agree and don't think it's actually a science nor is much of what has been called science and has been used as a political/cultural hammer.
Perhaps you've read the book about DNA testing by Texas anthropology professor Kim TallBear that takes DNA testing to task in which she says it's usurping the ways Native people define Native identity and tribal membership. I heard her interviewed about it here:
http://newbooksnetwork.com/kim-tallbear-native-american-dna-tribal-belonging-and-the-false-promise-of-genetic-science-university-of-minnesota-press-2013-3/
You've been active these past weeks and I had some catching up to do -- on some very interesting posts. I love that picture of the church, too. Do you know who painted it?
Do not know who painted it.....
As far as "usurping the ways Native people define Native identity and tribal membership".
That is a conundrum that is what it is and will probably remain that way. My guess is that the reason for it being the way it is is because of the "individual" treaties signed over time with "individual" tribes by the US Government. I repeat..... individual treaties with individual tribes...
Imagine if the government did not use the standard that the government has used, uses and probably will use in the future. It would be a mess. If my information is correct Native American tribes are free to add and subtract members as they see fit. But, and this is the clincher, they cannot add to the "treaty rolls" as those Indians on the treaty rolls are tied to the treaties.
Otherwise, Native American Tribes could add members as they saw fit and demand treaty rights for every Tom Dick and Harry that they added. In the eyes of the government that was not what the treaties were intended for nor was it what they intended for.
https://robertyackel.com/art-available-for-purchase/new-mexico-churches/
https://robertyackel.com/paintings/new-mexico-churches-iv/
Post a Comment