The genetics of being Indian

In Who Is a Real Native American? Bint Alshamsa, a woman with black and Indian ancestors, addresses the given question.

Although it's a quote from another site, I believe this is her viewpoint:Race in general usage includes both a cultural and biological feature of a person or group of people. Given the fact that physical differences between populations are often accompanied by cultural differences, it has been difficult to separate these two elements of race.And this is the opposite viewpoint:Molly's view is that I am not Native American and neither is anyone else who is not "100% Indian."Why genes aren't everything

In the course of the debate, Bint links to several resources on Native identity. One is worth noting here:

Genetic "Markers"--Not a Valid Test of Native IdentityAcross the country, there is currently a lot of interest in the prospects of using genetics to determine whether somebody is really Native American. This interest has arisen in many contexts‚ from determining whether ancient remains are Native American for purposes of repatriation to groups of people who are seeking recognition as an Indian tribe by the United States government, to individuals who think they might have American Indian ancestry and would like to find a way to “prove” it. There are even several companies that claim to be able to help people determine their Native American heritage with genetic analysis. In the notorious case of “Kennewick Man,” geneticists were charged with the impossible task of identifying him racially and tribally, and were of course unsuccessful, in spite of having destroyed some of the remains to do the tests.

But there are problems with using genetics to determine whether or not one has Native American ancestry, and/or alternatively to determine tribal membership. The most obvious problem is that being Native American is a question of politics and culture, not biology; one is Native American if one is recognized by a tribe as being a member. And one is not necessarily a member of a tribe simply because one has Native American ancestors. Another problem is that genetic analysis, and some of the processes involved, can be problematic for indigenous people in terms of their own cultural knowledge. Put simply, there are things involved in genetic analysis that some indigenous cultures consider violations of their principles or values.And:The concept of genetic testing to prove Native American ancestry is one that is discussed more frequently in recent times, but there are many problems with the idea. Perhaps foremost of these problems is that to make a genetic test the arbiter of whether someone is Native American or not is to give up tribal sovereign ability to determine membership and relations. But even taken on their own scientific terms, the tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American. This is because they yield many false negatives and false positives (they readily misidentify non-Native people as Native, and misidentify Native people as non-Native), and the positive results they do yield at best are only probabilities, not certainties. If these were medical diagnostic tests, they would never be approved or adopted.

But the most important argument against this type of testing to establish tribal affiliations is that biology (and genetics) track just part of our tribal inheritance. These DNA tests treat Native American biology as though all Indians were essentially the same. But in reality, our traditions make us who we are, not just our biology.The key point

The debate is long and difficult to summarize. But to support her claims with evidence, Bint eventually saysGo directly to Blue Corn Comics. Do not pass Go. Do not collect two hundred dollars.which makes her the clear winner as far as I'm concerned. <g>

I added my thoughts in the comments section near the end. To see the full debate, follow the initial link.