September 06, 2008

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.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem with using DNA to track identity is that the population samples used to create population profiles are still very small. Also, when one is talking about identity we must remember the difference between biological identity and cultural identity - they are not the same. There is a long way to go before DNA can give use any real answers when dealing with Native American identity or affiliation.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Hmm, then by Bint's own 'logic,' she isn't Black either, as she is not 100%.
And writerfella has pointed out heretofore exactly why DNA can determine who is Native and who is not. How? Natives lack genetic diversity to the max, as all who now are alive arose from survivor groups whose genetic identities were and are cookie-cutter close. One single disease could wipe out almost all Natives because that lack of genetic diversity also means they lack immunity potentials as well. Once again, almost every Native alive around 1920 contracted Tuberculosis, with the deaths exacerbating lack of genetic diversity. Natives STILL are the most susceptible humans to TB and an outbreak of DRTB (drug-resistant) both would be disastrous and devastating. Unfortunately, with the vast pandemics of DRTB in HIV-ravaged Africa, the possibility of such an outbreak very much is real...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

bint alshamsa said...

Writerfella,

Hmmm. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. It was actually Molly's view that if one is not "100%" something (e.g. NA, black, white) then the person isn't truly a legitimate member of that group. My view is that I am not ANY percent this or that. My identity is not broken down into little pieces that are either black or NA or Irish. You can't quantify my cultural identity.

With regards to "cookie-cutter close" genetic diversity, the reality is that ALL human beings are cookie-cutter close to each other. The differences between people, even those who are viewed as belonging to different races, are absolutely minuscule.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the point you're making. I would greatly appreciate it if you'd show me how following my "logic" essentially means what you've claimed here.

bint alshamsa said...

Native American Geneticist,

I don't know if DNA will ever be helpful in resolving Native American identity/affiliation issues. I love science, so I'm not willing to say that genetics are useless in this regard. However, my own feeling is that we don't really need to involve genetics in this at all. Nations can admit whomever they choose for whatever reasons they want. If they can't, then they aren't truly sovereign.

That's not to say there aren't some very problematic aspects to how some Nations make these decisions (about who is and isn't NA).

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
writerfella between 1989 and 1993 absorbed every book, article, and science item about DNA and most especially DNA profiling when his adopted brother Tim was on trial for murder. The only evidence against Tim? DNA, period. Both the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation made it a high profile case because the OSBI wanted its own DNA profiling lab and the FBI was trying to market its protocols as some sort of international standard ($billion$!). Imagine the anger from both bureaus when writerfella and a hired bird geneticist from New York State shot the prosecution's case to shreds and Tim was found not guilty. How? The FBI database for profiling Native DNA used only five tribes from New England. Tim is Kiowa-Apache, a ragtag tribe that arose from less than fifty survivors. Yet ostensibly the DNA analysis on Tim was 'accurate' to one in 3 billion. And that was how writerfella learned that survivor groups such as the California golden seal were almost genetically identical because so few created hundreds and thousands after near-extinction, and that one disease could kill them all. The kicker? The geneticist used writerfella's prototype for an article that showed that DNA profiling would work for everyone else EXCEPT Native Americans. Tim went free...
The statement that all humans are cookie cutter close genetically is NOT true as, per exemplum, Natives of pre-1860 were found to have ZERO B blood type and to have no genetic potentials for that blood type. Natives have no whorls in their fingerprints, only loops and arches. There is an extra suture in Native skulls called the Inca Bone. These characteristics, among many others, occur ONLY in Native Americans.
Yes, indeed, science can be fun...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

bint alshamsa said...

Writerfella,

The statement that all humans are cookie cutter close genetically is NOT true as, per exemplum, Natives of pre-1860 were found to have ZERO B blood type and to have no genetic potentials for that blood type. Natives have no whorls in their fingerprints, only loops and arches. There is an extra suture in Native skulls called the Inca Bone. These characteristics, among many others, occur ONLY in Native Americans.

If we weren't "cookie-cutter close", then how is it Native Americans are able to reproduce with non-Natives? How is it non-Natives can successfully receive blood transfusions from Native Americans (and vice versa)?

There's also a few other problematic things about your claims. The only way you can determine whether these features only exist in NA populations is if you have examined everyone, the entire world pop--both NA and non-NA. And, please, look at the following and see if you can see how/why it's illogical.

All my daughters have ten fingers, therefore every girl with ten fingers must be my daughter.

That's the same argument that you're making. Just because there are NA people with no whorls doesn't mean that anyone with with whorls isn't a NA. And for the record, the majority of people in this country have the looped fingerprint pattern. Does that make them all Native Americans? Well, only if we define Native American as "those who have arched fingerprints". But is having arched fingerprints really what it means to be NA? I would say no. I say that being NA is so-oo-oo much more than that.

Rob said...

Thanks for joining us, Bint. It's nice to have some erudite comments for once instead of the usual bickering and bad jokes.

Russ states that the FBI used the DNA of only five New England tribes...so its results weren't accurate. A geneticist concluded that it's impossible to profile Natives using DNA.

I don't follow Russ's "logic." If all Natives are "cookie-cutter close," then the DNA from the five tribes should've produced valid results. It should've been cookie-cutter close to the Kiowa-Apaches' DNA.

How can it be impossible to profile Natives if their DNA is so uniform? Uniformity of DNA should make profiling easy, not difficult or impossible. I must be missing something, because I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

This is a very ignorant study and it's as dumb as saying if you have a mole on your arm then your Native American(LOL), or let gets even sillier, if you have long straight hair, or your step daddy was indian then your indian because he was. There is variety in every race like some white people have blue eyes and some have brown. People are Indian by blood not fingerprints.

bint alshamsa said...

Rob, thanks. I was hoping that writerfella would explain how he reached his conclusions because maybe that would help him to start to think about what his claims (about genetics) really mean.

By the way, is there some story behind why it seems as if he's writing about himself in third person terms?

Rob said...

Alas, Russ generally doesn't answer questions. He fancies himself a trickster type, dropping his bon mots and then vanishing. Addressing issues and backing claims with evidence are the "EuroMan's" thing, not his.

Russ explained his use of the third person once. I don't recall what he said, but it amounted to "Writerfella does it because he feels like it." Loosely translated, that means: "Using the third person signifies how unique and special and important Writerfella is."

Anonymous said...

I found this site while I was searching the terms "blackindain and whiteindian" which are really popular nowadays? I am curious because I think this may have some relevancy to the argument of who is indian. What do you guys think of these terms. Are they good to use? Or do you find that the use of these racial modifiers tends to segregate as opposed to uniting people? I just get mad when I say I am American Indian and people say are you a black or white indian like I'm some kind of flavored ice cream.What do you say to people who do that?

Rob said...

I haven't heard anyone use the phrase "white Indian." That wouldn't add much to a dialog, since many Indians are part white.

"Black Indian" might be useful in some cases, especially for unenrolled Indians. It could help distinguish between blacks who are part Indian and blacks who aren't.

But suppose a "black Indian" deemed himself a Cherokee. I imagine he'd call himself a Cherokee first, an Indian second, and a black Indian third.

If you're an actual Indian, I don't see a need to add a racial qualifier. Whether you're part white, black, or something else shouldn't affect your Indian identity.

Anonymous said...

I know this is a tired subject, but I see "Molly" as a bigot....she wants to keep the "Race" pure..in her own words..........she sounds like those old-time "whites" from back in the 60,50's and beyond....I'm 1/2 Choctaw (enrolled) and 3/8ths African American and I'm proud to say I'm both....I hardly mention the 1/8th Caucasian (simply because I don't Identify with them)....I look Hispanic/black (but, I'm not)...I hope that a other American Indians realize that they too have Caucasian blood whether they admit it or not and African Blood....I think it's easier for them to admit "White" blood before "African" blood...so they just usually claiming 100% American Indian (which is lie)