DNA Tests: The Newest Threat to Black Identity (AncestryDNA, 23andMe)
(By Arnold Burks)
African Americans have a fragile identity.
During slavery, we lost all knowledge of who we were before being enslaved. Mentally, we went from being the oldest people on Earth, to the youngest(African history is at least 200,000 years old; while African American history is only 500). When your inception as a people begins with you in chains, it greatly affects how you see yourself.
On a wider scale, African descendants exist all around the world due to both forced and voluntary migrations. We all make up the African Diaspora. Concurrently, non-black historians and anthropologists have been imposing their opinions and assessments on OUR history, while having complete autonomy over THEIRS. Every time we’ve tried to reconnect with Africa, and embrace our blackness, non-blacks have tainted with our movements. Marcus Garvey, who founded a ship line to bring Blacks in the Americas back to West Africa, was stalked by J. Edgar Hoover (who would go on to run the FBI) and deported out of the country. They infiltrate and co-opt our organizations, then promote certain black people who push agendas that they approve of. After years of seeing starving children in Africa on commercials, accompanied with whites asking for one dollar a day, we are now ashamed of our origins. In school, we learn nothing about Africa, but know all about Europe. Blacks with white minds; all of us.
So we distance ourselves from that land. Even our supposed intellectuals do this, some wishing to be called “Black American” instead of African American. The emergence of companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.Com Inc have led to an interest in discovering more about our family history through DNA testing. These tests affect African Americans differently than they do others. People with fragile identities, knowing more about Europe than they do about Africa, who look at a DNA test and see “12% Irish”? Danger lurks…
Most of us either wish to transcend our blackness, or are self conscious about our blackness. We see European “ancestry” and either smile in delight, or feel we aren’t black enough. I put “ancestry” in quotations because a man who raped and held my family member captive is not my ancestor, nor should he be seen as yours.
Google search African American and some strange things will pop up, including White Americans. Google search European American, and if you see a black face, I owe you $20. This is not a meaningless mix-up on Google’s part, but is, unfortunately, exemplary of the way in which many African Americans view themselves. For example, when the National Museum of African American History and Culture opened in 2016, Loving was chosen for it’s first film screening. Loving is the story of a couple who were the plaintiffs in a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision which invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The plaintiffs were Robert Loving, a white American male, and Mildred Loving, a woman who denied having any African ancestry, and instead attested to being Native American. Rhea L. Combs, the museum’s film curator, said “Showing the film … is important because the story is symbolic of the mission of the museum. It demonstrates the link between people of all backgrounds and cultures.” So the first film shown at a museum about African American history was (1)technically not about African Americans, since Mildred didn’t identify as black, and (2)also about White Americans. But due to Comb’s statement about the museum’s mission, it seems they did exactly what they were aiming for.
So why are we so inclusive of other groups, even in spaces that were created to focus on us? For clarity, lets examine the history of our struggle for identity, and overall survival, when imposed upon by outside groups who’ve literally tried to wipe us off of the planet.
The African Diaspora is considered as the forced migration of Africans during the Arab Slave Trade (7th century-20th century), and of West and Central Africans during the European Slave Trade(15th century-19th century). These forced migrations led to African communities existing everywhere from Pakistan to Saint Lucia! Additionally, African descendants exist on a cluster of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, due to an assumed voluntary migration out of Africa thousands of years ago. In the 16th century, when Spanish missionaries were operating in the Philippines, the term “Negrito” (or little black person) was coined for the indigenous people they observed on the island. In 1756, Charles De Brosses theorized that there was an “old black race” of the Pacific, who he believed were conquered by the peoples of what is now known as Polynesia. He distinguished the conquerors as having “lighter skin”. When observing the Aeta peoples , Spanish explorers described them as “fearsome warriors”. However, their lack of organization and small numbers made them vulnerable to outsiders. Other groups seeking slaves would take advantage of the Aetas’ internal feuding (sound familiar?), capture them, and sell them into slavery.
In Australia, white settlers developed plans for “breeding out” the Aborigines, with people like Dr. Cecil Cook (Chief Protector of Aborigines and noted White Supremacist) stating as follows:
“…generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.”
As it is in America, cultural (and biological) assimilation became the way of the land in Australia. A.O. Neville (also Chief “Protector” of Aborigines) said:
“Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white”.
But now, after years of describing these native folk as black, Europeans seem to have changed their minds. Indigenous folk of the Philippines, for example, are described by some white Anthropologists as “Proto-Australoid”, “Paleo-Mediterranian”, and not direct descendants of Africa. Interestingly (and conveniently timed), this new description comes after a recent period of Aboriginal activists embracing the term “black” and using their ancestry as a source of pride.
On the subject of Ancient Kemet (Egypt), white authors describe the word Kemet as meaning “black”, in reference to the black soil of the area. Some African historians refute this, saying Kemet refers to the indigenous people of the land, who were black. The popular theme in all these cases, is that the arguments most accepted are those by the white authors, anthropologists, etc. They are viewed as credible sources on African/Black history, while the claims of actual Africans/blacks are dismissed as irredentism.
So how did this phenomenon come about of those who are not black or African determining who is and who isn’t? And why are Europeans so obsessed with how we view ourselves? This continues today, for example, with CNN producing documentaries like the aptly titled “Who is Black in America?”, further perpetuating confusion among an already confused and insecure group of people. Something many blacks in America have in common with Mildred Loving, is that they also attest to having Indian ancestors. If someone in our family has less “nappy” hair, we attribute it to a Native American, West Indian, or Creole family member whom none of us have ever met. This is something I call the “Exotic Negro Complex”. We subconsciously want to transcend being black, or be black AND(…). Anything other than that, is just regular, boring, blackness.
DNA tests (genetic admixture tests, more specifically) are reliable only a few hundred years back. After all, if all humans come from Africa, surely whites would have African blood (according to this theory). So how do DNA tests break down 200,000 years of ancestry into a 100% scale? The answer is, they don’t. You have thousands(probably millions) of ancestors, and when you have a child, they inherit your partner’s ancestry, too. Modern science hasn’t developed yet to the point where they can trace your full ancestry. Yet the companies offering DNA tests can’t educate you on this(too much at least), because after all, it is a business, and this would make consumers more skeptical.
Jamilah Lemieux, Senior Editor for Ebony Magazine, was the subject of an article written by William Bryant Miles pertaining to a DNA test she took with 23andMe. Her DNA results from this company alleged that she had more European “ancestry” than African. In the article written about Lemieux’s DNA results are examples of the confusion, passivity, and identity complexes that exist among African Americans. For example, Miles describes how he prefers the term “Black American, which inherently includes African Ancestry, but is rooted in a truly American identity.” He continues, stating “Black American pays homage to Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, the slaves, who I think are descendants of, but distinct from, continental Africans. I view Africa as my grandmother, America as my mother, albeit she is an abusive one…” This is a very descriptive, yet passive characterization. Miles double distances himself from Africa. He views himself not only as “distinct from continental Africans”, but not even as an African American. And as we’ve learned, America has fought hard for us to be this submissive. In other words, his choice of identity accepts defeat.
Miles goes on to describe himself as a “regular, schmegular Black boy”. Note the term “regular”. He’s “regular” black , unlike the exotic and fancy black exhibited in Ms. Lemieux’s DNA results. When Miles receives his own results, and he sees “European: 22.9%”, he claims “Essentially, one fourth of my ancestry is not Black. That’s basically a grandparent.” This is yet another example of our submissiveness. He refers to the white men who held his family members captive against their will (and impregnated several of them, most likely through rape) as his ancestors/grandparents. Words are important. This is why using the term “family member” resonates with us more than “ancestor”. “Family member” gives us a sense of closeness and urgency. It’s more personal, while “ancestor” gives distance. Furthermore, calling a slave owner what he is: a slave owner, is an absolute truth. Calling them your ancestor humanizes them, and puts them on an equal level with your real ancestors, whose lives they made a living hell. If someone raped and impregnated your grandmother, you wouldn’t claim his blood; you would rebuke it. And you surely wouldn’t call him your grandfather, you would call him what he is: a rapist.
Yet other black writers share Miles’ sentiments, feeling disconnected (and sometimes pushed away) from Africa and its people, ultimately leading to them accepting this disconnect. But here’s the thing: these are writers for popular websites and magazines that have the power to influence some very impressionable black people. If this was done purposely, I would call it propaganda. But I don’t think any of our young black brothers and sisters mean malice. So in this case, it is irresponsibility.
African Americans often exaggerate our differences with continental Africans, overlooking the similarities. Just the fact that we still share a lot in common culturally tells us something about how deep our roots are, especially after the attempts made by others to destroy them. But no matter how light skinned you are, or how straight your hair is, there is someone on the African continent who looks exactly like you. This is something that modern science can not explain. It’s what makes an Afro-Mexican girl resemble an Aeta; or a Creole girl in New Orleans resemble an Eritrean or Khoisan girl. No matter what you do to us, where you force us to migrate to, and how you taint with our DNA, we still resemble one another. A very divine gift. One that is not cause for passive distinction; but for aggressive solidarity.
