Who Do You Think You Really Are? Is It What You Think?
“So You Think You’re English” (print version), by the Telegraph in Britain, is a fascinating look at the issue of DNA research and genealogy, especially where it helps squish racism as well as how DNA research is beginning to break down the mythology of “true blood”.
A new test can tell you, broadly speaking, where all of your ancestors have come from over a period of thousands of years. Recent scientific advances mean that it is now possible to unlock a far fuller story of the genetic past than has ever previously been possible. Inside you - in your DNA - are the traces of every one of your ancestors. By using a sophisticated computer program to compare your DNA with a global databank, scientists are now able to reveal the secrets of your global origins.
…However, these tests could be a powerful tool in the fight against racism. It is not just that they prove, once and for all, that any notions of race or racial purity are patently absurd and scientifically wrong. Their power lies in that they prove it by showing people what is in their own blood. When the truths of science become personal truths, they get taken more seriously.
The author, Andrew Graham-Dixon, participated in a genetics test for the television production company behind the series, “Who Do You Think You Are?” exploring the “truth” behind the genetics of people who claimed they were English. According to Graham-Dixon, “The aim of the programme was to plot these people’s ideas of national identity against the hard genetic facts of their actual origins.”
According to the article, not everyone was happy with the DNA results. One participant is suing them over the DNA results, accusing them of loss of reputation and standing in society as a true English person. Amazing! Sure, there are still flaws and lack of sufficient data in the databank to be 100% correct, especially after the recent mess up with Oprah’s DNA findings, but this is an evolving technology. But is it enough to sue over? Hardly.
The idea of challenging our “sense of history” of where we are “from” is one that I’ve challenged a lot recently as the Internet opened up huge holes in my family history. The genealogy mythology in the West was that we were descendant from the Sir Fredrick West, part of the West family tree which came into Virginia in the 1700s and then spread across the southern United States. Sir West was a member of the royal family and this myth was passed down through our family, resulting in my 78 year old aunt telling her six children their whole lives that they have the hands of royalty, ensuring they took care of their hands.
In fact, our West family has no connection we’ve found with that West family. While we may have English roots, we don’t have those English roots. Our family was already in North American when those Wests arrived. Our West family stayed in the North, heading both across to Michigan and north into Canada before rejoining the Michigan branch again there.
So I can imagine the shock these “I’m English” participants felt when their real genetic heritage results came in. My research isn’t complete, but it looks more and more like my family was part of the Mayflower, or here before the Mayflower arrived. This makes us a different kind of royalty 
in the United States. Still, it’s a shocker to my West family relatives when I tell them that we aren’t related to English royalty.
According to the article, the DNA global databank divides the world into four ancient population groups: European, East Asian, Sub-Saharan African and Native American. Many of the participants found that they were not as “pure English” as they thought, which led to the wonderful summary of the article:
And as for the idea of being ‘100 per cent English’, well - to put my art critic hat back on - no one has put their finger on the truth better than the great painter Walter Richard Sickert. ‘No one could be more English than I am,’ he once said archly. ‘Born in Munich in 1860, of pure Danish descent!’
I love it.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Lorelle,
Thanks for the pointer to the Telegraph article. It made interesting reading.
As an anthropologist and genealogist I always find it interesting to see what people perceive as their identity.
DNA is a good way to start the process of reversing the 19th century colonialism-inspired concepts of race. Race isn’t the only issue to face either. In some societies religious issues come into play too, including the age-old “stigma” of illegitimacy.
I have come across relatives who have insisted that their family were from a particular place and therefore were of a particular religious persuasion. Funnily enough, one or two generations back and it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Fear of non-conformance and thoughtless in-bred bigotry can be difficult to shift, and I have been fortunate in that I am yet to personally meet a serious genealogist who displays those traits.
Possibly this is because after a nanosecond of family history research it becomes clear that there is no such thing as “pure” anything. Despite ideas to the contrary, populations were mobile in the past, so immigrants from many places would have contributed to the local gene pool. You only have to spend some time in a record office or reading census pages to realise this.
As for me, as far as I know I am of predominantly Scottish heritage, with a streak of English, a dash of Irish and a smidgen of Welsh. (I also suspect that the English branch will probably end up with a touch of Scandinavia once I get going on it.)
No matter the “country of origin” of my ancestors, I’m a Kiwi by culture and upbringing, and a Scot by birth. Wouldn’t it be nice if we celebrated everything that has gone before us? After all, we wouldn’t be who we are but for all those “ethnically diverse” folk who have gone before us.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I can’t say I need to be enlightened on racism or have any family “myths” debunked. But then I don’t care if I have a black grandfather or one from Mars. Maybe thats the difference between an amateur “Joe Schmoe” genealogist and those who see this DNA testing as a way to stamp out canards.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I am looking for those who want to participate in a surname (Andrus, Andress, Andrews) research project. I have already found the “Andrus” genetic profile. I am looking for others in Connecticut and Kent, England who think they might be related. Thank you. Cal.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
No connection here that I know of. The Andrias Anderson family comes from Norway in the 1850s. I’ll keep an eye out for those other names, though.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
My genealogical endeavors started years ago. A lady called me up one day, said she wanted to know if I was a direct male descendant of her husband’s surname. Sadly, I told her my mother got in the way. But my Uncle was still alive.
Through a DNA co. we found out the markers didn’t match. Through a DNA co. Then I began the work on my own father’s father through a DNA company thinking that if I got a son of the man listed on my father’s birth cert. and a direct male descendant of his mother’s 2nd husband’s relatives such as his nephew I would finally know who was my father’s father. WRONG.
I tested both men and got their markers from a DNA Co. Then I did my own YDNA test. No match at all.
So what this means is that perhaps I am not my father’s son or that perhaps my father is not related to either man. Or perhaps this DNA testing co. made a serious error. They talk as if they NEVER make any errors or that it is so remote to happen that my test couldn’t have been screwed up.
So, now I am testing my father to hopefully see if we are his genetic son’s or not. It bothers me that these DNA co.’s claim all over the media that they can do this and that but there is always human error. I really wonder about the results I got back. Is the results really honestly mine or are they someone else’s?
Did the DNA co. I went through send my kit to this lab and the technician foul up the kit or cross contaminate my test kit? So, I am testing my father, my twin brother, and yes, myself again to verify the first test kit I had tested. DNA testing can ONLY test one line of ancestry whether its male or female. NOT all of your ancestors with one swab of the cheek.
So out of millions of ancestors these DNA testing companies test one female ancestral line and/or one direct male ancestral line. Not “all” of your ancestors. Unless of course you want to spend a billion dollars. False advertising is rampant in the DNA genelogical business. And had anyone ever hear of the Eugenic Survey? Ever read Edwin Black’s book entitled “War Against The Weak”? Read it.
DNA testing can be interesting, its darn well expensive, and it can be “fun” but what happens when one finds out their father isn’t their father, or the DNA company might have made a mistake and they keep perpetuating that mistake by comparing your falsely identified markers to other people who test their YDA? What happens to the samples afte the initial testing is done and they send you the results? Even if the samples are destroyed the information recieved from testing the sample is still out there in the computers and on paper.
Just something to think about before one speads a bit of money and perhaps encounters a situation much as I have and one is left more confused than before they did the YDNA test.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
9xa6fw9jp03kwcps