It was a strange moment of triumph against racism: The gun-slinging white supremacist Craig Cobb, dressed up for daytime TV
in a dark suit and red tie, hearing that his DNA testing revealed his
ancestry to be only “86 percent European, and … 14 percent Sub-Saharan
African.” The studio audience whooped and laughed and cheered. And Cobb —
who was, in 2013, charged
with terrorizing people while trying to create an all-white enclave in
North Dakota — reacted like a sore loser in the schoolyard.
“Wait a minute, wait a minute, hold on, just wait
a minute,” he said, trying to put on an all-knowing smile. “This is
called statistical noise.”
Then, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center,
he took to the white nationalist website Stormfront to dispute those
results. That’s not uncommon: With the rise of spit-in-a-cup genetic
testing, there’s a trend of white nationalists using these services to
prove their racial identity, and then using online forums to discuss the
results.
But like Cobb, many are disappointed to find out that their ancestry is not as “white” as they’d hoped... About a third of the people posting their results were pleased with what
they found. “Pretty damn pure blood,” said a user with the username
Sloth. But the majority didn’t find themselves in that situation.
Instead, the community often helped them reject the test, or argue with
its results...
For the study authors, what was most interesting was to watch this
online community negotiating its own boundaries, rethinking who counts
as “white.” That involved plenty of contradictions. They saw people
excluded for their genetic test results, often in very nasty (and
unquotable) ways, but that tended to happen for newer members of the
anonymous online community, Panofsky said, and not so much for longtime,
trusted members. Others were told that they could remain part of white
nationalist groups, in spite of the ancestry they revealed, as long as
they didn’t “mate,” or only had children with certain ethnic groups.
Still others used these test results to put forth a twisted notion of
diversity, one “that allows them to say, ‘No, we’re really diverse and
we don’t need non-white people to have a diverse society,'” said
Panofsky.
More at the link.
Maybe it's like anti-gay preachers being secretly homosexual, they're drawn to it by denial? Because a randomly selected group of whites wouldn't be that black:
ReplyDeleteAmong self-identified whites in Shriver's sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent. That's the equivalent of having among your 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents (who lived around two centuries ago), 127 whites and one black.
It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.