Talk:Multiracial Americans

Come to the 21th century please

I cringed so hard reading this article. First of all, races do not actually exist. They are called ethnicities. Second, EVERYONE is mixed. If whites were not mixed, you'd all be inbred by now. Any DNA test will show that not one of you is 100% white (white including formerly ethnicities considered "sub-human" by anglo-saxons, mind you). Like, seriously. You guys are centuries behind. But ok. You wanna act like barbarians, go ahead. But could you at least merge latino and mixed? Latinos are all mixed so if anything, it should be a sub-classification called "Spanish-speaking Mixed". And while you're at it, it wouldn't hurt to redefine Natives as Actual-Americans or something. In all seriousness, you people can't be this racist and then be surprised when everyone else hates your guts. -A latino

Shriver's genetic work

I am swapping sources and some content here, specifically this:

"DNA analysis shows varied results regarding non-European ancestry in self-identified White Americans. A 2002 DNA analysis found that about 30% of self-identified White Americans have recent sub-Saharan African ancestry."

Source: [1]

Actually, the only mentioning of the word recent in this context is to Mark Shriver's personal ancestry:

"To Shriver, the most personally stunning of his findings involved one subject who reported himself to be completely white, yet whose genetic analysis showed that 22 percent of his relatively recent ancestors were African."

A more accurate way to summarize is that 30% of self-reported whites have less than <90% non-European ancestry. The 30% of white Americans from Mark Shriver's study had not only sub-Saharan African but also Asian and Native American ancestry as well.

[2]

"The mean African admixture among White Americans is low -- roughly 0,7% African and 99,3 European admixture. To put this in to perspective, this would have been the result if every member of the U.S. White endogamous group alive today had a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture seven generations ago (around the year 1850). Of course, African alleles are not distributed evenly. Seventy percent of White Americans (like 5.5 percent of Blacks) have no detectable African genetic admixture at all. Among the thirty percent of Whites with African genetic admixture, the admixture ratio averages to about 2.3 percent, the equivalent of having a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture from around the year 1880. Black Americans, on the other hand, have significant European admixture (averaging about 75 percent African and 25 percent European)."

[3]

"Thus, while the West African contribution to an African American's ancestry averages about 80%, its range is wide (i.e., ~20-100%) (Shriver, et al. 2003). The genetic composition of self-identified European Americans also varies, with ~30% of self-identified European Americans estimated to have < 90% European ancestry."

And on a final note, let me declare my personal opinion that, as a matter of principle, Steve Sailer shouldn't be cited for anything relating to human ancestry, even if he was working for UPI. I am sure there are multiple guidelines and community consensuses that would discourage that. OUP Oxford is a far superior source. I also would like to say that I'm not casting judgment on whoever cited Sailer, as I'm sure they weren't aware of who he was when they did that. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:40B7:3AD9:B56A:7731 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The US doesn't record ideological aracialism

justification

1. Race is self-reported; it's not based on statistical genetics data.
2. The correspondence between corporeal attributes and social labelling is an idea. It's by no means self-evident nor the sole idea.
3. The survey option "other" doesn't suffice for the rejection of the surveyed notion itself.
4. Aracialists and ethnocultural nonconformists do exist and should be respected.

2A02:2149:8BF9:6F00:2C54:4998:497A:7D1 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)