Since hearing about 23andMe finally bringing back the chromosome browsing feature that allows one to see one's matches with DNA Relatives on the site, we checked it out for our account (and that of our Haitian parent). For us, unfortunately, 23andMe still maxes out one's DNA matches at 5000. This means that the overwhelming majority of matches I have on that site are those sharing my "Hispanic" roots. For African matches, our Haitian parent has more luck. We were able to browse a number of them and see the shared segments with people from Nigeria, Congo (via South Africa), Sierra Leone, Ghana, Liberia, and other places.
Interestingly, we saw that our Haitian parent shares a segment of DNA on their X chromosome that overlaps with that of a Fulani person (judging from surname) who is likely from Sierra Leone and someone else from Sierra Leone who is possibly Temne (inferring from surname). And through our Haitian parent's account, we saw that we share the Temne person as a match (even though 23andMe doesn't actually list this person in my DNA Relatives). In any case, the shared segments were always small (11.37 cM for the Temne, 11.58 cM for the Fulani). So, through our Haitian parent's side, we appear to have a female ancestor who was possibly from a Temne-like (or adjacent group) background who was trafficked to Saint Domingue. We assume the Fulani shares this Temne-like ancestry with us. But to make things more surprising, our parent did share a segment of DNA with another Fulani on the second chromosome that was assigned as "Senegambian and Guinean."
In terms of the paper trail, the colonial parish registries, runaway slave ads and notarized contracts or plantation inventories list a number of "nations" from what is now Sierra Leone and Liberia. Some examples include the Timbou, Mamou, Susu, and Mende. Cangas, Mesurades, Miserables, Bouriquis, and more from the Liberian and Ivory Coast regions were also present in the colony, according to Moreau de Saint-Mery.
We will likely keep exploring this new shared segment viewing feature to explore our Haitian parent's matches with Liberians, Nigerians, and Ghanaians. It is just unfortunate that the Historical Matches feature doesn't allow for this. Nor can one see specific shared segments used by 23andMe to assign the African Genetic Group matches that appear in the Ancestry Composition breakdown. Adding these features would make the site more useful and important for genealogical research.
Although it obviously can't be interpreted literally, the timeline feature of 23andMe shows you the possible most recent ancestor who fell into one of the assigned categories. Most of these are plausible for Caribbean people with roots in Haiti and the Spanish Caribbean. And as indicated here, the indigenous ancestry is from far deeper in time. The South Asian here is probably noise while "Swedish" is presumably due to overlap with western European or Iberian populations. In addition, the Senegambian & Guinean being dated earlier in time is also consistent with the large numbers of Senegambian captives brought to Saint Domingue earlier in the French colonial period.
As we should have done at the beginning, we finally went back and re-read the reference study (Fernandes et al.) used by 23andMe for their indigenous Caribbean references. As expected, our Matches are to Ceramic Age samples from sites in Hispaniola (mostly eastern), Puerto Rico, and Bahamas. Our historical matches fell into the following major groups based on the above study's analysis of the genomes of ancient Antillean peoples:
Haiti Ceramic: 2 matches
Bahamas Ceramic: 2 Matches
SECoast DR Ceramic: 11 Matches
Eastern Greater Antilles Ceramic: 11 matches
The overwhelming number of matches (although mostly small) are with what the study terms Southeast Coast DR groups and Eastern Greater Antilles (which includes samples from Puerto Rico and the eastern Dominican Republic). This matching pattern is to be expected given the Ceramic Age population largely replacing Archaic lineages and the pattern of close relatives from different sites on Hispaniola or genetic matches between individuals from other islands. To what extent this pattern was also due to relatively small population sizes in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico is another mystery. We have always tended to prefer somewhat higher population numbers for Puerto Rico and Hispaniola in pre-Columbian times based on Moscoso's analysis of Puerto Rico.
We also found it cool that some of our larger matches were to the two Individuals in the Haiti Ceramic clade. These two individuals were related and harbored significant Archaic ancestry from groups on the island before the Saladoid or Arawakan expansion to the Greater Antilles (unless we are already outdated in our terminology here). We matched the two ancient Haitians from Diale for approximately the same amount of total shared cM on 2 segments. It would be interesting if part of that shared ancestry was from the earlier, Archaic population.
Like many others, I was eagerly awaiting the update for sub-Saharan Africa on 23andme. We manage the account of a close relative from Haiti and were very interested in seeing any changes. Overall, the changes were not a surprise for Haitians and match what little I have uncovered with historical/genealogical sources. For example, the only "Very Close" African genetic group was the Igbo. This matches our findings of a consistent "Ibo" presence among African slaves in 18th century Bainet.
The distant Yoruba people genetic group was also not surprising. Given the well-known historical interactions between peoples of Benin and southwestern Nigeria as well as the Yoruba presence in both regions, we suspect many Haitians may have this genetic group. Indeed, it is also matched by the high number of Yoruba matches for this relative on Ancestry.
The Ewe, Ga, and Ga-Dangme genetic groups are also to be expected as distant. One of the mutual African DNA matches between this person and myself on Ancestry is Ga, suggestive of an identical by descent shared ancestry. The Ga also overlap with Togo and Benin peoples, a known source of the African captives brought to Saint Domingue. As for the Mende, Temne and Kru, our relative has DNA matches from Sierra Leone on Ancestry and 23andme. From the former site, she and I share a match with someone who is half-Sierra Leonean (and half-Nigerian). This relative also has 2 Mende matches on Ancestry.
Unfortunately, they did not get any African genetic groups for Angolan/Congolese or Senegambian and Guinean. This was disappointing as it would have been interesting to see African genetic groups for each region. Nonetheless, this person has 2 Fulani matches on 23andme and may see genetic groups in the next update.
Although of less importance in our research on the making of the Haitian people, we do find the flawed but attempted breakdown of France and western Europe intriguing in Ancestry's 2025 Fall Update. Our own "French" ancestry, estimated at 2% in the previous update, was broken apart into two separate categories: Brittany, France and Acadia (French Canada). We also saw Quebec in our updated results, but since it is attributed to our Hispanic parent's side, we find it more likely to be a result of the update's horrible results for people with roots in the Iberian Peninsula.
In other words, our "France" results are basically the same. Acadia is basically "France" but Ancestry, to its credit, did not assign any French Canada regions to our Haitian parent. Our ""Northern Wales and North West England" also hails from our Haitian parent, probably a misreading of the minor French ancestry in Haitians.
Intriguingly, for our Haitian parent, their British region was Southern Wales. If, however, 23andme is accurate, which certainly seems to be the case compared to Ancestry, our Haitian parent's European ancestry leans more heavily toward France and Belgium, the southern Dutch, and Rhinelanders. Since there is undoubtedly genetic overlap between peoples in France and Belgium as well as France and Germany, our guess is our Haitian side's European ancestry is probably derived from people from northern France who had some genetic overlap with these neighboring regions.
From our own "genealogical research" into Saint Domingue's free people of color in Bainet, we the French ancestry was mainly from the northern regions of France. This seems supported by 23andme assigning only small amounts of Spanish and Basque ancestry to our Haitian parent. Ancestry, on the other hand, assigns a mostly Spain ancestry for our Haitian parent's European admixture. Undoubtedly, 23andme is more reliable here, particularly for distinguishing between France and Spain. However, the "Brittany, France" region might be significant in that both of us inherited this region, perhaps pointing to northwestern France as the region from which the European ancestors of Bainet's free people of color often hailed from. We assume our Haitian parent's 0.2% Irish ancestry according to 23andme as well as their Southern Wales estimate via Ancestry is pinpointing to northwestern France, too.
Our Haitian parent's updated results in Ancesty are essentially unchanged. Benin & Togo increased by 2% while Nigeria, Ivory Coast & Ghana, and Western Bantu Peoples each declined by 1%. They retained their minor estimates of new regions from last year (Yorubaland, North-Central Nigeria, Nigerian Woodlands). Our African ancestry through Haiti seems to largely consist of captives sold to Europeans from the Slave Coast and Bight of Biafra.
Although we are mainly interested in the African origins of the Haitian people, it is so much easier to look into European or European-descended DNA matches. In order to explore the French ancestry of Haitians, we focused on shared French-descended (or French Canadian, Belgian, and one Dutch person who appears to be of Belgian or French origin) individuals on Ancestry and My Heritage. Sadly, Ancestry does not have features that allow one to see where exactly and on which chromosomes user are aligned with their matches. My Heritage, however, has that feature. One can even triangulate quickly and easy for shared matches on the same segment. Thus, using My Heritage, Gedmatch, DNA Painter, and Ancestry, we compiled a quick table breaking down the French-affiliated matches.
Unsurprisingly, most are from France. And most of the matches were aligned on a segment of Chromosome 2 designated as "France" by Ancestry. Interestingly, this very same segment is something we share with a distant cousin whose ancestor was a brother or cousin of my great-great-grandfather. We suspect some of this French ancestry can be correlated with the Gaury or other free people of color who lived in Bainet in the 1700s. However, many of the other French matches shared a segment with us categorized as "Spain" by Ancestry. Most of these fell on Chromosome 4, a segment we also share with a Haitian with roots in the valley section of Bainet. We suspect the "Spain" category is misreading "France" but there is undoubtedly some overlap between Spain and France on these types of tests. What was more surprising was the presence of Belgian and a single Dutch match, although one can see genetic overlap between France and Belgium for myriad reasons.
Overall, the matches are usually small. But, this is to be expected when speaking of Haitians whose last French ancestors lived in the 1600s and 1700s. Since we share these matches with our Haitian parent, we assume most of these matches are Identical by Descent, too. Sadly, we lack something similar for African matches to fully explore that far more relevant and significant part of the Haitian origin story. Nonetheless, we have some theories now about the French ancestry of Haitians.
A feature Ancestry and 23andme must (re)introduce is a chromosome browser that shows the user where exactly their DNA matches another user's. MyHeritage, which is less accurate, already offers this feature for free. However, since their DNA estimates are less accurate, we are forced to use DNA Painter's features to copy the chromosome breakdowns from 23andme or Ancestry to see the assigned "ethnicity" for sections of each chromosome. This convoluted process creates more work, and should be something available for free on Ancestry and 23andme. Doing so would illuminate how exactly one shares DNA with other users. This feature on My Heritage shows us, for instance, where we share DNA with North Africans. In the above example, with someone of Algerian heritage, we share 9.3 cM of DNA on a section of my third chromosome assigned to "North African" by Ancestry. This suggests that we likely harbor small amounts of "Amazigh" ancestry that can still be matched with random people from Morocco and Algeria. In our case, since we do not know of any recent admixture, we assume this is from one (or two) of 2 scenarios: ancient "Guanche" admixture from ancestors who came to the Caribbean via the Canary Islands or via ancient "Berber" admixture in parts of the Iberian Peninsula which contributed to the early peopling of the Spanish Caribbean. Either way, the fact that we have found multiple matches who share segments of DNA on parts of our chromosomes assigned to "North Africa" suggests "Berber" admixture. We need this feature to facilitate understanding of our West and Central African matches from places like Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and other countries. It would also be very useful when looking at matches who are a mix of different African nationalities.
Using DNA Painter and North Africa matches on My Heritage, we have been able to locate distant matches on segments classified as "Northern Africa" by Ancestry. Naturally, all the matches are quit distant (8.2 cM to 9 cM), but it confirms that some of these matches we found on Ancestry probably are due to shared North African ancestry, even if it is most likely identical by state matches. Three of the matches are assigned to Chromosome 3, but one is on Chromosome 1. In addition, two other North Africans are DNA matches based on shared segments assigned to "Spain" or "Portugal" on Ancestry.
Most of the North Africa matches shared segments assigned to "Northern Africa" on our third chromosome. All three appear to be Moroccans living in Europe. With two of them, we share the same segment of DNA while the one who shares 9cM has a somewhat longer segment in common, encompassing most of the "Northern Africa" segment on the chromosome. Since we do not have any known Canary Islander ancestry, we suspect the North African admixture here is a testament to the centuries of North African interactions with the Iberian peninsula, probably dating back to medieval times.
If Ancestry one day gets its act together and shows users which segments they match others on, searching African DNA matches will be even more informative and useful. Our hope is to one day pursue this with West and Central African matches. It would be amazing to explore this with the West African ancestry of Haitians.
Although our Haitian parent shares a Ga DNA match with me, suggesting an identical by descent relationship, we wonder if we are matching these Ga from Ghana via their Benin & Togo marked chromosome segments or via what Ancestry refers to as "Ivory Coast and Ghana." We suspect part of the reason for matches with Ga from southern Ghana is their genetic overlaps and historical interactions with the Ewe and peoples to the east, a major source of the Haitian people's ethnogenesis (the Slave Coast).
We were able to check on Gedmatch for a Ga person (judging by their surname, suggesting roots in the Ada region) who matched our parent, and compared the shared DNA segment to the label assigned to Chromosome 18 from Ancestry (with the help of the DNA Painter tool). Well, it turns out this Ghaianain person's shared segment with our parent falls under the Benin and Togo-marked segment. We wonder if it is similar for the other Ga we matched with, all of whom had very high Benin and Togo estimates. As for the Ga in Saint-Domingue, Geggus has described them as being lumped into the Coromantees (Cramanti in the Saint Dominguan press) category with the Akan. If one of our ancestral regions, Bainet, was partly supplied in captives by British smugglers, then the "Coromantees" were definitely present in the Jacmel Quartier, perhaps under the more frequent name of Mine (Mina). What makes things more confusing is the broad use by the French of the term Gold Coast, likely overlapping with the Slave Coast trade and perhaps bringing in Ga and Ewe groups from southeastern Ghana to French ships there, too. Descourtilz even mentioned the Ga peoples of "Acra" in a short chapter of one of his books on the African "nations" of Saint Domingue. There they were, unsurprisingly, lumped in with Akan groups.
Interestingly, our mother matched a Mandinka person from Sierra Leone on a segment of Chromosome 2 marked Ivory Coast & Ghana. We would love to know which populations were used for the reference panel for that area, although it is no surprise if someone from Sierra Leone might have similar DNA to some of the groups in Ivory Coast and Ghana. However, at least her match with a Congolese person did fall on a segment assigned to "Western Bantu Peoples" even if the specific match is not from one of the ethnic groups present in colonial Haiti.
Since we have been perusing African matches on Ancestry again, we couldn't help but notice that I only share a handful of the same with my Haitian parent, the source of most of my sub-Saharan African ancestry. While we generally shared matches with the same regions of West Africa, we rarely shared the same individuals. Often, however, they were Yorubas who received Haiti as a Journey. Their last names and the predictable mixture of "Nigeria" and "Benin & Togo" in their admixture results are usually a dead give away of this. However, looking at our shared matches might give us more probably identical by descent matches, or perhaps more specific ones.
First, we both shared 10 cM and 11 cM across 1 segment with someone from Ghana. Based on their last name, a Ga origin is probable. However, that Ghanaian match was only 28% Ivory Coast & Ghana in his admixture results, a pattern Tracing African Roots has demonstrated to be more common for Ewe. Thus, we highly suspect this person has Ewe origins. The Ewe of Ghana overlap with those of Togo and, thus, Benin. Of course, we could also share DNA with this person through their Ivory Coast/Ghana estimate. For example, our parent has another Ga-Dangme match on 23andme. All of his grandparents are identified as Accra natives and his surname suggests Ga-Dangme origins. Our parent even has another Ga match on Ancestry, with 8 cM shared DNA. This Ga's results included a 34% Benin & Togo estimate.
The next shared match was a big surprise. It was an African DNA match that I missed previously. And it is to a woman from Cameroon (estimated 95% Cameroon results). Her last name is also common in Congo, but her low Western Bantu score leads me to think she hails from a Cameroon ethnic group, likely the Bamileke. According to a Cameroonian friend, our match's surname is specific to western Cameroon. Since areas of Cameroon sent captives to the Biafran coast, perhaps some Haitians do harbor distant Bamileke or Cameroonian origins. Intriguingly, the Cameroonian match is supposedly from our parent's maternal side.
Perhaps even more baffling is our shared match with a person with roots in Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Judging by their admixture results and surnames, we assume one parent is of Temne extraction while the other may be Edo or Urhobo. I assume our shared ancestry in Nigeria is more likely than Sierra Leone Temne peoples to explain the match, but more information is needed to reach any conclusion. Indeed, this person may have some Fulani ancestry, too, if their trace North Africa estimate and Senegal estimate are any indication.
Finally, the Igbo connection. This one always struck us as clear based on the documented presence of a large Igbo population among the captives in colonial Haiti's South. Similarly, the only close African DNA matches for both myself and our Haitian parent was with an Igbo from Nigeria. Furthermore, our parent's 23andme results also identified the Igbo and Southeastern Nigeria as a close match. Igbo ancestry (as well as other Nigerian lineages) are undoubtedly part of our origins.
Although hardly the most sophisticated or reliable method, using Gedmatch's autosomal DNA comparison feature can be entertaining and occasionally useful. In this case, comparing our data to that of around 42 kits of ancient samples was an interesting experience. Indeed, of the 42 ancient samples, we only had matches with 4 individuals, which is significant. All 4 of them, however, were either individuals from Cuba or the Bahamas, surprisingly. We apparently did not share DNA, at least not detectable using Gedmatch, with ancient persons from Puerto Rico and Hispaniola with kits on Gedmatch (that we know of). The dates given for the samples are from undated in one case but the others the woman from Preacher's Cave, in the Bahamas, was the subject of an important article published in 2018 by Hannes Schroeder. According to this study, "Results are consistent with Puerto Ricans and the ancient Taino forming a clade without any significant gene-flow postdivergence." Clearly, the ancient Lucayan woman's genome was similar to that of modern-day Puerto Ricans. Indeed, this study found that Puerto Ricans share large parts of their genome with the ancient "Taino" of the Caribbean. Another study found similarities between the Preacher's Cave sample and precontact Puerto Rico samples in terms of autosomal DNA. These similarities also extend to South American Amazonian groups, such as the Yukpa, Piapoco, Karitiana, and Surui. Furthermore, modern Puerto Ricans harbor mtDNA that is at least partly a reflection of precontact Puerto Rico populations.
What we find interesting in our matches is the lack of a Puerto Rico or Hispaniola connection. While this is probably, in part, due to the less sophisticated tools and models via Gedmatch, we did match with another ancient "Taino" sample from the Bahamas. On Gedmatch, it is called Kit WE2232796 (*Bahamas Taino Native), with further indication that its test results are from 23andMe. Is this one of their indigenous Caribbean samples the company uses? This person appears to be the same as the Atunwa Inaru, the name given to this ancient woman from the Bahamas. Anyway, we only shared a total of 3 segments, the longest at 3.6 cM. Our total Half-Match segments was 9.7 cM and a total of 458412 SNPs were used, with 47.467 percent fully identical. As one might expect, shared DNA with someone who lived several centuries ago would be low. Yet, with another kit from the same woman from Preacher's Cave, Atunwa Inaru on Gedmatch, we shared a total Half-Match segments of 14 cM, with the largest segment at 6.7 cM of 3 shared segments. 260057 SNPs were used for the comparison with 38.498 percent identical. We assume this match is at least somewhat reliable since geneticists using more sophisticated matches noted similarities in the ancestry of the Preacher's Cave sample and that of modern and ancient Puerto Ricans. We are not sure which of the two kits for the same person are more accurate or reliable, though we'd bet money on the first kit.
The other two matches, however, remain more problematic. Both are from Cuba, although the date and exact location are unclear. One, called Brizuela on Gedmatch, is supposedly from the 12th century. With that sample, we share one segment at 4.5 cM, but at a lower SNP density. The other sample from Cuba shared even less with us, only 3.8 cM. But, with this Cuban sample, more SNPs and at a higher density. One wonders if these Cuban samples may reflect a 'ceramic' culture whose ancestors included some of the same groups who migrated into the Bahamas from Hispaniola. Or, alternatively, due to the widespread seafaring abilities of the indigenous Caribbean and the lack of evidence for inbreeding in the sample from Preacher's Cave, perhaps some groups found spouses or significant others from distant islands in the archipelago. What we do not understand, however, is our inability to find ancient samples from Hispaniola with whom we share DNA...
While perusing old papers and documents in various Google Drive accounts, I came across an old essay on Taino revivalism in Puerto Rico. This has inspired me to revisit some of my past interests in the precolonial Caribbean, as well as the legacy of the indigenous inhabitants. Needless to say, I find a continued interest in the alleged "Taino" DNA in contemporary Puerto Ricans, which the above video contributes to. None of this is new at all. A quick perusal of travel accounts, traditions, and histories of Puerto Rico often allude to the "Indian" inheritance among the Puerto Rican population. Whether or not it was really traceable to the Taino was unknown, since Europeans imported "Amerindian" captives from other parts of the Americas to their Caribbean colonies. But, it was often alleged that the Puerto Rican jibaro possessed Indian blood, by everyone from Schoelcher to Salvador Brau.
Of course, given the demographics of the early colonial Spanish Caribbean, it is no surprise that many of the current populations in Puerto Rico are descendants of European males, Indian women, and Africans who formed the nucleus of the colonial populations in the 16th century. Indeed, I suspect my Hispanic Caribbean roots to consist of a mixture of African, European and probable Indian ancestry through a family lineage that has been in the Caribbean for several centuries (I must confess, I lost interest in the 1700s, but they were likely established in Puerto Rico since the 1600s or 1500s). However, recent advances in analysis of pre-Columbian Puerto Rican remains do suggest there is some continuity between the earlier indigenes of Puerto Rico and populations living there today. Moreover, one should suspect many aspects of rural life in the Caribbean today resemble or inherited aspects of indigenous agricultural practices, particularly since they were the ones who likely showed Europeans and Africans the ropes in adapting to Caribbean environments. Who knows, it is even possible that some of the folklore of the region has inherited bits and pieces of our Amerindian past, although I am unsure how one could ever prove it.
So, why do groups like neo-Taino organizations endeavor to revive the indigenous past or legacy when it was so quickly incorporated into new colonial identities forged by European colonialism and enslavement of Africans? In my past ramblings on this subject, I linked it to a theory of indigeneity as performance, indigeneity and sovereignty, and re-racialization of genetic science on the part of gene fetishists. An example of the first is a National Indigenous Festival of Jayuya, in which a beauty pageant consists of contestants dressing themselves up in ways that allegedly resemble those of the indigenous population. Needless to say, contestants believed to look like the Tainos were favored, and the whole charade links Taino-ness to the performance of stereotyped traits. Neo-Taino groups have also attempted to perform indigeneity through the reinvention of rituals, clothing styles, and language to counter narratives of Taino extinction. The performance of a "Taino" identity is, through the aforementioned practices and rituals, legitimated as an expression of group identity, even if they lack any degree of historical veracity. However, if identity truly is just performance, then one can understand and even recognize indigenous performativity on the part of some Puerto Ricans as being as legitimate as the official, tri-racial discourse of Puerto Rican national identity (which, needless to say, is also problematic and creates it own demons of racial inequality).
It also comes into play as an expression of sovereignty. Indeed, since the 19th century, writers of the Spanish Caribbean have utilized the indigenous past for expressions of their own nationalism. Invoking the caciques of the past, or the brutality of the Spanish conquest, could serve the greater cause of independence and nation-making for the diverse, subjugated colonial populations of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Attempts in the 20th and 21st century to revive outright Taino identities can also serve this purpose of sovereignty and self-rule for Puerto Ricans living under US rule on the island or in economically and racially marginalized spaces in the US mainland. Indeed, assertions of indigeneity lend weight to Puerto Rican demands for reparations, independence, and alternatives to the official historical narrative. Unsurprisingly, the historical record will always contain its errors or blank spaces, but indigenous revivalism forces society to remember the silencing of indigenous lives after European conquest, reasserting the rights of subaltern voices and their descendants. Even if some of the proponents of indigenous revivalism commit themselves to gene fetishism and reinscribing "race" to understanding DNA, they are hardly alone for using genes or "race" to determine membership or status of indigenous communities.
To conclude the aforementioned thoughts, the question of indigenous identity and, increasingly, the use of science and DNA to justify said claims, are more interesting for the motivations rather than outright rejection or refusal. Although some of the attempted revivals and historical scholarship are inherently problematic and, in some cases, questionable or false, indigeneity remains a dynamic concept. It cannot be simply stuck in the past with the expectation of "racial" homogeneity over time and a specific place or land attached to it. Identities are too flexible and permeable to allow for such an understanding, past or present. In truth, the pre-colonial peoples of the Caribbean were too diverse and mobile to allow for such a simplistic view. Further, it clearly resonates with groups living in colonial conditions today, just as it did for 19th century independence movements. Perhaps the idea of indigeneity in Haiti is of applicable interest here. In the Haitian case, the leaders of the revolutionary army invoked indigeneity, too, calling their army an indigenous one. Later Haitian writers picked up the theme again, invoking Haitianness as "indigenous." For Dessalines and subsequent Haitians, Haiti avenged the "Amerindian" inhabitants of the island and claimed the space for themselves as a sovereign state, directly linking indigeneity with sovereignty. For the most part, Haitians do not claim direct ancestry from the Taino, but we too have a complex relationship of our own with the idea of indigeneity and anti-colonialism. Perhaps that's the best definition of indigeneity we can arrive at for the Caribbean, one that is mobile, diverse, and opposed to colonialism.
The following is another short post for an anthropology class. Native American DNA was one of my favorite assigned texts, and one I shall likely revisit.
Kim TallBear’s Native American DNA scrutinizes DNA and genetic science in the context of race and indigeneity. According to TallBear, many tribes are increasingly using DNA tests for membership in tribal rolls in addition to blood quantum. With that as a point of departure, the author borrows from feminist Donna Haraway, Aura Simpson’s ethnographic refusal, and Linda Tuwihai Smith’s decolonizing methodologies to unpack the ways in which genetic science perpetuates racialization and white domination. Indeed, TallBear’s study is more of an anthropology of white people, reversing the ethnographic gaze. She also adds nuance to the ways in which blood quantum became part of tribal membership, beginning with the 1887 Dawes act. Despite being impose from above, Indian input on who should be a member shaped how federal agents completed the allotment process. Furthermore, her nuanced discussion of blood as a sign of lineal descent, or genealogic tribalism, helps elucidate why blood quantum persists.
As someone less familiar with current trends in genetics, human migrations studies, and bioanthropology, TallBear’s dissection of those fields was often surprising. The use of knowledge of genetics as well as the ways in which indigenous communities’ views, permission, and epistemologies are not respected was not too much of a surprise, but the use of DNA studies to “prove” Native American ancestry is limited because of the faulty assumptions and racial thinking of scientists and genealogists. For instance, mtDNA or Y-DNA only tracks some of one’s paternal and maternal ancestry, meaning someone could be a member of, for example, the Sioux but a DNA test may not indicate any “Native American DNA.” As TallBear shared, many, including herself, have diverse Native ancestry and many of these groups have also formed close ties to whites and African-Americans over the centuries, thereby rendering genetic testing or gene fetishism problematic. Considering the discourse on indigeneity as the reserve of an untapped or “unmixed” gene pool closer to earlier stages of humanity, in danger of extinction or absorption, TallBear effectively argues for the resurgence of previous theories of race and racial domination. Her most powerful example, the documentary program with a white geneticist interviewing men from Tanzania, Mongolia, and a Native American, illustrate how theories of race and the dominance of European and Western ways of seeing the world permeate genetic science.
However, one cannot help but wonder how inclusion of Native American communities or perhaps interviews with Natives dis-enrolled because of genetic testing could have shaped TallBear’s work. Without their voices, TallBear is leaving out part of the story while possibly blurring differences in the way Native American groups perceive the issue of genetics and research. And despite her criticism of the use of genetics to turn base indigeneity in biology, I am still a little confused by her treatment of blood quantum here. For TallBear, blood quantum is related to the lineal descent and genealogic tribalism, and many tribes assume the higher the blood degree, the more likely the odds of true affiliation. But does this not continue indigeneity through a biological basis? There is a tension here of essentialism that sounds like DNA and racialization.
