A recent genetics ancestry survey by 23andme found that White Americans (European Americans) on average are: “98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.” Wow, that’s pretty white. I’ll come back to that in a minute.
The survey also found that Latinos are “18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.” There might be a little self-selection here, resulting from testing more upper-class Hispanics, who tend to be more white. For instance, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be: 59% Amerindian,
34% European, and 6% black.
Back to European Americans and their utter whiteness. The 98.6% figure, mind you, is an average. According to other studies, more than 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and the 5% who do seem to have very little, so it is probably this 5% of White Americans who might be adding the 1.4% admixture into the average.
Let that sink in: 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and those who do seem to have very little. Wow.
Nonetheless, this study puts African Americans at “73.2 percent African, 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American.” Other studies have estimated African Americans at around 80% African and 20% European.
What does this mean?
As I previously noted:
First, the USA historically has not been a hotbed of miscegenation as Cultural Marxists like to tell us. Your eyes and common sense should tell you that if there were widespread miscegenation, there would be hardly any white Americans but rather large mestizo/mulatto-like populations such as one finds in many Latin American countries (and even there, small white upper classes still exist).
Second, the people in USA tended to cross the color line in only one direction: white —> black. Mulatto people would identify as black and then reintegrate into the black gene pool.
Which brings us to another question, why do mulattoes almost always identify as black?
The standard Cultural Marxist answer to this question is because of culture, such as the one-drop rule. But the reality of the situation belies this half-truth.
The most straightforward answer is what Oxford zoologist Jonathan Kingdon suggested in 1996: black looks are dominant while other looks are recessive. Observation seems to bear this out. A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics, whereas a white person with 1/16th Japanese ancestry would probably pass for 100% white.
In other words, the reason why most mulattoes identify as black is at least in part biological. Perhaps the white phenotype really is recessive and is easily diminished.
As philosopher Nick Land succinctly formulated: White + Color = Color.
Razib Khan: “American Racial Boundaries Are Quite Distinct (For Now)“
Sailer: “the big surprise has been how white are American whites“
On only a semi-related note, you should read Peter Frost’s recent poston human biodiversity.