" DNA is for Entertainment purposes only " Why Genetic Testing Can Find Your Cousin but Not Your Culture

Ishmael Bey
4 hours ago
9 min read

You spit in a tube, send it to a lab, and six weeks later your results come back saying you're 25% Nigerian, 13% Scottish, 7% Indigenous American, and the rest… a mystery soup.

You feel excited. Maybe confused. Maybe even validated.

But hold on.

That DNA test might help you find your relatives, but it's not your cultural passport and it's certainly not the final word on who you are.

Here’s why:

Analogy 1: DNA for Relatives = GPS Coordinates. DNA for Ethnicity = Weather Forecast

When you use a DNA test to find relatives, you're using exact coordinates of measurable genetic markers passed from one generation to the next, like a GPS signal.

When you use DNA to predict your ethnicity, it's more like forecasting the weather. There's probability, pattern recognition, and a lot of assumptions about what "Scottish DNA" or " American Indian DNA" even looks like.

DNA for Family: Why It Works

Think of your DNA like a chain of puzzle pieces. You inherit 50% from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, and so on. These patterns follow predictable rules — and science has mastered the math.

Full siblings share ~50% DNA.
First cousins: ~12.5%.
A paternity test? Over 99.99% accurate.

Companies like 23andMe or AncestryDNA can scan your genome and match you with people who share long identical segments. Those segments don’t lie.

🔍 Example: If you and someone else share 3,500 cM (centiMorgans), the science says you’re parent/child or full siblings. That’s not guesswork, it's biology.

🌍 DNA for Ethnicity: Why It Fails

Now switch gears. You ask: “Where am I from?”

The problem? That question is social, historical, and often political, not purely biological.

Here’s why DNA companies can’t answer it reliably:

Analogy 2: DNA Ethnicity Estimates Are Like Art Museums with Missing Labels

Imagine walking into a massive museum filled with art but only 20% of the paintings are labeled. Now you're asked to match your own unknown painting to the ones on the wall.

That’s how ethnicity estimates work.

DNA companies compare your sample to reference populations of small groups of living people who claim ancestry from a particular region. The more your DNA overlaps with theirs, the higher the estimate.

But there are problems:

Who got to label the art?

Most reference samples come from modern people in Europe, East Asia, and West Africa.
Indigenous groups in the Americas? Many refuse participation. Federally recognized tribes often prohibit DNA testing.
So your DNA might resemble someone labeled “Sub-Saharan African” but maybe your ancestor was Indigenous to Virginia who was mislabeled "Negro" in an 1850 census.

The borders keep changing.

Is “German” DNA from 1900 Germany, or Prussia, or Bavaria, or Alsace-Lorraine?
Ethnic groups are not fixed. They migrate, blend, and get renamed.

Companies don’t agree.

Take the same raw DNA file to Ancestry, MyHeritage, and 23andMe you’ll get three different ethnic breakdowns.
That’s because each company uses different math, different categories, and different reference panels.

SOURCE: Jobling, M.A., Hollox, E., Hurles, M. (2013). Human Evolutionary Genetics — “Ancestry estimations are probabilistic, not deterministic.”

🚫 Indigenous Identity & DNA: Why Many Tribes Reject It

No federally recognized tribe in the U.S. accepts DNA as proof of tribal membership. Why?

Because sovereign nations determine citizenship, not private biotech companies. And because:

DNA tests don’t prove affiliation to a specific tribe.
Many Southeastern Indigenous peoples were reclassified as “colored” or “mulatto” under racial integrity laws.
The genes may still be there but the paperwork and recognition were intentionally erased.

🔗 SOURCE: TallBear, Kim. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science 🔗 SOURCE: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2002 – “Tribal enrollment is a matter of tribal law, not federal genetics.”

Analogy 3: DNA is the Blueprint. Culture is the House You Build.

A DNA test can tell you what materials you’re made of but not how your house was built, who lived in it, or what language they spoke.

Your genes might say “West African,” but were your ancestors Yoruba? Fulani? Gullah? Were they enslaved in Virginia and married into an Indian family? Were they documented as “Black” because the law denied them anything else?

Only records, oral histories, and cultural continuity can answer that.

So What Should You Use DNA For?

✅ YES:

Connecting with cousins.
Verifying known relationships.
Supporting oral history with genetic clues.
Mapping migration patterns across generations.

❌ NO:

Replacing family history research.
Proving tribal membership or racial identity.
Using it to validate or invalidate someone’s identity.

Your Story Is Bigger Than a Spit Tube

DNA testing is a tool not a truth.

It’s a microscope, not a mirror.

If you're Indigenous, African-descended, or both, understand that these tests often reflect the biases of those who wrote history, not the ancestors who lived it.

So take that ethnicity estimate with a grain of salt, and use your real power: your records, your memory, and your right to define who you are.

Background

In 2002, Deadria Farmer‑Paellmann, a reparations advocate, built a legal case seeking compensation from companies like FleetBoston, Aetna, and CSX, alleging they profited from insuring slaves being trafficked in the 19th century WIRED+10PMC+10Encyclopedia.com+10.
The plaintiffs initially struggled to show a direct link between the defendants and their enslaved ancestors, and thus lacked legal standing PMC.

To strengthen their case, Farmer‑Paellmann enlisted Rick Kittles, a geneticist and co‑founder of African Ancestry, to perform DNA testing on the plaintiffs, hoping the genetic results would serve as proof of ancestral harm.

🧬 Role of Rick Kittles & African Ancestry DNA

Rick Kittles co‑founded African Ancestry in 2003, growing a large database of African population samples for Y‑chromosome and mtDNA lineage testing New Citizens Press.
In collaboration with Farmer‑Paellmann in 2003–2004, several of the plaintiffs underwent lineage DNA testing (maternal or paternal lines) through Kittles’s company, producing genetic ties to modern West African populations such as Nigeria, Niger, Gambia, etc. kunr.org +11PMC+11dl.tufts.edu+11.

These results became the first use of genetic ancestry evidence admitted in a U.S. civil court case dl.tufts.edu.

⚖️ Court’s Rejection & Legal Reasoning

The court ultimately dismissed the case, emphasizing a lack of standing that is, plaintiffs failed to show a direct individual link between their ancestors and the defendant companies PMC.

The resulting ruling stated clearly:

“Genetic mapping, or DNA testing alone is insufficient to provide a decisive link to a homeland,” and cannot establish that a specific descendant is the heir of a specific enslaved ancestor who was harmed by a specific defendant kunr.org +1WIRED+1 PMC+1dl.tufts.edu+1.

The court made a distinction between aggregate population-level genetic inferences and individual genealogical connection, concluding genetic ancestry evidence did not meet legal standards for proving an individualized injury traceable to the defendants dl.tufts.edu PMC.

Even Judge Richard Posner, writing for the appeals panel, agreed: DNA tests could show broad ancestral affiliation but not the specific lineage needed for reparations litigation dl.tufts.edu.

Why the DNA Evidence Was Inadequate

Population vs. Individual

Mitochondrial or Y‑chromosome testing reveals affiliation with broad groups (e.g., Nigerian lineage), but not a direct genealogical line to a named enslaved person or defendant PMCdl.tufts.edu.

Lack of paper trail connection Courts require documentation showing that the company named in the suit (e.g. Aetna or CSX) was directly linked to the plaintiff’s ancestor something DNA alone cannot establish PMC.

Probabilistic nature of ancestry

Genetic results provide probabilities estimates of affinity to modern populations not certainty and thus fall short of legal proof requirements PMCdl.tufts.edu.

Why This Case Matters

It was a legal watershed marking the first attempt to use genetic ancestry in civil reparations litigation.
It exposed limitations in applying DNA evidence where courts demand individualized causation and traceable harm not aggregate genealogical inference.

It demonstrated that while DNA can reveal ancestral region or population affinity, it does not satisfy the legal threshold for proving direct ancestry to historical defendants.

Sources & Further Reading

Farmer‑Paellmann’s reparations lawsuits and DNA strategy: details in The Legal Weaponization of Racialized DNA (PMC) reddit.com +2dl.tufts.edu +2WIRED+2 PMC
Explanation of the first civil use of genetic ancestry evidence and court reasoning: discussion in The Social Life of DNA lectures (Tufts transcript) dl.tufts.edu
Overview of African Ancestry and Rick Kittles’s work: biography and critiques in academic literature and encyclopedia entries WIRED+12en.wikipedia.org+12PMC+12

Context on genetic tests and lineage methods: analysis in The Personal and Public Meaning of Biological Roots (PMC) PMC

Rick Kittles's DNA testing was powerful in showing ancestral origin at a population level but the court ruled it legally inadequate for proving individualized descent or associating plaintiffs with specific slave-era corporate defendants. Let me know if you’d like deeper context on any of the legal or scientific aspects.

DNA Ethnicity Testing: All Symbol, No Substance

The truth is plain: DNA testing for ethnicity is not reliable, valid, or legally recognized in the two arenas where it matters most for descendants of enslaved and Indigenous peoples:

1. It Was Rejected in U.S. Reparations Lawsuits

In 2002, during landmark lawsuits filed by Deadria Farmer-Paellmann seeking reparations from companies that profited off slavery, geneticist Rick Kittles (founder of African Ancestry) introduced DNA evidence linking African Americans to West African lineages.

The court rejected it.

Why?

Because DNA could not prove direct descent from a harmed enslaved ancestor nor link that ancestor to a specific defendant.

Because population-level probabilities aren't legal proof of individual injury.

The ruling was clear: you can’t repair a harm that DNA can’t tie to a legal identity.

2. It Is Not Recognized by Federally Acknowledged American Indian Tribes

No federally recognized tribe in the United States accepts DNA testing as valid proof of tribal identity or citizenship. Not one.

Why?

Because tribal membership is a matter of law and documented kinship, not biology.
Because DNA cannot determine which tribe, what community, or whether you were part of the cultural and legal fabric of that Nation.
And because many tribal citizens especially in the Southeast were racially reclassified as “Negro” or “Colored” in the historical record. DNA can't restore what government policy deliberately erased.

“A DNA test might tell you what region your ancestor may have come from. But it cannot tell you who your people are.”

— Kim TallBear, author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science

DNA Ethnicity Tests: All Symbol, No Substance

🛑 Exhibit B: Tribes Don’t Accept DNA for Recognition

Zero federally recognized American Indian tribes accept DNA as proof of identity.

Read that again: Zero.

Citizenship is based on documented ancestry and political recognition, not genes.
Most tribes require proof through tribal rolls, historical records, or community affiliation.
DNA can’t tell you if you descend from the Chickasaw, Powhatan, or Creek Nations let alone if your family lived under tribal law.

“Tribal belonging is a legal and cultural status, not a genetic one.” — Kim TallBear, Native American DNA

And here’s the kicker: many Indigenous ancestors were deliberately reclassified as “Black” or “Negro” in U.S. records. DNA can’t fix what government erasure broke.

🧬 What DNA Tests Can Do:

✅ Help you find relatives ✅ Trace broad ancestral regions ✅ Support oral histories with general clues

But...

❌ They won’t hold up in court

❌ They won’t get you federal recognition

❌ They won’t prove tribal affiliation or reparations eligibility

🐾 Documented Examples of Animal DNA Getting "Human" Results:

1. 2008 — The BBC Dog Test

A BBC reporter swabbed his dog’s cheek and sent it to a commercial genetic ancestry testing service (unspecified name).
The company returned a valid human ethnicity profile with regions of origin, completely unaware the sample came from a canine.
BBC used this to question the scientific validity of ethnicity testing services.

2. 2018 — Inside Edition Cat Test

A TV segment by Inside Edition sent DNA samples from a pet cat to a human ancestry company.
Result: The company processed the sample and returned a human ethnicity estimate, showing geographic ancestry.

3. 2019 — Maury Show Prank

In a satirical segment, producers submitted dog saliva to a consumer DNA site. The company still returned results, assigning percentages of ethnic makeup.

4. Consumer Reports & Academic Doubts

Consumer Reports and independent scientists have criticized the lack of DNA validation steps by many companies, meaning they don’t even check if the DNA is human before running it through their software.
This highlights how many commercial labs simply process what they’re given without verifying authenticity.

What This Reveals

Lack of species authentication: These companies didn’t check if the DNA came from a human.
Ethnicity estimates are based on algorithmic comparison, not any biological certainty. If a dog's DNA is 40% “Scandinavian” according to their system, that tells you something is seriously broken.
These are for-profit companies, not scientific labs operating under peer-reviewed standards.

If a dog or cat can get a human ethnicity result, how seriously should you take those pie charts?

This kind of error exposes the symbolic not scientific nature of consumer ancestry testing. It further proves that ethnicity testing from these companies is entertainment, not evidence.

FIRST TRIBE