Elizabeth Warren refuses to take DNA test

[Bob001]

....
The point is that I am very likely one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of similar descendants world-wide who can make the same claim. I harbour no hope that I can reclaim any of Virginia territory as my ancestral land either, nor even just get a green card for employment in the USA, on the strength of this.
.....

I dunno about millions, but the fact is that every person had two biological parents. Each of them had two, and so on. By the fifth generation back -- only about 100 years -- we are equally descended from 64 people. By the 10th generation back, we are equally descended from 2048 people. At 11th, it becomes 4096; by the 15th -- George Washington's era -- it becomes over 65,000. Everybody who is a direct descendant of GW is equally a descendant of 65,000 other people. Pocahontas is probably around the 20th generation, which gets into the hundreds of thousands. At some point far enough back, everybody is related to everybody.

So if E. Warren's grandparents told her that there's some Native American in her background, and her family's been here more than a couple generations, they were probably right, even if Warren can't prove it -- and she shouldn't have to.

 

[ddt]

I dunno about millions, but the fact is that every person had two biological parents. Each of them had two, and so on. By the fifth generation back -- only about 100 years -- we are equally descended from 64 people. By the 10th generation back, we are equally descended from 2048 people. At 11th, it becomes 4096; by the 15th -- George Washington's era -- it becomes over 65,000. Everybody who is a direct descendant of GW is equally a descendant of 65,000 other people. Pocahontas is probably around the 20th generation, which gets into the hundreds of thousands. At some point far enough back, everybody is related to everybody.

Going back into your ancestry, at some point you'll encounter pedigree collapse: the fact that the same ancestor turns up in multiple places in the ancestors tree.

So if E. Warren's grandparents told her that there's some Native American in her background, and her family's been here more than a couple generations, they were probably right, even if Warren can't prove it -- and she shouldn't have to.

Her claim is that her Native American heritage occurred in her grandparents, or her great-grandparents, I forgot which, but in any case, not so long ago.

I agree with you she doesn't have to prove it; she never used it to get special perks out of it.

 

[theprestige]

I am 1/1605844th part Bedrockian, being a direct descendant of Fred Flintstone. And I have a quipping pterodactyl DNA testing machine or something to prove it.

Let me know when an Ivy League school lists you as their only Bedrockian professor. And then it turns out that you have no *********** clue if you're really Bedrockian or not, but that doesn't stop you or the university from scoring some diversity points meanwhile.

And of course actual documented Bedrockians are still waiting for you to act on your supposed heritage.

 

[Bob001]

Her claim is that her Native American heritage occurred in her grandparents, or her great-grandparents, I forgot which, but in any case, not so long ago.

I agree with you she doesn't have to prove it; she never used it to get special perks out of it.

Apparently her original claim based on family lore was that she was 1/32 Cherokee. That would go back to great-great-grandparents, and wouldn't be enough to officially join any tribe.

Interesting take in the Atlantic from her Senate campaign. It sounds like everybody in Oklahoma thinks they're descended from Native Americans, which would explain why she believed what her grandparents told her, even if it's not true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...zabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

 

[Bob001]

Going back into your ancestry, at some point you'll encounter pedigree collapse: the fact that the same ancestor turns up in multiple places in the ancestors tree.
.....

Interesting couple sentences from your link:

Small, isolated populations such as those of remote islands represent extreme examples of pedigree collapse, but the common historical tendency to marry those within walking distance, due to the relative immobility of the population before modern transport, meant that most marriage partners were at least distantly related. Even in America around the 19th century, the tendency of immigrants to marry among their ethnic, language or cultural group produced many cousin marriages.

If one considers as a function of time t the number of a given individual's ancestors who were alive at time t, it is likely that for most individuals this function has a maximum at around 1200 AD. Some geneticists[which?] believe that everyone on Earth is at most 50th cousin to everyone else.[5]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

“Some geneticists[which?] believe that everyone on Earth is at most 50th cousin to everyone else.”

I’m related to Trump, then? Shoot me.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I dunno about millions, but the fact is that every person had two biological parents. Each of them had two, and so on. By the fifth generation back -- only about 100 years -- we are equally descended from 64 people. By the 10th generation back, we are equally descended from 2048 people. At 11th, it becomes 4096; by the 15th -- George Washington's era -- it becomes over 65,000. Everybody who is a direct descendant of GW is equally a descendant of 65,000 other people. Pocahontas is probably around the 20th generation, which gets into the hundreds of thousands. At some point far enough back, everybody is related to everybody.

So if E. Warren's grandparents told her that there's some Native American in her background, and her family's been here more than a couple generations, they were probably right, even if Warren can't prove it -- and she shouldn't have to.

Ten generations to me.

And you done your math wrong. Pocahontas had two children IIRC. They each had a number of children of their own. And so on. And there was no "one child" policy for much of that time - one generation had 13 children! So her descendants down to my generation number many more than my direct antecedents back to her (which would actually be 10 pairs, or 20 people).

 

[Bob001]

Ten generations to me.

And you done your math wrong. Pocahontas had two children IIRC. They each had a number of children of their own. And so on. And there was no "one child" policy for much of that time - one generation had 13 children! So her descendants down to my generation number many more than my direct antecedents back to her (which would actually be 10 pairs, or 20 people).

I was counting from the present backwards 2 x 2. Somebody who says "I'm a direct descendant of George Washington" is equally descended from many thousands of less illustrious people who were alive at that time. If you are descended from Pocahontas, she was just one of thousands of people who contributed equally to your heritage. You could pick any one of them and trace your ancestry to the present from them. But obviously, if you start with any one historical person, every child and grandchild etc., would be equally descended from the founder.

And Pocahontas lived from 1596 to 1617. 400+ years is way more than 10 generations by most counts. A generation is usually considered around 20-something years. You've got more cousins than you thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

 

[Norman Alexander]

I was counting from the present backwards 2 x 2. Somebody who says "I'm a direct descendant of George Washington" is equally descended from many thousands of less illustrious people who were alive at that time. If you are descended from Pocahontas, she was just one of thousands of people who contributed equally to your heritage. You could pick any one of them and trace your ancestry to the present from them. But obviously, if you start with any one historical person, every child and grandchild etc., would be equally descended from the founder.

And Pocahontas lived from 1596 to 1617. 400+ years is way more than 10 generations by most counts. A generation is usually considered around 20-something years. You've got more cousins than you thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

A generation is usually considered 30 years (the next generation is born between 20 and 40 years of age of the previous). I'm over 60, and I know from research I am 10th generation from Pocahontas. I have their names.

Think about your parents - how many did you have? I had two. Let's say my line to Pocahontas was on my mother's side. How many parents did she have? Still two. And following the line, her mother? Two again. You have two parents per generation if you count backwards from yourself to a specific ancestor. So for 10 generations that will be 20 parents/grandparents/great-grandparents, etc. in total.

Counting forwards from Pocahontas and thus numbering her descendants is not the same thing. And yes indeed I expect I have hundreds of thousands of cousins 10 times removed (or whatever it is) around the world.

ETA: Ah, I can see where you made a slight error. Your calculation was actually the answer to the question "How many people had to meet and mate to make you?" And the answer is as you describe - powers of 2.

 

[Brainster]

Her claims of Native American ancestry have not been refuted, they just haven't been proven. All she has to go on are stories that were passed down from her family. With Native Americans actively trying to avoid registering in the past, and the obvious problems of tracking down information from over a hundred years ago, the best anyone looking at the genealogical records have been able to say is they can neither confirm nor deny it.

As far as a DNA test goes, well, there are only 23 base pairs of DNA in your average human, and only a 50/50 chance of passing on any one particular gene to a child. After six or seven generations, odds are against any particular descendant having any DNA from any particular ancestor.

In short, it is entirely possible that she is telling the factual truth about her ancestry, and that she will never be able to prove it.

You are aware that Warren's claim does not go back six or seven generations?

“My mother’s family was part Native American,” she said. “And my daddy’s parents were bitterly opposed to their relationship. So, in 1932, when Mother was 19 and Daddy had just turned 20, they eloped.”

 

[PhantomWolf]

A generation is usually considered 30 years (the next generation is born between 20 and 40 years of age of the previous). I'm over 60, and I know from research I am 10th generation from Pocahontas. I have their names.

Think about your parents - how many did you have? I had two. Let's say my line to Pocahontas was on my mother's side. How many parents did she have? Still two. And following the line, her mother? Two again. You have two parents per generation if you count backwards from yourself to a specific ancestor. So for 10 generations that will be 20 parents/grandparents/great-grandparents, etc. in total.

Counting forwards from Pocahontas and thus numbering her descendants is not the same thing. And yes indeed I expect I have hundreds of thousands of cousins 10 times removed (or whatever it is) around the world.

ETA: Ah, I can see where you made a slight error. Your calculation was actually the answer to the question "How many people had to meet and mate to make you?" And the answer is as you describe - powers of 2.

You're doing the math wrong based on what Bob is saying, you might have 2 parents and your mother might also have two parents, but your father had 2 parents as well, so that is 4 grandparents. At the 10th generation it's not 10 x 2 (20) people, but 2^10 people which is 1,024 ancestors in total. So your specific ancestor that you are interested in is just 1 in 1,024 at that level (assuming that none of the branches are interwoven which is slim to unlikely.) You are just looking at the one branch, Bob isn't.

 

[Foolmewunz]

[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ec9a7eaa1922df78f9cc67211cad701/tenor.gif?itemid=5547528[/qimg]

I was with this until I saw that all the Murdoch press, Fox and the Sinclair network stations are actually all over this story.

Nobody who's sane cares. The right wing froth-o-sphere cares.

Lemme anecdotify this for ya. I grew up Jewish; not so much religiously but culturally. Sorta yer secular Jew. I was in an actual temple about five times and always someone else's temple - my friend Billy Mervis or classmate Scott Zelden or Mike Rosenstein... But my mom considered herself a non-practicing Jew. And everyone in the community knew a number of such people. Temple, for those of you who aren't aware, is not really a "I think I'll try out that place in Greenpoint this week" sort of worship. It's a community thing and you "belong to" a temple. And many Jews simply do not.

Well, that was us. And because my mom was single, our Jewish friends would have me or my siblings over for seder or first night of Chanukah. So I was steeped in the traditions and particularly the community and culture. Besides, if your mom's a Jew... you're a Jew, so I self-identified as one, what with at least 25-30 years of that association.

Only it turns out I'm not a Jew. I found out in my 30s that my mom was making it up. For whatever reason, she created a Jewish background for herself and us. Her family were Cincinnati bible thumpers. Why did it take so long to find out? Because I didn't care. I wasn't running for Mayor of the Hassidim. I could've been genetically Black or Jewish or Cherokee; it was just part of me and it didn't require verification.

Why would anyone care? If you're brought up believing a story is part of your culture/history, and you repeat it, I think it makes you kinda "normal". I know pale white men who are so ghetto that if you just heard their voices you'd swear you were talking to a black dude. You are pretty much the life you lead and silly dinner-table-legends (as opposed to urban legends) are as big a part of us as anything else.

 

[Parsman]

I was with this until I saw that all the Murdoch press, Fox and the Sinclair network stations are actually all over this story.

Nobody who's sane cares. The right wing froth-o-sphere cares.

Lemme anecdotify this for ya. I grew up Jewish; not so much religiously but culturally. Sorta yer secular Jew. I was in an actual temple about five times and always someone else's temple - my friend Billy Mervis or classmate Scott Zelden or Mike Rosenstein... But my mom considered herself a non-practicing Jew. And everyone in the community knew a number of such people. Temple, for those of you who aren't aware, is not really a "I think I'll try out that place in Greenpoint this week" sort of worship. It's a community thing and you "belong to" a temple. And many Jews simply do not.

Well, that was us. And because my mom was single, our Jewish friends would have me or my siblings over for seder or first night of Chanukah. So I was steeped in the traditions and particularly the community and culture. Besides, if your mom's a Jew... you're a Jew, so I self-identified as one, what with at least 25-30 years of that association.

Only it turns out I'm not a Jew. I found out in my 30s that my mom was making it up. For whatever reason, she created a Jewish background for herself and us. Her family were Cincinnati bible thumpers. Why did it take so long to find out? Because I didn't care. I wasn't running for Mayor of the Hassidim. I could've been genetically Black or Jewish or Cherokee; it was just part of me and it didn't require verification.

Why would anyone care? If you're brought up believing a story is part of your culture/history, and you repeat it, I think it makes you kinda "normal". I know pale white men who are so ghetto that if you just heard their voices you'd swear you were talking to a black dude. You are pretty much the life you lead and silly dinner-table-legends (as opposed to urban legends) are as big a part of us as anything else.

This. My Great Aunty Babsy swore blind we were descended from an illegitimate son of James V of Scotland (hey, all True Scotsmen are Princes don't you know!) and it makes a fun wee story for family and friends. But I won't get an invite to Harry and Megan's wedding out of it. As far as I can see Warren has never traded on her "heritage" whatever the right wing pundits and media claim so any rational person (which does leave out the right wing pundits and media of course) would regard this as a non-story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This. My Great Aunty Babsy swore blind we were descended from an illegitimate son of James V of Scotland (hey, all True Scotsmen are Princes don't you know!) and it makes a fun wee story for family and friends. But I won't get an invite to Harry and Megan's wedding out of it. As far as I can see Warren has never traded on her "heritage" whatever the right wing pundits and media claim so any rational person (which does leave out the right wing pundits and media of course) would regard this as a non-story.

We're supposed to be descended from Mary Queen of Scots, my grandmother on my mom's side is a Stuart (or Stewart, not sure). So I looked the queen up and thought I could follow her ancestry. Turns out there are like 20,000 or so descendants, 1 of every 6 people* in the UK or something.

So I figure it's true, I am more likely than not related.


*don't recall the exact numbers

 

[PhantomWolf]

According to my family we have a lineage back to Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, but I wouldn't be counting it as a title. I'm also a 6th generation NZer able to trace back to the first white child born in my province. One of the streets is named after my Grandfather's grandfather, who owned a farm there and died by falling off a windmill, while another of his uncles was New Zealand's only Highway man.

Can I prove any of it, well some of it since my grandmother did the genealogy and so has my sister to a point, but most of it was oral tales before then. I have some weird family members, though most of the really odd ones aren't direct ascendants.

On my Grandmother's side her step-father killed himself by accidently drinking nitro-glycerine instead of his extremely strong black tea. One of her uncles was even the inspiration for the main character in a book called "Me and Gus".

 

[dann]

I've been led to believe that I have some U.S.-Virgin-Island indigenous genes - a great, great grandma or something from the time when the Virgin Islands were Danish colonies. I never had a gene test, though.
Does anybody know if I can have my own Crucian casino if it turns out to be true?!

 

[Upchurch]

I was counting from the present backwards 2 x 2. Somebody who says "I'm a direct descendant of George Washington" is equally descended from many thousands of less illustrious people who were alive at that time. If you are descended from Pocahontas, she was just one of thousands of people who contributed equally to your heritage.

But not necessarily equally to your DNA. You get half from each parent, but each parent is not necessarily passing on an equal quarter from their parents or an equal eighth from each of their grandparents, are they?

 

[Norman Alexander]

You're doing the math wrong based on what Bob is saying, you might have 2 parents and your mother might also have two parents, but your father had 2 parents as well, so that is 4 grandparents. At the 10th generation it's not 10 x 2 (20) people, but 2^10 people which is 1,024 ancestors in total. So your specific ancestor that you are interested in is just 1 in 1,024 at that level (assuming that none of the branches are interwoven which is slim to unlikely.) You are just looking at the one branch, Bob isn't.

Nope, you've made the same mistake. You are looking at total parentage for an individual, not a specific familial lineage for a person.

If you trace your line from you back to great ancestor X over the generations, it goes through a single pair of people through each generation. Draw your family tree starting at great great great great great grandfather Herbert and it may be huge. But the path from any one leaf - you - back to him at the root, which is what lineage is, goes through specific pairs of parents, not every pair of parents in the tree.

 

[Norman Alexander]

According to my family we have a lineage back to Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, but I wouldn't be counting it as a title. I'm also a 6th generation NZer able to trace back to the first white child born in my province. One of the streets is named after my Grandfather's grandfather, who owned a farm there and died by falling off a windmill, while another of his uncles was New Zealand's only Highway man.

Can I prove any of it, well some of it since my grandmother did the genealogy and so has my sister to a point, but most of it was oral tales before then. I have some weird family members, though most of the really odd ones aren't direct ascendants.

On my Grandmother's side her step-father killed himself by accidently drinking nitro-glycerine instead of his extremely strong black tea. One of her uncles was even the inspiration for the main character in a book called "Me and Gus".

Family histories are awesome!

 

[Horatius]

Her claims of Native American ancestry have not been refuted, they just haven't been proven. All she has to go on are stories that were passed down from her family.

This is the crux of it. Even if it could be proven that her family history is incorrect, what exactly is she, personally, guilty of? She's guilty of believing the stories her grandparents told her.

That's some pretty weak sauce to be trying to play gotcha with.