Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keith Boykin tweets...

"So President Obama had to release his birth certificate and Elizabeth Warren had to release her DNA tests, but Donald Trump still hasn't released his tax returns like every other president has done for the past 40 years?"

:thumbsup:
 
Upchurch said:
I had mine done. I’ve had ancestors on the continent since circa 1750. FWIW, I don’t have any Native American markers. I’m Whitey McWhite from Whitesville, USA. Well, Whitesville, UK.

The “everyone has Native American DNA” argument falls a little flat.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying 'all Americans' have Native American DNA. What is true is that having .01-2% Native American is not particularly unusual in someone otherwise obviously European.


IOW Warren on the face of it is no more Native American than most Americans.
 
Last edited:
beren said:
I believe you are in error.
Has not one single Native American moved to Europe and then had a kid?
Has not one person with a Native American great-great-great something moved to Europe and had a kid?
Click to expand...

At least one has. Rebecca Rothe, also known as Pocahontas.

At least one US Senator, Jeanne Shaheen (D - NH) is a descendant.


Pocahontas' great grandson died in the early 18th century in Virginia after having seven children, so it's fairly likely that more than one US Senator is a descendant, but not every family tree has been traced back that far.
 
Last edited:
River said:
You're denying that is from her recipe? Do you think someone misquoted her?

Are you also denying she claimed to be a minority?
Click to expand...

Calling yourself Cherokee (or of Cherokee decent) does not make you a member of a tribe.

Putting a recipe in a book does not qualify as a Federal application for NA minority status.
 
We could go back and forth over miscellaneous quibbles, but, in the end, I think the appropriate phrase to describe today's announcement is "tone deaf".


I can't imagine that this will help her election chances, and the fact that she thinks it will makes me think she is out of touch.
 
The Big Dog said:
The Cherokee nation has weighed in, and they are not pleased about warren's latest stunt:

https://twitter.com/JustinWingerter/status/1051943041576169476

"Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

damn....
Click to expand...

citizenzen said:
Blasted? :confused:

What I read is hardly a blast, and the Cherokee Nation’s statement matches the findings from Professor Bustamnte, which Warren brought forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah,what you posted is spectacularly false.

"Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."
 
Meadmaker said:
We could go back and forth over miscellaneous quibbles, but, in the end, I think the appropriate phrase to describe today's announcement is "tone deaf".


I can't imagine that this will help her election chances, and the fact that she thinks it will makes me think she is out of touch.
Click to expand...

In the age of Trump, what are you basing that on?
 
smartcooky said:
Yeah, but, you know. Over exaggerate the negative, and understate the positive. That's par for the course for Trumpsters when they are talking about their philosophical and political opponents.

As for DNA, I'm surprised that TBD even acknowledges it at all given that it proves the Earth to be older than 6022 years and must therefore be "The Devil's Work".
Click to expand...

"Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

:thumbsup:
 
Meadmaker said:
We could go back and forth over miscellaneous quibbles, but, in the end, I think the appropriate phrase to describe today's announcement is "tone deaf".


I can't imagine that this will help her election chances, and the fact that she thinks it will makes me think she is out of touch.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmm. I was thinking the appropriate phrase was more like "Bitch Slap!"

giphy.gif
 
kookbreaker said:
You’ve been corrected on this.
Click to expand...

Sorry? 'Warren has ten times more Native American DNA than someone from Utah and twelve times more than a Brit'?

Given the average Brit has vanishingly remote Native American DNA, twelve times 0.1% is a far less impressive way of saying 'twelve times more than 0.015'.

That's called 'lying by statistics'.
 
Last edited:
This was discussed earlier in the thread and quickly got more technical than I could grok, so excuse the possibly stupid question.

Do any of our more scientifically credentialed members know if these findings mean that Warrens' NA ancestor(s) were definitely six or more generations back? IOW, is it possible that her NA ancestor(s) were more recent, and the "markers" (if that is the term) just did not get passed down?
 
Distracted1 said:
This was discussed earlier in the thread and quickly got more technical than I could grok, so excuse the possibly stupid question.

Do any of our more scientifically credentialed members know if these findings mean that Warrens' NA ancestor(s) were definitely six or more generations back? IOW, is it possible that her NA ancestor(s) were more recent, and the "markers" (if that is the term) just did not get passed down?
Click to expand...

23+me does now have a feature which shows you how far back your different ethnicities go. It is fascinating.

It's simple statistics, really. Say you are 5% 'Italian'. It will tell you you likely had one great-grandparent who was a full-blood Italian.

The caveat is, it might not be the one g-grandparent, but a generalised inheritance that goes back generations via several random individuals. (Background noise.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
23+me does now have a feature which shows you how far back your different ethnicities go. It is fascinating.

It's simple statistics, really. Say you are 5% 'Italian'. It will tell you you likely had one great-grandparent who was a full-blood Italian.

The caveat is, it might not be the one g-grandparent, but a generalised inheritance that goes back generations via several random individuals. (Background noise.)
Click to expand...

I can grasp that. What I wonder is, is it possible to have a parent or grandparent (not a distant relative) who is a certain ethnicity and still show only a few % that ethnicity in a DNA test?

Articles like the following make that seem it seem a bit more vague than that.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...mother-was-italian-why-arent-my-genes-italian
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nobody is saying 'all Americans' have Native American DNA. What is true is that having .01-2% Native American is not particularly unusual in someone otherwise obviously European.


IOW Warren on the face of it is no more Native American than most Americans.
Click to expand...

The thing is, 6 - 10 generations is not very far back. If its at the six generations end, and given that Warren was born in 1949, then a single Native American ancestor as the source of the DNA would have lived sometime in the mid to late-1800s. Given that records researched by American genealogists can go back back to the 1700's and earlier, then it is not beyond reason that this individual might still be able to be identified by an expert genealogical researcher.

I have one identifiable individual in my ancestry who is seven generations back (from me) and we found him in the 1841 England and Wales census; we know his name and where he lived.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom