Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Maybe "proud" is sometimes the wrong word, but I don't know what other word to use. It's more than just "Hmmmmm....interesting". But I think "proud" is sometimes appropriate. It's nice knowing that I have ancestors who fought to make this country independent and I am proud of that. The Confederate ancestors? Not so much "proud" of them as intrigued to know that my family was engaged in such a momentous historical event.

Buchanan, heh? George Washington is my second cousin several times removed while Obama is my first cousin 8X removed.
Click to expand...

For me, that "personalization of history" aspect is what makes it interesting. Likewise, I would not say "proud" of my ancestry in any meaningful sense, but they have stories to tell. I like history, and the personal connection to historical events makes the stories more interesting.

I know people who profess great pride in their ancestry, and sometimes those people scare me. Back in the days of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland, the biggest fundraising for the IRA came from New York, from people who didn't really know beans about Ireland, but they were named O'Brian, so obviously the English had to leave Ireland!

If I had Native American ancestry (which is possible, based on where my ancestors were from, but I haven't been tested) I think I would take more interest in that sort of thing. If family folklore said there was a connection, I would probably think it was kind of cool, but I won't be checking any boxes for ethnicity other than "white/Caucasian" even if I ever get tested and something pops up.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Yeah, I am going to go right and thank you for your assumption that native Americans are ignorant of these developments and that their leaders do not speak for the majority of their constituents

“Disgraceful” “despicable...” say bob did y’all read the article, or should we assume that the spread of knowledge has only made a slight dent in this thread?
Click to expand...

Most humans are that ignorant.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is because you CLEARLY have not read a single thing (other than your pal’s racist nonsense).

Did you see anything in the Cherokee Nation’s statement about creationism? Of course not.
Click to expand...

No, but I see a lot of nonsense.


“If there is one item you remember, let it be this: I am not Native because of my blood; I am Native because I belong to a tribe,
Click to expand...

Sure ok, let's just change the definition of "native" for the hell of it.


and despite what courts like the one in Texas say, a tribe is not a group of people gathered together because they are of the same race. It is a collective, a nation of citizens bonded by ancestral and historical commonalities, the likes of which no other group has on this land.
Click to expand...

Obviously these people share DNA too. I get that you have to be accepted as a member of a specific tribe, but to say you have some native american DNA is not an assault on the idea of tribal membership.

On this, there is no budging. For anyone to decry this, or declare it moot, is to walk into the same trap Warren did—that of denying Native people the sovereignty and autonomy to declare, for themselves, who is Native and who is not.
Click to expand...

So now this group "declares" who is native, somehow? I get the tribal membership bit, but no, you can literally test to see if you have native american DNA. Which is what happened. No declaration can change the results of a DNA test.



In voice, both through her video and past statements, Warren has maintained that only tribes have the power to determine who is a member; in practice, by completing this DNA test as some sort of rebuttal of truth to Trump’s repeated jabs, she has circumvented this acknowledgment of tribal sovereignty and clung to that heritage for no other reason than being able to claim a cheap political victory.”
Click to expand...

Well no she didn't. She just showed, conclusive and scientifically, that she had some trace amount of native american DNA. Not as much as she claimed she did, but that's not what they're upset about.


Tell me if you need help understanding that.
Click to expand...

It's woo. Period.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, boy....I could do a great 'whataboutism" for Trump here, but I won't.

She wasn't lying as she believed then, as she does now, that she had/has N American lineage. Which she does.

Whether or not another defender would have done the same thing is irrelevant as none of us were in her shoes (no moccasin jokes, please). None of us can know what was in her mind at the time concerning her heritage. She has never claimed being any more "Indian" than having a 3 or 4X great grandparent. Would I have done it? I don't know as I don't identify as "Creek" even though I have the same amount of NA ancestry as Warren. Had I grown up with stories of my Creek heritage, maybe I would have. It's all just speculation. And, once again, it's making a mountain out of a molehill because it's all her detractors have. Well, that and calling her Pocahontas and Fauxcahontas.
Click to expand...

I can assume a scenario hearing those stories. And I don't think it is a good action on her part.

ETA: at any level, the best her defenders can muster is that they cannot comment on the appropriateness of that action. That isn't an endorsement of them. I bet there are some actions that you are capable of judging with equal levels of information.
 
Last edited:
Pterodactyl said:
Because it doesnt make any goddam sense. I already said that.

Taking a DNA test isn't "offensive". It's a procedure that provides data.

Not accepting reliable data is what we call "woo" 'round these parts.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

If Native Americans are offended she took that test, then they’ll need to work out that butt-hurt on their own.

In the meantime, do the have any comment on trump’s using Pocahontas/Fauxcahontas as a childish, racist slur?

I know which one seems more offensive to me.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yeah, I am going to go right and thank you for your assumption that native Americans are ignorant of these developments and that their leaders do not speak for the majority of their constituents

“Disgraceful” “despicable...” say bob did y’all read the article, or should we assume that the spread of knowledge has only made a slight dent in this thread?
Click to expand...

Of course politicians are incapable of speaking for their constituents. They have no assumed credibility to do so.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is because you CLEARLY have not read a single thing (other than your pal’s racist nonsense).

Did you see anything in the Cherokee Nation’s statement about creationism? Of course not. ...
Click to expand...


I think you’re in the wrong forum if you think we’re going to care about somebody’s creation myth over science.
 
Pterodactyl said:
No, but I see a lot of nonsense.




Sure ok, let's just change the definition of "native" for the hell of it.




Obviously these people share DNA too. I get that you have to be accepted as a member of a specific tribe, but to say you have some native american DNA is not an assault on the idea of tribal membership.



So now this group "declares" who is native, somehow? I get the tribal membership bit, but no, you can literally test to see if you have native american DNA. Which is what happened. No declaration can change the results of a DNA test.





Well no she didn't. She just showed, conclusive and scientifically, that she had some trace amount of native american DNA. Not as much as she claimed she did, but that's not what they're upset about.




It's woo. Period.
Click to expand...

Same article:

“Now, if you’re looking for a scientific explanation of why genetic testing is both squishy and inapplicable to Native Americans, I suggest this thread by Dr. Kim TallBear. Essentially, while there are some DNA markers that exist in Native genetics, it is basically impossible to determine whether one was indigenous to North or South America—let alone a specific tribe. Chuck Hoskin Jr., the Secretary of State for Cherokee Nation, the tribe Warren claims to have roots in, explained this all in a rightfully scathing statement yesterday.”

With links explaining it. But we have been confidently informed by posters that it is woo, because DNA determines cultural factors.

I read it iSkep.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I can assume a scenario hearing those stories. And I don't think it is a good action on her part.

ETA: at any level, the best her defenders can muster is that they cannot comment on the appropriateness of that action. That isn't an endorsement of them. I bet there are some actions that you are capable of judging with equal levels of information.
Click to expand...

Whoever said it was a "good action"? No one I remember. "Misguided", a "mistake", and "error in judgment"... maybe from hindsight. But it is most certainly not the horrible, "bad character" revealing action that some are making it out to be. It's insignificant in the scheme of things.
It's definitely not up there with writing "C" on rent application forms, for example.
 
citizenzen said:
I think you’re in the wrong forum if you think we’re going out of our way to care about somebody’s creation myth over science.
Click to expand...

Well they certainly do not give a damn about the fact that creation myths have nothing to do with it, as I have shown repeatedly.

Nor appearntly the fact that the nonsense claim is racist.
 
Stacyhs said:
Whoever said it was a "good action"? No one I remember. "Misguided", a "mistake", and "error in judgment"... maybe from hindsight. But it is most certainly not the horrible, "bad character" revealing action that some are making it out to be. It's insignificant in the scheme of things.
It's definitely not up there with writing "C" on rent application forms, for example.
Click to expand...

That is my point. No one actually says it is a good action. Its bad. She did something bad.
 
The Big Dog said:
Same article:

“Now, if you’re looking for a scientific explanation of why genetic testing is both squishy and inapplicable to Native Americans, I suggest this thread by Dr. Kim TallBear. Essentially, while there are some DNA markers that exist in Native genetics, it is basically impossible to determine whether one was indigenous to North or South America—let alone a specific tribe. Chuck Hoskin Jr., the Secretary of State for Cherokee Nation, the tribe Warren claims to have roots in, explained this all in a rightfully scathing statement yesterday.”

With links explaining it. But we have been confidently informed by posters that it is woo, because DNA determines cultural factors.

I read it iSkep.
Click to expand...

This is woo also, unless there is some compelling reason to believe that natives from north and south america somehow accessed the americas from different places and didn't descend from a common lineage. Not that they couldn't display some different genetic markers due to geographic separation for a period of a few thousand years, but why would this matter? They're on the wrong side of the white man's borders so they're not "Native" ?
 
Pterodactyl said:
This is woo also, unless there is some compelling reason to believe that natives from north and south america somehow accessed the americas from different places and didn't descend from a common lineage. Not that they couldn't display some different genetic markers due to geographic separation for a period of a few thousand years, but why would this matter? They're on the wrong side of the white man's borders so they're not "Native" ?
Click to expand...

First because it is junk science as I explained yesterday.

Second because it is a cultural/political issue and not some 23 and Me bull ****.
 
Pterodactyl said:
This is woo also, unless there is some compelling reason to believe that natives from north and south america somehow accessed the americas from different places and didn't descend from a common lineage. Not that they couldn't display some different genetic markers due to geographic separation for a period of a few thousand years, but why would this matter? They're on the wrong side of the white man's borders so they're not "Native" ?
Click to expand...

I think what the line you called "woo" meant was that the DNA tests widely available cannot distinguish between natives of North America and natives of South America. I would guess that the population of South America was relatively recent and there are few if any genetic markers that developed after the population of South America. i.e. that natives of each region are essentially identical genetically.

On the other hand, there are genetic markers that can be associated specifically with America, as opposed to their Asian ancestors.
 
Last edited:
Pterodactyl said:
"settler-colonial claims" = science.
Sorry bud.
It's woo.
Click to expand...

Folks, cultural political issues are woo, while 23 and Me scienticians are on point.

The sad thing is that our correspondent thinks that cultural identity tracing through a single test is “science”!
 
smartcooky said:
NOTE: Australian Aboriginals have a similar attitude to DNA; its a manifestation of evil spirits. Despite the fact that there is overwhelming archaeological and DNA evidence that Aboriginals migrated to Australia from Africa via the North Coast of the Indian Ocean, arriving in Australia about 40 to 50,000 years ago, they utterly reject this. Their creation myths involve something they call "The Dreamtime"; the time before time. Like Native American myths, The Dreamtime myth tells them they originated in Australia.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but I was assured by an aboriginal “cultural awareness” lecturer that aborigines evolved in Australia because there were no arrival stories in the Dreamtime. When I pointed out the absence of apes or other species hominids could evolve from, he quickly changed the subject.

More on topic. My Irish ancestory is beyond doubt, but my father always contended a direct relationship to a famous Irish politician of the same surname. I know this is not true, but my siblings believe it.

It’s absolutely likely that Warren believed her mother’s story that she had a more direct NA ancestory. She has that ancestory, but probably not as direct as she thought.

The supposed outrage of the Cherokee Nation is irrelevant as Warren is, and never did, seek membership of that tribe. Membership of aboriginal communities has similar criteria. You do not need to demonstrate any percentage of aboriginality, you have to be recognised by the local aboriginal community. Easier said than done.

As I said earlier, as Warren has not sought membership of a NA tribe, much of the conservative bleating in this thread is utter nonsense.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think what the line you called "woo" meant was that the DNA tests widely available cannot distinguish between natives of North America and natives of South America. I would guess that the population of South America was relatively recent and there are few if any genetic markers that developed after the population of South America. i.e. that natives of each region are essentially identical genetically.

On the other hand, there are genetic markers that can be associated specifically with America, as opposed to their Asian ancestors.
Click to expand...

As I explained with citations to several sources, those data sets are based on present day populations, and there is not a single scholarly paper that supports claims like Warren’s 23 and me so-called “expert.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom