Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Cavemonster]

So, for anyone who thinks he is welching on his bet, does this test prove she is an Indian?

At the time Trump made the statement, Warren had very clearly gone on record that her claim to india n heritage was one ancestor about six generations back on her mother's side.

If we were to apply the principle of charity to Trumps statement, we would assume that he was addressing her actual claim, so "is an Indian" would have to mean "has at least the amount of india n heritage she claims".

If we don't take his statement to mean that, then he must either have failed to understand her clear statements or else was being disingenuous about her claim to score political points.

Trump tends to speak with a purposeful sloppy vagueness to avoid being held to things he says. But even in the broadest and most charitable reading, there is no way to parse this that doesn't make him lying or stupid. Whether he was lying then by misrepresenting her claim or lying now.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's something that I genuinely don't understand when it comes to this story. An awful lot of people here, and some outside of here, have said that Donald Trump ought to keep his word and pay out the million to charity because Warren's test proved she was telling the truth. Warren herself named a charity where he could send the check.

I don't get it.

The clip I heard several times on the radio yesterday where Trump introduced the million dollar offer had him saying that he would pay a million bucks to charity if she took a DNA test that proved she was an Indian.

Does anyone think this test proved she was an Indian? Don't substitute any other words in there. Does it prove she is an Indian?

Also, don't go down the road of "Well, Indians aren't defined by DNA...." or "Well, there's no official percentage of ancestry needed....." If any variation of those were true, then no DNA test could ever prove anyone was an Indian, so the bet would be moot right from the moment it was uttered. (Which of course it was for other reasons, but that's not the point.) And also, don't go down the, "She never said...." route, because the "bet" was based on his words, not hers. He said if the test proved she was an Indian.

So, for anyone who thinks he is welching on his bet, does this test prove she is an Indian?

He is reneging on the bet given the context of the situation. Warren never claimed that she had any significant Native American ancestry. The claim was always that somewhere pretty far up family tree was someone with partial Native American ancestry, at least enough to not pass as white.

No other "bet" makes sense given the context. Trump was implying that Warren's family story of distant NA ancestry was untrue. The DNA evidence seems to corroborate her claim. The fact that the original claim by Warren wasn't particularly significant doesn't change that Trump explicitly challenged its veracity.

 

[Meadmaker]

At the time Trump made the statement, Warren had very clearly gone on record that her claim to india n heritage was one ancestor about six generations back on her mother's side.

Ok. I haven't followed this closely enough. Is that what she really claimed? I'll do a bit of googling myself, but if anyone could post a link that referred to a place where she said, before Trump's "bet", that her Indian ancestry was a single ancestor that many generations ago, then I think there would be a point.


I had heard that she claimed a Native American ethnicity on demographic forms, and that her parents had to elope because of anti-Indian prejudice. That doesn't sound much like one ancestor six generations ago to me, but I'll see what I can find.

 

[wareyin]

You're doubling down now. We're not talking about political parties.

You can't be serious. Where in the world do you think this fuss over Warren having NA Ancestry came from if not from her political opponent? Who has been keeping it in the news for the last several years other than a person who assumes she will be his political opponent? It is an act taken by political operatives of one party with a specific political goal in mind against another political party, but you want to think politics has nothing to do with it?

Peruvian is not Cherokee.

Correct. Has nothing to do with what we are talking about though. Is this supposed to be an example of how you can be wrong independently? Because I'm fairly sure that a few hyperpartisans in this thread raised the idea that Warren's DNA was from a southern tribe, but no news source has. So....that's a nice own goal there, thanks.

Brownie points doesn't mean getting employment. It can be something as mundane as sympathy.

Well, when you can demonstrate that's why she did it or that that was a result of what she did, you might get an internet point. As it stands, you're repeating a Republican talking point that has no validity (and apparently blissfully unaware that they are the ones putting that story out that you have so easily swallowed).

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, for anyone who thinks he is welching on his bet, does this test prove she is an Indian?

Such sophistry doesn't win you any favors in here.

Anyhoo... Trump thinks he's welching on his bet, which is why he moved the goal posts.

 

[wareyin]

I don't think it's established that anyone quoted her at all.

That isn't how little local cookbooks worked. Whoever compiled the recipes might have done it without any direct input from her.






This is more along the lines of how they were done.

It's a piece of history which many men might be completely oblivious to. It was common to the point of ubiquity for local women's groups to put out compilations of recipes from other members of their social groups. Church groups, garden clubs, sewing circles, reading clubs, etc., etc.. Their intended audience was rarely major publication, but more for other members of the groups. Recipes could be sourced from anywhere ... from recipes 'handed down for generations' to 'that chicken dish you made last month for the potluck', and just as easily been born originally in Joy of Cooking or from the family's live-in cook 'who's been with us for years'.

Historians love these little gems. Not merely for the picture they paint of the evolution of local cuisines but also for comments which give insights to the beliefs and attitudes of the times they were written in. It is a practice which goes back hundreds of years. There are probably thousands of such efforts, and I expect they are still being made, albeit with less frequency.

They aren't to be viewed as authoritative anything, even by the people who compiled them or the people who received them. Just little snapshots of local life.

I've contributed to one such effort at the local Temple. Other than being acceptably kosher, there was nothing Jewish about the recipes I contributed.

Such recipe collections were usually sold by groups as fundraising efforts. Everybody contributes a recipe, or several, they get a nice little binder of them, put on a cover, and sell them for a few bucks to cover the group's coffee expenses, or go towards a trip, or something along those lines. I expect that Warren's example was one of these things. I honestly am surprised that people could be unaware of this sort of thing, and I'm male.

 

[Drewbot]

Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4, and some up to 1/16 blood to become part of the tribe. But they also have coinciding requirements of lineage. You must be able to show you are related to someone on the original lists of tribe members.

The strict requirements have not prevented others from claiming Cherokee decent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamake_Highwater

and of course, the famous Cherokee who cried a tear for the environment in that old commercial...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

 

[thaiboxerken]

Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4, and some up to 1/16 blood to become part of the tribe. But they also have coinciding requirements of lineage. You must be able to show you are related to someone on the original lists of tribe members.

So?

What's this have to do with Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, I did a few minutes of google, and one of the places I found was elizabethwarren.com. That seemed a good enough place to start.

So, the story was a family lore sort of thing. There wasn't any specific "single ancestor" or "six generations back". It was recent enough that her mother, i.e. one generation back, was called "part Indian". It sure seems like the family lore included recent Indian ancestry, although exactly how much was completely unknown.

That was also consistent with the other sources I found.

Unless there was something more specific said prior to the "bet", then that was the context of the bet.

 

[Drewbot]

Here is an article written before the Warren controversy.

This is a pretty good reason they don't want people appropriating their culture:

Traditionally Native American people don’t challenge others’ claim to be Native as it is thought to be harmless but it is important that ethnic imposters be challenged on cultural appropriation on all levels because culture is the only thing remaining after colonization has stripped everything else away.

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/beware-of-ethnic-imposters-8RMP43Q_WEWNqmF3etRUYQ/

 

[Belz...]

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. Look: :|

Where in the world do you think this fuss over Warren having NA Ancestry came from if not from her political opponent?

Again, that isn't what's under discussion, but the very idea of 'sides' in a discussion and 'sides' in this thread, especially re Joe's points and arguments.

Correct. Has nothing to do with what we are talking about though. Is this supposed to be an example of how you can be wrong independently? Because I'm fairly sure that a few hyperpartisans in this thread raised the idea that Warren's DNA was from a southern tribe, but no news source has. So....that's a nice own goal there, thanks.

...what? Own goal? What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that yes, she has NA ancestry but that no, Peruvian is not Cherokee. So at least on the back of the DNA test it seems that her specific claim was wrong even though her general claim wasn't.

Not sure where the disagreement is.

Well, when you can demonstrate that's why she did it or that that was a result of what she did, you might get an internet point. As it stands, you're repeating a Republican talking point that has no validity (and apparently blissfully unaware that they are the ones putting that story out that you have so easily swallowed).

Again, what are you on about? Who says I swallowed anything or making 'internet points'? It really seems to me like you've staked a position on this and can't even fathom accepting any point that isn't in that exact position. You accusing others of swallowing a party line is ironic, to say the least, especially since I get most of my US news from left-leaning sources because right-leaning ones tend to be bonkers.

So instead of accusing people, how about you discuss the topic and the points?

 

[Travis]

You do understand why I think this analogy makes no sense?

In any case, the Cherokee Nation decides who is a Cherokee and who is not. Fauxcahontas is free to go over there and knock on the door and make her claim. If she does, I hope she takes a camera crew, because it should be a hoot.

No, genetics get to do that. The Cherokee Nation is free to declare the sky is orange and the oceans are jelly. That doesn't make what they say true.



The reality is that she has Native American ancestry, possibly Cherokee, and no amount of baseless declaration will ever change that.

 

[Travis]

Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4, and some up to 1/16 blood to become part of the tribe. But they also have coinciding requirements of lineage. You must be able to show you are related to someone on the original lists of tribe members.

The strict requirements have not prevented others from claiming Cherokee decent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamake_Highwater

and of course, the famous Cherokee who cried a tear for the environment in that old commercial...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

https://i.giphy.com/media/12SBwtRR9BnWg/giphy.webp

Which is relevant....how?

 

[wareyin]

Yes, I can. Look: :|



Again, that isn't what's under discussion, but the very idea of 'sides' in a discussion and 'sides' in this thread, especially re Joe's points and arguments.



...what? Own goal? What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that yes, she has NA ancestry but that no, Peruvian is not Cherokee. So at least on the back of the DNA test it seems that her specific claim was wrong even though her general claim wasn't.

Not sure where the disagreement is


Again, what are you on about? Who says I swallowed anything or making 'internet points'? It really seems to me like you've staked a position on this and can't even fathom accepting any point that isn't in that exact position. You accusing others of swallowing a party line is ironic, to say the least, especially since I get most of my US news from left-leaning sources because right-leaning ones tend to be bonkers.

So instead of accusing people, how about you discuss the topic and the points?

Other than the couple of hyper-partisan Republican posters in this thread, please present a source for the Peruvian claim. Thanks.


....and since that is where you got it from, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting, nor will I worry any more about your silly "look, folks, just because the Republican party is trying really hard to make a mountain out of a molehill in order to harm a political opponent in the eyes of the electorate, this isn't about political sides" mumbo jumbo

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, genetics get to do that. The Cherokee Nation is free to declare the sky is orange and the oceans are jelly. That doesn't make what they say true.



The reality is that she has Native American ancestry, possibly Cherokee, and no amount of baseless declaration will ever change that.

The reality is she didn't do the right thing when she was a teacher. No test will change that.

 

[Belz...]

Other than the couple of hyper-partisan Republican posters in this thread, please present a source for the Peruvian claim. Thanks.

I thought it was well-established that her DNA was compared to, in part, markers from Peruvians. Several news sources left and right reported this; for example the Atlantic. So while it establishes that she has NA ancestry, to a reasonable degree, it doesn't link her to the Cherokee.

....and since that is where you got it from

You're just completely convinced of your alternate reality. You're no different than the right-wing partisans.

nor will I worry any more about your silly "look, folks, just because the Republican party is trying really hard to make a mountain out of a molehill in order to harm a political opponent in the eyes of the electorate,

Now you're downright lying. Of course the Republicans are doing this.

this isn't about political sides"

Another lie. That isn't what I said. But you're completely blinded by your quest to make it ONLY about political sides.

 

[Kestrel]

Well, I did a few minutes of google, and one of the places I found was elizabethwarren.com. That seemed a good enough place to start.

So, the story was a family lore sort of thing. There wasn't any specific "single ancestor" or "six generations back". It was recent enough that her mother, i.e. one generation back, was called "part Indian". It sure seems like the family lore included recent Indian ancestry, although exactly how much was completely unknown.

That was also consistent with the other sources I found.

Unless there was something more specific said prior to the "bet", then that was the context of the bet.

Technically you can’t have a single ancestor of any ethnic group. Because that individual also has ancestors.

The term “part Indian” only tells us that her mother had some Indian ancestry. It doesn’t tell us how many generations back.

Family lore passed from generation to generation is often unclear on when an event occurred. My grandmother used to tell a story about one of her ancestors dying on the trail when the family was moving West. I discovered only a few years ago that the story was true, but happened when the western frontier was Ohio.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4, and some up to 1/16 blood to become part of the tribe. But they also have coinciding requirements of lineage. You must be able to show you are related to someone on the original lists of tribe members.

The strict requirements have not prevented others from claiming Cherokee decent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamake_Highwater

and of course, the famous Cherokee who cried a tear for the environment in that old commercial...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

[qimg]https://i.giphy.com/media/12SBwtRR9BnWg/giphy.webp[/qimg]

Cool story. When did Warren claim to be a member of the Cherokee tribe or even eligible for such membership? The Cherokee tribe is a political sovereignty and their membership requirements are irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, genetics get to do that. The Cherokee Nation is free to declare the sky is orange and the oceans are jelly. That doesn't make what they say true.

The reality is that she has Native American ancestry, possibly Cherokee, and no amount of baseless declaration will ever change that.

This is precisely the type of next level nonsense that the Native American authors that I have repeatedly cited expected when she pulled her grossly ignorant stunt. They said that the results would be exploited by people like this to dictate to the Native Americans who is a member of their community/tribes.

It did not take long for us to get there in this thread.

 

[Drewbot]

Other than the couple of hyper-partisan Republican posters in this thread, please present a source for the Peruvian claim. Thanks.

Are you referring to the doctor having to compare her DNA to Peruvian DNA in order to make the comparison?

If so, it's here

Dr. Bustamante could not say from Ms. Warren’s DNA which tribe her ancestor belonged to. He was able only to compare Ms. Warren’s DNA to that of indigenous people in Peru and Mexico, as well as First Nations people in Canada.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/science/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html