Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[lobosrul5]

After about a half century of self-government, a law enacted in 1906 directed that final rolls be made and that each enrollee be given an allotment of land or paid cash in lieu of an allotment. The Cherokees formally organized in 1975 with the adoption of a new Constitution that superseded the 1839 Cherokee Nation Constitution. This new Constitution establishes a Cherokee Register for the inclusion of any Cherokee for membership purposes in the Cherokee Nation. Members must be citizens as proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. Including in this are the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware Agreement dated May 8, 1867, and the Shawnee Cherokees of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated June 9, 1869, and/or their descendants.

P.L. 100-472, authorizes through a planning and negotiation process Indian Tribes to administer and manage programs, activities, function, and services previously managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Pursuant to P.L. 100-472 the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has entered into a Self-governance Compact and now provides those services previously provided by the BIA. Enrollment and allotment records are maintained by the Cherokee Nation. Any question with regard to the Cherokee Nation should be referred to:

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
(918) 456-0671
Fax (918) 456-6485.

So he had a verifiable ancestor on the "Dawes Commission" role, and Warren didn't? Is that your purpose in posting this?

 

[Drewbot]

So he had a verifiable ancestor on the "Dawes Commission" role, and Warren didn't? Is that your purpose in posting this?

Yes

 

[Drewbot]

Will a blood test or DNA test prove AI/AN ancestry?
Blood tests and DNA tests will not help an individual document his or her descent from a
specific Federally recognized tribe or tribal community.

The BIA does not regulate businesses that perform such tests, and does not validate their findings nor accept their results as proof that an individual possesses blood quantum from a particular tribe. The only value blood tests and DNA tests hold for persons trying to trace ancestry to aparticular tribe is that testing, if the tribe accepts it, can establish if an individual is biologically related to a tribal member. Check directly with the tribe you are seeking to enroll to find out if it will accept a blood test or DNA test as part of its enrollment application process.

https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod....c/pdf/Guide_to_Tracing_AI_and_AN_Ancestry.pdf

 

[Drewbot]

I guess the main point for me is that you don't check the box claiming Native American minority status, simply because Great Uncle Ernie thought he heard something about a great great great grandmother being discriminated against, from his 4th cousin at a Bat Mitzvah.

It's slimy as can be. Taking away a true Native American's potential position in that directory, when you went through school, and practice, as a caucasian, recieving all of those privileges, but when you want to network with people interested in meeting a minority law professor, you put Native American next to your name.

 

[Belz...]

Will a blood test or DNA test prove AI/AN ancestry?
Blood tests and DNA tests will not help an individual document his or her descent from a
specific Federally recognized tribe or tribal community.

Phew. It's goot then that this wasn't part of Warren's claim.

 

[WilliamSeger]

What are you talking about?

I'm trying to get you to snap out of the delusion that there are only two "sides" in a discussion and you resort time and time again to personal comments. How about you get over yourself and start discussing like an adult?

(Sigh) Well, in the first place, here is my first post which triggered this, and Joe's response:

I do believe that that's exactly why one side of this discussion wants to make this about "identity politics," when it never was.

Right. I forget there were only two UN EXACTLY TWO sides, no more, no less.

A careful reader might note that it was Joe, not I, who sarcastically said that there are "only two UN EXACTLY TWO sides, no more, no less."

I didn't jump on that because everyone knows that's one of Joe's favorite hammers, and it's a bit tiresome. Instead, I restated what I was getting at as a proposition that does indeed have a yes or no answer, subjective though it may be, and you jumped in to say that I'm "ignoring" the "sides" who don't have an opinion or don't care to answer. I apologized for not being clear, acknowledged your astute observation, and made another attempt to explain my point, which was not that everyone has to take a "side" on that issue. But nope, changing my "one side" to "one faction" didn't satisfy your need to keep banging that "two sides" hammer and insist that we gotta "count" all those other people who don't have an opinion on the issue as I stated it, presumably in some hypothetical poll that has some "don't know" or "don't care" responses. Okay, fine, start a poll and we'll "count" 'em, if that's your concern. I said something about you getting a little snippy about it (and to others, which is why I mentioned it) and you accused me of attacking your "character" and not "getting" your point.

Whatever, but nonetheless, if you can tell me whether or not "used it for brownie points in the past" means the same thing to you as "Warren took unethical advantage of a false heritage claim" then I can tell you if you're on the yes or no "side" of my proposition. If you can't decide or don't care or just don't want to answer, then just be sure to include a suitable response in your poll we'll "count" it.

 

[lobosrul5]

I guess the main point for me is that you don't check the box claiming Native American minority status, simply because Great Uncle Ernie thought he heard something about a great great great grandmother being discriminated against, from his 4th cousin at a Bat Mitzvah.

It's slimy as can be. Taking away a true Native American's potential position in that directory, when you went through school, and practice, as a caucasian, recieving all of those privileges, but when you want to network with people interested in meeting a minority law professor, you put Native American next to your name.

She was already hired before "ticking" that box. How did it take away someone elses position? Not only that but being a member of the Cherokee tribe just means being able to verify you had one ancestor who was Cherokee in the 19th century (as your post above clarified). Cherokee's generally do not live separately on reservations in Oklahoma. They go to the same schools as everyone else. So how does being Cherokee (if one is 97% white!) exclude anyone from receiving "caucasian" privileges?

 

[Belz...]

I didn't jump on that because everyone knows that's one of Joe's favorite hammers, and it's a bit tiresome.

Well, he's right. Too many people assume that it's an us-vs-them match with two well-defined sides that each have to accept all arguments from their respective side and reject all arguments from the opposite side. That's why, when someone comes along who doesn't fit within one of those two boxes, they're confused. Agree with one point of their opponents, and clearly you must be from that other side or have been fooled by them, because by definition all of their arguments are wrong and the home team's are right. In fact, they both believe that they're the home team, and believe that reality and history are on their side. Well, very often it's not that simple, but you try and explain it to them, and you get the current discussion.

Whatever, but nonetheless, if you can tell me whether or not "used it for brownie points in the past" means the same thing to you as "Warren took unethical advantage of a false heritage claim"

For a very broad definition of "unethical", sure. But I didn't make the claim that the two are one and the same. Again, that's you trying to fit me into a box.

then I can tell you if you're on the yes or no "side" of my proposition. If you can't decide or don't care or just don't want to answer, then just be sure to include a suitable response in your poll we'll "count" it.

...what?

 

[The Big Dog]

She is also reinforcing one of the most insidious ways in which Americans talk about race: as though it were a measurable biological category, one that, in some cases, can be determined by a single drop of blood. Genetic-test evidence is circular: if everyone who claims to be X has a particular genetic marker, then everyone with the marker is likely to be X. This would be flawed reasoning in any area, but what makes it bad science is that it reinforces the belief in the existence of X—in this case, race as a biological category.

The conclusion: "Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."

And that is more than evident by this thread.

There is more about why ancestry determinations using dna are junk science, but I have made that point a half a dozen ways already.

 

[carlitos]

The point is that one can believe ... that:

A) Warren made a claim that she has Cherokee ancestry
B) Be wrong about that
C) be right about having native american ancestry
D) have used it for brownie points in the past
E) it not being a big deal
F) Trump is a big fat liar.

All these things can be true at once but they are not espoused by the same "sides" of the discussion.

I agree with essentially every word of this.

 

[carlitos]

On the "brownie points" thing don't even tell me that her heritage got listed by Harvard as Native American and she got nothing, not even a knowing in-group nod from someone, not ever.

 

[varwoche]

I guess the main point for me is that you don't check the box claiming Native American minority status, simply because Great Uncle Ernie thought he heard something about a great great great grandmother being discriminated against, from his 4th cousin at a Bat Mitzvah.

It's slimy as can be. Taking away a true Native American's potential position in that directory, when you went through school, and practice, as a caucasian, recieving all of those privileges, but when you want to network with people interested in meeting a minority law professor, you put Native American next to your name.

While calling out Warren for exaggerating, you exaggerate in a serial fashion, post after post. Unimpressive.

As if there was one and only one slot in the directory for a NA. What a sorry, desperate joke of a post.

 

[johnny karate]

While calling out Warren for exaggerating, you exaggerate in a serial fashion, post after post. Unimpressive.

Pretty much the theme of this thread.

Lies and exaggerations from those accusing someone else of lying and exaggerating.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lies and exaggerations from those defending warren for her lying and exaggerating.

""Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."

 

[Belz...]

On the "brownie points" thing don't even tell me that her heritage got listed by Harvard as Native American and she got nothing, not even a knowing in-group nod from someone, not ever.

She doesn't even need to have received such an advantage; point D) was her using it with expectation of such an advantage. I have no idea if that's true, but it's a reasonable assumption, which was my point.

 

[Belz...]

Lies and exaggerations from those defending warren for her lying and exaggerating.

""Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."

Ah, yes. Minorities are only a concern when they can be used for political points. Nicely done, TBD.

 

[Dr. Keith]

On the "brownie points" thing don't even tell me that her heritage got listed by Harvard as Native American and she got nothing, not even a knowing in-group nod from someone, not ever.

Look, they tracked down a charity cookbook, surely they can find some concrete evidence to back up your hunch. Surely. We'll just wait here patiently. For the last few years or so.

And when that evidence is lacking? Should we just go with your hunch?

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, yes. Minorities are only a concern when they can be used for political points. Nicely done, TBD.

Exactly, as the several articles I have posted have shown (and which have been ignored by warren's supporters because of course they have):

Just what’s wrong with that assumption is laid out in an essay published on ThinkProgress last year by the indigenous activist Rebecca Nagle: Warren, Nagle wrote, is positioning herself as a representative of people whose experience she does not share or understand. Warren has been criticized for failing to meet with Native American leaders, and she has garnered no praise from them for her legislative work (though she has recently signed on to several bills that address indigenous issues).

That is indeed nicely done by TBD.

protip: read the articles before trying to make snarky points.

 

[quadraginta]

After about a half century of self-government, a law enacted in 1906 directed that final rolls be made and that each enrollee be given an allotment of land or paid cash in lieu of an allotment. The Cherokees formally organized in 1975 with the adoption of a new Constitution that superseded the 1839 Cherokee Nation Constitution. This new Constitution establishes a Cherokee Register for the inclusion of any Cherokee for membership purposes in the Cherokee Nation. Members must be citizens as proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. Including in this are the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware Agreement dated May 8, 1867, and the Shawnee Cherokees of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated June 9, 1869, and/or their descendants.

P.L. 100-472, authorizes through a planning and negotiation process Indian Tribes to administer and manage programs, activities, function, and services previously managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Pursuant to P.L. 100-472 the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has entered into a Self-governance Compact and now provides those services previously provided by the BIA. Enrollment and allotment records are maintained by the Cherokee Nation. Any question with regard to the Cherokee Nation should be referred to:

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
(918) 456-0671
Fax (918) 456-6485.

She was already hired before "ticking" that box. How did it take away someone elses position? Not only that but being a member of the Cherokee tribe just means being able to verify you had one ancestor who was Cherokee in the 19th century (as your post above clarified). Cherokee's generally do not live separately on reservations in Oklahoma. They go to the same schools as everyone else. So how does being Cherokee (if one is 97% white!) exclude anyone from receiving "caucasian" privileges?

It isn't quite that simple. See where I highlighted Drewbot's quote above.

To satisfy membership requirements for the Cherokee Nation there must be a record of an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls^WP.

This was an imperfect document as far as comprehensively listing NA bloodlines, not least because of the many who were left off. (Also, ones who were included even with a fair amount of doubt as to the question of their ancestry.)

Overall the rolls are incomplete and inaccurate for the following reasons: many individuals from each tribe were not correctly documented, some individuals were entirely excluded because white census takers didn't believe an individual looked "Indian enough", families had already left Indian Territory after the Civil War, or individuals termed "Blanket Indians" refused to be enrolled because they did not trust the government.[1][2][3] These factors created descendants whom are Native American by blood unenrollable in the tribes they descend from.[1][2][3] Historian Kent Carter termed people who are Native American by blood, but are unable to enroll because of the previously listed factors the "Outalucks".[1]

Tribal citizens were enrolled under several categories:

Citizen by Blood

New Born Citizen by Blood

Minor Citizens by Blood

Citizen by Marriage

Freedmen (persons formerly enslaved by Native Americans and/or adopted by the Cherokee tribe)

New Born Freedmen

Minor Freedmen

Delaware Indians (those adopted by the Cherokee tribe were enrolled as a separate group within the Cherokee)

More than 250,000 people applied for membership, and the Dawes Commission enrolled just over 100,000. An act of Congress on April 26, 1906, closed the rolls on March 5, 1907. An additional 312 persons were enrolled under an act approved August 1, 1914.

...

Since that period, the tribes have relied on the Dawes Rolls as part of the membership qualification process, using them as records of citizens at a particular time, and requiring new members to document direct descent from a person or persons on these rolls. Courts have upheld this rule even when it has been proven that a brother or sister of an ancestor was listed on the rolls but not the direct ancestor himself/herself.

The Cherokee Nation's real beef with DNA is not so much that they are offended by the idea that lineage can be demonstrated by such analysis, but rather that it threatens their control over who can call themselves Cherokee. Blood quantum isn't important to them. Neither is accuracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

She is also reinforcing one of the most insidious ways in which Americans talk about race: as though it were a measurable biological category, one that, in some cases, can be determined by a single drop of blood. Genetic-test evidence is circular: if everyone who claims to be X has a particular genetic marker, then everyone with the marker is likely to be X. This would be flawed reasoning in any area, but what makes it bad science is that it reinforces the belief in the existence of X—in this case, race as a biological category.

The conclusion: "Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."

And that is more than evident by this thread.

There is more about why ancestry determinations using dna are junk science, but I have made that point a half a dozen ways already.

It isn't quite that simple.

To satisfy membership requirements for the Cherokee Nation there must be a record of an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls^WP.

This was an imperfect document as far as comprehensively listing NA bloodlines, not least because of the many who were left off.

​

The Cherokee Nation's real beef with DNA is not so much that they are offended by the idea that lineage can be demonstrated by such analysis, but rather that it threatens their control over who can call themselves Cherokee. Blood quantum isn't important to them. Neither is accuracy.

wrong, as pointed out repeatedly before with citations to actual third party sources.

Warren's test is junk science, her defenders are promoting "an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people."