Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Your use of "Fauxcahontas" is neither clever nor witty. It's childish and foolish. But of course, if you prefer to present yourself as such, carry on.
Click to expand...

He can't help himself... he's like a lost puppy, just has to follow along behind Dear Leader...
 
Last edited:
So if great great grandpa Peteron came from Sweden in 1850 and I have his last name and 2% Swedish DNA, I can be Swedish. Swedes won't send some heritage committee to interrogate me. But if I have an unnamed native American in my tree leaving the same 2%, I cannot claim Native heritage. Not tribal membership. Got it.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
According to Aunt Bea, Pappaw had high cheekbones:
"I still have a picture on my mantel at home, and it's a picture my mother had before that, a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times, remarked that he —her father, my Pappaw— had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do."​
Click to expand...

In which someone who is not Warren says that someone else, who is also not Warren, looks like an Indian. What does this prove??
 
The Big Dog said:
...disregarding Native Americans rights?

Given your racist arguments, the answer is clearly no.

https://medium.com/@jmarkinman/elizabeth-warrens-dna-test-proves-she-is-racist-337a3770ce77 ... ?
Click to expand...
Is there some science in that opinion piece? Oh, this is from the article, aka opinion piece by a republican, you said I did not read - it appears to only be a cherry picked quote mined headline the claim of racism.

Your source, your opinion piece for your claim of racism, he believes in conspiracy theories, and is far right. You have a far right opinion article driving the claim of racism.

Does not change the DNA.

The best part of the opinion piece by a far right Uranium one CTer is this -
Personally, I don’t think we should call her Pocahontas. I believe it fetishizes Native American culture, and it does so in a negative, undeserving tone. - Mark Inman, Ph.D. said so
Click to expand...
Oh, I did not read it? lol, failed mind reader

silly meme for silly opinion piece.

There is a new rock discovered https://i.imgflip.com/2hdtwg.jpg

Goofy Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, pretended to be a Native American in order to advance her career. Very racist! = trump tweet
Click to expand...

Over 15 times in tweets, liar in chief, calls her Pocahontas. First in lies, first in name calling, first in insults. Pay up liar in chief.
 
Stacyhs said:
On second thought, he did score a bull's eye with the his base. It doesn't take much. Lead them in a "lock her up" chant, insult women, claim there are "some fine people" among white supremacists, bully people, and throw around some childish, insulting names and they're as happy as pigs in mud.
Click to expand...

What he spouts isn't mud.
 
beachnut said:
Is there some science in that opinion piece? Oh, this is from the article, aka opinion piece by a republican, you said I did not read - it appears to only be a cherry picked quote mined headline the claim of racism.

Your source, your opinion piece for your claim of racism, he believes in conspiracy theories, and is far right. You have a far right opinion article driving the claim of racism.

Does not change the DNA.

The best part of the opinion piece by a far right Uranium one CTer is this - Oh, I did not read it? lol, failed mind reader

silly meme for silly opinion piece.

There is a new rock discovered https://i.imgflip.com/2hdtwg.jpg



Over 15 times in tweets, liar in chief, calls her Pocahontas. First in lies, first in name calling, first in insults. Pay up liar in chief.
Click to expand...

Say, the white guy's opinion matters more than say Kim Tall Bear's opinion (linked earlier).

Hilarious that one does not understand that scientific data can be misused.

Warren Truthers, gotta love it!
 
Tero said:
So if great great grandpa Peteron came from Sweden in 1850 and I have his last name and 2% Swedish DNA, I can be Swedish. Swedes won't send some heritage committee to interrogate me. But if I have an unnamed native American in my tree leaving the same 2% less than 1%, I cannot claim Native heritage. Not tribal membership. Got it.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
P.J. Denyer said:
(Sorry to bounce back so far - fast thread)

I think a better musical example would be a kid hearing someone playing the sax part from 'Baker Street' and saying "They aren't as good as Bob Holness".

Wareyin's point, if I understand it correctly, is not that you can't form your own opinion , but rather that if your opinion is about an incorrect piece of data that the source of that incorrect data can be traced as it's unlikely to have arisen independently multiple times.
Click to expand...

Thank you, you got it.
 
science being misused by trump's minions

The Big Dog said:
Say, the white guy's opinion matters more than say Kim Tall Bear's opinion (linked earlier).

Hilarious that one does not understand that scientific data can be misused.

Warren Truthers, gotta love it!
Click to expand...
DNA wins, trump lost again, and his followers quibble about science. You posted a white guy's opinion.

Yes, Science can be denied, but that is failure. Yes, are you misusing science data? Is the cult of trump anti-science, or just trump?

Does this mean trump is not going to pay up on his word?

https://i.imgflip.com/2hdtwg.jpg

That guy, the stable genius, mr hi IQ, the liar in chief, will not make good on his word. Not news.
 
beachnut said:
DNA wins, trump lost again, and his followers quibble about science. You posted a white guy's opinion.

Yes, Science can be denied, but that is failure. Yes, are you misusing science data? Is the cult of trump anti-science, or just trump?

Does this mean trump is not going to pay up on his word?

https://i.imgflip.com/2hdtwg.jpg

That guy, the stable genius, mr hi IQ, the liar in chief, will not make good on his word. Not news.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, Beachnut did not read the thread. No surprise

https://twitter.com/KimTallBear/status/1052017467021651969
https://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cherokee-Nation-responds-to-Senator-Warrens-DNA-test

Warren's Truthers do not understand the difference between science and misusing scientific data.
 
Tero said:
1.5%. But since natives do not allow numbers, probably less than 25% using just family tree would fail anyone.
Click to expand...

'Up to 1.56%' maximum starting from '01%', with the genetic expert Bustamente, scouring every possible SNP and allele for the slightest trace.

At least 2% backs up your known and named Swedish ancestor.

Your parents being 50%, grandparents 25%, great-grandparents 12.5%, g-g g/parents 6% and g-g-g grandparents 3% or so.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
'Up to 1.56%' maximum starting from '01%', with the genetic expert Bustamente, scouring every possible SNP and allele for the slightest trace.

At least 2% backs up your known and named Swedish ancestor.

Your parents being 50%, grandparents 25%, great-grandparents 12.5%, g-g g/parents 6% and g-g-g grandparents 3% or so.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave this thread here

jimbob said:
Vixen said:
It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines.
Click to expand...
True and not surprising
Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty).
Click to expand...
Not surprising - but think through the consequences. How many of these illegitimate children had children and how many of these there are good records for their great grandchildren

They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.
Click to expand...
Not sure where this is going, but still...
Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony.
Click to expand...
You are starting to confuse documented lineage with actual kinship here
I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)
Click to expand...
And here is where you fall over. On many levels

You are in effect claiming that you and her husband share a common ancestor. That is almost certainly true.

However I *really* doubt that you can trace all your ancestors to the 16th Century - and even if the spouses of the mothers were documented, in that time, there is probably some bastardy.

I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.
Click to expand...

The two highlighted parts are wrong.

The first because of the second. You don't know all your ancestors to the 16th Century. If you did, you'd probably have to be even more inbred than the Hasburgs.

Or these

Porpoise of Life said:
It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
It's amusing, isn't it, to observe someone who doesn't know what they're talking about pronouncing with certitude - based on, it would appear, nothing more than the combination of a (bogus) argument from incredulity and a profound lack of understanding of statistics and genetics :D
Click to expand...

MikeG said:
Nothing after that point is worth reading. You don't understand the principles, have no grasp of maths or statistics, and eschew logical argument. Blather away with your family stories. They just demonstrate your lack of understanding.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Yeah great it's really clever can we just go back to using his name? It's no better than Faxauhwhatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom