Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now the way I read that is there was one ancestor in the last ten generations?

So the 1/1024 is the best Betsy can do, and that assumes the dna from Columbia, Peru and Mexico is an accurate predictor in the first place.
 
Vixen said:
You are wrong. Careless maths. Fourth generation would be a generous (and significant) 6% NA DNA.

1% would be at least two generations further on, and probably more, if less than that.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong

You have to count yourself as the zeroth generation

Staying down the male line for birth year

0 gen = 100% (me) - 1955
1 gen = 50% (my parents) - 1912
2 gen = 25% (my grandparents) - 1880
3 gen = 12.5% (my great grandparents) - 1851
4 gen = 6.25% (my great2 grandparents - 1830
5 gen = 3.13% (my great3 grandparents -1801
6 gen = 1.56% (my great4 grandparents - 1776
7 gen = 0.78% (my great5 grandparents) - 1750

These percentages only hold if

1. There is only one person of a particular group you are looking for. If there is more than one, the percentage will be increased, and

2. The person you are looking for is pure blood for that group. If not, the the percentage is decreased.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by The Big Dog
Now the way I read that is there was one ancestor in the last ten generations?
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

I can't see TBD's posts unless someone quotes them. Why is it that some people only see what they want to see...and that supports the most extreme case? Bustamante clearly wrote that the DNA indicates an unadmixed ancestor within the last six to ten generations.
 
Stacyhs said:
I can't see TBD's posts unless someone quotes them. Why is it that some people only see what they want to see...and that supports the most extreme case? Bustamante clearly wrote that the DNA indicates an unadmixed ancestor within the last six to ten generations.
Click to expand...

TBD doesn't do science, so his guesswork is wrong as often as its right, and he gets sloppy with terminology (and facts). If you are going to talk science, you need to be more precise.

His statement was "Now the way I read that is there was one ancestor in the last ten generations?"

It was wrong because that would mean he acknowledges the possibility of a more recent ancestor, and I'm sure he didn't intend that.

To be clear, the range given by the DNA expert was "6 to 10" generations, and that outcome depends very much on certain factors. One of those factors is what Warren actually claimed; there have been a very large number of mischaracterizations, untruths, inaccuracies, exaggerations and downright lies told about what she actually claimed, and about when she claimed it.

What Warren actually claimed was what her family lore said, that she descended from both Cherokee and Delaware tribes. If that family lore is accurate then that will be one of the reasons why there is an uncertainty of ± 2 generations - more than one ancestor in different generations buggers up the percentages and widens the generational window.

I would also like to add that TBD's assertion that "Native Americans are all slamming her for being racist" is a completely false one. Read on...

https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...-native-american-roots-isnt-wrong/1682264002/

While some tribal leaders have condemned Sen. Elizabeth Warren for publicizing DNA results confirming her Native American heritage, the principal chief of Delaware's Lenape Indian Tribe said paying tribute to your ancestors isn't a bad thing.

“Someone who is proud of having that native ancestor — no matter what percentage or what degree it is — in my view, is a person I honor," Chief Dennis Coker said, describing some of his own tribe members' reluctance to do the same because they've traditionally been discriminated against."

Coker's views put him at odds with the Cherokee Nation, who this week slammed Warren's DNA test as "inappropriate and wrong." Coker wasn't surprised by their stance, he said.

They've questioned the legitimacy of the Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, too, which is recognized by the state but not the federal government.

“The Cherokee view themselves as the Indian identity police," Coker said. "They’re the first ones to call out anybody that they don’t think is legitimate, whether they're legitimate or not."
"Unfortunately for Elizabeth Warren, she claimed a Cherokee connection, and she ruffled some feathers out there.”
​
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
TBD doesn't do science, so his guesswork is wrong as often as its right, and he gets sloppy with terminology (and facts). If you are going to talk science, you need to be more precise.

His statement was "Now the way I read that is there was one ancestor in the last ten generations?"

It was wrong because that would mean he acknowledges the possibility of a more recent ancestor, and I'm sure he didn't intend that.

To be clear, the range given by the DNA expert was "6 to 10" generations, and that outcome depends very much on certain factors. One of those factors is what Warren actually claimed; there have been a very large number of mischaracterizations, untruths, inaccuracies, exaggerations and downright lies told about what she actually claimed, and about when she claimed it.

What Warren actually claimed was what her family lore said, that she descended from both Cherokee and Delaware tribes. If that family lore is accurate then that will be one of the reasons why there is an uncertainty of ± 2 generations - more than one ancestor in different generations buggers up the percentages and widens the generational window.

I would also like to add that TBD's assertion that "Native Americans are all slamming her for being racist" is a completely false one. Read on...

https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...-native-american-roots-isnt-wrong/1682264002/

While some tribal leaders have condemned Sen. Elizabeth Warren for publicizing DNA results confirming her Native American heritage, the principal chief of Delaware's Lenape Indian Tribe said paying tribute to your ancestors isn't a bad thing.

“Someone who is proud of having that native ancestor — no matter what percentage or what degree it is — in my view, is a person I honor," Chief Dennis Coker said, describing some of his own tribe members' reluctance to do the same because they've traditionally been discriminated against."

Coker's views put him at odds with the Cherokee Nation, who this week slammed Warren's DNA test as "inappropriate and wrong." Coker wasn't surprised by their stance, he said.

They've questioned the legitimacy of the Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, too, which is recognized by the state but not the federal government.

“The Cherokee view themselves as the Indian identity police," Coker said. "They’re the first ones to call out anybody that they don’t think is legitimate, whether they're legitimate or not."
"Unfortunately for Elizabeth Warren, she claimed a Cherokee connection, and she ruffled some feathers out there.”
​
Click to expand...

Sounds like the usual politics even among the Cherokee.
 
Stacyhs said:
NA tribal members with even less NA DNA can list themselves as "minority". Grandchildren of a current 5 generations removed from the Indian ancestor tribal member will be able to still list themselves as a minority.
Click to expand...
I think this is the dumb part: That minority status can be claimed upon such meaningless numbers and old affiliations and not on, you know, actually being disadvantaged because of your cultural/ethnic background.

People who are members of tribes, black people, people whose family recently immigrated from certain regions...those people have socioeconomic disadvantages for a wide variety of reasons. But, there are plenty of people who descend from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background who no longer qualify as such. I think we should be worried about and focusing our efforts on the actual people TODAY who are actually disadvantaged and not so much on which boxes people are legally allowed to tick.

In Warren’s case, she is obviously not disadvantaged so it was wrong to tick the boxes. But that “wrong” is such a minor nothing that it really doesn’t matter. People do dumb things sometimes. Meh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...


even though it has been mentioned numerous times it seems to have escaped your notice, so I'll point it out again.

DNA doesn't work like that. Every offspring does not inherit an equal proportion of every gene from each parent.
 
What Tribal members critical of Warren fail to ask is: if the Warren family believed to be partially N.A., how did they think of that heritage? Did they try to preserve or suppress it?
Being part "redskin" was for most of US history not a cool thing to be.

From what we heard from Warren, she respected and honored a tradition that she believed was one root of her family.
I can respect that.
 
Now can we please talk about this issue for what it is?

A complained that a person on one side didn't use the right fork for the salad course, so now the person from the other side gets to take a dump in the soup bowl and no one is allowed to criticize them for it.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is not, of course, what they are doing, and the truly ignorant decision is for a white person to dictate to Native Americans about their culture, you dig?
Click to expand...


They are free to ignore science all they want. Not that it matters since she is not applying to join their tribe. Why you keep deferring to their totally irrelevant opinions on something that is not part of the discussion is beyond me.


River said:
Yeah, damn those tribes for being able to decide who is a part of them and who isn't. Shame on them for having required lineage, or specific amounts of DNA to prove that. She felt she was NA. That should've been enough along with less than one percent (about as much NA as most people born in this country) If you cannot grasp how this would be offending to members of the NA community, it's time to do some soul searching on the issue.
Click to expand...


They have butted into a discussion that wasn't even about them. She wasn't applying to join their tribe only to show she has native american ancestors. Which the DNA proved. That they have butted their noses in where their opinion is not only not relevant but wrong is something I take issue with.
 
Stacyhs said:
The fact that she cannot name an ancestor on the Dawes Roll does not change that. Not all those eligible chose to be counted on the Roll. Social attitudes toward being Indian or part Indian were very different then. My own Creek 4X great grandmother does not appear on the Dawes Roll. It does not change the fact that she and her children were listed as "Indian" in the 1860 Census.
Click to expand...
I found some documents on the Dawes Roll that might pertain to my great grandmother but I wasn't sure exactly what I was looking at. I found names and ages that matched up, but it indicates that she presented a son to be documented (? not quite sure how to word this), and I only know of her giving birth to 2 girls. One is my grandmother, circa 1905, and then according to family lore she died giving birth to my great-aunt about 7 years later. She also went to Carlisle Indian School, according to my mother. But my mom's sisters, one of whom has since died, apparently had some issue with a biography I wrote for Mom's 80th birthday. Some inaccuracies apparently. I was careful to attribute everything to Mom and checked all the facts that I could, but she was pretty vague on her family history and she now has dementia.

The mission of Indian boarding schools was total assimilation, especially if students could pass for white. One of the more melodramatic interpretations is that these policies amounted to "cultural genocide."

I am sure that I'm oversimplifying this, but it explains some of the contradictions that may arise in family stories. My mother internalized negative stereotypes of "dirty Indians," based as far as I can tell from them having junk in their yards (a common trait with poor whites as well, who may save old equipment to use for parts etc.). IIRC there is documentary evidence that my blue-eyed grandmother benefited from oil and gas well royalties until she died in 1998. An interesting read on this general subject is "Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI".

As a curiosity I am tempted to do the 23 and Me thing ... my father's side documented family trees almost obsessively but my mother's side is nothing like that. This must be great publicity for that company.
 
quadraginta said:
DNA doesn't work like that. Every offspring does not inherit an equal proportion of every gene from each parent.
Click to expand...
I think they do in a sense - sperm and egg have a half-set of chromosomes that combine to make a genetically unique individual. However some traits are dominant, some recessive so it's hard to tell exactly how those genes will express themselves.

ETA: And then "Indianness" may be further diluted with each generation, because each sperm and egg gets only half of the total genome in a completely random way.

Does this sound about right?
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
I think they do in a sense - sperm and egg have a half-set of chromosomes that combine to make a genetically unique individual. However some traits are dominant, some recessive so it's hard to tell exactly how those genes will express themselves.
Click to expand...

That's not what an ancestry DNA test looks for. They search for genetic markers, usually SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism) with no effect on the genes themselves.
 
smartcooky said:
And it is a fact that he failed to do so.

http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fdrs-hidden-handicap

http://ahsl.arizona.edu/about/exhibits/presidents/fdr

I suspect you won't bother to read these, so here are some of the highlights...

1. "Roosevelt took the stage on crutches at the 1924 Democratic National Convention to nominate New York governor Alfred E. Smith for president."


2. "When Life published a photo of him in a wheelchair in 1937, presidential press secretary Steve Early was displeased.
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ua5f6yngmynecj3/FDR-Wheelchair-September-12-1937.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
FDR in his wheelchair with a group assembling on the terrace of Springwood, before a Hudson River cruise on the USS Potomac (September 12, 1937)

3. "In July 1931, Liberty magazine, a weekly that claimed a circulation of 2.5 million, published an article headlined “Is Franklin D. Roosevelt Physically Fit to Be President?” The opening paragraph bluntly stated, “It is an amazing possibility that the next President of the United States may be a cripple. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Governor of the State of New York, was crippled by infantile paralysis in the epidemic of 1921 and still walks with the help of a crutch and a walking stick. Yet by all the political signs he will emerge as the Democratic nominee.”

4. During the 1932 Presidential Campaign, Roosevelt was at a speaking engagement when he moved away from the podium, lost his balance and fell. Aides got him to his feet and Roosevelt immediately resumed the speech at the point he had been cut off. The crowd was very impressed.

This photograph was taken and published in most of the major national dailies during that campaign.
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/eaqhzgn39975m0e/FDR-exiting-car-1932.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
President Franklin D. Roosevelt exits a car during a campaign stop in California.

5. "As for his limited mobility, he portrayed it as an advantage on the job; it forced him to concentrate. “I don’t move about my office,” he was quoted as saying. “But I can and do move about the state.”

6. Such major historians as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Frank Freidel, writing in the 1950s when the Roosevelt administration was a comparatively recent memory, made no mention of such a secret. Their accounts treat his polio and its physical manifestations matter-of-factly, as if every well-informed person knew at least the essentials of his condition and had known at the time. As members of a generation less obsessed with health and youthful appearance than we are, perhaps they did not find it remarkable that a demonstrated ability to perform presidential duties was sufficient physical qualification in voters’ eyes.

FDR's immobility was well known. Granted, many Americans didn't know, but it was NOT a secret. Those who followed politics knew; they could not help but know.

You claim to "have studied the topic of polio extensively" yet you seem to be completely unaware of this...the 1937 "March of Dimes"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...k-load-fdrs-white-house-cure-polio-180961594/
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all very good, but you see Vixen has studied polio for ages, so this is all irrelevant. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom