Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
For me, it's nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the silliness of "diversity" in this country. That Warren ended up in this situation at all. That anyone at Harvard ever for a moment thought it was a good idea to tout her as a person of color. Even if Donald Trump never existed, this situation would still be tragicomedy gold.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This first came to light when Warren's senatorial opposition trotted it out back in 2012. It fell into the trash dump of irrelevancy where it belonged until Trump, in his usual bullying, name-calling, infantile manner called her "Pocahontas" every chance he got because he thought he was being witty instead of the turd he is.
 
jimbob said:
At least don't accuse her if lying when her claims are supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

they are not, but we are already shown that.

Which is why the claims have gotten more fuzzy and ******** when compared to her actual statements.
 
Stacyhs said:
I disagree. This first came to light when Warren's senatorial opposition trotted it out back in 2012. It fell into the trash dump of irrelevancy where it belonged until Trump, in his usual bullying, name-calling, infantile manner called her "Pocahontas" every chance he got because he thought he was being witty instead of the turd he is.
Click to expand...

Trump's giving the situation a life in the public eye it would not have otherwise enjoyed, but my interest in the situation has nothing to do with defending Trump.
 
jimbob said:
Thanks dam10n - this part is pretty important - but should be quite easy to understand

If you are looking for someone with indigenous North American ancestry, Mexican groups are sufficient. If anything this will reduce your power to detect, not produce false positives.

Warren has markers that are found in indigenous American populations but not European populations. The fact that the reference population came from South America means that they can only test for those markers that are common to both populations, which could make her indigenous ancestry seem more remote than it actually was.
​

Given her stated family lore is consistent with her DNA, it's reasonable to accept it rather than a more exotic, and less plausible idea that somehow she has indigenous South American ancestry.

There is every reason for her to have believed her family lore and it seems to be borne out by her DNA. It's silly (or disingenuous) to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...


Warren's claim (if we could call it a claim) is mundane . It is the kind of thing we wouldn't pay a moment's notice to in the normal world. But given the overwhelming insanity and crazed desperate attacks by the GOP to smear this woman, here we are arguing over DNA markers. This is absolutely bizarre.

Warren has worked tirelessly to prevent the rich from preying on the poor. If you want to attack her because of that, be my guest. But stop being stupid...because that is EXACTLY what this conversation is.
 
theprestige said:
Trump's giving the situation a life in the public eye it would not have otherwise enjoyed, but my interest in the situation has nothing to do with defending Trump.
Click to expand...

Then you are exception that proves the rule. From looking at the majority of those here denigrating Warren, they are clearly Trump supporters.
 
The Big Dog said:
they are not, but we are already shown that.

Which is why the claims have gotten more fuzzy and ******** when compared to her actual statements.
Click to expand...

I don't know, every time you quote her actual statements it seems like we get closer and closer to you actually understanding what it means to have a parent who is accused of being part Native American.

Keep going back to her original claims. It is the only way you seem to make any progress.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes. But given this is a minor claim, shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt and move on? David Hume said that ordinary claims require little or no evidence. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I told you I had eggs this morning for breakfast, you would almost certainly nod and not question that claim or ask for me to prove it. Warren's heritage is that mundane. The ONLY reason we are talking about it is because her political opponents have characterized her as a liar over this mundane claim.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is the ONLY reason?

Wouldn't the hope of Warren getting her hand's on Trump's $1m be the most salient one?
 
The Big Dog said:
her family lore was that at best she had an insignificant amount of native blood, and that grandpappy hated her mom because of it?

Sounds "legit."
Click to expand...

Such things were common at the time. "One Drop Rule" was thing. Not legally applicable in this case, but culturally strongly enforced. Mostly focused on African-American ancestry, but bigotry does not always distinguish between shades of non-white.

How do you not know this?

One-drop rule’ persists

The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as “white” on her passport.
Click to expand...

Warren's DNA test suggests that Warren's Native American ancestor could be as recent as six generations ago. That would her mother's Great-Great-Great Grandmother. One less step than in a court case from 1985!

Again - how do you not know this?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I don't know, every time you quote her actual statements it seems like we get closer and closer to you actually understanding what it means to have a parent who is accused of being part Native American.

Keep going back to her original claims. It is the only way you seem to make any progress.
Click to expand...

And you just keep ignoring the fact that your Warren apologists are lying about what she really said.

It is cool, we are used to it.
 
Stacyhs said:
Then you are exception that proves the rule. From looking at the majority of those here denigrating Warren, they are clearly Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

You have to establish the rule before you start cataloging the exceptions. Sometimes two things can stem from shared cause, rather than one thing being the cause of the other.

Anyway, if you find the whole "defending Trump" thing as tiresome as I do, we can always discuss a different aspect of the Warren situation. For example: Do you agree that Warren is a person of color? Why or why not?
 
Vixen said:
Are you sure that is the ONLY reason?

Wouldn't the hope of Warren getting her hand's on Trump's $1m be the most salient one?
Click to expand...

No, because it would go to a charity and there is no evidence that Warren has a charity that she treats as a personal piggy bank to pay her child's scout fees with.
 
phiwum said:
I love Jim Braude (had no idea how to spell his name before now).

He asked pointed questions. She answered reasonably. I don't quite agree that, because her parents suffered discrimination from her father's family, she quite is a minority, but it's not a totally stupid point.

Say, has anyone in modern politics stretched the truth? I can forgive her this. In fact, I'm not a particular fan (she's a wee bit liberal for my tastes) but I intend to vote for her, just because we need an opposition in the Senate. I know my vote doesn't matter -- she's bound to win her race -- but it's a matter of expression that is important to me lately.

I honestly voted only once before 2016. The spectre of Trump prompted me to voice my opposition, for all the good it did.
Click to expand...

It is not mutually exclusive to be anti-Trump and anti-scammer.
 
The Big Dog said:
And you just keep ignoring the fact that your Warren apologists are lying about what she really said.

It is cool, we are used to it.
Click to expand...

I'm using your quotes of her. They are right there in your posts. If you have other quotes, please, bring them to the table.
 
crescent said:
Such things were common at the time. "One Drop Rule" was thing. Not legally applicable in this case, but culturally strongly enforced. Mostly focused on African-American ancestry, but bigotry does not always distinguish between shades of non-white.

Again - how do you not know this?
Click to expand...

Protip; her "family lore" wasn't that they had an insignificant amount on DNA, her alleged made up "family lore"* was that they were Cherokee

*not shared by much of her family of course

how do you not know this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom