She said her race is Native American.
On paperwork from 1986... 33 years ago.....
That isn’t just a claim of partial ancestry. That’s a claim of identity.
....at a time when "cultural identity" wasn't even a thing, and at a time when American racists insisted that 'just one drop of non-white blood made you forever a darkie'.
Conservative racists like Trump and his hangers-on can't have it both ways, (tarring a person with race with "just one drop", and at the same time denying a person's blood heritage because they don't have enough blood) by simply flip-flopping to conveniently fit their preferred narrative.
I hold the philosophy that in many circumstances, the past is another country where things are done differently. What I am doing is judging her for what she did THEN in the environment of THAT time. What you are doing is judging her for what she did THEN in the environment of TODAY.
Her family history says otherwise.
And you absolutely did conflate the two.
And I absolutely did not. I am talking genealogy.... and ONLY genealogy. Cultural identity has nothing whatsoever to with genealogy.
Oh, and in regards to the science, the DNA fragments in question are from South America.
Half truth - they were from Mexico, Peru and Colombia - populations in the Americas with high Native American genetic ancestry.
If you have any understanding of the science you would realise that it is standard practice to use South or Central American DNA to test for Native American ancestry. This is because only people in Mesoamerica, South America and in parts of New Mexico have ever been DNA tested. The Inuit, Iroquois, Cherokee, Creek, Powhatan, Montauk, Sioux, Comanche, Miwok, Athabaskans and Algonquins et al, have never been tested. The result of this is that the genetic picture of the entire indigenous North American continent is missing.
So why is SA/CA Native DNA used? Because SA/CA Natives are descended from NA Natives, so some of their DNA sources by descent from NA Natives. If you compare your DNA with a SA/CA Native (and you can eliminate with reasonable certainty any possibility that you have an unknown SA/CA Native anywhere in your family tree), then any SA/CA DNA found in your samples means it is highly likely that you have North American Native ancestry... it the only place that DNA could reasonably come from.
In Warren's case, the test identified five genetic segments with
99 per cent confidence, as being associated with Native American ancestry. The largest segment identified was on Chromosome 10, the long segment of which indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent, single ancestor, in the sixth generation - living around the mid-1800s, which directly correlates with Warren's family lore. It could also mean that she may have more ancestors back to the 10th generation, although this scenario is less likely.
I would have expected you to understand all this too.
There is no evidence she has any Cherokee ancestry, as she claimed. It’s possible she does, but it has never been established.
Again, hardly surprising, since it is, at this time, impossible to determine tribal blood ancestry - you are criticising a lack of evidence where such evidence is actually not possible to obtain. The DNA test supports her family history claim. Besides which her family story makes no mention of South American ancestors.
***
I find it remarkable that all this BS character assassination from the Stupidati on the political right goes on over a 30 year old error of judgement, yet the the very same Stupidati just look the other way when Trump tells pants-on-fire lies to American public, denying his business ties to Russia when he was in fact up to his neck in Russia.
