Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Belz...]

People do understand that things that happened to people who share a demographic or physical characteristic didn't happen to you, right?

No, they often don't. Human nature and all that. If they did, there'd be far fewer wars.

 

[Stacko]

She claims that her grandfather despised her mother because of her mother's Native ancestry. That would be pretty immediate if your own mother suffered such prejudice from her putative father in law.

There's also America's long time love affair with the one drop rule.

 

[jimbob]

There's also America's long time love affair with the one drop rule.

Indeed Stacko, which is probably why her grandfather was so prejudiced against his putative daughter-in-law

 

[lomiller]

Okay seriously what is the narrative here? Elizabeth Warren never told the university about her Native American ancestry in any "official" capacity and they just pulled from the aether or took something a student said in passing about... whatever "oh Warren treated her ancestry as just a bit of personal trivia" version of this people are trying to create and they ran with it? Neither of those make sense.

If the university was aware of Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American ancestry I think it's perfectly reasonable to just assume she told them in some official manner for some reason beyond "Oh here's a little tidbit about me."

There's a place for race on a college application form, not one for "Oh could you please share any interesting stories about your ancestors we think we'd just love to know about."

Any time I’ve ever been asked for that type of information they’ve wanted to capture partial ancestry for a variety of reasons.

Sometimes it’s as simple as padding the numbers, but IMO it’s usually more complex than that. Getting people to acknowledge different parts of their ancestry is a win generally speaking. It wasn’t that long ago that having something other than pure white European ancestry was something to be covered up. Even after you get past those types of issues a hard division of “I’m this, you’re that” wrt ethnicity doesn’t really make a lot of sense, and institutions may want to reflect this.

My expectation is that the information recorded by Harvard was similar in motivation, but since we don’t know the full context under which it was collected making assumptions of any type is foolish. If you’re a pundit with a political axe to grind than making such assumptions can accomplish what you want even if it’s completely dishonest.

 

[lomiller]

Is there a word to describe trolling by feigned ignorance?

ahhell?

The implication is obvious. By all appearances, she never lived with any of the cultural heritage of Native Americans and more more importantly, there's no evidence that she ever suffered any of bigotry based on her alleged ancestry.

Which is probably completely irrelevant in the context the information was being gathered. Furthermore why should there be specific "cultural heritage" that Native Americans need to live within? Can't they just live like anyone else and still have their heritage acknowledged?

Tribal membership would be different, but she never claimed tribal membership.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's complicated to non-Native folks – especially in the context of those tribes that define minimum blood quanta for affiliation – but the simple act of having one's DNA tested to establish a Native connection can be extremely offensive to the surviving descendants of genocide. The mere fact that she did that simply underscored that she has no Native affiliation. Remember, these are people who see themselves as equally screwed regardless of the political party in power, so they are in no way beholden to Democrats or liberals as the rest of us might assume they would/should be.

What Warren should have done from the get-go was actually pretty simple, and she flubbed it: 1) Clearly acknowledge that she had no tribal affiliation despite her family lore of descent. 2) Seek counsel and give voice to tribal elders of especially the Cherokee and the Delaware and let them explain why a DNA test in her case would, at best, be a red herring. 3) Work with those elders to develop a series of proposals to address their most pressing needs.

At this point, long after she could have nipped this is in the bud, she has NOT done 2 or 3. She sort-of did 1, but then made it a lot worse by going ahead with the DNA test.

Can she win elections without getting this right? I dunno. The Native American vote is not her obstacle here, it's the social justice warriors keen on advancing Native rights* sowing discord among Democratic voters that could easily cost her the nomination in a crowded field of talented young candidates.

*myself among them, though I ain't pitching her out with the bath water

I'm with Joe here, what? The mere act of succumbing to constant rightwing pressure to get a DNA test by getting a DNA test means the rightwing ******** were right all along? And why should she impose herself onto tribes that she has never considered herself a member of? Every time I checked Native American on a form it was for ancestry, I stopped the moment it started asking about membership. Warren could not possibly have satisfied everybody in this, not with the President even jumping in on "why doesn't she have a DNA test already????" and now people saying "HOW DARE SHE HAVE A TEST DONE AND HAVE IT SAY SHE HAS ANCESTRY?!?!eleven??"

 

[The Shrike]

I'm with Joe here, what? The mere act of succumbing to constant rightwing pressure to get a DNA test by getting a DNA test means the rightwing ******** were right all along?

Kinda, yeah. She was screwed on this from the get-go.

And why should she impose herself onto tribes that she has never considered herself a member of?

That's just my suggestion based on her family lore evidently tying her ancestry to Delawares and Cherokees. There are other voices she could seek out.

Every time I checked Native American on a form it was for ancestry, I stopped the moment it started asking about membership.

Agreed. Can you imagine if we interpreted African-American the same way? "Oh I see you indicated on this form that you are black, but we found only music from the Carpenters and John Denver on your phone, and that potato salad you brought to the company picnic was quite bland. I don't think you're culturally black enough to have selected African-American on this form."

Warren could not possibly have satisfied everybody in this, not with the President even jumping in on "why doesn't she have a DNA test already????" and now people saying "HOW DARE SHE HAVE A TEST DONE AND HAVE IT SAY SHE HAS ANCESTRY?!?!eleven??"

All correct. She could not possibly have satisfied everyone. Her mistake was in trying to satisfy Trump – who of course was going to weasel out of the $1million – instead of the Native people who should have been the focus of this dust-up. Remember, the Native folks don't see liberals as any better than conservatives. Also, the social justice warriors among the liberals make it their life's work to run everyone through a purity test that leads to Democrats eating their own young and an imbecile crime boss currently the leader of the (once) Free World. Warren could have sought the counsel of Native elders but she didn't, and she's been persona non grata to the actual Left ever since.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is one step from arguing you can be Native American but not have a Native American "soul."

 

[Distracted1]

del

 

[theprestige]

This is one step from arguing you can be Native American but not have a Native American "soul."

On the other hand, it's zero steps from arguing that you can have a Native American ancestor, but not represent Native American culture or experiences in any meaningful way.

Which is really what this is all about.

 

[Vixen]

Your error, Ziggurat, is thinking that I am conflating ancestry with identity.



True, but utterly irrelevant to the debate. We are also direct descendants of LUCA (Also a fact but irrelevant)



Warren is not a full blood Native American (there are in fact very few of them left), howoever that is irrelevant since I am not arguing that point.

She does, however, have Native American ancestry; proven, undeniable, scientific fact (and you, of all people, I would expect to understand the scientific truth of this)

<0.01% ancestry of a group is almost certainly 'background noise'.

 

[Vixen]

On paperwork from 1986... 33 years ago.....



....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 I absolutely did not. I am talking genealogy.... and ONLY genealogy. Cultural identity has nothing whatsoever to with genealogy.



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.



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.

Getting emotional doesn't strengthen your argument. The 'one-drop' rule was nothing to do with racial identity, it was a socio-political move a long long time ago to prevent ex-slaves (=legally classed as chattels) from owning property on an equal status as the ex-slave owners. It was NOTHING to do with cultural identity.

If Warrne had any cultural Native American influences in her life at all - regardless of DNA composition - then her claim to be Native American would be reasonable. For example, Madonna's adopted African children will have every right to share ownership with their adopted mother's culture.

Warren has less NA DNA than the average American and her only claim to cultural heritage is some vague blurred b&w photo which purports to show a distant grandfather having 'high cheekbones'.

By that criterion, Melanie Trump can claim to be NA.

 

[jimbob]

<0.01% ancestry of a group is almost certainly 'background noise'.

I thought you were the person claiming particular 16th Century ancestry in another thread, whilst meanwhile dismissing claims that everyone alive with European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne.

And even more interesting in context of ancestry claims, claiming zero kinship with those who were not nobles.

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. 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). 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.

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. 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)


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.

 

[Belz...]

On the other hand, it's zero steps from arguing that you can have a Native American ancestor, but not represent Native American culture or experiences in any meaningful way.

Which is really what this is all about.

Isn't that exactly what she claimed?

 

[Elagabalus]

...There's a place for race on a college application form, not one for "Oh could you please share any interesting stories about your ancestors we think we'd just love to know about."

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a place for that on the application - not in those words, of course. And, yes, I think she would be stupid not to try any and all available avenues for employment.

 

[jimbob]

Isn't that exactly what she claimed?

It sure seems like it from RecoveringYuppy's posts.

Listed herself as of Native American ancestry for statistical purposes, and social purposes. Not for career purposes.

ETA: Fixed RecoveringYuppy's name

 

[BobTheCoward]

It sure seems like it from Recovering Yuppy's posts.

Listed herself as of Native American ancestry for statistical purposes, and social purposes. Not for career purposes.

The social purpose is objectionable.

Also, she had no substantial evidence for the claim.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Okay seriously what is the narrative here? Elizabeth Warren never told the university about her Native American ancestry in any "official" capacity and they just pulled from the aether or took something a student said in passing about... whatever "oh Warren treated her ancestry as just a bit of personal trivia" version of this people are trying to create and they ran with it? Neither of those make sense.

If the university was aware of Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American ancestry I think it's perfectly reasonable to just assume she told them in some official manner for some reason beyond "Oh here's a little tidbit about me."

There's a place for race on a college application form, not one for "Oh could you please share any interesting stories about your ancestors we think we'd just love to know about."

Some (maybe all) of her college and law school applications have been found. She always checked white, Caucasian or non-minority. She asked to be listed as NA in the Harvard directory.

 

[jimbob]

The social purpose is objectionable.

Also, she had no substantial evidence for the claim.

It is human to want to connect with those with whom one shares something in common.

As for substantial evidence? Her DNA is consistent with her family lore. It was right - a mundane claim and given the times when she was young, and the shame associated with it, a claim that would have been unlikely to have been made unless it had a basis in truth

 

[Vixen]

This is one step from arguing you can be Native American but not have a Native American "soul."

I have a dream catcher on the wall. Does that count?