Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Silly Green Monkey]

It may have to do with the Dawes Rolls, which were used by the US Government to determine who was considered Native to be evicted and relocated. The Cherokee Nation notably currently place great weight on being descended from someone on that list, figuring that if they were considered sufficiently Native for persecution that they are Native enough to join the community.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Not sure what is so confusing about this for some folks. Here's a 10-point timeline:

1. Warren's family lore included some distant Native American ancestry in her ostensibly white family. This is really common among white people in Oklahoma.
2. At some point in her career, she had the option to select "Native American" as a component of her ancestry on some forms. She did.
3. She never claimed to have benefited in her career from this, and the people who hired her confirm this.
4. In her MA senate campaign, she was roundly criticized by her opponent who accused her of lying about her ancestry to get ahead. Both candidate and president Trump doubled down on bigoted mocking of her.
5. Native American leaders were also pissed off at her for insinuating (or at least allowing the confusion to linger) that she was Native instead of the more accurate (and to them irrelevant) had some Native ancestry.
6. She further bungled this issue by taking the DNA test. This backfired because she showed herself to be solidly tone-deaf to the needs and concerns of Native Americans and because Trump and his cult are immune to facts. She was, however, vindicated in the claim she had been making all along, i.e., that she had some Native ancestry. The amount revealed in her DNA is even congruent with that expected given her family lore.
7. She. Was. Right. (About her ancestry, but she was wrong about what that meant.)
8. It is beyond laughable to think that Trump's criticism of her is that she didn't meet the cultural requirements of tribal membership. He was solely thinking of her genetic ancestry and he still is. On that score he was wrong; she was right.
9. Warren has finally listened to Cherokee elders and has publicly apologized for her bungling of this issue. The Cherokee have evidently accepted her apology.
10. TL/DR: She is NOT Cherokee, but she DOES have some Native American ancestry consistent with her family lore.

So which part doesn't make sense?

Good list, but if she didn't take the test, not doing so would have continued to be held against her as it had for six years. That stopped the demands to 'just take the test already' and the Cherokee Nation's wishes don't really matter to Trump and Republicans. He wants his enemies gone and doesn't care what gets them gone or who is also hurt. Unless it's him, then he'll notice, but he'll blame anyone but himself.

 

[varwoche]

I agree it's rather weak, but let me put it this way: If you were filling out a form, and it asked for your race, would you check "Caucasian", or "Native American" , because you had heard that your great great grandfather had a bit of the blood?



Let me be clear, I will vote for her if she is running against Trump, I just don't think we should discount this as possible ammunition to be used against her.

As a matter of fact, she didn't "check" anything. It was a textual entry and she wrote "American Indian".

I also would vote for her against Trump -- without hesitation. I don't have a problem with President Warren. Like you, it's candidate Warren that concerns me.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not sure what is so confusing about this for some folks. Here's a 10-point timeline:

1. Warren's family lore included some distant Native American ancestry in her ostensibly white family. This is really common among white people in Oklahoma.
2. At some point in her career, she had the option to select "Native American" as a component of her ancestry on some forms. She did.
3. She never claimed to have benefited in her career from this, and the people who hired her confirm this.
4. In her MA senate campaign, she was roundly criticized by her opponent who accused her of lying about her ancestry to get ahead. Both candidate and president Trump doubled down on bigoted mocking of her.
5. Native American leaders were also pissed off at her for insinuating (or at least allowing the confusion to linger) that she was Native instead of the more accurate (and to them irrelevant) had some Native ancestry.
6. She further bungled this issue by taking the DNA test. This backfired because she showed herself to be solidly tone-deaf to the needs and concerns of Native Americans and because Trump and his cult are immune to facts. She was, however, vindicated in the claim she had been making all along, i.e., that she had some Native ancestry. The amount revealed in her DNA is even congruent with that expected given her family lore.
7. She. Was. Right. (About her ancestry, but she was wrong about what that meant.)
8. It is beyond laughable to think that Trump's criticism of her is that she didn't meet the cultural requirements of tribal membership. He was solely thinking of her genetic ancestry and he still is. On that score he was wrong; she was right.
9. Warren has finally listened to Cherokee elders and has publicly apologized for her bungling of this issue. The Cherokee have evidently accepted her apology.
10. TL/DR: She is NOT Cherokee, but she DOES have some Native American ancestry consistent with her family lore.

So which part doesn't make sense?

Makes sense to me. And I'm still trying to figure out BTC's "Trail of Tears" bit and what that has to do with anything. Maybe I missed it, but googling it hasn't revealed anything but Trump's stupid tweet.

 

[Stacyhs]

It may have to do with the Dawes Rolls, which were used by the US Government to determine who was considered Native to be evicted and relocated. The Cherokee Nation notably currently place great weight on being descended from someone on that list, figuring that if they were considered sufficiently Native for persecution that they are Native enough to join the community.

My verified Creek 5X gr. grandmother was not on the Dawes Rolls. Why? Likely because she was married to a very prominent land owning white husband who was a Harvard educated lawyer who had emigrated from N.England to Alabama. In those days, like today, money and position had power.

 

[BobTheCoward]

10. TL/DR: She is NOT Cherokee, but she DOES have some Native American ancestry consistent with her family lore.

So which part doesn't make sense?

She claimed more than just ancestry. She repeated claims about how relatives were treated and perception of their native ancestry.

Further, you do mention the common claims of people from Oklahoma. But my understanding is that normally implies a mixing that occurred in Oklahoma. Her DNA test doesn't support that.

The farther back the heritage goes, the more suspect the claims become about how the relatives were treated. At a sufficient number of generations back, the DNA test results are coincidence and not actually support for her claims.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As a matter of fact, she didn't "check" anything. It was a textual entry and she wrote "American Indian".

I also would vote for her against Trump -- without hesitation. I don't have a problem with President Warren. Like you, it's candidate Warren that concerns me.

I have serious problems with her as president. She thinks government has other functions beyond enforcing property rights and ensuring restitution for violations of the non aggression principle.

 

[crescent]

4. In her MA senate campaign, she was roundly criticized by her opponent who accused her of lying about her ancestry to get ahead. Both candidate and president Trump doubled down on bigoted mocking of her

You understate it greatly - Trump offered her $1,000,000 if she would take a DNA test. She did, she passed. He then lied about ever making the offer.

Trump denies offering $1 million for Warren DNA test, even though he did

During a campaign rally on July 5, Trump taunted Warren for her claims of Native American ancestry, a staple of his campaign stump speeches.

"I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian," Trump said at the time. "I have a feeling she will say 'no.' "

Trump spoke after Warren responded to the president's challenge and released the results of a DNA test showing she has a distant Native ancestor.

"I didn't say that. You'd better read it again," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about his $1 million offer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have serious problems with her as president. She thinks government has other functions beyond enforcing property rights and ensuring restitution for violations of the non aggression principle.

Then shouldn't you, out of principle, stop using the internet, which was developed partially using eeeevil government funding?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then shouldn't you, out of principle, stop using the internet, which was developed partially using eeeevil government funding?

I don't call government funding evil, but simply illegitimate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You understate it greatly - Trump offered her $1,000,000 if she would take a DNA test. She did, she passed. He then lied about ever making the offer.

Trump denies offering $1 million for Warren DNA test, even though he did

He said, "and shows you're an Indian." The test did not demonstrate that.

Unless someone here wants to claim that Warren is an Indian?

 

[Giordano]

Not sure what is so confusing about this for some folks. Here's a 10-point timeline:

1. Warren's family lore included some distant Native American ancestry in her ostensibly white family. This is really common among white people in Oklahoma.
2. At some point in her career, she had the option to select "Native American" as a component of her ancestry on some forms. She did.
3. She never claimed to have benefited in her career from this, and the people who hired her confirm this.
4. In her MA senate campaign, she was roundly criticized by her opponent who accused her of lying about her ancestry to get ahead. Both candidate and president Trump doubled down on bigoted mocking of her.
5. Native American leaders were also pissed off at her for insinuating (or at least allowing the confusion to linger) that she was Native instead of the more accurate (and to them irrelevant) had some Native ancestry.
6. She further bungled this issue by taking the DNA test. This backfired because she showed herself to be solidly tone-deaf to the needs and concerns of Native Americans and because Trump and his cult are immune to facts. She was, however, vindicated in the claim she had been making all along, i.e., that she had some Native ancestry. The amount revealed in her DNA is even congruent with that expected given her family lore.
7. She. Was. Right. (About her ancestry, but she was wrong about what that meant.)
8. It is beyond laughable to think that Trump's criticism of her is that she didn't meet the cultural requirements of tribal membership. He was solely thinking of her genetic ancestry and he still is. On that score he was wrong; she was right.
9. Warren has finally listened to Cherokee elders and has publicly apologized for her bungling of this issue. The Cherokee have evidently accepted her apology.
10. TL/DR: She is NOT Cherokee, but she DOES have some Native American ancestry consistent with her family lore.

So which part doesn't make sense?

Excellent summary.

I did also wish to point out that 1/64, 6 generations, not only matches the family story that Warren has consistently described, but that 6 generations is not all so distant in time. Given most definitions of the years per generation, this would place her NA relative entering the family late 1800s or early 1900s, a period when many of these cross culture relationships occurred.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Excellent summary.

I did also wish to point out that 1/64, 6 generations, not only matches the family story that Warren has consistently described, but that 6 generations is not all so distant in time. Given most definitions of the years per generation, this would place her NA relative entering the family late 1800s or early 1900s, a period when many of these cross culture relationships occurred.

This is the mistake i was talking about. Warren is old and her mother was in her 30s when she had warren. That puts 5 additional generations (still haven't seen the reference to it be most likely 6 generations, I still see the statement by her expert that it is 6-10) placing it early 1800s and the mixing occuring before the tribes were relocated to Oklahoma.

 

[Darat]

This story is very similar to Trump saying Alabama is in danger from Dorian. That would have been nothing if Trump had just said, "Oh, that was a mistake, I was working with old data." Warren's ancestry would have gone away if she had just said, "Well, that's the story Grandma told me and I'm not going to call Grandma a liar." Instead she got a test that showed, meh. Then you get her fans explaining how being 1/64th native American totally justifies her letting Harvard list her as a minority proffessor and contributing a recipe to "pow wow chow" Its all a joke to Trump and his supporters and Warren's supporters are giving them exactly what they want.

Was that the case, I thought for years she said it was family lore and it was only after doing what you say she should have done for.all those years and it not working she had a test.

 

[crescent]

I have already posted this article in this thread at least twice, but Bob has not been paying attention.

So here's #3 (it is paywalled, but that's easy to go around by just opening it in an incognito window):

Just about everything you’ve read on the Warren DNA test is wrong

Here’s where the reporting went off course. The report said that Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor.

There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.

The small percentage of European Americans with more than two percent Native American ancestry are concentrated in a handful of states, such as North Dakota, New Mexico and Louisiana. But the majority of European Americans in the study have zero.

The media bungled the interpretation of the results — and then Warren’s opponents used the uninformed reporting to undermine the test results even further.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have already posted this article in this thread at least twice, but Bob has not been paying attention.

So here's #3 (it is paywalled, but that's easy to go around by just opening it in an incognito window):

Just about everything you’ve read on the Warren DNA test is wrong

Has her expert responded to these assertions?

ETA: not that he has to. But it is nice when people can clarify what they meant.

 

[crescent]

Has her expert responded to these assertions?

The article is citing the Bustamante report. That's her expert, Carlos Bustamante a geneticist at Stanford.

WAPO is basing its reporting on the Bustamante Report and on data from University of California Davis. Bustamante's Report suggests a single ancestor

The total and average segment size suggest (via the method of moments) an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the pedigree at approximately 8 generations before the sample,

WAPOs interpretation of UC Davis's information leads them to believe that the ancestor is more recent

Look closely at the sixth generation, and you will see some strong contributors of genetic material — and many weak ones.
The most important point is this: The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.

I don't know why Bustamante would need to respond to inaccurate reporting, his report and basic math speak for themselves.

Here's the report itself:

http://templatelab.com/bustamante-report-2018/

Earlier in the thread, someone posted a partial genealogy of Warren going back to and a little before the period of the Trail of Tears. She had ancestors back then living in Tennessee and Kentucky who had the surname "Clark". There were also Cherokee people living in those States who also had the Surname "Clark".

It is possible that her ancestry dates back that far, to an American Indian who married into a white family which then used influence to avoid going on the Trail of Tears, to the point of forging away any connection to tribal membership. The connection to Oklahoma may be little more than a coincidence as regards the ancestry. Her ancestry covers a good part of many places where Cherokee and other tribal groups that were later displaced to Oklahoma once lived.

However, gossip can survive a few forgeries, it seems likely that people might still have known about Native American ancestry even if it didn't appear on Birth Certificates or Baptism records. Showing bias against someone as little as 1/4 American Indian would not have been uncommon, showing bias against someone because that person's mother was 1/4 American Indian would not have been uncommon. Warren alleges that her parents faced difficulties because one of them was believed to be part Native American - that still seems possible to me.

My opinion:
1: Warren is not Native American because her ancestors did not continue any sort of cultural affiliation or membership with any tribal groups.
2: Therefore, she should not have claimed to be Native American on paperwork, even if it provided her no advantage. She was lying when she checked those boxes on forms, although she may have been lying to herself in the process.
3: She does, however, have Native American ancestry, proven incontrovertibly and consistent with her family lore. She was probably not lying about the family lore.


She was right on this issue, and she was wrong on this issue. People seeking black and white right/wrong judgments on her behavior will therefore be forever frustrated.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know why Bustamante would need to respond to inaccurate reporting, his report and basic math speak for themselves.


3: She does, however, have Native American ancestry, proven incontrovertibly and consistent with her family lore. She was probably not lying about the family lore.

I said he did have to. But it is nice when someone confirms they agree with interpretation.

She made specific claims about the treatment of relatives and inherited traits

For example

"No, as I said, these are my family stories. I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl," she said. "I still have a picture on my mantel and it is 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 Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life."

That would be a grandfather that is 1/8th native American? Is that consistent with that claim? Or is she conflating unrelated things?

ETA: here is the proper statement.

I reject all claims made by relatives about what they did, what relatives did, or who relatives are, without physical evidence.

 

[Giordano]

This is the mistake i was talking about. Warren is old and her mother was in her 30s when she had warren. That puts 5 additional generations (still haven't seen the reference to it be most likely 6 generations, I still see the statement by her expert that it is 6-10) placing it early 1800s and the mixing occuring before the tribes were relocated to Oklahoma.

Bob, my calculations included 20 to 30 years for every generation, whereas most often 20 is the per generation standard for the period under consideration given the historic age of child bearing in the 1800s and early 1900s.

But sadly I don't have more time to play with you today. Sorry.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bob, my calculations included 20 to 30 years for every generation, whereas most often 20 is the per generation standard for the period under consideration given the historic age of child bearing in the 1800s and early 1900s.

But sadly I don't have more time to play with you today. Sorry.

I used 20 years also. You are off by at least 70 years. You said late 1800s. Her mother was born in 1911. I have no idea how you get five more generations in 50 years.