• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
I don't call government funding evil, but simply illegitimate.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you always have an excuse why you don't have to live up to the "You must be slavishly devoted to your own arbitrary ideals" clause you put on other people.

Don't bother responding with your inane "It's different because I'm not stating an opinion / trying to convince anyone" foolishness.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's amazing how you always have an excuse why you don't have to live up to the "You must be slavishly devoted to your own arbitrary ideals" clause you put on other people.

Don't bother responding with your inane "It's different because I'm not stating an opinion / trying to convince anyone" foolishness.
Click to expand...

I didn't even address if one should do it or not. I was pointing out that I don't call it evil.

I don't have an opinion if one should use the internet or not. But to answer your question generally, I am a bad person.
 
crescent said:
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

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



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.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Regarding the highlighted section, my Creek ancestor married a white man about 1828-9. She was not removed from Alabama during the Trail of Tears because her husband had money and position; he was also an Indian Agent for the government. She is also listed in the 1860 census as Indian, but is listed as white earlier ones. This is likely due to hiding her Indian heritage.

I incorrectly said earlier that she was my 5X gr. grandmother. I double checked my family tree and she is, in reality, my 4X gr. grandmother.

 
Stacyhs said:
Well said.

Regarding the highlighted section, my Creek ancestor married a white man about 1828-9. She was not removed from Alabama during the Trail of Tears because her husband had money and position; he was also an Indian Agent for the government. She is also listed in the 1860 census as Indian, but is listed as white earlier ones. This is likely due to hiding her Indian heritage.

I incorrectly said earlier that she was my 5X gr. grandmother. I double checked my family tree and she is, in reality, my 4X gr. grandmother.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695d741e2242115.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
How did they get to Oklahoma?
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Her mom is generation 5 at the time of her birth (1911); Warren is generation 6 at the time of her birth (1940's?). But you are correct I should have grounded my calculation beginning with Warren's birth date. Four more generations place it as within the 1800s. Call the date of generation 1 as early instead of late 1800s if you wish. That doesn't change my point that 1/64 inheritance and 6 generations are not as distant in time as they might first sound.

However it seems to me that this side bar conversation is unimportant quibbling that leads us both astray from the relevant points. I certainly wouldn't want us to fall into that kind of distraction.
 
It strikes me that people often claim ancestry based on the same or a lower percent gene inheritance than Warren's. They like the cache and cultural identification. It is considered an entertaining fact and no one makes a fuss about the details. My mother in law claimed Irish ancestry from a family member who immigrated to the USA in the early 1800s. Ironically the Daughters of the American Revolution demand a link to an ancestor from the 1700's for membership, a very distant link instead.

That said, Warren is right to recognize genes do not represent cultural identity and to apologize.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Her mom is generation 5 at the time of her birth (1911); Warren is generation 6 at the time of her birth (1940's?). But you are correct I should have grounded my calculation beginning with Warren's birth date. Four more generations place it as within the 1800s. Call the date of generation 1 as early instead of late 1800s if you wish. That doesn't change my point that 1/64 inheritance and 6 generations are not as distant in time as they might first sound.

However it seems to me that this side bar conversation is unimportant quibbling that leads us both astray from the relevant points. I certainly wouldn't want us to fall into that kind of distraction.
Click to expand...

Is it six generations back....is she generation zero or one?
 
Stacyhs said:
My verified Creek 5X gr. grandmother was not on the Dawes Rolls.
Click to expand...

I've said this upthread, but it bears repeating: Dawes RollsWP were integral to a top-down federally driven process designed to decommunalize Native American lands and thereby integrate tribal members into a more Eurocentric privatized rural lifestyle. The process was largely successful, and the focus on those rolls for the sake of tribal eligibility is historically ironic at best.

ETA: My kids all have at least two ancestors on said rolls, and have thus benefitted from this arbitrary criterion.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Agreed. But I think Native Americans may have taken Trump's idiocy more seriously than the rest of us. Yes, they may have been upset that Warren claimed she was Cherokee, but Trump's derogatory usage of "Pocahontas" is an insult to every N.American.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should call her, 'Lovely li'l white dove' instead.
 
Scenario: For whatever reason, we start recognizing additional ethnic groups on our paperwork here in the US. My employer or some random survey or whatever sends me a form that includes a box to check for "Italian".

I am half Italian by descent. My grandmother came through Ellis Island, spoke in a heavily-accented broken English, etc. All of our family celebrations were heavily influenced by Italian traditions, foods, etc.

I was, however, born in the US. I've never been to Italy. I don't speak Italian. I'm an American white guy, and there's nothing about me that would lead anyone to conclude upon meeting me that I might be the least bit Italian. But if you asked me, I'd proudly claim my heritage as "half Italian".

Those forms don't ask, "Have you ever faced discrimination on the basis of your ethnic background? Check all that apply." The federal standard language is "a person having origins in..."

If I'm filling out a form that asks me to indicate if I have origins in Italy, I'm checking that box or otherwise indicating in the affirmative.

My connection is closer and stronger Warren's, but that is all she did. She accurately indicated an ancestral connection when asked to provide one.
 
The Shrike said:
Scenario: For whatever reason, we start recognizing additional ethnic groups on our paperwork here in the US. My employer or some random survey or whatever sends me a form that includes a box to check for "Italian".

I am half Italian by descent. My grandmother came through Ellis Island, spoke in a heavily-accented broken English, etc. All of our family celebrations were heavily influenced by Italian traditions, foods, etc.

I was, however, born in the US. I've never been to Italy. I don't speak Italian. I'm an American white guy, and there's nothing about me that would lead anyone to conclude upon meeting me that I might be the least bit Italian. But if you asked me, I'd proudly claim my heritage as "half Italian".

Those forms don't ask, "Have you ever faced discrimination on the basis of your ethnic background? Check all that apply." The federal standard language is "a person having origins in..."

If I'm filling out a form that asks me to indicate if I have origins in Italy, I'm checking that box or otherwise indicating in the affirmative.

My connection is closer and stronger Warren's, but that is all she did. She accurately indicated an ancestral connection when asked to provide one.
Click to expand...

I think the argument seems to be, 'Elizabeth Warren didn't check a box enquiring whether she had any Native American ethnicity', she wrote out in full by hand 'American Indian'without being prompted.

There is a difference.
 
Vixen said:
I think the argument seems to be, 'Elizabeth Warren didn't check a box enquiring whether she had any Native American ethnicity', she wrote out in full by hand 'American Indian'without being prompted.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...
My students are equally likely to provide wrong answers whether multiple choice or fill in the blank.

Warren was misguided and tone deaf in her response but she was also accurate. I really don't get (i.e., have not heard a convincing argument) how anyone other than the Cherokee could have a problem with her behavior, and she's now making amends with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom