Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[Vixen]

Both mom and dad Jewish. As were grandparents and all other ancestors as far as I know from the family narrative.. Haven't checked my DNA because Trump has not demanded it of me. How do you know about your own Jewishness? Probably the same way as I: you learned about it from family lore, the same way Warren learned about her more distant connection to Native American ancestry. None of us had any reason to question it but unlike me (and maybe unlike you) Warren has DNA proof. As I see it Warren has more proof of a Native American ancestry than I do of a Jewish one.

Again I return to my original statement. The facts are clear but the interpretation is subjective. Warren indicated Native American as ethnic identity on one form. She does have Native American ancestry. But you do not believe she is adequately Native American to justify it and she "knew so" and was knowingly lying. But the latter is NOT a fact; ethnic identity is complex and very subjective. Mny people have very mixed ethnic backgrounds. I work at a university and forms asking ethnic identity are common. We are repeatedly told that it is the person filling out the form who solely determines their own ethnic identity: there are no other criteria or tests of any kind. If they see themselves as Native American that is who they are. I can see many scenarios wherein Warren felt at the time her answer was appropriate. In fact she appears to have learned more since then, apologized, and now shares your view she should not have filled out the form as she had.

Nonethelessless you feel that Warren's behavior in this regard is inexcusable and questions her character.. Fine, that is one possible opinion. I have a different opinion. But the facts are not different.

BTW: my point about the orthodox was related: interpretations of the same facts can differ. My mom was Jewish, I was nipped at birth, I was bar mitzvahed, etc. Many people consider those facts enough to subjectively agree with me that I am Jewish. But the ultra orthodox who live near where I grew up strongly disagree: in their subjective opinion these facts are not adequate to establish me as Jewish because I fall short in other criteria (chiefly because I am not observant enough in the other ways they believe are necessary). Am I lying if I knowingly wrote in "Jewish" on a form? An ultra-orthodox would think so but that is an opinion, not a fact.

But my most important conclusion right now is that we both have a legitimate right to our opinions and I don't think there is much more to debate.

Self-identification, sure. But how would you draw the line between someone who thinks they are Native American and another who claims they are Napoleon/ the Jedi or even Jewish because a great-great-grandparent eight generations back had a 'Jewish' name?

 

[Vixen]

Good.

Now I'll further add, that I hold a Swiss passport (I have Swiss citizenship) and I am therefore entitled to live and work there as of right (and I would be required to serve in their armed forces too). Were I to go to Switzerland to live, I would be entitled to receive a government pension.

Still think I don't meet the criteria to call myself Swiss?

You do, because you are culturally Swiss and have Swiss nationality.

 

[Stacyhs]

I despair.

Now you know how we feel in the Knox thread.

 

[Vixen]

Now you know how we feel in the Knox thread.

'We'? A team of PR trolls? Logical fallacy: appealing to the crowd.

Saddam had millions of supporters.

 

[Stacyhs]

Husband's family claimed direct descent from William Penn. Even said so in newspaper clippings from old obituaries. Husband's family is Mormon so they have A LOT of genealogy info. Turns out they couldn't possibly be Penn's descendants as his descendants have been documented very well and none of my husband's ancestors is among them. Turns out the family story got skewed: they descend from a sister of the woman who married Penn. But does that mean my husband's family were lying? Nope. It's what they believe and that misinformation is still being passed down in the family lore.

He'd be related via Penn and his wife being a sister of your husband's ancestor, of the Great Aunt variety.
>snipped for irrelevancy<
The point, uncles and aunts are pretty close relatives as they are the siblings of one's parents: pretty much the same genes, so your husband is not incorrect, if Penn and his wife had offspring, to make the wife's sister's children first cousins.

No.

I didn't say the weren't in some way related. The family story is that they are direct descendants of Penn. They are in no way biologically related to Penn and certainly not direct descendants.

But thanks for explaining about 'related through marriage'. I've never have understood the concept otherwise.

I despair.

Now you know how we feel in the Knox thread.

Exactly what part of DIRECT DESCENDANT of WILLIAM PENN are you not understanding?

 

[Stacyhs]

'We'? A team of PR trolls? Logical fallacy: appealing to the crowd.

Saddam had millions of supporters.

That was not a logical fallacy. Try again.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly what part of DIRECT DESCENDANT of WILLIAM PENN are you not understanding?

ISTM that someone in your husband's family got their definitions mixed up rather than it being a case of a 'false family story' which has no foundation in reality.

 

[smartcooky]

You do, because you are culturally Swiss and have Swiss nationality.

Try explaining that to Bob

ETA: Actually, don't bother. It will be a wasted effort

 

[Stacyhs]

ISTM that someone in your husband's family got their definitions mixed up rather than it being a case of a 'false family story' which has no foundation in reality.

ISTM that you're the one who got mixed up. There was no 'definition" mix up. I'm pretty sure they knew the difference between "directly descended from William Penn" and "directly descended from Penn's wife's sister". It was a false family story, plain and simple.

 

[smartcooky]

ISTM that you're the one who got mixed up. There was no 'definition" mix up. I'm pretty sure they knew the difference between "directly descended from William Penn" and "directly descended from Penn's wife's sister". It was a false family story, plain and simple.

This

Any genealogist will tell you that you are not a decendant of person "A" by being a descendant of his sister-in-law.

 

[Stacyhs]

This

Any genealogist will tell you that you are not a decendant of person "A" by being a descendant of his sister-in-law.

Yes. I've never claimed to be descended FROM George Washington (he had no known children) but I am descended from a common gr gr gr whatever number grandfather. Washington's mother, Mary Ball, was the first cousin of my direct ancestor. That makes me distantly related to, but not descended from, him.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Try explaining that to Bob

ETA: Actually, don't bother. It will be a wasted effort

Culture has nothing to do with it. If Ueli Maurer started actively rejecting every Swiss cultural element in his life I would say that Swiss dude is rejecting it. He doesn't stop being Swiss.

 

[Belz...]

Clearly.

I expected an actual explanation. How is it dishonest?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If I'm following this garbage barge correctly the latest consensus is that Warren isn't Native American but she may be a Swiss descendent of William Penn's wife's sister. I don't like that but I don't consider it disqualification from office and am still willing to vote for her provided she never appears in public in a dirndl, or bores holes in other people's cheeses, or installs cuckoo clocks where people can hear them go off all night instead of sleeping.

 

[varwoche]

Both mom and dad Jewish. As were grandparents and all other ancestors as far as I know from the family narrative.. Haven't checked my DNA because Trump has not demanded it of me. How do you know about your own Jewishness? Probably the same way as I: you learned about it from family lore, the same way Warren learned about her more distant connection to Native American ancestry. None of us had any reason to question it but unlike me (and maybe unlike you) Warren has DNA proof. As I see it Warren has more proof of a Native American ancestry than I do of a Jewish one.

My sister's DNA test proved my ethnicity. But that wasn't a surprise at all, what with grandparents who speak yiddish. Plus the Alan Sherman records.

Again I return to my original statement. The facts are clear but the interpretation is subjective. Warren indicated Native American as ethnic identity on one form. She does have Native American ancestry. But you do not believe she is adequately Native American to justify it and she "knew so" and was knowingly lying. But the latter is NOT a fact; ethnic identity is complex and very subjective.

I don't buy the subjectivity one bit. Cultural identity, sure. Not racial identity. Otherwise we need to recognize Rachel What's Her Name as an African-American.

I consider it a fact that Warren lied. So no, we don't have consensus on the facts.

Mny people have very mixed ethnic backgrounds.

Yes. When you're 1/4 X, 1/4 Y, 1/4 Z, and 1/4 unknown, it's not clear cut. This doesn't apply to Warren.

Nonethelessless you feel that Warren's behavior in this regard is inexcusable and questions her character.

Nope. I see why you may have reached this conclusion. But I haven't written this nor do I think it.

BTW: my point about the orthodox was related: interpretations of the same facts can differ. My mom was Jewish, I was nipped at birth, I was bar mitzvahed, etc. Many people consider those facts enough to subjectively agree with me that I am Jewish. But the ultra orthodox who live near where I grew up strongly disagree: in their subjective opinion these facts are not adequate to establish me as Jewish because I fall short in other criteria (chiefly because I am not observant enough in the other ways they believe are necessary). Am I lying if I knowingly wrote in "Jewish" on a form? An ultra-orthodox would think so but that is an opinion, not a fact.

I don't give much weight to irrational rules conceived by religious nuts.

But my most important conclusion right now is that we both have a legitimate right to our opinions and I don't think there is much more to debate.

Fine. I still chose to share these thoughts for your consideration.

 

[Drewbot]

If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 German, 1/4 Macedonian, 1/4 English, I have no claim to citizenship from any of those countries.

If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Cherokee, 1/4 German, 1/4 English, 1/4 Italian, and I have evidence that my Cherokee ancestor was on the Dawes Rolls, then I can claim Native American Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Cherokee, 1/4 German, 1/4 English, 1/4 Italian, and I have no evidence that my Cherokee ancestor was on the Dawes Rolls, then I cannot claim Native American Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

In other words, my grandfather could be 100% Cherokee blood, but if none of his ancestors were on the Dawes Rolls it would not allow membership.

 

[varwoche]

I expected an actual explanation. How is it dishonest?

I expected that you would see what I wrote in response to other posters. Warren wasn't opining on her fractional background. She specifically claimed a racial identity. She knew full well she wasn't an "American Indian" yet claimed she was. She has apologized for it.

What about Rachel What's Her Name? Can we safely say she was lying when she claimed to be African-American?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If some subgroup puts self imposed limits on who gets to be "in the club" beyond that which is used in other contexts, that's their problem to deal with, not ours.

Again we don't have to accommodate any group's "No True Scotsman"ing.

If Ted was born in Ireland, other Irish people don't get to tell him "he's not really Irish." If Ted's grandfather was born in Ireland, Irish people living in Ireland don't get to tell him he's not "Irish descended."

The rules seem to be different for Native Americans, I'm assuming because of "Shut up Colonizer, I refer you to the official victim ranking chart..."

 

[TragicMonkey]

If some subgroup puts self imposed limits on who gets to be "in the club" beyond that which is used in other contexts, that's their problem to deal with, not ours.

Again we don't have to accommodate any group's "No True Scotsman"ing.

If Ted was born in Ireland, other Irish people don't get to tell him "he's not really Irish." If Ted's grandfather was born in Ireland, Irish people living in Ireland don't get to tell him he's not "Irish descended."

The rules seem to be different for Native Americans, I'm assuming because of "Shut up Colonizer, I refer you to the official victim ranking chart..."

Reminds me of people arguing about music, whether a given artist or piece is or isn't "really" X genre of music. The categories are not mathematical, they are not so clear cut that everyone can agree on definitions and placement. And yet broad consensus occurs much of the time, even though the classifications are not perfect. People can legitimately argue whether The Offspring are punk or not, but nobody thinks Bing Crosby was.

 

[Drewbot]

It looks very similar to stolen valor.

If a non-veteran politician put their name in a veteran directory, and said it was because they wanted to hang out with veterans, i'd say bull.

If a non-minority politician put their name in a minority directory, and said it was because they wanted to hang out with other minorities, i'd say bull.