Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[Stacyhs]

The DNA test put the NA ancestor at between 6 and 10 generations back and Warren's family lore claimed a 3X great grandmother was part Cherokee. That puts the ancestor at 5X removed from Warren.

While, imo, that makes her claim completely credible, her detractors naturally jumped on the "10" generations detail and then on her claim of being NA on paperwork over 30 years ago. As I said, that was her mistake. If she had not done so, this whole ludicrous thing would have disappeared long ago.

I agree she will be attacked with the "Pocahontas" slur by Trump and his supporters again if she is the Dem nominee. But I think that reflects far worse on them than on Warren and it will do nothing to help him with the NA vote. I think it will actually increase NA support for Warren.

I don't think it would have disappeared. People would be accusing her of not having native ancestry at all. The DNA tests showed she was fundamentally right about her heritage, but her campaign stumbled straight into the counterpunch and is only now recovering.

I don't see where we disagree on this.

I agree that she'll have the support of NA communities in general. She's got concrete policies to actually address many of the systemic issues they face. I'm saying the GOP will find or bribe some tribal elder from somewhere to act good and pissed off anyway, and they'll parade him around all the cable news shows until it becomes an issue again, then they'll focus on "the issue" and quietly put him back on the reservation before anyone does any digging. It's their standard play at this point, we've seen it dozens of times.

Agreed. I think the best thing Warren can do now is ignore this tactic. Concentrate on her plans and let Trump and his followers scream "Pocahontas" all they want. It just make them look like racists idiots.

 

[varwoche]

To claim Native American Minority status, you must be part of one of the tribal rolls. She claimed Native American Minority Status, not Native American Ancestry.

Not so. She claimed ancestry. But she apologized for having inferred tribal membership. Except she didn't really do that. I think that was the easiest way to spin the apology and satisfy certain NA leaders who were hung up on her (non) claim of membership.

For what it's worth, I don't need an apology. I accept that family lore caused her to think her NA ancestry was greater than it actually is (though not so great as to legitimize her claim of race).

 

[Cabbage]

I accept that family lore caused her to think her NA ancestry was greater than it actually is (though not so great as to legitimize her claim of race).

Ever consider the simple possibility that Warren is just not so damned pedantic about it as you are?

 

[quadraginta]

Wow. I casually mention I'm meeting someone and you leap to this?? That's flat out bizarre.

It seemed something less than casual when you posted it. Almost the point of the post, even.

It's extremely unlikely my experiences will trump anything, as if that even vaguely occurred to me.

I'm sure you feel that way. Now, at any rate.

Understandable.

 

[Upchurch]

Ultimately, varwoche, the evidence does not fit your claim. Worse, you have to use additional assumptions to make it fit your claim.

For evidence, we have Warren's DNA test, obviously, that shows she does indeed have Native American ancestry. Further, she has family lore which pre-dates the test. Clearly, family lore not good evidence on its own, but it does corroborate that her claims had some genuine basis and was not, itself, a form of deception.

In order to make evidence fit your claim, you have to assume:

• your criteria for what counts as one's race is objective and universally accepted.*
• that Warren's personal identification with a particular ancestral line, no matter how far removed, is unusual or even unreasonable.
• your interpretation of that field on that form is identical to how Warren perceived it and, therefore,
• Warren deliberately misrepresented her answer to that field.

Maybe you disagree with what Warren believes, but that does not make it a lie or even factually incorrect. It certainly isn't a fact that she lied. It is only your opinion based on your personal assumptions and you are welcome to share them, but it is incorrect to portray opinion as fact.


* Not even getting into the overarching fact that the race is inherently subjective and a social construct to begin with.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't see where we disagree on this.

Weren't you saying it would have been better for her not to have done the test? That was the part I disagreed with. I think it was handled poorly but ultimately successful in delegitimizing the complaints.

Agreed. I think the best thing Warren can do now is ignore this tactic. Concentrate on her plans and let Trump and his followers scream "Pocahontas" all they want. It just make them look like racists idiots.

I think the best thing she can do is get ahead of it with tribal endorsements. She's clearly the best option for native american interests, but she needs to get them to say so and that'll take the wind out of all the Pocahontas talk. **** yeah she's Pocahontas, so what?

 

[Upchurch]

She's clearly the best option for native american interests, but she needs to get them to say so and that'll take the wind out of all the Pocahontas talk. **** yeah she's Pocahontas, so what?

As an aside, it still astounds me that Trump didn’t get more flack for using “Pocahontas” as a racial slur.

 

[Belz...]

Not so. She claimed ancestry.

Then what are you complaining about since she DOES have ancestry?

 

[varwoche]

Then what are you complaining about since she DOES have ancestry?

It's a simple statement of fact, and not a complaint in any way, shape, or form. About which you are complaining.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

As an aside, it still astounds me that Trump didn’t get more flack for using “Pocahontas” as a racial slur.

There are a lot of things in recent politics that still astound me.

 

[varwoche]

It seemed something less than casual when you posted it. Almost the point of the post, even.

Pardon me if I wasn't clear. But once I explained, now you're just derailing the thread with personal sniping. And now I'm participating in your derail. I'll try not to anymore.

 

[varwoche]

Ultimately, varwoche, the evidence does not fit your claim. Worse, you have to use additional assumptions to make it fit your claim.

We've covered this ground a number of times and I don't have much to add. I don't agree with you on this, as you might expect.

You and others raise the vagueness of the concept of race. Yes, while it is a vague concept, there are constructs that society had adopted that intelligent people well understand. And those constructs were more clear cut back then. The way that this vagueness has played a part in this thread, it seems to me, is giving cover to starry eyed (political) tribalists who can't accept simple reality. That's what intrigues me, not the boring old Warren stuff.

You posited two of the rankest category errors I've ever seen posted on this forum. Perhaps you can reflect on that.

 

[Cabbage]

We've covered this ground a number of times and I don't have much to add. I don't agree with you on this, as you might expect.

You and others raise the vagueness of the concept of race. Yes, while it is a vague concept, there are constructs that society had adopted that intelligent people understand. The way that this vagueness has played a part in this thread, it seems to me, is giving cover to starry eyed (political) tribalists who can't accept simple reality.

You posited two of the rankest category errors I've ever seen posted on this forum. Perhaps you can reflect on that.

Can you elaborate on this? Specifically, I don't want to hear concepts that you understand, but that all intelligent people understand.

 

[smartcooky]

We've covered this ground a number of times and I don't have much to add. I don't agree with you on this, as you might expect.

You and others raise the vagueness of the concept of race. Yes, while it is a vague concept, there are constructs that society had adopted that intelligent people well understand. And those constructs were more clear cut back then. The way that this vagueness has played a part in this thread, it seems to me, is giving cover to starry eyed (political) tribalists who can't accept simple reality. That's what intrigues me, not the boring old Warren stuff.

You posited two of the rankest category errors I've ever seen posted on this forum. Perhaps you can reflect on that.

I noticed how you snipped out the part of Upchurch's post that you are unable to address.

Your interpretation of what counts as "race" is NOT universally accepted (and I don't accept it either). Even Native Americans themselves differ on what counts as being Native American.

I think Upchurch is right, you are expressing an opinion and claiming that opinion to be fact... it is not.

 

[pgwenthold]

I noticed how you snipped out the part of Upchurch's post that you are unable to address.

Your interpretation of what counts as "race" is NOT universally accepted (and I don't accept it either). Even Native Americans themselves differ on what counts as being Native American.

I think Upchurch is right, you are expressing an opinion and claiming that opinion to be fact... it is not.

Hey, but INTELLIGENT people agree with varwoche. Upchurch and everyone else who disagrees are clearly idiots.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes, they have a set of qualifying actions that counts for "involved".


That... is an odd phrasing. I'm not sure what you mean. It only means that they are women with one or more ancestors who were involved in the Revolutionary War as defined by the organization's rules. There is no implication that all of one's ancestors had to have been involved, as that would be impossible.


In the war or related activities. I believe they include things like the Boston Tea Party or writing the Declaration of Independence, and whatnot.


It is in that both are basing their identity, in part, on having an ancestor approximately the same number of generations removed. The DAR is a long established organization and not considered liars because they only distantly related to the ancestors in question, nor that they are proud of that ancestry.

Actually, it can be even worse. Don’t know if is true any more but times were that you could claim membership based on your husband’s ancestry if yours did not qualify*. So you have some folks up there with zero DNA ancestry acting the same as if their GGGGGdaddy was stormin the redoubts at Yorktown.



* - This, apparently, was the absolute wrong thing to suggest to my strong-willed Grandmother.

 

[Belz...]

It's a simple statement of fact, and not a complaint in any way, shape, or form.

Maybe you forgot your complaint that she lied. You just said that her ancestry is a matter of fact, which means that it wasn't a lie on her part.

Holding you to your own standard, maybe we should call it a lie on yours, though.

About which you are complaining.

That doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to any part of reality, indicating that you just posted that out of frustration.

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, it can be even worse. Don’t know if is true any more but times were that you could claim membership based on your husband’s ancestry if yours did not qualify*.

Again, I'm not well versed in DAR lore, but I did not know that was ever a thing. Their website and wikipedia seem to indicate that is no longer true, but it also has a stipulation that the local charters are ultimately responsible for their own memberships. *shrug*

 

[Upchurch]

We've covered this ground a number of times and I don't have much to add. I don't agree with you on this, as you might expect.

Perhaps you can explain how the evidence fits your claims without relying on any of the assumptions I outlined? Or, if you disagree that they are assumptions, to provide more evidence to support your claim?

You posited two of the rankest category errors I've ever seen posted on this forum. Perhaps you can reflect on that.

I would need to know what you think those category errors are to do so.

 

[kookbreaker]

Again, I'm not well versed in DAR lore, but I did not know that was ever a thing. Their website and wikipedia seem to indicate that is no longer true, but it also has a stipulation that the local charters are ultimately responsible for their own memberships. *shrug*

This would have been about 60 years ago, o the addition of a few more generations means that more and more people have RevWar ancestry so they probably dropped it. Also I suspect the DAR no longer recruits as actively as they used to. For a time in certain circles membership was a status symbol as well as a way for women to be politically active in an 'approved way'. Nowadays that's just not really a benefit of note.