Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah great it's really clever can we just go back to using his name? It's no better than Faxauhwhatever.
Click to expand...

But ... they started it.



Also, it uses his actual first name so you can guess who it is. It's not at all like Faxauhwhatever or Barbi Gulag. It's also the reason that Trumpelthinskin™* works so well.


*Thanks, Beachnut!!
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Please quote someone who has said "Warren is an Indian/a Native American". That does not include saying she has NA lineage.

Your use of "Fauxcahontas" is neither clever nor witty. It's childish and foolish. But of course, if you prefer to present yourself as such, carry on.
Click to expand...

Well, as you know, Harvard called her a "woman of color" after interviewing and hiring her, which is where this all started. So, do you think they thought she was a race other than a Cherokee Indian? All of this talk about her "heritage" is just a smokescreen to change the subject.

Oh, and what's childish and foolish is all of the Democrats lining up behind her silly DNA "proof" and pretending she didn't pass herself off as a Cherokee to Harvard. That is where we got "Fauxcahontas", and since the shoe fits...

As a bonus, here's a link to a Pow Wow Chow recipe Fauxcahontas copied from a French Chef, and signed one of them "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rd-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html
 
Vixen said:
Er, someone scores 1% in an exam paper, you reckon they passed?
Click to expand...

If someone says that their family history says that they have a great great great grandparent who had Native American ancestry, that would suggest that it wasn't that person's parents, but at closest a single grandparent, possibly earlier.

That is two more greats, which is getting to around seven generations at the latest.

Parent 1
Grand parent 2
great grand parent 3
great great grandparent 4
great great great grandparent 5 (had Native American ancestry, not parent, so add a couple of generations)
great great great great grandparent 6
great great great great great grandparent 7

That is 0.5^7 contribution from a single ancestor, sufficient for the old "single drop" ideology, and consistent with her family history.

0.5^7 comes out at just under 0.8%

Her DNA results are consistent with her claim, which was pretty mild.
 
"During her academic career as a law professor, she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995. (She was a visiting professor at Harvard during the 1992-1993 academic year.)"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...rican-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html
 
jimbob said:
If someone says that their family history says that they have a great great great grandparent who had Native American ancestry, that would suggest that it wasn't that person's parents, but at closest a single grandparent, possibly earlier.

That is two more greats, which is getting to around seven generations at the latest.

Parent 1
Grand parent 2
great grand parent 3
great great grandparent 4
great great great grandparent 5 (had Native American ancestry, not parent, so add a couple of generations)
great great great great grandparent 6
great great great great great grandparent 7

That is 0.5^7 contribution from a single ancestor, sufficient for the old "single drop" ideology, and consistent with her family history.

0.5^7 comes out at just under 0.8%

Her DNA results are consistent with her claim, which was pretty mild.
Click to expand...

Single drop ideology? So now she is being discriminated against?

What do you mean, 5th grandparent not of NA parentage? A 'cousin' relationship once or twice removed?
 
Last edited:
This is from the Cherokee rules for tribal membership:


Cherokee Nation citizenship law is set by tribal law. There is no minimum blood quantum required for citizenship. Tribal citizenship requires that you have at least one direct ancestor listed on the Dawes Final Rolls, a federal census of those living in the Cherokee Nation that was used to allot Cherokee land to individual citizens in preparation for Oklahoma statehood in 1907.

To be eligible for Cherokee Nation tribal citizenship, you must be able to provide documents that connect you to a direct ancestor listed on one of the Dawes Final Rolls of Citizens of the Cherokee Nation. To be eligible for a federal Certificate Degree of Indian Blood, you must demonstrate through documentation that you descend directly from a person listed on the Dawes’ “by Blood” rolls. This group of census rolls were taken between 1899-1906 of Citizens and Freedmen residing in Indian Territory (now northeastern Oklahoma). If your ancestor did not live in this geographical area during that time period, they will not be listed on the Dawes Rolls.
Click to expand...
http://webtest2.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship/Citizenship

All this quibbling about Warren's percentage of NA blood is not important, according to Cherokee requirements for membership. That she has NA DNA is a fact (unless you're Trump ). The fact that she cannot name an ancestor on the Dawes Roll does not change that. Not all those eligible chose to be counted on the Roll. Social attitudes toward being Indian or part Indian were very different then. My own Creek 4X great grandmother does not appear on the Dawes Roll. It does not change the fact that she and her children were listed as "Indian" in the 1860 Census. In the 1880 Census, she is listed as "white", yet she is referred to as Muskogee (Creek) in several other documents, including a book on the history of Tallassee, AL.
 
wareyin said:
Thank you, you got it.
Click to expand...

NP. Arguing for or against a misunderstanding or misrepresentation is pretty pointless.

For what it's worth I think your argument is generally true but not universally. I can see people misconstruing Warren's claim independently or due to imprecise wording rather than deliberate misrepresentation. But when the specifics of what she claimed and whether she claimed to be NA during recruitment have been hashed out in such detail I can certainly see why you would argue that a continued refusal to accept them are politically motivated.
 
Stacyhs said:
All this quibbling about Warren's percentage of NA blood is not important, according to Cherokee requirements for membership. That she has NA DNA is a fact (unless you're Trump ). The fact that she cannot name an ancestor on the Dawes Roll does not change that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making this point, yet again.

At ~5% Native American (Taíno) ancestry, I have between 2x to 5x the amount of native ancestry compared to those in my immediate family (wife & kids) but unlike me, they all have at least one named ancestor on the Dawes Rolls, making them eligible for enrollment in both Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

This cannot be emphasized enough:
Blood quantum and tribal eligibility are two totally separate categories.

Senator Warren did not claim both.
 
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby said:
So, many Democrats aren't saying Fauxcahontas is an Indian, they are just saying she is not, not an Indian? This seems a bit pedantic to me. They're certainly saying something in this interminable thread to defend her claim of being a "woman of color" at Harvard, but one who recently presented a DNA test that proved she wasn't. I mean, this is over, as over as Amanda Knox's case should have been when they found Rudy Guede's DNA all over the crime scene and even inside the body. Yet, on we go.....
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Please quote someone who has said "Warren is an Indian/a Native American". That does not include saying she has NA lineage.

Your use of "Fauxcahontas" is neither clever nor witty. It's childish and foolish. But of course, if you prefer to present yourself as such, carry on.
Click to expand...



BrooklynBaby said:
Well, as you know, Harvard called her a "woman of color" after interviewing and hiring her, which is where this all started. So, do you think they thought she was a race other than a Cherokee Indian? All of this talk about her "heritage" is just a smokescreen to change the subject.

Oh, and what's childish and foolish is all of the Democrats lining up behind her silly DNA "proof" and pretending she didn't pass herself off as a Cherokee to Harvard. That is where we got "Fauxcahontas", and since the shoe fits...

As a bonus, here's a link to a Pow Wow Chow recipe Fauxcahontas copied from a French Chef, and signed one of them "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rd-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html
Click to expand...

Your original claim was that Democrats are saying she's Indian. They aren't and no one in this thread...no one...has said she is an Indian. That's why you cannot quote anyone saying she is an Indian. What her detractors ARE saying is that she's NOT an Indian. Well, hell's bells...we aren't saying she is in the first place!

What Harvard chose to call her is on Harvard, not Democrats. Sounds more like Harvard trying to exploit it than Warren herself. All evidence shows that Warren never gained personally or professionally from listing herself as a minority. Was ticking that box a mistake? In hindsight, yes. But mostly because her political opponents made a damn mountain out of a molehill because that's all they have against her and political mudslinging has hit an all time low.

The cookbook is just nonsense "evidence". It was a cookbook for chrissake! She put in a couple recipes as a favor to her cousin, the author, and listed the tribe she believed she had lineage from. The cousin also believed they shared Cherokee lineage. So freaking tar and feather her for believing family stories. String her up! (or maybe you prefer "Lock her up").

Why do you keep insisting the DNA does not support her claim of NA descent? She never said it proves she has CHEROKEE descent as no DNA test can do that (despite Vixen's claims). The DNA test DOES show she has NA DNA in the amount that would be consistent with her claims of a 4X great grandparent. So stop saying the DNA proves she isn't what she says she is. It's like Trump saying Kavanaugh was proved innocent. He wasn't proved innocent or guilty.

ETA: And the use of Fauxcahontas and Pocahontas are still neither clever nor witty...unless you're 8 years old.
 
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater said:
Does her lineage make her a minority?
Click to expand...

I think ticking that box was foolish. But it doesn't deserve the "OMG! How awful! String her up!" reaction that so many are trying to make it.

There are many tribe members who have very little actual NA DNA, who look completely white, yet mark themselves as minorities. Yet because their 4X or 5X great grandparent was on the Dawes Roll, they can do so with no repercussions. If we compare their NA DNA to Warren's DNA results, there'd be very little difference. Do you think anyone with 1//16 or 1/32 NA ancestry is a true "minority"? Yet they can list themselves as such with no one screaming about it.
 
Leading on from JimBob's query, I have ancestry leading back to virtually every line of old Swedish nobility. This is because they were only allowed to marry another noble 'with a complete sixteen' noble great-grandparents. The most recent of an officially registered noble as recorded in Adelsvappen being a fifth great grandparent. The spouse was almost certainly noble also, except I haven't been able to trace the parentage.

The list includes: direct g/grandparents, Sparre, (yes, Sigge Sparre who was one of the founders at Arboga of King Gustav's Riksdag), Horn, Natt och Dag, Stiernskjöld, Von Grothusen, Von Tiesenhausen (about ten straight generations of eldest sons of eldest sons in that line), Stålarm, Bitz, Tawast, Kurck, Bielke, Leijonhufvud, Stenbock). Yet despite the multiple Swedish and Baltic German lines, I have NEVER once referred to myself as 'Swedish' and certainly not, 'German'. (Heaven, forfend!)

I am at a loss as to why Warren would in any good faith describe herself as 'Native American' based on a 1% trace, supposedly just one individual six to ten generations ago.
 
Stacyhs said:
Your original claim was that Democrats are saying she's Indian. They aren't and no one in this thread...no one...has said she is an Indian. That's why you cannot quote anyone saying she is an Indian. What her detractors ARE saying is that she's NOT an Indian. Well, hell's bells...we aren't saying she is in the first place!

What Harvard chose to call her is on Harvard, not Democrats. Sounds more like Harvard trying to exploit it than Warren herself. All evidence shows that Warren never gained personally or professionally from listing herself as a minority. Was ticking that box a mistake? In hindsight, yes. But mostly because her political opponents made a damn mountain out of a molehill because that's all they have against her and political mudslinging has hit an all time low.

The cookbook is just nonsense "evidence". It was a cookbook for chrissake! She put in a couple recipes as a favor to her cousin, the author, and listed the tribe she believed she had lineage from. The cousin also believed they shared Cherokee lineage. So freaking tar and feather her for believing family stories. String her up! (or maybe you prefer "Lock her up").

Why do you keep insisting the DNA does not support her claim of NA descent? She never said it proves she has CHEROKEE descent as no DNA test can do that (despite Vixen's claims). The DNA test DOES show she has NA DNA in the amount that would be consistent with her claims of a 4X great grandparent. So stop saying the DNA proves she isn't what she says she is. It's like Trump saying Kavanaugh was proved innocent. He wasn't proved innocent or guilty.

ETA: And the use of Fauxcahontas and Pocahontas are still neither clever nor witty...unless you're 8 years old.
Click to expand...


No, it would be between 6th and 10th g-g's.

Great sophistry skills!
 
Vixen said:
I am at a loss as to why Warren would in any good faith describe herself as 'Native American' based on a 1% trace, supposedly just one individual six to ten generations ago.
Click to expand...

NA tribal members with even less NA DNA can list themselves as "minority". Grandchildren of a current 5 generations removed from the Indian ancestor tribal member will be able to still list themselves as a minority.

Vixen said:
No, it would be between 6th and 10th g-g's.
Click to expand...

She said 4X great grandparent which is 6 generations back. The test said:
"of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” likely 6–10 generations ago."

Great sophistry skills![/QUOTE]

I'd say your sophistry skills are great considering you attempted to change "generations" for "g-g's". Did you think I wouldn't notice?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
NA tribal members with even less NA DNA can list themselves as "minority". Grandchildren of a current 5 generations removed from the Indian ancestor tribal member will be able to still list themselves as a minority.



She said 4X great grandparent which is 6 generations back. The test said:
"of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” likely 6–10 generations ago."

Great sophistry skills!

I'd say your sophistry skills are great considering you attempted to change "generations" for "g-g's". Did you think I wouldn't notice?
Click to expand...

Actually she said that there was some unidentifiable Cherokee in her background which her bigoted grandparents were bigoted against.
 
Stacyhs said:
NA tribal members with even less NA DNA can list themselves as "minority". Grandchildren of a current 5 generations removed from the Indian ancestor tribal member will be able to still list themselves as a minority.



She said 4X great grandparent which is 6 generations back. The test said:
"of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” likely 6–10 generations ago."



I'd say your sophistry skills are great considering you attempted to change "generations" for "g-g's". Did you think I wouldn't notice?
Click to expand...


You are wrong. Careless maths. Fourth generation would be a generous (and significant) 6% NA DNA.

1% would be at least two generations further on, and probably more, if less than that.
 
Vixen said:
You are wrong. Careless maths. Fourth generation would be a generous (and significant) 6% NA DNA.

1% would be at least two generations further on, and probably more, if less than that.
Click to expand...

Read what the actual DNA test results said:

"We find strong evidence that a DNA sample of primarily European descent also contains Native American ancestry from an ancestor in the sample's pedigree 6-10 generations ago."
Click to expand...

Please point out to me how 6 generations ago is not a 4X great grandparent.

You are wrong. Careless reading. No one ever said it was a "fourth generation".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom