Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Because it's the age of Trump.

People seem to think that because her claims are proven true.....in a sense....that somehow this will make everyone who made fun of her say, "I guess she really is Native American after all." or insert any variation at all on that sentence. By doing so, they show that they don't get why Trump makes fun of her in the first place, and why crowds love it when he does.

She was listed as a "person of color". She defined her ancestry as Native American. She talked about her "heritage".

Really? Because, some distant, forgotten, ancestor was rumored to be Cherokee? Why would anyone bother to even bring it up?

Well, part of it is that somehow you are "better" if you are not "really white". Yay! I get to be a minority! And now I have the DNA test to prove it!

That's what Trump is making fun of, and today she doubled down on it. Expect plenty more "Pocahontas" references to come. She played into his hands today.
Click to expand...
Realistically, there was no way she could make this go away -with or without a DNA test.
She has to deal with making that mistake no matter what.

She could simply state that she listed it way back when, when it seemed like really no big deal, and if it benefitted her in some way, well, why not. I think most Americans could accept that, and even see themselves doing something similar.

Perhaps that will be her strategy, and thinking a step ahead, she sees the possible counter to it as being some sort of a charge that she "lied" when she made the claim. That is a bit of a bigger hurdle than simple exaggeration would be. To preempt that charge she needs to demonstrate that her claims, while possibly exaggerated, were at least technically true.
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
And yet legal forms are made every day, attested to by the mother of a newborn as to the identity of the father. Face it, Bob, this is a losing position.
Click to expand...

Being on the side of skepticism is never the losing position. Skeptics are constantly a minority verus billions of others. It is called religion.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A claim by a family member is not acceptable under ordinary circumstances. Certainly not enough to attest to on a form.
Click to expand...

My Mom never produced proof she was born in Mobile, AL. I just took her word for it. I guess I must have lied to the undertaker and her Death Certificate contains fraudulent information. :rolleyes:
 
kookbreaker said:
My Mom never produced proof she was born in Mobile, AL. I just took her word for it. I guess I must have lied to the undertaker and her Death Certificate contains fraudulent information. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was fraud, only that you haven't been very skeptical of the claim.
 
quadraginta said:
Interesting. Although I have never had 10lbs. of salt in my house (one carton of Morton's at most, I think), there have been a number of times I have had more than 10lbs. of lead. For extended periods.

Is that supposed to be a scale of decreasing likelihood?
Click to expand...

Yup.

I’ve certainly had 10lbs of salt in my house. Where I live we have these things called “winter”.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Being on the side of skepticism is never the losing position. Skeptics are constantly a minority verus billions of others. It is called religion.
Click to expand...

It's also called ordinary claims need ordinary evidence, which a relative claiming someone is related to you is---you don't get more ordinary than that. It also gets harder to find any other evidence, I went looking for my family history and found page after page of pay sites. I can't even find my parents' wedding announcement, my birth announcement, nothing more than we exist along with a lot of noise from results that sound similar to us. The standard of evidence you are demanding simply does not exist----but her DNA test sure does.
 
The Cherokee Nation says Fauxcahontas' DNA claim is a "mockery" and inappropriate. But what do they know, right? How dare they trash the first "person of color" to join the Harvard faculty?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
She was ASKED about her 'heritage'.
Obviously not forgotten, or all that distant, if it's part of family lore.
What a strange claim. Why are you claiming that not really white is better?


'Pocahontas' is a lot better than Fauxcahontas, which what Trump was calling her before when saying she wouldn't take a test because it would not back her up. Guess what, it did. What does it tell you when direct refutation is met with backpedaling and attempts at distraction?
Click to expand...

That the person doing the refutation probably missed the point.

There is now little or no doubt. Elizabeth Warren has Native American ancestry. And this is going to get her votes, because.....?

So is she really the first person* of color on the Harvard faculty?

And why would anyone care if she were?

*ETA: I think I got that wrong. Should have been "woman of color".
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
That the person doing the refutation probably missed the point.

There is now little or no doubt. Elizabeth Warren has Native American ancestry. And this is going to get her votes, because.....?

So is she really the first person of color on the Harvard faculty?

And why would anyone care if she were?
Click to expand...

Why do people care if she were? Why has it been a Republican talking point since 2012? Why do Republicans think that making NA ancestry claims make Warren a laughingstock that they can call her Fauxcahontas and why do they think that this will cost her votes? Why are votes the only thing the whole debate is reducing down to? WHY THE HELL IS ANCESTRY ANY REASON TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A PERSON OVER?
 
Distracted1 said:
Realistically, there was no way she could make this go away -with or without a DNA test.
She has to deal with making that mistake no matter what.

She could simply state that she listed it way back when, when it seemed like really no big deal, and if it benefitted her in some way, well, why not. I think most Americans could accept that, and even see themselves doing something similar.
Click to expand...

That strategy could work, and it might not be too late to employ it.


It's a bit hard to say, because it's so hard to gauge the reaction of people who really matter. Her haters are going to keep hating, and they'll say this justifies the hate. Her supporters are going to keep supporting, and they'll say this proves her side of the story. How will the people who could go either way react? That's harder to tell.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Why do people care if she were? Why has it been a Republican talking point since 2012? Why do Republicans think that making NA ancestry claims make Warren a laughingstock that they can call her Fauxcahontas and why do they think that this will cost her votes? Why are votes the only thing the whole debate is reducing down to? WHY THE HELL IS ANCESTRY ANY REASON TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A PERSON OVER?
Click to expand...

You're almost there. Carry that last thought just a tiny bit farther and you'll see where her mistake was.
 
This is the full statement of the Cherokee Nation regarding Warren:
"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests
do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America.
Click to expand...
Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

- Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr.
Click to expand...


1. Warren never claimed that DNA testing would prove CHEROKEE heritage as that's impossible.

2. The report from the geneticist said the results were consistent with NA heritage of the "lower 48 states of the US". That does not include S. America.

3. It says it makes a "mockery of DNA tests" not that Warrens' claim is a mockery.

My DNA does not prove my Creek ancestry, but documentation, including the US censuses, do prove my 4th great grandmother was "Indian". She was born in Alabama which is where the Creek Nation was so it's not exactly rocket science to conclude she was highly likely Creek.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
Actually, the scientist who did the testing stated that, because of a lack of data from Native North Americans, they used markers from Central and South American natives (which should be largely similar) as a surrogate. TBD, with his usual scientific illiteracy, somehow interpreted this to mean that she is of South American ancestry. His knowledge of genetics is matched only by his knowledge of statistics and logic.
Click to expand...
Can you cite something about that? That's not what I read. They found a lot of Americans had ancestry from several tribes, two being from the Southwest and one from around WA State. I don't want to go hunt it down again but I posted a citation upthread.
 
LSSBB said:
"Very" is a subjective call. What % skeptical is he, or was Warren who was filling out a form that had no instructions on what was sufficient evidence to be able to check a box?
Click to expand...

It's non falsifiable. That is why I said it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom