Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
I would think that the geneticist, who did not know the identity of the DNA donor, would have mentioned it if S. America was included. He did not.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't assume any such thing. I'd take the words as read.
 
smartcooky said:
Can you see how this likely defeats the point to are trying to make?

If 5% represents a single, full-blood Italian g-grandparent, but this can be proved to be not true, then that means your 5% comes from multiple Italian ancestors further back on your family tree. This is most definitely does NOT equate to "background noise".
Click to expand...

I agree, as 5% is actually quite strong, and so is 2.5%. However, anything less than 1% is pretty speculative. Could be contamination in the DNA testing lab or DNA that goes back much further than usual.
 
Out of curiosity, has she ever commented and retracted being Cherokee? I know she now makes the distinction between being descended from and being a Native.
 
Distracted1 said:
Not really "obvious" in that many people resemble one parent to a far greater extent than the other- nonetheless I see your point, we get %50 of our genes from each parent.
That leaves %50 of each parents' genes that are not passed on. And a seemingly random collection at that.
Is it not possible that one could have a %100 Chinese grandparent, and still only wind up with %1 Chinese genes? Due to the ones being passed down randomly not including the "Chinese genes"
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's possible. All that might happen is that the DNA analyser fails to identify it.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Or in other words, pretend I don't see a white lady when one stands in front of me?

Trump comes out tomorrow and claims he's chinese and you're going to believe him, right?
Click to expand...

Skin, hair and eye colour are completely irrelevant in judging so-called 'race' (a social construct not recognised by biological scientists). For example, Finns are 60% blonde, yet that means 40% are not. IOW dark-haired Finns are no less ethnically Finnish.
 
River said:
Did she claim to be Cherokee on the recipe? Also this. Was her husband also claiming to be Cherokee lineage? (the hole gets deeper) Wow, 3 of the 5 recipes seem to have been plagiarized? She claims to be Cherokee on those recipes, claims to be a minority on other documents. Dems are cool with this even though Cherokee Nation says she is undermining tribal interests.
Click to expand...

The 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow was edited by Mrs Warren's cousin Candy Rowsey and is billed as a collection of recipes from the Five Civilized Tribes.

But it appears that at least three of the five recipes featured in the book were fakes, according to an investigation by Mr Carr.
Click to expand...

We're investigating cookbooks?

For what it's worth, the fact that her cousin was editing a Native American cookbook, and several family members contributed, strongly suggests that there was, indeed, some family lore that suggested Native American ancestry. It wasn't just Elizabeth.

However, it isn't worth much at all, because it's a recipe from a forty year old cookbook. We might as well be talking about something someone wrote in a high school yearbook from that time. It's kind of pathetic to think that something so inconsequential mattered.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Skin, hair and eye colour are completely irrelevant in judging so-called 'race' (a social construct not recognised by biological scientists). For example, Finns are 60% blonde, yet that means 40% are not. IOW dark-haired Finns are no less ethnically Finnish.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant?

I post a picture of a black guy and a white guy you won't be able to determine which is which?
 
I don't know exactly how Elizabeth Warren ought to respond to the "Pocahontas" stuff from Trump. He has a way of using infantile name calling in a very effective manner, and dignified people have a hard time responding to him. If you try to refute him, as Warren did yesterday, it actually helps validate the charges. If you completely ignore it, that also tends to validate the charge.

Somehow, you've got to turn it around in such a way that it, correctly, makes the accuser, Trump, look foolish just for bringing it up. Barack Obama did a fine job of that with the birther stuff. He didn't stumble over himself trying to provide documentation to prove the charge was false. He didn't get up in arms and shout "racism!" even as his supporters did so. He mostly ignored it and used the charge itself to ridicule his opponents, including Donald Trump.

Obama did pretty well. People could learn a thing or two from him.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I once worked with a blond blue-eyed Pakistani. Would you claim he was lying about being Pakistani?
Click to expand...

No, but the fact that pointing out such features constitutes an obvious outlier to the pakistani population at large easily proves my point.
 
Chris Hayes had a segment Monday night about Trump testifying to Congress in 1993 about Indian casinos; specifically, how upsetting it is that people claiming to be Indians could run casinos in Connecticut, but he -- an honest tax-paying businessman -- couldn't. Apparently, among all his other imaginary skills, Trump is an expert on how to tell if someone is Indian, which puts some context around his statement that he'd pay the $1 million bet if he can test Warren "personally." The Washington Post printed a transcript:

How Donald Trump’s 1993 comments about ‘Indians’ previewed much of his 2016 campaign

Trump's Congressional testimony said:
REP. GEORGE MILLER (D-CALIF): Is this you, discussing Indian blood: "We're going to judge people by whether they have Indian blood whether they're qualified to run a casino or not?"

TRUMP: That probably is me, absolutely. Because I'll tell you what. If you look, if you look at some of the reservations that you've approved, that you, sir, in your great wisdom have approved, I will tell you right now -- they don't look like Indians to me. And they don't look like the Indians ... Now, maybe we say politically correct or not politically correct, they don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians to Indians.

And a lot of people are laughing at it. And you're telling me how tough it is and how rough it is to get approved. Well, you go up to Connecticut and you look. Now, they don't look like Indians to me, sir.

MILLER: Thank God that's not the test of whether or not people have rights in this country or not -- whether or not they pass your "look" test.

TRUMP: Depends whether or not. ... Yeah. Depends whether or not you're approving it, sir.

MILLER: No, no, it's not a question of whether or not I'm approving it. It's not a question of what I'm approving it. Mr. Trump, do you know, do you know in the history of this country where we've heard this discussion before? "They don't look Jewish to me?"

TRUMP: Oh, really.

MILLER: "They don't look Indian to me." "They don't look Italian to me."

TRUMP: Mm-hm.

MILLER: And that was the test for whether people could go into business, or not go into business. Whether they could get a bank loan. You're too black, you're not black enough.

TRUMP: I want to find out. ... Well, then why don't you -- you're approving for Indian. Why don't you approve it for everybody then, sir?

MILLER: But that's not a ...

TRUMP: If your case is non-discriminatory, why don't you approve for everybody? You're saying only Indians -- wait a minute, sir.

MILLER: You wouldn't stand -- you wouldn't stand for it in five minutes.

TRUMP: You're saying only Indians can have the reservations, only Indians can have the gaming. So why aren't you approving it for everybody? Why are you being discriminatory? Why is it that the Indians don't pay tax, but everybody else does? I do.
Click to expand...

(The Post answers Trump's last question, btw, but doesn't mention what we now know about his "I do" claim.)

Character assassination is SOP for Trump, ironically enough since he has none, but his Pocahontas strategy is a two-fer: He also gets to exploit white resentment over "reverse discrimination," regardless of Warren's DNA, which trumpers here seem to think is another game of "heads I win, tails you lose."

The only game I'm interested in playing with trumpers now is called Voting.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I had forgotten about her contribution to the Pow-Wow Chow cookbook; if she was a Republican that name along would have people in a frenzy.

ETA: This confirms for me that Warren is running in 2020. There is no need to do this to satisfy the citizens of Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? Powwow isn't derogatory.
 
She checked the box on her law school application.

X Native American

Hillary used a private server
Warren pretended to be Native American to advance her career

Why in the name of all that is politics, would you put out a report that essentially says you are 0% Native American?
 
Brainster said:
I had forgotten about her contribution to the Pow-Wow Chow cookbook; if she was a Republican that name along would have people in a frenzy.
.
Click to expand...

We have Kevin McCarthy claiming to be Native American,( not merely having the ancestry) joining a fake tribe and getting no-bid contracts designed to aid minorities and you think a cookbook would upset people?
 
Drewbot said:
She checked the box on her law school application.

X Native American

Hillary used a private server
Warren pretended to be Native American to advance her career

Why in the name of all that is politics, would you put out a report that essentially says you are 0% Native American?
Click to expand...


The report does not say she is 0%. How in the hell can you get to 0% from a report that shows the exact opposite?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom