Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Oh don't get me wrong I have no problem with anyone being curious about their heritage. I'll probably get around to doing one of those DNA test myself once the kinks (both technical and legal) get ironed out in them.



But it stays at that, pure curiosity. If I get the results back and I'm X% this or Y% that I can't imagine it going any further than "Huh that's neat."
Click to expand...



Yeah, for me too: pure curiosity. I think it’s cool that my 11th great-grandfather was born in London and was one of the earliest settlers of Virginia. There is still land there that bears the family name -a subdivision now but built on his land. There are historical markers with his name on it. Cool stuff, for sure, but it says nothing about me at all. It’s not like I can march over to Virginia and lay claim to that land. I also don’t think the fact that my second great-grandmother is on the Dawes rolls (a fact I just discovered after this thread gave me an excuse to trace down my own family lore) makes me an honorary Creek or anything. I just love history and ancestral connections make history more personal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
River said:
Is Warren a minority?
Click to expand...
Regardless of anything, Warren is still a woman. So, yes.

She never really needed nor used any minority status as a Native American beyond as a personal interest.

That this still a topic of discussion at all is kind of sad. Critical thinkers fit their theories to the facts, not the facts to their theories.
 
phiwum said:
Was easier, back in the days when not quite every event in a pol's life was scrutinized quite so closely as now.

Abe Lincoln suffered from severe bouts of depression, but the voters certainly had no clue. JFK was nowhere near as healthy as he portrayed himself and folks were largely ignorant of FDR's disability due to polio. These matters would be grist for public consumption these days, of course. (Not that a disability due to polio is the same as stretching the truth about one's ancestors, morally speaking).
Click to expand...


That's right. He could barely walk, yet refused to ever be seen by the public in a wheelchair.
 
smartcooky said:
As for her ticking a box 30+ years ago, well that's just a big nothingburger; its not as if she made any material gain from doing so, and as far as she new at the time, she DID have Native American ancestry (and the DNA test results are consistent with that belief).
Click to expand...

And that would mean something if we didn't live in a world were people **** kittens if a white person hangs up Dream Catcher or gets dreadlocks.

Yeah Elizabeth Warren checked "Native American" on a meaningless box on meaningless form in a meaningless way a third of a century ago and it means the exact same thing as that. Nothing.
 
Vixen said:
There was no family lore.
Click to expand...

WTH? You have a real penchant for claiming to know things you haven't a clue about. You claim Harvard had an ethnicity "quota" to fill. Wrong. Then you claim to know what Warren's paternal grandparents' attitude about NA blood was. Then you claim Warren's parents didn't elope and that they had a big traditional wedding. Wrong. Now you claim there was no family lore. Wow. You claim to know more about what she was told growing up than she and other members of her family do. Stop getting all your (mis)information from Twila's Banes' blog. She is as wrong about the above as you are.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I know you're joking but a good proportion of historical monarchs were quite decent rulers. If we control the variables we know caused problems (religion, inbreeding, unclear succession, mental illness) a constitutional monarchy might well work better than our current purportedly representative alleged democracy.
Click to expand...

Really??? Citation, please.
 
Belz... said:
Since when are women a minority? :confused:
Click to expand...

Women get be a minority even though there are more of them because of macro aggression check your privilege shut your mouth.

That being said "minority" is used enough to mean "disenfranchised group" that I don't really need to split that hair.
 
smartcooky said:
And always keep in mind that she was CHALLENGED by The Steaming Pile of Excrement in The White House to prove her family lore with a DNA test and did so. The only mistake she made was playing his game and allowing herself to be provoked by his racist, misogynistic taunting.

As for her ticking a box 30+ years ago, well that's just a big nothingburger; its not as if she made any material gain from doing so, and as far as she new at the time, she DID have Native American ancestry (and the DNA test results are consistent with that belief).

Those of us who are old enough will remember that the 1980's were different times to now. Americans in General were far less respectful of Native American culture than they are now, and generally either treated them very, very badly, or just didn't care at all.

While "Native American" was a term first coined in the in the 1900s, it only started to become more frequently used during the Civil Rights Era. In the 1980s the most commonly used term still in use was "Indians", and that term is still in some use today; Cleveland Indians, the Indian Wars, and the name of the state in Indiana literally means "Land of the Indians". Even as late as 1995, the US Census Bureau recorded that 50% of people who identified as indigenous still preferred the term American Indian while only 37% preferred Native American.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Warren's (and my) home state is named "red people" (from Choctaw).

But that said, I'm not too sensitive about the term "American Indian". It is a historical error, but so is "Dutch" for "Nederlanders", right? And Pennsylvania Dutch for German Americans?
 
Upchurch said:
Regardless of anything, Warren is still a woman. So, yes.

She never really needed nor used any minority status as a Native American beyond as a personal interest.

That this still a topic of discussion at all is kind of sad. Critical thinkers fit their theories to the facts, not the facts to their theories.
Click to expand...

With due respect, and I understand how you mean the term minority, but women are literally a majority of the US, and so not a minority in the most literal sense of the term.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Honest Question//

If we reinstalled a (Conceptual within modern context) Monarchy what would be a reasonable failsafe?

But in traditional monarchies it was... revolt.
Click to expand...

Gustav I (Sweden) introduced a democratic-style Riksdag, in which (theorectically) all sectors of society were represented: the nobility, the clergy, the citizens and the peasants.

It was the start of early modern history from the chaotic shambles of the medieval ages.

I tend to agree with Plato's Republic wherein important matters of state are left to the elite, the dullards being incapable of making a good decision.
 
Vixen said:
Really??? Citation, please.
Click to expand...

Of what? You want a Wikipedia link to good monarchs of the past? Or do you imagine someone's installed a monarchy along the lines I suggested and it's been studied already? It's a proposal for a future endeavor, not a claim of something that's already occurred.
 
Vixen said:
Somehow you have omitted to mention that Warren's other ancestor/relative, President Andrew Jackson, drove Native Americans off their land in 1838.

There is just no redeeming factor.
Click to expand...


You don't get to choose your ancestors.

One of mine, John Stark, commanded Revolutionary forces at Bunker Hill and the Battle of Bennington.

His brother, miffed because he wasn't given a command by the Continental Congress, joined the British, and died when he fell off his horse at the Battle of New York.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Women get be a minority even though there are more of them because of macro aggression check your privilege shut your mouth.

That being said "minority" is used enough to mean "disenfranchised group" that I don't really need to split that hair.
Click to expand...

I suppose if we use the word to mean minority of power, or something to that effect, it makes sense. But that's not how I understand the term.
 
phiwum said:
Not to mention that Warren's (and my) home state is named "red people" (from Choctaw).

But that said, I'm not too sensitive about the term "American Indian". It is a historical error, but so is "Dutch" for "Nederlanders", right? And Pennsylvania Dutch for German Americans?
Click to expand...

Blame it on that idiot, Columbus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom