The analysis on the Massachusetts Democrat was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante. He concluded Warren’s ancestry is mostly European but says “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”I don't think you should be checking the box and allowing Harvard to claim to have a Native American professor based on 1/32 or 1/512, but I like that Warren has removed the basis for inferring that she won't get the test because she knows she's been lying. On the other hand, we're only hearing about the test after the results are in and the results are of some use to her in quieting those who'd say why doesn't she get a DNA test.
Bustamante, a prominent expert in the field of DNA analysis, determined Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears “in the range of six to 10 generations ago.”
That meshes with an 1894 document the New England Genealogical Society unearthed suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. That would make Warren 1/32nd Native American.
But if her ancestor is 10 generations back, that could mean she’s just 1/512th Native American, according to the report. That could further excite her critics instead of placating them.
I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for. I'm glad we can stop demanding that of her.
Unless you don't trust Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante and want a second opinion. I wouldn't recommend that.
UPDATE: The text at the AP link is so changed now! It bears almost no resemblance to what I quoted above. So annoying! It begins:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday released the results of a DNA analysis that she said indicated she has some Native American heritage, a direct rebuttal to President Donald Trump, who has long mocked her ancestral claims and repeatedly referred to her as “Pocahontas.”1/1,024th, not 1/512th anymore. And not the reference to the million-dollar challenge. There's no link to the video, which I'm examining in a new post that will be up soon.
The Massachusetts Democrat and potential 2020 presidential contender challenged Trump to make good on his pledge to donate $1 million to charity if she provided proof of Native American heritage, a moment that was caught on video. Trump falsely denied ever making the offer.
The analysis was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, a prominent expert in the field. He concluded that the great majority of Warren’s ancestry is European but added that the results “strongly support” the existence of a Native American ancestor.
In his report , Bustamante said he analyzed Warren’s sample without knowing the identity of the donor. He concluded that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor likely lived six to 10 generations ago, and that it was impossible to determine the individual’s tribal connection.
If Warren’s Native American ancestry were six generations removed, it could mesh with an 1894 document the New England Genealogical Society previously unearthed suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American, making Warren 1/32nd Native American.
The Boston Globe, which first reported the results of the DNA analysis, noted that if Warren’s ancestor were 10 generations removed, she would be only 1/1,024th Native American. Such a finding could potentially further excite her critics instead of placating them.
पोस्ट्स
२५१ टिप्पण्या:
251 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I'm more Native American than she is. So I can check boxes now?
I've been checking the "Hispanic" box, but maybe the "Native American" box is better?
Maybe my half-Korean son should be checking the "Native American" box when it's time for college.
I'm just interested that the $99 test from 23&me wasn't good enough to do the job.
Or else she didn't like the result - because who does a cross country $$$$ test and analysis when the rest of us deplorables make do with stuff that comes in a fedex box?
-XC
DNA analysis is not as objective or precise as it's often made out to be. For example, from the Boston Globe article: "To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American." Probably ok, but hardly bullet proof.
"strongly support "?
What, that she's fractionally Peruvian? They don't have enough data from people who actually are Cherokee to compare her with. It's still just guessing and massaging the results.
FYI, the Globe has appended a correction to the original story:
"Correction: Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
They don't say if the error was the Globe's or the professor who did the DNA analysis.
A Democrat Senator invoking the one-drop rule. What's old is news.
I do think Trump should pay, but bring up what the Professor noted, that she used this one drop for easier admission and other benefits meant for less disadvantaged than her.
10 generations = 1/1024, which is roughly 0.097% American Indian see correction.
Hope she keeps pestering him to pay up!
Maybe Trump should pay, but divide by the amount of Native American in her. So maybe give $15,625 to a charity of her choice.
If she has to go that far back to find a drop of Cherokee blood it means her family has been here a long fucking time. Did they come over on the Mayflower?
Warren used her bullshit claim to Native American blood to get to a job at Penn. She would have never been hired at Harvard straight from Houston law school. So Harvard’s “it played no role” is bullshit.
So which of Warren’s ancestors raped a Native American girl?
Whether or not she has some Native American ancestry is largely beside the point. She started claiming it in her mid-30s and only professionally. It's obvious what she was trying to do. She knew this would give her a leg up in being hired by Harvard. More importantly, people in favor of affirmative action should be livid. She took advantage of the situation, despite never experiencing any of the discrimination affirmative action is supposed to alleviate.
”because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for.”
Unless they’re applying for college.
Or which ancestor was raped by a Native American?
Results apparently don't indicate whether Liawatha can also claim African American status.
For years I teased my oh so liberal San Francisco sister about the marriage of one of our ancestors. He was a Baptist preacher in the Carolinas in maybe 1760; several of his brothers and cousins were also preachers, and they had nicknames. One of them was nicknamed "Ten Shilling Bell"--apparently for the power of his voice. He was nicknamed "Blind John". Blind John married a woman named Jemima. I figured that Blind John simply hadn't noticed that Jemima was black. (After all look at the pancake mix and syrup labels.)
So obviously our family (which has both red necked Southerners and liberal politically correct San Franciscans in it) is African American! Well she wasn't much taken with the idea.
That said--if your family line has been in the United States for a long time (ours came in the early 1600s) you are going to have a lot of ethnic and racial identities mixed up in your heritage. I suspect that I am as much an American Indian as is Senator Warren. I'm a proud mongrel American and don't know where to put the hyphen. Or care, for that matter.
Warren is still a Socialist who isn't concerned with truthfullness. That's all I need to know.
After all the leftist bagging on old white people in power why are Warren, Biden and Hillary running in 2020?
Since her "evidence" is substantially less than any authority considers acceptable for special consideration, will the media point out the fraud in her past?
Of course not.
So, the question is: Does that amount of ancestry "count" for the job perks she got based on that? I just want to know what the % needs to be to claim benefits/preferential hiring.
Actually I don't. I always put down no response or Two or More when I have to answer about my race.
Don’t question the results? Don’t ask for a second opinion? *facepalm* You know NOTHING about technical disciplines do you? It is always appropriate to double check. All work in STEM should be double checked! That is part of the discipline that separates STEM from shamanism, and sociology.
OK, Elizabeth. By you you're an Indian, and by me you're an Indian, but by an Indian are you an Indian?
she used this one drop for easier admission and other benefits meant for less disadvantaged than her.
Yup. That is the real news.
Claiming minority status on this basis. and them further claiming that it was not used as a factor in her hiring, is really weak. She gamed the system to her own advantage and she does not own up to it. Shame.
“I'm just interested that the $99 test from 23&me wasn't good enough to do the job.“
It would have put her results in their database. I’m sure the Stanford professor was able to submit the sample and get the results without attaching her name to them.
Elizabeth Warren is living in the world she, and those of her political/philosophical ilk have made. She's earned derision for a number of things. This is a small thing, but hell- why did she check the box taking credit for something she had no reason to do- other than playing a game who's rules she helped create.
I've got more Irish in me than she does Cherokee, and while that might explain my love of good whiskey, it would not even cross my mind to use it for my advantage. I mean- I'm not Irish. She's not Cherokee. But she tried to use it to her advantage. That's a window in her character.
So is, 'you didn't make that', which pisses me off worlds more than her Cherokee play.
I'm a proud mongrel American and don't know where to put the hyphen.
My heritage has more hyphens than the faculty of the Gender Studies Department.
10 generations = 1/1024, which is roughly 0.097% American Indian see correction.
Hope she keeps pestering him to pay up!
10/15/18, 11:04 AM
---------
Or .00097 part Native American. I'm also hearing they fudged a bit on the pool of DNA, including Central American DNA as possible matches.
The idea that she used her .00097 at all is telling.
Another California professor "massaging" the truth to help the cause? Quelle surprise!
So I have not read the story, being gobsmacked by faux-neutral nonsense, but if he didn’t test Cherokee ....
Do we have a control sample?
What counts as strong evidence btw? 99.9% likely, 99%, 23%, 2% what?
I know Ann, I know: better not ask.
How long until Chuck turns the entire thread into a discussion of whether Trump lied about the donation to charity?
”because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for.”
Sure. And (most) anthropologists say our human ancestors started in Africa. So ALL of us living here can claim to be African Americans. I recommend this be your answer on the census forms, job applications and anywhere else the race question is asked.
Wham, bam, racism erased. Right?
Prof. Althouse:
"Unless you don't trust Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante....I wouldn't recommend that."
He is an expert and that Stanford is a prestigious place. He knows one hell of a lot more about genetics than I do.
I will trust his conclusions after I read the exact procedures followed and assumptions made. Trusting him doesn't enter into it.
That correction is... bad.
Going by my family tree I am:
1/64 Irish
1/64 French
1/16 Welsh
1/16 Swedish
1/8 Norwegian
1/4 Dutch
15/32 English
Translating to percentages yields:
1.5625% Irish
1.5625% French
6.25% Welsh
6.25% Swedish
12.5% Norwegian
25% Dutch
46.875% English
Breaking it out to what a DNA test would say, this then is:
~54% Great Britain
~27% Western Europe
~19% Scandinavia
My sister (who thus has the same percentages shown above as I do) took an Ancestry.com DNA test, and the results it gave were:
79% Great Britain
11% Western Europe
10% Scandinavia
Not quite what the actual family tree shows.
She aint gonna get the benefits with that fraction. I don’t think the Cherokees will claim her either. Maybe if someone crooked can get in on some of the PAC money?
Ann has complained about white people doing yoga, but says we shouldn’t ask about race.
That's pretty strange, for Prof. Althouse to say that we shouldn't demand to know someone's race or ethnicity. How can we "open it up or tear it down" if we don't know the race of the applicants for places as students or professors?
The NYT says the average European American has 0.18% Amerind genetic content. Warren's is only 0.09%
So...why can't nearly everyone make the same claim as Warren, and get a comfy Affirmative Action gig?
(eaglebeak)
Trump should give $1 million to some actual Native Americans/American Indians--maybe to the Cherokee, who have tremendous hostility towards Warren for pretending to be "part Cherokee." If Warren's charity benefits actual Indians, then he could give to that. Maybe to the Lakota/Dakota Sioux reservations, which are very poor.
Then he should rip her to shreds.
I would bet that any person of European descent whose family has been in America since the 17th, 18th, or 19th century has a "splash" of Indian "blood," but no one has had the temerity to claim to be an Indian, a woman of color, for heaven's sake, till Warren came along.
Talk about cultural appropriation! She even got involved in creating some "Indian cookbook" (?).
The reason it's an issue is not that anyone was pestering her about her various racial or ethnic components, it's because she CLAIMED she was Indian and got herself billed as a "woman of color" among the Harvard faculty.
Also, note that we are told that the test "suggests" rather than "shows." Ha! One would want to see the test she took, and one would want to examine the credentials of the fellow who analyzed it. If you pick your own test and hire your own analyst, that doesn't inspire confidence, does it?
Elizabeth Warren is less Native American than the average American of European descent!
And Warren thinks this is vindicating!
And there are lots of intriguing questions about why Warren didnt go to an actual geneticist and why she continues to refuse to simply answer whether or not she actually previously used a typical DNA kit (like 23andMe).
LOL
Not even LLR Chuck on his best day will be able to spin this effectively for Warren!
"Correction: Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
They don't say if the error was the Globe's or the professor who did the DNA analysis.
Someone cannot math today.
"We were off by a factor of two on this 6-to-10 generation range. The top number should be 1/1024, not 1/512."
...um, that also means the bottom number is 1/64, not 1/32, Mr. Editor. At most 1.56%.
JPS
Exactly.
Note also Ann's prejudice showing through. He's got a PhD, he's a professor, so he can be trusted!
"If she has to go that far back to find a drop of Cherokee blood it means her family has been here a long fucking time. Did they come over on the Mayflower? "
What if they did come over on the Mayflower? Is that bad? Has some combination of gutter-snobbery and anti-white racism made having a Mayflower ancestor no longer a source of pride, but of shame? I think it has. And it's obvious that the longer a family has been here, the more likely they are to have Indigian blood, even the tiny amount that Warren has.
How does the timeline of 10th generation match up with the Oklahoma story? Not too damn well, I'd say. You'd have to believe a white person mated with a native American how many years ago?
The Cherokees were not in old OK until the Trail of Tears, so that part seems like hooey.
Wouldn’t six generations back mean she is 1/64 Native American, not 1/32? Whatever it is, it makes Harvard look ridiculous for claming her as Native American on its EEOC form.
So I guess now the Dem position is that a DNA test showing 1/1024th of something definitively mandates your racial heritage without question, but having a big ol' sweaty c-ck and b-lls flopping around between your legs says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your gender?
Two things hurt Warren:
1. Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, passed as white. So if O.C. Smith could get by without discrimination, it seems pretty likely that her GGG Granddaughter faced no anti-Native American hostility.
2. Warren did not announce that she was submitting a sample to be tested, before any results were known.
Fans of Warren will pretend/believe this puts the controversy to an end, in the Senator's favor. Opponents will find fresh reasons to think Warren is shifty.
What you didn't mention is that her results show that she actually has less Indian DNA than an average White American chosen at random.
The correction is getting more play than the original false story.
The media is finished.
Not because they lose money. Their wealthy owners don’t mind that.
The media is finished because the Plutarchs are no longer getting any return on their investment.
Supposedly modern humans have up to 20% Neanderthal DNA (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics).
She's more Neanderthal than American Indian.
@Althouse, you don't think you're maybe being a little overly solicitous of another former female law professor, do you?
Molly said:
Talk about cultural appropriation! She even got involved in creating some "Indian cookbook" (?).
*********************
Yes, she offered a crab recipe that was plagiarized from the NYT if I recall correctly.
As Mark Steyn has noted, "Those Plains Indian ancestors of hers were famous for being able to pump arrows into fast-moving Oklahoma land crabs while riding bareback at full gallop."
(it's a paraphrase, but you get the drift)
Ace of Spades HQ sums it up nicely: "Elizabeth Warren Proudly Releases Test Results Proving She Has Less Indian DNA Than the Average Non-Indian White Person"
...like herself...
Even money says Robert Spencer or David Duke have more Native American blood than 1/1024th.
This is such a self own it only goes to show how inept and silly the media is. They should be trying to cover this up, not announce it.
Trump is going to come forward and say, "I'll give $1000 to charity, because it turns out Warren is less Indian than I am."
She has basically proven she lied. Her own mother was so native American her racist grandfather made them elope.
How the heck could her mother be that native American?
Answer: She wasn't. Warren lied.
Or let's put this in a other perspective.
I found out this past summer that approximately 1% of my DNA is from North Africa or the Middle East. This is the same type of result Warren got, only relating to Native American, rather than North African.
So, if it's true that Warren is now native American, can my daughter, who will be applying for colleges soon, apply at African American?
Don't we all know how silly that is? I suspect everyone does know.
And yet the media is going to play this as straight news.
And the rest of us are going to laugh at them.
McCullough: If she has to go that far back to find a drop of Cherokee blood it means her family has been here a long fucking time. Did they come over on the Mayflower?
I don't think that's how it works. If you've got any American Indian blood in you, then your "family" has been here since long before even the Mayflower.
I can't count. Could someone explain what it would mean if she had a Cherokee ancestor 1 generation ago. Would that be a parent or grandparent?
And if the test had been 'negative' would anyone have known she was even tested?
Asking for the crickets.
My 23 and Me report shows that I am .6% sub-saharan African. I have yet to use that knowledge for personal advantage. Not saying that I won't...
"Unless you don't trust Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante and want a second opinion."
"Bustamante replies: “The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree.”"
So there we have it. The facts suggest absolutely.
I'll be heading over to Harvard later this week. I need to measure the windows for the drapes for my new office in the Business School. Since I have more Native American blood than the Poke-us-Haunt-us I figure I should get a really good pay package.
Funny how the one-drop rule is once again vital! The more things change, I guess.
"That meshes with an 1894 document the New England Genealogical Society unearthed suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. That would make Warren 1/32nd Native American."
No, it wouldn't. If her G-G-G-grandmother was 100% Native American, then she would be 1/32nd. Since her G-G-G-grandmother was only partially NA (read <50%) then she would be, at most, 1/64th NA.
The analysis is filled with fudge words.
I'm sure many, if not most, of us whose families came early to this continent have some Native American ancestry. Mine is less than 1%. Especially in the VA colony, where my mother's family reached our shores, there were few European women in the colonies and marrying natives was not just convenient for the male settlers but prudent.
"Unless you don't trust Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante and want a second opinion. I wouldn't recommend that. "
That's rich, coming from the same dizzying intellect that recommended that Kavanaugh claim that he couldn't be sure he never got black out drunk and raped women.
How dare we question some friendly lefty that Pocahontas picked out after all this time to redwash her results.
John Lynch supposes: Maybe my half-Korean son should be checking the "Native American" box when it's time for college.
Especially if he has his eyes on Harvard.
BADuBois said...
FYI, the Globe has appended a correction to the original story:
"Correction: Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
They don't say if the error was the Globe's or the professor who did the DNA analysis.
The error was with anyone who can't do 2^10. I'm guessing the Globe reporter.
I want her to take the blood test that Native Americans say is the only true way to know if you have true Native American heritage.
This is a retirement and tax scheme cooked up by Liawatha's financial advisers. She knows her political aspirations are going up in smoke (heh). She just wants to open a Native American gambling casino.
Molly at 11:21: One would want to see the test she took, and one would want to examine the credentials of the fellow who analyzed it. If you pick your own test and hire your own analyst, that doesn't inspire confidence, does it?
Sorta like Prof Ford getting her own "polygraph expert" who asked her two non-specific questions.
Of course, the claim has been that she has lied about her heritage, listing herself as “Native American” in various places. Is there any way beyond the cognitive deficits of the leftmedia that “strong evidence” of a smidgen of NA DNA 6-10 generations ago qualifies Fauxcahontas to call herself “Native American.”
Are we now to pretend that she knew about this all along, that “strong evidence” is “conclusive evidence,” that 1/32 or 1/512 a “Native American” makes, that “strong evidence” equates with “Cherokee and Delaware?” In other words, are we all Democrats now?
I'm not an expert on this stuff but some people are pointing out the following:
NARRATIVE BUSTER:
According to a comprehensive DNA study by the Genetic Literacy Project, an average White person in America has 0.18 percent Native American DNA.
This means Sen. Warren has statistically *less* Indian DNA than the avg. white American.
If that is true, wow.
Now we know Pokahauntus is no lying sack of joweea
Via the Instapundit.
"AS SOMEONE SAID ON TWITTER, IF I HAVE 1/1024TH OF A MILLION DOLLARS, IS IT PROOF I’M A MILLIONAIRE?"
She couldn't use a commercial service because something less than 1% probably wouldn't show up or would simply say "trace," which wouldn't serve her purposes.
6 and 10 generations would be 1/64 and 1/1024 unless they're counting strangely.
One generation I'd take it is one indian parent, or 1/2^1 indian. So it's 1/2^6 and 1/2^10.
Jupiter observes: So there we have it. The facts suggest absolutely.
Yep, 'suggest' is always a tip-off.
"I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for."
She's the one who initially made the claim.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Cherokee? Probably more like an Hekawi.
Sounds like she inadvertently made his point. She claimed ancestry based on an impossibly small percentage, potentially displacing people who actually (say) grew up on the reservation, etc. and have experienced real hardship based on ancestry.
That meshes with an 1894 document... suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother... was at least partially Native American. That would make Warren 1/32nd Native American.
No, that would not. If her great-great-great-grandmother was 100% Native American, then that would make her 1/32.
I wonder what the false positive rate is on that test.
I haven't read the comments yet, so beg your pardon if I am repeating.
So many families have old stories of Native American ancestry. Or Irish, or African, or Panamanian. It's not at all uncommon and was always very difficult to prove. Lots of Europeans have family stories of royalty.
DNA is now here, and the LDS have done a lot on the collection of genealogical records (sorry, Crack, I always wondered if there was a nefarious reason for that.)
But family stories should never be used to check a box to increase your chances of obtaining something available to a specific ethnicity.
Maybe she can take an IQ test to prove, once and for all, she is smart.
They didn't test against Cherokee genomes, the Native American genome in the test is alleged to be Mexican which is meaningless.
The results smell of genealogist shopping.
Triplets took an ancestory test and the results for German Heritage ranged from 11% to 22%. I don't think the Warren test results are any more accurate than her family dinner table lore, standard.
Maybe she can take an IQ test to prove, once and for all, she is smart.
IQ tests just measure how you do on the test, not "intelligence" which is a hard thing to quantify.
the important point is that anyone who is in the "not blindly-left wing" 60% of the country will interpret this as Warren lying to take advantage of something she didn't merit.
And the media trying to cover for her.
She's want a low IQ to prove she's part indian.
In the early 1990's, we hired a new graduate from Oklahoma or Oklahoma State. Sometime later, she told me at lunch that after her father had died, her mother had remarried. Her step-father was a member of one of the Oklahoma tribes and, when his new step-daughter went off to college, he encouraged her to apply for and receive the benefits that were reserved for native Americans. To make that possible, he nominated her for membership in his tribe and she was made a member. So, despite the fact that she didn't have a drop of Indian blood (that she knew of) and had never suffered any discrimination (her mother didn't remarry until her daughter as about to graduate from high school), she received extensive financial and other benefits while in college based on her status as a 'native'. It's a perverse system.
Upon hearing this story, I joked that I would have my children apply for benefits as Hispanics. My grandmother on my father's side was born and raised in Mexico and my grandfather was raised there from his infancy. Oh, sure, all my grandmother's ancestors come from Denmark and my grandfather's from Switzerland. But, since Hispanic is a cultural, not a racial, attribute, I've a greater claim to it than does my former staff person to being a native American. It was just a joke. My kids never benefited from any of the possible governmental benefits available to them due to their Hispanic heritage.
I'm 99.6% European
0.3% Sub-Sarahan Africa
0.1% Asian / Native American
That 0.1% is as likely to be Genghis Khan as it is to be Cherokee.
Oh, any issues with me checking Black / African America on my college and job applications?
We are all native americans now.
There are levels of lying and corruption.
Elizabeth Warren is nothing compared the the Clintons.
“That's rich, coming from the same dizzying intellect that recommended that Kavanaugh claim that he couldn't be sure he never got black out drunk and raped women.”
I’m still blown away that Althouse thought him making an admission of sorts would be helpful in any way. As if the jackals in the media and Democratic Party would be satisfied. Glad things turned out differently and Kavanaugh is on the Court.
Althouse was stupendously wrong about that.
My DNA is 3% Neaderthal. What do I get ?
When Trump refuses to write a check, it’s the perfect opportunity for Warren to say, “White man speak with forked tongue.”
Sounds like she inadvertently made his point.
Bingo! (pun intended)
Elizabeth Warren is a credit to her race.
Ka-ching! Now she can demand enrollment in the Cherokee tribe and let the casino revenues roll in. So she's got that going for her.
Great White Father in Washington owe squaw plenty wampum.
Elizabeth Warren might run in 2 years. She's another wealthy socialist hypocrite, but at least she is 90% less corrupt than the never-goes-away Clinton Crime Family.
10 generations is 250 years.
1768 is when her
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
great-
grandparent from Peru entered her gene pool according to her contracted researcher.
Remember this one?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170225084425/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/nyregion/17hillary.html
For more than a decade, one piece of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s informal biography has been that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest.
Even though Bill Clinton repeated the story in his 2004 autobiography, “My Life,” Hillary Clinton did not mention it in her own autobiography, “Living History,” which was published in 2003.
But one big hole has been poked in the story over the years, both in cyberspace and elsewhere: Sir Edmund became famous only after climbing Everest in 1953. Mrs. Clinton, as it happens, was born in 1947.
1: From the report: The total and average segment size suggest (via the method of moments) an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the pedigree at approximately 8 generations before the sample
What's that translate to? Less than 10% of 1 chromosome (chromosome 10) contain 5 segments that "don't look European" and "strongly look South American".
2: For example, from the Boston Globe article: "To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American."
She claimed to be part Cherokee, not part hispanic.
There were no Cherokee in Peru & Columbia
Warren's great-great-great grandfather rounded Cherokee up for the Trail of Tears
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141789/Elizabeth-Warrens-ancestor-rounded-Cherokees-homes-Trail-Tears--brushes-claims.html
"The New England Genealogical Society unearthed suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American"
"at least partially" means it was back farther than that.
So her ancestor who helped make the "Trail of Tears" was closer to her than ANY supposed "Native American" ancestry". Which was, on the order of 3 more generations back.
We'll leave aside that, when you're talking "1/64 to 1/1024", you're doing hand-waving BS, not actual science.
Add that the "analysis" was done by a politically biased individual who knew what "answer" he was supposed to be getting, rather than doing a blind test, and this is worthless crap, at least when it comes to backing up Warren's claims.
Yes, I know they CLAIM that they didn't know who they were doing the analysis for. That doesn't pass the smell test. So far as I can tell from Bustamante's bio, he doesn't have any sort of business doing this. Which means that someone came to him, gave him the sample, and asked for an analysis.
My guess? She sent her sample off to 23 and Me under another name, and it came back "white girl".
So she asked Bustamante to cook up some results for her.
Now, if he'd like to release a list of her SNVs & InDels that give her her "Native American ancestry", we can take a look at his results.
But actual science involves publishing your work, and the data that supports it.
Not just saying "Trust Me", sucker.
Trump now in heap big trouble.
"Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears “in the range of six to 10 generations ago.”"
IOW, her claim was pure BS.
stlcdr said...
Maybe she can take an IQ test to prove, once and for all, she is smart.
I'm quite confident it would show she is smart. At least 1/1024 smart. Maybe even as high as 1/32 smart!
Warren may prefer people talking about he lying about her identity lie
to examining her plan to turn America into a socialist utopia.
I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for.
Tell that to the government and every college and university in the United States.
I read an article in the latest issue of Archaeology magazine about the genetic makeup of dogs in North America, which is relevant to this. The issue at question is, how much of the genes from aboriginal doggos can be found in living North American dog species.
The article had two results, reporting from two teams. The first team said there were 0% surviving aboriginal genes.
The second team reported up to 20% surviving aboriginal canine genes.
Why the different results? Differing methodologies.
Science is great. Science applied to politics is dogshit.
Will she send Trump the bill? He said he'd pay for the test! I haven't read the other comments but I am sure someone has tried to decide whether she's a white appropriating native Americanness or a Native American appropriating whiteness. Given today's politics the latter would seem to be preferred. I think!?!
As far as Harvard's race consciousness is concerned that's going to see a lot of daylight over the few days.
Its astounding she even released this.
She must have thought "oh, well, I paid for it and all".
Many people are math averse
perhaps she is training the media to say "who are you going to believe me or statistics"
with a more personal lie
later moving on to her fantastical Venezuala style campaign platform.
Big deal. I am one 128th Choctaw and am an enrolled Choctaw. This is all courtesy of my Grandmother, Annie Lee Morgan who was 1/32nd and was on the roll compiled in (I think) 1917. For Warren to trade on her slight Native American heritage insults her "tribe." Cherokee and Delaware people should call an end to the game.
One difference between me and Warren. I can prove the link; I've got the names.
Like Warren I was born in Oklahoma City, though three years earlier. I would have attended Northwest Classes High School in Oklahoma City had my parents not had the good sense to move to New Mexico in 1960.
Statement From Boston Globe: "Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
Drago said...
Elizabeth Warren is less Native American than the average American of European descent!
And Warren thinks this is vindicating!
And there are lots of intriguing questions about why Warren didnt go to an actual geneticist and why she continues to refuse to simply answer whether or not she actually previously used a typical DNA kit (like 23andMe).
LOL
Not even LLR Chuck on his best day will be able to spin this effectively for Warren!
Chuck, who has never had one kind word for Senator Warren, isn't even going to try.
I agree with 100% Althouse; the real issue is and always has been the questions of Warren's affirmative action hiring. It is a bogus AA case, if her Indian ancestry is at the level of a trace element.
And my understanding of Warren's response(s) on this issue is that contrary to some reports, she has not authorized, and Harvard has not supplied, her complete personnel file and everything that goes with it. There is simple no question but that she somehow claimed minority/Native American status while on the Harvard faculty. For her benefit (I strongly suspect) or for Harvard's benefit (just as bad).
As always, Trump has made it a big deal, in the most inflammatory way possible. Trump boiled it down to "Pocahontas," which works if all you are driving at is the most simplistic notion possible. This latest news exposes the weakness of Trump's approach. Trump called her a liar for claiming American Indian status, and now there is reason to say that she was not a liar. Instead of a more careful argument about affirmative action.
From the AP article:
"That meshes with an 1894 document the New England Genealogical Society unearthed suggesting Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. That would make Warren 1/32nd Native American."
Others have already pointed out that 1/32 Native American is what Warren would be if her great-great-great-grandmother were completely Native American. But there is a big difference between "completely" and "at least partially."
Which indicates to me that mastery of elementary school level fractions is not required to write for the AP.
If she has 5 liters of blood, 1/1000 gives her 5-cc's of Indian blood. That's 100 drops.
Is it enuf to get part if the casino take?
I love how completely uncritically this has been reported today - a carefully scripted partial release of data, a video montage put together by Warren, no competing or different voices raised in the article, no independent quotes. No challenges to the math or questions around what a minimum level of ancestry might look like before claiming it. No statements that this was not an independent test either.
No independent metrics for comparison.
Zero intellectual curiosity or independent thought in writing typically indicates a strongly biased and prejudicial viewpoint, doesn't it?
Hmmm...
"I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for. I'm glad we can stop demanding that of her."
You wish, don't you. It's very nice of you to wish that. But we are dealing with a prog in a prog institution playing by prog rules, so you don't get what you claim to wish. Demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is the MO of today's racism and something there's a great need for, according to elite prog opinion. We can only stop "demanding" it of her, not that anyone actually demanded that she claim phony native-American ancestry to boost her career and create her "predicament," as you delicately phrase it, because now we know for a fact that is was all BS.
If you want to get rid of such predicaments and things we shouldn't see any need for, vote GOP. Unless and until you and the other Althouses draw the line, by making sure scum like Warren doesn't get power, you'll get more prog "predicaments"--mostly, of course, for their enemies.
"I'm just interested that the $99 test from 23&me wasn't good enough to do the job."
Oh, she certainly took the test at some point in the past 4 years, but if I grant that the data released today is valid, I can tell you what the 23&me test would have shown in the printed out results- 0%. When she got that result, she went to the Stanford guy.
I have seen my family tree as developed through documentation, and I am almost certainly more native American and African than Warren is Cherokee or whatever.
Has Warren ever described how it was Harvard listed her that way? I know she has denied using the claim as a stepping stone, but someone "checked that box" along the way, otherwise Harvard wouldn't have known to make that claim. Maybe I missed it, but my belief all along is that Warren has claimed to not know how it all happened. Can someone set me straight here?
This story today, though, shows you just how politically incompetent Warren is- this will convince no one who wasn't already in her camp. The right thing to do was to ignore the criticism because the entire story wasn't really relevant to begin with- almost no one would have cared that was open to persuasion, but when you resort to something this pathetically weak to counter it, suddenly it becomes relevant by ones own actions. It is an own-goal.
As far as the test goes it was a buck well spent.
Chuck,
You're missing the point again. Warren clearly significantly misrepresented her heritage to take advantage of benefits accruing to Native Americans. Trump exaggerated slightly about her, and the media and the Democrats subsequently wildly exaggerated/lied to try to "get" him on his slight exaggeration. Dramatically out-of-proportion to his exaggeration.
“I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for. I'm glad we can stop demanding that of her.”
She didn’t get herself in any predicament. It was her political opponent that thought he could smear her by claiming she obtained her position by lying about her heritage.
I hope all you people feel as stupid as you now look. Especially Trump, first he was proven to be a liar regarding Obama not being a natural born citizen then he used ethnic slurs against a woman who honestly relayed family history.
How would the average American born in the year Warren was born measure on this exact test? I would imagine the average would be somewhere inside the range Warren scored. I am sorry, 1/32 makes Warren as white as newly fallen snow- like me.
”As always, Trump has made it a big deal, in the most inflammatory way possible. Trump boiled it down to "Pocahontas," which works if all you are driving at is the most simplistic notion possible. This latest news exposes the weakness of Trump's approach.“
The man’s President. You’re not.
Trump for the win!
If you're a major political figure who takes a DNA test solely to blunt a political opponent's mocking reference to you as "Pochahontas" -- well, you've already lost.
Nobody cares about your ancestry, Pochahontas.
And, we have no doubt that the Harvard faculty hiring committee felt really good about themselves when they hired you, the token Native American, to diversify their august ranks.
That's how they roll.
“I am sorry, 1/32 makes Warren as white as newly fallen snow- like me.”
Her skin color has little to do with their DNA that many generations later. She has the DNA proof that she wasn’t lying. Who are you to claim what her ethnicity is?
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for. I'm glad we can stop demanding that of her.”
She didn’t get herself in any predicament. It was her political opponent that thought he could smear her by claiming she obtained her position by lying about her heritage.
I hope all you people feel as stupid as you now look. Especially Trump, first he was proven to be a liar regarding Obama not being a natural born citizen then he used ethnic slurs against a woman who honestly relayed family history.
1/1024th.
Inga is bad at math.
She thinks this will work for fauxcahauntas.
“If you're a major political figure who takes a DNA test solely to blunt a political opponent's mocking reference to you as "Pochahontas" -- well, you've already lost.”
She already lost with you folks long ago. Nothing she says or does will change your opinion of her. You people are not her concern, but there are plenty of independents who are.
Does that fraction satisfy the one-drop test? It is well documented that Warren used this to establish and launch her career. 1/32nd is BS, six generations would be in the 1/64th range. She's long been a liar.
For me, though, her positions on government and public policy are enough to disqualify her from holding public office. Thus, I have no f**ks to give about this so called Indian heritage.
-sw
...This latest news exposes the weakness of Trump's approach. Trump called her a liar for claiming American Indian status, and now there is reason to say that she was not a liar. Instead of a more careful argument about affirmative action.
No, Chuck, it doesn't give any reason to say she wasn't a liar. Her own report damns her as a liar. She has less native American DNA than does the average American of European ancestry. If there had by ANY truth to her claim, the amount of native American DNA would have been materially HIGHER than the population average, not lower. Her test demonstrates that Warren has less Native American ancestry than do most other white Americans -- which is the exact opposite of what she's been claiming for the past few decades.
Perhaps, 'lie' is too strong a word to use when we cannot know whether Warren knew that her claims were false when she made them. However, Warren never gives her political opponents the benefit of any doubt on such questions (nor does Trump) and I'm not inclined to extend a courtesy to her that she routinely declines to others. Before you start pointing at Trump as the genesis of this bad behavior, I'll note that Warren has a long history of being particularly uncivil to her opponents long before she officially entered the political fray. As a professor at Harvard and elsewhere, she misrepresented her opponents' positions, used inflammatory language, and accused others of being dishonest and unethical. In other words, she behaved then pretty much then as she's behaving now. So, it's hard to see how we can fairly lay her poor behavior at Trump's door.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“I am sorry, 1/32 makes Warren as white as newly fallen snow- like me.”
Her skin color has little to do with their DNA that many generations later. She has the DNA proof that she wasn’t lying. Who are you to claim what her ethnicity is?
I know you are stupid. So small words.
If Warren can claim native ancestry based off the results of this test then every single person in the world can can claim native American ancestry.
You people are a joke.
”She has the DNA proof that she wasn’t lying.”
Her percentage is way past the generation she identified as her Indian ancestor. She was lying.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“If you're a major political figure who takes a DNA test solely to blunt a political opponent's mocking reference to you as "Pochahontas" -- well, you've already lost.”
She already lost with you folks long ago. Nothing she says or does will change your opinion of her. You people are not her concern, but there are plenty of independents who are.
Unfortunately for Warren most independents are better at math than the average democrat voter.
You people are just stupid tools.
"Her skin color has little to do with their DNA that many generations later. She has the DNA proof that she wasn’t lying. Who are you to claim what her ethnicity is?"
No she doesn't.
And please define for us what is the minimum threshold for "DNA proof" to claim being native american.
She has "DNA proof" that somewhere between ~120-250 years ago someone in her family may have been native american, mexican, peruvian, etc. - no on will swear to it though, but at least one professor has said it suggests that to be accurate.
Is that what counts as "proof" today?
Althouse,
6 generations back is 1/64 not 1/32. And that's the max according to this. A more pathetic stretch, even is true.
In the ongoing war between Trump and the Democrat-media complex, I think I'll have to give this one to Trump. Why? Several reasons.
Firstly, the forced the whole issue of Elizabeth Warren being (arguably) very dishonest in order to reap benefits has been and would have continued to be ignored by the media. By ceaselessly hammering on it, Trump once again forces an inconvenient truth into the light. Now YMMV about whether or not Warren took advantage (although I find it hard to believe that 1/1024th could be considered a legit amount of ancestory to claim any kind of benefits), but it's hard to deny that Trump hasn't dragged this discussion into the light, making more and more regular voters aware of it.
Secondly, it also once again shows the absurdity of the left and media. I mean, it strikes me as pretty thin gruel to try and claim this as some kind of "win" for Warren. If Trump pays the money it gives hime the opportunity to appear magnanimous while simultaneously sticking the knife in by saying something like "Congrats, you officially have even less Native American ancestry than the average European-American. Good for you." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up doing precisely this.
No, Inga, she got herself into the predicament by making the original claim- a claim that appears to have originated in a story about her parent's eloping because her father's parents objected to her mother's ancestry of being Cherokee and Delaware. Today's story does seem to be contradicting that origin story.
Reasonable people aren't going to accept that you can call yourself a Native American (or any other descent) unless you can link back to at least a great grandparent being 100%- or about 1/8th in oneself. And here is probably the real truth- if someone looking at you and reading about your upbringing couldn't tell you were part Cherokee or black, a genetic claim of even 25% would not cut the mustard. I would only credit her with telling the truth initially if her parents or grandparents grew up on the reservation in Oklahoma- outside that, her genetic inheritance is no interest to anyone other than herself- and only becomes an interest if she is using to gain some advancement, which by all accounts, she has tried to do.
Without reading comments, Inga said:
hope all you people feel as stupid as you now look.
Sampling of comments:
For example, from the Boston Globe article: "To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American."
She claimed to be part Cherokee, not part hispanic.
They didn't test against Cherokee genomes, the Native American genome in the test is alleged to be Mexican which is meaningless.
How does the timeline of 10th generation match up with the Oklahoma story? Not too damn well, I'd say. You'd have to believe a white person mated with a native American how many years ago?
The Cherokees were not in old OK until the Trail of Tears, so that part seems like hooey.
“Just as Barack Obama ultimately produced his birth certificate to debunk Trump’s “birther” lie, Warren did indeed take a DNA test to prove that she has some Native heritage. She released a video not only explaining the DNA results, but including interviews with her brothers (Republicans, by the way) and other relatives talking about their family and condemning Trump.”
Here are the facts. Warren grew up being told that her family on her mother’s side was part Native American. Though at various times in her career as a law professor she was listed in faculty directories as a minority, she never lied about it and she never used it to get any job. The Boston Globe conducted a comprehensive investigation and found that Warren’s ancestry played no part in her professional advancement. (She was an academic star who could have been hired at pretty much any law school she wanted.)
But this false idea is one of the key reasons, perhaps the key reason, why Trump uses the racist attack against her. There isn’t enough free-floating animus against Native people to be politically potent; it has to be brought together with other strains of racial resentment to really have an impact. What is much more widespread among Trump supporters is the idea that racial minorities are given special advantages that allow them to vault past more deserving white people, making every aspect of their lives a cushy ride in a government-provided limousine while virtuous whites struggle to make it on nothing but their own merit.“
WaPo
Regarding Senator Warren, @Inga scolds me:
"She already lost with you folks long ago. Nothing she says or does will change your opinion of her."
Totally false. If she agreed to cut taxes, vote for Kavanaugh, and get a similar boob job as Stormy Daniels, I'd definitely vote for her.
This professor is central in the field of ancestry detection. He has been on the boards of Ancestry.com and 23andMe. He is closely associated with efforts to link ancestry with disease susceptibility. He is not a supporter of Nicholas (Troublesome Inheritance) Wade and in letter to the NT Review of Books Bustamente and many others accused Wade of misusing data developed by the field of ancestry genetics.
His MA was statistics and his PhD Biology meaning he works on the field of quantitative genetics on the quantitative side. In his report you notice that he had another unnamed person do the actual genetic work and that Bustamente worked with this other unnamed person on the interpretation of results. In other words, the genetic results needed to be interpreted in terms of probability. Warren has a stretch of DNA on chromosome 10 in a variation which is more likely to occur in Indians than in Europeans.
So the challenge is this: Is Bustamente saying that this variation does not appear in Europeans?
Bustamente looked at the DNA of 185 Europeans and found that Warren's chromosome 10 variation differed from all of them. But 185 is not very many.
Or is he saying that the variation is 12X more likely to appear in Native Americans than in European Americans?
But this leaves open the possibility that the variation does appear in European_Americans. Isn't this why Bustamente says "suggests". When you say A is more probable than B, aren't you saying there is a chance that B is true? At about 7:30 pm on Election Night 2016 there was a 70% chance that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election, according to Nate Silver. Others put Hillary's chances higher. Even as they spoke of probability, Florida had voted in reality, and Hillary's chance was nil.
Then there is the fact that the Cherokee and other US tribes have refused to participate in the studies being run by the Stanford geneticists. They and many other Native Americans, including some Aztec and Inca leaders, ask why geneticists have been accorded the right to determine who is and who is not an Indian. As a result, the Stanford studies are all based on those Mexican and Peruvian Native Americans who agreed to participate. All this creates a potential error in probability caused by two "bottlenecks" or "founder effects" First, the group Stanford studied is a self-selected group of South American Native Americans. Second, there is no evidence that the Chromosome 10 variation Elizabeth Warren has is twelve times more likely to appear in Cherokee tribe than in Scotch-Irish Americans.
It's worth studying the kind of probability at issue here, regardless of whether Warren turns out to be part Native American or wholly exploitative politician. The group of experts Bustamente belongs to are working to develop race based medicine with race based solutions. That is why they are working to develop knowledge of ancestries. This kind of medicine could save thousands of lives by enabling quicker diagnosis of which medicines to use or this kind of medicine could become a new and more dreadful version of the Tuskegee syphilis study, refusing saving treatments because of a race-based diagnosis. The fact that Bustamente works at Stanford with Jeremy Freese who is on the Editorial Board of the journal of American eugenics society - Biodemography and Social Biology shows that eugenics is present as the field of ancestry genomics creates itself. One thing needed to prevent the worst outcome is to develop an informed understanding of how ancestry and probability work as the field is defined by Stanford.
By this standard, George Zimmerman, the white hispanic, is far more Indian than her.
The analysis on the Massachusetts Democrat was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante. He concluded Warren’s ancestry is mostly European but says “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.” [Emphasis added]
unadmixed
Etymology
From un- + admix + -ed.
Adjective
unadmixed (not comparable)
Not admixed; lacking admixture.
What? Did I notice that Bustamante was unable to say that Warren WAS an Indian? Double what. How about a percentage of Indian, Bustamante? That's right, Bustamante you can't say that because everyone would laugh at you and her.
I might just as well jump on the "what about" train also. I wonder what Donald Trump's DNA test would show?
Truth:
1. Elizabeth "paleface" Warren is many things, but she's not an Indian.
2. How many other Rutgers Law school grads did Harvard hire this century?
Yeah sure John, I am sure that having a low IQ helps people to understand better what you just wrote.
Ten generations from Warren has to take you close to the 16th century. At least, it does for me, and I was born in 1965. My eighth Great Grandfather was born in 1695, so say the 9th was born in 1632, then the 10th in 1600...
This means Warren's ancestor could have been born before English colonization took hold in Virginia or Massachusetts and they could have been a first hand witness to either the terrible Starving Times or may have participated the First Thanksgiving. It is ironic, then, that Trump's epithet for Warren has been Pocahontas. It could literally be true. Pocohontas's son, Thomas Rolf, was born in 1615. Warren's ancestor's child was one of the very first mixed Native American/European children born... ever. Unless we include Spanish colonies, or speculate about the Vikings up in Newfoundland, but even then, pretty cool to imagine the twists and turns that go into each of our ancestries.
My guess is that, on that kind of time scale, so many people are some admixture of something that any claim to ethnicity is, prima facie, invidious. When I got my Ancestory.com results back it confirmed just about everything I knew about my motley ancestry, except one thing. I apparently have some small, small amount of DNA that suggests an ancestor from South Asia. I have no way of even conceiving how such a connection could be made, given what I know about my heritage. But am I, therefore, able to claim that I am part Pashtun, Hindi or Urdu? By Dr. Warren's standard, I guess I am.
Namaste.
Wonder if she took more than one test? Obviously, she has set herself up to be challanged to take another verified test. If she has any sense at all, she has taken more tests and has recieved more positive results. If not, she is an idiot.
DNA tests not real accurate
"The New York Times has published yet another article aiming to prove to readers that genetic testing, especially direct to consumer testing, is useless and perhaps even misleading. In her article, “I Had My DNA Picture Taken, With Varying Results,” by Kira Peikoff, a bioethics graduate student at Columbia University, takes genotype screening tests from three different companies is, shocked, just shocked, to discover that the results do not all agree."
Here are the facts. Warren grew up being told that her family on her mother’s side was part Native American.
Not an auspicious beginning, Inga starting with a self serving assertion by Warren. Not a fact at all.
I don't need to read the rest of your tribal bullshit.
This topic always makes me feel sad.
My paternal grandparents came to Ellis Island from Lithuania. I cannot trace my family back any farther than them because all the birth, death and marriage records were held in the churches.
The churches were all burned. First by Cossacks and later by Communists. My ancestors just disappeared.
I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for.
Tell that to the government and every college and university in the United States.
Not California. The people voted by referendum to PROHIBIT those questions on college applications. Prop 209. The usual predictions of apocalypse were wrong of course. Diversity actually increased. Ha.
Does this mean DNA results are determinative?
Because if so, it blows apart the Transgendered movement.
Or is DNA only useful when it shows what you want it to show, and it's to be ignored when it doesn't?
"We have always been at war with Eastasia"
”She already lost with you folks long ago.”
Well, yeah. She’s a socialist.
I hear the Fugawi tribe is looking for donations.
I mean, wouldn't you be embarrassed, Inga, to claim any professional benefit to being even 1/8th Cherokee if you weren't raised as one? If I were in Warren's position with this new data, I would just admit that my original stories were incorrect, but then given her upbringing, I would never have made the original claims as part of my professional history- at best it would be a story told to friends over a beer. This isn't a case where Warren was telling people about a distant relative's heritage- she was using it for advancement and professional reputation, or at the very least allowing Harvard to do so on her behalf.
I wish she'd never gotten herself into this predicament, because I think demanding to know someone's race or ethnicity is something we shouldn't see any need for.
If someone's going to get special treatment because they checked a certain box, you're damn straight we're going to demand proof.
And today's bullshit story ain't it.
I honestly cannot believe the media is beclowning themselves trying to spin this in a positive way for Warren. They look ridiculous.
Anyone impressed that she used her so-called drop of ancient ancestry as a crutch to get into Harvard?
She's very fortunate that that 1/1024 Cherokee heritage was sufficient to pass down the genes for high cheek bones.
So 10th generation ancestry is 1/1024th, not 1/512th.
"Math is hard" - says journo-list Barbie Globe writer Annie Linskey
If Svante Paabo is right I probably have a few times more Neanderthal DNA than the Senator has Indian DNA. Shaddup.
Though at various times in her career as a law professor she was listed in faculty directories as a minority, she never lied about it and she never used it to get any job.
So she never told anyone at these institutions, yet somehow they knew to list her as a minority?
Cher peforming her hit Half-Breed from 1973
My father married a pure Cherokee
My mother's people were ashamed of me
The indians said I was white by law
The White Man always called me "Indian Squaw"Half-breed, that's all I ever heard
Half-breed, how I learned to hate the word
Half-breed, she's no good they warned
Both sides were against me since the day I was born
We never settled, went from town to town
When you're not welcome you don't hang around
The other children always laughed at me "Give her a feather, she's a Cherokee"
Cher, "Half-Breed" (1973)
What Warren is really claiming is the immaculately checked box. That was probably the story she told to Harvard and probably before that to the other schools she attended- the elopement story because I can't imagine for a second that any school would have accepted and promoted an ancestry even as distant as the great great great great grandmother. The elopement story would make Warren's background be the overcoming of racial bias and childhood environment.
That is the predicament she got her own ass into.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...”Anyone impressed that she used her so-called drop of ancient ancestry as a crutch to get into Harvard?”
Next we’ll be hearing and reading that the AA box was never ticked and that it was never unticked and that Harvard never ever presented her as Indian. The whole thing was just made up.
"the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor."
What's the ancestor's name? I'm guessing Ms. Warren already checked the census rolls and found nothing, otherwise she would be touting the fact that her Indian ancestor lived in Georgia, then was forcibly moved to Oklahoma. The news would have some professor of American History intone seriously about the Native American experience while the camera pans across some old black-and-white photo of a Native American family. Maybe they would have a camera follow her while she shakes hands with aging Navajo code talkers (despite the fact that she claims to be Cherokee).
Though at various times in her career as a law professor she was listed in faculty directories as a minority, she never lied about it and she never used it to get any job
I wonder how many other professors have been victimized in this way? Who is going around listing non-minority professors as minorities?
I imagine the confusion between 1/512 and 1/1024 comes from whether the desired DNA is common or rare in the individual. Is it likely to be from 2 parents or from 1.
In one generation, you're half indian if one parent is indian, and whole indian if both are. So you're off by 1 right away.
Too bad the test doesn't show where her STOOPID gene comes from. Or would that be a defamation of native-americans?
If Warren can claim native ancestry based off the results of this test then every single person in the world can can claim native American ancestry.
Exactly. But we're the ones who are supposed to feel foolish about this shocking discovery.
Those Indian nations that define membership by "blood quantum" require it to be 1/16 or less. This means one great grandparent must be 100% Indian and a member of the tribe.
The Cherokee Nation, of which Warren claims lineage, does not declare membership by blood quantum, but by proof of direct lineage. Notice the word "proof". Not family stories.
Elizabeth Warren fails both tests.
Trump won this by branding her as a fake and Warren lost the minute she decided to take the DNA test as proof of her claims. Results showing a very low marker that is further diminished by the inclusion of Hispanic markers -- Lieawatha.
1/1024 Native American, 1023/1024 Socialist.
David-2: "Dhe's very fortunate that that 1/1024 Cherokee heritage was sufficient to pass down the genes for high cheek bones."
By the Elizabeth Warren standard, every supermodel in the world is Native American!
This move by Warren is clearly a desperation movem to get this academic to muddy the waters sufficiently for Warren to assert she has addressed her decades old lies.
Just saw the best meme!
Wisconsin girls. The kind of girl you can take home to meet mom, but can out-drink your dad.
So which of Warren’s ancestors raped a Native American girl?
I think the proper question is 'which of her ancestors hired a Native American worker for his plantation and went on a trip?'
OR maybe the answer is: Which of the good Christian men, finding that his wife had been ravaged by a brutish bunch of Cherokee Thugs, graciously allowed her to keep the baby and raised it as his own?
Could have been a single woman, I suppose. The question which is difficult to sort out is how this half Indian child ever got accepted if we were all racist a-holes back in the day.
That sort of ruins their narrative.
AA - stated that Bustamante from Stanford was an expert so trust him. Sorry AA - Bustamante admitted he used South American DNA as a comparison, and "teased" (his word) the result. Which to a layman means garbage! Moreover, the 1/1024 = 0.00097656250, which for this former statistic major is less than statistical "white noise" on any test you can point out.
Now someone said "....she used this one drop for easier admission and other benefits meant for less disadvantaged than her....? Not sure if this works, mathematically, doesn't come out to 1 drop of blood when a human only has 5 quarts of blood? Damn those pesky facts always get in the way of political narratives.
Well, some of my ancestors probably came over to Greenland in the 9th century and probably left a splash of seed over here, if you know what I mean, so does that mean I am the progenitor of the large numbers of Canadian Indian Cultures?
Our kids are 12.5% Mexican Indian (roughly) based on their mothers genetic test and ancestry - they are 25% Mexican and it turns out my father in law was about half-Indio.
But we were advised to put them down as "white" for UC purposes as they were not culturally Mexican. Not that being Mexican would have done them any good.
“I'm just interested that the $99 test from 23&me wasn't good enough to do the job.
Or else she didn't like the result - because who does a cross country $$$$ test and analysis when the rest of us deplorables make do with stuff that comes in a fedex box?”
If she had used one of the DNA tests that one can get in the mail, she would’ve been criticized for that too.
Since gender is fluid and race is now a matter of feelz, I keep trying to talk my son into identifying as a Black Woman so he can get into the engineering school with a free ride.
Alas, my daughters, advocates of these very stances, takes offense at the consequences of their beliefs practically.
If she had used one of the DNA tests that one can get in the mail, she would’ve been criticized for that too.
She’s being criticized - entirely appropriately - for claiming minority status despite having absolutely none of the disadvantages or cultural experience associated with that minority status. The benefits that diversity is alleged to convey were not present here, and yet the “pro-diversity” crowd is - shockingly - unconcerned.
(eaglebeak)
The Cherokee are pretty touchy about their lineage. They keep careful records and they don't like clowns like Warren trying to exploit some fanciful heritage.
The Cherokee are one of the Five Civilized Tribes, as they called themselves, along with Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole.
The Seminole resisted being driven on the Trail of Tears under their leader Osceola; they are mostly still in Florida. The other tribes, all Eastern tribes, are now Nations in Oklahoma.
The Cherokee were farmers before Europeans got here, not hunter-gatherers. One of their prominent figures, Sequoyah, developed a syllabary for Cherokee, making it a literate language; the syllabary was adopted by the tribe in 1825.
Among their other leaders were Chief John Ross and Stand Watie (the only Indian general in the Confederate Army).
For Elizabeth Warren to claim prejudice against her nonexistent Cherokee grandmother (or whoever) as a reason for her parents to have to elope is to betray a TOTAL ignorance of the Cherokee Nation and the state of Oklahoma, and the fact that she was born in Oklahoma means either that she's an idiot or that she thought the rest of us were idiots who would not notice how ridiculous her story was.
It's interesting that Trump decided to call Warren "Pocohonts". The real Pocohontas married a white Englishman in Virginia in 1614, and they then moved to England. Their children, grandchildren, etc. remained in England and married white English persons. If any descendant of Pocohontas is alive today, he or she would be considered white, not Native American. In fact, someone recently asked a representative of Pocohontas's old tribe, and was told that descendants of Pocohontas would not qualify as members of the tribe. I don't recall whether any question was asked about affirmative action.
By the way, there's some evidence that I may have a Native American ancestor 10 generations back, just like Warren, but unlike Warren I know the name of my (purported) ancestor: Princess Little Dove, who married one of the early settlers of the Plymouth Colony (post-Mayflower). It's a shame I didn't know that when I applied to Harvard Law School.
And I don't even have high cheekbones.
“The Cherokee Nation, of which Warren claims lineage, does not declare membership by blood quantum, but by proof of direct lineage. Notice the word "proof". Not family stories.”
I think that the proble there is that there has long been a lot of out marriage by the Cherokee. Much more than most tribes. As noted, the 5 Civilized Tribes were farmers, and the story told by the Cherokee is that the reason behind their dispossession and forced removal to Oklahoma, was that they had kept the best farmland in the SE US, and sold the marginal land to the whites. Many spoke English, and were often the most successful farmers around. So, there were very likely a number of people allowed in the tribe who were less than full Cherokee by blood.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/10/15/analysis-elizabeth-warrens-embarrassing-native-american-proof-n2528599
So in the 1970's and early 1980's, Warren self-identified as white. When did that change?
The emergence of the University of Texas form does not explain why Warren listed herself as a minority in a widely used Association of American law Schools directory from 1986 through 1995. Warren has said she was proud of her Native American heritage and that she was hoping to connect with “people like me.’’ The directory, however, did not list her as someone with Native American heritage. It simply said “minority.’’ Harvard Law School also touted Warren as a Native American in the Harvard Crimson when it was under fire for a lack of diversity on its faculty. Leonard P. Strickman, founding dean at Florida International University, one of the nation’s most diverse law schools, said deans often consult the Association of American Law Schools directory when seeking out minority applicants, but look more rigorously at scholarship before making hires.
She chose to list herself as a minority in this influential professional publication ("often consulted by hiring deans") in 1986. She was offered a teaching position Penn, an Ivy League institution, in early 1987. Imagine that. She then continued to 'check the box' through 1995, which happened to be the year that she received a tenured position at Harvard Law School. Warren and her defenders insist that this timing is coincidental and that her formalized self-description as a racial minority played no role in her jump into the Ivies -- even though both Penn and Harvard were under immense pressure to enhance faculty diversity at the time, and each subsequently touted her in literature as a minority. She has claimed she didn't even know they were celebrating her as a minority, but her story has evolved. That strains credulity. It becomes even more dubious when you consider her ludicrous explanation for why she suddenly dropped the "minority" posture after reaching the pinnacle of her career path at Harvard:
Warren Derangement Syndrome on full display today. Whatever will these Trumpists do when she becomes President in 2020?
Inga...Allie Oop said...
If she had used one of the DNA tests that one can get in the mail, she would’ve been criticized for that too.
Bzzt!
She's been asked multiple times if she did a 23 and Me test, and has always declined to answer the question
Doing one of those tests, you'd be reasonably certain no one was gaming the results
having a buddy do it?
no way
when you are forced by the state to choose a box, when you don't want to
http://missliberty.com/how-jack-became-black-film-review/
Their children, grandchildren, etc. remained in England
No, their son returned: Thomas Rolfe
The father stole some tobacco seeds from the Spanish and changed the fate of the English New World. Pocahontas may have kept them from being slaughtered, but Rolfe made them prosper.
I think Jefferson is descended from them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा