Trump a liar again: "Pocahontas" really is Native American

Post Reply New Topic

Elizabeth Warren is not an Indian. End of story.

But she does have some Native American ancestry. Same way that I'm not a Jew, but have some Jewish ancestry.

The more I read about it, she seems like Rachel Dozier.

The title of this thread says "[Warren] really is Native American", and she absolutely is not. Anyone who wants to argue that has to then concede that I am royalty and refer to me as HRH Ezra from now on.

What seems to be Warren's biggest problem is that she was listed as a "minority professor" and "person of color" at Harvard.

So, she may have displaced a real minority person.

That surely damns her in the eyes of SJW types/"Stop White privilege" crowd.

How delicious ...

I don't see why a privileged white person trying to identify as a minority isn't being considered egregious by the libs.

I think the minute anyone suggested in anyway that she's a minority or person of color, she should have denied being so. Her taking a test to try backing up such a fallacy makes it twice a worse.

That may have been a mis-step, he clarifies immediately in the post itself that she only has ancestry.

You're right.



The thing is when I listened to what he said, Trump did not say a test that established that she had "Native American ancestry". He said a test that established that she is "an Indian".

^

Dozier parents never told her she had African American.Warren’s relations told her she had Native blood.

"She is also reinforcing one of the most insidious ways in which Americans talk about race: as though it were a measurable biological category, one that, in some cases, can be determined by a single drop of blood. Genetic-test evidence is circular: if everyone who claims to be X has a particular genetic marker, then everyone with the marker is likely to be X. This would be flawed reasoning in any area, but what makes it bad science is that it reinforces the belief in the existence of X—in this case, race as a biological category. Warren’s video will hardly convince a Trump voter, who will see only a woman who feels that she has to prove something. Trump himself has already walked back his promise of a million-dollar charity donation. Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... ce-and-dna

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has taken flak for her claims to Native American ancestry, just released the results of a genetic test that definitively proves... well, nothing. She might be 1/32nd Native American. Or 1/1,024th. Nobody really knows.

The Boston Globe story, which is very well reported, explains some of the major caveats with genetic ancestry testing. For example, a person's genome sequence must be compared to someone else's, and accuracy requires a sufficiently large database. However, as the Boston Globe states, there is very little genetic data on Native Americans, and Sen. Warren's DNA had to be compared to that from Mexicans, Peruvians, and Colombians.

Using this data, the original analysis, which was prepared by a respected geneticist, determined that five segments of Sen. Warren's DNA -- totaling about 12.3 million bases ("letters") -- are of Native American ancestry. That might sound like a lot, but the human genome contains more than 3.2 billion bases, which means that only about 0.4% of Sen. Warren's DNA sequence can be attributed to Native American ancestry.

Thus, the vast, vast majority of her DNA is of European descent. Though her pedigree probably contains a Native American ancestor, he or she existed six to ten generations ago. If a generation is roughly 25 years, that means that Sen. Warren's (possibly one and only) Native American ancestor lived 150 to 250 years ago.

While that means that Sen. Warren is technically correct that she has Native American ancestry, it falls far short of her rather boastful claims: "I am very proud of my heritage... These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mamaw and my papaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it." She makes it sound as if she lived in a teepee and smoked peyote.

Consumer tests usually examine the Y chromosome (if the person is male), mitochondrial DNA, and a select number of "single nucleotide polymorphisms," which can be thought of as unique mutations scattered around the genome. In this case, the test examined nearly 765,000 data points from Sen. Warren's genome.

But these tests have limitations. For instance, the U.S. National Library of Medicine writes that "ethnicity estimates may not be consistent from one provider to another." That's why, as Science News says, DNA tests are just a starting point for genealogy. To really find out who your ancestors were, you must examine "marriage certificates, military rolls, census records, immigration documents, old photographs and other records."

Anything less than that, and -- as Ross Pomeroy at RealClearScience wrote -- you're basically just reading a horoscope.

Source: Elizabeth Warren's DNA Test Tells Us Nothing

Obviously a bogus article that ignores science. If the DNA of a Native American was 100% different from someone of European ancestry, then that objection would make sense. In reality, most of the genes in DNA are not specific to any one group and can't be used to identify a group.

I have never found anywhere , where Warren's parents told her she's a "Cherokee".

She seems to have completely made it up.

She has even called herself, "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee".

Like, she needs you to know that she's special.

The tribes can't permit DNA testing, because most American DNA is so washed out by Euro DNA.

This Cherokee Indian, Oklahoma Republican U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, still lives on an Indian reservation .. yet .. he could pass as a "white guy" ...

Actually, the DNA of First Nations is rather unique ... it contains a certain specific mix of Eastern European and Asian DNA that is found nowhere else in the world. Thus, if the complete form of this specific mix is found in a person, then chances are that the person is a First Nations member. But if only a few fragments of this mix are present, then the person may not have enough First Nations DNA to qualify as a member.

I, for example, have less than 5% First Nations ancestry, which makes it only a statistical fact, and not a significant one. AFAIK, no tribe will recognize me as one of theirs.