Hey, there! Log in / Register

Elizabeth Warren has some native-American DNA after all

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

History shows that the Trumps don't donate to charities. They steal from them.

up
Voting closed 0

There is no need for Trump to make the donation. Cherokee Nation just took a shit on Warren’s claim.

http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cherokee-Nation-responds-t...

up
Voting closed 0

Is that being of Cherokee ancestry is no more relevant to being a member of the Cherokee Nation than being white is relevant to being American.

The Cherokee Nation is not an ethnicity, it's a political entity. Every single Cherokee who stayed behind in the East through pretending they were white ensured that they and all of their descendants could never again be counted as members of the Cherokee Nation. That was a political choice then, and the definition of membership today remains a political choice.

up
Voting closed 0

Your defense is that the Indian Tribes explicitly recognized as quasi-sovereign ethnostates in the original Constitution are not *really* ethnicities?

up
Voting closed 0

Ethnicity and citizenship are different things. You're from what again, Bootlickistan? So ethnically you're Bootlicki, but you are a citizen of a country called America. Your kids won't be citizens of Bootlickistan even if some unfortunate Bootlicki woman marries you and procreates, making a passel of little mewling Bootlickis.

In the case of Native American tribes, history is very specific and complicated. Once upon a time it was of great benefit to individuals of Native American descent to pretend to be entirely white. Many of us whose antecedents were in this country a few hundred years ago, especially in the area of the Carolinas, can count such people in our family trees. The Cherokees of Oklahoma are distinct, because they've paid their dues for a hundred and fifty years.

Nowadays it's possible to be a benefit to someone to be defined as Native American, because some Native American tribes (hello casinos!) have figured out how to make big money off the fact, and they'd like to share that money with fewer people, and because some federal contracts are steered towards people who claim Native American identity. If you want to understand how that works, look into the matter of Vortex Construction.

Most Americans don't claim to be Native American, or even part Native American, even if we are. That's because being Native American is a political matter as well as an ethnic matter. It was unbecoming and incorrect for Sen. Warren to list herself as Native American in that survey so long ago, and she should work harder to clarify what it means to be Native American today.

up
Voting closed 6

"I'm not enrolled in a tribe and only tribes determine tribal citizenship"- Elizabeth "Betsy" Warren

Watch: Elizabeth Warren's family story

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 0

the right will respond to this news is read the comments section on that Herald piece. "It's fake, it's too small, she still used it unfairly to her advantage", and so on. Right-wing morons will continue to believe right-wing lies: the facts do not matter.

As a rule, I advise against reading the comments of Herald readers, unless you want to convinced that the human race is hopelessly doomed by its own pig-ignorance, childishness and bigotry.

up
Voting closed 5

But, the Globe's comment section aint no fountain of glowing dignity, either.

up
Voting closed 0

nymag:

Media Congratulates Trump for Spreading Lie About Elizabeth Warren

The accusation implied by the nickname is that Warren falsified Native American heritage to advance her career in academia. Warren has said she has been told by her family that she has part Cherokee descent, and has listed that designation at times. This week, she released the result of a DNA test trying to ascertain whether that family lore is correct. The test suggested she probably did have a Cherokee ancestor six to ten generations ago. Conservatives claimed this proved she had less Native American ancestry than the average person, and the conclusion spread virally through conservative media, although it was false.

"although it was false"

Razib Khan: Geneticist by day. Also history, evolution, books, etc. Tweets only represent me. Pay me for my emotional labor Austin, TX

up
Voting closed 0

Trump is a right wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that he knows are bad or is too dumb to know are bad

Warren is a left wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that she knows are bad and is too smart to say otherwise

This progressive crap is just another word for socialism - and as Maggie Thatcher used to say - it all sounds wonderful until you run out of other people's money.

Basically a vote for Warren is a vote for the other side of the paper and more divisive politics.

Want a female Democratic pragmatist for president that would do a much better job - get Gina Raimondo from RI to run - sadly coming from such a small state it would be hard for her to get traction - but one can hope.

Please, please, please - find me a moderate Democrat to run for president and get this idiot out of the White House!

up
Voting closed 10

OMG SOCIALISM!!!

RUN! RUN AWAY!

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Your greed is obvious.

up
Voting closed 3

That has already run out of their own money.

up
Voting closed 0

I have plenty of money. Retired early, even.

Still not buying your bullshit.

up
Voting closed 0

Since you've hoarded plenty of money. Not very socialist of you. Rather armchair liberal in fact.

up
Voting closed 0

Majority thrives and minority gets completely, absolutely, irreversibly screwed under fascism (see pre-WWII Germany.). Under communism, minority thrives and majority gets royally screwed (see USSR, Cuba, Nort Korea, etc.) When given the choice of the two which is exactly where we’re headed now that fringe lunatics from both ends of the political spectrum are screaming the loudest, where do you think we’ll end up?

up
Voting closed 4

And three countries - the west coast, the east coast and middle America?

Frightening thought - but it seems that's where we're headed.

up
Voting closed 0

...the majority DIDN'T thrive in pre-WWII Germany. Rationing was in place before the outbreak of the war: food, clothing and soap. Hitler was an idiot with regard to the economy as he was with regard to nearly everything else.

up
Voting closed 4

It's so great that one side can refuse to release tax returns (and pays no price) while the other side is expected to put their birth certificates and literal fucking DNA tests out there.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe Trump can get a friendly newspaper to claim that Trump has released his tax returns to them.

IMAGE(https://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/kerry_football_doofus.jpg)

"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."

up
Voting closed 0

mandating that anyone release their tax returns for viewing (and inevitable misinterpretation) by the public and the media. Rather, release of tax returns - much like Warren's DNA test - is another pointless sideshow designed to deflect attention from the work our politicians are supposed to be doing but aren't.

up
Voting closed 13

Warren's DNA test - is another pointless sideshow

I'm sorry, WHAT'S the distraction? If Herr Trump and his surrogates hadn't relentlessly blown this dog whistle, there wouldn't have been any DNA test.

up
Voting closed 0

Lizzie is Donnie's dog?

up
Voting closed 4

huffingtonpost:

Jim Barnett: Scott Brown’s Karl Rove

Barnett has served as the driving force behind Scott Brown’s classically sleazy Rove-style attacks on Warren’s qualifications and heritage. Rather than focusing on issues that actually matter to voters or the future of the country, Barnett has sent one vitriolic statement after another, and called press conferences to call Warren’s family liars for citing their Native American heritage.

snopes:

Did Elizabeth Warren Lie About Her Native American Heritage to Land a Job at Harvard?
IMAGE(https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2015/02/warrenmeme.jpg?w=400)
Elizabeth Warren

  • doesn't live in a mansion valued at several million dollars.
  • didn't make false claims of Native American heritage to gain an edge over other candidates for a job at Harvard? Watch
  • did not draw a large salary for teaching only one class.
  • does argue the system is rigged to benefit the rich (and wants the government to require livable wages, build ladders for the poor and the middle class to opportunity and financially secure retirements)
up
Voting closed 0

... which is exactly why the media has asked for presidential candidates in the general election to release their tax returns, but has not asked them to submit DNA tests.

Here is a partial list of what can be learned from tax returns:

1) What the candidate's approximate income is, as this helps form his world view.

2) Broadly, the sources of income, including direct payments for work contracted, debt carried over, certain types of loans, etc. All of these disclose potential conflicts of interest and ethical vulnerabilities. They also shed light on his work history & life experiences.

3) Verification of prior statements about earnings, capital holdings, and wealth; this can reveal whether or not the candidate has been honest.

4) Whether or not the candidate has made errors, the size & significance of those errors, and how quickly they were rectified. After all, it is the responsibility of the president to submit the budget to the House and Senate, and while the heavy lifting is done by OPM, a baseline of financial competence is not too much to expect.

5) If the candidate's share of responsibility for the common defense & general welfare that he has paid is in line with others in his income bracket, and how it compares to his greater constituency.

There are few experiences that almost all American adults share. Filing taxes is one of them. As such, it's a reasonable benchmark to use.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

She was telling the truth the whole time.

So hard to process...

up
Voting closed 8

Somewhat exaggerated truth. 1/256th is awfully dilute. Is that enough?

But I think the root of the problem is that she must have started coloring her hair a long time ago. If she kept her hair dark instead of golden then nobody would have blinked an eye.

up
Voting closed 2

Warren is descended from a Native American. It is now scientifically proven, so yes that is enough. Facts matter.

up
Voting closed 0

Doing this test and making it public was a political move that was well thought out and will most likely backfire. The bottom line is she is a white woman who more likely than not marked off on an application that she was Native American and those institutions she worked had listed her as a person of color in their HR stats.

In an election this will crush her and the move here appears to have backfired. Don't think she will get out of the Dem race in 2020 if she goes in....

So, no it isn't enough.

up
Voting closed 0

Failing to perfectly word the statement "one of my grandparents claimed Native American heritage": electoral suicide

Literally a neverending deluge of outright lies, corruption, incompetence, treasonous conduct with foreign governments, and malicious treatment of every minority known to man, and from the current president: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

up
Voting closed 1

Merely different sides of the same sheet of paper.

up
Voting closed 15

But we aren't talking about making statements about grandmothers. We are talking about checking off boxes for affirmative action purposes. That is a political issue.

You can shake your head, but both sides need to take different approaches. This issue is going to hound her unless she is able to address it honestly and even then it might not work for her.

up
Voting closed 1

Did you ever work for Harvard?

I did. I filled out that survey about 20 years ago.

Those boxes you speak of are boxes that are checked off AFTER you are hired, not before. They have to do with assessing the composition of the current workforce, not affirmative action.

up
Voting closed 9

(and about 6 other colleges) Never filled out a survey but....

It is the perception. I'm not saying why she did it or for what reason, but checking it off at any point puts you in a better position in the future if you want to further yourself. I am not saying that is why she did it or if it would even help her. But it is all the same when it comes to perception.

up
Voting closed 0

About fifteen years ago, I had the minor misfortune of getting mixed up in some internal politics of student services at Chicken Scratch Tech, which despite the name is actually a highly ranked university.

The particular department I had dealings with was a place where being openly gay or transgendered helped you climb that particular corporate ladder. My evidence for this? A whole lot of the middle and upper management and workforce in this department was openly gay and the head of the department, with whom I had many discussions completely unrelated to the issue of gender or sexuality or ethnicity would occasionally go off on a well-mannered and eloquent digression about the beauty of the LGBTQQA ('queer/questioning/ally' in the parlance of the time) activism on campus.

He was a heterosexual white male with a wife and kids. I don't know if he actually believed any of it or if he was just virtue-signalling with all his might to maintain the respect of his subordinates and to stay in the good graces of his superiors. But the overall culture of the place was that if you weren't conspicuously doing LGBT activism in your spare time, you weren't going with the flow.

Some women I knew who worked there that were straight and married. But if you didn't know them, the way they carried themselves and dressed and cut their hair, you'd tacitly assume they were lesbians.

There's nothing I particularly object to about nearly all of those people. I was friendly with most of them and they did good work, but in retrospect, I'd bet some of them were faking it, if just a little. Not that they were secret members of the Westboro Baptist Church, but more that they probably didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, but weren't above faking a little heartfelt activism to mesh with the culture of the place better.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a law professor at Cornell that was on Dan Rea last night. Very balanced approach and he says straight up - until/unless Warren's hiring records are released (don't hold your breath - Harvard isn't going to do that as a matter of policy) - we don't really have enough information to know if her position as a "woman of color" got her any preferential hiring treatment.

HOWEVER, filing out this form did get Warren on certain lists and she was declared a "woman of color" which made her a highly desirable target for hiring. Impossible to tell if this had anything to do with here getting hired but two interesting coincidences:

1) My understanding is that she was the only faculty member that did not attend an Ivy League law school. Something - not her academic pedigree - got her on the hiring list and ultimately to the top of the list - in exception to every other recent hire (I have heard this but did not read the article myself, so if you have other info - I will be happily corrected).

2) According to the guest on the radio, immediately upon qualifying for tenure, she removed her name from the list identifying her as a "woman of color".

Smoke, no fire - but certainly raises more than eyebrows.

up
Voting closed 4

That's the point. It goes little-by-little.

There was plenty of smoke in the 1760s when Benjamin Franklin proposed a separate colonial parliament. Independent, but still loyal to the crown, so no fire.

up
Voting closed 0

"Her name with respect to racial minority hiring? No, never."-Randy Kennedy, Harvard Law School watch

WBUR:

Harvard: Warren Got Job Only On Merits As Teacher
May 7, 2012

A Harvard Law School professor and former Reagan administration official is calling "false" and "complete nonsense" any suggestion that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor.

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan, said the Democratic Senate candidate was recruited to be a tenured professor because she was preeminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law.

Fried, a member of the appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said the subject of her Native American ancestry was never mentioned.

Fried said the notion that Warren "attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense."

State Republican Party Chairman Bob Maginn had asked Harvard to review Warren's hiring.

up
Voting closed 2

Claiming Native American ancestry did not advance Senator Warren's career in any way shape or form: FACT. The nasty anti-Native American rhetoric coming from Trump and his supporters makes right-wingers look stupid, arrogant and ignorant. Just stop.

up
Voting closed 0

It could be true, it might not be. But not a fact by any means.

up
Voting closed 0

She never said she was 50% native. She said her parents told her she had distant native ancestry. Her parents were correct.

It's all stupid. No one should give a shit about something as meaningless as someone's heritage as it relates to their ability to govern or be a good citizen.

up
Voting closed 0

She said it was known her mother was of Cherokee heritage...that's why her parents were forced to elope. I'm not sure a woman with1/1024th N.A. blood, 10 generations back of being a Native American is enough for anyone to object to their son marrying her.

There's also the pesky fact that they didn't actually test her DNA against actual Native American blood, but blood from those of Mexican/Central American ancestry. So, she's either 1/52nd-1/1024th Native American, or 1/52nd- 1/1024th Mexican/Central American, but hey, strong chance.

Edit: I did mean elope, not adopt.

up
Voting closed 11

The scientists don't have a large sample of Native DNA since many N.A. object to being taking advantage of in this way. Yet, SURPRISE, that's exactly what's happening by both political parties.

up
Voting closed 3

I have an identified ancestor.

Every time I log into 23 and Me, the %Native estimate increases. Now I know why: more samples mean more identified markers that match my genome.

Explains a mystery for me!

One of many, the latest of which was a daughter of my father's first cousin who was adopted out because her mother was very young and unmarried at the time. Thing is, she is a second cousin but she matched very strongly - high end of first cousin. Segment analysis indicates that she is also likely to be related to my mother. Sheds some light on the search for her father.

up
Voting closed 0

Always with the trailer park tales!

up
Voting closed 2

Shootin at cans, swillin beer, and explaining what all the genetic stuff means.

Great times!

up
Voting closed 0

Don't know the embedding trick - so here's a link to I'm my own grandpa by Ray Stevens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

Quite funny

up
Voting closed 0

You mean "elope," not "adopt."

Warren's parents got married in 1932. Do you know what prejudice was like in rural America in 1932? Seriously, people were trying their damnedest to look as white as they could, and even a rumor of being not entirely white was a big scandal.

It's a matter of record they got married in a different town, in a parsonage rather than a church, and with nobody in attendance. Maybe they had another reason to elope, I don't know.

I do know that Warren said she had a very small amount of Native American blood, from a great-grandmother or some such, and it looks like a scientific process conducted by a reputable expert upheld that assertion.

How far would you like the goalposts moved?

up
Voting closed 0

She specifically said her parents were forced to elope because her father's parents objected to their son marrying a Cherokee. Her mother "may" have Native American blood from her great, great, great, great, great, great. great, great, grandmother. That is NOT enough for anyone to object to a wedding even if it is true. It's not me moving the goalposts.

up
Voting closed 0

If not, how do you know what her family was or wasn't thinking in 1932?

up
Voting closed 6

The NY Times stated the average "white" American has .18% Native American blood...which is double what this test showed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-stu...

She lied about that story. Deal with it.

up
Voting closed 1

She said her parents told her she had native ancestry. The tests confirm that.

up
Voting closed 3

you lost. You can deny all you want (and you probably will).

Hey, here is a thought. You seem to like finding politicians that do not tell the truth and calling them out on it. May I suggest a new venue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president...

Have fun!

up
Voting closed 0

Nothing in that test proves she has native american blood. It says on the high side, there's a 2% chance she has some South American blood and those South Americans MAYBE were Native American. It also says she has less native american blood than the average white american.

She was 100% lying when she identified as a Native American, and when she told the bullshit story about her parents having to elope because "her mom was part Cherokee".

https://twitter.com/RightHook99/status/1051875050230599686

up
Voting closed 5

Nothing in that test proves she has native american blood

Dude, just stop. You're a counterfactual nutjob just like your fuehrer. You need to go play with your toys or something; you have no business in a discussion with grownups who accept facts.

up
Voting closed 1

there's a 2% chance she has some South American blood

That's not what it says at all. What a DNA scan like this "says" is that she has a number of markers that are in a consistent pattern that you only find in certain sub-populations of humans, in this case that subpopulation is Native American (you can't draw a distinction between "Central American" or "South American" or "American Indian/North American" because in many ways those sub-populations were heavily intertwined and we have no way of distinguishing between their sub-sub-populations with differing patterns in DNA at this time. So, "Native American" is the sub-population.

So, she has patterns only found in that sub-population...that's not a "2% chance"...it's a 100% chance. She has them...there's no chance involved.

Now, how many patterns does she have that are specifically found in the sub-population and not in others? The more of the patterns we know are distinct to that sub-population, the more recent the ancestry because other patterns haven't had a chance to replace them in your generation. She has enough of these specific patterns to narrow it down to about 6-10 generations ago. That also doesn't mean there's a 1 in 1024 chance she has Native American ancestry. It just means that 150-200 years ago, one of her family's ancestors was Native American. And that *could* mean that just 3-4 generations ago, around the Civil War, her great-grandmother married someone who themselves was 1/8th Native American (enough to scare the white people). And that kind of stain could last on a family for generations around the right group of prejudiced neighborhood busybodies. And even if the stain had worn away and people moved on and attitudes changed, there'd still be the story of how they were treated because of their heritage within the family.

I'm 1/8th Lebanese (which was still a part of Syria at the time). I don't look it. My relatives were even the "good" Christian Syrians, so they dealt with far less abuse in America. But I know their stories of coming here and cook the food and so will my family's next generation. And hopefully in 50 years, our descendants will say "we're definitely part Lebanese...let me tell you about how your ancestor came here on a boat...". And hopefully, nobody's going to question them on it or call them "Aladdin" or some racist Middle Eastern moniker just because my family knows where it came from years later.

up
Voting closed 4

She's 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

up
Voting closed 0

There was a range of values - which makes sense given the variance in heredity experienced by humans.

up
Voting closed 0

Many in the US do and many people have no idea that they do because ... RACISM.

Some of us were lucky enough to have reliable family stories about this ... others had it buried and hidden.

up
Voting closed 0

If it was 1/4 indian i'd be impressed. "Strong evidence"? Not definitive to me.

up
Voting closed 0

Obviously not.

Bunker Hill Community College has some excellent entry level courses. You might find them helpful and informative.

up
Voting closed 1

Warren was told by her parents that her parents eloped because her father's family didn't want him marrying a woman who was part Native American.

My family has a similar story less the elopement. My Native American heritage is supposed to be on my father's mothers side. I have no reason to disbelieve them. I can't imagine why anyone in my father's family would falsely claim native American ancestry. Dad was born in 1923.

Warren took the test and got some evidence that substantiated what her parents told her. Nowhere in that loop is Warren lying even if the test came back 0% Native American, which it didn't.

As to the claim of affirmative action fraud, how could she have known she wasn't what her parents told her she was? Beyond that, two Harvard law professors say ethnic heritage was not a consideration in hiring her. So too did law profs at Penn, UT Austin and Univ. of Houston.

Boston Globe found no evidence affirmative action was a consideration in her hiring either.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, the Globe put the story right below the masthead on the front page, and the AP story that the Herald posted referenced the Globe story, but whatever.

That said, the Herald did highlight a politician on the front page today. For those who don't want to take a look, the headline was "Hill Says Bill's Affair with Lewinsky not an Abuse of Power," with "#MeToo, but not Her!" in larger type below it. This is a reference to an interview the former Secretary of State gave to Meet the Press yesterday.

The two papers have two different political slants, and today is a classic example. Perhaps this is another good reason why we should be happy that we live in a two newspaper town.

up
Voting closed 1

Clinton's scandals are now 20+ years old. Hillary Clinton lost an election two years ago and isn't running again. She could think Bill descended from mole people for all it matters.

At least Warren is a current Senator, currently up for election in a few weeks.

up
Voting closed 8

I mean, after Nixon resigned, he was an outcast in his own party, though he did have a decent post-Presidency career writing foreign policy books.

On the other hand, the Clintons are still the ultimate insiders in the Democratic Party. They campaign for candidates. They are newsmakers and king (or queen) makers. Six years after being impeached, Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. If the Clintons didn't matter, Hillary would not have been on Meet the Press yesterday.

I will concede that the Warren story has more currency, but it also didn't appear in today's print edition of the Herald. The Globe's Warren story is being cited by the Washington Post, who also noted the Clinton interview.

up
Voting closed 3

the Clintons are still the ultimate insiders in the Democratic Party. They campaign for candidates. They are newsmakers and king (or queen) makers. Six years after being impeached, Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. If the Clintons didn't matter, Hillary would not have been on Meet the Press yesterday.

I'm not sure you understand -- like, in the tiniest degree -- how the media works, or how they decide who appears on Meet the Press. In fact, based on that laughable statement, I'm pretty sure you have no idea how the media works at all (hint: their decisions for subjects have a lot to do with what gets people like you going). As for the Democratic Party, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not, in fact, involved in the least way with Democratic Party politics, and don't have the least idea what you're talking about -- but if you don't like the Clintons' influence (or what you erroneously believe it to be), you're free to join the party and change that. I predict you'll quickly realize just how ridiculous your statements are.

up
Voting closed 1

And I've been a Democrat since 1989. I've had a Clinton on my ballot 4 times in the Presidential primary and avoided that stink all 4 times.

That said, Monica Lewinsky was disinvited from an event this year because Bill Clinton was also going to be there. The Clinton couple are also going on a major tour this year. Sounds like the Clintons are still very much in the public eye.

But hey, remember when Hillary Clinton was basically funding the DNC. Man, it seems like years ago, but it was only two. I mean, unless you are calling Donna Brazile a liar.

up
Voting closed 4

And I've been a Democrat since 1989. I've had a Clinton on my ballot 4 times in the Presidential primary and avoided that stink all 4 times.

Hurray for you! But that in no way means being involved in Democratic Party politics. What a shame you don't get the distinction! If you did, you might be able to do something about that Clinton on your ballot.

That said, Monica Lewinsky was disinvited from an event this year because Bill Clinton was also going to be there. The Clinton couple are also going on a major tour this year. Sounds like the Clintons are still very much in the public eye.

So's Kanye West. Your point was?

But hey, remember when Hillary Clinton was basically funding the DNC. Man, it seems like years ago, but it was only two. I mean, unless you are calling Donna Brazile a liar.

I don't know how to explain this to you, but this WAS two years ago. Had it resulted in a win, things might have been different.

up
Voting closed 3

Despite your protestations, the Clintons and Elizabeth Warren are amongst the best known of Democratic politicians. Both the Globe and Herald ran stories about them today.

Can we at least agree on that?

up
Voting closed 0

Let’s do some math. 1/32 = 3.125% and 1/512 = 0.1953125%. I still call bullshit.

up
Voting closed 3

All she claimed was that ancestors x generations back were Native, and this test shows that.

I'm not even a huge Liz fan and I find her annoying anytime I see her on TV. I like her as a senator but do not want her as a president. She is far more effective as a senator.

up
Voting closed 3

The test shows she possibly is 1/52nd to 1/1024th Mexican or South American.

1. Warren still cannot point to any specific ancestor who was Native American. 2. Warren never lived as a Native American or associated with Native Americans.
3. Warren didn't claim to be Native American until her late 30s.
4. Warren only used alleged Native American status for employment purposes, and stopped claiming that status when she got tenure at Harvard Law School.
5. There remains zero evidence Warren was a descendant of the Cherokee or Delaware tribes.
6. The DNA test does not prove Warren is Native American, at most there is “strong evidence” of a single ancestor dating back 6-10 generations, based on analysis that compares Warren’s DNA to numerous groups, including non-Native American groups.

Obviously this isn't going to change anyone's opinion of Warren, nor does it say anything about her ability to be a Senator/Presidential Candidate, but pretending that she has been 100% honest about this issue is absurd.

up
Voting closed 0

You haven't bothered reading because you are too ignorant to grasp

up
Voting closed 0

DNA tests are not perfect. What it does show is that she has an ancestor that was Native American, which shows that she was telling what she knew to be true. So, yes, she was being 100% honest.

So your #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6 are straw men. #4 is debatable.

Why don't you do so analysis on President Pussy Pant's verifiable false and misleading claims since he took office? You have close to 5,000 to choose from.

up
Voting closed 0

Your comments couldn't be more wrong. DNA tests aren't just "not perfect", they aren't accepted by Cherokee nation to prove membership.

Regardless, this test DID NOT compare her DNA to that of ANY Native American, it compared it to South American DNA, and the assumption was made that those ancestors would have moved into the US at some point.

The test also shows that she had less "Native American" DNA than the average white American.

So yes, she was being 100% honest...sure. 10 generations of "family lore". This possible Native American ancestor was around before the Revolutionary War, and possibly before Manhattan was purchased from the Dutch, but hey, I'm sure her family kept very detailed notes on their lineage....they just lost the page that actually stated who among them was actually Cherokee.v

up
Voting closed 0

200 years at most

up
Voting closed 4

Ok, sure...

A generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively". It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own".

Ooops, another correction from the Boston Globe. She's now between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.....

up
Voting closed 8

up
Voting closed 3

DNA tests aren't just "not perfect", they aren't accepted by Cherokee nation to prove membership.

Good thing she wasn't trying to get accepted as a member by the Cherokee nation. Now, take off your MAGAt hat, it's clearly on too tight.

up
Voting closed 0

Genetics are probablistic in nature. Your numbers look nice as abstract arithmetic, but not reflect heritability patterns observed for humans and how we pass along genetic info.

I call bullshit on your math.

up
Voting closed 0

Specifically discussing how the case of Dawn Beaudoin led investigators to start searching genetic databases to identify some serial killers.

Scroll down to "Step 2": https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/15/sci...

up
Voting closed 0

The actual Boston Herald newspaper couldn’t even find one spare inch of space for this story today.

You’d think, after all the whining Howie has done about “Pocahontas,” this story would be worth a spot in the Herald. But Joe “oh, please” Fitzgerald got half a page of space to complain about hypocrisy...from liberals.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 2

Print readers are the ones that pay the bills for both the Globe and the Herald.

Viewing the layout of a physical newspaper is a lesson in what the publisher thinks matters. Silly little news websites (this one notwithstanding, which is a testament to Adam's organizational skills) are about what those who click on stories think matter. Exhibit #1- the decline of boston.com.

My bet is that the Herald will have a few columns on it, including one by Howie Carr. They will be as dismissive of the report as most of the more conservative commenters here are. I also predict that if Warren somehow is the frontrunner in 2020, Trump will still hammer her on the issue and it will hurt her bad. I mean, he tied Ted Cruz' dad to the Kennedy assassination. Doing things like that is Trump's main political skill. And before you scoff at that, remember that he is currently President of the United States.

up
Voting closed 0

How is the Herald supposed to get an article in today's print paper that refers to and coincides with something reported in today's Globe?

up
Voting closed 0

Some of the Herald’s papers go to press after the early edition of The Globe. Although since they moved their printing to Providence, they can’t seem to get final scores into the paper I receive, even though I live right in Boston.

I also checked their final edition PDF which did have late scores, full Red Sox and Patriots stories, but not one word about Elizabeth Warren’s DNA.

up
Voting closed 6

Once again, a print paper can't be expected to have a print article that refers to a competing paper's alleged journalism until paper #2 has actually published something.

But the next day...

IMAGE(http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/photos_featured_big/public/media/2018/10/16/bh_Oct162018_A001.jpg?itok=MfTr1Zre)

up
Voting closed 2

They had SIX columnists in addition to one regular reporter writing two articles on the issue. So in case you thought the Herald didn't have anyone working for them anymore, there's proof they do (except that I believe Carr and Graham are technically no longer employees.)

That's as many writers as the Globe dedicated to their spotlight series on Aaron Hernandez' sex life this week.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/photos_featured_big/public/media/2018/10/16/bh_Oct162018_A001.jpg?itok=MfTr1Zre)

DNA
I got, I got, I got, I got
Loyalty, got royalty inside my DNA
Cocaine quarter piece, got war and peace inside my DNA
I got power, poison, pain and joy inside my DNA
I got hustle though, ambition, flow, inside my DNA
I was born like this, since one like this
Immaculate conception
I transform like this, perform like this
Was Yeshua's new weapon
I don’t contemplate, I meditate, then off your fucking head
This that put-the-kids-to-bed
This that I got, I got, I got, I got
Realness, I just kill shit 'cause it's in my DNA
I got millions, I got riches buildin’ in my DNA
I got dark, I got evil, that rot inside my DNA
I got off, I got troublesome, heart inside my DNA
I just win again, then win again like Wimbledon, I serve
Yeah, that's…

up
Voting closed 0

This is the Boston Globe's story, not the Herald's.

Why Adam is passing it off as the Herald's story is beyond me.

up
Voting closed 0

Bottom of Globe article:

"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."

FYI 1/,024 = 0.009765625 - Wow i guess i owe her an apology.

up
Voting closed 0

So there were two claims, one front and center and one implied.

The Brownshirts claimed that cracker-ass Warren falsely claimed she had Native American heritage from a distant relative. They implied she played up that claim, and benefitted from it in her career and studies at Ivy league schools.

The implied charge was shown to be 100% false when people checked in with her employers and her academic history.

Now there's scientific evidence her story checks out, a distant relative was more likely than not Cherokee.

So, whats your fucking problem Anon. If you have a bone to pick with her, drop the propaganda nonsense and lay it out.

up
Voting closed 0

Newsflash: I'm a little black and Mexican and Amazonian Tribesman myself if there's no limit to how far back I can go. In the grand scheme of things, 4,000 generations isn't that many, and boom, that's about the 80,000 years since the neolithic revolution and spread from Africa that nearly all of us...Europeans, Middle Easterners, full blooded Africans, East and South Asians, Australian Aboriginals...everybody, can trace some ancestry to.

There might be a lesson in there about the brotherhood of mankind. There might be a lesson in there about amplifying and exploiting minor ancestral differences to get ahead. There might be a lesson about the finer points of identity politics and grievance mongering in there too.

The lesson I draw from this is that Elizabeth Warren is still a faker and a socialist, no matter if it's 6 or 10 generations back she has to go to prove she's got at least some native blood in her.

And let me be clear...if she actually was a Native American, if she kept the rituals and observances...hell if she had family that did then it wouldn't be an issue. I defy you to find me one Republican who isn't named David Duke or Richard Spenser that would hold it against her. But: She was raised white, lived white, and only adopted a convenient ethnic identity when it suited her career ambitions at an institution that was famously post-modernist and identity politics-driven. And now it turns out she's no more native than the average white person. The Globe can run all the puff-piece-propaganda it wants denying it but they're as agenda-driven as Breitbart is.

I didn't like it when Scott Brown harped on it in 2012, but he was 100% right.

up
Voting closed 7

By the time she became well known on the national scene (nominated to head the CFPC, appeared on TV shows talking about financial issues, and later running for Senate) she didn't talk about it. Some of the earlier things have me a bit concerned. My only issue now is getting a strong candidate against Trump in 2020. This settles nothing.

up
Voting closed 6

But to counter your counterpoint...I doubt Elizabeth Warren would have been nominated to the CFPC if she hadn't been leading the team drafting the law that created it and I strongly doubt she would have been tapped to write a piece of legislation if she wasn't a tenured professor at Harvard Law. Nothing against the University of Oklahoma or Tennessee or Penn State or Rice or Duke or any of them, but the way this country works is that the very smart and talented people who don't have Ivy, Stanford, or MIT credentials to their names do not get tapped for that kind of work. And she sure looks like she faked her way to it in a way that's qualitatively different from the kind of academic puffery and fakery that people usually use to climb up that ladder.

up
Voting closed 0

To you and other wing nuts. Nobody ever thought reality could reach you.

up
Voting closed 5

I'll just keep on living in my fake news echo chamber instead of this mythical place called the "real world" where there is no such thing as office politics or academic fraud or gaming the system.

I will tell...I've met and worked with all sorts of people in my time, including folks who I'm pretty sure were given an extra bump in admissions or hiring preference because of their ethnicity or their gender. Nearly everyone I've had the good fortune to work with, they were friendly, humble, and hardworking people who fit in and contributed to the team. And other than my private grumblings over the philosophy of affirmative action, it really wasn't an issue for me. I wouldn't dream of even hinting of any thoughts like that about specific people because it's an awful thing to say to someone or about someone. Especially in a line of work where mental sharpness is what pays the bills.

My point is...the ethnic chauvinists who wear their DNA on their sleeves and make every effort to let you know about it...those are the exception, not the rule, and those people are conspicuous and off-putting. If that's who Liz Warren was in the early 90s, then shame on her for succumbing to that instinct, shame on her again for doubling down on it when she first ran for the Senate, and shame on her thrice over for trying to pawn off an in-the-noise number like 1/64th as some sort of vindication.

up
Voting closed 0

That she used her bloodline to get ahead. Yet every paper that looked into it came away saying that doesn't appear to be the case.

But you keep repeating the talking point. So people feel it must be true, despite the facts. Repeat a lie enough, right?

Because that's what carefully crafted propaganda does. When you're going to hopelessly lose on the merit, you just need to posion the rules you play by.

Because in the end, the ends justify the means. And hell, I don't have time worry about it. Whats the worst that could happen, said the German shopkeep to the Jewish clerk.

up
Voting closed 2

The Boston Globe is the only paper that looked into it. And they looked into it by a process that boils down to taking an opinion poll of her colleagues.

These people on the one hand strenuously deny that ethnicity had anything to do with her hiring and promotion, despite there being glimmers of evidence of her being touted (not reported, touted) as a woman color in her department. That's thing one.

Thing two is that these people work for an institution that is in court right now defending the use of ethnicity as a consideration in academic recruitment at the undergraduate level. It really strains credulity that Harvard would go to court to defend ethnic cherrypicking in one of its core mission areas but would not practice it any others.

And thing three is that they're all democrat partisans whose willingness to give ammunition to the other side by affirming that ethnicity was a consideration in Elizabeth Warren's favor would be expected to be low.

That all said: I don't trust the Globe to be objective about something like this and I don't trust their sources to be objective about something like this. And it sure looks like the thing I'm claiming happened actually did.

up
Voting closed 0

So, the people who were there, and who were part of the process, and were the only ones who would know how it went...are wrong, because they don't say what you want. And you don't trust the Globe because you don't trust the Globe. And more right wing word salad.

OK you know what?

We all know what, because you never say anything new. Learn a new routine, why don't you?

up
Voting closed 0

derived from skepticism sparked by the start difference between what I see reported and what I see with my own two eyes.

You know...skepticism. The philosophical position that demands evidence that is not a mere restatement of the same claim with no new information. The opposite of credulity or gullibility.

The Globe repeating Elizabeth Warren's or Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's talking points (sometimes word for word) is not evidence.

My own experience with and observation from the outside of institutions like the ones that Elizabeth Warren worked at is new evidence. And it contradicts what the Globe says.

And I'm not stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

You must be a ton of fun at parties.

up
Voting closed 0

One thing I've never understood is why right-wingers think so poorly of Native Americans? Using nasty and disparaging slurs against Native Americans at political rallies to promote conservatism... could someone please explain to me the rationale behind this?

up
Voting closed 0

Joe Blow applies for a job at a company that desperately wants to improve its image away from being pale, male, and stale. So he legally changed his name to Jose Gutierrez y Blow and checks off 'latino' for his ethnicity. When questions arise, he huffs, puffs, stalls, and decades later trots out a DNA test that says one of his ancestors between six and ten generations back was Amerindian. And the other 98.4% plus is white as the driven snow. Good patriotic German snow. Would that reflect well on Jose's character? Does your answer have anything to do with your feelings toward the particular ethnicity Joe suddenly embraced as his own?

up
Voting closed 2

Warren 1/2020

up
Voting closed 0

Warren/O'Rourke 2020

Liz and Beto! Oh Yeah!

up
Voting closed 2

Princess Paleface and El Blotto

up
Voting closed 5

I think Warren may have pulled a Coakley.

up
Voting closed 3

Stolen Pallor

up
Voting closed 0

is clever and funny, even though I believe the whole Fauxcahontas kerfuffle is manufactured right-wing runny bullshit that doesn't stand up to the tiniest factual scrutiny.

How utterly unsurprising that now that there's some science behind Liz's story -- which was always about tales her parents told her, not certainty, the way tens of thousands of Oklahomans proudly profess native ancestry based on family lore, just as I was told I have some, was proud of it, and had no reason to ever disbelieve it -- they're huffing and puffing with painfully ignorant interpretations of how genetic testing works.

Hint: if Howie Carr recycles 200 columns out of it, it's a vacuum pretending desperately to be solid substance. Any time conservatives work that hard to fluff up a tissue of lies into a roll of Charmin, you know they're scared. (I'm not impressed with Liz as a Presidential candidate so far, but she can utter two sentences in a row without lying, unlike our ridiculous used-car-salesman of a President.) Trump gives his increasingly cult-like followers the license to deny reality: "I never said that thing about the million dollars that I'm on video saying." Pathetic, but it works on Trumpies. How does one have a rational political discussion with someone who believes that 2+2=5, even after you've shown them the four matchsticks?

up
Voting closed 3

In the state of Massachussetts
Nutty leftist Massachusetts
Stood the wigwam of Liz Warren
Whacko Moonbat 'Lizbeth Warren
Should you ask me, Whence this slander?
Whence the libel and the bullshit?
I should answer, I should tell you
From the smugness of her diction
From the crazy in her tweeting,
And the fraction of her kinfolk,
That are really European

up
Voting closed 0

for a new moniker.

Her war-whoop could be "Mao-Mao-Mao-Mao-Mao!"

It has the benefit of tweaking the noses of socialists (which is always good) and being potentially offensive to even more people than "Fauxcahontas."

up
Voting closed 6

Must be why Charlie Baker gets along with her so well - the Socialism.

I suggest you look up what that word is and means. The reality might surprise you.

up
Voting closed 5

I was born under socialism. I was raised by people who lived their whole lives under socialism. I can tell you the exact dimensions, the lot numbers, and the name of the guy who runs the kiln that produces the good intentions that pave that particular road to hell.

up
Voting closed 0

Socialism isn't communism.

Try again hon.

up
Voting closed 1

But I'm not seeing the imaginary distinction you're trying to get me to see.

Neither does the DSA. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/dsa-socialism-candidates-midterms....

The classes, known as socialist school, included readings by Karl Marx and articles in Jacobin, a popular new socialist magazine. Ms. Reade has become a class instructor and vice chairwoman at the East Bay chapter, which has about 1,000 members.

If you're studying Marx with the intention of putting his theories into practice...you're in the same company as a whole lot of people, some of whom refer to themselves as communists, some as socialists. Some as Bolivarians.

up
Voting closed 0