Rejoice! Pocahontas is actually 0.1-1.56% Native American!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

The DNA test didn't prove she isn't as Native American as she said. Only thing i've seen was the claim of 5th generation ancestor and that's still on the table. It's only likelier after the DNA test.

Native tribes requiring 1/16 also isn't true. Range is 1/4-1/32 and none of them give you anything from just having a DNA test. DNA tests can't differentiate tribes.

1/7th of her sample couldn't be assigned to any ethnicity. DNA testing for ethnicity has been around 15 years. At this point it's slightly more credible than elaborate hand waving. It's such an exact science that it doesn't matter if you use samples from SA or NA Natives.

After 7th generation the blood of your ancestors starts getting washed very rapidly. The 10th generation that keeps getting mentioned (1/1024 bit) is already mostly washed away. You only have blood from 13% of those ancestors. From 900 10th generation ancestors you don't have any DNA in you.

Oh and i only cared about the DNA part in this story. The rest is your domestic politics that isn't likely to spill, so i don't really care. Though not a fan of strawmen and moving goal posts.

---

She claims to be Cherokee.

The tribe only considers you Cherokee if you have a direct ancestor on the "Dawes Rolls" -- a census taken between 1899 and 1906.

http://webtest2.cherokee.org/Service...ip/Citizenship

This means the ancestor could be born as recently as 112 years ago (only 43 years before Warren was born), or as long ago as the early 1800s. (I'm assuming there was no one over 100 on the Dawes Rolls.)

Since Warren was born in 1949, six generations back would disqualify most of the people on the Dawes Rolls (they'd have been dead by 1899). 8 generations back would disqualify all of them.

The rest of your post seems to further discredit Warren, as you're stating that it's an "inexact science" and basically impossible to prove Native American heritage back 7 generations through a DNA test. So that would make her release of the DNA results (and the mainstream media's subsequent fawning over it) that much more ridiculous.

Bottom line is that claiming a racial identity from a single maybe-relative from 200 years ago is absurd, and Elizabeth Warren needs to own that misstep, rather than doubling down on it and trying to release "proof" that she was right all along.

---

I think she claimed Cherokee and Delaware. She's never tried to get citizenship with either. DNA tests in relation citizenship is pretty much only thing either tribe objected. Neither tribe has any issue with her claiming a Native ancestor and Cherokee's have members that are only 1/32. So i don't see how you could fault her for something that's fine for others.

You can prove heritage past 7th generation, but after that it's possible you had ancestors that can't be seen in DNA tests anymore (and you don't have any of their DNA). You can't pinpoint the tribe ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

She claims to be Cherokee.

The tribe only considers you Cherokee if you have a direct ancestor on the "Dawes Rolls" -- a census taken between 1899 and 1906.

http://webtest2.cherokee.org/Service...ip/Citizenship

This means the ancestor could be born as recently as 112 years ago (only 43 years before Warren was born), or as long ago as the early 1800s. (I'm assuming there was no one over 100 on the Dawes Rolls.)

Since Warren was born in 1949, six generations back would disqualify most of the people on the Dawes Rolls (they'd have been dead by 1899). 8 generations back would disqualify all of them.

The rest of your post seems to further discredit Warren, as you're stating that it's an "inexact science" and basically impossible to prove Native American heritage back 7 generations through a DNA test. So that would make her release of the DNA results (and the mainstream media's subsequent fawning over it) that much more ridiculous.

Bottom line is that claiming a racial identity from a single maybe-relative from 200 years ago is absurd, and Elizabeth Warren needs to own that misstep, rather than doubling down on it and trying to release "proof" that she was right all along.

---

I think she claimed Cherokee and Delaware. She's never tried to get citizenship with either. DNA tests in relation citizenship is pretty much only thing either tribe objected. Neither tribe has any issue with her claiming a Native ancestor and Cherokee's have members that are only 1/32. So i don't see how you could fault her for something that's fine for others.

You can prove heritage past 7th generation, but after that it's possible you had ancestors that can't be seen in DNA tests anymore (and you don't have any of their DNA). You can't pinpoint the tribe ever.

---

She claimed Native American as her race in the official stats at Harvard, has "Cherokee recipes" in a 1984 cookbook, and is still sticking to the narrative that she's Native American.

Do you consider her Native American?

How can you not see the absurdity in all of this?

BTW, I don't know why you keep saying 1/32, because even her own DNA results show she's at best 1/64, and 1/1024 is just as likely.

It's almost absurd as Trump claiming he is a self-made billionaire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I think she claimed Cherokee and Delaware. She's never tried to get citizenship with either. DNA tests in relation citizenship is pretty much only thing either tribe objected. Neither tribe has any issue with her claiming a Native ancestor and Cherokee's have members that are only 1/32. So i don't see how you could fault her for something that's fine for others.

You can prove heritage past 7th generation, but after that it's possible you had ancestors that can't be seen in DNA tests anymore (and you don't have any of their DNA). You can't pinpoint the tribe ever.

---

She claimed Native American as her race in the official stats at Harvard, has "Cherokee recipes" in a 1984 cookbook, and is still sticking to the narrative that she's Native American.

Do you consider her Native American?

How can you not see the absurdity in all of this?

BTW, I don't know why you keep saying 1/32, because even her own DNA results show she's at best 1/64, and 1/1024 is just as likely.

---

I'm using 1/32 because that is what she thought, GGG-grandmother. The DNA doesn't show that at best she's 1/64 and 1/1024 is the least likely.

Seeking tribal citizenship is pretty far from ticking an extra box. She has no reason to not claim that she had Native ancestors. The DNA test shows exactly that.

I think it's absurd 1/32 would matter, but it's not my call.

I clown on personal friends who say they are "Irish American" because their grandparents are. If fuckin Rand Paul said he was Native American I would clown on him. Who gives a shit about her politics, the lady is a clown and she deserves to get clowned on. What kind of disgusting retard claims to be an Indian when they are a blond white person? And fuck Indians by the way, get over it you're not fucking special you're not magic your traditions and culture don't exist they were defined by cartoons and tv shows, no such thing. get bent, tonto, the only thing Natives are good for is naming sports teams after

oh boy i'm salty tonight i just worked 72 hours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

You guys know I will criticize Trump when he deserves it, but calling him a "welcher" here is BS.

He never said, "I'll give a million dollars if Elizabeth Warren proves she has one drop of Native American blood."

He said that he would give the money if she "proved she's Native American with a DNA test".

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.

---

Putting sponsor Eric Benzomocha out of business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

And that conjecture was thoroughly investigated by the Boston Globe and found to be not supported by the evidence.

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...O0K/story.html

Quote:

---

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in that Pound Hall room at Harvard Law School. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.

---

Bottom line: She never used her Native American heritage to further her career.

---

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the point we are raising.

We are past the point of claiming that she got hired by claiming she was Native American. I'm willing to concede that likely didn't happen.

So stop repeating that same response over and over.

My problem is that AFTER she was tenured at Harvard, she officially changed her ethnicity there. This had to be for "minority cred" or some sort of perceived gain. Presumably she felt that being a minority professor at Harvard would give her more credibility.

That was dishonest and exploitative, no matter which way you try to slice it.

---

I love how you are always so sure with your "reads" or whatever. We have no idea what her motivation was for the filing of paperwork. Maybe the woman really felt in her heart that she related to Indians at the time? How is that not possible? You are assuming her motives have to be evil and give nothing else consideration. Because in your world, no one can have a motivation outside of greed. Wrong. wrong. wrong.

Of course she is liberal and.... <drumroll> a WOMAN! I hate identity politics but I hate mysogonists even more.

Warren was a Republican 25 years ago. Actually I believe she was back in '95 when the evil paperwork was filed. If she is such a liar, then perhaps it would be safe to say she's probably a Republican at heart? No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I think she claimed Cherokee and Delaware. She's never tried to get citizenship with either. DNA tests in relation citizenship is pretty much only thing either tribe objected. Neither tribe has any issue with her claiming a Native ancestor and Cherokee's have members that are only 1/32. So i don't see how you could fault her for something that's fine for others.

You can prove heritage past 7th generation, but after that it's possible you had ancestors that can't be seen in DNA tests anymore (and you don't have any of their DNA). You can't pinpoint the tribe ever.

---

She claimed Native American as her race in the official stats at Harvard, has "Cherokee recipes" in a 1984 cookbook, and is still sticking to the narrative that she's Native American.

Do you consider her Native American?

How can you not see the absurdity in all of this?

BTW, I don't know why you keep saying 1/32, because even her own DNA results show she's at best 1/64, and 1/1024 is just as likely.

---

This is not true. Most of the media reports don’t mention that other aspects of the DNA analysis show that most likely she had a single Native American ancestor from no more than 6 generations ago contribute that DNA. And independent genealogy research shows one from the mid 1800s. These results are consistent with the family lore she conveyed about her mother’s side of her family.

[b]Washington Post fact-checker: Warren DNA test 'bungled' by media[b]
https://thehill.com/media/412072-wap...ngled-by-media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

And that conjecture was thoroughly investigated by the Boston Globe and found to be not supported by the evidence.

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...O0K/story.html



Bottom line: She never used her Native American heritage to further her career.

---

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the point we are raising.

We are past the point of claiming that she got hired by claiming she was Native American. I'm willing to concede that likely didn't happen.

So stop repeating that same response over and over.

My problem is that AFTER she was tenured at Harvard, she officially changed her ethnicity there. This had to be for "minority cred" or some sort of perceived gain. Presumably she felt that being a minority professor at Harvard would give her more credibility.

That was dishonest and exploitative, no matter which way you try to slice it.

---

I love how you are always so sure with your "reads" or whatever. We have no idea what her motivation was for the filing of paperwork. Maybe the woman really felt in her heart that she related to Indians at the time? How is that not possible? You are assuming her motives have to be evil and give nothing else consideration. Because in your world, no one can have a motivation outside of greed. Wrong. wrong. wrong.

Of course she is liberal and.... <drumroll> a WOMAN! I hate identity politics but I hate mysogonists even more.

Warren was a Republican 25 years ago. Actually I believe she was back in '95 when the evil paperwork was filed. If she is such a liar, then perhaps it would be safe to say she's probably a Republican at heart? No?

---

ABSOLUTE GASBAG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

She claimed Native American as her race in the official stats at Harvard, has "Cherokee recipes" in a 1984 cookbook, and is still sticking to the narrative that she's Native American.

Do you consider her Native American?

How can you not see the absurdity in all of this?

BTW, I don't know why you keep saying 1/32, because even her own DNA results show she's at best 1/64, and 1/1024 is just as likely.

---

This is not true. Most of the media reports don’t mention that other aspects of the DNA analysis show that most likely she had a single Native American ancestor from no more than 6 generations ago contribute that DNA. And independent genealogy research shows one from the mid 1800s. These results are consistent with the family lore she conveyed about her mother’s side of her family.

[b]Washington Post fact-checker: Warren DNA test 'bungled' by media[b]
https://thehill.com/media/412072-wap...ngled-by-media

---

Did you actually read that article Mumbes? Be honest, you didn't, did you. Nothing in that article refutes the minuscule amount of possible Native American DNA that is being reported. The only claim that article makes is that she probably has more Native American blood than the average European. And the article doesn't even get into any hard numbers how much more she has, probably because it is such a minuscule amount that it is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

This is not true. Most of the media reports don’t mention that other aspects of the DNA analysis show that most likely she had a single Native American ancestor from no more than 6 generations ago contribute that DNA. And independent genealogy research shows one from the mid 1800s. These results are consistent with the family lore she conveyed about her mother’s side of her family.

[b]Washington Post fact-checker: Warren DNA test 'bungled' by media[b]
https://thehill.com/media/412072-wap...ngled-by-media

---

Did you actually read that article Mumbes? Be honest, you didn't, did you. Nothing in that article refutes the minuscule amount of possible Native American DNA that is being reported. The only claim that article makes is that she probably has more Native American blood than the average European. And the article doesn't even get into any hard numbers how much more she has, probably because it is such a minuscule amount that it is meaningless.

---

"According to the report, Kessler writes, Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than a reference set from Utah and 12 times more than a set from Britain."

There's that bit in the very same article. It was hidden in the text. Sneaky bastards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Did you actually read that article Mumbes? Be honest, you didn't, did you. Nothing in that article refutes the minuscule amount of possible Native American DNA that is being reported. The only claim that article makes is that she probably has more Native American blood than the average European. And the article doesn't even get into any hard numbers how much more she has, probably because it is such a minuscule amount that it is meaningless.

---

"According to the report, Kessler writes, Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than a reference set from Utah and 12 times more than a set from Britain."

There's that bit in the very same article. It was hidden in the text. Sneaky bastards.

---

What is the hard numbers as opposed to percentages?

I am guessing it is something like 0.0000005% vs 0.000005%. Which is technically 10X more, but like I said it is such a minuscule amount it is meaningless. That is why the writers of the article used %'s instead of real numbers, so that like-minded ideological fools like yourself can mindlessly agree without having to acknowledge how dishonest you are.

-So I saw cable talk news and the whole internet are in an uproar over some horribly racist thing Megan Kelly said. I dug up what I actually said, and as I suspected the faux outrage is completely out of line. I see that Kelly also read an "apology" on air that clearly someone else wrote and is meaningless. What she should have done is tear up the apology note and tell the assholes at NBC to go fuck themselves. But I am guessing she has 60 million reasons to play along with the game and not give them an excuse to try to not pay her. Anyways, this is the exact quotes below. It is one of those things that anyone would say to their spouse or a close friend over lunch and it would be a nothing burger, whether you agreed or disagreed. But because it was said in public and because the person saying it is Megan Kelly, we all have to feign false outrage and get indignant.

Quote

“But what is racist?”
“You truly do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on white face.”
“That was OK when I was a kid, as long as you were dressing like a character,”.

-Edit: I accidentally put this in wrong thread, but it is kind of along the same themes regarding racial identity so I think it is ok here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

"According to the report, Kessler writes, Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than a reference set from Utah and 12 times more than a set from Britain."

There's that bit in the very same article. It was hidden in the text. Sneaky bastards.

---

What is the hard numbers as opposed to percentages?

I am guessing it is something like 0.0000005% vs 0.000005%. Which is technically 10X more, but like I said it is such a minuscule amount it is meaningless. That is why the writers of the article used %'s instead of real numbers, so that like-minded ideological fools like yourself can mindlessly agree without having to acknowledge how dishonest you are.

---

Aren't you supposed to know something about biology or some shit? Yeah there isn't whole lot more than percentages. The clue is in that thingie that looks like this %, that you put after the 2 numbers you're comparing.

Everything you're asking for is already in that article. You just need to read it. Now you might have to extrapolate very little from it, but that's not the fault of the article. It's on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Aren't you supposed to know something about biology or some shit?

---

You should see the shit he posts in the climate change thread.

 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

I have a PhD in a hard science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

What is the hard numbers as opposed to percentages?

I am guessing it is something like 0.0000005% vs 0.000005%. Which is technically 10X more, but like I said it is such a minuscule amount it is meaningless. That is why the writers of the article used %'s instead of real numbers, so that like-minded ideological fools like yourself can mindlessly agree without having to acknowledge how dishonest you are.

---

Aren't you supposed to know something about biology or some shit? Yeah there isn't whole lot more than percentages. The clue is in that thingie that looks like this %, that you put after the 2 numbers you're comparing.

Everything you're asking for is already in that article. You just need to read it. Now you might have to extrapolate very little from it, but that's not the fault of the article. It's on you.

---

I know enough about biology to see through the lies and dishonesty that is always going to be there when The Hill starts using it for political reasons. If you want to take anything from that article that is on you. It is straight garbage that is dishonest and says nothing meaningful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Aren't you supposed to know something about biology or some shit? Yeah there isn't whole lot more than percentages. The clue is in that thingie that looks like this %, that you put after the 2 numbers you're comparing.

Everything you're asking for is already in that article. You just need to read it. Now you might have to extrapolate very little from it, but that's not the fault of the article. It's on you.

---

I know enough about biology to see through the lies and dishonesty that is always going to be there when The Hill starts using it for political reasons. If you want to take anything from that article that is on you. It is straight garbage that is dishonest and says nothing meaningful.

---

- Every statistic on immigration is a lie.
- The thousand page report on climate change ( 90+ experts around the world) is wrong.
- And now this guy is obv a hack.

No proof or anything though, you just know/keep your eyes open.

ok doc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

This is not true. Most of the media reports don’t mention that other aspects of the DNA analysis show that most likely she had a single Native American ancestor from no more than 6 generations ago contribute that DNA. And independent genealogy research shows one from the mid 1800s. These results are consistent with the family lore she conveyed about her mother’s side of her family.

[b]Washington Post fact-checker: Warren DNA test 'bungled' by media[b]
https://thehill.com/media/412072-wap...ngled-by-media

---

Did you actually read that article Mumbes? Be honest, you didn't, did you. Nothing in that article refutes the minuscule amount of possible Native American DNA that is being reported. The only claim that article makes is that she probably has more Native American blood than the average European. And the article doesn't even get into any hard numbers how much more she has, probably because it is such a minuscule amount that it is meaningless.

---

:wrong

I first read the original published by the Washington Post last week or so, but had run out of viewing articles for free for the month when responding to Druff's post, so I found another that summarized the info.

And this article repeats a key point raised in the original WP article: That the media generally ignored that the DNA report mentions that she most likely had a more recent single NA ancestor (6 gens back) versus many ancestors going back further generations. Which is why I pointed out that Druff was wrong when stating that the analysis showed that it was as equally likely that her NA ancestor was 10 generations back as only 6 back.

If you yourself read the article, you would have seen that. With your incredible brain and reading comprehension, do I really need to cut and paste it here in a quote for you??? Well, seeing as you are probably too busy with your neuroscience research to scour through such a lengthy article to find such details, I'll save you the time and do just that.

Quote:

---

"Here’s where the reporting went off course," he continued.

According to the report, Kessler writes, Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than a reference set from Utah and 12 times more than a set from Britain.

"The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor," he continued. "Those are significant findings. But reporters focused on the language indicating a range of between the sixth to 10th generation. That raised the prospect of an ancestor amid hundreds of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents."

---

And "12 times more than a set in Britain" is definitely NOT just, as you characterized it, "probably ... more Native American blood than the average European."

:fail

BUMP

Hokeyhontas officially running for President.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/u...ouncement.html