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

[Dan Druff]

Elizabeth Warren, who is likely looking to run for President in 2020, just released a DNA test showing she has Native American ancestry.

If you recall, during Trump's 2016 campaign, he sparred with Warren, and he repeatedly called her "Pocahontas", mocking her Native American ancestry claim, and insisting she was making it up. In fact, he offered to donate $1 million to her favorite charity if she could prove she was Native American, an offer which she did not take up.

While her supporters (as well as Trump-haters) are jumping up and down about this news, a closer look shows it's not what it appears to be.

First off, let's see what the test really revealed. Here's the "conclusion" stated in the report her own campaign released:

While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago.

Wait a minute.... 6-10 generations ago?? A total of one Native American ancestor from back then??



Let's break down how absurd that is.

If we take the most generous interpretation of her ancestry (one Native American six generations ago), she is 1.56% Native American. If we take the upper end (10 generations), she is laughably 0.1% Native American. If we take the middle (eight generations), she is 0.39% Native American.

Furthermore, this would have likely put her sole Native American ancestor in the 1700s. The 1700s!!!

So, yeah, I guess if you want to tell people you're a tiny bit Native American and that gives you some kind of additional (mostly imagined) cultural identity, that's fine.

However, if you use that tiny percentage to gain advantage in employment, that's pretty bad and dishonest.

It doesn't really address the main criticism she was facing, namely that someone of very very light Native American ancestry was able to claim "Native American" and fulfilled an employment quota at Harvard. Even if Harvard gave her "no special treatment" for being Native American (which they'd never admit to anyway), it still would have fulfilled a quota for them, and indeed she probably replaced someone with more Native American heritage who could have been hired later on in her place.

And she was smart enough to know that. You don't claim "Native American" as your race during hiring time if you're only 1% Native American, unless you know it will get you something. Elizabeth Warren knew that would increase her chances of being hired, and thus she went that selfish and deceptive route.

Imagine the outrage if a white person today found out that, 6-10 generations ago, one of their ancestors was black, and despite looking white and every other relative being white, they claimed "black" on employment applications.

If that person ran for office, they would be eviscerated.

How is this any different?

Aside from Trump's claim that she "lied", are any of his other criticisms of her and the situation incorrect?

[Dan Druff]

Okay, so I got a bit more info.

The narrative being pushed by Warren now is that she didn't claim to be Native American at hiring time at Harvard, and that the Native American thing only came up much later, when she told someone in passing that she might be a "tiny bit Native American".

She posted this document to support the claim: https://mk0elizabethwarh5ore.kinstac...lPaperwork.pdf

However, this document now raises additional questions.

While it does appear Warren listed herself as white when applying to work at Harvard, the question remains why she would have officially submitted the above paperwork in 1995 to change her race on file.

She was at most 1.56% Native American, and possibly as little as 0.1%, so why fill out paperwork as an already-tenured professor to change her race to something which clearly isn't accurate?

Warren claims that it was being used by the school to "promote diversity", but I don't believe that for a second. Clearly she did it for her own selfish reasons, perhaps being able to gain greater visibility and respect on campus by claiming Native American heritage.

She does not address the fact that changing herself to Native American could have denied real Native Americans professorships at Harvard, as now she would be falsely fulfilling part of a quota.

Indeed, this other 1995 document confirms that she's "currently listed as Native American" statistically, meaning that there's a good chance it really did affect hiring in subsequent years: https://mk0elizabethwarh5ore.kinstac...istrarMemo.pdf

You would think that someone who cares so much about her (very very light) Native American ancestry would not want to do anything to hog the spot from 25%-or-more Native Americans from being hired there.

[Dan Druff]

[duped_samaritan]

In fact, he offered to donate $1 million to her favorite charity if she could prove she was Native American, an offer which she did not take up.

Where/when did she not take up the offer? I thought that's what this thing was.

Earlier today Trump said he "never said that, you better read it again" and then later said he would only pay it "if I personally test her"

Did he put a time limit on it that was cut out from this video?
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video...B9QA.mp4?tag=5

[limitles]

So if we're keeping score regarding mistruths we have Warren 1, Trump 1001

[Lord of the Fraud]

79% of American's are Native Retards (The official percentage is likely a lot higher, but I didn't want to be mean)

[thesidedish]

Embedded Tweet

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

[MumblesBadly]

Druff, the Harvard admins are at fault for making a big deal over Warren’s “tiny Native American” heritage. They probably heard through the grapevine of Warren’s claim and decided to use it to fill a “diversity” box when reporting how progressive Harvard is. And she agreed to do it because she was proud of that tiny bit of NA heritage.

[v12cl]

Druff, the Harvard admins are at fault for making a big deal over Warren’s “tiny Native American” heritage. They probably heard through the grapevine of Warren’s claim and decided to use it to fill a “diversity” box when reporting how progressive Harvard is. And she agreed to do it because she was proud of that tiny bit of NA heritage.

Are the Harvard admins also the ones that made her publicly release the results of her test? By Elizabeth Warren math, having $1,000 makes you a millionaire.

[Dan Druff]

Also how stupid was Warren to drop this 2 weeks before the midterms, thus creating the exact distraction Trump was hoping for?

Democrats just keep on giving...

[Daly]

Also how stupid was Warren to drop this 2 weeks before the midterms, thus creating the exact distraction Trump was hoping for?

Democrats just keep on giving...

Because people inside the party told her she can’t run because she can’t win due, in part, to the Native American fiasco. This is her trial ballon to try and demonstrate that it’s not an issue.

[Tellafriend]

Query:

Also how stupid was Warren to drop this 2 weeks before the midterms, thus creating the exact distraction Trump was hoping for?

Democrats just keep on giving...

Retort:

Also how stupid was Warren to drop this 2 weeks before the midterms, thus creating the exact distraction Trump was hoping for?

Democrats just keep on giving...

Because people inside the party told her she can’t run because she can’t win due, in part, to the Native American fiasco. This is her trial ballon to try and demonstrate that it’s not an issue.

[thesidedish]

25 TWEETS IN THE LAST HOUR ON COMPLETE TILT

[zealanddonk]

Speaking of the 1%ers any sign of Trump's tax statements?

[MumblesBadly]

Druff, I’m wondering how you got “back to 1700s” if only 6 generations? Even if a generation averages 30 years, that’s only 180 years back from when Warren was 30. She’s 69, so that’s 180 years prior to 1979, or 1819. Grant, if it’s 10 generations, then that does go back another 90 years. But not too long ago, women tended to start having children much younger, so 20 years per generation might be a more reasonable number for Warren’s maternal line. That would mean 6-10 generations would be 120-200 years prior to when Warren was 20: 1969. That gives a range of 1769-1849.

[devidee]

Shitting Bull

[Dan Druff]

Druff, I’m wondering how you got “back to 1700s” if only 6 generations? Even if a generation averages 30 years, that’s only 180 years back from when Warren was 30. She’s 69, so that’s 180 years prior to 1979, or 1819. Grant, if it’s 10 generations, then that does go back another 90 years. But not too long ago, women tended to start having children much younger, so 20 years per generation might be a more reasonable number for Warren’s maternal line. That would mean 6-10 generations would be 120-200 years prior to when Warren was 20: 1969. That gives a range of 1769-1849.

She was born in 1949.

6 generations back, with an average age of 25 for parents, would be 1799.

With 8 generations back, even if you claim an average parental age of 20, that's still 1789.

I'm talking about birth year.

It is very likely that if she has one Native American ancestor, that person was born in the 1700s, maybe even the early 1700s.

[Tellafriend]

[BCR]

The President of the US lies almost every day. Not a peep.

8th tier presidential wannabe who has never even gotten close to the throne grossly exaggerates some nonsense, it’s outrage central.

[Tellafriend]

The President of the US lies almost every day. Not a peep.

Huh? That’s incredulous.