Sounds a lot like you care...and the entire of the American conservative corps also.
Yeah...it is cold.
I guess that means climate change is a hoax.
A point about Elizabeth Warren's Native American Ancestry
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Sounds a lot like you care...and the entire of the American conservative corps also.
Yeah...it is cold.
I guess that means climate change is a hoax.
If you're going to simply lie, there's really no point in arguing, is there? There's absolutely no basis for pretending she has only 1/1000% Native American DNA. That's just a bullshit stat you pulled out of your ass.... and since I went to the trouble of explaining the error already, in detail, it's not just mistaken bullshit, but rather a deliberate falsehood. When you get your racism under control enough that you don't feel the need to cower behind lies, let me know.
Frank, I've told you I don't care, how else can I explain that? I can't draw you a picture on this forum.
And, I said global warming, not climate change. I do believe the climate changes. It often has over a million years.
How does Native-American DNA differ from other human DNA? Does it wear feathers or something? Do all American settlers gave genes for financial greed? I think a great deal of nonsense is talked about this subject, and imagine that the lady's family memories are much more convincing.
No. As you're aware she claimed that her family's oral history indicated distant Native American ancestry. We've long known she wasn't engaging in fraud when she said that, since various members of her family, including right-wing ones, have confirmed that her family's oral history did, in fact, indicate that. And now we know that oral history was correct -- that she does, in fact, have distant Native American ancestry.
How distant that ancestry is remains at issue -- the expert's report suggests it could be as close as six generations back (consistent with what she said of the oral history), or as far as ten generations back (though that would require multiple ancestors at that level to be Native Americans, to account for the portion of her DNA that has the Native American markers). She has about ten times the Native American markers as an average white person from Utah and twelve times as much as an average white person from England.
What the Moonie Cult's house paper (the Washington Times) and other right-wing rags rely on, to deceive the kind of people stupid enough to get their news from such sources, is a certain innumeracy from their readership. For example, the notion that she has about the same Native American DNA component as the average white person is simply false, if you look at the report itself. It's a politically calculated misinterpretation of the data -- basically, it assumes not only that her Native American DNA came from ten generations ago (the earliest of the range the report allowed), but also that it came from just one ancestor in that tenth generation (a possibility the report ruled out). In fact, either it came from later (as late as six generations ago), or it came from multiple ancestors at an earlier generation (e.g., several tenth-generation ancestors). Again, her total Native American DNA signature is about ten to twelve times the average for white people (depending on whether you compare against white people from Utah or from England).
What government form? Could you link to it?
Exactly, so there's no way to establish which Native American tribe or tribes her ancestors were from, at least at this point. However, in light of her family's oral history (which wound up being right about having Native American ancestry) and the geographic history of the family, Cherokee is a strong guess.
She's a white person of both European and Native American descent, who correctly claimed she had distant Native American ancestors. For some reason, this has caused a real crying jag among the wingnuts.
Last edited:
I'll put in my two cents, about why you come across as out-of-control, if you're genuinely curious. Check out what you just wrote. In the course of three short sentences you used the word "shit" twice, indulged in child-like grammar, and called a political adversary a "lunatic" when she's clearly nothing of the sort. If you prefer not to let people know how out-of-control you are, then those are the kinds of things you could work on. Get your emotions under control, reel in your rhetoric, and try to communicate like an adult. Good luck.
The basis I read was at least one relative in the last 6 generations. I guess that means about 200 years.
“Shit” is the most utilitarian word in the English language.
Incorrect. The report said she has about ten times as much indigenous ancestry (or at least ten times the Native American DNA markers) as the average white guy in the US (if one uses people in Utah who identify as white as the reference population -- it's more like twelve times as much if you use UK whites as the reference).
You were deceived by a misinterpretation of the data. Here's where you (or rather whatever source handed you that talking point) went wrong. The report said she has Native American ancestry between six and ten generations back. It did not say that she only has ONE ancestor six or ten generations back who was full-blooded Native American. She might have multiple ancestors in those generations who were. For example, you get the same average DNA contribution from one ancestor in the sixth generation as from two in the seventh, four in the eighth, and so on. The report indicated that the likelihood was fewer ancestors not as long ago, rather than more ancestors longer ago, but it couldn't establish either definitively.
What right-wingers did is took that and assumed she had just a single full-blooded Native American ancestor ten generations ago -- a possibility that would be inconsistent with the data. They then did the math and figured out how much Native American DNA that would give her, and then compared it to the white US average. That's the basis for the claim she has less indigenous ancestry than the average white guy. As you can see, it's utter bullshit. The actual report estimated ten times as much as the average white person, using that Utah reference sample.
So, now that you know the truth, will you drop the incorrect talking points? My assumption, just based on experience with other right-wingers, is the answer is no. When right-wingers are handed a talking-point they like, they never allow reality to stand between them and using it. It's the reason that two decades after it was debunked, you still hear right-wingers claim Gore said he invented the Internet. Most right-wingers will never allow the truth to force them off a favored argument. But maybe you're different. We'll see.
Last edited:
Stop supporting America's whitest racist. Asserting that the super white Pocahontas has ANY claim to that hijacked heritage isn't going to make her an Indian.
Aren't you weirdoes unbelievably boring!
Generation length varies greatly -- it could be anywhere from about 15 to 45 years per generation. But the historical average is around 25 years. So, that would be about 150 years before Warren's own birth -- so, the native ancestor would be born right around 1800. From what I've read, her most likely Native American ancestor was someone named O.C. Sarah Smith, born around 1795.
Will you apologize for deliberately deceiving the forum with your 1/1000% lie?
Stop supporting America's whitest racist. Asserting that the super white Pocahontas has ANY claim to that hijacked heritage isn't going to make her an Indian.
I am impressed you can count. If you find the word "shit" offensive, tough shit, you know damn well what I was referring to. Warren is a lunatic, why would she think anyone cares of she has a trace of Native American blood? Why do you? My emotions are under control. I communicated well enough to entice your response while my intent was addressing another poster. I don't need your expression of good luck, life's been good.
reagansghost
eternal
Looks like Trump took another one to the shorts...........pay up the $1M Don the Con.......
The most important point is this: The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
The most important point is this: The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Will you apologize for deliberately deceiving the forum with your 1/1000% lie?
Stop supporting America's whitest racist. Asserting that the super white Pocahontas has ANY claim to that hijacked heritage isn't going to make her an Indian.
It's always easy to impress those whose lives among conservatives have left them with very low expectations.
I don't. I use it myself -- though I'd be surprised if you found it twice in the space of three short sentences. However, you were wondering about what gives people the perception that you are out-of-control. I'm letting you know. Your writing makes you seem mentally fragile and unable to focus your thoughts to achieve more than just a general outburst of emotion. If you don't mind coming across as out-of-control, that's fine. But if you'd like people to respect you, I'm offering you some information that could be helpful in getting yourself under control in the future.
In what way?
Obviously, she'd have to be an utter raving lunatic NOT to think some people care about that, as the President of the United States himself seemed to care about it enough to put a million dollars at stake over the question. Are you in such a news blackout you didn't hear about that?
Whether or not she has Native American ancestry isn't terrible consequential in itself, but the question of whether she's an honest person is, since honesty is to be valued in our politicians. We already had good cause to believe she was being honest when she said she'd grown up hearing family stories about Native American ancestors, since various relatives of hers have confirmed the existence of those family stories. However, this test adds slightly to the impression that she's honest, by making it seem even more likely those family stories existed, in light of the fact she does, in fact, have Native American ancestry.
Well, if you're curious why you come across as being out-of-control, notwithstanding this assertion of yours, reread the material of yours that I quoted in that prior response. Does that sound like something that would make readers believe you've mastered your emotions? Really? If you like giving the impression that you're unhinged, carry on. If not, I've given you some hints about how to improve your delivery. Good luck!