Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test strongly suggesting she has Native American ancestry. This is a fun story because it puts Trump in a position where he'll want to lie and claim he never promised a million dollars to charity if she did so. Watching that weasel squirm is a joy. But the test itself shouldn't matter.
Think about it. What was the knock on Warren? It was that she made up Native American ancestry. Whether or not she actually has Native American ancestry is entirely beside the point. What was relevant is whether she had reason to think she had Native American ancestry when she claimed it. If she had good cause to think it (e.g., plausible family oral history) and it turned out not to be true, that's not her fault. And if she didn't have good cause to think it, but it randomly turned out to be true, that doesn't relieve her of the charge of fabrication.
For example, what if I told you I have 100% Korean ancestry, which I said on the basis of my mother and father both having told me they were of Korean ancestry. And what if I took a DNA test later and found out that I'm actually 100% of Chinese ancestry -- that my parents actually adopted me from China but didn't want me to know I was adopted. Would I have been lying when I told you of my Korean ancestry? Should I be attacked and ridiculed for having told you something I had good cause to think was true?
Or, on the flip side, imagine that, thinking I was 100% of Korean ancestry, I applied for a scholarship reserved only for those of Chinese ancestry, telling them falsely that my ancestors were Chinese. If later I found out from a DNA test that I was actually 100% of Chinese ancestry, due to that hypothetical adoption, would that change the fact I'd lied about my heritage for personal advantage?
The focus on a DNA test doesn't really make sense in the Warren story, and never did. The important question is whether her family did, in fact, have an oral tradition about Native American ancestry. Her DNA test adds a little to the plausibility of such a story having existed (since there was, in fact, a Native American ancestor, it seems more plausible that she was told a story about a Native American ancestor.) But a DNA test could never settle the question of whether such a story existed, one way or the other. The best you can do for that is to interview members of her extended family and see if such a story was, in fact, going around.
Think about it. What was the knock on Warren? It was that she made up Native American ancestry. Whether or not she actually has Native American ancestry is entirely beside the point. What was relevant is whether she had reason to think she had Native American ancestry when she claimed it. If she had good cause to think it (e.g., plausible family oral history) and it turned out not to be true, that's not her fault. And if she didn't have good cause to think it, but it randomly turned out to be true, that doesn't relieve her of the charge of fabrication.
For example, what if I told you I have 100% Korean ancestry, which I said on the basis of my mother and father both having told me they were of Korean ancestry. And what if I took a DNA test later and found out that I'm actually 100% of Chinese ancestry -- that my parents actually adopted me from China but didn't want me to know I was adopted. Would I have been lying when I told you of my Korean ancestry? Should I be attacked and ridiculed for having told you something I had good cause to think was true?
Or, on the flip side, imagine that, thinking I was 100% of Korean ancestry, I applied for a scholarship reserved only for those of Chinese ancestry, telling them falsely that my ancestors were Chinese. If later I found out from a DNA test that I was actually 100% of Chinese ancestry, due to that hypothetical adoption, would that change the fact I'd lied about my heritage for personal advantage?
The focus on a DNA test doesn't really make sense in the Warren story, and never did. The important question is whether her family did, in fact, have an oral tradition about Native American ancestry. Her DNA test adds a little to the plausibility of such a story having existed (since there was, in fact, a Native American ancestor, it seems more plausible that she was told a story about a Native American ancestor.) But a DNA test could never settle the question of whether such a story existed, one way or the other. The best you can do for that is to interview members of her extended family and see if such a story was, in fact, going around.
