POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

To keep things in perspective, I am the 7th generation of my family in America that we can trace. Generation 1 was born in 1753.

Basically, someone in the late 1600s to early 1700s in her family was native American.

Some proud heritage right there.

 

She claimed her mother was 100% native American with 1/2 Cherokee and 1/2 Delaware [Indian]. That would make her 1/2 Native American; 1/4 Cherokee and 1/4 Delaware.

 

It's a joke. How many people that are 1/1000ths of Native American ancestry would shout "I'm Native American!" This is another stupid ass talking point for politicians to bicker over.

 

The test results show she has genes that are distinct to Mexico and Peru, which are the only available stand-ins for Native American DNA because Native Americans refuse to participate in genetic profiling for fear of this kind of scrutiny. The tests don't tell us she is "1/1024 Native American." They tell us she has genes that are not European and are considered "New World" genes. She actually may be a lot more Native American.

Anyone claiming she is only 1/1024 Native American doesn't understand genetic testing.

 

False. You do not understand genetic testing. Not you fault, neither do these articles.

 

Is there another "may" attached to that?

 

And this test doesn't in any way actually refute that. Nor would the fact that her mother was let's say only 1/4 Native genetically, but her parents each kept their identities of their families all along, refute that.

It all goes back to race not being genetic. Which float and I posted a bunch about before. This test result proves she did have ancestry in the new world. Any hard conclusions beyond that are speculative and based on little data.

 

No. There isn't. At minimum, she has the genes they flagged.

 

So if her mother was 100% native American (50% Cherokee and 50% Delaware); what 1/xxxx would that make her?

 

Obviously 1/1024

 

That depends on the genetic profile of a cherokee and a Delaware tribe member. Which we don't have. You have 60% the same genetics of an orange, man. We're all a lot more alike than we are different. Without a robust sampling of those groups, which in most cases isn't even possible given that there are very few 100% genetically natives of those groups around, it is impossible to say.

The challenge was any ancestry. That's answerable. "How much" isn't, because native groups know it would lead to precisely these uncomfortable situations. Like genetically testing for "how African" would. Or "how white" would. Race isn't purely genetics.

 

Again, you don't understand what the test is or means. Which puts you in good company. 1/1024 of her genes were definitely New World. But there is no information about how much overlap there is between a native american and a European american, so the remaining 1023/1024's aren't indicative of NOT being new world, necessarily.

 

Did the genes they flagged show a higher ratio than that posted?

 

Politics aside, this is interesting stuff, IP. Appreciate the education on this topic and curious to learn more when time allows.

 

Read the Boston Globe article (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...rican-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html). Much of what IP is saying is a version of that article but acting like she might have a significant amount of Native American ancestry in her conflicts with the professor's actual conclusions. At best, she is 1/32 American Indian (at least according to the Boston Globe):

“the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European (quote from the professor).

Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago” [again quote from the professor]. That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.

The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

 

I don't get it, but I really am just harassing and saw it's a range between 1/64 (revised) and 1/1024 because I find it funny based on how she acted earlier.

Regardless, we're talking 200ish years here.

 

Not I want to take one of those genetics tests to see my background.

 

By no stretch of the imagination is she a Minority as she claimed.

 

I don't understand the question. I think the answer, if I understand, is "no." but that would just be going full circle back to stating the ratio as if it meant she is only 1/1024th native american. When that isn't what the results actually mean. They mean she has 1/1024th in common with the Peruvian, etc. gene pool, which indicates she does indeed have some New World genes. The specialist speculates that this amount would be consistent with an 8th to 10th generation descendant, but that is all it is- speculation. Because it isn't like an atomic half-life or something. Your dad could have red hair and you just miss out on that those genes entirely. That doesn't mean you are less Scotch Irish.

 

In the sense that she isn't a member of a tribe, has no cultural connection, and 100 out of 100 people would identify her as "white," yes. In the sense that she is genetically not descended from a Native American, no. I'd argue if she had invested more time in culturally connecting with a tribe, she would have a difficult to dispute claim.

Race is a social construct. Calling her Pocahantas and mocking her is wrong. Pointing out that if she self-identified as "Cherokee" and posted plagiarized recipes as if they were her personal family ones she was lying, is not.

I think this result means Trump owes a charity of her choice 1 million, which he won't pay. I don't think this actually solves her identity problem. But you can't say she doesn't have "Indian blood." She does, to some amount that is unknown (probably not a lot, but 1/1024 is a misleadingly empirical interpretation). You can say that being "Native American" is not merely about genes, and thus her using this test in some ways further invalidates her claim. Were she really of a Native American identity, she would be relating her status or relationship with a tribe. This is all especially prescient with the ongoing attempts to end the protection of Native children from being adopted outside the tribe.