Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Elizabeth Warren Agrees With the Ku Klux Klan on the “One Drop Rule”

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Elizabeth Warren infamously claimed to be a racial minority, specifically, Native American, in an Association of American Law Schools directory, and in the 1990s her employer, Harvard Law School, touted her minority status in an effort to bolster its “diversity” bona fides.  Warren has taken a lot of heat for claiming to be Native American, because, sadly, her claim is a lie.  Astonishingly, Warren herself has confirmed that her claim was false when she released the results of a DNA test today.  The DNA report,

found that ‘the vast majority’ of Warren’s family tree is European, but added that ‘the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor … in the range of 6-10 generations ago.’

Even more astonishingly, in this video, also released today, Warren says the report actually confirms her claim that she is a racial minority.  What?  In what universe does a  DNA report that says she has no more than 1/64, and perhaps as little as 1/1,024, Native American DNA validate her claim to be a racial minority? Here is where Senator Warren shares common cause with the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow racists.  Apparently, she, like the KKK, adheres to the “one drop rule.”  PBS explains this rule as follows:

To be considered black in the United States not even half of one’s ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation’s answer to the question ‘Who is black?” has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the “one-drop rule,” meaning that a single drop of “black blood” makes a person a black. It is also known as the “one black ancestor rule,” some courts have called it the “traceable amount rule,” and anthropologists call it the “hypo-descent rule,” meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation’s definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.

Apparently, if the one drop rule it is good enough for the Ku Klux Klan, it is good enough for Elizabeth Warren.

So, is Elizabeth Warren a racial minority?  Of course, the answer to that question depends on what one means by “racial minority.”  If by “racial minority,” one means a person, the vast majority’ of whose family tree is not European, clearly she is not.  On the other hand, if one agrees with the KKK and adopts the “one drop rule,” she is.

UPDATE

As I considered this matter further, it occurred to me that I should explore the issue of “why does it matter if Warren is a racial minority”?  At one level, it does not.  I don’t care if she is a racial minority; nor should anyone else.  I have actually been represented in the Senate by a Native American (Ben Nighthorse Campbell).  While I rarely agreed with him on political issues, by all accounts he served honorably.

On the other hand, I do care if Warren is a liar.  If she is, she needs to be exposed and shamed (if she has any shame, which appears increasingly unlikely).  And yes, she is a liar.  Reasonable people can disagree whether racial minorities should have advantages on account of that status.  What is inarguable is that if we as a society do confer such advantages, they should be reserved for, well, racial minorities.  Whatever advantages that accrue to racial minority status (and Warren clearly believed there was some advantage in describing herself as a racial minority; otherwise should would not have done so) should not be conferred on a blue-eyed blonde woman whose ancestry was overwhelmingly European.  The purpose of racial preferences is to address the lingering disadvantages of past and present racism.  That purpose is clearly undermined when a blue-eyed blonde woman of European descent attempts to arrogate those advantages to herself.  Moreover, the one drop rule that Warren espouses would, if taken to its literal conclusion, undermine all racial preferences.  I believe it is safe to say that practically everyone in the United States is a minority if the cutoff is 1/1,024 as Warren believes.  If everyone is a minority, then no one is and the basis for preference rapidly collapses.

Finally, it is hard to argue with the Scott Brown campaign when they said:

That Warren allowed Harvard to hold her up as an example of their commitment to diversity in the hiring of historically disadvantaged communities is an insult to all Americans who have suffered real discrimination and mistreatment, and Warren should apologize for participating in this hypocritical sham . . .

 

SECOND UPDATE

I have been trying to understand Warren’s political calculations with this move. Apparently, she believed that the MSM would do its level best to cover her by trying to run with the patently preposterous story that the report vindicated her claims. She was correct. That is exactly what they did. She then calculated that she would be able to brazen it out with utterly shameless chutpah and the story would, at the very least, lose steam, and she could move on with her 2020 run. Here she miscalculated badly. The MSM’s power to convince the world that black is white is more limited than she thought. Only the most foaming-at-the-mouth leftist activists (like Bob O’H in the comment section to this post) are buying her load of bull manure (or at least saying they are; no rational person believes her).

 

 

Comments
JAD,
I don’t understand why Seversky or Bob O’H are even involved in this discussion. As moral subjectivists they have no basis to say anything about human rights or racism. Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations. They should keep their opinions to themselves rather than bother anyone else. But maybe they do so out of fear, anger or hate– or maybe they have a need to feel smug and self-important.
Ouch. Should moral subjectivists in the US not discuss their opinions on this matter? Should they refrain from voting?daveS
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
News at 34 states:
Maybe some people who reflexively vote progressive need to know this: Neither you nor your identity or ethnicity are worth anything to a progressive except as a weapon in a bid for power. You can be that weapon if you want, sure. But in the end, to them you are still really just a thing.
And here is where progressivism/socialism and Atheistic Darwinism meet. In the Darwinian worldview you are not really a real person with moral agency but are merely a meat robot, a 'neural illusion', of the brain.
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
And as history has repeatedly bore out over the last hundred years, anyone who actually believes that materialistic tripe, and gains power over a nation, turns into a merciless tyrant, a psychopath, who subjugates his people by brute force and fear instead of winning their hearts through overall goodness for the nation and by personal persuasion.
Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century - GARY SAUL MORSON / SEPT. 17, 2018 Excerpt: In its 300-year history in Spain, Portugal, and the New World, the Spanish Inquisition killed a few thousand, perhaps even a few tens of thousands, while in the atheist Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, that was the average toll every week or two. To this objection, the atheist has a ready reply: Atheism had nothing to do with Bolshevik carnage. As Richard Dawkins explains in The God Delusion: “What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.” This comment displays an ignorance so astonishing that, as the Russian expression goes, one can only stare and spit.,,, Bolshevik ideology demanded that religion be wiped out. Perhaps even more than constructing dams and factories, creating a population of atheists became the regime’s most important criterion of success. “Atheism [was] the new civilization’s calling card,” as S.A. Kuchinsky, director of the Leningrad State Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, explained. Communist society could be built only by a new kind of human being, one who would at every moment be guided by partiinost (party-mindedness), a singular devotion to the Party’s purposes. Partiinost demanded militant atheism (mere unbelief was not enough), and atheism became, as Smolkin observes, “the battleground on which Soviet Communism engaged with the existential concerns at the heart of human existence: the meaning of life and death.” https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/among-the-disbelievers/
Of related interest to the American Indians DNA heritage: American Indians turn out to be the most 'genetically refined' race on Earth:
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html
bornagain77
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
I don’t understand why Seversky or Bob O’H are even involved in this discussion. As moral subjectivists they have no basis to say anything about human rights or racism. Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations. They should keep their opinions to themselves rather than bother anyone else. But maybe they do so out of fear, anger or hate-- or maybe they have a need to feel smug and self-important. But why should anyone else care what they believe or think?john_a_designer
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Bob:
BTW, the first link is amusing – the new test backs up what they claim Warren says: she has an ancestor who is Native American (whether the ancestor is Cherokee they don’t say).
I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it. The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.Barry Arrington
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Bob
Barry q 26 – where, in that video, does she claim to be Native American? I listened to it and couldn’t her her making that claim.
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided. The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse. Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won't keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won't sound utterly clueless. Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.Barry Arrington
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
News at 34,, hear hear!bornagain77
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
It appears that Warren has never been reticent about playing up her alleged Cherokee roots and the claims go back a long ways. Here is an article from 2012.
Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is yet again in hot water after new allegations have surfaced that she plagiarized her 'Cherokee' recipes in the book Pow Wow Chow from the New York Times and other publications. Radio talk show host Howie Carr released damning evidence that appears to confirm that Mrs Warren's weren't handed down from generation to generation, they were picked up in the newspaper. Mrs Warren has been under scrutiny since she first claimed Native American heritage, arguing that because her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee, she is a member of the community… The 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow was edited by Mrs Warren's cousin Candy Rowsey and is billed as a collection of recipes from the Five Civilized Tribes. Mrs Warren's recipes are featured alongside her mother's directions for sugar cake and her two children's recipe for peach cobbler. (emphasis added)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146628/Elizabeth-Warrens-Pow-Wow-Chow-Cherokee-recipes-word-word-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.htmljohn_a_designer
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
The oblique defenses of Warren here are interesting, along the lines of "Did she ever really say that?" Whatever she said, she allowed people to think she was a Native American and benefited from the fact that they thought so. But she had to know, if she is a rational human being capable of serious responsibilities, that she is not a Native American in any sense that could possibly matter. And the place she took should have gone to someone else. This is all true whether one believes in affirmative action or not - for the same reasons as, whether you believe in monarchy or not, Prince Charles is more entitled to his mother's throne than Justin Bieber is. But here is the truly damning part, so far as I can see: No one who defends her really seems to care what Native Americans think:
Kim TallBear, a professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Alberta, called Warren’s move a “strike against tribal sovereignty” in a statement. “She continues to defend her ancestry claims as important despite her historical record of refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation community members who challenge her claims,” TallBear said. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is Indigenous.” More.
Tallbear’s point is worth reflection here. Most people whose families have lived in the Americas for five or six generations could certainly have some indigenous “Americas” ancestry. But no one thinks that means a whole lot. To be a Native American or an indigenous Canadian, for example, involves history (a very troubled history), culture, and language, not just genetics. Maybe some people who reflexively vote progressive need to know this: Neither you nor your identity or ethnicity are worth anything to a progressive except as a weapon in a bid for power. You can be that weapon if you want, sure. But in the end, to them you are still really just a thing. This sort of story establishes that.News
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Thank you, ba77. Now could you actually answer the question I asked? BTW, the first link is amusing - the new test backs up what they claim Warren says: she has an ancestor who is Native American (whether the ancestor is Cherokee they don't say).Bob O'H
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
per Bob (and weave) at 29
“I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that — a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a thousand times [and] remarked that he — her father, my papaw — had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do. ... Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born.” — Elizabeth Warren - New England Genealogical Society acknowledged last week that there’s no firm evidence of her great-great-grandmother being Cherokee.,,, - Cherokee Genealogist Twila Barnes disputes Elizabeth Warren's Claim | Heritage Forensics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HTIHkWEYGE
And again:
Cherokee Nation to Elizabeth Warren: Drop dead by Becket Adams – October 15, 2018 Excerpt: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., couldn’t possibly have thought this week would end with her apologizing to the Cherokee Nation. But at the rate things are going, that’s exactly what she’ll have to do to get out of the mess that she has created for herself. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cherokee-nation-to-elizabeth-warren-drop-dead
bornagain77
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
I heard that her native american ancestry is south american.
I think I read somewhere yesterday that a DNA test will not distinguish between indigenous people from North America and those from South America. I didn't know that until now.daveS
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
I heard that her native american ancestry is south american.Mung
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Barry q 26 - where, in that video, does she claim to be Native American? I listened to it and couldn't her her making that claim.Bob O'H
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
This has everything to do with intelligent design! If we are all the result of a mindless, purposeless process then there is no basis for interpersonal moral obligation, universal human rights or a stable and just democratic society. (Mob rule or “herd morality” historically has always undermined democratic societies-- always!) Without real moral categories people cannot communicate with each other in a truthful and meaningful way. All we are left with are baseless and self-serving subjective moral opinions. Warren’s politics is not the issue here, it is her morally and spiritually bankrupt worldview which is undermining American society. Why did she feel compelled to say anything about her 1/32 (or 1/64th?) sliver of “native American” ancestry? Why would that be important to her (or anyone else) at all?john_a_designer
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Sev,
Compared to the routine and shameless lying of the current occupant of the Oval Office, Warren displays a refreshing candor.
Ah yes, the inevitable "whataboutism." Since when is shameless lying about being a racial minority candid to any degree?Barry Arrington
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Bob O'H
I didn’t hear her say she is part of a racial minority
Because your ears are stopped up by your prejudices. She claimed to be Native American. She stood by in silence as her employer picked up on that claim and touted her as a "woman of color." None of this is in dispute.Barry Arrington
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
It became an issue because of the dirty nature of politics.
Well then, I guess if this is just the way politics go, you can be on your way to more important issues like saving the world from Global Warming with your squiggly lines. Bye now. :) Andrewasauber
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
asauber @ 22 - Indeed. It became an issue because of the dirty nature of politics. It's small and insignificant, but it can still be a stick to (metaphorically!) beat Sen. Warren with. And it's a lot easier to use against her than a discussion of her policy proposals.Bob O'H
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
R J Sawyer @ 11
Seversky@7. He did promise to pay one million of his money to a charity of her choice if she took a test and it showed that she had native blood. Are you suggesting that an honourable man like Desperate Cheeto… I mean, Trump… would back out of this bet?
He's made marriage vows on three separate occasions and had no problem breaking all of them whenever it suited him, so I doubt that welching on a bet would bother the mango Mussolini in the slightest.Seversky
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
She’s saying it entitles her to nothing
Then why did it ever become an issue? Andrew P.S. I'm 1/1024th Vulgarian, btw. ;) Andrewasauber
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
mike1962 @ 10
@7 Seversky, I get it. I really do. But ask yourself, why do the Trump supporters support him?
Because he speaks their language - "MAGA!", "Lock her up!", "Build the wall!" and other examples of penetrating political insight. Policies? We don' need no steenkin' policies!Seversky
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
The issue here is that she thinks this entitles her to something. What? How much? Why?
She's saying it entitles her to nothing, and has lots of people saying that it didn't have any effect. As Denyse wrote, the situation is ridiculous to the point of being public entertainment. If someone can find something to show that she would have benefited (and particularly if it was at the expense of someone else), then fine there's a genuine story here. Otherwise, I don't see why we should care. Barry's point about her being a liar would be valid if that is what she is, but that would require quoting what she herself has said, but I haven't seen a lot about that (in the video Barry links to, she is careful in what she says. I don't know if she has said anything markedly different in the past). The other issue with calling her a liar is that it requires her to knowingly say something false. If she believed herself to have some native American ancestry then she wouldn't have been lying even if the DNA results had shown she had no native American DNA.Bob O'H
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
since
Science, I mean. :) Andrewasauber
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
something that has nothing to do with ID
OldAndrew, Websites have to have some kind of variety. It has something to with ID in the sense that there's a political war on science going on. If science is being corrupted by political figures like Elizabeth Warren, all of since gets set back. Andrewasauber
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
she had a Native American ancestry
The issue here is that she thinks this entitles her to something. What? How much? Why? Andrewasauber
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Surely the main lesson from this is that, over time, official affirmative action programs tend to benefit people who don't really need the help because those are the people best suited to making use of them. After a while, it all becomes hopelessly corrupt. Warren's situation is ridiculous to the point of being public entertainment. But spare a thought for the Cherokee-origin woman who didn't get the position because Elizabeth Warren was parked in her seat. If you really believed in affirmative action, you would, of course, be incensed by the injustice. In reality, many people who say they believe in affirmative action don't pass the test of being incensed by Warren's actions. That's because they actually believe in something quite different: Restricting the advancement of people whose potential politics they don't like. Warren probably does not pose that threat so they give her a pass. (Of course, you could be incensed by Warren's actions if dishonesty offends you, even if you don't believe in affirmative action, for policy reasons or in principle. You might just be an honest person. )News
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
As to ID vs. Darwin and so called 'political motivations'. A little 'political' history:
Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described October 9, 2018 - David F. Coppedge Excerpt: Marx and Darwin were friends. Darwinism was the “scientific justification” for Marx’s views, he said. Marxism spawned Leninism (Lenin kept a figurine of a monkey examining a human skull, sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin). Leninism gave rise to Stalinism (Stalin became an atheist reading a copy of Darwin’s Origin). Stalin instituted the Great Terror, in which people were rounded up in the middle of the night and shot or sent to brutal work camps and gulags, where many died. Stalinism inspired Mao Zedong, also a Marxist-Leninist and Darwinian. (And let's not forget Hitler's love for all things Darwinian),,, Let’s recap Mao’s idea of progress. In 1958 to 1962, Chairman Mao launched a program to catch up to the West. He called it “The Great Leap Forward.” According to The Independent UK, “Mao’s Great Leap Forward ‘killed 45 million in four years’.” https://crev.info/2018/10/horrors-maos-darwinist-utopia-described/
To be brutally honest, I think anyone who is gullible enough to believe in Darwinian evolution, much less gullible enough to believe that they are a Indian when they are not, should automatically be disqualified from holding political office, simply based on the unimaginable horror Darwinian thinking inspired last century.,,, Much like NAZIs are now barred from holding office in Germany.bornagain77
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
I'm not political, not a Democrat or a Republican. It's disturbing how auickly this site attacks a Democrat over something that has nothing to do with ID. That casts ID as politically motivated, on top of all the religious stuff that casts it as religious. Are you trying to educate or alienate?OldAndrew
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Funny, Warren wants to and has claimed Cherokee heritage, but the Cherokee nation says the DNA tests is a 'mockery' and wants nothing to do with her: Specifically, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. stated, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
Cherokee Nation to Elizabeth Warren: Drop dead by Becket Adams - October 15, 2018 Excerpt: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., couldn’t possibly have thought this week would end with her apologizing to the Cherokee Nation. But at the rate things are going, that’s exactly what she’ll have to do to get out of the mess that she has created for herself. The Massachusetts senator kicked off Monday by sharing the results of a DNA test that she and her fans in the news media say vindicates her from criticisms that she tried to benefit undeservedly from claiming minority status when she taught at Harvard Law School. Warren has claimed for years that she is of Cherokee Indian descent. She even used to tell a story alleging her parents eloped because of the discrimination suffered by her supposedly part-Cherokee mother. However, the DNA report shows that Warren is maybe six or 10 generations removed from having any ties to the Native American ancestry, if she has any at all. Depending on whether her great-great-great-great-grandmother was indeed a Native American, which neither the report nor Warren can say, the senator would be 1/64th Native American. But she could just as easily be 1/1,024th Native American. Then there’s the problem that the study wasn’t based not Native American DNA from within the United States, but on Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian DNA. In other words, Warren’s claim to Cherokee heritage is, uh, thin, to put it politely. It’s so thin, in fact, that the actual Cherokee Nation released a statement Monday, nuking Warren’s supposedly vindicating report from orbit. “A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation,” said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. His statement added, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” And to think that this day began with Warren attempting to dunk on President Trump with the results of her DNA test. The senator's report is a massive self-own. By putting numbers to her ancestral claims, and by revealing just how thin her ties to the Cherokee Nation really are, the senator has shined a blinding spotlight on the absurdity of a mess that is 100 percent of her own making. There is no scenario where the fact that she was referred to as Harvard Law School's " first woman of color” or the fact that she described herself as a " minority" for several years on a law professors' listing do not feel like cruel jokes, especially considering that the best she can say is that she is maybe — maybe! — 1/64th Native American. But now Warren has a much bigger dilemma on her hands. The Cherokee Nation itself is crying foul in response to her DNA test, leaving her with no good options. Does Warren drop the matter altogether and admit error, seeking forgiveness from a marginalized people? If she does, she will hand Trump a major victory that he will absolutely lord over her for years to come. Or does Warren go to war with the Cherokee Nation, demanding they apologize to her? That’ll be a great look; a white U.S. senator putting Native Americans “in their place.” Warren could've avoided all of this had she responded to the DNA test by simply saying, “I'm sorry. My family lore led me to believe I was closer to the Cherokee Nation than I really am. I regret the judgment, etc.” But Warren wanted so badly to put a point up on the board against the president. She began this week probably thinking she would win the love and approval of the Democratic base. She will most likely end this week asking forgiveness from the Cherokee Nation. Whoever advised her to tout the DNA test should be out of a job. Immediately. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cherokee-nation-to-elizabeth-warren-drop-dead
I don't think the Cherokee nation should expect an apology from Warren any time soon. Warren will just double down on her self deception, and the fake news media will, in all likelihood, side with her. Moreover, a large portion of the Democratic base, as Sev, RJS and Bob (and weave), have already done here, will mindlessly repeat the lie as if it is somehow unquestionably true. Apparently, race will soon become like gender now is for die-hard democrats. You can choose whatever you want to be regardless of reality. Apparently unrestrained imagination is the new reality for Democrats.bornagain77
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
Even more astonishingly, in this video, also released today, Warren says the report actually confirms her claim that she is a racial minority. What?
What? Indeed. What she actually says is that her mother's side of the family was "part native American". I didn't hear her say she is part of a racial minority, and she explicitly says she's "not enrolled in a tribe, and only tribes determine tribal citizenship", so what racial minority is she claiming to be?Bob O'H
October 16, 2018
October
10
Oct
16
16
2018
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply