It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?

Regarding the part in bold, I have no idea where you get that from.  Visit New Mexico or Arizona sometime.  There are plenty of "pure" Native Americans there.

I'm not up on South American history. Were the Amerinds in South and Central America herded into reservations like in the USA? If not they were more likely to interbreed with Europeans.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Note that Warren did not publish results obtained via the regular DNA services ancestry.com and 23and me.  I'm certain she submitted a sample to each site and did not like the results she got back.  Clearly she was going to need some "expert" advice.  

Her Stanford expert is operating under the theory that the indigenous peoples of South America have the same ancestors as the indigenous peoples of North America.  It's a convenient theory which allows him to pretend he's testing for "native american" DNA even though he has none for comparison.

In fairness here, I'm much more likely to trust a DNA test by an "expert" than ancestry.com. I've spoken to several people who had their DNA tested by a commercial company and got back ridiculous results.

The story is not whether or not the DNA test was valid. There are three bigger points:

1) Subverting the purpose of affirmative action to benefit her own self interest. I view that as no big deal, except that she has been a champion of affirmative discrimination.

2) The fact that her Amerind DNA percentage is in line with the average white person in the US, which is 0.18%. she's no less white than the average Joe Sixpack.

3) The fact that the mainstream media was touting her result as proof that her lie wasn't a lie, when the DNA test proved just the opposite. The Boston Globe even had the proof claim as a front page headline. I'm sure Politifact still defends Warren's claim.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.

It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?

I'm not sure your point. 

The genetic diversity for native Americans is low compared to other groups, but there are twelve different groups across North and South America. They bring in natives from other regions to increase the odds of showing native DNA. Warren is claiming Cherokee bloodlines and that her mother was Indian. The Cherokee DNA wouldn't be the same as the DNA from central and south American Indians. 

Having said that, her native American DNA is half of what the average native American DNA is for white people. HALF! It was so low that Dr. Bustamante said, while he was confident it was correct, that there is a potential that the DNA reading is inaccurate. It doesn't matter that she has .09% native American DNA. These results imply that someone between 1700-1800 reproduced with a native American. Common sense should prevail here, and no one should be defending this weak attempt to prove her heritage. 

Do you think she's justified in calling herself native American?

EDIT: I just read that she's more closely related to the Tennessee Militia (great-great-great grandfather) which rounded up native Americans during the Trail of Tears. You can't make this stuff up.

---

Most Europeans have a similar trace level of the same DNA. It isn't American, it's actually Asian.

---

Note that Warren did not publish results obtained via the regular DNA services ancestry.com and 23and me.  I'm certain she submitted a sample to each site and did not like the results she got back.  Clearly she was going to need some "expert" advice.  

Her Stanford expert is operating under the theory that the indigenous peoples of South America have the same ancestors as the indigenous peoples of North America.  It's a convenient theory which allows him to pretend he's testing for "native american" DNA even though he has none for comparison.

In fairness here, I'm much more likely to trust a DNA test by an "expert" than ancestry.com. I've spoken to several people who had their DNA tested by a commercial company and got back ridiculous results.

The story is not whether or not the DNA test was valid. There are three bigger points:

1) Subverting the purpose of affirmative action to benefit her own self interest. I view that as no big deal, except that she has been a champion of affirmative discrimination.

2) The fact that her Amerind DNA percentage is in line with the average white person in the US, which is 0.18%. she's no less white than the average Joe Sixpack.

3) The fact that the mainstream media was touting her result as proof that her lie wasn't a lie, when the DNA test proved just the opposite. The Boston Globe even had the proof claim as a front page headline. I'm sure Politifact still defends Warren's claim.

Regarding the "average white person" ... if you are interested to know whether most white people in the US have more native DNA than Senator Warren or not, you need the median value, not the average.  I'd bet Senator Warren's DNA fraction is higher than the median.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?

I'm not sure your point. 

The genetic diversity for native Americans is low compared to other groups, but there are twelve different groups across North and South America. They bring in natives from other regions to increase the odds of showing native DNA. Warren is claiming Cherokee bloodlines and that her mother was Indian. The Cherokee DNA wouldn't be the same as the DNA from central and south American Indians. 

Having said that, her native American DNA is half of what the average native American DNA is for white people. HALF! It was so low that Dr. Bustamante said, while he was confident it was correct, that there is a potential that the DNA reading is inaccurate. It doesn't matter that she has .09% native American DNA. These results imply that someone between 1700-1800 reproduced with a native American. Common sense should prevail here, and no one should be defending this weak attempt to prove her heritage. 

Do you think she's justified in calling herself native American?

EDIT: I just read that she's more closely related to the Tennessee Militia (great-great-great grandfather) which rounded up native Americans during the Trail of Tears. You can't make this stuff up.

Bustamante said the ancestor could have been as recent as six generations ago.  He didn't give an actual fraction of genetic material.  The 0.09% number you see is simple people doing simple math, saying, there are 10 generations, 2^10 = 1024, 1/1024 = 0.09%.  But that's not actually how genes work. Most genetic material is not unique to any particular ethnicity, only certain specific markers are.

And the half-and-half assumption is only true for parent and child.  You are half of each of your parents, but you don't know which half.  Genetically, you could be 23% your maternal grandmother and 27% you maternal grandfather and it wouldn't be abnormal, you're still 50% your mom and she's still 50% of each of her parents.  It's explained in the FAQ of ancestry.com, or look up "chromosone crossover".  Bustamante is just counting up the number of markers detected in Warren's genes, comparing that to the number of markers that unmixed people have, and getting a range of possibilities for how many generations it took for that configuration to form.

There are probably markers that could be identified that are different between Cherokees and Aztecs, but she didn't inherit those specific ones. She inherited a few that people all over both continents shared but that no Europeans have. I don't see why the lack of specificity to America north of the Rio Grande matters. She had a native American ancestor. Her family story says it was someone from what we now call the United States. She doesn't have family stories about ancestors from Latin America, so we should accept the simpler explanation for why these markers are in her DNA.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Isn't that Harvard's fault? She got tenure before they found out she claimed native ancestry.

She claimed it in college, long before she was even hired by Harvard.

The whole policy of taking people's ancestry into account in admission, hiring, and promotion decisions is despicable. Harvard is one of the worst offenders. But given that it's being done, and that her side of the political spectrum was the driving force behind the policy, she shouldn't have taken the faculty slot set aside for a "woman of color." Some other person who really was a "woman of color" missed out because of it.

Y'all say this as if you think she cares. I mean....really? Look at who we're talking about.

---

Trump plays Warren as an enemy so his base has someone to actively hate. It's that simple.

Also, anyone who likes a free market economy and not paying 70% income tax should hate her.

---

Her DNA will prove that she is indeed 96.8% witch.

Pair her up with Hillary and we've got 2/3rds of a Hocus Pocus sequel!

Now that is just not true at all.  According to the left his entire base is angry white middle aged men that hate anyone who is not an angry middle aged white male.  Seems to me they have so many things to hate beside Mrs. Warren.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I'm not sure your point. 

The genetic diversity for native Americans is low compared to other groups, but there are twelve different groups across North and South America. They bring in natives from other regions to increase the odds of showing native DNA. Warren is claiming Cherokee bloodlines and that her mother was Indian. The Cherokee DNA wouldn't be the same as the DNA from central and south American Indians. 

Having said that, her native American DNA is half of what the average native American DNA is for white people. HALF! It was so low that Dr. Bustamante said, while he was confident it was correct, that there is a potential that the DNA reading is inaccurate. It doesn't matter that she has .09% native American DNA. These results imply that someone between 1700-1800 reproduced with a native American. Common sense should prevail here, and no one should be defending this weak attempt to prove her heritage. 

Do you think she's justified in calling herself native American?

EDIT: I just read that she's more closely related to the Tennessee Militia (great-great-great grandfather) which rounded up native Americans during the Trail of Tears. You can't make this stuff up.

Bustamante said the ancestor could have been as recent as six generations ago.  He didn't give an actual fraction of genetic material.  The 0.09% number you see is simple people doing simple math, saying, there are 10 generations, 2^10 = 1024, 1/1024 = 0.09%.  But that's not actually how genes work. Most genetic material is not unique to any particular ethnicity, only certain specific markers are.

And the half-and-half assumption is only true for parent and child.  You are half of each of your parents, but you don't know which half.  Genetically, you could be 23% your maternal grandmother and 27% you maternal grandfather and it wouldn't be abnormal, you're still 50% your mom and she's still 50% of each of her parents.  It's explained in the FAQ of ancestry.com, or look up "chromosone crossover".  Bustamante is just counting up the number of markers detected in Warren's genes, comparing that to the number of markers that unmixed people have, and getting a range of possibilities for how many generations it took for that configuration to form.

There are probably markers that could be identified that are different between Cherokees and Aztecs, but she didn't inherit those specific ones.  She inherited a few that people all over both continents shared but that no Europeans have.  I don't see why the lack of specificity to America north of the Rio Grande matters.  She had a native American ancestor.  Her family story says it was someone from what we now call the United States.  She doesn't have family stories about ancestors from Latin America, so we should accept the simpler explanation for why these markers are in her DNA.

Six generations to ten generations to be more precise. That's, what, 150 years before she was born? That simple math isn't inaccurate. You make a lot of justifications for the potential that she may have higher native American DNA. You assume she could potentially have a higher percentage of DNA from natives, but she could potentially have less, too. Either way, these assumptions you make prove nothing. We can only go off of what we know, and we know that she has a lower-than-average percentage for native American DNA.

In 2012, she specifically said her mother was Cherokee. She changed it to be more broad as she received more criticism. I think you're missing the point, however. People ultimately don't care that she technically has native American DNA. I think everyone assumed she'd have a little bit. People think it's stupid that she's claiming native American heritage over .09%. People speak further about the Cherokee lineage because it supports that she's ultimately wrong about being native American. What would the "simpler explanation" be anyway? That it actually isn't the central or south American markers but instead markers from north American tribes that aren't reflected in the results?

Again, do you consider her native American?

---

Bustamante said the ancestor could have been as recent as six generations ago.  He didn't give an actual fraction of genetic material.  The 0.09% number you see is simple people doing simple math, saying, there are 10 generations, 2^10 = 1024, 1/1024 = 0.09%.  But that's not actually how genes work. Most genetic material is not unique to any particular ethnicity, only certain specific markers are.

And the half-and-half assumption is only true for parent and child.  You are half of each of your parents, but you don't know which half.  Genetically, you could be 23% your maternal grandmother and 27% you maternal grandfather and it wouldn't be abnormal, you're still 50% your mom and she's still 50% of each of her parents.  It's explained in the FAQ of ancestry.com, or look up "chromosone crossover".  Bustamante is just counting up the number of markers detected in Warren's genes, comparing that to the number of markers that unmixed people have, and getting a range of possibilities for how many generations it took for that configuration to form.

There are probably markers that could be identified that are different between Cherokees and Aztecs, but she didn't inherit those specific ones.  She inherited a few that people all over both continents shared but that no Europeans have.  I don't see why the lack of specificity to America north of the Rio Grande matters.  She had a native American ancestor.  Her family story says it was someone from what we now call the United States.  She doesn't have family stories about ancestors from Latin America, so we should accept the simpler explanation for why these markers are in her DNA.

Six generations to ten generations to be more precise. That's, what, 150 years before she was born? That simple math isn't inaccurate. You make a lot of justifications for the potential that she may have higher native American DNA. You assume she could potentially have a higher percentage of DNA from natives, but she could potentially have less, too. Either way, these assumptions you make prove nothing. We can only go off of what we know, and we know that she has a lower-than-average percentage for native American DNA.

In 2012, she specifically said her mother was Cherokee. She changed it to be more broad as she received more criticism. I think you're missing the point, however. People ultimately don't care that she technically has native American DNA. I think everyone assumed she'd have a little bit. People think it's stupid that she's claiming native American heritage over .09%. People speak further about the Cherokee lineage because it supports that she's ultimately wrong about being native American. What would the "simpler explanation" be anyway? That it actually isn't the central or south American markers but instead markers from north American tribes that aren't reflected in the results?

Again, do you consider her native American?

As I said to you already, the 0.09% isn't indicative of how genetics actually works.  The only people using that number haven't read the report and don't fully understand genetics.

And as I replied to someone else, this idea that there is an "average value" of native American DNA is not meaningful.  In this case, if you want to know how unique Warren is compared to other white people you'd want to know percentiles and medians, not averages.

I don't have a category for her.  She's a little native. She's mostly white.  She's American.  That's all she ever claimed.  She doesn't qualify for tribal recognition.  She never claimed to and never asked to.  If Trump didn't decide to insult her about this, most people would have forgotten this whole thing long ago.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As I said to you already, the 0.09% isn't indicative of how genetics actually works.  The only people using that number haven't read the report and don't fully understand genetics.

And as I replied to someone else, this idea that there is an "average value" of native American DNA is not meaningful.  In this case, if you want to know how unique Warren is compared to other white people you'd want to know percentiles and medians, not averages.

I don't have a category for her.  She's a little native. She's mostly white.  She's American.  That's all she ever claimed.  She doesn't qualify for tribal recognition.  She never claimed to and never asked to.  If Trump didn't decide to insult her about this, most people would have forgotten this whole thing long ago.

If that isn't how it works, why then do the DNA-testing companies use percentages to explain genetic makeup.

It isn't meaningful to you because it isn't helpful to your stance. Are averages reflective of everyone's DNA? Of course not but it should put in perspective how little is in Warren's.

If you don't have a category for her, how can you debate if she is or isn't one? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you want to defend her but don't want to admit she isn't native American. That isn't "all she ever claimed", by the way. She claimed to be no less than 1/8 Cherokee Indian when she said he mother was half-half. 

Trump certainly gave the conversation fire, but let's not pretend that Trump started it. Like Trump does, he attacks everyone who attacks him. When he attacks, he uses whatever he can, and in this case it was her fake lineage.

---

Six generations to ten generations to be more precise. That's, what, 150 years before she was born? That simple math isn't inaccurate. You make a lot of justifications for the potential that she may have higher native American DNA. You assume she could potentially have a higher percentage of DNA from natives, but she could potentially have less, too. Either way, these assumptions you make prove nothing. We can only go off of what we know, and we know that she has a lower-than-average percentage for native American DNA.

In 2012, she specifically said her mother was Cherokee. She changed it to be more broad as she received more criticism. I think you're missing the point, however. People ultimately don't care that she technically has native American DNA. I think everyone assumed she'd have a little bit. People think it's stupid that she's claiming native American heritage over .09%. People speak further about the Cherokee lineage because it supports that she's ultimately wrong about being native American. What would the "simpler explanation" be anyway? That it actually isn't the central or south American markers but instead markers from north American tribes that aren't reflected in the results?

Again, do you consider her native American?

As I said to you already, the 0.09% isn't indicative of how genetics actually works.  The only people using that number haven't read the report and don't fully understand genetics.

And as I replied to someone else, this idea that there is an "average value" of native American DNA is not meaningful.  In this case, if you want to know how unique Warren is compared to other white people you'd want to know percentiles and medians, not averages.

I don't have a category for her.  She's a little native. She's mostly white.  She's American.  That's all she ever claimed.  She doesn't qualify for tribal recognition.  She never claimed to and never asked to.  If Trump didn't decide to insult her about this, most people would have forgotten this whole thing long ago.

You are right that median should be used instead of average, but you're splitting hairs here. They're probably very close to the same value and there's a good chance that the word "average" was used when it was actually the median that was measured. 

She's not "a little native" in any sense of the statement that would matter for affirmative discrimination. She's not "mostly white" she's 100% white, just not 100% genetically European.

In any case she claimed to be a minority based on her Amerind heritage. The test that was run shows that was not the case. She benefited from the claim and she knew she benefited from the claim.

---

She claimed it in college, long before she was even hired by Harvard.

The whole policy of taking people's ancestry into account in admission, hiring, and promotion decisions is despicable. Harvard is one of the worst offenders. But given that it's being done, and that her side of the political spectrum was the driving force behind the policy, she shouldn't have taken the faculty slot set aside for a "woman of color." Some other person who really was a "woman of color" missed out because of it.

Y'all say this as if you think she cares. I mean....really? Look at who we're talking about.

It's obvious she doesn't care based on her actions. But the people who support affirmative discrimination, the leftist press, are also defending her.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

As I said to you already, the 0.09% isn't indicative of how genetics actually works.  The only people using that number haven't read the report and don't fully understand genetics.

And as I replied to someone else, this idea that there is an "average value" of native American DNA is not meaningful.  In this case, if you want to know how unique Warren is compared to other white people you'd want to know percentiles and medians, not averages.

I don't have a category for her.  She's a little native. She's mostly white.  She's American.  That's all she ever claimed.  She doesn't qualify for tribal recognition.  She never claimed to and never asked to.  If Trump didn't decide to insult her about this, most people would have forgotten this whole thing long ago.

If that isn't how it works, why then do the DNA-testing companies use percentages to explain genetic makeup.

It isn't meaningful to you because it isn't helpful to your stance. Are averages reflective of everyone's DNA? Of course not but it should put in perspective how little is in Warren's.

If you don't have a category for her, how can you debate if she is or isn't one? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you want to defend her but don't want to admit she isn't native American. That isn't "all she ever claimed", by the way. She claimed to be no less than 1/8 Cherokee Indian when she said he mother was half-half. 

Trump certainly gave the conversation fire, but let's not pretend that Trump started it. Like Trump does, he attacks everyone who attacks him. When he attacks, he uses whatever he can, and in this case it was her fake lineage.

When the DNA-testing companies give percentages, they usually aren't clean, base-2 percentages like 6.25% or 0.78% or 0.098%.  They're more random number. The percentages they give are really based on "German people usually have at least 9 out of 13 of these distinct genetic markers, you have 4 of the 13, so we'll pencil you in as 45% German until we look at what other distinct ethnic markers you have, then we'll massage the percentages so they add up to 100%"  Bustamante could have constructed a percentage, but instead he gave a range of how many generations had passed.  Right-wing meme-smiths came in behind Bustamante and did the bad math of {6,7,8,9,10} = 10; 1/(2^10) = 0.098%.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If that isn't how it works, why then do the DNA-testing companies use percentages to explain genetic makeup.

It isn't meaningful to you because it isn't helpful to your stance. Are averages reflective of everyone's DNA? Of course not but it should put in perspective how little is in Warren's.

If you don't have a category for her, how can you debate if she is or isn't one? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you want to defend her but don't want to admit she isn't native American. That isn't "all she ever claimed", by the way. She claimed to be no less than 1/8 Cherokee Indian when she said he mother was half-half. 

Trump certainly gave the conversation fire, but let's not pretend that Trump started it. Like Trump does, he attacks everyone who attacks him. When he attacks, he uses whatever he can, and in this case it was her fake lineage.

When the DNA-testing companies give percentages, they usually aren't clean, base-2 percentages like 6.25% or 0.78% or 0.098%.  They're more random number. The percentages they give are really based on "German people usually have at least 9 out of 13 of these distinct genetic markers, you have 4 of the 13, so we'll pencil you in as 45% German until we look at what other distinct ethnic markers you have, then we'll massage the percentages so they add up to 100%"  Bustamante could have constructed a percentage, but instead he gave a range of how many generations had passed.  Right-wing meme-smiths came in behind Bustamante and did the bad math of {6,7,8,9,10} = 10; 1/(2^10) = 0.098%.

So...not Native American then? Or are you still saying she is, maybe, kinda?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

When the DNA-testing companies give percentages, they usually aren't clean, base-2 percentages like 6.25% or 0.78% or 0.098%.  They're more random number. The percentages they give are really based on "German people usually have at least 9 out of 13 of these distinct genetic markers, you have 4 of the 13, so we'll pencil you in as 45% German until we look at what other distinct ethnic markers you have, then we'll massage the percentages so they add up to 100%"  Bustamante could have constructed a percentage, but instead he gave a range of how many generations had passed.  Right-wing meme-smiths came in behind Bustamante and did the bad math of {6,7,8,9,10} = 10; 1/(2^10) = 0.098%.

So...not Native American then? Or are you still saying she is, maybe, kinda?

Genetics is not identity.
She clearly has a small number of native american genes, and therefore at least one native american ancestor, but not once in her life has she actually identified herself with that people group.  She never lived with them, she never went to their gatherings, she never learned their customs.  At least once she checked a box that she shouldn't have checked on a mundane form.  The form was not a college application.  The form was not a job application.  It was a registration form for a directory.  But everyone who has looked at the thing in detail has said that checking the box didn't give her any benefits.  The Boston Globe has already said that their initial story gave a false impression, knowing what they and we know now.  Trump just won't let it go.  I don't know why Warren took the test and released the results.  Maybe she hoped that doing so would cause a million dollars to get donated to charity and cause Trump to stop this line of insults.  Certainly that's what any intellectual and ethical adult in Trump's shoes would have done. If so, she overestimated Trump.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So...not Native American then? Or are you still saying she is, maybe, kinda?

Genetics is not identity.
She clearly has a small number of native american genes, and therefore at least one native american ancestor, but not once in her life has she actually identified herself with that people group.  She never lived with them, she never went to their gatherings, she never learned their customs.  At least once she checked a box that she shouldn't have checked on a mundane form.  The form was not a college application.  The form was not a job application.  It was a registration form for a directory.  But everyone who has looked at the thing in detail has said that checking the box didn't give her any benefits.  The Boston Globe has already said that their initial story gave a false impression, knowing what they and we know now.  Trump just won't let it go.  I don't know why Warren took the test and released the results.  Maybe she hoped that doing so would cause a million dollars to get donated to charity and cause Trump to stop this line of insults.  Certainly that's what any intellectual and ethical adult in Trump's shoes would have done.  If so, she overestimated Trump.

Clearly?? Again, no one except left wing nuts are claiming that she was proven correct. No one. 1.6% is the max and that is assuming the assumptions on ancestry of Mexicans, Peruvians and Columbians being 'close enough' to Native Americans in general. You are being intellectually dishonest, so I doubt you will admit your gross error any time soon.

---

Genetics is not identity.
She clearly has a small number of native american genes, and therefore at least one native american ancestor, but not once in her life has she actually identified herself with that people group.  She never lived with them, she never went to their gatherings, she never learned their customs.  At least once she checked a box that she shouldn't have checked on a mundane form.  The form was not a college application.  The form was not a job application.  It was a registration form for a directory.  But everyone who has looked at the thing in detail has said that checking the box didn't give her any benefits.  The Boston Globe has already said that their initial story gave a false impression, knowing what they and we know now.  Trump just won't let it go.  I don't know why Warren took the test and released the results.  Maybe she hoped that doing so would cause a million dollars to get donated to charity and cause Trump to stop this line of insults.  Certainly that's what any intellectual and ethical adult in Trump's shoes would have done.  If so, she overestimated Trump.

Clearly?? Again, no one except left wing nuts are claiming that she was proven correct. No one. 1.6% is the max and that is assuming the assumptions on ancestry of Mexicans, Peruvians and Columbians being 'close enough' to Native Americans in general.  You are being intellectually dishonest, so I doubt you will admit your gross error any time soon.

Funny how you get to define anyone who disagrees with you about Warren's claims as a "left wing nut."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

When the DNA-testing companies give percentages, they usually aren't clean, base-2 percentages like 6.25% or 0.78% or 0.098%.  They're more random number. The percentages they give are really based on "German people usually have at least 9 out of 13 of these distinct genetic markers, you have 4 of the 13, so we'll pencil you in as 45% German until we look at what other distinct ethnic markers you have, then we'll massage the percentages so they add up to 100%"  Bustamante could have constructed a percentage, but instead he gave a range of how many generations had passed.  Right-wing meme-smiths came in behind Bustamante and did the bad math of {6,7,8,9,10} = 10; 1/(2^10) = 0.098%.

The point is that they do use it, and it's accurate enough to closely reflect one's DNA or else they wouldn't be using it. 

Don't make this into a "right-wing meme-smith" conspiracy. It isn't at all unreasonable for people to use the percentages to reasonably conclude one's genetic make-up. 

You aren't being clear on your stance with Warren, either. You say that she's a "little Native" and that you don't have a category. You think she's justified in calling herself native American or you don't and it appears you're reluctant to answer that. 

So...not Native American then? Or are you still saying she is, maybe, kinda?

Genetics is not identity.
She clearly has a small number of native american genes, and therefore at least one native american ancestor, but not once in her life has she actually identified herself with that people group.  She never lived with them, she never went to their gatherings, she never learned their customs.  At least once she checked a box that she shouldn't have checked on a mundane form.  The form was not a college application.  The form was not a job application.  It was a registration form for a directory.  But everyone who has looked at the thing in detail has said that checking the box didn't give her any benefits.  The Boston Globe has already said that their initial story gave a false impression, knowing what they and we know now.  Trump just won't let it go.  I don't know why Warren took the test and released the results.  Maybe she hoped that doing so would cause a million dollars to get donated to charity and cause Trump to stop this line of insults.  Certainly that's what any intellectual and ethical adult in Trump's shoes would have done.  If so, she overestimated Trump.

Statistically, most white Americans have a native American ancestor.

She specifically claimed Cherokee ancestry. You say she didn't identify as such but she did. 

Whether or not she gained from claiming that heritage is questionable, but her calming that heritage is not.

---

When the DNA-testing companies give percentages, they usually aren't clean, base-2 percentages like 6.25% or 0.78% or 0.098%.  They're more random number. The percentages they give are really based on "German people usually have at least 9 out of 13 of these distinct genetic markers, you have 4 of the 13, so we'll pencil you in as 45% German until we look at what other distinct ethnic markers you have, then we'll massage the percentages so they add up to 100%"  Bustamante could have constructed a percentage, but instead he gave a range of how many generations had passed.  Right-wing meme-smiths came in behind Bustamante and did the bad math of {6,7,8,9,10} = 10; 1/(2^10) = 0.098%.

The point is that they do use it, and it's accurate enough to closely reflect one's DNA or else they wouldn't be using it. 

Don't make this into a "right-wing meme-smith" conspiracy. It isn't at all unreasonable for people to use the percentages to reasonably conclude one's genetic make-up. 

You aren't being clear on your stance with Warren, either. You say that she's a "little Native" and that you don't have a category. You think she's justified in calling herself native American or you don't and it appears you're reluctant to answer that. 

Genetics is not identity.
She clearly has a small number of native american genes, and therefore at least one native american ancestor, but not once in her life has she actually identified herself with that people group.  She never lived with them, she never went to their gatherings, she never learned their customs.  At least once she checked a box that she shouldn't have checked on a mundane form.  The form was not a college application.  The form was not a job application.  It was a registration form for a directory.  But everyone who has looked at the thing in detail has said that checking the box didn't give her any benefits.  The Boston Globe has already said that their initial story gave a false impression, knowing what they and we know now.  Trump just won't let it go.  I don't know why Warren took the test and released the results.  Maybe she hoped that doing so would cause a million dollars to get donated to charity and cause Trump to stop this line of insults.  Certainly that's what any intellectual and ethical adult in Trump's shoes would have done.  If so, she overestimated Trump.

Statistically, most white Americans have a native American ancestor.

She specifically claimed Cherokee ancestry. You say she didn't identify as such but she did. 

Whether or not she gained from claiming that heritage is questionable, but her calming that heritage is not.

1) I did answer your question.  As worded, your question invites equivocation.  Genetically, she is part native American.  As a matter of identity, she is not at all native American. Warren in her life has, intentionally or not, equivocated in the same way your question equivocates, between genetics and identity.  I get that the answer is not satisfying to you because it's not a simple yes or no.

2) I don't think most white Americans have a native ancestor.  Most white Americans immigrated after 1840 and there was much less intermarriage (and many fewer natives remaining to marry) after that time.

3) the deception that the meme-smiths are engaging in is insisting that it really was exactly 10 generations ago. It was six, or seven, or eight, or nine, or ten. If it was six, that native ancestor's genes had worse than average luck in the meiosis roulette. If it was ten, they had better than average luck.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The point is that they do use it, and it's accurate enough to closely reflect one's DNA or else they wouldn't be using it. 

Don't make this into a "right-wing meme-smith" conspiracy. It isn't at all unreasonable for people to use the percentages to reasonably conclude one's genetic make-up. 

You aren't being clear on your stance with Warren, either. You say that she's a "little Native" and that you don't have a category. You think she's justified in calling herself native American or you don't and it appears you're reluctant to answer that. 


Statistically, most white Americans have a native American ancestor.

She specifically claimed Cherokee ancestry. You say she didn't identify as such but she did. 

Whether or not she gained from claiming that heritage is questionable, but her calming that heritage is not.

1) I did answer your question.  As worded, your question invites equivocation.  Genetically, she is part native American.  As a matter of identity, she is not at all native American. Warren in her life has, intentionally or not, equivocated in the same was your question equivocates, between genetics and identity.  I get that the answer is not satisfying to you because it's not a simple yes or no.

2) I don't think most white Americans have a native ancestor.  Most white Americans immigrated after 1840 and there was much less intermarriage (and many fewer natives remaining to marry) after that time.

Do you acknowledge that the DNA professional stated that he used Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA in place of Native American? Yes or No?

Or are you going to keep pretending you don't see that?

---