(10-17-2018, 02:12 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

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"?

---