Login

MalabarJag · 10-17-2018, 10:45 PM

(10-17-2018, 09:49 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 09:30 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: 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.

(10-17-2018, 08:42 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 09:45 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 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?"