(10-18-2018, 01:59 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 01:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: 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.