(10-16-2018, 01:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one voiced concern about her claiming minority status until yesterday when you brought up something from the early 90's. Now that she has evidence that her family's anecdotal evidence is true, there seems to be some goal post moving from "she doesn't have NA heritage" to "she can't claim to be a minority because her heritage is so small".
It's a logical fallacy to suggest that one is defending herself and Harvard using a "minority" label when they point out that her critics were wrong when they suggested she made up her family's background.
Are you suggesting no one brought up her claiming minority status until yesterday?
Can you explain why Warren shared the story about the Grandparents in the first place? Was it perhaps to excuse her listing herself as a minority?
(10-16-2018, 01:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That story is almost as cute as when HRC told an interviewer that she was named after a famous mountain climber. (who had yet to make any noteworthy climbs by the time of her birth) Or, when Blumenthol tells us about his heroics in the Vietnam War..
Now this is just silly. Hillary and Blumenthol obviously made all of that up, but Warren just verified her story. This seems like a really awful attempt to deflect to something else.
(08-21-2018, 01:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Much like the conservatives who rail against homosexuality and end up being gay. It sadly seems that the loudest voices are simply trying to distract others from their own conduct.
(10-16-2018, 01:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you suggesting no one brought up her claiming minority status until yesterday?
Can you explain why Warren shared the story about the Grandparents in the first place? Was it perhaps to excuse her listing herself as a minority?
I hate when goalposts are moved.
There wasn't anything about it in this thread until your post. Unfortunately the search function here prevents us from searching for multiple terms, so I don't know if it was brought up before.
I don't know why she shared the story. It's apparently true, though, and that seems to have caused a shift in the dialogue here.
My family (including Fox News-watchers) sat together and talked about what they think of @realDonaldTrump’s attacks on our heritage. And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry. pic.twitter.com/r3SNzP22f8
Not that it will keep Trump for saying anything to rile up his base...but it's always nice to post another example of him being wrong and a small human being.
He's not wrong, what tribe is she claiming to be from? Did they accept her? Does she even meet the minimum requirements for ANY tribe?
(10-16-2018, 01:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He's not wrong, what tribe is she claiming to be from? Did they accept her? Does she even meet the minimum requirements for ANY tribe?
He said he had more "indian" blood than her and he had none.
(10-16-2018, 01:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There wasn't anything about it in this thread until your post. Unfortunately the search function here prevents us from searching for multiple terms, so I don't know if it was brought up before.
I don't know why she shared the story. It's apparently true, though, and that seems to have caused a shift in the dialogue here.
Yeah it took me about 1 post to bring it up after this thread was revived. I should have done it earlier so it would count. You really don't know why Warren shared the grandparents story?
(10-16-2018, 01:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Now this is just silly. Hillary and Blumenthol obviously made all of that up, but Warren just verified her story. This seems like a really awful attempt to deflect to something else.
Actually she didn't.
The DNA in the database was from Central/South America/Mexico and Asian counts as well.
She can not prove it was from any Local Tribe, because there is so little of that DNA in the system.
Why can't we see the actual results from the group that actually tested her? Who's the one running around claiming that she has NA blood in her? What's her point? IS she trying to gain votes/Sympathy from people?
The analysis was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, a prominent expert in the field. He concluded that the great majority of Warren’s ancestry is European but added that the results “strongly support” the existence of a Native American ancestor.
Strongly support <> definite
I'm going with they are playing on the words and trying to convince people that 1+ 1/1024th =2
Sadly, many of you are biting it hook and sinker.
(10-16-2018, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah it took me about 1 post to bring it up after this thread was revived. I should have done it earlier so it would count. You really don't know why Warren shared the grandparents story?
So, me saying you were the first to mention it was correct. Glad we played the tangents game to get there. I unfortunately am not Elizabeth Warren, so no I don't know.
I'm sure you do, and that's fine, but I am still wondering how we got here from me simply asking if anyone in this thread called her a Native American or Minority, something you answered with a question. I'm assuming that the answer was actually "no".
(10-16-2018, 03:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Actually she didn't.
The DNA in the database was from Central/South America/Mexico and Asian counts as well.
She can not prove it was from any Local Tribe, because there is so little of that DNA in the system.
Why can't we see the actual results from the group that actually tested her? Who's the one running around claiming that she has NA blood in her? What's her point? IS she trying to gain votes/Sympathy from people?
The analysis was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, a prominent expert in the field. He concluded that the great majority of Warren’s ancestry is European but added that the results “strongly support” the existence of a Native American ancestor.
Strongly support <> definite
I'm going with they are playing on the words and trying to convince people that 1+ 1/1024th =2
Sadly, many of you are biting it hook and sinker.
So she strongly supported it... which is the same thing as people straight up making up stuff.
(10-16-2018, 03:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So, me saying you were the first to mention it was correct. Glad we played the tangents game to get there. I unfortunately am not Elizabeth Warren, so no I don't know.
I'm sure you do, and that's fine, but I am still wondering how we got here from me simply asking if anyone in this thread called her a Native American or Minority, something you answered with a question. I'm assuming that the answer was actually "no".
Sure, someone has to be the first to mention something in any thread. I guess it just a judgmental game if it counts for being mentioned early enough.
Without going back I will concede no one in this thread has call EW a minority or NA; however, you among others has stated her claims of such are validated; regardless what the Cherokee Nation and other NA groups say.
Let me clue you in. EW shared this anecdotal evidence to support her claims of being a minority. I don't think anyone has to "be her" (what a cop out reply)to understand that.
(10-16-2018, 07:11 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ok Squaw Spreading Bull.
Maybe Rachel Dolezal, should've done an DNA test as well, so she could prove she was right too.
I like you Mike M. But there's really no need to stoop to this level. Rational folks know that EW is trying to get in front of a slur made by Trump. Many are eating it up, but it just does not excuse her claims of being a minority. WTS, there's no reason to call her names. Just Be Kind.
So I wanted to do a fairly brief post on these DNA tests and genealogy.
I've been dabbling in genealogy for 20 years on and off. And I have done one DNA test (through Ancestry).
Family oral histories are how most of us "know" what are heritage is...providing we even care.
My mother is "100%" Italian. Her great-grandparents on one side and grandparents on the other came directly from Italy. My father is a mutt. But we always "knew" there was German from his father's side and French and Swedish from his mother's side.
Years of research showed most of that is true.
But on my dad's side his grandmother was nearly 100% English. And his mother's side was more convoluted. The main patriarchal line has been in PA since the early 1700's. But the name came either through Canada OR from the south via New Orleans. Either one would confirm the French blood probably. But when you have that many generations back living in the US you get a mix of other lines that has a little bit of everything.
So when I did my test I wasn't surprised to see most of the results...including some Northern Africa. Close to Italy.
My mother would not accept that the results said I was anywhere from 45-55% Italian because she "knows" she is 100%. I tried to explain that through trade, travel, wars and invasions NO ONE is 100% in most places in the world. But her "story" will never change and she refuses to take a test herself.
Over time Ancestry refines your results.
The last time they removed the North African portion and replaced it:
They also refined the ethnicity results:
So the refined, updated results are more in line with what we "knew" from being passed down from generation to generation...except for that Benin/Togo part.
That's gonna take a lot more research!
The point I was getting to was that none of this is an "exact" science in the sense that results can be refined and updated as the science gets better. But we cannot fault someone for believing their family "story" either as it is sometimes the only version of their past/history that they have.
One last sidenote: We had speculated that there may be some Native American on my dad's side based on one old picture of his Great Grandmother as a young woman and some other women who were unidentified.
But we didn't have a "story" about it. It was conjecture based on where the family moved through the years. We didn't EXPECT to find any and we did not. If we had it would just have confirmed a theory not a story passed down.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-16-2018, 03:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure, someone has to be the first to mention something in any thread. I guess it just a judgmental game if it counts for being mentioned early enough.
Without going back I will concede no one in this thread has call EW a minority or NA; however, you among others has stated her claims of such are validated; regardless what the Cherokee Nation and other NA groups say.
Let me clue you in. EW shared this anecdotal evidence to support her claims of being a minority. I don't think anyone has to "be her" (what a cop out reply)to understand that.
(10-17-2018, 07:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: So I wanted to do a fairly brief post on these DNA tests and genealogy.
I've been dabbling in genealogy for 20 years on and off. And I have done one DNA test (through Ancestry).
Family oral histories are how most of us "know" what are heritage is...providing we even care.
My mother is "100%" Italian. Her great-grandparents on one side and grandparents on the other came directly from Italy. My father is a mutt. But we always "knew" there was German from his father's side and French and Swedish from his mother's side.
Years of research showed most of that is true.
But on my dad's side his grandmother was nearly 100% English. And his mother's side was more convoluted. The main patriarchal line has been in PA since the early 1700's. But the name came either through Canada OR from the south via New Orleans. Either one would confirm the French blood probably. But when you have that many generations back living in the US you get a mix of other lines that has a little bit of everything.
So when I did my test I wasn't surprised to see most of the results...including some Northern Africa. Close to Italy.
My mother would not accept that the results said I was anywhere from 45-55% Italian because she "knows" she is 100%. I tried to explain that through trade, travel, wars and invasions NO ONE is 100% in most places in the world. But her "story" will never change and she refuses to take a test herself.
Over time Ancestry refines your results.
The last time they removed the North African portion and replaced it:
They also refined the ethnicity results:
So the refined, updated results are more in line with what we "knew" from being passed down from generation to generation...except for that Benin/Togo part.
That's gonna take a lot more research!
The point I was getting to was that none of this is an "exact" science in the sense that results can be refined and updated as the science gets better. But we cannot fault someone for believing their family "story" either as it is sometimes the only version of their past/history that they have.
One last sidenote: We had speculated that there may be some Native American on my dad's side based on one old picture of his Great Grandmother as a young woman and some other women who were unidentified.
But we didn't have a "story" about it. It was conjecture based on where the family moved through the years. We didn't EXPECT to find any and we did not. If we had it would just have confirmed a theory not a story passed down.
When they say you are say 50% something, what does that even mean? Like from what era? 100 years ago or 1000 years ago?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(10-17-2018, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: When they say you are say 50% something, what does that even mean? Like from what era? 100 years ago or 1000 years ago?
Like I said I always said I was "50% Italian" because my mother was 100% and my dad was not...but the actual testing refines that number a bit.
Now that I looked again, wouldn't you being 50%+ Southern Europe man your mom is in fact 100% Italian?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(10-17-2018, 01:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Now that I looked again, wouldn't you being 50%+ Southern Europe man your mom is in fact 100% Italian?
The original report had a sliding scale: 45-54. In fact it said something to the effect that people who lived in Italy were up to 98% Italian. Too many variables like I listed above to be 100%.
But even being at 57% more than 7% could be from my father's side.
And, again, they keep refining it.
I'm going to take the 23 and me next time to compare.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: dna1.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/pLdxFX98/dna1.jpg)
![[Image: dna2.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/G2wZqcpX/dna2.jpg)
![[Image: dna3.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/tCWDNh6G/dna3.jpg)
![[Image: dna5.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/Dwcgtn5C/dna5.jpg)
![[Image: DNA4.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/W1V8WhmF/DNA4.jpg)
![[Image: laborde-Family-3a.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/cL6zMKdR/laborde-Family-3a.jpg)
