America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,243 comments
  • 1,753,892 views
But if the claim is heritage, and evidence exists (regardless how miniscule the percentage) to support the claim, is it still bogus? Had her claim been that she was predominantly of said heritage, I'd be on board with you 100%, but it wasn't. The claim was actually very vague and previous notions to support it didn't go a very long way to do so. "High cheekbones"? 'Kay.

If someone is bringing up "heritage" and it's statistical noise, it's just lying or bogus and should be considered BS.
 
If someone is bringing up "heritage" and it's statistical noise, it's just lying or bogus and should be considered BS.
At what point do DNA results go from inconsequential to substantive? Why there and not allowing for greater or fewer matches?
 
At what point do DNA results go from inconsequential to substantive? Why there and not allowing for greater or fewer matches?
When the result isn't even a full percent?
Does anyone have the full results?
Whatever the dominant blood line is, is what she is.
Or let me guess, I can claim I'm a Viking even though my main blood line is British French and Hungarian(white).
I haven't done a blood test, just going off the family tree...
 
At what point do DNA results go from inconsequential to substantive? Why there and not allowing for greater or fewer matches?

The relevance of heritage is subjective. I dont care if I am 100% pure or 70%. but I can imagine that some extremists expect 100% purity. As for the relevance with Warren, it was Trump that made a big deal about it. And in my opinion if I was 1% african, I would tell others that I have 1% african heritage. That doesnt change anything for me or others, but it does start an interesting conversation. Apparantly we all have african heritage anyways.

@Johnnypenso would it have made a difference for you or Trump if she had 8% heritage?
 
When the result isn't even a full percent?
Does anyone have the full results?
Whatever the dominant blood line is, is what she is.
Or let me guess, I can claim I'm a Viking even though my main blood line is British French and Hungarian(white).
I haven't done a blood test, just going off the family tree...
Hang on...you've repeatedly taken issue with me quoting you, and now you go and quote me out of the blue?

:rolleyes:

...

:lol:

But seriously, why as little as a full percent and not more? Why not less?

[Regarding full results] Presumably.*

Do you define dominant as a unique identifier meeting or exceeding a certain percentage of the whole in addition to having a higher percentage than others, or merely the unique identifier with the highest percentage out of all unique identifiers? If the former, what percentage is that and why? If the latter, does having no unique identifier greater than 3% mean that an individual's heritage actually corresponds to that identifier or could it be that the issue is a bit more nuanced than that?

And what's with the dual fallacies (counterfactual and appeal to hypocrisy) in that last remark?

I sure hope you appreciate my leaving your post whole instead of splitting it up to address each point, it was very difficult for me to do and, well, I fail to see how it's really any better.

*Edit to add. It sure would have been easier to manually parse my response to specific points, that way I'd have been sure I addressed everything that required a response.

The relevance of heritage is subjective.
IlliterateCheeryKingfisher-small.gif


Uh... it's a tough call. When it passes the laugh test probably.
When's that?

The non-answers remind me of an exchange from How I Met Your Mother that I found humorous. See...Marshall thinks Ted is moving too fast with Stella, so he asks for details about her such as her interests and physical characteristics to illustrate that to him and Ted just dodges:

Marshall: "What color are her eyes?"
Ted: "The color of the ocean after a storm."
Marshall: "Which is?"
Ted: "Beautiful."

ridiculous.jpg
 
When's that?

The non-answers remind me of an exchange from How I Met Your Mother that I found humorous. See...Marshall thinks Ted is moving too fast with Stella, so he asks for details about her such as her interests and physical characteristics to illustrate that to him and Ted just dodges:

Marshall: "What color are her eyes?"
Ted: "The color of the ocean after a storm."
Marshall: "Which is?"
Ted: "Beautiful."

View attachment 774713

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. Are you trying to work through a legal case against Donald Trump regarding whether she has met his criteria for paying up? Or are you trying to figure out whether the public should be hard on her for bogus claims? Because I can't give you a specific number where the public will suddenly say "oh, you're 10.1% victim, that's counts. I thought you said 9.9%, that wouldn't". But she's not exactly close to the line. This is a no-brainer scenario.
 
Hang on...you've repeatedly taken issue with me quoting you, and now you go and quote me out of the blue?
I took issue with you quoting me on a lot of posts, even mocking me without quoting me. As you just said, "out of the blue".
Do you think 1% is enough to claim that is what you are?
There is claiming you are Cherokee and saying you have a trace of Cherokee blood.
They have a different way of acknowledging if you are truly part of their tribe.
She could of handled this better by actually contacting a tribe than using 21 and me or whatever.
Again, does anyone have the FULL results regardless?
----
On a side note, let's say a black person has white blood. Why do we still call them black?
 
While I agree she did prove she has Native American blood and thus "won" the bet, she's really not Native American by any measure.

Somehow I have 1.1% Native American DNA per my 23andMe test, how that came to be is something that's a bit puzzling. I don't claim to be Native American though.

On a side note, let's say a black person has white blood. Why do we still call them black?

That's a little different. Black and white are referring to skin color, not heritage. You can be a white African or a black Norwegian.
 
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. Are you trying to work through a legal case against Donald Trump regarding whether she has met his criteria for paying up? Or are you trying to figure out whether the public should be hard on her for bogus claims? Because I can't give you a specific number where the public will suddenly say "oh, you're 10.1% victim, that's counts. I thought you said 9.9%, that wouldn't". But she's not exactly close to the line. This is a no-brainer scenario.

It absolutely doenst matter at all if she has indian heritage or not. It does not influence her as a politician or as a person. The only person that made a big deal out of it is Trump. And he started it by promising to offer 1 million dollars for proof of heritage. and 0.1 is still more then 0%. So Trump brought it on himself. He did not state it in a private conversation, but he promised at a rallt, in front of thousands of live public and millions of TV watchers at home, that if he promised that he would offer 1 million dollars to a charity if she could prove she had indian heritage (he said indian, but Warren's claim was indian heritage in the first place and not being Indian)

I took issue with you quoting me on a lot of posts, even mocking me without quoting me. As you just said, "out of the blue".
Do you think 1% is enough to claim that is what you are?
There is claiming you are Cherokee and saying you have a trace of Cherokee blood.
They have a different way of acknowledging if you are truly part of their tribe.
She could of handled this better by actually contacting a tribe than using 21 and me or whatever.
Again, does anyone have the FULL results regardless?
----
On a side note, let's say a black person has white blood. Why do we still call them black?

You dont have to call that person black. that is what you chose to call him, you could also just call that person american. That person could also be from Italy so in that case he would be Italian. If you adress his ethnicity then he is an american with african heritage and perhaps some other heritage in there.

The point was never if Warren is Indian or not. That what Trump was yelling in his tirades. She only claimed she had indian heritage.

edit: fixed some spelling
 
Last edited:
She claimed she had indian heritage.
In the US, to claim native heritage is a method to gain advantage in admittance to prestigious universities, political organizations and the like. I'm not the one to say if she's used this trick on her way up the ladder. But it is undoubtedly a blot on her escutcheon to have made this highly exaggerated assertion. If it were not for this one boast, she would have been considered a favorite for the next Democratic presidential nomination. As it stands, she is tarnished. As far as other female Dems go, I have my eye on Tulsi Gabbard.

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Hawaii's 2nd district
 
It absolutely doenst matter at all if she has indian heritage or not. It does not influence her as a politician or as a person. The only person that made a big deal out of it is Trump. And he started it by promising to offer 1 million dollars for proof of heritage. and 0.1 is still more then 0%. So Trump brought it on himself. He did not state it in a private conversation, but he promised at a rallt, in front of thousands of live public and millions of TV watchers at home, that if he promised that he would offer 1 million dollars to a charity if she could prove she had indian heritage (he said indian, but Warren's claim was indian heritage in the first place and not being Indian)

It's the BS claim to [random] heritage that I'm interested in. Not what it is, or Trumps response. I'm interested in the fact that she lied about it and has proven it.
 
The more people learn about anthropology and actually study and learn about movement and migration of modern humans, not just over the last 300-400 years, but over the last 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 or more years, the more we realize how inadequate most of our modern day conceptions are about our 'origin' and background. I find it very amusing when people purport to be 25% this and 50% that, nearly always defined by modern day political boundaries.

For the vast majority of people, a DNA test, and having the results explained and interpreted by somebody qualified to do so, would be quite an eye opener. And the world is usually a much smaller place when it happens.
 
In the US, to claim native heritage is a method to gain advantage in admittance to prestigious universities, political organizations and the like. I'm not the one to say if she's used this trick on her way up the ladder. But it is undoubtedly a blot on her escutcheon to have made this highly exaggerated assertion. If it were not for this one boast, she would have been considered a favorite for the next Democratic presidential nomination. As it stands, she is tarnished. As far as other female Dems go, I have my eye on Tulsi Gabbard.

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Hawaii's 2nd district

Tarnished just by saying she had indian heritage? I dont think I need to tell you what Trump has done or said in the past and it didnt stop him from becoming president. She is way better then Hillary and cant find any other reason why she should not run.
Your eye on her, because she is hot? Or am i being sexist?;)

But in all seriousness, she does ticks a lot boxes. Military experience, mixed heritage, female, progressive. Only thing that is negative about her, is that she is a vegetarian. :lol:
Dont know her political trackrecord though.

It's the BS claim to [random] heritage that I'm interested in. Not what it is, or Trumps response. I'm interested in the fact that she lied about it and has proven it.

In fact she did not lie. But if you still consider it a Lie (because of the low %), I can imagine if she was told by her family she had indian heritage from early age she may had the misconception that she was by no fault of her own.
 
But in all seriousness, she does ticks a lot boxes. Military experience, mixed heritage, female, progressive. Only thing that is negative about her, is that she is a vegetarian. :lol:
Dont know her political trackrecord though.
One of the very best things about her is her political track record of working well and successfully across the aisle. At this time of great divisiveness, it's a huge asset, making her of great, perhaps crucial, interest to independents. Maybe her greatest handicap is her father, who was in the past something of a religious nut job.
 
One of the very best things about her is her political track record of working well and successfully across the aisle. At this time of great divisiveness, it's a huge asset, making her of great, perhaps crucial, interest to independents. Maybe her greatest handicap is her father, who was in the past something of a religious nut job.

And she is much too young to run for president realistically. I am no ageist, but her age would work against her in a an election.
 
In fact she did not lie. But if you still consider it a Lie (because of the low %), I can imagine if she was told by her family she had indian heritage from early age she may had the misconception that she was by no fault of her own.

Yea.... she probably didn't realize that she was 1/1 billionth whatever based on the fact that she didn't see it anywhere in her family tree. Politics had nothing to do with the bogus claim.
 
And she is much too young to run for president realistically. I am no ageist, but her age would work against her in a an election.
Maybe! But many others on the market are much, much too old. Gabbard is multi-term reelected congresswoman, 37 now but in her mid-forties for the 2024 election cycle. The Dems are, right now, in a real dither as to policy and people to run. Tulsi has the makings of a very strong candidate with broad appeal, left, right and center. Heck, she might even appeal to certain old libertarians!
 
Did he?
He wasn't the one who made the claim.

She isnt the one talking about it at political rallies and on TV or is she? It apparantly originated during an election debate with scott brown. They probably couldnt find any other dirt on her and they found that apparantly she checked a box on an application form that she had indian heritage. She herself did not use it for political means. And it has already been debunked she used it to advance her career.
 
She isnt the one talking about it at political rallies and on TV or is she? It apparantly originated during an election debate with scott brown. They probably couldnt find any other dirt on her and they found that apparantly she checked a box on an application form that she had indian heritage. She herself did not use it for political means. And it has already been debunked she used it to advance her career.
So you're telling me that if I go to YouTube or search her job history I won't find any mention out of her mouth or by her hand of her "native heritage"?
 
Last edited:
She isnt the one talking about it at political rallies and on TV or is she? It apparantly originated during an election debate with scott brown. They probably couldnt find any other dirt on her and they found that apparantly she checked a box on an application form that she had indian heritage. She herself did not use it for political means. And it has already been debunked she used it to advance her career.

She self-identified as a native american at Harvard and, as a result, became listed as a minority in the school. I'll admit that in searching for her use of it I found less than I expected. She listed as a minority because of family stories (which are apparently bogus). It's hard to know for sure whether she knew that she had no real Native American heritage and that the stories were bunk. It still looks to me like she was trying to obtain political gain from it, but I've been too hard on her in this thread (a little).
 
So you're telling me that if I go to YouTube or search her job history I won't find no mention out of her mouth or by her hand of her "native heritage"?

Dont know. I didnt look. I only tried to find out the origin of the whole thing. If you find some videos please share them. That still doesnt change that Trump made a big dealt out of it, where others dont seem to care if she is 0.1% or 100% indian.

She self-identified as a native american at Harvard and, as a result, became listed as a minority in the school. I'll admit that in searching for her use of it I found less than I expected. She listed as a minority because of family stories (which are apparently bogus). It's hard to know for sure whether she knew that she had no real Native American heritage and that the stories were bunk. It still looks to me like she was trying to obtain political gain from it, but I've been too hard on her in this thread (a little).

It was wrong of her to check that box that she was of indian heritage, without doing proper due diligence. But it hardly is a scandal. In the limited research I did on it, it did not have enough influence on the advancement of her career to call it a scandal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

edit: added link
 
Last edited:
Those dna results does not make her native american. My ancestry dna results included 10% from Italy and 5% from Iran.

This does not make me Italian or Iranian.

I dont speak Italian neither do I know about their culture or their customs and values. Plus the only thing that I know about Italy is Lamborghini, Ferrari, Roman Empire and its WW2 history.
 
Those dna results does not make her native american. My ancestry dna results included 10% from Italy and 5% from Iran.

This does not make me Italian or Iranian.

I dont speak Italian neither do I know about their culture or their customs and values. Plus the only thing that I know about Italy is Lamborghini, Ferrari, Roman Empire and its WW2 history.

I guess you missed some posts. She never claimed being an indian. She only claimed being of indian heritage. Like you have iranian and italian heritage. It was Trump who said she thinks that she is Indian, calling her Pocahontas. read this article for the facts:

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html
 
Last edited:
Interesting how mixed people can be. Well im from Australia but my parents are from Turkey.

Turkey is a bridge between Europe and Asia its no surpising that the country is so mixed country while at the same time their language comes from Central Asia mixed in with Arabic and Persian words.

Iran comes as no surprise to be honest because the Persians conquered and settled in Anatolia. Many people dont know that Turks are Muslim today Islamic missionary activity done by Iranians because of this Iranians also spread their culture among the Turks leading to the Turco-Persian tradition where the Seljuks took this to Anatolia.

Usa's Dna basically is from every nation from European, African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Native American to Central and South American. Quite a mix to be honest.
 
Back