My goodness, circular firing squad! Never stops, no wonder the GOP always rules! They do not care, they just play with us. Like cats, and we are the mice.

I do find the fact that she listed that as her ethnic background as puzzling/troubling/etc.

I’d really like to know why it is troubling to you because it’s so minor as to be irrelevant to her policy pronouncements

I get that it's a family legend. All families have those.

But it's not like she had a grandparent or even great grandparent that she knew that could somehow tie her to this heritage.

If you're putting it down on a document as your racial background, it's clearly an important part of how you see yourself, but why? How? Did she follow traditions that I don't know about?

I said before I'm 1/4 Italian. My last name is Italian. My favorite grandparent was Italian. I was very close to that side of my family. Those are the traditions I was raised in for the most part. I'm actually more Welsh than anything, but I never followed or heard one Welsh family tradition in my life. I don't know those relatives. So, being Italian-American is central to my being despite it not being the majority of my ethnicity.

I don't see anything like that here and - again - it's weird.

right now.

than that blood test indicated because of how they work.

My full siblings and I have varying amount of Irishness for the same reason that some of us have brown eyes and some have blue. A brother's test said he had 8% Scandinavian ancestry and mine said 0 -- though we have the exact same ancestors. Of course, he has a whole Y chromosome that I don't have, so we are obviously not clones.

There are tests that are specific to the X or Y chromosomes, but the most common are autosomal DNA tests that do not look at the X or Y chromosomes. Any given set of siblings will show variations in what they get from each parent. And the tests only look at sections of the DNA, they do not sequence the full chromosomes.

My test says about 5% British Isles, but all of my immigrant ancestors came from Norway or Sweden. So there must have been some migration of some sort to Scandinavia on my mother's side. It also showed 1/8th Finnish, which has since been confirmed by research to be my dad's grandmother, born in Sweden was full blooded Finnish. I have access to DNA tests on my parents, my niece and my cousin which has backed what the records show on my Finnish Great-grandmother. I haven't found any hint of the British Isles DNA though. My tree is approaching 13,000 people, it's my hobby.

It put Native American students in college labs to experience higher ed and high level science. The first year we had a young woman who was full blood cherokee, first generation college student. The second year we got a doctor's son, very white, yellow hair, very anglo. My husband called the program, they said well is is 1/10 kiowa. Ok then. This is the standard by which we judge Native American ancestry. He got a full scholarship to an ivy league school, the first young woman who was phenomenal by the way, went to a Jr. College here in Oklahoma.

Just telling this story to show how white people are willing to use heritage to benefit themselves.

She should not be maligned like this. It was just something that was part of her heritage - as she understood it.

She thought it was an interesting connection and she was proud of it. I have a family story that my father told me - and when I asked his sister - she said, No. That never happened.

Families tell stories -

I like Warren a lot. If she were to win the WH - I think we'd be lucky to have her.

Regardless of all of us telling him we are not, he holds onto that and taught his three children we have Native American heritage. It has been a joke, on him, for the last couple decades while raising kids and nieces and nephews. I had a 25 yr old niece take the DNA test recently. Phones blew up when she let us know and all were asking, any Native American blood? Of course the answer was no, and we laughed and laughed, thru texts. We laughed because this was a couple decades or more of us telling this sibling that we did not have Native American blood and him telling all he came in contact with that we did.

What Warren did is so normal and consistent in any family.

We also proclaim we have a lot of Irish DNA. Something many do.

That one is correct.

Yes, your brother could be WRONG. But your niece's result wouldn't tell you anything about your brother's. My brother's test said he had 8% Scandinavian and mine, at the same company, said 0, though we have the same ancestors. Why? Because even siblings don't get all the same DNA -- they don't inherit the same 25% from each grandparent.

I will get there though, when in the mood to do a lot of spitting. That is not something I excel at.

Knowing the factual family history though, it is mostly unlikely. But could happen. There was mention of a "squaw" in the hillbilly Appalachians. This is from the family stories in the 50's and 60's. That was the point of my story, and how it has played out in my family. We also have the stories from the Irish side, and the white fundamentalist preacher side. A big ole mix of stories.

getting around to doing the spitting.

The fun part turned out not to be learning about ancient ancestors -- no big surprises at all. It was finding second cousins all over the country: the children of my mother and father's cousins. One of them turns out to be living less than an hour away, and we will be meeting in person. The others I've been meeting on Facebook. I wish my mom had lived long enough to share in this. She would have had fun.

that Irish DNA and British DNA are indistinguishable from each other?

My background appears to be French-Canadian, but I have about 20-25% "British-Irish" DNA per 23andMe, who I consider to have the best algorithms in the mass-market genetic testing business. No doubt that is DNA that came across the English Channel to the north of France, which is where the bulk of French-Canadians are descended from.

Only where populations did not interact with surrounding populations will there be a "pure" identifiable ethnicity that can be identified by the present state of DNA testing. And, some areas may not "improve" accuracy with further refinements in testing methods or micro-sampling of portions of a population. Trading and war have been the prime mixing force in European genetics.

It really is not a big part of my world. I mainly wanted to take it to compare to niece, for fun. I do not care what I am made up of. The health information is more interesting. Maybe I will do research on validity of that portion of the test.

and check your results every couple of years. As the databases swell, and more local populations are tested, algorithms may improve in a few areas.

At this point, it's best to simply do it for fun, as you and your niece have done. Things may improve a bit, but they can never be perfect.

Many Irish emigrated to France in the late 1600s in what was called the Flight of the Earls. It was to get away from Oliver Cromwell.

seen variations of that name, most notably Colin, when I do pedigree trees for my matches. I did not realize that they were from Ireland, thanks for that insight!

It's one thing to be proud of you ancestry and to speak of it anecdotally or as family lore,
but to claim it officially as your race on a document, is at the least, perplexing.

Living in the west, I can remember the time when conversation was only starting up with civil rights. For a lot of groups. We were all learning. We did not get everything right. We have advanced forward, and it was because we started the conversations, passed the laws, shaped our conscious.

Seriously. Between Amos and Andy in Virginia and this, I'm being told that during my childhood we were all ignorant heathens who thought that black men had smaller craniums or something. Or that Hungarians were quick to anger because their blood was hot.

It wasn't "a different time." It was basically the same time except you could occasionally tell jokes about Polish people.

1986 was rife. 70's was the real start how we were going to implement the laws. What laws we were going to have. We had not even gotten to the conversation about black face. The word "date rape" had not even been spoken yet. The concept or thought was not even there yet. Whose pretending?

My southern credentials are solid.

Gimme a Break - the horrible sit-com with Nell Carter - had an episode on black face. So, yea, it was pretty well known that you don't do black face in the Reagan Era if horrible NBC sitcoms were covering it with very special episodes.

When I went to college in 1992, a large part of orientation was discussing date rape. So it was into the culture pretty strongly by then.

It was over a decade of establishing it. I know. I lived it. Look at today, and really, tell me how far we have gotten. I am thinking about Brock and the others not even serving time. Or sitting on the SC. Yes, lets have that conversation. A President that stated he was allowed to sexually assault girls and women. Yes, you had college orientation. They still have those orientations. And tell the girls how to avoid rape. There is a list. We are fighting for the right to have voice with our bodies. Are you not seeing us lose our right to choice? It certainly was well establish with Roe vs Wade.

I'm just not giving a pass on black face.

The end.

If she got preferential treatment as a result, that would be something to discuss. If not, then who cares?

It wasn't until last year through a DNA test they found out it wasn't true. While they looked white, they still regularly attended tribal functions and were accepted as such.

There is a big different between
Ethnic, Heritage or checking a box Native American. AND
Tribal Membership.

If all these applications asked for Tribal Membership then we wouldn't have so much confusion.

But, Warren did say she was an 'American Indian' on her Texas bar application.

Saying you are an 'American Indian' (in writing) is not the same as saying you have Native American Ancestors either.

One of the problems for Warren here (in my opinion, the biggest problem) is that she always claimed that she believed she had Native American ancestry, based on stories her parents, and grandparents told her. trump mocked her for that, called her Pocahontas, and tried to make it sound like she had actually said she was a Native American. She hadn't done that.

Then, she releases her DNA tests, that show that the family history, as she's been told, has some truth to it. That somewhere between her 1 in 64 of her great-great-great-great grandparents, and 1 in 1024 of her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were Native American.

Fine. Great story. But, in 1986, she claims to be an American Indian. No, that's not fine.

This whole thing has made her look foolish. The republicans can hit her with this every day, all day long. She should put her Presidential aspirations aside.

a White colonist invention to limit Gubermint money use by the recognized tribal leaders. You can not say her ancestors that contributed to her DNA results did not exist and her claiming to of Native American is not a problem with most Native Americans, as long as she is not trying to obtain membership in a tribe.

"Aho Mitakuye Oyasin"~ we are all relative, ur prayers are my prayers.

Please go here to see a copy of the registration card (not an application, not anything else):

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/02/fake-elizabeth-warren-scandal

I direct your attention to the line just above the Race, National Origin, Physical Handicap line: "The following information is for statistical purposes only and will not be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the attorney." That is, this was statistical information the Texas Bar was soliciting from its members. Professional organizations do this all the time as a way of measuring their ethnic make up and as a means of serving their members: "Hey, look at this: 8% of our members self identify as American Indian or Native American. Put an agenda item on the next meeting of the Board of Governors, and let's see what kind of programs we might start to cater to the peculiar needs of Native American lawyers. Maybe we should start a Native American Lawyer Section."

There was no reward or preference given to anyone for any answer they might have provided in this option section of the registration card. And, as it turns out, Elizabeth Warren does indeed have some American Indian genetics in her background. This is a fake controversy being foisted on the public in an attempt to smear a very capable and dedicated public servant.

If you're fishing around for something controversial, why not find out how this registration card was disclosed to the public without the express written consent of the attorney, like it says on the card? Did the Texas Bar Association fuck up, or did some James O'Keefe weasel steal it from inside the bar association?

People are being too quick to call for her to leave the race. Does anyone remember who came up with the PCAOB?

C'mon man....... I've heard this reasoning before.

It went something to the effect of:. "Nothing that leaker said is true, and that leaker is going to be in big trouble when we catch him, because he promised to never tell anyone those things."

According to a 4/29/2012 Boston Globe article. There is no evidence that Sen. Warren benefited from this but this mess is pretty much of her own making.

My adopted son did a DNA test and it said he was 39 percent Native American. He is not registered in a tribe because he has no idea who in his biological lineage might have been a registered tribal member, if any. I also have 2 granddaughters that are not biologically related to him that are 1/64 Cherokee and members of that federally recognized tribe. They are therefore eligible for federal tribal benefits Yet, my adopted son who has 39 percent NA DNA has no tribal membership, nor is it an issue for him. However, he could very well claim Native American ancestry because with 39 percent native DNA, those ancestors had to be fairly recent. Even at that, each tribe determines their own requirements for membership, and 39 per cent for certain tribes might not be enough. For Cherokees, they require only traceable lineage to a tribal member, no matter the amount of blood quantum. I think this whole issue regarding Senator Warren is overblown.