Fauxcahontas is scientifically settled. Updated.

Posted on by

maxresdefault

I’m not sure this is working as intended.

Earlier today, the Boston Globe published a bombshell story that Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test to confirm her Native American ancestry.  Based on the results, she has less than 1% Native American DNA.

It gets worse.

Usually, if you have numbers of less than 1%, it’s pretty much you’re not whatever you’re claiming.  Yet, Senator Elizabeth Warren actually made a video (without any Native American representation) and supplied a bunch of genealogical evidence to support that she has some heritage.

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1051783184390664192

Of course, this is what she said a few years ago:

https://twitter.com/RightHook99/status/1051875050230599686

She is determined to protect a heritage that may have been a result of happenstance and not recent breeding.  It’s entirely possible the results could also be a false positive casting an even greater shadow on her claims.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1051887081201573893

So let me get this straight:  The DNA test, where there are false positives, says you have less than 1% of Native American DNA, you don’t really know the tribe it comes from, the genealogy says a coupling may have happened centuries ago, but you want Donald Trump to pay up on a bet where he says he would if she could “prove she’s Indian.”

The more fascinating reveal is how the science loving media are saying this very insignificant statistical analysis proves Warren’s claims.

source

Science has spoken.  Warren is white.  She also lied.  And yet, this is supposed to get back at Trump.

Update:  More corrections coming..

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1051904884310777861

She may be more Hispanic than Cruz’s opponent Robert “Beto” O’Rourke.

Update 2:  Cherokee Nation responds:

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, who ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

– Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr.

giphy

42 thoughts on “Fauxcahontas is scientifically settled. Updated.”

    • Let me see if I understand this: A liberal politician in her past used a false narrative claiming “Native American ancestry” to advance her career and the science disproves it.

      At a minimum, she violated liberal laws of cultural appropriation. At most, she’s a pathetic liar. And your retort is – “Well right wingers have an excuse to say racist things?”

      Project much?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

        • Your own identity does not excuse your use of racially offensive vocabulary. Neither does it render you immune from criticism, and I certainly haven’t made any comments disparaging your race or that of anyone else. You can rationalize this all you want. It changes nothing.

          Like

        • So, as a white dude, you’re offended that SonCon says Warren is white? Do you really find her association with you that shameful?

          Or are you offended by SonCon’s quote of President Trump’s words, which were quoting fake-Native-American Warren?

          Or maybe it’s “Fauxcahontas” that you’re pretending is offensive, as if it’s a slur on Native Americans? It’s not. It’s mockery of a person who falsely claims Native American ancestry, when she knows very well she has none.

          Liked by 3 people

        • 1) No. 2) No. 3) No. 4) The OPs use of the term IS offensive. Your efforts to change that into a question of whether or not the term is a stock slur. And mocking using racial themes to mock a specific individual is indeed offensive, intentionally so. Lastly, there is no evidence that Warren knew she had no Native heritage. The notion that she has no Native heritage is wildly at odds with even the claims made in this post. You might not find her ancestry proportionately, but if you cannot even be bothered to remember that the test in question purportedly establishes some degree of ancestry, then you are in no position to lecture anyone about knowingly making false claims. Warren believed herself to be part native; that her ancestry is questionable does not entitle you to pretend she made it up. When you do, you are lying yourself. That you do sin accusing someone else of a lie is ironic. It’s also typical.

          Like

        • It’s only offensive to you and your ilk. And yes, I’m mocking her because she’s the one who is using cultural appropriation.

          Instead, you use a different tactic – she gets a pass because she didn’t know better. If that were true, she’d claim it throughout her life. Instead, she waited until AFTER she was hired at Harvard to teach. Coincidentally, she has a story to back it up, one that continues to change..

          She resisted DNA tests until Trump managed to make fun of her and lo and behold, the skeptics were right. Still, she hung onto the narrative by proclaiming she is one with the natives because of the mockery she rightly received as symbol of empathy for their oppression.

          So while you may be offended, which I don’t care about in the least, she has hung on to the tiny DNA percentage which may not even be Native American DNA to say she has Native American ancestors. This will continue to blow up in her face.

          And you’re clutching racism pearls over a term of mockery. Keep running with that.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Again, I am not personally offended in the slightest. Your approach to this is objectively offensive. How that makes me feel is a different question. The rest of your convenient assumptions about the details do not interest me. Goodbye.

          Like

        • Sure you did! You were offended by the means in which i presented facts demonstrating that fauxcahontas is a liar by her own admission. All you’ve done is offer subjective interpretation and attack my motives. Hardly surprising considering your liberal viewpoint.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Fauxcohontas literally cannot be applicable to a genuine Native American. That’s what the faux part means. It’s French for false. Every story Warren has spun about this issue with checkable facts has been shown to be false. Her parents didn’t elope. Her mother was not a social outcast at all, much less due to Cherokee blood. Etc., etc. The woman is a liar, and even if she did believe she had some tiny fraction of NA ancestry, she was never, and none of her family she ever knew never were, culturally NA at all. Any claim otherwise is just another blatant lie, just like the lie that this margin-of-error percentage of possibly South American genetic markers backs Warren’s fraudulent claim to Cherokee and Delaware ancestry.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Your sophomoric semantic lesson accomplishes nothing, and you’ve already conceded the point. You don’t know that she lied. You know only that you don’t count her as Native. Fine. That’s your choice. It’s no excuse for lying about her.

          Like

        • Yeah, I do know, and I concede nothing in that regard or any other under discussion here. Warren’s not NA, and she had no reason to believe herself to be, when she started claiming it on the faculty list at Penn. She just lied, and she did it to advance her career.

          Liked by 4 people

      • I think you understate the depth of the wrong she did. She used her very thin claims of Native American heritage to claim and win a sequence of preference positions in academic institutions. Positions which, by the rules of those institutions, should have gone to genuinely Native American persons. Lets go talk to those who were denied and see what they think of her appropriating their places in academia up to and including Harvard.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply ↓

        • There is no evidence that she used this claim to get her job. WHatever Warren may or may not have done wrong in claiming Native American ancestry, that particular accusation is unfounded.

          Like

        • You chop logic as finely as the Senator herself.
          And people used to give Nixon a hard time for plausible deniability claims.

          https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/

          “The legitimacy of Warren’s claims to Native American heritage has certainly been challenged by many critics, and it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools, and that Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking. Warren denied applying for special consideration as a person of Native American heritage during her career, and when the matter was examined in 2012 in response to Brown’s claims, people with whom Warren had worked similarly denied her ancestral background’s factoring into the professional opportunities afforded her:”

          &

          https://www.truthorfiction.com/elizabeth-warren-claimed-native-american-heritage-harvard/

          Liked by 4 people

  2. I know few people more racially bigoted than those white liberals who think non-white people are basically incompetent to run their lives and therefore need the white liberals to tell them what to do and to ‘protect’them from themselves and others.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Oh, he has a much better vocabulary than Schmalfeldt, and so far no poop references or babytalk, which is the dead giveaway.

      But here’s my issue with dear Daniel: there is no such thing as “objectively offensive.” Like “hate speech,” I presume Daniel will gladly move those goalposts to whatever spot is most convenient for him.

      Tell you what, idiot – I’ll let you have the idea that something can be objectively offensive just about one second after you agree to let me decide where the line is.

      Til then, piss off.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

  4. Seem funny that Lizzy’s claims are not supported by her own relatives and was in her 30’s she started claiming Native American status. I believe she used this as a stepping stone to advance her teaching career. There is always individuals who claim minority status to try and scam the system to obtain jobs or services they are not entitled to.
    I don’t believe in the quota system as it helps promote less qualified individuals all in the name of racial harmony. And, as anyone with HR experience knows, there are different levels within the system. Some states give triple bonus points for gay female minority where a male minority would be one. Companies hiring practices center around this so they can establish themselves as true Equal Opportunity Employers with the state. Side benefit, makes it harder for a minority to sue based on race, gender, etc.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Could it be, just maybe, that Perfesser Warren, having a bit of difficulty catching on in academia, thought to herself, “Y’know, I grew up in Oklahoma (where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain), I’ll betcha I’ve got some injun NATIVE AMERICAN blood in me that I could leverage into an affirmative action faculty position.”

      Because for all good liberals, it’s not what you know…it’s what spot you can fill on the demographic BINGO card.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

      • Oklahoma, where the wind come sweeping the crabs down the plain. You know, for omelets and bisque and such.

        You don’t get a professorship at Harvard Law with a Rutgers law degree. You just don’t. Unless you’re a quota hire. And when Harvard promotes her as their first woman of color, well, if you don’t think her fake indianhood had anything to do with her hiring, i’ve got a Great White Buffalo to sell you for heap big wampum.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply ↓

  6. Are they still defending fake Indian Ward Churchill? Heck, he didn’t even have a PhD and was a “Professor of Ethnic Studies”. Pretty good for a lily-white dude.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment