By adamg on Mon., 10/15/2018 - 8:55 am
The Herald reports.
Think Donnie will pay up now?
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.
Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy
Comments
Where you there?
By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:13am
If not, how do you know what her family was or wasn't thinking in 1932?
Were you?
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:15am
The NY Times stated the average "white" American has .18% Native American blood...which is double what this test showed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme...
She lied about that story. Deal with it.
Where's the lie?
By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:23am
She said her parents told her she had native ancestry. The tests confirm that.
Give it a break, bosguy22..
By whyaduck
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:55pm
you lost. You can deny all you want (and you probably will).
Hey, here is a thought. You seem to like finding politicians that do not tell the truth and calling them out on it. May I suggest a new venue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...
Have fun!
Lost what?
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:06pm
Nothing in that test proves she has native american blood. It says on the high side, there's a 2% chance she has some South American blood and those South Americans MAYBE were Native American. It also says she has less native american blood than the average white american.
She was 100% lying when she identified as a Native American, and when she told the bullshit story about her parents having to elope because "her mom was part Cherokee".
https://twitter.com/RightHook99/status/10518750502...
Just stop
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:35pm
Dude, just stop. You're a counterfactual nutjob just like your fuehrer. You need to go play with your toys or something; you have no business in a discussion with grownups who accept facts.
Hang up, caller
By Kaz
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:37pm
That's not what it says at all. What a DNA scan like this "says" is that she has a number of markers that are in a consistent pattern that you only find in certain sub-populations of humans, in this case that subpopulation is Native American (you can't draw a distinction between "Central American" or "South American" or "American Indian/North American" because in many ways those sub-populations were heavily intertwined and we have no way of distinguishing between their sub-sub-populations with differing patterns in DNA at this time. So, "Native American" is the sub-population.
So, she has patterns only found in that sub-population...that's not a "2% chance"...it's a 100% chance. She has them...there's no chance involved.
Now, how many patterns does she have that are specifically found in the sub-population and not in others? The more of the patterns we know are distinct to that sub-population, the more recent the ancestry because other patterns haven't had a chance to replace them in your generation. She has enough of these specific patterns to narrow it down to about 6-10 generations ago. That also doesn't mean there's a 1 in 1024 chance she has Native American ancestry. It just means that 150-200 years ago, one of her family's ancestors was Native American. And that *could* mean that just 3-4 generations ago, around the Civil War, her great-grandmother married someone who themselves was 1/8th Native American (enough to scare the white people). And that kind of stain could last on a family for generations around the right group of prejudiced neighborhood busybodies. And even if the stain had worn away and people moved on and attitudes changed, there'd still be the story of how they were treated because of their heritage within the family.
I'm 1/8th Lebanese (which was still a part of Syria at the time). I don't look it. My relatives were even the "good" Christian Syrians, so they dealt with far less abuse in America. But I know their stories of coming here and cook the food and so will my family's next generation. And hopefully in 50 years, our descendants will say "we're definitely part Lebanese...let me tell you about how your ancestor came here on a boat...". And hopefully, nobody's going to question them on it or call them "Aladdin" or some racist Middle Eastern moniker just because my family knows where it came from years later.
Globe updated their story with the correct #
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:37pm
She's 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.
Not exactly
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:30pm
There was a range of values - which makes sense given the variance in heredity experienced by humans.
No surprise
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:01am
Many in the US do and many people have no idea that they do because ... RACISM.
Some of us were lucky enough to have reliable family stories about this ... others had it buried and hidden.
Warren
By Bugs Bunny
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:12am
If it was 1/4 indian i'd be impressed. "Strong evidence"? Not definitive to me.
Do you know what scientific evidence is?
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:38pm
Obviously not.
Bunker Hill Community College has some excellent entry level courses. You might find them helpful and informative.
Her parents told her
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 11:00am
Warren was told by her parents that her parents eloped because her father's family didn't want him marrying a woman who was part Native American.
My family has a similar story less the elopement. My Native American heritage is supposed to be on my father's mothers side. I have no reason to disbelieve them. I can't imagine why anyone in my father's family would falsely claim native American ancestry. Dad was born in 1923.
Warren took the test and got some evidence that substantiated what her parents told her. Nowhere in that loop is Warren lying even if the test came back 0% Native American, which it didn't.
As to the claim of affirmative action fraud, how could she have known she wasn't what her parents told her she was? Beyond that, two Harvard law professors say ethnic heritage was not a consideration in hiring her. So too did law profs at Penn, UT Austin and Univ. of Houston.
Boston Globe found no evidence affirmative action was a consideration in her hiring either.
Interesting link
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:16am
I mean, the Globe put the story right below the masthead on the front page, and the AP story that the Herald posted referenced the Globe story, but whatever.
That said, the Herald did highlight a politician on the front page today. For those who don't want to take a look, the headline was "Hill Says Bill's Affair with Lewinsky not an Abuse of Power," with "#MeToo, but not Her!" in larger type below it. This is a reference to an interview the former Secretary of State gave to Meet the Press yesterday.
The two papers have two different political slants, and today is a classic example. Perhaps this is another good reason why we should be happy that we live in a two newspaper town.
One is current, the other is meaningless
By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:26am
Clinton's scandals are now 20+ years old. Hillary Clinton lost an election two years ago and isn't running again. She could think Bill descended from mole people for all it matters.
At least Warren is a current Senator, currently up for election in a few weeks.
Is it meaningless?
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:37am
I mean, after Nixon resigned, he was an outcast in his own party, though he did have a decent post-Presidency career writing foreign policy books.
On the other hand, the Clintons are still the ultimate insiders in the Democratic Party. They campaign for candidates. They are newsmakers and king (or queen) makers. Six years after being impeached, Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. If the Clintons didn't matter, Hillary would not have been on Meet the Press yesterday.
I will concede that the Warren story has more currency, but it also didn't appear in today's print edition of the Herald. The Globe's Warren story is being cited by the Washington Post, who also noted the Clinton interview.
So...
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:40pm
I'm not sure you understand -- like, in the tiniest degree -- how the media works, or how they decide who appears on Meet the Press. In fact, based on that laughable statement, I'm pretty sure you have no idea how the media works at all (hint: their decisions for subjects have a lot to do with what gets people like you going). As for the Democratic Party, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not, in fact, involved in the least way with Democratic Party politics, and don't have the least idea what you're talking about -- but if you don't like the Clintons' influence (or what you erroneously believe it to be), you're free to join the party and change that. I predict you'll quickly realize just how ridiculous your statements are.
I don't watch the Sunday morning shows
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:13pm
And I've been a Democrat since 1989. I've had a Clinton on my ballot 4 times in the Presidential primary and avoided that stink all 4 times.
That said, Monica Lewinsky was disinvited from an event this year because Bill Clinton was also going to be there. The Clinton couple are also going on a major tour this year. Sounds like the Clintons are still very much in the public eye.
But hey, remember when Hillary Clinton was basically funding the DNC. Man, it seems like years ago, but it was only two. I mean, unless you are calling Donna Brazile a liar.
And...
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:18pm
Hurray for you! But that in no way means being involved in Democratic Party politics. What a shame you don't get the distinction! If you did, you might be able to do something about that Clinton on your ballot.
So's Kanye West. Your point was?
I don't know how to explain this to you, but this WAS two years ago. Had it resulted in a win, things might have been different.
Let's circle this back around
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:29pm
Despite your protestations, the Clintons and Elizabeth Warren are amongst the best known of Democratic politicians. Both the Globe and Herald ran stories about them today.
Can we at least agree on that?
Let’s do some math. 1/32 = 3
By Murkin
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:29am
Let’s do some math. 1/32 = 3.125% and 1/512 = 0.1953125%. I still call bullshit.
Bullshit on what?
By merlinmurph
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:48am
All she claimed was that ancestors x generations back were Native, and this test shows that.
I'm not even a huge Liz fan and I find her annoying anytime I see her on TV. I like her as a senator but do not want her as a president. She is far more effective as a senator.
The tests don't show this
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:17am
The test shows she possibly is 1/52nd to 1/1024th Mexican or South American.
1. Warren still cannot point to any specific ancestor who was Native American. 2. Warren never lived as a Native American or associated with Native Americans.
3. Warren didn't claim to be Native American until her late 30s.
4. Warren only used alleged Native American status for employment purposes, and stopped claiming that status when she got tenure at Harvard Law School.
5. There remains zero evidence Warren was a descendant of the Cherokee or Delaware tribes.
6. The DNA test does not prove Warren is Native American, at most there is “strong evidence†of a single ancestor dating back 6-10 generations, based on analysis that compares Warren’s DNA to numerous groups, including non-Native American groups.
Obviously this isn't going to change anyone's opinion of Warren, nor does it say anything about her ability to be a Senator/Presidential Candidate, but pretending that she has been 100% honest about this issue is absurd.
Actually, she can point to a specific ancestor
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:44pm
You haven't bothered reading because you are too ignorant to grasp
Yes,
By whyaduck
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:04pm
DNA tests are not perfect. What it does show is that she has an ancestor that was Native American, which shows that she was telling what she knew to be true. So, yes, she was being 100% honest.
So your #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6 are straw men. #4 is debatable.
Why don't you do so analysis on President Pussy Pant's verifiable false and misleading claims since he took office? You have close to 5,000 to choose from.
It doesn't show that at all
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:10pm
Your comments couldn't be more wrong. DNA tests aren't just "not perfect", they aren't accepted by Cherokee nation to prove membership.
Regardless, this test DID NOT compare her DNA to that of ANY Native American, it compared it to South American DNA, and the assumption was made that those ancestors would have moved into the US at some point.
The test also shows that she had less "Native American" DNA than the average white American.
So yes, she was being 100% honest...sure. 10 generations of "family lore". This possible Native American ancestor was around before the Revolutionary War, and possibly before Manhattan was purchased from the Dutch, but hey, I'm sure her family kept very detailed notes on their lineage....they just lost the page that actually stated who among them was actually Cherokee.v
Ten generations
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:17pm
200 years at most
10 generations
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 3:23pm
Ok, sure...
A generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively". It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own".
Ooops, another correction from the Boston Globe. She's now between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.....
Might as well
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:53pm
Be precise.
That's 25.5 years.
https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F...
Take off your MAGA hat
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:42pm
Good thing she wasn't trying to get accepted as a member by the Cherokee nation. Now, take off your MAGAt hat, it's clearly on too tight.
Your math is ignorant
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:49pm
Genetics are probablistic in nature. Your numbers look nice as abstract arithmetic, but not reflect heritability patterns observed for humans and how we pass along genetic info.
I call bullshit on your math.
From Today's NYT
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:15pm
Specifically discussing how the case of Dawn Beaudoin led investigators to start searching genetic databases to identify some serial killers.
Scroll down to "Step 2": https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/15/sci...
The Herald didn’t report
By Mark-
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:35am
The actual Boston Herald newspaper couldn’t even find one spare inch of space for this story today.
You’d think, after all the whining Howie has done about “Pocahontas,†this story would be worth a spot in the Herald. But Joe “oh, please†Fitzgerald got half a page of space to complain about hypocrisy...from liberals.
Um,
By Dave
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:49am
http://www.bostonherald.com/
Print still matters, my friend
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:48am
Print readers are the ones that pay the bills for both the Globe and the Herald.
Viewing the layout of a physical newspaper is a lesson in what the publisher thinks matters. Silly little news websites (this one notwithstanding, which is a testament to Adam's organizational skills) are about what those who click on stories think matter. Exhibit #1- the decline of boston.com.
My bet is that the Herald will have a few columns on it, including one by Howie Carr. They will be as dismissive of the report as most of the more conservative commenters here are. I also predict that if Warren somehow is the frontrunner in 2020, Trump will still hammer her on the issue and it will hurt her bad. I mean, he tied Ted Cruz' dad to the Kennedy assassination. Doing things like that is Trump's main political skill. And before you scoff at that, remember that he is currently President of the United States.
How is the Herald supposed to
By Dave
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:54am
How is the Herald supposed to get an article in today's print paper that refers to and coincides with something reported in today's Globe?
Third edition
By Mark-
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:30pm
Some of the Herald’s papers go to press after the early edition of The Globe. Although since they moved their printing to Providence, they can’t seem to get final scores into the paper I receive, even though I live right in Boston.
I also checked their final edition PDF which did have late scores, full Red Sox and Patriots stories, but not one word about Elizabeth Warren’s DNA.
Once again, a print paper can
By Dave
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:03pm
Once again, a print paper can't be expected to have a print article that refers to a competing paper's alleged journalism until paper #2 has actually published something.
But the next day...
[img]http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/st...
And cover it they did
By Waquiot
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 5:38pm
They had SIX columnists in addition to one regular reporter writing two articles on the issue. So in case you thought the Herald didn't have anyone working for them anymore, there's proof they do (except that I believe Carr and Graham are technically no longer employees.)
That's as many writers as the Globe dedicated to their spotlight series on Aaron Hernandez' sex life this week.
I got, I got, I got, I got
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 11:11am
DNA
I got, I got, I got, I got
Loyalty, got royalty inside my DNA
Cocaine quarter piece, got war and peace inside my DNA
I got power, poison, pain and joy inside my DNA
I got hustle though, ambition, flow, inside my DNA
I was born like this, since one like this
Immaculate conception
I transform like this, perform like this
Was Yeshua's new weapon
I don’t contemplate, I meditate, then off your fucking head
This that put-the-kids-to-bed
This that I got, I got, I got, I got
Realness, I just kill shit 'cause it's in my DNA
I got millions, I got riches buildin’ in my DNA
I got dark, I got evil, that rot inside my DNA
I got off, I got troublesome, heart inside my DNA
I just win again, then win again like Wimbledon, I serve
Yeah, that's…
My earlier point being
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:16pm
This is the Boston Globe's story, not the Herald's.
Why Adam is passing it off as the Herald's story is beyond me.
Really Adam?
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:28pm
Bottom of Globe article:
"Correction: Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
FYI 1/,024 = 0.009765625 - Wow i guess i owe her an apology.
What's your fucking problem?
By anon²
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:33pm
So there were two claims, one front and center and one implied.
The Brownshirts claimed that cracker-ass Warren falsely claimed she had Native American heritage from a distant relative. They implied she played up that claim, and benefitted from it in her career and studies at Ivy league schools.
The implied charge was shown to be 100% false when people checked in with her employers and her academic history.
Now there's scientific evidence her story checks out, a distant relative was more likely than not Cherokee.
So, whats your fucking problem Anon. If you have a bone to pick with her, drop the propaganda nonsense and lay it out.
OK you know what?
By Roman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:52pm
Newsflash: I'm a little black and Mexican and Amazonian Tribesman myself if there's no limit to how far back I can go. In the grand scheme of things, 4,000 generations isn't that many, and boom, that's about the 80,000 years since the neolithic revolution and spread from Africa that nearly all of us...Europeans, Middle Easterners, full blooded Africans, East and South Asians, Australian Aboriginals...everybody, can trace some ancestry to.
There might be a lesson in there about the brotherhood of mankind. There might be a lesson in there about amplifying and exploiting minor ancestral differences to get ahead. There might be a lesson about the finer points of identity politics and grievance mongering in there too.
The lesson I draw from this is that Elizabeth Warren is still a faker and a socialist, no matter if it's 6 or 10 generations back she has to go to prove she's got at least some native blood in her.
And let me be clear...if she actually was a Native American, if she kept the rituals and observances...hell if she had family that did then it wouldn't be an issue. I defy you to find me one Republican who isn't named David Duke or Richard Spenser that would hold it against her. But: She was raised white, lived white, and only adopted a convenient ethnic identity when it suited her career ambitions at an institution that was famously post-modernist and identity politics-driven. And now it turns out she's no more native than the average white person. The Globe can run all the puff-piece-propaganda it wants denying it but they're as agenda-driven as Breitbart is.
I didn't like it when Scott Brown harped on it in 2012, but he was 100% right.
But here's the counterpoint
By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 3:03pm
By the time she became well known on the national scene (nominated to head the CFPC, appeared on TV shows talking about financial issues, and later running for Senate) she didn't talk about it. Some of the earlier things have me a bit concerned. My only issue now is getting a strong candidate against Trump in 2020. This settles nothing.
You're right, it doesn't move the needle at all
By Roman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 3:14pm
But to counter your counterpoint...I doubt Elizabeth Warren would have been nominated to the CFPC if she hadn't been leading the team drafting the law that created it and I strongly doubt she would have been tapped to write a piece of legislation if she wasn't a tenured professor at Harvard Law. Nothing against the University of Oklahoma or Tennessee or Penn State or Rice or Duke or any of them, but the way this country works is that the very smart and talented people who don't have Ivy, Stanford, or MIT credentials to their names do not get tapped for that kind of work. And she sure looks like she faked her way to it in a way that's qualitatively different from the kind of academic puffery and fakery that people usually use to climb up that ladder.
It only looks that way
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 3:32pm
To you and other wing nuts. Nobody ever thought reality could reach you.
OK sure, what do I know
By Roman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 3:52pm
I'll just keep on living in my fake news echo chamber instead of this mythical place called the "real world" where there is no such thing as office politics or academic fraud or gaming the system.
I will tell...I've met and worked with all sorts of people in my time, including folks who I'm pretty sure were given an extra bump in admissions or hiring preference because of their ethnicity or their gender. Nearly everyone I've had the good fortune to work with, they were friendly, humble, and hardworking people who fit in and contributed to the team. And other than my private grumblings over the philosophy of affirmative action, it really wasn't an issue for me. I wouldn't dream of even hinting of any thoughts like that about specific people because it's an awful thing to say to someone or about someone. Especially in a line of work where mental sharpness is what pays the bills.
My point is...the ethnic chauvinists who wear their DNA on their sleeves and make every effort to let you know about it...those are the exception, not the rule, and those people are conspicuous and off-putting. If that's who Liz Warren was in the early 90s, then shame on her for succumbing to that instinct, shame on her again for doubling down on it when she first ran for the Senate, and shame on her thrice over for trying to pawn off an in-the-noise number like 1/64th as some sort of vindication.
You keep making a claim
By anon²
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 4:22pm
That she used her bloodline to get ahead. Yet every paper that looked into it came away saying that doesn't appear to be the case.
But you keep repeating the talking point. So people feel it must be true, despite the facts. Repeat a lie enough, right?
Because that's what carefully crafted propaganda does. When you're going to hopelessly lose on the merit, you just need to posion the rules you play by.
Because in the end, the ends justify the means. And hell, I don't have time worry about it. Whats the worst that could happen, said the German shopkeep to the Jewish clerk.
As far as I am aware
By Roman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 4:38pm
The Boston Globe is the only paper that looked into it. And they looked into it by a process that boils down to taking an opinion poll of her colleagues.
These people on the one hand strenuously deny that ethnicity had anything to do with her hiring and promotion, despite there being glimmers of evidence of her being touted (not reported, touted) as a woman color in her department. That's thing one.
Thing two is that these people work for an institution that is in court right now defending the use of ethnicity as a consideration in academic recruitment at the undergraduate level. It really strains credulity that Harvard would go to court to defend ethnic cherrypicking in one of its core mission areas but would not practice it any others.
And thing three is that they're all democrat partisans whose willingness to give ammunition to the other side by affirming that ethnicity was a consideration in Elizabeth Warren's favor would be expected to be low.
That all said: I don't trust the Globe to be objective about something like this and I don't trust their sources to be objective about something like this. And it sure looks like the thing I'm claiming happened actually did.
Pages
Add comment