Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Elizabeth Warren recently released the results of a DNA test which she claims proves that she is of Native American descent.
The claim in the report is that it is likely that Elizabeth Warren has a Native American ancestor from 8 generations ago. If we assume that a generation is 25 years, and given that Warren was born in 1949, that would this Native American ancestor was born sometime around 1749, well before the founding.
Let’s assume for a moment that this analysis is correct. How does this square with previous claims about Warren’s heritage? Her brother said in 2012 “[Our] grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and [our] grandmother is part Cherokee.”
If that’s the case, wouldn’t wouldn’t we expect to see a lot more Indian DNA, and much more recently? It implies that there should be Indian DNA as late as 4 generations back, which is significantly outside the range (between 6 and 10 generations) estimated by the DNA analysis as to when she had a Native American ancestor.
How does she explain this contradiction? I mean, either brother is wrong about whether his grandmother is Cherokee, or the conclusion of the analysis of the DNA test is wrong about when her Native American ancestor lived. If the test actually demonstrates that her brother is wrong about what she said, then wasn’t she still wrong when she claimed to be a Native American, since she used that story as the basis for her claim?