Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Contradicts Her Previous Stories About Native American Ancestry

 

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?

There are 136 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hugh Member
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    DonG (View Comment):

    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

    Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have approximately 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.

    Warren is at least 6 to 10 times the living relic that any of those Neanderthals were.

    • #121
  2. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    My great grandmother’s name was Keziah Ann Daniel, (have a photo of her) born 1832, died about 1870, and her parents were Ezekiel Daniel, Jr. born about 1806, died before 1858, and Elizabeth Armistead, born 1799. She was of the famous Armistead families, with an ancestor fighting in the Rev. War. 

    Ezekiel Sr, was born 1787 in SC, died 1858 in MS. He married a lady named “Mary” sometime about 1803  in SC or GA and had 9 children by her. After she died he married twice more and had 6 more children.

    He left a will in Lauderdale Co. MS, and named all of his 15 children, 2 of his children that had predeceased him were named, and some grandchildren.

    We do not know who this Mary was. But considering the time and place, I suspect she was Native American. One of the aspects of the time, if a Native converted to Christianity they assumed a “Christian” name so we may never find out who she was. SC and GA was Cherokee country until they were banished. If she was Cherokee, then I am only 5 generations from Mary and far more Native than Warren. It never occurred to me to use that connection to advance in life.

    • #122
  3. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    If she was Cherokee, then I am only 5 generations from Mary and far more Native than Warren.

    Hey you can get the test done. At 5 generations you should come out to 1/32nd native American, which I think was the original claim on Warrens part. I recall making fun of her back then for it. Who would have known she would be 30 times less native American than we initially thought? 

    • #123
  4. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Joe P: 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.

    Legal Insurrection has been all over this:

    Quoting the Boston Globe

    The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.

    He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”

    Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” ….

    LI: That last sentence, about O.C. Sarah Smith, is particularly galling. The claim in 2012 that Smith was Native American came from someone else, not Warren. And it was retracted by The Boston Globe, yet it is repeated in this article.

    The Globe acknowledges how weak the DNA findings are:

    The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back….

    Warren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senator’s aides. The data from that test was sent to Bustamante and his team for analysis. Warren received the report last week.

    […]

    “It really stood out,” said Bustamante in an interview. “We found five segments, and that long segment was pretty significant. It tells us about one ancestor, and we can’t rule out more ancestors.”

    He added: “We are confident it is not an error.”

    Detecting DNA for Native Americans is particularly tricky because there is an absence of Native American DNA available for comparison. This is in part because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases.

    “The tribes have felt they have been exploited,” explained Lawrence Brody, a senior investigator with the Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch at the National Institutes of Health. “The amount of genetic data that is available from Native Americans is sparse.”

    So the databases mostly use South and Central American ancestry.

    Bustamante said he can tease out the markers that these South Americans would have in common with Native Americans on the North American continent….

    But:

    So:

    And:

    Although for the pedantic, that’s 2 X chromosomes.

    • #124
  5. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    If she was Cherokee, then I am only 5 generations from Mary and far more Native than Warren.

    Hey you can get the test done. At 5 generations you should come out to 1/32nd native American, which I think was the original claim on Warrens part. I recall making fun of her back then for it. Who would have known she would be 30 times less native American than we initially thought?

    I don’t have any faith in the DNA companies. With 3 sets of identical triplets, and one set of quadruplets, and they get it wrong, I have a hesitation to hand out money. If you are into genealogy at all, you know it gets complicated and you cannot depend on stories passed down.

    The Keziah Daniel in my post married James Newton Menasco, Jr. 1835 died 1908, in March 1857. She named her son, my grandfather, Daniel Boone M., claiming her grandmother was the daughter of Daniel Boone and the Shawnee girl that Chief Black Fish gave to Daniel Boone as a wife when he was held captive. There is a 7 year period where Daniel Boone refused to talk about to any of his family or biographers. Keziah so believed this story as her sister, Angeline married to James Newton M.’s brother William, also named her first born son Daniel Boone, but he changed it to Daniel Green. The story gets more complicated as the girl child was adopted an the Armistead family member. John Armistead’s wife was Keziah Anderson, and it was an Anderson family member who adopted the child. My mother and I spent some 30 years researching this family and never did discover just who “Mary” was. Of course, that was in the days prior to computers and on-line searches. By the time we started researching my grandfather had died in 1942, and we only have my mother’s memories as a base for information. If the story is true, then I am not of Cherokee descent but Shawnee. The Shawnee Tribal community claims to know nothing about this story.

    Makes a wonderful and interesting story though, doesn’t it?

    • #125
  6. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Joe P (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is amazing to see the Democrats revert to their “One drop of blood” rule

    Progressives have always been racist.

    You can smoke out your progressive friends on their racial views with this one:

    “Your choice:  Would you rather your children live under a government that has no interest in their bloodline; or under a government that is deeply interested in their bloodline?”

    • #126
  7. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is amazing to see the Democrats revert to their “One drop of blood” rule

    Progressives have always been racist.

    You can smoke out your progressive friends on their racial views with this one:

    “Your choice: Would you rather your children live under a government that has no interest in their bloodline; or under a government that is deeply interested in their bloodline?”

    • #127
  8. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    The next act in this ridiculous play will be an announcement to the media that the company made a mistake and sent her the wrong report…

    • #128
  9. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Joe P (View Comment):
    Doubling down on it in the particular fashion she did, by getting a DNA test that shows she’s not an Indian at all and then claim it shows she’s an Indian, is something a lot more brazen and deliberately deceptive.

    What? That’s totally a Trump move. Its a braze disregard for the truth. Excusing Trump because he does not premeditate his lies seems rather weak to me, almost like writing off Joe Biden’s oddities as goofy quirks. Frankly I think the two engage in exactly the same kind of self serving lies about their own histories. Trump lies about being self made because it pleases him to think of himself that way, she lies about having had oppressed Indian ancestors who suffered racism for the same psychological reasons. Each is crafting their own personal narrative to fit their idealized vision of themselves and their own history. 

    • #129
  10. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):
    Doubling down on it in the particular fashion she did, by getting a DNA test that shows she’s not an Indian at all and then claim it shows she’s an Indian, is something a lot more brazen and deliberately deceptive.

    What? That’s totally a Trump move. Its a braze disregard for the truth. Excusing Trump because he does not premeditate his lies seems rather weak to me, almost like writing off Joe Biden’s oddities as goofy quirks. Frankly I think the two engage in exactly the same kind of self serving lies about their own histories. Trump lies about being self made because it pleases him to think of himself that way, she lies about having had oppressed Indian ancestors who suffered racism for the same psychological reasons. Each is crafting their own personal narrative to fit their idealized vision of themselves and their own history.

    Trump did not lie that Big Fred gave Trump his first $1 Million and told The Donald to go make a name for himself …. Trump simply did not offer up the part where Daddy helped him along the way with loans and access to credit which  would never be available to schmoes like us who are not Fred Trump’s son.

    And most certainly, in Trump’s telling of the self made man story, he just happened not to mention the financial windfall which occurs to any direct descendant of a very wealthy dad …. which is …. when Dad dies you and your siblings get all dad’s stuff (ie; vast real estate holdings and cash/investments, etc.)

    So Trump did actually did make a quite a “name” for himself (good or bad is in the eye of the Trump story listener), and Donald Trump’s net worth is in fact vastly greater than Fred’s.   The question is,  would Trump’s net worth be even greater if Donald just kept Fred’s real estate holding’s alone and went from there (ie: did not have massive casino losses in Atlantic City, to name only one of many unsuccessful Trump business ventures) …. Not easy to measure … 

    But one thing is a fact certain Trump is President and we are not ….

    • #130
  11. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Kay of MT (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    If she was Cherokee, then I am only 5 generations from Mary and far more Native than Warren.

    Hey you can get the test done. At 5 generations you should come out to 1/32nd native American, which I think was the original claim on Warrens part. I recall making fun of her back then for it. Who would have known she would be 30 times less native American than we initially thought?

    I don’t have any faith in the DNA companies. With 3 sets of identical triplets, and one set of quadruplets, and they get it wrong, I have a hesitation to hand out money. If you are into genealogy at all, you know it gets complicated and you cannot depend on stories passed down.

    The Keziah Daniel in my post married James Newton Menasco, Jr. 1835 died 1908, in March 1857. She named her son, my grandfather, Daniel Boone M., claiming her grandmother was the daughter of Daniel Boone and the Shawnee girl that Chief Black Fish gave to Daniel Boone as a wife when he was held captive. There is a 7 year period where Daniel Boone refused to talk about to any of his family or biographers. Keziah so believed this story as her sister, Angeline married to James Newton M.’s brother William, also named her first born son Daniel Boone, but he changed it to Daniel Green. The story gets more complicated as the girl child was adopted an the Armistead family member. John Armistead’s wife was Keziah Anderson, and it was an Anderson family member who adopted the child. My mother and I spent some 30 years researching this family and never did discover just who “Mary” was. Of course, that was in the days prior to computers and on-line searches. By the time we started researching my grandfather had died in 1942, and we only have my mother’s memories as a base for information. If the story is true, then I am not of Cherokee descent but Shawnee. The Shawnee Tribal community claims to know nothing about this story.

    Makes a wonderful and interesting story though, doesn’t it?

    I have done a lot of Ancestry stuff, but won’t do the DNA tests. It’s all done by comparing to databases that are not necessarily reliable. There are lots of stories/articles that demonstrate how unreliable the tests are.

    • #131
  12. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):
    Doubling down on it in the particular fashion she did, by getting a DNA test that shows she’s not an Indian at all and then claim it shows she’s an Indian, is something a lot more brazen and deliberately deceptive.

    What? That’s totally a Trump move. Its a braze disregard for the truth. Excusing Trump because he does not premeditate his lies seems rather weak to me, almost like writing off Joe Biden’s oddities as goofy quirks. Frankly I think the two engage in exactly the same kind of self serving lies about their own histories. Trump lies about being self made because it pleases him to think of himself that way, she lies about having had oppressed Indian ancestors who suffered racism for the same psychological reasons. Each is crafting their own personal narrative to fit their idealized vision of themselves and their own history.

    We have a disgusting set of “leaders” in this country, no matter which party you look at.

    • #132
  13. Freeven Inactive
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    I have done a lot of Ancestry stuff, but won’t do the DNA tests. It’s all done by comparing to databases that are not necessarily reliable. There are lots of stories/articles that demonstrate how unreliable the tests are.

    When Mrs. Freeven and I rescued our pup from the Humane Society, we were curious enough to pay $80 for a DNA test. We sent a swab and a check to the University of Washington (I think it was), which we’d read was the most reliable in this area. The report came back that our mutt was 70% Tibetan Mastiff, along with a smattering of various other, mostly large, breeds. Now our Piper weighed about 13 pounds and a Tibetan Mastiff can easily top 100 pounds. I guess it’s possible, but I’m pretty sure we wasted $80.

    • #133
  14. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Freeven (View Comment):
    The report came back that our mutt was 70% Tibetan Mastiff, along with a smattering of various other, mostly large, breeds. Now our Piper weighed about 13 pounds and a Tibetan Mastiff can easily top 100 pounds. I guess it’s possible, but I’m pretty sure we wasted $80.

    LOL, think you did waste your $80. The reason I haven’t bothered with a DNA.

    • #134
  15. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):
    Doubling down on it in the particular fashion she did, by getting a DNA test that shows she’s not an Indian at all and then claim it shows she’s an Indian, is something a lot more brazen and deliberately deceptive.

    What? That’s totally a Trump move. Its a braze disregard for the truth. Excusing Trump because he does not premeditate his lies seems rather weak to me, almost like writing off Joe Biden’s oddities as goofy quirks. Frankly I think the two engage in exactly the same kind of self serving lies about their own histories. Trump lies about being self made because it pleases him to think of himself that way, she lies about having had oppressed Indian ancestors who suffered racism for the same psychological reasons. Each is crafting their own personal narrative to fit their idealized vision of themselves and their own history.

    I’m not excusing Trump. That’s one reason I didn’t even want to make this argument.

    Even then, there’s a difference between brazenly lying off the top of your head, and producing a campaign video in which you very deliberately stage a conference call where you make a giant production out of lying, when the very thing you are saying itself proves that the spin you’re giving is a lie.

    You might be right that the lies are self serving, about the crafting of the narrative. But how and why they do it matters, because it tells you under what conditions they will continue to do it. In Trump’s case, he just does it out of narcissistic reflex. In Warren’s case, she does it as a very conscious, planned attempt to deceive you.

    Also, the planning matters, because the success or failure of premeditiation tells us how good a candidate is at planning anything, which gives us insight into what their governance is like. Trump is clearly awful at planning because he does everything as reflex; his administration succeeds in part because other people are better at planning than he is, and because his reflexiveness sometimes gives him advantages traditional politicians don’t benefit from. Warren and her campaign planned this whole thing out carefully, and none of them had the awareness to realize it would backfire this spectacularly.

    • #135
  16. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Joe P (View Comment):
    You might be right that the lies are self serving, about the crafting of the narrative. But how and why they do it matters, because it tells you under what conditions they will continue to do it. In Trump’s case, he just does it out of narcissistic reflex. In Warren’s case, she does it as a very conscious, planned attempt to deceive you.

    Comments at Legal Insurrection note Warren’s ideological consistency. She supports open borders and opposes US efforts to keep people out of the country that the US does not want in the country; she claims the right to membership (citizenship?) in a nation that has stated that her claim is hostile to its interests:

    Occasional Thinker | October 17, 2018 at 9:39 am

    Everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Warren is part of the progressive, open borders crowd and is being consistent. If she wants to illegally enter the Cherokee Nation, what right do they have to refuse her entry? Isn’t the ability to enter any nation now a basic human right? I think I will be tied up the next few days demanding my share of tribal casino proceeds in my new capacity as an undocumented member of the nation. Thank you Liz!

    Also her impeccable honesty:

    SHV | October 17, 2018 at 12:26 pm

    “She has been dishonest about most things she pushes. ”
    *****
    Doing legal work out of her Harvard office without a Mass. Law License?? That is one of her more strange behaviors, IIRC, as a Harvard Law faculty for more than 5 years, she didn’t need to take the Mass Bar exam inorder to apply for a license. The Boston Globe has covered up and excused her behavior from the time she formed an “exploratory committee” for a possible Senate run.

     

    • #136
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.