Yes, Elizabeth Warren is of Native American ancestry. No, she never used it to get a job.

[bigtree]

Daily News Bin ?@DailyNewsBin 2h2 hours ago
Yes, Elizabeth Warren is of Native American ancestry. No, she never used it to get a job:


Now that Senator Elizabeth Warren has become a key figure in the Hillary Clinton campaign effort, her rival Donald Trump is focused more than ever on portraying Warren as someone who pretended to be Native American in order to get a job. In fact the Republican Party now appears intent on a coordinated strategy to place the focus on this supposed issue, just in case Warren ends up being Clinton’s running mate. But the facts reveal that as best any research can tell, Elizabeth Warren is of Native American descent – and she never used it to get a job. Here’s the actual fact-check.

Growing up, Elizabeth Warren was told by her parents and grandparents that she was of Cherokee and Delaware Native American heritage. Her brothers have confirmed this story, meaning that Warren is of the honest belief that she is part Native American. As there would have been no reason for her grandparents to have made up such a story during her youth, it’s a reasonable expectation that it is the truth. In fact one genealogical society has dug up a decades-old newsletter which referred to Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as being Cherokee, supporting Warren’s claim (source: The Atlantic). In any case, there is no factual argument to be made by anyone who claims that she isn’t of Native American descent, nor have any of her detractors tried to offer any evidence in that regard.

As for the claim that Elizabeth Warren used her Native American heritage in order to get a job at Harvard, her supervisors have publicly confirmed that it played no role in the matter and that they weren’t even aware of it at the time of her hiring. Instead, the entire supposed controversy is merely based on a fabrication made up by her failed senate race opponent in 2012, republican Scott Brown (sources: Washington Post, New York Times).

Donald Trump appears to be latching onto the earlier phony controversy, without paying any heed to the fact that it’s been thoroughly disproven by numerous respected news outlets, and that it didn’t appear to influence voters in 2012 to begin with. There is no expectation that Native Americans leaders or tribes would voice any objection to Elizabeth Warren’s claims or behavior if she were to become running mate, as there is historical evidence that she is Native American, and there no evidence to suggest that she isn’t. If anything, Trump’s ongoing pattern of referring to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” in attempted derogatory manner is likely to cause him to run afoul with Native American leaders if he continues pushing the issue.

In summary, the facts spell out that Elizabeth Warren most likely is of Native American descent, with supporting evidence available dating back to long before her birth. The facts also spell out that she never attempted to use it to get ahead in the workplace. Donald Trump is either lying about her, or he’s done too little homework to be aware that the accusations he’s throwing at her were iniitally crafted as intentional lies by her previous opponent. In any case the matter is a complete non-issue for Warren, and if Trump continues attempting to invoke it in an offensive manner, it’s more likely to blow back on him than her.


read: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-check-yes-elizabeth-warren-is-of-native-american-ancestry-no-she-never-used-it-to-get-a-job/25004/

related:

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1
NBC News Exclusive:
Trump to @HallieJackson: Elizabeth Warren "racist," "fraud," reups "Pocahontas" nickname:

[Travis_0004]

1. From the article

From your article

In fact one genealogical society has dug up a decades-old newsletter which referred to Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as being Cherokee, supporting Warren’s claim (source: The Atlantic)

Actual article
Christopher Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society said he'd found a marriage certificate that described her great-great-great-grandmother, who was born in the late 18th century, as a Cherokee. But that story fell apart once people looked at it more closely.

Honestly, I don't know if she is Native American or not. We all probably have some native american in us, but I think its a bit ridiculous for her to consider herself a minority because she 'maybe' has some native american ancestry.

[tonedevil]

15. What is a bit ridiculous...

is you claiming Senator Warren has made any assertion that she is a minority due to Native American heritage. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for your evidence the Senator has done so.

[Hortensis]

20. Exactly, but my thought is why amplify hostile

messages, Trump's or anyone else's? Of course Warren never claimed to be a member of a minority group. Asking for "evidence" is asking for right-wing propaganda.

Btw, though a lot of American families pass down stories of native ancestors, turns out genetic testing is showing that a significant number are simply not true, a real disappointment to many who treasured even a tenuous link to that heritage.

[tonyt53]

31. My moms grandmother was 100% Cherokee. I have no idea what that makes me.

All I ever heard from my mother was that we were part Cherokee. No big deal was ever made of it and we never questioned whether her assertion was right or wrong. We had a cousin that was into genealogy that found a census report that listed my great grandmother about 20 years ago. Beside her name it said "indian". however, up until that time, none of us ever questioned what our mother had said.

I fully agree that in the eastern part of the country especially, many of us have some Native American heritage in us. Hell, I always though my grandmother looked like an old Native American woman from pictures I'd see. As my mom got older, she really started looking the same. And I'll be damned, if the older I get (63 now), the more I'm looking like it.

As long as Warren never used her heritage, real or not, to benefit her, what does it really matter. Besides, a person has to be "accepted" into a tribe to be considered Native American for job or school purposes.

[Recursion]

2. The reasons people of a certain generation made that up are interesting

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/10/cherokee_blood_why_do_so_many_americans_believe_they_have_cherokee_ancestry.html

And oddly it's usually specifically the Cherokee nation.

So why have so many Americans laid claim to a clearly fictional identity? Part of the answer is embedded in the tribe’s history: its willingness to incorporate outsiders into kinship systems and its wide-ranging migrations throughout North America. But there’s another explanation, too.

The Cherokees resisted state and federal efforts to remove them from their Southeastern homelands during the 1820s and 1830s. During that time, most whites saw them as an inconvenient nuisance, an obstacle to colonial expansion. But after their removal, the tribe came to be viewed more romantically, especially in the antebellum South, where their determination to maintain their rights of self-government against the federal government took on new meaning. Throughout the South in the 1840s and 1850s, large numbers of whites began claiming they were descended from a Cherokee great-grandmother. That great-grandmother was often a “princess,” a not-inconsequential detail in a region obsessed with social status and suspicious of outsiders. By claiming a royal Cherokee ancestor, white Southerners were legitimating the antiquity of their native-born status as sons or daughters of the South, as well as establishing their determination to defend their rights against an aggressive federal government, as they imagined the Cherokees had done. These may have been self-serving historical delusions, but they have proven to be enduring.

The continuing popularity of claiming “Cherokee blood” and the ease with which millions of Americans inhabit a Cherokee identity speaks volumes about the enduring legacy of American colonialism. Shifting one’s identity to claim ownership of an imagined Cherokee past is at once a way to authenticate your American-ness and absolve yourself of complicity in the crimes Americans committed against the tribe across history.

That said, the visibility of Cherokee identity also owes much to the success of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes. Today, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Eastern Band of Cherokees comprise a combined population of 344,700. Cherokee tribal governments provide community members with health services, education, and housing assistance; they have even teamed up with companies such as Google and Apple to produce Cherokee-language apps. Most Cherokees live in close-knit communities in eastern Oklahoma or the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, but a considerable number live throughout North America and in cities such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto. Cherokee people are doctors and lawyers, schoolteachers and academics, tradespeople and minimum-wage workers. The cultural richness, political visibility, and socioeconomic diversity of the Cherokee people have played a considerable role in keeping the tribe’s identity in the historical consciousness of generation after generation of Americans, whether or not they have Cherokee blood.

[Darb]

10. Are you saying she made it up?

Doesn't say that in the article. Doesn't mention her at all I don't think.

[Recursion]

14. No, her grandparents (nt)

[Darb]

19. I get it. Could be. There is talk of some Cherokee blood

in our family lineage. Not really sure but my grandfather looks just like Sitting Bull.

[Hortensis]

21. Lol. I first read "grandmother" and wondered

if anyone said that to her face. A lineage that might lead back to Sitting Bull would be one to be proud of.

Very interesting article, Recursion. Thank you.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. look who posted it

need any more?

[bigtree]

22. what?

[bigtree]

23. on my father's side

...there's a Native American ancestry, but when his father moved his large family from the reservation where they were living in Black Mountain N.C., they universally disavowed Indian heritage. His explanation was that the association would disadvantage the family socially as Native Americans often received worse treatment than blacks, at the time. Other than sardonic references to Grandma as 'squaw' there wasn't any effort to identify themselves as Indian at all.

I don't take seriously that explanation of people using the association as a way to absolve guilt over the treatment of Indians in our nation's history.

What I found in the history of Black Mountain was that the effect of the pursuit and flight of the Cherokee and other eastern tribes after the railroads were mostly complete was an intermingling of races, ethnicity, and cultures in those mountains between African (and other) slaves taking flight and the fleeing tribes; all taking refuge in the same relatively small geographical area; and the willingness of those tribes to 'adopt' outsiders (from other tribes, as well as other ethnic groups) into their clan or family units.

I find this a more plausible explanation than outright sophistry.

[tallahasseedem]

3. I'm so irritated this is even an issue again...

how many times was it made clear that she did NOT get her position based on ethnicity. Brown is a jealous, vindictive asshole.

[Igel]

24. Perhaps. Most likely.

But the article presents non-proof that it played no role in her hiring.

I've been on a search committee, known a lot of faculty on search committees. And I've known the "supervisor" or the administrator that did the actual hiring.

The administrator gets a recommendation with a bit of reasoning added, plus copies of the CV and application file. Perhaps a discussion with the committee chair.

The search committee members often know the applicants, they talk with the applicant informally, they interview the applicants as a group and often as individuals, they escort the applicants around and eat meals with them. They usually make the decision, and what biases their decisions doesn't always make the recommendation.

Once had dinner with a group of faculty, 4 or 5, of which 3 were on a search committee. They dismissed at least one candidate because he'd said something that led them to conclude he was a Republican, and, as one said and the others nodded agreement with, "I'd never vote to hire a Republican." That, you can be sure, did not make it into the official recommendation saying why to hire their choice and to reject their non-choices.

In another case, the administrator read over the short-list recommendations and at a larger committee meeting said she was rejecting the search results for replacing a high-caliber senior position because there was no woman in the short list; when the stats were produced that the number of experienced senior PhDs in the field could be counted on one hand, all working in higher prestige, higher paying schools, the administrator said to make it a junior position. The debate then devolved into "it's a junior position and at least one woman will be in the top two or the search is cancelled." In the announcement that resulted from that discussion the "supervisor" merely said that "the search did not include a sufficient number of high quality applicants." A woman was chosen a year later, and the dean's statement said she was chosen simply because she was the best applicant in a successful search. Of course, senior male researchers would have taken a pay cut to apply for that job, so the applicant pool she was in was of consistently lower caliber.

Finally, in a 3rd case I was on an advisory search committee that was quoted in the final announcement. The follow-up discussions after looking over applications The discussions blatantly discussed the applicants' status as "old white males", and half the committee said point blank that they'd vote no unless the committee recommended a progressive female POC. This was not in the recommendation. When we interviewed applicants, there were two old white men and one progressive female POC. The discussion took time to decide why the committee would recommend her over men with more relevant experience and longer CVs--how to justify the previously decided verdict. The person's future supervisor just heard blather about how great the top recommendee would be based on her inclusive vision for the school and her outstanding cross-cultural research. (BTW, that was a horrible appointment. Die-hard progressives defended her to the end "out of solidarity", including justifying decisions that hurt them personally, but everybody else thought she sucked. Even one of the "only a female POC" committee members said she was an incompetent hire and she regretted having that stance.)

But in none of those three cases would the winning liberal applicant or female applicant be incorrect to say that they did not use their politics or sex to get the job, because *they* did not. In neither case would it be incorrect to say that political views or applicant's sex played no, or even just a minor, role, because in each of the three cases job-irrelevant factors were more important than things like relevant research, experience, student mentoring ability, etc.

[LanternWaste]

26. Often referred to as an 'allegation.'

"article presents non-proof..."

Often referred to as an 'allegation.'

[Peacetrain]

4. What is it with Trump and the republicans questioning Democrats birth

certificates .. or heritage?? this has become a pattern

[Iliyah]

5. Yep that, also GOPers also questions one's love for America and one's

patriotism. It's like clockwork.

[amandabeech]

6. This will be played up by the repukes if Warren is vp.

I think that Warren is great, but this will be an issue in the general.

Warren is a power in the Senate and she is a great campaigner for Hillary.

Unless that she takes one of these ancestry tests and it turns out that she has native american heritage, she should stay in her senate and campaign roles.

Hillary needs someone without many negatives and who is competent to take over if Hillary has health or legal problems, as unlikely as that is in reality.

We're dealing with a crazy campaign season with an absolute wild man as the opponent.

Let's not give him any ammunition in a vp choice.

Writing from Michigan where Trump and Bernie did well on the gutting of manufacturing.

[Darb]

8. Bawk bawk bawk baKAWK!

That was genuinely scaredy.

[pandr32]

16. Your suggestion to test her ancestry is dreadful

It reminds me of the GOP push to drug-test welfare recipients, and other awful things.

First of all, if the test is negative for indigenous ancestry, which may or may not result from such a test, it does not prove that Elizabeth Warren and her family do not honestly believe they do have some Native American blood.

So what if the test you have suggested be done turned out negative? It could mean that someone made it up generations ago, or it could mean that there is a biological break that was kept secret. Many people have found they have some surprises in the family lineage due to adoptions, affairs, or even rape. I certainly am not suggesting any of this is the case with Elizabeth Warren. It is more likely that there wasn't any additional documentation to back up the marriage certificate information of the ancestor, which is completely normal. There often wasn't much in the way of documentation other than through oral history.

Bottom line--Elizabeth Warren and her family believe they have indigenous ancestry. It is Elizabeth's business. Please keep this in mind: Trump did not stop Obama from becoming POTUS with all his vile birther BS, and Brown lost to Warren after making those nasty claims that she was lying about having Native American ancestry. Apparently some people never learn.

[gordianot]

7. This will be the extent of Trump distraction on Elizabeth Warren.

Donald knows he is about to be hammered and his simplistic assertions will be debunked. 2016 will get much more nasty soon.

[bigtree]

25. that's my impression

...Trump is making a characteristically stupid line of attack which, ultimately, reveals him (to voters) as the racist and bigot most of American knows him to be.

I predict the 'debunking' will be devastating to his presidential bid. I do think this is a popular line of attack with his ilk, although I can't imagine why they think this is a winner.

[gordianot]

28. As long as he prefers to pursue the ineffective the better.

He has much better potential ammunition in his arsenal but insists to concentrate on personal and also racist attacks, it is who he is. No dog whistles with Trump they are steam boat whistles.

[hollowdweller]

9. I guess she could DNA.

I'd think most people in OK had some cherokee.

[Darb]

11. It's just another dog whistle.

Getting the attention of the affirmative action whining, mouth-breathing fuckfaces. I know plenty of em.

[Hekate]

12. Trump is a Birther, never forget. He can tell who's a Real American just by looking at 'em....

Same goes for Real Native Americans. (Taps head) He knows.

What an ass.

[MFM008]

17. yeah that's why the toad keeps talking about her....

and many many people have some native American,
my moms dad was half NA.
My best friend is half Chippewa.
Now they want a DNA test from Elizabeth Warren to prove it.
I want a test to prove Trumpelforeskin has human DNA.

[sufrommich]

18. I'd say half the people I know think they have native

American ancestry,including my family. My cousin had a DNA ancestry test done,we've got zero native American ancestry. It's an American thing to claim and believe it until it's proven wrong.

[Frances]

29. I am another one who has been told that my mother's mother

had some Native American ancestry

Do you know how accurately DNA testing is with regards to ethnic heritage?

[riversedge]

27. Recycles crap.

[bigtree]

30. I work with a fellow who embraces this

...'Pocahontas' and all.

There's something insidiously banal about the way the right wing takes a clear falsehood and doubles down, even in the face of clear debunking. I'm assuming this drives most folks away from them, but I think trying to just ignore them can serve to allow the lies to flourish and spread.