Warren offers public apology over claim to tribal heritage, receives standing ovation

I'm glad she did this and put the issue to rest.

How many of us had been told by our families we may be related to royalty when we weren't. I was told I had Polish royalty in my blood. It was a family myth. Warren's family truly believed they were related to Native Americans and were proud of this heritage although it was false.

some small NA heritage, although it is not nearly enough to qualify her for tribal membership. And she never asserted that it would be.

The claim was NOT false. But she did ruffle some feathers, which have since been largely unruffled.

She simply chose to acknowledge that this is a sensitive point for many Native Americans and has learned from the experience.

That was a very disingenuous claim on her part. What's done is done and it's not disqualifying but I don't think the issue was just that she claimed to have some Native American heritage.

It will become the central issue of the campaign should Warren secure the nomination. "Pocahontas" will be drilled into everyone's brain like "Crooked" Hillary.

Remember, Democrats can never lie; Republics can lie with impunity.

Daddy is funny when he lies, but if Mommy lies, it is very very bad.

This was the legal view, in many of the states, that having any "blood" from an ancestor of color made you non-white. Many people growing up when Warren did, possibly including Warren and her family, had absorbed this view. There were even names for gradations of black-ness. For example, people with 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white were "octoroons."

The one drop rule was more commonly used in connection with people of African descent, but it could be applied to any non-white or subordinate group. If you had any non-white blood you were viewed as tainted. Warren could have hidden hers, but she claimed it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group.

My dad claimed his great-grandfather was half-back and he never claimed to be black himself.

would you ascribe any nefarious motives to it?

She knew any link to American Indian heritage was far removed from her ancestry and yet she still felt the need to claim being one. It was a mistake and she rightfully apologized for it.

It was a mistake, but not dishonest.

Sheesh.

There were people of 1/16 Japanese descent. And the architect of it stated “one drop” applied. This was not so very long ago. Many interned are still alive. And there may still be people alive who were born as slaves.

By 1986 there were far more likely to be benefits from claiming native American ancestry than being viewed as "tainted."

I've even seen some publications go so far as to have previously referred to her as a "woman of color." You don't think that gave her a 1-up from schools looking to show diversity efforts?

And it went way past 1986:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/fordham-piece-called-warren-harvard-laws-first-woman-of-color-123526

"Warren had described herself as a minority on a law professors' listing for several years, ending in 1995. She has said she wanted to meet people like herself, but stopped when she realized that's not what the listing was for."

I appreciate her forthrightness and regret in 2019 but that doesn't wash over what were very likely pretty selfish motivations for why she did it in the first place.

also came with no benefits.

She thought she had some N.A. ancestry and she didn't want to discount it, and she was interested in meeting other people. That's all this was.

She believed it, she checked a box. Doesn't sound like any intent to decieve.

My dad claims my great-grandfather was half black. I don't go around claiming to be black because I know that was a good few generations ago. There's a reason she apologized for it. But to suggest she didn't do anything problematic is silly. She did. She apologized for it. Okay. Cool.

way before this controversy, almost everyone this reporter talked to in Oklahoma thought s/he was of N.A. descent.

So she wasn't being disingenuous. She had just absorbed the beliefs of the people surrounding her, including her own family members.

Also, as recently as 2007, the Cherokee Nation changed its constitution to require a blood connection for tribal membership. This was done in connection with disenrolling the Freedmen, the descendants of black slaves held by the Cherokees. But the black Freedmen were on the Cherokee rolls as part of a treaty with the U.S., so the courts eventually ruled against the Cherokees, saying that the treaty required the to remain on the rolls.

So this may be one more reason Warren thought that her possible blood connection mattered. The Cherokee Nation had written it into their constitution 12 years ago, and then spent years defending that in court.

https://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/slave_descendants_seek_equal_rights_from_cherokee_nation_partner/?fbclid=IwAR2_yR1JvSQv501w-Izqeonba-AWvJ5wWOX46XZWav2mHUH06ocGIz_Av8Y

During the year I spent reporting this story, nearly everyone I met in Oklahoma claimed Indian heritage. To many, the notion that Indian blood pumps through them, irrespective of quantum or degree, is a birthright. It suggests a dual identity. And it insinuates indigenous roots — a deeper, more authentic tie to land and country that predates statehood and union. But unlike most, Payton possesses the documents to back his claims.

SNIP


From the Smithsonian:

https://americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/indivisible/cherokee_freedmen.html

Early in the 1800s, some Cherokees acquired slaves, and in the 1830s, enslaved African Americans accompanied the Cherokees when the federal government forced them to move to Indian Territory (Oklahoma), where the tribe struggled to rebuild its culture and institutions. By 1861, there were 4,000 black slaves living among the Cherokees.

After the Civil War, the tribe signed a treaty that granted former slaves, or freedmen, “all the rights of Native Cherokees.” But in 2007, Cherokees amended their tribal constitution, making “Indian blood” a requirement for citizenship. As a result, some 2,800 descendants of Cherokee freedmen were excluded from membership.

My DNA test showed I am 0.03 Native American going back to the 1700s in what became Canada. My father told us we had NA in our background.

Those are two different things, so I don't know what she's apologizing for.

That's the stickler for her - as this goes beyond just identifying with family stories. Clearly, by the time Warren was an adult (she would have been 37 in 1986), she should have known her race wasn't American Indian.

I'm glad she is apologizing - but no, I disagree that she has nothing to apologize for.

I know many people over 37 today who have no idea of their ancestry beyond their grandparents, if they even know that much. It was not uncommon to believe what your parents told you. I'm 66 and was always told I was "100% German", which I believed. My recent DNA test shows I am nearly one third Scandinavian.

So, no, even if she was told she had American Indian heritage, putting that down seems extremely problematic.

My dad told me my great-grandfather was half-black...I would never put black as my race, tho.

You are referring to a card that asked for race background. At the time she filled it out, she knew she had some Native American blood, just no clue how much, and the card did not define it as only people who were 100% a particular race (almost no people are!). What's wrong with being proud of your Native American ancestry? She never profited from it nor claimed she was 100% Native American.

And it would have applied to you, if one of your 8 great grandparents was black.

And would do so proudly. Why are you basing your case on what YOU would do as if yours is the only legitimate course?

Guess what - I am half Czech, and the rest is a mix of Irish-English with a dash of Northern African from the Moors. I LOVE to say I’m black-Irish.

Heritage is different than race.

I can actually see why she apologized. She talked to NA's and realized that her small percentage of NA ancestry really wasn't enough to be mentioned, and that bothered them. I think she handled it gracefully and the NA community has moved on.

It's only a "flap" in the media that needs something to flap about.

Still, this move today was a good one by her

never sought nor claimed Tribal membership, one only needs a PERCENTAGE of NA blood (Cherokee tribe requires only one twelfth) to qualify, so I doubt her checking that box meant anything beyond that.

Were you to see a photo of her.mother, whom she doesn't physically favor, you'd never doubt her Indian ancestry.

That's a pretty big commitment for someone who was only basing her ancestry off long ago family stories.

for ine thing, her DNA test confirmed those "long ago stories" of NA heritage as true.
For another, where does it say one's ancestry in a group .
must be 100% in order to identify as a member? People of mixed Black and White ancestry routinely identify as African American.

The fact that people, like you apparently, thought she falsely was claiming Native American heritage is why she did the DNA test. But then some Native Americans, a small but widely reported on number, were offended that she took the test because they believe DNA tests have no relevance to whether one is a member of an actual Native tribe. However, she never claimed to be a member of a tribe. But she still apologized. I don't think she should have apologized and I don't think most Native Americans were offended.

IMO self reflection and humility are leadership qualities that you just can't fake. Addressing your mistakes with true introspect and empathy is a show of personal strength and virtue.

She's the whole package.

It sucks. You can lie about getting hundreds of MIA bodies back from Korea when you are President and no one brings it up, but something you did 30 years ago is disqualifying.

which is why Trump is trying -- in his own words -- to "bring it back"

Not my first choice, but I have no problem supporting her if she gets the nomination.

One that is consistent with her entire candidacy; a well-thought out plan that has won the support of many influential people in Indian Country, not least because it was developed in consultation with them. Great write-up here (don’t miss the last three paragraphs):

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/elizabeth-warren-says-us-has-a-moral-obligation-to-indian-country-y5lA2ZHnbUCoGRbTN-XmJw/

Chump's last rally and her own successful recent initiatuve, brought it out of mothballs.

A woman who became a bridge between two cultures.

A courageous woman who should be looked upon as someone to be admired, not belittled.


When Elizabeth raises up Pocahontas she will take away Trump's joker card.

She could also bring up the fact that most current citizens of this nation have immigrant ancestors and it surprising that we know so little of the history of true Native Americans (especially females) except for a few names, like Pocahontas, which we learned (and Trump obviously was able to remember and thought was humorous and clever to make fun of) in elementary school.

Not just because it would invalidate the use of “Pocahontas” as an insult, which it shouldn’t be anyway for heaven’s sake , but it would educate the knuckledraggers a bit and give credit to a woman who was part of our country’s history.

Although I'm African American, I do have French Ancestry. I could claim French American on any form but I chose African American because it's the heritage that I and my family have known for generations.

There's nothing wrong in claiming your heritage from whatever it branches off from.

How about Drumpf claiming his heritage?;

[link:|

Warren.

Trump is going to keep picking at that hoping to open the wound..but I think most people understand the history behind the claim..

I'm sure his falsely claiming that is a hell of a lot more insulting to Swedes and Swedish-Americans - than Senator Warren's partially true claim to Native American ancestry, is to Native Americans.

are people who would have been looking for anything to use against her anyways.

She's more than done an appropriate penance, publicly. Won't stop Trump from trying, but I don't see how it will affect anyone who isn't already on the Trump Train.

told that my great-great grandma Cassandra had some kind of native American ancestry - my great Aunt Sally, in particular, always said her parents always thought she was from some tribe, but she didn't know which.

Well, I did a DNA test just for personal interest, and found I have NO Native American blood whatsoever.

So there you have it. What we always thought isn't necessarily what always was.

I was told one of my great-great-grandmothers was Apache. My DNA test came back with only .2% Native American, but I also had .2% Nigerian and 8.1% French/German ancestry. Given the fact that my ancestors quickly migrated to the south, I assumed that she was likely Cajun, rather than Apache. My husband was also told some of his ancestors were Comanche. (His ancestors also rapidly moved to the south.) His test showed 0% Native American ancestry. I think the vast majority of us (in the US, anyway) have heard stories about our ancestors which were, at the least, embellished.

and I have noticed through FB postings that the Cherokee registered as Democrats are very open to Elizabeth Warren and the ones who are R's are totally unforgiving. When you vote in tribal elections you vote as a Cherokee - making political parties are irrelevant. But you can discover through social media the ones who are R's because of their positions.

But then again, I say that about everyone, really.

There are NO liberal news outlets in the state, the middle of the road newspapers were taken over by conservative forces during the past 40 years or so, and many are natives are colonialized Christian fundamentalists. That's my guess.

At least in NC.

Yeah, I don't get it, either.

The Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma is very mixed-blood and unlike NC Cherokees there is no blood quantum requirement attached. If your family is listed on the Dawes Rolls you are accepted no matter if you don't meet the Bureau of Indian Affairs' blood quantum requirement.

I also thought this 2013 article was interesting. She was just a product of her environment. Not just her neighbors, but her family.


https://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/slave_descendants_seek_equal_rights_from_cherokee_nation_partner/?fbclid=IwAR2_yR1JvSQv501w-Izqeonba-AWvJ5wWOX46XZWav2mHUH06ocGIz_Av8Y

During the year I spent reporting this story, nearly everyone I met in Oklahoma claimed Indian heritage. To many, the notion that Indian blood pumps through them, irrespective of quantum or degree, is a birthright. It suggests a dual identity. And it insinuates indigenous roots — a deeper, more authentic tie to land and country that predates statehood and union.

I did not see this article in Salon, but I was pleased to see that I know almost everyone mentioned in the article as we have worked on the same side toward the same end. Cornsilk is now posting pro-Warren since she unrolled her new initiative (of actually honoring the treaties between the Federal Govt. and the tribes) and I am encouraged. If you wrote the Salon article, wado (thank you), it is full of truth.

narrative, she had some Native American ancestry, a claim later substantiated by DNA testing.

It is difficult to impossible to prove the tribal affiliation of one’s ancestors. The tribal registries were not complete, and intermarriage, as well as forced and circumstantial assimilation led to people leaving their tribes.

and has been for about 20 years. She can trace her ancestry and document it back to the Mayflower. She thought, through what was supposed to be an illegitimate birth in her family a few generations ago that she had Native American blood. She could document it through family letters, etc.

A DNA test showed she was wrong. No matter how much research one does, ancestry studies can be erroneous. Census records can be incorrect. So can family bible and church records. I can document through several sources, that my father was 87 when he died. He was 67. Before DNA, a lot of people were wrong about their ancestry. Donald Trump has stated in public that his father was born in Bavaria. He was not.

for the same reason my siblings and I (and all siblings) have different mixtures of DNA -- even though we have the same ancestors.

My brother and mother and cousins all have a significant amount of Scandinavian DNA, but my sister and I don't have any. Based on the results of my brother and mother, I know that I probably do have some distant Scandinavian ancestors, but I didn't happen to inherit their DNA in the mix that I got. Just like I didn't get their blonde, straight hair.

With N.A. ancestry, it is especially difficult. For one thing, there aren't many indigenous samples in the database. Also, I've read that one of the most common alleles of Native Americans is also common in Western Europe. So when Ancestry sees those alleles, how does it decide which group to attribute them too?

this little history had names, dates, locations. When I was in drafting school one of my fellow students was native American and I told him I had "Indian blood, too". He asked me which tribe and I told him "Cherokee" and he started laughing - "all you white people are part Cherokee!"

Many years later, decades, I had a genetic test done. Not a drop. Just a detailed story with names, dates and locations.

... forth generation. My mother's family claimed Choctaw blood somewhere in
that side of the family tree. My father's family claimed Cherokee blood and that our family
had been bilked of a 160 acre allotment in what was now downtown Tulsa.
My siblings and I researched tribal rolls, Dawes Commission lists, family tree
research. We found no tribal connections.
Then we did the DNA kit and the results said No Native American heritage.
Mrs.Warren and I are not the only ones in Oklahoma who have believed the
family lore.
If you Google " My grandmother was an Indian princess " you'll find volumes
dealing with this.

I don't know why people keep getting this fact wrong.

In her case, the family lore was based on fact.

is a mistake and one I'm sure she wishes she could take back.
My family had the same story that my father's grandmother was Cherokee and she would have lived back in the late 1800s. But when I had a DNA test done it came back with a big zero for Native American ancestry. So I can see how it happened.

If Warren does get the nomination, one thing she must learn from this episode is to not get sucked into playing Trump's game because he is very good at it. Don't allow him to bait you into responding to his mocking insults and putting you on the defensive because it's a black hole that will only hurt you.

It proved she had a Native American ancestor like she had said. What is wrong with proudly proclaiming you have Native American ancestry, especially when you have no reason to believe your parents are lying? Turns out her parents weren't lying.

someone went around looking for dirt on her, and the best they could come up with was a form that she filled out AFTER she was hired at Harvard, that claimed Native American ancestry.

It was only after Trump taunted her for months that she finally, mistakenly, thought she could prove otherwise with a blood test.

Ironically, the Cherokee Constitution itself was amended in 2007 to require a blood connection to be a Cherokee, so it would seem logical for her to have thought that the DNA test could be dispositive.


From the Smithsonian:

https://americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/indivisible/cherokee_freedmen.html

Early in the 1800s, some Cherokees acquired slaves, and in the 1830s, enslaved African Americans accompanied the Cherokees when the federal government forced them to move to Indian Territory (Oklahoma), where the tribe struggled to rebuild its culture and institutions. By 1861, there were 4,000 black slaves living among the Cherokees.

After the Civil War, the tribe signed a treaty that granted former slaves, or freedmen, “all the rights of Native Cherokees.” But in 2007, Cherokees amended their tribal constitution, making “Indian blood” a requirement for citizenship. As a result, some 2,800 descendants of Cherokee freedmen were excluded from membership.

Senator Warren is a classy person and I appreciate the fact that she gave a true and honest apology.

Again, I applaud Senator Warren for this apology