It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SpartanStoic
This is a conundrum.
If someone is benefitting from their racial makeup and it is decided to test them that starts down a slippery slope indeed.
This is not something as a society we probably should be doing.
I still dislike her and think she is lying, I'm not convinced she should be tested.
nypost.com...
But while Warren won’t take the test, she also won’t shut up about being a Native American. On the Sunday shows, she repeated the story she’s been telling for years about her parents’ epic romance in which her father’s family opposed the match because of her mother’s supposed Indian ancestry.
It’s a sweet tale — but, given that no member of her family has ever shown up on a list of tribe members or any other birth, marriage or death records dating back to the early 19th century — it’s hard to imagine why the blonde-haired, blue-eyed senator’s grandparents would have rejected her mother on those grounds.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: redhorse
It’s about there is no credible proof.....
A lie is lie?
Like Onama’s Parents meeting at Selma?
nypost.com...
But while Warren won’t take the test, she also won’t shut up about being a Native American. On the Sunday shows, she repeated the story she’s been telling for years about her parents’ epic romance in which her father’s family opposed the match because of her mother’s supposed Indian ancestry.
It’s a sweet tale — but, given that no member of her family has ever shown up on a list of tribe members or any other birth, marriage or death records dating back to the early 19th century — it’s hard to imagine why the blonde-haired, blue-eyed senator’s grandparents would have rejected her mother on those grounds.
DNA is an assortment of genetic sequences that have been inherited from many different ancestors. You double your number of ancestors with every generation, because everyone has two parents. Going back only ten generations (between 200 and 300 years) in your genealogy, you have 1024 ancestors.
Going back far enough, each of us has more ancestors than we have sections of DNA - which means that there are many ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA, and that ultimately there will be many sequences of DNA that most people share.
originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
...where she then gave up on Republicans and began voting democratic.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: redhorse
And I referenced there is no proof in her genealogy / lineage.
Cite or quote where I said anything about DNA?