It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cherokee Nation Issues Statement Regarding Sen. Warren

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:28 AM
a reply to: carewemust

I absolutely agree that if she used it as a way to give her an advantage at getting a position, it's extremely shameful. However, I must attempt to be fair and give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't use her "heritage" to get the positions. There just isn't enough evidence, imo. Yes, she stated it on her resume or application but we can only speculate as to why she did it. Of course, the only reason that seems plausible is because she was hoping it would give her an advantage but we really can't say that with certainty.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:31 AM

originally posted by: StoutBroux
I heard they didn't do any comparison to any Native American DNA, they use Hispanic/South American matches to qualify as possible NA heritage.

american dna samples to test against instead used columbian, mexican, peruvian dna to compare...
It's also not even a positive match, it's more suggestive. Strong evidence there may have been an ancestor of NA heritage? What is that exactly? It's either there or not there.

You are correct, and that is even spelled out in the original Boston Globe article about the DNA test. It's all based on the assumption (also noted) that NA genetics are shared with Central and South American indigenous peoples.

Warren shot herself in the foot, here...with her own arrow.

Also, it was her brother who said that the family history cites Cherokee and Delaware NA bloodlines, so a response from the Cherokee nation is supremely appropriate.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:31 AM

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: one4all

There are so many great points in your post that I'm still trying to absorb them all. I agree, there is more than enough evidence to say that they traveled here and were not "indigenous" as we understand the word to mean. The info has yet to reach the masses, though. Those in control, control the story. Only what they want to come out, comes out.

Without going into a long story about why it no longer matters if we see these wrongs and how they were committed....the Beginning of a New World is soon to be at hand....Turtle Island is soon to turn...…..

That being said....the recent DNA fad has shown us some critical that ALL GEONONES ORIGINATE at high altitudes in mountain ranges....EVERY SNGLE LAST ONE OF THEM......Humanity was WIPED OUT during Noahs flood.....ALL OF OUR HISTORY is POST-FLOOD.....most of our currently status quo accepted history is a lie, an intentional lie.

Antarctica which is now frozen will soon begin to melt and reveal itself then move into a warmer climate zone...and we will see what was once there...NA was the last Continent locked into the Arctic ice and during Noahs Flood North America was MOVED down towards the equator to melt and another Continent was dragged into Antarctica to become frozen.In or around 2021 NA will again move and drop down closer to the equator as Antarctica is dropped down into NA/Canadas temperate zone....

When these changes happen...all continents are wiped out....globally....we become like 7 billion ANTS IN A JACUZZI full of debris....any survivors will with a 110% certainty BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHEST ALTITUDE AREAS that are ABOVE WATER and acessable first post Flood...people will generally be wiped...some areas will remain unbelievable OK while 99% of the Planet will be toaster struedel…

Usually around 300-500 years before this event there is a world war as competing races try to position themselves to be strongest is ALWAYS a fruitless endeavour....everything becomes chaos.

This is a 3657 year Cyclical event......over time different competing races have learned how the cycle works and they have made great efforts to be located in the most favorable places Pre-Event.

Today North America has been preserved and protected because Post-Event it is the best place to be this time around and will be located closer to the equator post-event.

Soon the STORY will be there for ANYONE who survives to tell ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE.

However POST-EVENT history will ONCE AGAIN show that our genetic roots will all again begin at only high altitide places....the highest points that people trying to survive a Global Flood can hang onto to live.
edit on 16-10-2018 by one4all because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:34 AM
a reply to: Tanga36

In regards to verbal lineage... I have a first cousin who has sworn up and down for years that our great grandma and great grandpa had to give up the rights to their tribes in order to get married. We've all had DNA tests done through 23 and Me over the past year and not a single one of us have any Native American DNA.

Those DNA tests can actually be enlightening or destructive. You can connect to your family and see who else shares DNA with you. Well, my cousin who said all of this belongs to my dad's oldest brother who passed away in 1994, my other cousin belongs to my dad's oldest sister. My DNA compared to theirs only came up between 5% and 7%. That got my family to thinking because they came up around 15% to my dad. Then his sister took the test, she's his last living sibling, and when the results came back, she compared their DNA and called him, she was hysterical. Turns out, after 65 years, they're just half siblings and the way my other cousin came back, that means my dad's oldest brother was a half sibling to both of them as well. His middle brother passed in 2008 but that brother's daughter hasn't taken a DNA test. He doesn't look anything like them so I'd be willing to bet he's also a half. My dad is the only one that looks exactly like the man they've all called their dad.

Sorry for the off topic response, but those tests can change a lot of things.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:36 AM
a reply to: Tanga36

Boston Globe, Sept 1st:

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law

And then she separately released a bunch of personnel files on her website, here.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:38 AM
a reply to: LSU2018


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:45 AM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Tanga36

This statement is a good reminder, not just to any specific individual, but to all of us Americans that our family's oral history is ultimately just a story. Many of us have stories about the Apache Warrior or Cherokee Princess from several generations ago that we are related to. Without proper paperwork and due diligence, they are nothing more than just "feel good" stories for our families.

While that's certainly true, I think the specific point being made in their statement is that DNA tests cannot prove specific tribal affiliations.

Side note, I remember reading an article a while back about how a lot of black folks who had grown up hearing family stories about having native ancestors were taking DNA tests and finding out their supposed native ancestry was actually European.

I totally agree. I guess I didn't word what was in my head very well. I was wanting to convey that without admonishing an individual (ie. Sen Warren) and making it about her or the president, they, instead, used the opportunity to set the record straight that no amount of DNA testing can associate someone with any specific tribe. You can certainly have similar markers that will show native ancestry but there is certainly no way of telling the specific tribe your ancestors came from.

ETA since these at home DNA tests have gotten so popular, there are a lot of skeletons coming out of family closets. Some have not been the skeletons that many people thought were in there or even knew about.
edit on 10162018 by Tanga36 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:48 AM

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Tanga36

Meanwhile the front page of stupid MSN news is "Senator Warren says Trump's comments on her DNA test are 'Creepy' ",

lol pathetic MSM, reaching.

I hope THIS official message from The Cherokee Nation does get some traction and makes it to the news

Lol Pot vs. Kettle!

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:50 AM
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Where do you think we'd be today had that never happened?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: carewemust

I absolutely agree that if she used it as a way to give her an advantage at getting a position, it's extremely shameful. However, I must attempt to be fair and give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't use her "heritage" to get the positions. There just isn't enough evidence, imo. Yes, she stated it on her resume or application but we can only speculate as to why she did it. Of course, the only reason that seems plausible is because she was hoping it would give her an advantage but we really can't say that with certainty.

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’

Warren’s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage.

When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald.

Warren’s new statement came after the Globe asked her campaign about documents it obtained Wednesday from Harvard’s library showing that the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.

A campaign official said they had no records indicating that she had informed Harvard of Native American heritage that year.

The official further said that Warren had been unable to answer questions about the issue before now because she had forgotten many of the details and had asked her campaign to thoroughly review the evidence. The campaign declined to say whether Warren provided the information to Harvard and Penn verbally or by checking a box on a form.

The Harvard records do not list a Native American during the years Warren returned to her post at the University of Pennsylvania, but begin to list one in 1995-96, when she returned to Cambridge as a tenured professor.
From May 2012

"There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries," the piece says. "This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."


Brown's camp has been calling on Harvard to release records related to Warren's hiring, and for her to do the same. Recently, the AP reported that she described herself as "white" when she applied for the University of Texas decades ago, and didn't apply for a minority program at Rutgers Law School - but those documents becoming public help to underscore the questions that Republicans are posing about the remaining ones.

But funny enough, sounds like Harvard won't release their records on hiring EW. I'd have to do some more searching but I heard that the list of applicants they chose from was a 'minority identified as' list, so if she weren't on that list, she wouldn't have been considered for the position in the first place.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:57 AM
a reply to: Tanga36

When the first threads about this started to appear, I spent some time googling and reading about Native American DNA. What I found is that there really is no such thing. A few trends, however did emerge.

The Indians are believed to mostly all come here from Asia to Alaska then gone south and spread out from there. Precolumbian Indians are believed to have Asiatic DNA markers. There are a few tribes of Mayan Indians with distinct DNA markers, perhaps some in Peru also. These tribes seem to have mixed into some American tribes so some of them have that. The DNA varies by region. Some eastern tribes have pretty distinct lineage but when you get to the southwest, Indian DNA is so mixed, it's not useful at all for determining tribal membership. Since the 1600's Native Americans have had so much intermarriage, there are very few individuals with pure blood of any tribe left. Indians counted not only people born from tribe parents as members but also spouses and adopted children.

When it comes to Cherokee DNA, you find different test results from nearly all other tribes. Their markers are not predominately Asian but Middle Eastern, North African, Berber, and Iberian. Apparently, they originated from the Mediterranean area not Asia.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:08 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Right? Hearing the stories I heard about my dad's childhood in the 50's though, it doesn't surprise me. My mom had suspicions in the past but only mentioned it once in their 43 years of marriage and my dad made it clear he didn't want to talk about it. Until this came up. Now he's accepted it.

He had 3 brothers and 1 sister. When he was 6 (1958), he loved visiting his neighbor, she was 15 and liked to take him everywhere. Maybe felt bad for him because his family was dirt poor. He was slaved out to a man in Texas to work the fields all Summer that year and the money would be sent to his mom. But his mom couldn't afford to raise 5 kids and one night he stayed the night with his neighbor. He got up the next morning and rushed home to play with his 3 year old brother and when he ran inside, the house was empty and nobody was home. His mom had abandoned him. She also sent the sister and older brother to live with another family. He was the only one who grew up in a disciplined home and it served him well. I couldn't have asked for a better father. My mom says he was always too easy on me and my sister, but he said his biggest fear was that we'd grow up and not love him. He was stern, and we knew not to push his buttons, it was easy for him to be easy on us for that reason lol.

Having said that, in the screenshot below, I've marked out the names, but you'll see my mom, dad, sister, and Aunt. My Aunt should share 25% DNA with me, but she instead shares ~25% with my dad. It should be ~50% like me and my sister. My cousins are closer to second cousins to me. And DL guy, we'd never even heard of him but connected with him after this and turns out, he's my dad's unknown brother's son. A half brother he never knew about.

Please excuse the crudity of my writing, it was done with the mouse.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:09 AM
a reply to: one4all

indigenous (adj.)

"born or originating in a particular place," 1640s, from Late Latin indigenus "born in a country, native," from Latin indigena "sprung from the land, native," as a noun, "a native," literally "in-born," or "born in (a place)," from Old Latin indu (prep.) "in, within" + gignere (perfective genui) "to beget, produce," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

I mean, yes, it comes from the 17th Century, but it's a real word that has appropriate roots that mean, "born or originating in a particular place."

Hell, with that in mind, I'm indigenous to North America, as I was born here, as were my parents and half of my grandparents. I'm a native to this land.

But that also means that they (the NAs), at the time of our colonization and arrival, met that definition and still do today as well.

So, I agree with you that the use of such terms has been narrowed over time to a point where it gets misused and often in a derogatory and demeaning way, but to pretend that just because a certain group of people didn't magically appear in a spot without having ever lived anywhere else in history can't be considered "indigenous" is rather unsupported by things like the definition of the word.

Furthermore, the official treatment of the Native Americans was atrocious by the U.S. government--I don't think that anyone is disputing that here.

I guess that this is my round-about way of asking: What is your point as it pertains to the Cherokee Nation's stance on Sen. Warren?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:36 AM
(Bury my Heart in Wounded Knee)

-What precisely
are your lands?

-These are the lands
where my people lived
before you whites first came.

-I don't understand. We whites
were not your first enemies
Why don't you demand back
the land in Minnesota
where the Chippewa and others
forced you from years before?

-The Black Hills
are a sacred land
given to my people
by Wakan Tanka.

-How very convenient
to cloak your claims
in spiritualism
And what would you say
to the Mormons and others
who believe that their god has given
to them Indian lands in the West?

-I would say they should listen
to Wakan Tanka.

-No matter what your legends say,
you didn't sprout from the plains
like the spring grasses
And you didn't coalesce
out of the ether.
You came out of the Minnesota
woodlands armed to the teeth
and set upon your fellow man.
You massacred
the Kiowa, the Omaha,
the Ponca, the Oto
and the Pawnee without mercy.
And yet you claim the Black Hills
as a private preserve
bequeathed to you
by the Great Spirit.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:41 AM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Tanga36

Boston Globe, Sept 1st:

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law

And then she separately released a bunch of personnel files on her website, here.

It doesn't matter what she accomplished by the appropriation of that ethnicity... What matters is she intended for it to have an influence.

I'm surprised you find any of this acceptable.
edit on 16-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:41 AM

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Where do you think we'd be today had that never happened?

Wow....that's a really deep question...

Just as I see it...and me alone, we might be a nation of colors. No one group or even several different groups in absolute power or control...but all one equal voice.

The "Concert of Colors" is held in Detroit each summer across the city for 3 days in multiple venues.

We have Rock, Peruvian Indian, African, Rock-a-billy, Metal, Mariachi, Rap, Funk, Tex-Mex, Zydeco,. Asian, Indian, Polynesian, Americana, Folk....all of music for the enjoyment of music itself.

Not one of those is any different, not the stages, nor those who may attend. It's a great thing.

I would like to think of an America like that. But, it is not....though I DO think one day...all land(S)...everywhere...will return to those who never gave up living, praying and sharing it....

Even though (in Native American belief)...that which belongs to no one...cannot be sold, taken away or given.

Peace to all...

edit on 16-10-2018 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Harvard's "Woman of Color", could she not have refused it?

This was consistent throughout Warren’s career. As Benny Johnson noted, “Warren self-identified as a ‘Native American’ in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of law professors in every edition printed between 1986 -1995.” A 2005 report from the University of Pennsylvania’s Minority Equity Committee referred to Warren as a minority award winner. Back in 2012, Warren initially claimed she didn’t know the schools were referring to her that way, which is extremely unlikely. This would mean that Warren wasn’t following the debate about minority representation at the law school back in the 1990s and that she didn’t realize the law school was citing her as an example of minority representation. But then a few weeks later she said she “provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.” As we now know, Warren is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American, and does not meet the criteria of “Native American” under anyone’s definition but her own.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 12:35 PM
I apologize to everyone. On my mobile and it's acting crazy. Attempting to find a fix. Still some good posts I'd like to reply to.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 01:10 PM
Lol claims of tribal heritage DENIED!

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 01:11 PM

originally posted by: mysterioustranger

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: mysterioustranger

And that is a travesty, in my opinion. So much evidence was lost because of that. I only have the familial stories about my dad's grandmother to go by and very little trail to help me sniff out her heritage. I've only been able to make calculated guesses regarding where she came from and what her story is.

contact me privately about genealogy questions...I may be able to in touch with several tribal nation leaders and a professional geneologist

As an interesting (to me) aside...

My mother's side of the family is predominantly Cherokee/Hopi. Of the few grandparents and family members that have taken DNA testing, it appears that our Hopi side has a maternal haplogroup of H1f. I have the same haplogroup.

Would that support the family stories that somewhere in our Hopi background there is the possibility of Spanish intermingling?

Sorry for going off the reservation with the question, but genealogy has never been my forte.

edit on 16-10-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in