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.
When people use their distant Scottish heritage as a means to classify as a minority group then it's a different story.Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
I didn't know Scottish was an ethnicity. Wouldn't that be a nationality? It's hardly the same thing. You aren't checking the "Other" box on a form and writing in your nationality in the ethnicity section.Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
And?
Ibanez wrote:She's anywhere between 1/32 - 1/512th Native American...
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.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html
Ethnicity = Nationality....apparently.89Hen wrote:Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
And those that do are a fuck of a lot more than 1/512th Scottish.Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
Did she use it to her advantage (to classify herself as a minority) or just had an affinity for her possible ancestry?GannonFan wrote:When people use their distant Scottish heritage as a means to classify as a minority group then it's a different story.Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
It'll remain a story because it was a clumsy, unnecessary thing to do and in this political environment, everything is open for satire and condemnation.
Have you not been paying attention for the last several years?kalm wrote:Did she use it to her advantage (to classify herself as a minority) or just had an affinity for her possible ancestry?GannonFan wrote:
When people use their distant Scottish heritage as a means to classify as a minority group then it's a different story.
It'll remain a story because it was a clumsy, unnecessary thing to do and in this political environment, everything is open for satire and condemnation.
Only she knows the truth. But she changed it around a time her employers were trying to appear more diverse. Being a white woman doesn't have the same cache as a Native American woman.kalm wrote:Did she use it to her advantage (to classify herself as a minority) or just had an affinity for her possible ancestry?GannonFan wrote:
When people use their distant Scottish heritage as a means to classify as a minority group then it's a different story.
It'll remain a story because it was a clumsy, unnecessary thing to do and in this political environment, everything is open for satire and condemnation.
Pretty fine line between nationality and ethnicity... and, the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive.Ibanez wrote:I didn't know Scottish was an ethnicity. Wouldn't that be a nationality? It's hardly the same thing.Skjellyfetti wrote:Plenty of people celebrate their Scottish heritage going back as far.
And, also makes it a pretty dumb idea to bet someone $1,000,000 on it.Pwns wrote:If 1/512 is the threshold for being considered Indian, then there's a lot of Indians in this country.
And it's a pretty wide swath when you're talking about somebody being proud of their heritage versus using it as a tool. But you keep trying to defend the indefensible Jelly.Skjellyfetti wrote:Pretty fine line between nationality and ethnicity... and, the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive.Ibanez wrote: I didn't know Scottish was an ethnicity. Wouldn't that be a nationality? It's hardly the same thing.
How did she use it as a tool? I though the Boston Globe and Harvard had debunked the idea she had benefitted from it?89Hen wrote:And it's a pretty wide swath when you're talking about somebody being proud of their heritage versus using it as a tool. But you keep trying to defend the indefensible Jelly.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Pretty fine line between nationality and ethnicity... and, the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive.
Personal credibility is a big deal in politics...kalm wrote:How did she use it as a tool? I though the Boston Globe and Harvard had debunked the idea she had benefitted from it?89Hen wrote: And it's a pretty wide swath when you're talking about somebody being proud of their heritage versus using it as a tool. But you keep trying to defend the indefensible Jelly.
You and I both know he won't uphold his end. Trump's a POS of the highest order.Skjellyfetti wrote:And, also makes it a pretty dumb idea to bet someone $1,000,000 on it.Pwns wrote:If 1/512 is the threshold for being considered Indian, then there's a lot of Indians in this country.
Do you expect them to ADMIT to the fact that they had a white woman change her ethnicity so that they appear more diverse? And didn't Harvard (or was it Penn) use her as an example of their diversity?kalm wrote:How did she use it as a tool? I though the Boston Globe and Harvard had debunked the idea she had benefitted from it?89Hen wrote: And it's a pretty wide swath when you're talking about somebody being proud of their heritage versus using it as a tool. But you keep trying to defend the indefensible Jelly.
