Fauxcahontas’s DNA

It shows that she’s heap big authentic.

[Update Wednesday afternoon]

Warren’s Clintonian smoke signals.

It’s worth noting that Warren brought on a lot of these tropes about Siberian Americans with her “Powwow Chow.”

[Update a few minutes later]

Actual descendant of Pocahontas to Warren: Apologize.

I suspect that the fraud will keep doubling down.

[Update a couple more minutes later]

Cherokee Nation to Elizabeth Warren: Drop dead.

Unlikely she’ll do that, either, but rarely has someone so publicly pwned themselves.

[Saturday morning]

Blackface America:

America is a wonderfully mixed-up place. You meet somebody named Qiáng MacFarland Lopez and the safe bet is that he’s an American. And many of us have had the peculiar experience of feeling a strong sense of kinship with a culture that is not our own. (That’s me in a Swiss train station.) “Multiculturalism” is an intellectual dead end, but culture is not, and there is much to be said for learning Chinese or Hebrew or Nahuatl, reading the great Spanish novels, or coming to understand Buddhism as something more than a feel-good corporate trend.

To consider oneself fixed within the bounds of one’s own specific patrimony is an intellectual poverty. But Senator Warren has not dug into Cherokee history, language, or culture. She simply used the fiction of her Cherokee identity to get something she wanted — a little political leg up on the rest of the sanctimonious white ladies. That’s cheap, vulgar, and wrong — and the Cherokee are right to be annoyed by it. And if Texas Democrats really want a Hispanic name on the ballot to put up against Senator Cruz, then they might consider — here’s a radical thought! — nominating someone of Hispanic heritage as their candidate. As for Rachel Dolezal — my best guess is that being Rachel Dolezal is its own punishment.

I don’t think the Democrats understand how sane people view all this stuff (not to mention all the gender insanity).


42 thoughts on “Fauxcahontas’s DNA”

  1. In effect, Trump eliminated a potential political rival for the next election with a few tweets. It was low hanging fruit, but he got her to actually expose the truth, then triggered her meltdown on twitter afterwards.

  2. It would be interesting if one of these DNA testing companies would release some figures anent the average percentage of Native American and black genetic heritage of “white” Americans. I suspect most of us have more of both than Elizabeth Warren.

    Finding that out would also remove a long-standing leftist trope to the effect that white settlers committed genocide against Native Americans. I think the truth is that white settlers, in what is now the United States and Canada, simply absorbed most of the much-diminished Native American population that remained after the epidemics pursuant to the earlier Spanish colonization efforts had killed most of them off.

    1. ” I think the truth is that white settlers, in what is now the United States and Canada, simply absorbed most of the much-diminished Native American population that remained after the epidemics pursuant to the earlier Spanish colonization efforts had killed most of them off.”

      Under the tenets of multiculturalism in academia, absorption of the population of any non-industrial culture is the greatest sin imaginable, because the culture, being available for academics to study, is what is valuable to them, not the mere people. The Ward Churchills of the world will bend, spindle, and mutilate any chain of logical evidence needed to build a proof that the primary defender of industrial culture in the world, the US, is built on genocide. They will continue to ignore the point that *every* agrarian culture, including the cultures of pre-industrial US States, built themselves through the conquest of the land needed for farming.

      The facts, that the waves of infection properly known as “The Great Plagues” were inevitable once sailing technology had broken the ocean barrier between Eurasia and North and South America, and people trying to find arable land during the Little Ice Age could get here, is something they do *not* want to hear! It would undo their chances to condemn the greatest obstacle to their waves of reaction against the one thing they hate, growing worldwide industrial culture. We should not expect any competent discussion from them on it. It would not meet their goals of political power over Civil Society.

      1. It would be funny, but all too predictable, to read the SJW critical theory reaction to the possibility that the new world gifted the old world the gift of syphilis.

        1. It did. In return, Europe gave the Americas smallpox, measles and a lot of other things that laid Native Americans low like ripe wheat. Europeans simply had better immune systems than did Native Americans when the two first connected in significant numbers.

          Europeans didn’t come by their superior evolutionary fitness without cost, of course. But the Crusades took a lot of Europeans into parts of the world none had ever been in before and countless major and minor contagions were brought back with the survivors when they returned home. Then there was that Black Death thing in the 14th century.

          By the time the 15th and 16th century era of exploration and American colonization got started in earnest, a live European was the beneficiary of a lot of ruthless and pitiless natural selection over the preceding five centuries. If Native Americans had been more peripatetic prior to their First Contact with Europeans, things might have gone rather differently.

          1. Yup, there was a mutual spread of disease but most people don’t know about the mutual part and think the rest of it was intentional.

      2. All quite true.

        Tribal barbarism, as a social form, works fairly well for the few at the top – rather less well for those down in the rank and file, especially women. Frontier life among European settlers wasn’t easy, but probably looked like a comparative walk in the park to a lot of Native American women. I think statistical studies of “white” DNA would demonstrate this conclusively. Americans are mostly mutts. American Exceptionalism is, in my view, rooted in no small part in our hybrid vigor.

        As for the anthropologists, you are spot on about them. I remember my trig instructor saying that trigonometry was a closed branch of mathematics – there were no outstanding unproven conjectures. With how-are-you-going-to-keep-’em-down-on-the-farm-once-they’ve-seen-Paris syndrome busily at work everywhere there are aboriginal peoples, the greatest fear of anthropologists is following trigonometry into the population of closed areas of study. There was even a comedy film with this as a premise some years ago called ‘Krippendorf’s Tribe.’ It’s no accident there exists a publication entitled ‘Cultural Survival’ that exists to tub-thump for the preservation of every possible extant tribal barbarism in perpetuity. Apparently one can never have enough tiny societies based on counting one, two, three, many, endless inter-tribal aggression, every bad thing is the fault of demons, we are real people, the rest of you are something else, women are chattel – and the rest of the neolithic sicky-bag.

    2. What I have been reading is that the average “white” American is about one generation closer to NA than Warren. She’s pretty darn European.

      1. Probably a lot more than one generation. It would be nice to see some actual scientific study devoted to this, but I suspect the academic PC police would have a cow at the mere suggestion. The results would almost certainly seriously screw with many aspects of The (atheistically sacred) Narrative.

  3. I’m not sure ancestry or 23 and me would even list such a low % of DNA. They will say less than 1% but I’m not sure how close to 1% you have to be for them to assign it to a group. Its statistical noise.

  4. Wodun is right. My wife and I know a professional genealogist who said that a 1% reading from Ancestry or 23 and Me is statistical noise and is unreliable. Essentially it’s zero. The reports I’ve seen said that Warren is sixth-to-tenth generation. I wonder if that’s a one or two standard deviation range? If the actual measured value is in the middle that’s a part in 256, well below the cut-off suggested by my friend.

    On the other hand, my brother did his analysis and he’s 5%. That’s real signal. I look a lot more like my part Native American mother than my brother does, so if phenotype is indicative of genotype (which it may not be), then I may have inherited more NA biomarkers than my brother did during genetic recombination. Gee, I could have bought into that grift and guilt-manipulated my way to Harvard! Except . . . I’m conservative, i.e. classical liberal, so it doesn’t count.

    1. I look a lot more like my part Native American mother than my brother does, so if phenotype is indicative of genotype (which it may not be), then I may have inherited more NA biomarkers than my brother did during genetic recombination.

      It’s funny how that works. We tend to simplify things looking at a family tree and saying we are x amount of this or that but the genetics can be very different.

  5. It’s hysterical that the average white person in the USA has 0.18% Native American DNA, and Fauxcahontas has 0.097% So she’s whiter than the average white person!

    1. “Bustamante’s analysis places Warren’s Native American ancestor between six and 10 generations ago, with the report estimating eight generations.”
      Call me pedantic but:
      Six generations would make it about 1.5%, eight generations about 0.4%, ten generations about 0.1% native ancestry. Just saying.

      1. I find this conversation in general to be odious and don’t want to discuss it, but the math is interesting.

        Andrew, you are assuming the situation is 50/50 for each generation, but it isn’t. I’ll quote from this site:


        “If you are female, you inherit 50% of the nuclear DNA from mom, 50% from dad, because they each give you an X chromosome. If you are a male, you get slightly more than 50% of your nuclear DNA from mom, because you get her X chromosome and dad’s Y chromosome, and the X chromosome has 153 million base pairs and about 2000 genes, while the Y chromosome is about 58 million base pairs and about 200 genes. so if you calculate on the bases of the whole genome, which is about 3.3 billion base pairs, it ends up being that you have around 2.7% more nuclear DNA from your mom. An interesting point here is that fathers pass down a bit more nuclear DNA to daughters than to sons, because they give the much larger X chromosome to daughters!

        Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is very, very small (~17000 base pairs), but there are many genomes per cell. In humans (in mammals in general), mtDNA is inherited only from the mom…”

        And so on, there is more. But if you want to be really pedantic, you should take it all into account.

        1. So in essence you are concurring that Elizabeth Warren was wrong to claim any substantial Native American heritage on any work applications.

        2. Odious because dare we question the Democrats on their continued use of the One Drop Rule when determining what Political Race a person is, especially when Progressives are handing out reparations or punishments.

          1. I think Mr. Ortega has the right translation of Bob-1’s post. With “Party Line Bob,” the translation is almost always going to be, “Whatever helps the Hive.” (And through the Hive, the State.)

        3. Bob, Ms. Warren claimed affirmative action bonus points in, among other instances, her application to Harvard Law School by claiming to be Native American, and when that was publicized she refused to act in a “centrist” manner and instead doubled down on her malfeasance and publicly referred to her “high cheekbones”.

          Then she had her DNA sequenced, discovered her native American ancestry was less that the average American “white person”, but decided to publicize it anyway, just before a critical midterm election. Which resulted in a near-unanimous denunciation by authentic native American tribal leaders.

          Please clarify Bob, what exactly do you find “odious” about this affair?

          1. Above, Dick Eagleson suggested that white settlers didn’t commit genocide against Native Americans. Above that, Rand repeats the “Fauxcahontas” jibe, which refers to Pocahantas. There is an ironic connection: last year, Trump called Warren “Pocahantas” at a ceremony for Native American Code Talkers under a portrait of Andrew Jackson, who orchestrated and executed the Indian Removal Act, including the Trail of Tears, complete with starvation, internment camps, forced marches under deadly conditions, etc — scenes of that event so strongly resemble the Holocaust that it makes me sick – and that’s just one small example of a centuries long genocidal project. Yes, there was unanticipated exposure to Eurasian pathogens which caused mass death, but if we ignore that, and only consider official policies toward the survivors and their descendants, we see a genocide. Or at least, scholars who can produce mountains of physical evidence see a genocide, even if you don’t.

            If you don’t find the denial of a genocide odious, then I’m hardly surprised that you don’t realize or don’t care that referring to a Native American as “Pochantas” or referring to the non-Nativeness of a person by calling them “Fauxcahontas” is a racist slur.

            Well, I don’t expect to convince you. But there is still a science/math/engineering vibe to this blog, and I hoped (and still hope) you might try to top my trying to top Andrew, by being even more pedantic, and really dig into the science of the issue, rather than just the politics.

          2. Ah, OK Bob, you’ve given me some help here, thanks, I think I’m getting a bead on it. Falsely claiming an ancestral background you don’t possess in order to benefit from a government program designed to help disadvantaged people (which you are not) is “odious” because… It’s ironic. And the holocaust. Which makes you sick. And it’s natural for one to become sick at odious things. Got it (I think).

            Tell me Bob, if there were a government program designed to assist the ancestors of Jewish holocaust survivors, and it was discovered that someone had falsely claimed to be a member of that racial group and benefitted from that program, what would be the appropriate societal response? Would it be appropriate to adjust that response if the individual failed to admit a moral lapse and instead prevaricated and claimed they’d never had a nose job and their aquiline facial features were really natural?

          3. Curt actually typed:

            “Would it be appropriate to adjust that response if the individual failed to admit a moral lapse and instead prevaricated and claimed they’d never had a nose job and their aquiline facial features were really natural?”

            Seriously? If this were my blog, I’d ban you for anti-semitism.

            I don’t like Senator Warren’s policies or politics, but the right thing to do is to criticize her without resorting to denying genocide or throwing around racist slurs.

            You might not like my politics, but the right way to argue with me is to not throw around anti-semitic slurs and stereotypes.

          4. While I do oppose anti-Semitism, why is Curt’s comment worse than Warren’s about her “high-cheekbones”? Why defend her fraudulent behavior? You should be happy that she’s imploding like this unless you really want her to be your candidate in 2020 (I sure do).

          5. Rand, I haven’t defended Warren at all. I said I found the conversation here to be odious for the reasons I explained.
            Curt doubled down by repeating an untrue anti-semitic stereotype. I was unaware of Warren’s reference to cheekbones until I read your comment. Without knowing the context – lets just stipulate that it is offensive (I don’t know if it is or not but it is at least somewhat ridiculous because lots of people in lots of places have high cheekbones), but stipulating that Warren was wrong to say it, I have to repeat that what Curt said is wrong and bigoted. I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to modern racism against Natives – I don’t know if saying “high cheekbones” is a common way to be derogatory toward Natives or not, but I know what kind of person talks about “Jewish noses” and I don’t like them.

          6. For anyone thinking “but that’s how Jews look”, this article is for you:
            Key takeaways: the “aquiline” shaped nose you think of as Jewish can only be found among a small percentage of Jewish people, and it is just as uncommon among Jews as it is among other people around the Mediterranean (Eg Italians, Portuguese, etc). However, it has a history as a derogatory Jewish stereotype.

          7. Bob-1, the genocide angle is a difficult one because it is a complicated situation with many different players rather than just two. The claim also ignores how things were in those days and tries to apply a modern interpretation of events. One of the problems with this is that it ignores how the cultures of Native Americans behaved toward not only the USA but also France, England, Spain, Russia, and the other colonial powers but most importantly, how they behaved toward other tribes.

            Prior to the end of the Indian Wars there were almost 400 years of history of interactions between all the parties involved and even longer if you look at the pre-Columbian era. There was warfare between Native American tribes and warfare between Native Americans and the various groups of people immigrating to the new world. During all of this there was shifting allegiances, broken promises, and atrocities committed by all involved.

            Casting blame and holding anyone accountable today for what happened in the past is pointless, not just because no one alive today is responsible but because everyone had blood on their hands. It was a very harsh period of time to live in.

            The history of all of this is very fascinating but it seems our education system does its best to not tell these stories.

          8. The reaction of the code talkers at that event should tell you all you need to know. They thought it was amusing. You can be offended but don’t be offended for them. They are sentient human beings capable of making their own decisions about how funny it is to make fun of a lady trying to steal their culture for professional and political gain.

            You can’t just say any criticism or mocking of Warren is racism or racist slurs. That is just literally making things up because a Democrat politician got caught in the identity politics trap of the progressive stack. “Pochantas” and “Fauxcahontas” have never been racial slurs and they aren’t now just because Democrats need a get out of jail free card.

            The offensive thing isn’t what anyone said about Warren, it is the actions Warren engaged in.

          9. Bob-1,

            It’s a little difficult to “put aside” all the epidemiology involved in Native American population decrease starting in the late 15th century as said epidemiology accounts for the overwhelming majority of the total. I will say that it’s unusually “white of you” to acknowledge that there was no premeditation behind any of the numerous bateriological and viral calamities visited upon Native Americans. Most of your fellow progressives don’t seem to agree.

            As for what happened to the survivors later, that also varied a lot.

            In the case of most tribes, a lot of their rank and file seem to have gone over to the white side quite willingly – especially women – and disappeared into the generally mongrelized genome of “white” North America and the developing Can-Am social order. In short, they abandoned “their ways” and adopted ours.

            After epically massive disease and mass desertion, what remained of Native America were pretty much the dead-ender tribal barbarians. Even for them, fate was mostly being corralled on reservations rather than being killed, but there were many decades of low-level Native American armed resistance to the spread of settlers and both said settlers and the U.S. military, on their behalf, shot back.

            Native Americans never really stood any long-term chance of resisting European/Can-Am civilization. Tribal barbarism, even when it’s a rooted and agricultural tribal barbarism, is simply incapable of standing against mechanical civilization. That is even more true for nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes. They require a truly insane amount of real estate to support each of their numbers. Europeans/Americans quickly outnumbered the natives because their social order was far more efficient in terms of per capita land use.

            It’s one of many baseless, yet catechistic, beliefs on the Left that no society is superior to any other – except for Western, and, in particular, American society, which is just canonically awful.

            But some cultures simply are better than others. Machine civilization is better than any form of tribal barbarism and will inevitably sweep the latter aside when the two are in close proximity. Barbarians will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

        4. Bob-1, I can safely point out that given my rounding your points would not have altered the numbers I offered.

          1. I agree with Andrew. I don’t necessarily agree with his numbers, but bob didn’t add anything to the discussion beyond suggesting he could be more pedantic, which everyone already knew and nobody cared.

        5. Yes, considering how central the whole idea of “race” is to identity-politics lefties, I’m sure the notion of statistical geneology fairly curls your hair.

  6. She should have just said it was family lore but upon further research it turned out not to be true. But instead she went for a carefully crafted deceit, knowing that Democrats would eat it up. For the money she spent shopping for geneticists, testing, and video production, couldn’t she have hired a genealogist to trace her family tree? I bet PBS would have done it for free.

    It seems pretty ridiculous that she can’t trace her family back to when they immigrated to the USA. Unless there was a fire in a records building or an ancestor without a paper trail, it would be rather trivial, especially if she paid a pro to do it. I suspect some of her family have done this, considering how popular it is in the USA, but doesn’t want to get burned by the DNC media for speaking out.

    Sorry Elizabeth, we can trace our family back to Germany and that other place in Germany and that other place that used to be Germany then wasn’t Germany but then became German again.

  7. 0.098% Native American chromosomes make you a Native American, but 100% X chromosomes don’t make you a woman.

  8. U-235 is only about 0.7 percent of uranium ore, with the remainder being U-238 (and a smattering of U-239 IIRC). In other words, U-235 is more prevalent in natural ore than Her Nibs is a native American, by about an order of magnitude.

    Just a passing thought. I’ve been re-reading “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”….

Comments are closed.