Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Boston Globe columnist and Cherokee blogger face off on whether proof of Elizabeth Warren’s heritage matters

Boston Globe columnist and Cherokee blogger face off on whether proof of Elizabeth Warren’s heritage matters

There is much dispute when it comes to Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Cherokee.  What is not in dispute, however, is that there is no known documentary evidence that Warren is Cherokee, and much evidence she is not.

The family line which supposedly has Cherokee lineage has been traced back to the great-great-great grandparent level, and all known documentation points to Warren’s ancestors not being Cherokee.

Evidence and proof matter.  And if those things don’t matter to a law professor, then that law professor has no business running for Senate.

Yet this absence of evidence gives rise to two lines of defense.  First, the argument goes that Warren’s “family lore”may be accurate even if not provable, and second, that it doesn’t matter unless Warren tried to use her alleged Cherokee heritage to her advantage.

These arguments are set forth by Boston Globe columnist Farah Stockman in Elizabeth Warren’s Wetumka roots.  Here’s an excerpt, but by all means read the whole thing (emphasis mine):

The problem with these heritage treasure hunts is that they presuppose that the question of racial identity is always absolute: is she or isn’t she? ….

Nowhere in America has more people per capita who identify as Native American than Oklahoma, where Warren grew up. Twelve percent of people there identify as such.

That’s because the place is literally Native America. It was the last stop on the Trail of Tears, where the federal government deposited tribes forcibly removed from more desirable lands in the 1800s.

Some settled in Wetumka, the homeland of transplanted Creek Indians. By 1890, the tiny town housed a boarding school where native children were taught to live like white people. In 1901, the railroad came and white settlers flocked there to buy cheap Indian land.

Elizabeth Warren’s father — the son of a hardware store owner — was born in Wetumka in 1911. Her mother — a bartender’s daughter, according to some census records — moved there with her parents when she was young….

Race classifications on census records aren’t infallible, according to Billy J. Osborn, author of “Wetumka: A Centennial History.’’

“It is very difficult to determine who is and who isn’t an Indian,” he said.

Ironclad claims of Native American ancestry are often based on the so-called Dawes Rolls, a list of tribal people that the federal government began collecting in 1898. The list was drawn up by a commission that abolished tribal ownership of the land to pave the way for white settlers. It divided up tribal land into individual plots. Native people had to register to receive them. Many refused in protest.

“They said, ‘Why not subdivide the sky?’ ” Osborn said. The rolls closed in 1906, making it difficult to be declared an Indian….

Should Warren have had deeper roots to list herself in a directory of minority law professors? Probably. But unless there is proof that she tried to benefit from that identity — and so far there isn’t any — why should we care how Warren identifies herself? Every family has its lore. Most of us never get to learn how true those yarns really are. Unless, of course, we run for Senate. Or become secretary of state.

In response to this column, Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes wrote a rebuttal rejecting the notion that it is difficult to prove Cherokee heritage or that the complete lack of evidence of Cherokee heritage can be excused.[*]

Here is an excerpt, but again read the whole thing, A Cherokee Can’t Be Found Because A Cherokee Isn’t There:

Though Farah writes, “Ironclad claims of Native American  ancestry are often  based on the so-called Dawes Rolls”, this is not  true. The “Dawes Roll” is the  final roll of citizens of the Five  Civilized Tribes; the Cherokee, Choctaw,  Creek, Chickasaw and Seminole.  Most Indian Nations do not use the Dawes Roll as  their basis for  enrollment or registration. I know it might be hard for some  people to  believe, but there are a lot of other Indian Nations or tribes in the  United States. Everyone is not Cherokee. And Farah’s statement isn’t  even true  for Cherokee ancestry because the Eastern Band uses the Baker  Roll as their  base for enrollment. But, Farah doesn’t tell her readers  that. She makes it  seem that because Warren’s ancestors were not on this roll, one roll, the Dawes  Roll, they might have lost their chance to  ever prove their purported Cherokee  ancestry.

Why didn’t Farah point out the many other rolls of the  Cherokee people like the Emigration  Roll, Henderson Roll, the Drennen Roll,  the Old Settler Roll (two of  them), the Guion Miller Roll, the Chapman Roll,  the Siler Roll, the Lipe Roll, the censuses of 1869, 1880, 1890 and 1896? Or the  muster rolls of Cherokee soldiers from the War of 1812 and the Civil War? Or the  Moravian and the Brainerd Mission records? Or the muster rolls from the  removal? Or the ration lists from before and after the removal? Or the  claims  the Cherokees filed against the US in the 1840s? Why didn’t she  point out  Elizabeth Warren’s ancestors are found on none of those rolls or in any of these  records either?

I raised these issues with Stockman and here is the pertinent part of her e-mail response (emphasis mine):

1) My understanding is the that the Dawes Rolls were created to destroy native lands and in many ways native culture, and therefore many people resisted and were not enrolled. I was told that the Dawes Rolls are a great way to determine native ancestry, but not the only way.   I can’t really tell from Twila’s comments whether she disputes this. She says many were forced to enroll, or ended up on the list anyway. Is she arguing that the list is 100% accurate? I can’t tell and that would be hard to believe. She gives a lot of useful information about the Dawes Rolls which – in a 750 word piece – I would never have been able to include….

3) I have done a lot of research on African American census records and I have found errors in them – white people who were described in census records as black because they lived in a black neighborhood. Black people who passed and were described as white. In some cases, census records reflect the census-takers own biases and assumptions, rather than what people’s racial identity actually was.

4.)    I am a biracial person. My mother is African American while  my father is white. I am always wary of people who try to tell others how they should identify themselves and those who act as self-appointed “gate-keepers” of the race or culture.  The main point of my column – which Twila seems to have missed – is that mixed ancestry, evolving culture and changing definitions often make the question of racial identity more complex than we initially appreciate. I was particularly fascinated by accounts of the free slaves of the tribes who were fighting for recognition as tribal members. So we live in a world where racial identity is complicated. That is why I am not up in arms about Warrens claims – just yet. I’d need more information to conclude that she was trying to game the system. Twila, on the other hand, seems to take such personal affront to someone claiming Native heritage, because it is such an important part of her own identity. She has obviously amassed a lot of very useful and important knowledge about native ancestry, but she can’t expect to be the sole voice on the subject. Her sense of outrage at me not having quoted her email is puzzling. I am not an expert. I’m a columnist.  I call experts up and ask their opinions. The expert I called was a man who wrote a history of Wetumka and who grew up there, not Twila. That seems to be the real reason Twila attacked me.

To which Barnes responded via email (emphasis mine):

1- The Dawes Roll is Final Roll of the citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes. They were not ever intended to record every person in the US who had Cherokee ancestry, but instead, to record the heirs of the Cherokee Nation so those heirs could share in the assets of the nation when the government was dissolved. I am not saying the Dawes Roll was 100% accurate. I am saying I have never personally researched a story about an ancestor hiding out and not being on the roll when they should have been. Every time I research such a claim, the person was not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and not entitled to any of her assets.

Also, as I explained in my blog post, there are many ways to determine Cherokee ancestry even if one cannot enroll or register with one of the three federally recognized tribes. I listed rolls and records that are available to be searched, but I did not list everything. There is just a lot of information on the Cherokees and Warren’s ancestors are found in none of the records.

Also, just because the Dawes Roll has some flaws doesn’t mean Warren’s ancestors were Cherokee. To make such a sweeping statement like she made and then expect that to apply to one person is wrong. There is no evidence to suggest Warren’s ancestors were left off the roll or that they refused to sign up for the roll. They weren’t Cherokee and they knew it. The fact that they moved into Indian Territory right before allotment yet did not even make an application for enrollment (many whites did and were denied) shows that family didn’t consider themselves Indian.

The rest, I have no more to say. She sees this as a fight between the two of us and I see my post as simply correcting her mistakes. This isn’t about her and it isn’t about me. It is about truth in Cherokee history.

Does it matter that based on everything that is known that Warren is not telling the truth about her heritage?

If she did nothing else with it, it still would matter.  Perhaps Warren could be excused for believing family lore in the past, but now that we know it is not accurate, she has no basis for repeating it.  That Warren repeats something she knows has no evidence with such conviction and indignation tells us a lot about her.

And there is evidence Warren sought to use her supposed Cherokee heritage to her advantage.  She used that heritage to put herself on a list of “Minority Law Teachers” at a time when law schools who used that directory were under intense pressure to increase the diversity of their faculties.  Warren then reported that status to at least two employers for federal reporting.

Whether Warren benefitted or not, she put herself in a position to benefit based on a false status as to which she had no proof.

The truth matters.  It matters as much when evaluating the trustworthiness of Elizabeth Warren or any other politician.  And it matters to the Cherokee.


*There is a side issue as to an exchange of information between Barnes and Stockman prior to the column, and whether Stockman ignored information provided by Barnes.  I’ve seen the e-mail exchange, and Stockman says she did not see Barnes’ email prior to finalizing her column.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s funny, but the question of race or sex only matters to the progs. We couldn’t care less what color she is, we know she’s a socialist who speculates on and flips the foreclosed houses (at usurious interest rates)!

Lieawatha needs to just keep doing what she’s been doing!

Is it 5 weeks this has been on the radar screen?

Shorter Stockman…

Hey, I talked to a guy who wrote a book. Get up off my back.

I’ve always considered New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado WAY more Indian than Oklahoma.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    After the Depression and Dust Bowl ravaged Oklahoma, whites, blacks and Indians we all pretty much the same, especially socioeconomically. Growing up poor and part Indian during that time, my father said no one really understood how poor they were or how some people considered having Indian blood as anything remarkable, either good or bad. When he first left in WWII, it was a bit of a shock. He and the rest were able to put their poor and humble beginnings behind them.

    I think down deep inside, Ms. Warren doesn’t want to be known as dirt poor, whitetrash from Oklahoma, who made good. So, she fled from that background and invented an identity that the white, northeastern, liberal elites could admire. In their minds, it’s more acceptable to be from poor, humble minority beginnings than to be just another cracker from fly-over country who thinks they can hang with us New England blue-bloods at Hah’vahd!

      persecutor in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | June 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      I think down deep inside, Ms. Warren doesn’t want to be known as dirt poor, whitetrash from Oklahoma, who made good.

      Lieawatha knows that if she were to be identified as poor white trash the liberals would patronize her and offer to teach her how to use a flush toilet.

      1/32 is just enough to satisfy EEOC quotas, but not enough to be anything less than a card carrying blueblood prog who lives outside Cambridge.

      Ragspierre in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | June 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      My (step) Grandpa was an actual-factual Okie who came to California in the Dust Bowl era. He WAS a good bit Indian.

      As a kid, a big Christmas was when he got an orange, or some walnuts. He worked in the cotton fields with his family from the time he was about three, often from “kan-to-kan’t”…as in see. He went to bed hungry often.

      He lost a couple of fingers to pump-jacks with faulty brakes in Long Beach. He hated a liar, and he would fight with anyone who treated him wrong, even as an old man. Best gardener I ever knew, too.

        WarEagle82 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm

        My mom used to tell me how great it was when she got an orange in her stocking at Christmas. Up until the time I left home at 17, I received an orange in my Christmas stocking to remind me that I had it pretty good.

        These people are so stupid arrogant and self-absorbed that they seem to believe we MUST believe anything they say. And if one of them flat-out lies about anything, and we prove they are lying, the WE are racists…

      l think your analysis is dead on. Having grown up in a small town in central So. Dak. in the 50s no one had the kind of money the lib. eletes routinely walk around with today. lt was unheard of. My dad was a county judge & a construction worker on the Oahe dam made more than he did. lt is a phenominum that is fairly recent where these liberal eletes have created these self enclosed niches for themselves in which they consort only with others of their own type. ln this world they develope self serving narratives that justify their delusions. One such is they could make far more in the private sector but they choose public service instead. Most of them then develope into a wierd combination of smugness & insecurity. As an upholsterer l have dealt with a fair number of them. They are nice enough for the most part but they just dont get it. They swim in a sea of lies & like Professor Warren they see it as true.

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Here in Arizona, there are lots of Native Americans. Does that mean those of us who live here, no matter how pasty white our skin, get to start calling ourselves Navajo or Yavapai or Apache? After all, we drive on roads that go through their reservations all the time. That has to make our claim to Native American heritage as legitimate as Warren’s, at least according to this Stockman woman’s reasoning.

radiofreeca | June 6, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Professor, sorry – “Evidence and proof matter. And if those things don’t matter to a law professor, then that law professor has no business running for Senate.”

I have to respectfully disagree – while great lawyers make great profs (like yourself), if evidence and proof don’t matter to a lawyer, then being a law-school professor is the only profession where society would want them – you certainly wouldn’t want them on the supreme court or on either side of a criminal-justice case 🙂

Otherwise it’s “weekend at Bernies” meets “my cousin Vinnie”

What we need is LOTS and LOTS of law schools, with lots and lots of professors and zero students – that way we can safely segregate them where they’ll do no harm (just like CO2).

    Ragspierre in reply to radiofreeca. | June 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Sorry, radio, but I have to take strong exception to this…

    “…while great lawyers make great profs…”

    I guess it would depend on what you meant, to a degree, BUT…

    good trial lawyers generally make STINKING academics, and vise versa. Two generally completely different…even conflicting…skill sets.

    AND, with all possible respect to our worthy host, a CLINICAL law professor is (often) held in some disdain by his academic faculty fellows.

    Indeed, in most law schools, there is strong tension between what is called “practicum” (by some academics, spoken like something they picked up on their shoes), and the esoterica of academics. The UT law school is known for its academic emphasis. The Texas Tech law school (where my lawyer son-in-law graduated) practical emphasis.

    At my law school, I used to watch with considerable amusement as the sides fought for the upper hand.

Not to say this is a defense of Warren, as I only vote for her if forced at gunpoint, but familiar and racial identity are hard to define at best and prove even more difficult. The registry of ancestors are in no way definitive, they rarely account for things like AFFAIRS. In my life growing up from teenagers, I have seen many married women having affairs with garage door repairmen to life guards to kid mowing the lawn. So if you look at the lineage, it can say one man was the father but it was really someone else. Do any of us whip have not had explicit DNA tests know our exact lineage?

    Warren isn’t claiming an ancestor in the woodpile. She’s claiming official ancestry through a recognized marriage just a few generations back. Sadly for her, the actual record firmly contradicts her “family lore” in that regard.

    As to why at least some of the actual Cherokee are so upset about this, the best comparison would be to Stolen Valor situations where someone claimed to have been at the fall of Saigon when in fact they were at the close of a Safeway in Des Moines.

      imfine in reply to OCBill. | June 6, 2012 at 7:22 pm

      If you get something by lineage, you didn’t earn it. unearned titles are meaningless as they are stupid. At the founding of the republic we decided that “birthrights” were nonsense

        You mean like people can inherit their U.S. citizenship from their parents even though they were born outside the country?

Cassandra Lite | June 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm

“Evidence and proof matter. And if those things don’t matter to a law professor, then that law professor has no business running for Senate.”

If evidence and proof don’t matter, she has no business being a law professor.

TrooperJohnSmith | June 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Should Warren have had deeper roots to list herself in a directory of minority law professors? Probably. But unless there is proof that she tried to benefit from that identity — and so far there isn’t any — why should we care how Warren identifies herself? Every family has its lore. Most of us never get to learn how true those yarns really are. Unless, of course, we run for Senate. Or become secretary of state.

Wow… the Left has now added “being Indian” to the list of things they’re lowering the bar on, so they can practice identity politics.

The article asserts that Ms. Warren has never profited by passing as Indian. No? Well, letting her get away with this baseless and most ridiculous assertion, thus paving the way for her to be elected Senator, sure looks like “profiting” to me.

Since I’m part Sac and Fox, and Jim Thorpe – the greatest athlete of all time – was Sac and Fox, I guess I’ll declare myself merely a great athlete. However, I know, and Ms. Warren should learn, that just because the cat had kittens in the oven doesn’t make ’em biscuits!

What do you mean she didn’t benefit, she went directly to a bunch of lines for which no other minorities were applying.

Queue up 80’s movie [Soul Man] made with this EXACT same plot!!!

DINORightMarie | June 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm

Evidence and proof matter. And if those things don’t matter to a law professor, then that law professor has no business running for Senate.

That is, to me, the crux of the matter. No integrity. No moral foundation, bordering on delusional, IMHO.

Perhaps Warren could be excused for believing family lore in the past, but now that we know it is not accurate, she has no baiss for repeating it. That Warren repeats something she knows has no evidence with such conviction and indignation tells us a lot about her.


Whether Warren benefitted or not, she put herself in a position to benefit based on a false status as to which she had no proof.

The truth matters. It matters as much when evaluating the trustworthiness of Elizabeth Warren or any other politician. And it matters to the Cherokee.

As you say, the truth matters.

If a law professor denies unequivocal evidence that the truth is she has no provable Cherokee ancestry – and she can’t accept or admit that fact – should she be given the honor to represent her state in that august body we call the US Senate?

(NOTE: that is not sarcasm; it is still a high honor to be a US Senator.) 🙂

The Democrat party thinks so, or they wouldn’t have forced out her Democrat primary opponent; and thus, the Democrats declare who and what they really are – and how little they honor and respect the Cherokee Nation in the process, not to mention the people of Massachusetts.

“Doublespeak is language which pretends to communicate but doesn’t. It is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem unattractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids, shifts or denies responsibility; language which is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thought.” -William Lutz

So sick and sad to watch the left engaging in doublespeak to hide the truth about Elizabeth Warren’s dishonest, selfish, self-serving choices. How can they possibly say that she didn’t benefit from these lies??? It is insane.

These folks are kidding themselves if they think they can pull one over on everyone and pretend that Warren’s job-stealing is no big deal.

It is a very big deal – it says everything about Warren’s judgement and character, and these party hacks need to understand that despite their best efforts the truth will out. Times have changed and there is this thing called the Internet now.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Cassie. | June 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can fool not all of the people all of the time.” –Abraham Lincoln

    Unless, of course you are a leftist Democrat…..?

    Yeah riiiiight. They wish.


TrooperJohnSmith | June 6, 2012 at 5:31 pm

IRONY ALERT!: At one time, “liberal” described a person to whom the pure pursuit of the truth, regardless of where that pursuit lead, was the object of all learning and knowledge.

Of course, in the wake of the Progressives’ failures of the early 20th Century, they themselves, assumed the mantle of “liberal”. Shameless b*stards!

Am I alone in relishing the Massachusetts US Senatorial election? Warren is the living, breathing embodiment of the phrase “beclown oneself”. She is a complete clown, big red nose and big floppy shoes and all.

I’ve been waiting years for affirmative action to choke on a chicken bone and finally meet its final end. How utterly, deliciously ironic that the proverbial stake in the heart would be driven by such a perfect scenario: a tawdry, mediocre white female with delusions of entitlement beclowning herself with claims of American Indian (ok, Native American) ancestry.

Fauxcahontas indeed. Now every affirmative action entitlement and recipient can be reduced to calls of “Hey Tonto!”.

How about more lies from the dangerous, insane left:

“Obama’s Truth Team Being Brainwashed:”

Evidence and proof matter. And if those things don’t matter to a law professor, then that law professor has no business running for Senate.

To sharpen what some foregoing commenters have written:

Indeed, her indifference to evidence and proof should disqualify Warren from the legal academy. However, it implies that she’d fit right in at the Senate, especially the Democrat side of the aisle. 😉

All Warren needs to get elected is to package the previous sentence in a form that the gullible MA electorate is eager to swallow.

The criticism—and good stuff it is—to date has probably shaken the Democrat bias of a few swing voters. What remains highly desirable, perhaps essential, is a way to make it unmistakably clear to these voters that Warren’s policies will damage them, not just “the rich”.

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | June 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    “Indeed, her indifference to evidence and proof should disqualify Warren from the legal academy.”

    But for the fact the legal academy is pumped full of the corruption of post-modernism, maybe more than any other.

She. Knows. Better.
That is the point Twila is making. She knows that her little secret was safe when she was at Hahvard. She would have been exposed if she tried that at OU or UT. Nope, through the Dawes rolls they would have been able to claim or denounce their tribe. No proof the denounced. It’s galling.

    gs in reply to soozer47. | June 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    She would have been exposed if she tried that at OU or UT.

    Makes sense, once you realize it. Thanks for pointing it out.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to gs. | June 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      Amen!! At either of those schools, folks would of said, “A thirty-second Cherokee? That all? Hell, Liz, I got dogs wit’ more’n that in ’em!”

Well, she is in the right nest of vipers…

I find people endlessly fascinating. The delusional ones are a HOOT, too…!!!!

I don’t know if I can even describe how angry this makes me. This defense of Warren is a microcosm of the idiocy of the liberal worldview. “Racial identity is complicated”

Please. Absolutely ridiculous. There are lots of words that can be used to describe “racial identity”. “Complicated” is not one of them. One word that does apply, or at least should in an ideal world is “irrelevant”. And isn’t that what MLK Jr. was arguing for ? That the only thing that matters is the content of your character, and not the (ahem, alleged) color of your skin ?

Every single person on this planet has a unique background. I, for one, know exactly the unique things about my parents and grandparents, my upbringing, and my environment that led to me being who I am today. But regardless of one’s history, the only person that should matter to – is you. Of course, all that assumes that Lizzy Warren’s background was actually informed by here alleged Cherokee heritage, which I’m about 100% certain it wasn’t.

I don’t want to hear about how her parents had to elope. OMG, how terrible! I want to hear how Warren and her family were supposedly discriminated against – in real life. Would they have ended up a 4 car family and Liz would have been able to drive to school in a Ferrari instead of an MG if not for the horrible native american persecution she faced ?

The thing is, this whole “I won’t disown my heritage” nonsense is a cover so she doesn’t actually have to answer for the fact that she embellished her background to take advantage of the horrendously ill conceived racial spoils system in this country, most horribly implemented by the most liberal of institutions such as the ultra liberal cocoon at Harvard.

Elizabeth Warren and her defenders do a despicable disservice to actual minorities in this country and the history of their persecution. The idea that lilly white Elizabeth Warren was somehow disadvantaged because of some semblance of native american roots is preposterous. Clearly the exact opposite is true.

I hope what little conservative media there is in MA continues to hammer the living daylights out of her. And Twila Barnes needs to get a FAR bigger audience for her side of this.

I am an amateur genealogist from a family of amateur genealogists. My family has a number of family stories about where we came from. Two in particular were particularly held dear by one of my aunts.

One that we were descended from a Scottish Presbyterian Minister who had excommunicated the king, had a price on his head, and ended up being executed. The other was that we were descended from the 1st Duke of Bridgewater.

I was able to disprove both stories. It turns out that although the Scottish minister had married, he never had any children. You know how it goes, it’s all relative: if your parents didn’t have any children, chances are neither will you. And there was just no linkage between our ancestor with a similar name (with a different spelling) and the Duke. The original work was out there, I just had to dig it up.

The point is that family lore can have deep emotional roots that are hard to sever. Even after seeing the results of my research, me aunt, also an amateur genealogist, would not accept the conclusion that the stories were false. She said there could be other links to these men, or the research was wrong. I’m not sure she ever accepted the truth.

But unless there is proof that she tried to benefit from that identity — and so far there isn’t any — why should we care how Warren identifies herself?

Cart, horse?

(How about we ditch the assumption that some individuals should benefit because of distant ancestral “identity”.)

Twila Barnes is herself now being smeared. The New Yorker dismissively refers to her work as ‘pseudo-genealogy’:

“In recent weeks, one of Warren’s most persistent critics has been Twila Barnes, the proprietor of Polly’s Granddaughter, a blog devoted to Cherokee genealogy and pseudo-genealogy…”

The term is a bit unclear. Does anyone know what, exactly, pseudo-genealogy is?

I know that the term crypto-zoology refers to the study of creatures such as Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Is pseudo-genealogy similar to that, only instead of finding ‘proof’ of the Abominable Snowman, you claim that you are, say, a direct male-line descendent of Genghis Khan?

If that is the case, then it would seem that Elizabeth Warren is the one engaging in pseudo-genealogy rather than Twila Barnes. And the doublespeak goes on…

    Ragspierre in reply to Cassie. | June 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Barnes will be called a race-traitor.


    gasper in reply to Cassie. | June 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    “Pseudo-genealogist” is created from the journalist’s bag of words when they want to denigrate their opponent. It’s where “white-hispanic” originated.

    PrincetonAl in reply to Cassie. | June 6, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Smeared by the left? A red badge of courage, for sure.

    Twila, wear that badge of honor with pride.

    Twila seems like a strong, credible, independent, authoritative, and free-thinking woman. Sounds kinda like a conservative woman, doesn’t she?

    Nothing says that what you are doing is *important* quite like having a horde of attackers focusing on you. Even a horde of arrogant, condescending, bubble-living manhattan media liberal snobs trying to smear you.

    (You can hear the alarms going off in liberal-land … this woman, this creature who has strayed from our version of the reservation, she must be destroyed at all costs! Attack!)

Again, this story alone won’t undermine her. It has to be a collection of stories that undermine her. That’s why I found Meghan McArdle’s article on Warren’s book to be even more fascinating because it tells a story…linked between events…of her deceit and dishonesty.

So more of this type of information will be the straw the broke this camel’s back.

PrincetonAl | June 6, 2012 at 10:04 pm

The initial story isn’t the problem, its the history of it, the double- and triple-down defence, and the same pattern in other areas.

The thing that stands out is the ability to defend and double down so steadfastly on fact-based criticism in the face of a lack of supporting evidence for her own side.

Over the top hyperbolic description of problems in her papers for headline effect, multiple stories about her family and family events that aren’t tru.

Its a pattern. A pattern of delusion. When Slick Willie was caught in a lie, he knew it, he aww shucked it, he tried to change the topic in a charming way. The grasp for power, the amorality was all there – but he seemed human, and he could let you know that he knew that you knew, even if he wouldn’t admit.

This robot has some kind of a pathology.

Just a gut instinct, not some kind of provable with hard-evidence, but my gut instinct says this woman shouldn’t be anywhere near a position of power in a deeper more unsettling way than I get the feeling around just the regular corrupt politician out to make a buck (and knows it, and knows he’s got no regular skills to make a buck some other way, and is just your typical charming amoral grifter).

    Cassie in reply to PrincetonAl. | June 7, 2012 at 8:51 am

    You know Al, you might have a point.

    Since this story broke a month ago, a few of my ultra-liberal family and friends have said a similar thing – that there was something that seemed off about Elizabeth Warren, but they couldn’t put their finger on it or articulate it, so they just shrugged it off.

    They are not shrugging it off anymore. Again, the mainstream media is seriously underestimating the effect of this information on people who actually support affirmative action as a policy. The more people find out the specifics of her behavior, the more people will understand what she did and why she did it.

    But, yes, there is something off about EW – that wild look in her eyes can get kind of creepy, like she is almost deranged. And I say that as a liberal.

How about Warren volunteers for a double blinded DNA test? A and B samples Just like WADA dope testing but for NA genetic markers.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Cheer up . When people the world over think of Massachussetts they don’t or won’t ever think Cherokee .Not even Kennedies. Maybe the Boston tea Party but most of all ……

The Bee Gees!

I could see Prof leading up to today’s clip.

BIO Says It ALL: Farah Stockman graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard College and lived in Kenya and Tanzania, writing as a freelancer for the New York Times, National Public Radio and the Christian Science Monitor. She served as the Globe’s chief foreign policy reporter in Washington, D.C., for seven years. Stockman has won numerous awards, including the Scripps Howard Foundation national journalism award.

Let me ask a simple question that I have not seen addressed yet (though it may be). Are there not genetic markers, besides high cheek bones, that can be determined through testing?

There was a show on TV that demonstrated this technology, and some lily white folks had genetic markers from various ethnicities. The Harvard prof who was involved in the “police acted stupidly” incident found out he had white genetic code and was rightly surprised.

Can this not also be used to solve this once and for all?

As a practical matter, Lizzie would never allow herself to be tested as I suspect we all know the result. I’m just wondering about the technology.