L’enfer, c’est les autres.
–Sartre
Claims of Native American ancestry were once common in New England. My mother’s family, for example, still claims that my great-grandfather’s mother was Native American. I’ve done a fair amount of genealogical research, but I’ve found no evidence to support the claim. On the other hand, the same great grandfather’s grandfather was an Army captain in the Bear River Massacre, a battle the ended with the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Shoshone. Perhaps needless to say, I was dismayed to learn about my ancestor killing Indians.
In Cherokee country, claims of Cherokee heritage are still widespread, sometimes to the point of fraud, and it’s pretty clear Elizabeth Warren had no idea what she was signing up for when she once listed herself as Native American. There are fierce battles among the tribe as whom actually qualifies as a Cherokee. The Cherokee Nation has its own rules for membership. But in the latest controversy over Elizabeth Warren’s heritage, some people have gone too far. It’s one thing to control the membership of a group; it’s another to attempt to control that group’s identity. Ethnic groups, after all, are a social construct, the product not just of who we think we are and how we want to be seen, but how others think of us.
Elizabeth Warren’s release of DNA testing that shows she likely had a Native American ancestor. Time will tell if this was an effective political move, but complaints from and on behalf of Native Americans are largely unreasonable. Warren made no claims to tribal membership. She didn’t even make any claim to Native American identity. She merely provided evidence for the claim that had Native American ancestry. That’s not to say such claims aren’t irritating for the Cherokee.
As Brandon Scott, editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, explains,
We are faced with an onslaught of people who have never lived in our shoes saying, “Those are my shoes too,” simply because they spit into a small, hermetically sealed glass tube and got back DNA results that say they are 7 percent Native American.
His annoyance, one shared by a multitude of tribal members, is understandable. I’m sure there are people out there that lay claim to Cherokee identity because they have the right DNA. As Scott writes,
They post on online forums as Natives, they wear regalia from Eastern tribes mixed with Western tribes, they even go so far to start community groups and give themselves “Native” names that are often so laughable and stereotypical they cease to be insulting.
These people are laughable. Annoying. Ignorant and laughable. Scott notes,
“It is in our communities, it is in the words of our elders and the faces of our children. It goes beyond who our ancestors were — it dictates how we live, how we raise our children, and who we are as a people.
He’s correct, but I think, he only has part of the picture. DNA has no direct bearing on who we are, but it certainly has its indirect effects. It determines skin color and other surface features that impact our experiences and identity. The intersection of race and identity is irreducibly complex.
For example, I’m white, and, as far as my genealogical work can tell, European American. If a DNA test revealed I was 20% African, what would my identity change? I would have grown up as a middle-aged white guy without the oppression faced by the people who shared the same DNA. Clearly, my experience would not be the same as people who grew up as African Americans. Some people would now consider me African American–not just racists–but people who think I show own my newfound genetic heritage. I would try to learn any story my DNA heritage suggests. I might share my test results with my students to open their minds to the idea of race as a social construct. The fact is, none of us is the sum of our DNA or our community. We can’t separate how we see ourselves from how others see us. Even dominant social groups can’t separate their sense of identity from how other people think of them. We react to their reactions.
There is a much more immediate and common example of the difference between ancestry and heritage (or whatever other word you like) that is familiar to any practicing human geneticist.
This may come as a shock to some, but there are a significant number of men and women who discover, through DNA testing, that their biological father is not the man they grew up with as “Father”. Women do not always tell their husband when they have been intimate with other men. A woman’s husband is not always the father of that woman’s unborn child.
For those affected, this discovery can have profound impact — both emotionally and physically.
It means that “family history”, given for medical purposes, is not only not relevant but even dangerous. Certain risk factors are overrated, others are underrated. I can’t imagine the emotional conflicts this might create. It is worth noting that our legal system has long held that biological parentage is irrelevant when determining parental obligations for matters such as child support and custody.
I am disappointed that so many people express such grossly incorrect assertions about ancestry, DNA, DNA testing, and most of all how to interpret the results of DNA testing.
For those who accept the Gospels as expressing truth (even if not fact), there is an excellent example of a father grappling with his own conflicts about a child his wife carries even though they did not have sex.
His name is “Joseph”, and his example is worth bearing in mind as we contemplate these matters.
This is such a thoughtful, insightful, and brilliant post, that I wish it would go viral and be the final word on this mishigas.
Native geneticists apparently dispute the methodology used. It turns out there simply is not enough DNA from Native Americans in this country to make a fair comparison in a scientifically rigorous sample size. The scientist Warren consulted with ran comparisons with predominately South American tribes. It shows commanality but it is not conclusive as a DNA test that would show Scottish or even African ancestry since their sample sizes are so much larger. This is part of why DNA testing is controversial within the community. Since we have so few Native American DNA samples from first Americans on this continent, these tests are actually considered unreliable by other geneticists who would otherwise endorse them.
Why so few samples? Tribal identity is entirely a cultural, social, and political marker. It was viewed as a biological or scientific marker by the scientific racists of the Victorian era who believed skull shapes indicated inferiority and a host of other pseudo scientific concepts used to crush native culture in state schools, forced adoptions, and land seizures. They endured at least a century of paternalistic government agents saying they knew what was best for them. We know they collected native remains without permission to make this pseudo scientific argument. As recently as 1992 scientists used tribal DNA without permission.
Respecting and understanding that history to me is a key part of being a progressive historian and teaching an inclusive history. This is a heritage that comes with a legacy.
In a speech to the national Native American civil rights group the NAIC, Sen Warren gave a powerful retelling of native history I have never heard another white politician give. Some excerpts:
On reclaiming Pocahontas as a hero instead of a Disney princess or epithet:
She then makes it unequivocally clear that she is not a Cherokee, has never claimed tribal membership, and has never used her heritage as anything other than a family story.
She then makes a promise:
She then goes through and eloquently makes a point by point rebuttal to the lie that native Americans are not patriots, are not successful, or are undeserving of assistance from a government that long neglected and even actively harmed it. This was a presidential speech, probably the finest she has ever given and I said as much here at the time.
It stands in stark contrast to the slick rollout of the video, the canned reality show style reveal of the DNA test results, and the use of methology that is controversial within the wider native community. It was an unintentional error that gave real offense to the communities she promised to stand with.
This is not about Trump vs. Warren. Trump is a no good racist who despises and belittles native culture at every turn. This is about how progressive allyship should look in 2018. It’s not enough to be sympathetic or empathetic, a white progressive leader has to listen and respect the viewpoints of people of color. She has to be open to listening to their problems and their solutions as much as dictating her own, no matter how well intentioned.
Warren should listen and learn from the reaction and meet with representatives to hear them out rather than refusing to. This would align with the vision of progressive statesmanship she showed with her first major remarks on the subject. That was a presidential speech, not a half baked reality show. Part of recovering from Trump will require the President who beats him to restore dignity and unity to the office. Her speech was an indicator she was willing to rise to that challenge. This recent action instead stooped to his level and cheapened her heritage by using it as a political prop. The community she claims affinity and allyship with deserves so much more.
“The scientist Warren consulted with ran comparisons with predominately South American tribes”
The cite you offer contains this (emphasis mine):
No. Nope. Ms. Warren made no such claim. Yet another strawman.
Even this article agrees that the test shows “Indigenous American” ancestry.
The objections raised in this piece are exactly parallel to the objections raised by climate science deniers who assert that the data does not prove anthropogenic origin, or the objections raised by tobacco companies that no person’s cancer can be traced to a particular brand of tobacco.
The facts are quite clear. We know that North America was populated by indigenous peoples. The ancestors of Native Americans are drawn from the ancestors of the same pool that the sample was drawn from. There is some chance that Ms. Warren’s indigenous ancestors were from South America. It is far more likely that they were Native Americans from Oklahoma, consistent with her family lore.
I see the same information as you. I have a completely different reaction to her video from you. I find your characterization of that video (“canned reality show style”, “slick”, etc) offensively overstated.
I don’t know where this will all land. Here’s what I do know:
1. The attacks on Ms. Warren have been racist, crude, and insulting to both her and Native Americans
2. Ms. Warren has never benefited from nor attempted to benefit from any claim of Native American ancestry.
3. Ms. Warren has asserted a family tradition of Native American (Cherokee) ancestry.
4. Ms. Warren’s DNA tests confirm indigenous ancestry.
5. The test results show indigenous ancestry, rather than Native American, because there is insufficient data to identify more specific matches.
6. Native Americans are descended from indigenous Americans. It is far more likely that the indigenous ancestors of Ms. Warren are Native American than South American.
I find the hostility being directed towards Ms. Warren in this exchange to be indefensible and outrageous. Even if it turns out to be a political blunder, it absolutely does not merit the extreme responses from your commentary.
This is a prescription for utter and complete failure. No candidate will ever meet this criteria. This criteria exemplifies “professional victimization”.
Every candidate has to listen to and respect the viewpoints of every voter, including people of color. The bottom line is that every candidate has to win the election in order to act on any of their viewpoints. That means that people of color, along with every other voter, have to make a choice among the candidates on the ballot.
When people of color or any other demographic group refuse to participate or refuse to vote for candidates who fall short of their particular standard of “respect”, then those people of color have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences of their choice.
If some “people of color” have an issue with this spot from Ms. Warren, I think the right way to respond is for those people to reach out to her privately. The public attacks on Ms. Warren only encouraged the already outrageous right wing attacks.
It is just as legitimate for me to observe the consequences of the public behavior of these “people of color” as it is for you to so harshly criticize Ms. Warren.
Ms. Warren will win the Nov 6 election for her Senate seat. Thanks to the contribution of the outspoken Native American talking heads, the “Pocahontas” attacks — replete with insulting “whoops” and chops — will be even more widespread no matter what decision she makes about 2020. These Native Americans are damaging the ability of Ms. Warren to act on their behalf as Senator (and she does).
This exemplifies cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It exemplifies the dysfunction of our party.
I had read this article. In another iteration, they mentioned an ethical framework for using indigenous DNA. Problems stemmed from the Havasupai natives whose DNA was used in ways they hadn’t signed up for.
It is extremely troubling that they cite Twila Barnes who is out of her freaking mind. She was out of her mind when this controversy came up, and I wrote about it 6 years ago. She’s an awful person, not to mention a favorite with Breitbart and Fox.
What we have are some misunderstandings. Warren didn’t understand that the Cherokee’s view of heritage was so complicated. The Cherokee and other Native Americans have consistently misconstrued what Warren was claiming and not claiming because they have a different (and as I see it, unsustainable) view of heritage and identity.
Politically, progressives then claimed that Warren was stooping to Trump’s level. I don’t buy this either. It started with Scott Brown. It’s racist and it’s unfair, but it’s also extremely damaging to her politically. I don’t know her campaign’s strategy, but with reasonable voters, it may actually blunt the attacks. Either way, this event is a blip, not a trend line.
I’m puzzled by what seems like a compulsion to blame Warren for not being sensitive enough to what is perhaps one of our most oppressed minority populations. I choose the word “puzzled,” rather than “troubled” because I’m not sure I understand James’s (or his generation’s) position on this and on zero tolerance for the #MeToo movement. I am committed to sympathy and justice for the marginalized, even at my own expense, but I’m puzzled by what almost seems like self-flagellation by some of the left. Feeling bad for someone is generally a good thing, but it has its limits. Feeling really, really bad is not a great thing because it’s more intense. And if our sympathy is based on misunderstandings and mistruths, it may be counterproductive.
As others have pointed out, ancestry is not the same as identity. Warren has proven her minority ancestry, but not her previous claims to minority identity (which she continues to say were a mistake).
The test therefore has no bearing on the ethical issues at stake:
First, is the question of whether Warren used her claimed minority identity to get her position at Harvard. We already knew that this was not the case, and the DNA test is not relevant to that fact (and may even suggest the opposite to some people).
Second, is the question of whether Warren, once hired, claimed minority identity. This is proven, and it is an ethical issue, as it potentially undermines the effort to get actual minorities as tenured faculty at Harvard. Even after her DNA test, Warren continues to see this as a mistake. Not all press coverage has been clear on this, which is a potential problem — both for Warren, and for diversity efforts.
I am sure this was not her intention, but Warren has significantly muddied the issue.
She just got carried away with some family lore. Identity is only important with regard to university budgets and the discrimination lawsuit industry but she had nothing to do with that. Why she can’t admit she just did something dumb says more to me. Naive and also insecure about her intelligence.
She’ll never get through the 2020 primaries. Imagine what the Clintons will do to her.
What role do you envision the Clintons playing in the 2020 primaries?
I think it’s relevant that part of Warren’s family lore was that her paternal grandparents opposed her parents marriage because of her father’s Native American ancestry.
That is a significant part of her story even if it were the case that her family were mistaken and she had no native ancestry.
It also shows how identity is really separate from ancestry.
In a normal world, that is to say were our politics to be an above-board endeavor where all sides honestly and earnestly play by the rules, I would suggest that Senator Warren, in advance of a presidential run, called Trumps bluff. She might be able to use his broken promise to donate money to highlight his lack of character — And I do think such a play will have affect upon a majority of voters — But I think Sen Warren has under-estimated the venality on the Right. And it’s going to get ugly… and violent.
The question is no longer about whether Sen Warren made the right play, but rather what should any honest and eanest Democrats do in the face of the political madness that is the Trump train? If this isn’t the best political move, what is? People are found of accusing the Democrats of “Bringing a knife to a gunfight”… But, as we’ve seen, the question soon becomes what to do about pipe bombs… And I’m hard pressed to see it’s going to stop there.
So, I’m not going to critique Sen Warren for any political misteps, first because I don’tthink it is on the face of it, but secondly, because we’re outside the realm of honest politics and the best I can hope for is the Democrats to maintain their honesty…
Plus, we really do not know that this is a misstep.
People are really much too quick to wring their hands. Which is like a red flag to the attack machine.
Well said.