Somehow when this woman said the same sort of thing most everyone says about their ancestry, it was blown up into a huge deal by the GOP Candidate and his Snow Flurries, and he and they have made sure it still is to this day. No wonder they attract the even nastier racists with the torches and swastikas.
I would have thought you would have approved of Trump's efforts to de-weaponize the identity politics that Warren practices by exposing her laughable claim. Sounds like you think race should not play a part in politics, given its dubious relevance (or even existence). Or do I misread you?
Just C-M posting more fake information. Google the picture, it's from 2 years ago and has nothing to do with this story. I checked a 4 tweets against the originals ..... would it surprise anyone that 2 of them were modified from the original tweets?
But what does the man in the commercial say "When I first got on Ancestry I was surprised that I wasn't finding all these Germans in my tree." So basically he is using classical genealogy*, then --it is an advertisement after all, he decides to use Ancestry DNA, to double check what genealogy has already shown.
What I saw was him going after Pochahontas with all his meanest, nastiest attacks over the most ordinary sort of inconsequential sharing of her personal history, making the most of it he could. The very opposite of de-weaponizing. If Donny was against identity politics, he wouldn't have dared her to take a $2 test. But he's no such thing. Saying so is like claiming your white supremacist rally is against racism, because that's what some other guys said about theirs.
Her sharing of "her history" would have been inconsequential had she not relied upon it for: a) recognition as a law professor, and, later, b) political capital among liberal voters (who are very much into identity politics).
I believe you'll find it was actually Harvard that 'relied' on it, but that they ( and she, if you are correct) did so entirely within the rules, exactly as her presidential attacker did in claiming he was bankrupt to avoid paying his creditors, which he says is 'smart'.
I think a lot of people are amused by stories about well known moralizers who are proven (or even accused of, as in the case of Roy Moore) to be hypocrites. Warren puts herself forward as a straight shooting defender of the little man (from banks, etc.) who believes in open borders, that diversity is always good, and women should always be believed. Of course it's amusing to find that she's a female liar, falsely claims association with an historically disadvantaged group, is about as diverse in her background as medieval English royalty, and doesn't mind bending rules if it's to her advantage.
Thanks for the response. Even if it ignored identity politics, and your own style of it, which I was actually asking about, it was entertaining.
I haven't had the test, but my son has, and yes, you are absolutely correct. Same experience.
Bingo! At close range, your DNA can identify you and verify how close is your family connection to relatives who have submitted theirs. But the further you go back up the generations the exponentially larger the number of contributors, and the greater the uncertainty how or when you and any other individuals acquired the bit of DNA you share.
Two further points the gold standard are still: wills, church records, port books and the like, and more recently public records: censuses, birth, marriage and death records. Further, one shouldn't overstate their case.
