Julian Brave NoiseCat posted an article at Huffington Post entitled "Elizabeth Warren is Not Native American" see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-elizabeth-warren-native-ancestry_us_5bc5f8d9e4b055bc947a6e13 The article reflects the consensus that has emerged among people on the left and right about Warren's right to claim this portion of her heritage. Sure, many of these folks frame their remarks in terms of tribal and racial identity (the tribal angle is definitely a straw man since she never claimed affiliation with the organization known as Cherokee Nation).
The majority of their arguments, however, are based on emotion - NOT on logic. And that emotion is based on their feelings about Native American culture. For many of these folks, it's about belonging to a community and having the right to say who does/doesn't belong to that community. It's also about identity - a distinctive identity that they believe belongs to them and those who share their experiences. Nevertheless, we will deal first with how many of these folks frame their own objections: The inheritance of ethnicity and generational distance from the Native American ancestor. Later, we will explore the cultural phenomenon which I believe is the true motivator of their objections to Warren's claim.
We will begin with a discussion of how DNA is inherited. The chart below was borrowed from the website link which follows it and reflects (on average) how we inherit DNA from our parents and ancestors:
https://dna-explained.com/2017/01/11/concepts-calculating-ethnicity-percentages/
Now, while this chart is very helpful in explaining the concept of genetic inheritance, the way that ethnicity is inherited can be much more complex. DNA is inherited in blocks, and we can sometimes inherit an entire block (virtually intact) from one of our parents. Moreover, if the ancestor who is the source of a particular ethnicity is less than 100% of that ethnicity, the math in the above chart will obviously change (e.g. If your grandparent is 50% Native American, then you are only going to be about 12 1/2% - not the full 25% of DNA you would be expected to inherit from that grandparent). Finally, notice how much the DNA received from an individual ancestor is diluted in just six generations! And yet, as I said before, take away any one of these generations and you wouldn't be here!
And, keep in mind, we've been talking about Autosomal DNA. What if we look at paternal or Y-chromosome DNA? I know an Alabama lady with Georgia roots who is "as white as you can get" whose paternal ancestor was African (some of her male cousins were tested, and she's not unique). How far back? Since the Y-chromosome doesn't change much over time, that African male ancestor could have literally lived thousands of years ago. Same thing with Mitochondrial DNA and maternal ancestry - we could be talking about a matriarch who lived thousands of years ago!
I also mentioned that the perspective of many of these critics of Warren is distorted. For many of these folks one hundred or two hundred years is a long time. Likewise, six generations seems far removed from the person who is studying his/her ancestral heritage. Nevertheless, if we take just a moment to reflect on historic sweep and lifespans, our perspective clarifies and becomes more informed.
We must remember that humans have existed on this earth for less than a fraction of one percent of the time which life has existed on this planet. Indeed, entire species have lived and died before humans arrived on the scene. Thus, we can clearly see that two hundred years is as the "blink of an eye" relative to the whole story.
In terms of how we reckon generations, we should also remember that Queen Elizabeth II is only the seventh generation since the reign of King George III (the British monarch at the time of the American Revolution). In fact, it has only been about one hundred twenty-four years between my birth and that of my great great great grandfather - 6 generations. Moreover, we all know that it is not uncommon for four generations to overlap (e.g. my mom and dad, me, my daughters and my grandchildren). Hence, we can see that six generations isn't that distant from the present.
There is also the question of the human lifespan to consider. The average lifespan of a White Oak is 300 years (and this remarkable tree can live 300 years beyond that). The average lifespan of a Redwood is 600 years (and it can live over 2,000 years). Red Sea Urchins can live 200+ years, and Bowhead Whales can also live about 200 years. Hence, we can see that our 70-80 years on the scene is rather brief when compared to some of the other organisms with which we share this planet!
On the other end of the spectrum, we know that Domestic Rabbits live 8-12 years, Guinea Pigs 4 years, Mosquito Fish 2 years, Chameleons 1 year, and Fruit Flies about 40-50 days. Moreover, by studying these organisms, we have learned that these abbreviated lifespans often go hand in hand with short gestation periods and astounding rates of reproduction. Allow yourself to think for a moment about how many generations of rabbits we might see in the space of ten years!
Thus, when we include the above observations into our calculations about the inheritance of ethnicity, we see that the perspective of many of Warren's critics is short-sighted and distorted. But what about those cultural considerations?
In attempting to evaluate culture in as dispassionate a way as possible, I think that it is instructive to ask some questions. For instance, has the criteria/standards for tribal membership changed over the years? Are folks who can claim at least 50% Native American ancestry considered Native American if they don't belong to a tribe or live on a reservation? Are only certain surnames acceptable in claiming this ethnicity? Should Native Americans who live like most Americans of European, African and Asian descent be recognized as belonging to a distinctive cultural community? What if a person does not speak the language, read the literature, listen to the music, wear the clothing or participate in the art work associated with his/her tribe? What if a person does not practice or participate in traditional religious beliefs? What if a person is not an integral part of the economic life of the community? What if I appreciate my drop of blood, and you revile/reject/ignore your status as a "pure/full-blood"? Are African Americans who are descended from slaves who were owned by Native Americans part of that community/tribe?
I believe that cultural identity is a very personal thing (which accounts for the emotion evident in these arguments about Senator Warren). Do we deny George Soros the right to claim a part in the Jewish community because his parents didn't practice the religion? Do we deny him that right because his family concealed their background, secured false identity papers and claimed to be Christian during the Nazi occupation of Hungary? I believe that each of us is entitled to define our own identity, especially if we have the biology and experience (like family tradition) to support it.
Finally, when we Google the term multiculturalism, we get a lot of different definitions (as one would expect of a term that seeks to encompass such a notion). Many of those definitions talk about support for different cultures and ethnic groups and include references to equality of rights and opportunities within the larger society. Among the many definitions, I was particularly partial to the one provided by The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): "'Multiculturalism' is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles" (emphasis mine). In other words, the key to the entire concept is several cultures living and working together within a greater society/community.
In my previous post and as part of the commentary on them, the point was made that race is an artificial construct when we are discussing humans - that there is really only one race, the human race. The U.S.A. is the epitome of this concept which is encompassed in one of its mottos: e pluribus unum (out of many, one). And, to preempt any criticism of that statement, I am not suggesting that the U.S. has achieved anything approaching complete harmony or equality. Nevertheless, there are several distinct cultures present and living together within its borders, and they all profess fidelity to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They have intermarried, influenced the cultures of each other and left their mark on the greater community of which they are a part.
Take a moment to consider the impact of Native American culture on the community known as the U.S.A. Think about all of the Native American place names (e.g. Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, Okeechobee, etc.) How would one quantify the impact and place of things like corn, chocolate and tobacco on the entire community? Where do we think the concept of sacred natural places (National Parks and Monuments) originated? Think about the impact of salicylic acid (aspirin, and other drugs) on the greater culture (think arthritic Native Americans chewing on Willow bark). What about the wide dissemination and appreciation for Native American symbols and art work? Think about how Native Americans have contributed to the story/history of the United States. Consider for a moment the scope of the things that the greater culture has sought to preserve and protect as a heritage from the first inhabitants of this land we all now share (e.g. pueblos, mounds, collections of artifacts, languages, stories, music, dances, etc.). Yes, European culture destroyed/swallowed up much of Native culture; but just consider the impact that Native culture has had on the European and African communities within America. The scope of that impact is truly astounding!
So, yes, Elizabeth Warren is white and mostly European in her ethnic heritage, but isn't it just a tad disingenuous to suggest that she isn't also partly Native American?
The majority of their arguments, however, are based on emotion - NOT on logic. And that emotion is based on their feelings about Native American culture. For many of these folks, it's about belonging to a community and having the right to say who does/doesn't belong to that community. It's also about identity - a distinctive identity that they believe belongs to them and those who share their experiences. Nevertheless, we will deal first with how many of these folks frame their own objections: The inheritance of ethnicity and generational distance from the Native American ancestor. Later, we will explore the cultural phenomenon which I believe is the true motivator of their objections to Warren's claim.
We will begin with a discussion of how DNA is inherited. The chart below was borrowed from the website link which follows it and reflects (on average) how we inherit DNA from our parents and ancestors:
| Generation | # You Have | Who | Approximate Percentage of Their DNA That You Have Today |
| 1 | You | 100% | |
| 1 | 2 | Parents | 50% |
| 2 | 4 | Grandparents | 25% |
| 3 | 8 | Great-grandparents | 12.5% |
| 4 | 16 | Great-great-grandparents | 6.25% |
| 5 | 32 | Great-great-great-grandparents | 3.12% |
| 6 | 64 | Great-great-great-great-grandparents | 1.56% |
Now, while this chart is very helpful in explaining the concept of genetic inheritance, the way that ethnicity is inherited can be much more complex. DNA is inherited in blocks, and we can sometimes inherit an entire block (virtually intact) from one of our parents. Moreover, if the ancestor who is the source of a particular ethnicity is less than 100% of that ethnicity, the math in the above chart will obviously change (e.g. If your grandparent is 50% Native American, then you are only going to be about 12 1/2% - not the full 25% of DNA you would be expected to inherit from that grandparent). Finally, notice how much the DNA received from an individual ancestor is diluted in just six generations! And yet, as I said before, take away any one of these generations and you wouldn't be here!
And, keep in mind, we've been talking about Autosomal DNA. What if we look at paternal or Y-chromosome DNA? I know an Alabama lady with Georgia roots who is "as white as you can get" whose paternal ancestor was African (some of her male cousins were tested, and she's not unique). How far back? Since the Y-chromosome doesn't change much over time, that African male ancestor could have literally lived thousands of years ago. Same thing with Mitochondrial DNA and maternal ancestry - we could be talking about a matriarch who lived thousands of years ago!
I also mentioned that the perspective of many of these critics of Warren is distorted. For many of these folks one hundred or two hundred years is a long time. Likewise, six generations seems far removed from the person who is studying his/her ancestral heritage. Nevertheless, if we take just a moment to reflect on historic sweep and lifespans, our perspective clarifies and becomes more informed.
We must remember that humans have existed on this earth for less than a fraction of one percent of the time which life has existed on this planet. Indeed, entire species have lived and died before humans arrived on the scene. Thus, we can clearly see that two hundred years is as the "blink of an eye" relative to the whole story.
In terms of how we reckon generations, we should also remember that Queen Elizabeth II is only the seventh generation since the reign of King George III (the British monarch at the time of the American Revolution). In fact, it has only been about one hundred twenty-four years between my birth and that of my great great great grandfather - 6 generations. Moreover, we all know that it is not uncommon for four generations to overlap (e.g. my mom and dad, me, my daughters and my grandchildren). Hence, we can see that six generations isn't that distant from the present.
There is also the question of the human lifespan to consider. The average lifespan of a White Oak is 300 years (and this remarkable tree can live 300 years beyond that). The average lifespan of a Redwood is 600 years (and it can live over 2,000 years). Red Sea Urchins can live 200+ years, and Bowhead Whales can also live about 200 years. Hence, we can see that our 70-80 years on the scene is rather brief when compared to some of the other organisms with which we share this planet!
On the other end of the spectrum, we know that Domestic Rabbits live 8-12 years, Guinea Pigs 4 years, Mosquito Fish 2 years, Chameleons 1 year, and Fruit Flies about 40-50 days. Moreover, by studying these organisms, we have learned that these abbreviated lifespans often go hand in hand with short gestation periods and astounding rates of reproduction. Allow yourself to think for a moment about how many generations of rabbits we might see in the space of ten years!
Thus, when we include the above observations into our calculations about the inheritance of ethnicity, we see that the perspective of many of Warren's critics is short-sighted and distorted. But what about those cultural considerations?
In attempting to evaluate culture in as dispassionate a way as possible, I think that it is instructive to ask some questions. For instance, has the criteria/standards for tribal membership changed over the years? Are folks who can claim at least 50% Native American ancestry considered Native American if they don't belong to a tribe or live on a reservation? Are only certain surnames acceptable in claiming this ethnicity? Should Native Americans who live like most Americans of European, African and Asian descent be recognized as belonging to a distinctive cultural community? What if a person does not speak the language, read the literature, listen to the music, wear the clothing or participate in the art work associated with his/her tribe? What if a person does not practice or participate in traditional religious beliefs? What if a person is not an integral part of the economic life of the community? What if I appreciate my drop of blood, and you revile/reject/ignore your status as a "pure/full-blood"? Are African Americans who are descended from slaves who were owned by Native Americans part of that community/tribe?
I believe that cultural identity is a very personal thing (which accounts for the emotion evident in these arguments about Senator Warren). Do we deny George Soros the right to claim a part in the Jewish community because his parents didn't practice the religion? Do we deny him that right because his family concealed their background, secured false identity papers and claimed to be Christian during the Nazi occupation of Hungary? I believe that each of us is entitled to define our own identity, especially if we have the biology and experience (like family tradition) to support it.
Finally, when we Google the term multiculturalism, we get a lot of different definitions (as one would expect of a term that seeks to encompass such a notion). Many of those definitions talk about support for different cultures and ethnic groups and include references to equality of rights and opportunities within the larger society. Among the many definitions, I was particularly partial to the one provided by The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): "'Multiculturalism' is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles" (emphasis mine). In other words, the key to the entire concept is several cultures living and working together within a greater society/community.
In my previous post and as part of the commentary on them, the point was made that race is an artificial construct when we are discussing humans - that there is really only one race, the human race. The U.S.A. is the epitome of this concept which is encompassed in one of its mottos: e pluribus unum (out of many, one). And, to preempt any criticism of that statement, I am not suggesting that the U.S. has achieved anything approaching complete harmony or equality. Nevertheless, there are several distinct cultures present and living together within its borders, and they all profess fidelity to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They have intermarried, influenced the cultures of each other and left their mark on the greater community of which they are a part.
Take a moment to consider the impact of Native American culture on the community known as the U.S.A. Think about all of the Native American place names (e.g. Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, Okeechobee, etc.) How would one quantify the impact and place of things like corn, chocolate and tobacco on the entire community? Where do we think the concept of sacred natural places (National Parks and Monuments) originated? Think about the impact of salicylic acid (aspirin, and other drugs) on the greater culture (think arthritic Native Americans chewing on Willow bark). What about the wide dissemination and appreciation for Native American symbols and art work? Think about how Native Americans have contributed to the story/history of the United States. Consider for a moment the scope of the things that the greater culture has sought to preserve and protect as a heritage from the first inhabitants of this land we all now share (e.g. pueblos, mounds, collections of artifacts, languages, stories, music, dances, etc.). Yes, European culture destroyed/swallowed up much of Native culture; but just consider the impact that Native culture has had on the European and African communities within America. The scope of that impact is truly astounding!
So, yes, Elizabeth Warren is white and mostly European in her ethnic heritage, but isn't it just a tad disingenuous to suggest that she isn't also partly Native American?
People are generally perceived as being whatever their predominant features indicate. Though I would not ridicule Elizabeth Warren as President Trump has chosen to do, it is also difficult not to be at least a little cynical about the way in which she self-identifies. For one reason or another, people have been known to misrepresent their race, most recently, Rachel Dolezal, who had to resign her presidency of the Spokane Washington chapter of the NAACP when her parents came forward and outed her as a white woman. She had actually earned her Master of Fine Arts from Howard University, a traditionally black institute of higher learning, the faculty of which had thought she was black, in spite of the fact that she has no known black or African American ancestors. The woman identifies as being black, and even devoted 10 years to civil rights issues. Now, she is seen as a cultural misappropriator.
ReplyDeleteThere are stranger things. My ex-wife, who was a supervisor with the USPS, was accused of being prejudiced against Hispanics. She certainly thought she had this totally false accusation under control when she said, "Hey, you may not have noticed this, but I, myself, am Hispanic!" Undaunted, her accuser (the union steward) proclaimed, "Yes! But, you are not Hispanic enough! You did not grow up in the barrio, and you don't speak Spanish!" Apparently, it is a point of controversy within certain ethnic groups when someone is seen as relating more strongly to white people. All I can say is that I wish this union steward had been able to attend some of my ex's family get togethers in the barrio.
Several years ago, a Mexican friend of mine shared with me that, his son had recently suffered his first episode of racism. A bunch of gangster types began shoving him around and calling him a "Chink". Some Hispanic people actually do look Asian. The dad chuckled, and said "At least you'd expect racists to get the race right!"
Hopefully, we're just going through some growing pains. It would be nice to believe that some day all of us will get along, without the insults or condescension.
Agreed, and I would say that Rachel was an exceptional case, and that she didn't have any basis for portraying herself as black (attending a traditionally black university and perming her hair doesn't seem like a reasonable rationale for doing so).
DeleteI could talk for days on the subject.
ReplyDeleteBasically I am ok with whatever an individual identifies with at a personal level. Man, female, neither, yellow, white, black, Apache, Hopi, Navaho.
I am able to shape shift about 20 cultures and nationalities myself. The problem is the cultures and nationalities usually identify or endear me as "one of them", BUT ..... probably from "next door." Kinda "the jew unto the jew, or greek unto the greek, but a little off."
Having said that.
Years ago when I descended from the trees unto the plains, I found WE had a better chance of surviving when we met other humanoids with clear identifiers that matched mine. Recognizable from spear throwing distance preferably.
Today, living on a couch, I use those skills for people wearing Adidas or Nike and during intermissions they tell me in short messages the level of coolness bearer of said tokens has to me.
On the street I ask bearer of white polo about the toilet and avoid noisy gangs with pants as wide as sackcloth.
The one could be Bernie Madoff and the noisy gang could be sharing their last penny with a grandmother on welfare.
My point. The survival mechanism has somewhat turned into a morality issue, which should not.
I am sickened by the notion of "black universities". Yet when studying history I can see a sense of pride. I know millions who consider pledging to the flag a fascist custom. Yet I will explain that the Anglo nations are young nations with diverse migrant background and pledging to the flag serves as on of the few and identifiable unifiers to an otherwise divided cloth.
Many things are a luxury item today. We can choose whatever we want to identify with, marry or not marry. It doesnt matter. All will live.
There was a time I would probably whip my knights into submission after complaints by others that sir geofrey was cross dressing on the field of honor. Or one of the "others" would apply at my staff. Perhaps I would employ him until I rolled the wooden horse into the city.
Today we can do easy background check on records and merit and skills. In the past I would only hire a Kerryman for boxing.
Whats my point. We live in luxurious times. I might be chatting with bbs ex wife and find we have much in common on many levels while at first sight I might be prejudiced toward lively, noisy passionate chatter and the impact on my mental frame.
I might be chatting with an internet friend 5000 miles away and upon meeting he just cant stop talking about how trump stole the election from hillary.
My point. A person is what he presents to me in a certain time frame.
Nck