First Transracial Senator?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Capracus, Mar 12, 2018.

  1. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    From what I’ve read of preferences among Native Americans regarding terms of identity, is that most would not take “native”as a slur, but they may consider some personal refinement in terms more acceptable.
    I would say that Lizzie is quite comfortable with the term.

    Full statement by Elizabeth Warren on ancestry

    The following is the full statement provided to the Boston Globe by Elizabeth Warren’s campaign Wednesday night regarding her assertions of Native American ancestry.

    Growing up, my mother and my grandparents and my aunts and uncles often talked about our family’s Native American heritage. As a kid, I never thought to ask them for documentation - what kid would? - but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a part of who I am and part of my family heritage.

    The people involved in recruiting and hiring me for my teaching jobs, including Charles Fried - solicitor-general under Ronald Reagan who has publicly said he voted for Scott Brown in 2010 - have said unequivocally they were not aware of my heritage and that it played no role in my hiring. Public documents that reporters have examined also show I did not benefit from my heritage when applying to college or law school. As I have confirmed before, I let people know about my Native American heritage in a national directory of law school personnel. At some point after I was hired by them, I also provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.

    The people of Massachusetts are concerned about their jobs, the future for their kids, and the security of retirement. It’s past time we moved on to the important issues facing middle class families in Massachusetts.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Comfort? I doubt you think Warren's family and so forth actually used that kind of bureaucratese in their conversations - or do now.
    You, like the rest of us, can recognize that new and awkward language for what it is, and understand when and when not to use it.

    And - btw - are you satisfied with the verification via DNA of her family history? You were strident in demanding it, and posted many implications of bad character based on what you and the boys were pleased to refer to as Warren's "refusal", her "hiding" something, etc.

    Since - as it turns out - her family story was accurate and her behavior not at all deplorable,

    how about an apology, and then a change of behavior on your part?

    Because Warren has some fairly important things to say, that bear on the governance of the US. And the media-amplified chorus of yammering wingnut tools for the Trump Party has been a significant obstacle to having them heard.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    it wasnt enough though
    they started employing little school boys to act all manly and flush their white blushed cheeks around.
    just what the republican party were looking for.

    little white school boys being all bossy and domineering to old men..
    quite the wet dream they created for themselves.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    New and awkward language? The term Native American has been in common use for 50 years.
    Anything Liz can do to verify her claims regarding her family history is a positive move on her part, her refusal to do so when practical was not.
    Her version of her family history is far from accurate. She has no proof of any tribal affiliation, and her genetic ties are not as strong as she advertised. I don’t fault Liz for wanting her family stories to be as she imagined, I just faulted her for not taking the practical measures to back up her claims.
    Apology for what? Asking Liz to do the right thing and verify her family history? You think she’d be better off trying to defend her imagined family origins rather than the updated version?
    Well that’s the price of being a public figure these days, when everything you’ve said or done becomes potential fodder for some ideological crusade.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I posted a link for you.
    By officialdom, yep. And Federal policy imposed, if you read the link. But that did not rehabilitate the old and offensive term "native". And it won't, any time soon.
    There is no ideological crusade involved. There is slander and calumny and media agitprop involved.
    Her version of her family history matched - perfectly - all of the physical and anecdotal evidence that existed then and has come out since. Her genetic ties came out right on the money (her claimed relationship was solidly in the range)- and that was, as noted, partly luck. She rolled the dice, and won.
    The Cherokee Tribe officials did not think it was the right thing. Neither did lots of reasonable people with no skin in the game. People have no difficulty spotting racism, when it's that obvious.

    And in addition to thinking it wrong, nobody with a brain in their head thought it was even useful or suggested - for starters, the DNA test was not reliable for the supposed purpose (there was a fair possibility that the DNA of an actual great great grandparent would not have registered at detectable levels, that her great great grandmother cheated, that her ancestor was a white or black adopted tribesman, etc); she hired a topflight evaluation, and got lucky, both. It was not a good way to "verify" her family history, in other words, and that has been obvious from the beginning of this bs.

    So yeah - apologies for being a slandering tool of the scum of the US political landscape are in order. Whenever you get around to it won't be too soon.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    but the carefully curtailed dog-whistles kept in step with the birther-gate conspiracy supporters.
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I read the same link, you are delusional. It's not offensive. The Federal government adopted this language from the civil rights movement in order not to offend. What's offensive is people calling themselves Native American due to a family story, or a distant relative several generations ago, even when they are not involved in tribal culture whatsoever. It's cultural appropriation. Warren is doing a decent job of making amends lately though. I guess she got the memo.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i think this is the only sane question for debate, around the nature of what is and what isnt.
    allowing extremist self interest to try and mislead the conversation into a proxy ego war is not going to produce positive outcomes for anyone except those grave-robber cult-of-personality-types.

    part of what i observe as being obstruction to educating the ignorant public is the part of who has a right to define the nature of what is appropriation.

    i cant help but wonder how much this may be attached to a corporate agenda

    the white middle class entitlist scream of catch-all-knee-jerk "i have rights too" is not a positive gain to the intellectual discussion around advancing consciousness of cultural diversity and cultural preservation & education.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So you are offended that people who have ancestors from a specific race claim they have ancestors from a specific race?

    Well, this is going to really shock and appall you then. I am Austrian! In fact my great great grandfather did one of the stained glass windows in St. Stevens. But genetically I am less than 10% Austrian.

    I expect the PC police to be at my door within hours.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So the several link informants, I, multiple writers, and every red individual I know personally are not really offended by red people being referred to as "natives" - we're fooling ourselves?
    No doubt they meant well, and did the best they could.
    Which, as noted, neither Warren nor anyone we know of in her family did, in the first place.
    And you have been corrected on your confusion of "tribal culture" and race more than once, now. Time to adjust.
    According to my family history, I am probably 1/4 red (at least 1/8) - tribe unknown and probably irrelevant (grandmother raised in an orphanage). Can you explain to me what culture I am appropriating, when I make that claim?

    Race is not a culture. "Native American" is not a culture - or a Tribe. The OP explicitly specifies race as the matter of concern, with Warren.
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Red people? WTF? And I'm being insensitive?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Clueless. My guess is you have no personal experience. And you haven't read - carefully - even the Wikilink provided.

    And you have put yourself at the service of the jackal pack currently taking down - one by one - the Democratic Party politicians and related political movements that pose a threat to their paymasters and media handlers.

    Warren is a central and so far proponent of financial industry re-regulation, for example. One of the few verifiably effective, actually dangerous to Wall Street. And here we have her referred to as "we can do better than that", because she has accurately and with a certain note of familial pride - however naive - claimed to have "American Indian" ancestry.

    And not, btw, a grandmother (as the stereotype of naive "liberal" has it, and me by circumstance), but a grandfather. An aspect of her claims that the jackal pack - which includes you - has managed to deflect from consideration.

    I bet you can't. If you can, let's see the "better".
  16. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    It’s a word, among many other appropriate words to identify descendents of indigenous people in the US. Most reasonable people, regardless of origin, realize this fact and are not offended by its use.
    Every public figure is always in somebody’s cross hairs when it comes to ideologic crusades, why would you expect it to be any different for Lizzie? She offends the right because of her politics, and they pounce on any error in judgment. She offends some natives because she claimed to be one of them without the proper credentials. If she wants to succeed in this game she needs to be honest about her mistakes, effectively address them, and move on.
    Warren assumed that her 5th generation grandmother was full blooded Cherokee, which would make her genetically at least 3 % Cherokee. It turns the grand mother was equivalent to a 6th generation native ancestor, making Warren at best 1.5 % native, and at worst 0.01% native. My wife just recently learned that she is potentially 0.01 % native, should she ignore the 99.99 % of her European ancestry and identify as native? To further compounding the weakness in Lizzie’s family story, there is no genealogical data to establish any kind of tribal affiliation, Cherokee or otherwise.
    The Cherokee Tribe does not object to anyone investigating their ancestry, in fact they require such investigations to gain tribal membership. What the Cherokee Tribe does take offense to is people assuming tribal affiliation without sound justification.
    Presently, the only credible evidence that Warren has to substantiate any claim to native heritage is her DNA results, so you should be thankful that she heeded my advice and acquired the necessary ladder to climb out of the hole she’d dug herself.
    So you would prefer that Liz defend the credibility of her statements regarding her imagined ancestry without the aid discernable facts? Or maybe to follow Trump’s lead and define truth as whatever she needs it to be.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Fuck off. I'm telling the truth, and I'm politically aligned with Warren. I refuse to lie for her.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, she did not.
    You are still in the shithole you dug, and there's no ladder in sight.
    By people who don't care who they offend.
    The number of people who don't meet your criterion for "reasonable" is quite large, and includes the best informed adults.
    As repeatedly noted, ideology is irrelevant in these kinds of slanders. You have no defense in any "ideology".
    Your agenda is not an "ideological" anything. It's slander and personal attack. Meanwhile, your juvenile vocabulary - use of "Lizzie" etc - tells us how seriously to take your punk-ass fratboy standards for courtesy and offense.
    Warren did not claim "Tribal affiliation". Warren had perfectly sound justifications for the claims she made.
    Bullshit. She has the consistency and multiply sourced accounts of her entire extended family, plus a whole slew of consistent and supportive circumstances (location, timing, photos, etc).
    Your slanders and bs got blown out of the water by a DNA test Warren should never have been bothered about - but they were no better before that than afterwards.
    I would prefer that people engaged in that kind of trolljob for the scum of the US political arena be humiliated in public and dismissed from any role in the public discussion, and I'm grateful that the DNA test worked out as it did for Warren. She got lucky.

    Now the onus falls on the US media - is this going to be set aside as the embarrassing sucker play it turned out to be, and attention to Warren's significant political role and positions restored, or is this another "emails" sewer in which a helpless media drowns itself in the stupid?
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You have posted several falsehoods here, and your political "alignment" is irrelevant.

Share This Page