First Transracial Senator?

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

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,225
    Zero

    Well one only called human if that's what you are on about

    Otherwise you can talk about foot, horse, dog etc etc

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,336
    We should watch closely, when such terms arise, how and why. Many, for instance, scoffed at Dolezal, but here we find the word people rejected being revived and legitimized by opposition to Warren.

    So does that mean, then, that we need to go back and legitimize Dolezal?

    What we're getting down to seems to be the new racism; remember, after Obama was elected, Republicans decided he wasn't black enough to be black.

    There is some irony to be found in observing that the question is brought to us here by someone with a habit of defining his opposition downward, but that part can be hard to explain: Warren doesn't "look" red enough, and some women aren't raped or molested badly enough, for some people's satisfaction. It ought to sound absurd, but it's also the record, and it seems significant as a question of function, at least.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,827
    coincidentally:
    When I registered my sons for their grade-school after we relocated to Iowa, on the form it asked "race" to which I wrote "human".
     
    Michael 345 and sideshowbob like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    How is the questioning of a dubious claim of an identification with an oppressed racial group considered racism? In fact the racial aspect of of Warrens claim is inconsequential, the core issue is her reluctance to take the simple steps to better substantiate her claim.
    Politically Warren isn’t my opposition. But if she continues to prefer willful ignorance regarding her ancestry, over a solution to provide a clearer understanding of her heritage, then I would have wonder if this same reasoning would be applied to other issues as well.

    If she ever aspires to run for president, she needs to demonstrate a more rational approach to this issue to inspire followers and silence critics.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    DNA wouldn't necessarily resolve the issue, and anyway it's disingenuous, since the only reason you care about it is to attack her reputation.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,336
    Take a breath; stop and think about how ridiculous that is. Whatever you think you're saying, what you said is ridiculous, and this is why:

    • Consider a day that Spidergoat, Tiassa, Iceaura, Billvon, Gmilam, Sculptor, and Bells, are all overlapping within a range of agreement; furthermore, compare Iceaura↑ and ElectricFetus↑ on a certain point, and they're not necessarily in disagreement; "because they were Jews" is actually a fair and proper line, which in its effect only accentuates obscuration resulting from post-Columbian disruption of the American population.

    • Consider, please, the difference: If "racial aspect of of Warrens claim is inconsequential", then

    ―"the core issue is her reluctance to take the simple steps to better substantiate her claim".

    ―the question arises why she should make any extraordinary effort to undertake an unstable endeavor to satisfy racists whose general purpose in the discourse is to be unsatisfied.​

    Yet in another context, she is:

    Why subscribe to the fallacy in the first place?

    The comparison of "willful ignorance" to "a solution to provide clearer understanding" is a racist fallacy. You've already been told why the DNA test is not a solution—(Spidergoat↑, Tiassa↑, Iceaura↑)—and, furthermore, the scientific evidence just doesn't support your posture; cf. Brown et al., 1998↱; Derenko et al., 2001↱.

    A DNA test unlikely to solve anything is neither "simple" nor a "solution".

    So I would ask you to stop and think about how you're going about this, and what arguments you choose to justify.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Brown, Michael D., et al. "mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 63(6), December, 1998, pp. 1852-1861. http://bit.ly/2tNpetJ

    Derenko, Miroslava V., et al. "The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia: Variant 1859G→A (Arg620Gln) of the 'Hairless' Gene: Absence of Association with Papular Atrichia or Androgenetic Alopecia". Letter. American Journal of Human Genetics, 69(1), July, 2001, pp. 237-241. http://bit.ly/2IoBlAy
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,246
    Thing is, when the more liberal folks press Trump for proof he isn't half orangutan, they know what they're talking about and why.
    They have standards of proof, workable ones, that he could meet; meanwhile they understand the silliness of the matter; they understand their own motives for broaching it.

    Do you?

    Have you risen to the intellectual level of recognizing a "yo mama" joke?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,120
    I think perhaps it is a mistake to look to reality TV for guidance in what to do in real life. (Although it's an understandable mistake given our current reality TV president.)
     
  12. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    You call getting a cheek swab or spitting in a vile an extraordinary endeavor? Let’s not forget the mental and physical strain of sealing the envelope and dropping it in the mailbox.
    That she chose to substantiate a claim of racial identity by solely relying on familial recollections is not a fallacy.
    It’s as simple as brushing your teeth, or is that also too much to ask of an elected representative. And to personally and publicly gain a better understanding of her claimed heritage, any measure she takes beyond simply referencing family stories is a move towards a better solution.
    So you’re comparing the use of satire by partisans to mock a public clown to the use of legitimate genealogical research by millions of people to better understand their ancestry? Do you think that the millions who take part in such research are masochistically trying to sully their reputations?
    I think it’s a mistake not to hold content regardless of its source to the same standards of truth.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,336
    Submitting genetic evidence for the sake of two-bit racist tropes is an extraordinary endeavor.

    If you can't take your own thread seriously, you only make the point.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  14. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    Genealogy equals racism. Millions of racist self haters going to extremes to humiliate themselves.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    aging has-been whites buy a once popular news paper and want to turn it into the new white-supremacist news group by using dog whistle bully tactics racism .... ?

    and your selling copies ?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,246
    Nope.
    I'm pointing out that people who take Warren's family story of 1/32 Red ancestry as a serious, significant matter and a legitimate public concern have no business complaining when people refer to them as racist imbeciles interfering with adult political discussion.
    Or as put:
    - - -
    Seems a bit harsh, but I suppose that does describe a good share of the Republican voting base - certainly any of them going way out of their way to make a big deal out of Warren's family story of a Red ancestor would fit that description.
    So let's see Trump's DNA proof that his father's not an orangutan. He claims to be a full blooded Homo sapiens, and not a transpecies politician, but refuses to provide proper evidence. It's what we expect of our elected representatives, right? Why is he so reluctant to do that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,336

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Well, if that is one's priority, sure.

    I do wonder how many millions, but there must be something to it if the companies are willing to pitch that aspect.

    Still, though, let us reiterate↑:

    • Consider: If one declares, "Hey, someone says you're a criminal; here, give me some DNA and prove you're not," does it matter who is accusing or why? Or are people expected to provide DNA evidence on demand for every ill-considered appeal to hatred finding convenience in accusing?

    → I am not entirely certain how you expect playing make believe↑ constitutes any sort of useful or reasonable answer, but at this point, you've sort of made the point.​

    • What I wonder is what world one imagines that tropes like the question at hand should have that sort of credibility, which in turn is something of a rhetorical question, or, at least, one with a glaringly obvious answer. There are, of course, alternatives, but I still don't get why the people who aren't something might somehow so consistently fail to behave or present themselves differently than those we might otherwise agree are.

    → There aren't a whole lot of good analogies, but sometimes it bears reminding that the innocent ought to at least put some effort into not acting like the guilty.​

    • A bunch of racists want to say what racists say, I don't see why anybody else is required to hop on the bandwagon. Still: Is this a one-time thing, or should genetic screening be prerequisite of running for public office?

    → No, really. As I noted earlier today↑, remember, after Obama was elected, Republicans decided he wasn't black enough to be black; now Elizabeth Warren doesn't look red enough to satisfy a bunch of proudly racist rabble-rousers, so, yeah, I really don't see why anybody else is required to hop on their bandwagon.

    And, even more important: Should genetic testing be a general prerequisite of election?​

    • You know, like, what if someone doesn't look enough like his dad? Why not take a genetic test to prove one's whole life isn't a lie just because some idiot who perceives interest decides it's a good idea to make the point?

    → No, really: Should genetic testing be a general prerequisite of election?​

    • We might, then, wonder: Why the appeasement?

    → To reiterate: A bunch of racists want to say what racists say, I don't see why anybody else is required to hop on the bandwagon; sometimes it bears reminding that the innocent ought to at least put some effort into not acting like the guilty.

    • Is this because a bunch of magagagas are finding out they have nonwhite and Jewish genes?

    → Honestly, that's what it sounds like out in the world. We have, in recent times, witnessed a weird reversal: Once upon a time the racist complaint was that people were "colored", or some such; now the racist complaint is that they're not "colored" enough. Meanwhile, it happens to be true that many white supremacists are unhappy with their DNA results↱

    And remember, that just covers the most part of one post, and merely in the practical context. Your response was a three-sentence paragraph bookending a fallacious question with make-believe.

    There is also the paragraph addressing a more scientific aspect:

    • What is Sen. Warren's genetic makeup compared to others at her valence of asserted or documented descent? In the future, these questions will be easier to address if everyone just gives over their genes and a collection of family stories. I, for instance, don't specifically and absolutely know my heritage is actually Japanese and Norwegian; that's just what got written down because that's what the people involved—including the mother who bore me to life—said at the time.

    → The scientific context is not difficult to recognize. Again: Spidergoat↑ (and again↑, Tiassa↑ (and again↑, including actual journal references), Iceaura↑ (and again↑, more particularly; and yet again↑, more concisely), Sculptor↑; you're ignoring↑ all of that in order to push sarcasm—

    "You call getting a cheek swab or spitting in a vile an extraordinary endeavor? Let’s not forget the mental and physical strain of sealing the envelope and dropping it in the mailbox."

    —and blind insistence:

    "It's as simple as brushing your teeth, or is that also too much to ask of an elected representative."

    People will take you seriously on one point; sometimes it bears reminding that the innocent ought to at least put some effort into not acting like the guilty.
    ___________________

    Notes:

    Boodman, Eric. "White nationalists are flocking to genetic ancestry tests. Some don’t like what they find". Stat. 16 August 2017. StatNews.com. 14 March 2018. http://bit.ly/2FBom0F
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,390
    I have to ask, why is it important that she proves her genetic ancestry?

    And why is it a dubious claim? Because she is white skinned, blue eyed and blonde hair?

    Meet Professor Mark McMillan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    He is an Wiradjuri man from Trangie, in New South Wales in Australia. He is also an Associate Professor at Melbourne University's law school. He is a Director of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and a board member of the Trangie Local Aboriginal Land Council. McMillan is also a member and Node Leader of the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network. He is a prominent voice for Indigenous Australians. He is white, with striking blue eyes and blonde hair. If we were to apply your standards, he should be subjecting himself to a DNA test to double check his Aboriginal heritage..

    If you meet a woman that you don't think fits the criteria of how a woman should look like, do you ask her to drop her pants so you can check or do you cop a feel to make sure she has a vagina? Do you ask her to subject herself to a DNA test to satisfy your curiosity? I would hope the answer to those questions is no.

    Australia has been facing the issue of demanding proof of Aboriginality for a while now. And it is damaging and downright racist. You see, it's not the Indigenous Australians demanding proof, but white people, bureaucrats, racists, bigots. Much like we see in the US when it comes to Warren's genetic heritage.

    It is her identity, she doesn't have to prove it to anyone.

    Or people like you can simply not be bigots and expect that people prove their ancestry to further their own bigoted feelings towards others. Because this is what it is. Pure bigotry. She knows her heritage. She is comfortable with it. It seems to be people like you and Trump voters who aren't comfortable with it. The issue here is you and others who think like you. You are the one being irrational here. Not her.

    To what end? Why do you need proof?

    She knows who she is and she is happy with what she knows of her ancestry and heritage. Why do you think people should be subjecting themselves to DNA tests to assuage your bigotry about her "race"?

    What is this? Are we back to the one drop rule again?

    People are free to check their ancestry, track down long lost ancestors if they so choose or if they are curious about stories that were handed down. Elizabeth Warren is comfortable with her ancestry. Why are you uncomfortable enough with it that you demand she has a DNA test?

    See, this isn't about her. It's about you and others who believe like you. In the words of Yalmay Gurrwun (Marika) Yunupingu on the subject of proving one's heritage:

    Artist and teacher Yalmay Gurrwun (Marika) Yunupingu addressed a crowd during the Human Rights and Social Justice Award 2014 keynote as follows [55]. How do you think this introduction compares to that of a non-Aboriginal person?

    “I’d like to introduce myself first ‘Yol ŋarra? Who am I’? and where I’m from. My name is Gurruwuṉ Yunupingu also known as Yalmay which means special sand on a Dhuwa land and Gurruwuṉ means a special walking stick that two ancestral beings used when they started their journey from East to West. Marika is my maiden name before I was married into the Yunupingu family. Marika means ‘thunder and lightning’. My skin-name is Gamanydjan.

    My clan and Bäpurru [tribe] is Rirratjiŋu which is the language I speak, my father’s language. I am Dhuwa moiety which I inherited through my father’s side. My ḻikan [ancestral connection] is Gunitjpirr Guṉuwaŋa these are the special names identifying who I am just like your identification card on your driver’s licence. But we don’t carry our identification like a card, we live who we are.”

    She doesn't need a DNA test to prove it. You are the one who needs her to have one, because you seem to have this bigoted ideal of what Native Americans should look like.

    When people like you demand that others submit to DNA tests to check their genetic ancestry in this manner, then it does amount to racism. You do get that, right?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,225
    Since, as I understand the situation in America, you are able to pick your gender, the choice has gone from 2 to over 60

    Also, as I understand the situation, race also is fluid and you can pick who you wish to be associated with

    Since there is ONLY ONE human race (why do I keep hearing about some mythical place called Africa America? Is it perchance located on Flat Earth?) it seems the race choice you would pick may contain numerous persons who also have, for some obscure reason, identified with the arbitrary race group you happen to pick but in the real world you have nothing in common

    There are 2 genders, with around 0.01% of a population having gender defects

    How you split 2 into over 60??? is beyond me

    As for Pocahontas I understand her ancestry claim was made to gain a position only open to the group she claimed a link with

    Australia has somewhat of a similar situation with some claiming links with groups which have benifits set aside just for those groups

    Not sure where this stupidity will stop

    Recently marriage equality came to Australia via a referendum. OK fine. Now there is a weak spot the polygamy group is on the march. Followed soon by the animal brigade and I want to marry my grand piano clique (not a piano but some other inanimate objects have featured in weddings)

    No judgements as such - if you are a functional member of society - do whatever you want. Just don't try to claim a government grant or carve out a discrimination case

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS where would be a cut off point for a Pocahontas situation? A 30% or 15% or 1% or 0.0005% link?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    Capracus
    probably wants to get a discount on mass production of yellow stars and pink triangles.
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    ... probably wasting my time but have you heard of the american civil war ?
    the people whom claimed to be american took up arms against those called "British" and made quite a thing out of it.

    The America they took control of by force was actually owned by someone else .."native americans" i beleive the popular term is.

    anyway.. hopefully im not loosing you here...
    soo there was these people who were living in africa, and these other people went there with guns and swords and took them prisoner and then took them to america and sold them to other people as slaves.
    those generations of slaves whom came from africa are called "African Americans".
    their time spent living in America is probably equal to the people whom fought against the brittish (have i lost you again?)

    soo African American is actually no different in length of heritage to the land as puritin european white settlers.

    you may wish to try a library and do some reading.
    good luck. its a big subject.
    p.s recently they were allowed to vote ..around 50 years ago.
    and even more recently they allowed them to use shops and sit in parks.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,225
    Oh I get it now

    Great great great....... grandpa was brought by force FROM a place called Africa and sold as a slave in America and now X generations later they link back to great great great......grandpa

    AfricanAmerican - who would have known?

    Do you know any slave cooks? Slave business managers? Slave hotel owners?

    AfricanAmerican who knew?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    they built these
    https://www.theroot.com/6-historic-structures-in-america-that-were-built-by-sla-1790856172

    do you think they should own them or be paid for building them ?
    which do you think would be correct ?
     

Share This Page