First Transracial Senator?

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

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    while reading/watching Žižek jokes and lectures:
    He had one about "Native Americans" vs Indians
    wherein an Indian said that he found "native anerican" insulting and preferred "indian" because, then, his name would be a monument to white man's stupidity-----------
    ("oops, wrong continent")
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i like your idea about forced medical procedures with publicly published Results for all government employees and elected officials.
    what a great idea !
    whos publicly backing that currently ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    it has crossed my mind many times,
    surely the native "peoples" have not named themselves native americans ?
    its the white genocidal maniac calling kunta kinte, Toby from a spectators position.
    i thought they all had names already.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes, as a result of interviewing them, asking them about family pictures, keepsakes etc. That's where all our family history has come from. For example, going back four generations I'm half Irish, a quarter Austrian, 3/16 Italian and 1/16 French. That's backed up by a few pictures, stories, old letters and things like newspaper clippings. I am happy with that.

    If you demand genetic proof, and want me to post it, you can go pound sand.
    Nope. And if your position is "well, she might be an ape; if she isn't she would get herself genetically tested and post the result" then you're as much a racist as the person who called her that to begin with.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    do you not find yourself bluring the line to buying into personality/ego-politics ?
    the whole reality-TV "your fired" Ego pyramid of power public attention seeking hysteria ... ?

    while i would see it as being fraudulent to lay claim to take credit for something you have, had and intend to not credit ...
    were she only fostered and not born would be equal to any other mixed white race claiming persona non grata by lack of ability to defend to a media expose' level of click value ?
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The Reds I worked with in Minnesota took offense at "native American", also "native" by itself, and "indigenous" was suspect. They used the tribal membership when they knew it - and they always knew it for members of local tribes, famous people on TV, etc - and usually the Reservation name as a more specific tribal designation, since they all knew which tribes lived on which reservations.

    If they didn't know the tribe they used "indian" (doesn't sound capitalized when spoken) for an individual. When talking about the race in general (all Indians between the Rio Grande and the tundra zone) they used "Red", which is where I picked that up first.

    So you would have an Anashinaabe*-American, or a Lakota-American, if the construction were parallel with Irish-American.

    *Ojibwa too specific to parallel Irish.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    all USA ninth graders should know(basic compulsory schooling) how many majour indian tribes there are(and name most of them like naming most of the usa states and knowing how many there are).
    it should be common knowledge
    however, ... one doubts the veracity of the claims made to secure culture as equally as facism
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    A couple points on this:

    • No, doesn't happen. Five hundred sixty-two recognized tribes, and then there are the unrecognized. Hell, we all love the Animaniacs songs about the states and capitals, or the presidents, but eff-all if we ever get around to learning them. Most Americans can't do the states and capitals or the presidents. It'll be another generation before we expect students to know all the nations of the world. The tribes? Org charts describing lineage and associations between the tribes are really, really complicated; the Tulalip people, for instance, include seven tribes, most of which will not survive on their own. Not far south, a handful of people called Nisqually will carry on, but the Nisqually tribe itself will likely disappear, as there are less than seven hundred of them left. By the time Americans get around to learning all the tribes' names, maybe it will be easier for consolidation into a half-dozen or so groups. The slow genocide never stops.

    • There is a particular complication that arises when traditionalist sentiment bristles at ... ah ... well, you say "common knowledge", but some more traditionalistic Americans would say you're making a big deal out of tribes and suggest you're a racist who hates white people, or something. There is only so much attention American society is allowed to give the indigenous before the people who make a lot of noise about how whites are the victims of history start doing their thing. It's similar to the English-only crowd who demand immigrants assimilate but also specifically reject the most effective ways of doing so. More broadly, there comes a threshold at which empowerment majorities need decrepit or stunted minorities in a self-justifying sentimental trap. When I was in my twenties, there was an outburst about "revisionism", and even then the whole rubber-glue thing was clear, that this literally was white supremacists bawling about the "revisionism" of including Columbus' own writings in telling the tale of Christopher Columbus, and it really was because they were tired of people rejecting Holocaust revisionism, and wanted to accuse other people of revisionism. A little over twenty years later and we couldn't possibly imagine such juvenilistic barbarism. Or ... well, yeah. Something.​
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i think the age of the narcissist has taken hold in the leadership domain.
    The insular inward looking narrow straight focussed perspective is being touted as a normative liniar model of achievement.
    almost ADHD revivalist 1800's dogma intellectualism
    "you just have to believe & stop asking questions" seems to be somewhat more prominent.
    The spiritual chasim left between the materialist narcississt & the idealist new age spiritualist pyramid self development type is quite a thing.
    The upper middle management luxury self development escape customers are pulling up the ladders behind themselves a little faster.
  13. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    I’m not demanding that anyone research their ancestry or take advantage of any technology to assist them to that end, but I do argue ultimately it’s in their best interest to do so if practicably possible.

    I don’t necessarily doubt the assertions of any above mentioned personalities in regards to their ancestry, but I do understand the human capacity for error and think it prudent to minimize that potential when possible with improved analysis. They do themselves a favor by increasing their understanding, and they do the rest of society a favor by sharing it.
    I’m not concerned about her ancestry other than from the standpoint of a better understanding of history in general through an examination of hers. I want her account of her ancestry to be as complete as that of any other historical examination, but I understand that’s not usually practical at an individual level.
    Is it better for members of an ideal society to share or withhold personal information? In the field of genealogy for example, the more people who contribute their data into the process, the greater the confidence is in the resulting accuracy for all. Same goes for any field of social study. So an argument can be made that voluntary sharing of such information be considered an act of responsible citizenship, and who better than a US Senator to demonstrate such an example of citizenship.
    I would recommend that the entire population research their ancestry to the best of their ability, strictly for the sake of its contribution to social and historical understanding.
    Yes, isn’t it strange that a person like Warren who espouses a reverence for her heritage would seem to have less of an interest in the documentation of that heritage than a complete stranger. Why is that?
    That’s exactly what you and your other defenders of ignorance are implying. That if she gets tested she’s doing so to placate her ideological opponents. She needs to get beyond that and do it for the betterment of herself and her society.
    To me her ancestry matters only as a piece of a a historical puzzle. Her reluctance to be more rational about the issue is what puzzles me.
    DNA tests and HIV tests are two examples of clinical tests to determine biological characteristics in an individual. Understand so far? In each case an individual would take these tests to confirm a suspicion of said characteristics, because the test is a more reliable predictor of the characteristics than the initial supposition. That you feel a need focus on the label of the specific test rather than the goal of the test, suggest a lack of proper focus on your part. And that you would imply an association of terms used in the example as offensive, suggests a negativity you personally associate with the terms. Is it American Indians, HIV carriers, or both that offend you?
    Should people be under any obligation to be educated in an ideal society? Why would you encourage people to perpetuate ignorance of their own history, and that of their greater society?Ignorance is Bliss?
  14. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    If you seriously question Trump’s status as a human being, you should probably have yourself tested first.
    People seriously ask about their genetic identity in relation to each other all the time, why do suppose there are occupations and fields of study devoted to the practice? Why someone like yourself goes out of their way to minimize this fact amazes me.
    Warren can learn more about her ancestry by doing more investigation of it, including DNA testing, than she presently knows. Advising her not to do so exemplifies the perpetuation of ignorance that guarantees elections of the likes of Trump.
    So Warren’s knowledge of her ancestry must suffer, other who could benefit from that knowledge in their own genealogical searches must suffer, and students of history in general must suffer, just to spite your imbecile racist buddies.
    How do you know they don’t regard it as a personal obligation? They obviously recognize the value to themselves and others in this material being made publicly available. It’s like donating blood, the more people who donate, the more people it helps. As far as any perceived political advantage, unless Warren is just pulling this stuff out of her ass, which doesn’t appear to be the case, then she has a lot more to gain than to loose by a more thorough investigation.
    Then you advocate she should do further research on her ancestry to benefit herself, even if others will try to use it against her.
    My side is concerned with acquiring genealogical information for the benefit of individuals and society. Your side is concerned with discouraging such pursuits. Best go search your own soul.
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    This is all about undermining her credibility in order to elect more Trumkins.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This kind of societal condemnation is pretty striking. We should probably take a moment to consider the implications of the argument that failing to pander to racists "guarantees elections of the likes of Trump".

    When I was young, the rebel or punk might condemn American racism, and the answer was to scold that one cannot characterize "America" as racist just because of a few bad seeds, and this retort would range into denouncing hatred of "America".

    That is to say, once upon a time it was considered wrong to even merely be perceived as implying racism was an American societal characteristic. Now we encounter an implication that a majority of Americans will back white supremacism, and it really does stand out that we should encounter this notion as a defense and promotion of racist tropes.

    There is also a larger pattern within American conservatism in general, and it probably does have to do with traditionalism, but the Republican loathing of law enforcement evident in recent months is nothing new; conservatives have been antagonizing law enforcement for years, which is why it is so important to them that the opposition be depicted as hating police. We regard the military similarly.

    That is to say, the rest of society is obliged to bear the neurotic failures of empowerment majorities.

    And, meanwhile, once upon a time the conservative argument ran, approximately, how dare anyone suggest ours is a racist society; now the conservative argument tells us to pander to racism because we are apparently a racist society.

    And that is actually slightly tailored: "Now", can be argued problematic because, let's face it, conservatives have been at this for a while. It is worth noting how American conservative arguments tend to demonize American society; but it does seem more superficially apparent in recent years, and now especially in the time of Trump and the most blatant White House endorsement of white supremacism in my lifetime.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So it's in Michelle Obama's best interest to get tested to prove she is human, because racists question it?
    You may be confusing "documenting her heritage" and "posting private genetic information."

    In that case, put your money where your mouth is. Get a genetic test done, and post all the results here. (If you really care about the betterment of yourself and society, that is.)
    You now have an opportunity to answer that question. Will you perpetuate ignorance of your own history and medical status, and that of their greater society? Do you believe ignorance is Bliss? Or will you get yourself tested and post all the results here? 23 and Me has a quite affordable "Health and Ancestry Service" you can avail yourself of (if you do not support ignorance, that is.)
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course I take none of this seriously. Do I sound like a Trump voter?
    That doesn't make the racist imbeciles dogging Warren serious people. They're dangerous and ugly, but they aren't serious at all.
    She could do a lot of stuff that's none of your business. Maybe she has.
    So nobody should do that. I certainly did not.
    That's not what I said. Read the entire sentence.
    Are you guys planning to badger people about when, why, and how often, they donate blood or fail to do so? Demand that they post their blood type and donation records?
    I don't give her any advice at all in the matter. It's none of my business, and she is far better capable of allocating her time and efforts than I am.
    Your side is concerned with harming Warren.
    If you were interested in geneological information for benefit you would join Warren in supporting the research funding that the Republicans are cutting, the educational initiatives she favors, the policies she espouses that abet such endeavors. You would praise her efforts and vote for her and send her money.
  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Michelle Obama has already determined it’s in her best interest to get tested, she has no need to be concerned with racists and promoters of ignorance.
    The information she chooses to release can be as specific as she’s comfortable with, but it would still need to be documented by a reputable authority.
    I do plan on getting tested, and when I get the results I will post them.
    I’m all for it. How about yourself?
    I’ve read some of their comments on the issue and they seem genuinely confident that Warren is not being truthful about her claims. Take this liberal for example.
    Why share anything about her personal life? Why share her family stories. Isn’t that what most public personalities do, in particular politicians, share personal details so they are more relatable to their public?
    No need for private citizens to badger people about donating blood, the blood banks already have a corner on that market.
    You don’t think its appropriate to ask a politician to advocate for reasonable causes? Like donating blood, giving to charity, and continuing one’s education?
    I believe I already stated my support for Warren’s positions.
    Warren is not my senator, so unless she runs for president I can’t vote for her. If she pledges to professionally research her ancestry and get a DNA test I will send her $100.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    According to you, she should be both very concerned with racists and bigots - and should post the results of her genetic testing proving she has no ape DNA. She hasn't done so. Why aren't you attacking her?

    (That's a rhetorical question, of course. If she was running you would be attacking her along with Warren.)
    Nope. It doesn't need to be anything at all. Just as Michelle Obama should pay no attention to racists, Warren should pay no attention to bigots.
    I have gotten tested, yes. It was interesting.
    That's great; they can believe whatever they choose.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    For her own reasons, and in her own interests.
    And there isn't a human being on this planet more concerned with racists and their ignorance.
    No, it would not. It doesn't "need" any documentation whatsoever.
    That doesn't make them serious. One doesn't become serious by taking oneself seriously, when acting as a racist imbecile.
    It seems that her DNA profile has never been part of Warren's personal life.
    Sure. And against unreasonable ones.
    And so do the DNA testing outfits, in DNA testing - with rather more media presence, one notices.
    So there's no need, as you so rightly notice, to badger anyone about it.
    You have also made very clear your support for wingnut racist garbage and Republican vandalism of Warren's career.

    Look at the Fox question that titles this thread, and the OP, for shiny examples.
  22. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    There's no way in hell Warren is the first transracial U.S. Senator. Ed Brooke comes to mind, and I'm sure he wasn't the first transracial U.S. Senator. Hell, Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate before Warren.
  23. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Well, I guess that means she won't appear as a guest on Finding Your Roots. LOL

    That program is incredibly interesting...not so much for the specific genealogical details pertaining to the guests, but rather for the details of history it shares as part of the telling of the guests' ancestors' stories.

    That said, the ancestral stories are at times quite surprising. The farthest back that my family has been able to trace our ancestry is to a "random" colonist who arrived in the 1600s, and I thought that was a monumental accomplishment (one a relative, not I, performed). One Finding Your Roots' guest turned out to be a direct descendant of Charlemagne, another of Abraham of the Bible, and another turned out to be the 40-something'th great grandchild of a Chinese emperor from "sometime or other B.C!" It's quite amazing, at least in my mind, that Dr. Gates' research team was able to walk back person-by-person to individuals that far back in history. ​

Share This Page