Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[LSSBB]

It was the Google of that time for faculties looking for minority hires.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...fa5a255a9258_blog.html?utm_term=.f75ab0bcbb4c

That doesn't answer the question. When she checked the box, was there also a notice stating exactly what purpose the information was being gathered for, either in the form itself, instructions accompanying the form, or in training on the form provided to her separately? Did she record a statement acknowledging at the time what she understood the purpose to be?

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly. She is not Native American by ethnicity, except for a party talking point of having 1% NA DNA.

I have never claimed Warren is Native American by ethnicity. I have already stated I believe Warren should not have ticked the ethnic minority box. That was a mistake on her part.

Warren has always claimed she has NA ancestry. She has never claimed it was a recent ancestor nor did she ever claim to have been raised within the Creek or Delaware 'culture'.

My disagreement with you is your claims that she was lying about

1. there being family stories passed down about her NA ancestry.
2. that her parents didn't elope.
3. that her paternal grandparents didn't oppose the marriage on racist
reasons
4. that Warren's parents had a "big formal wedding".

Additionally, my disagreement with you is your claiming to know who in her family knew what and how they felt. Things you cannot possibly know but claim to know.

 

[theprestige]

Just from the outset, you are not saying you have any evidence that she actually knew the directory was for minority recruiting. On that we agree.

Sorry I missed this. Yes, we agree. This is inference and supposition on my part.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Sorry I missed this. Yes, we agree. This is inference and supposition on my part.

No worries. I think you made that clear.

It just seems that in a world where there are so many actually bad things being said or done by people, it is a reach to impugn someone with something that requires such inference and supposition.

I feel fairly certain that you disagree with her policies in a far more direct way.

 

[theprestige]

I see. What would it take to move you from agnostic to accepting their claim?

They're claiming a negative. I think the best they can possibly achieve is agnosticism.

We are in agreement that during her career at Harvard, that was publicly claimed. I don't think even Warren disputes that. This is not evidence for the claim that it was known before she was hired.

I agree.

Your evidence that she did not network or attempt to network with other Harvard faculty with NA ancestry is that she wasn't part of the Cherokee community in Oklahoma? You do know she never claimed tribal affiliation, right?

I'm saying that's evidence of a general lack of interest on her part in her Native American heritage, which includes family apocrypha about ancestral affiliation with the Cherokee. Also, she listed herself in the minority directory for years before Harvard. Is there any evidence that she ever pursued networking relationships with any of the other people in that directory?

eta: Your second source is worse than your first. She did not network with other faculty with NA Ancestry in the 90's because in 2012 she refused to meet with a group of women who were upset about her claims to be Cherokee, despite the fact that she never made that claim?

Again, it's evidence of her general lack of interest in her heritage, and in building relationships with other Native Americans.



Just to be clear, can you quote exactly what that listing says?[/QUOTE]

 

[theprestige]

But, "didn't take any networking seriously" doesn't make her a liar or an outlier.

No. All it does, for me, is cast doubt on her claim that she didn't know the real purpose of the directory.

Of course, I just find it odd that she is presumed guilty even though the only available evidence can be consistent with her claims and there is no available evidence that directly contradicts her claims.

I presume her guilty of claiming to be a minority even though she's not. I think the evidence not only supports this, but is accepted by everyone here.

 

[theprestige]

Right, which is why she has never tried to build her political career as a Native American. She dropped that part of her heritage and moved on. That others haven't is really quite weird.

"Heritage"

 

[Dr. Keith]

No. All it does, for me, is cast doubt on her claim that she didn't know the real purpose of the directory.

OK, you must take networking much more seriously than every other professional I know.

I presume her guilty of claiming to be a minority even though she's not. I think the evidence not only supports this, but is accepted by everyone here.

I think there is evidence that she claimed to have Native American HeritageAncestry, and listed that in a directory and a cookbook. I have seen evidence that others have called her a minority. I have not seen any evidence that she claimed to be a minority.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Heritage"

Would you prefer ancestry?

 

[Distracted1]

No. All it does, for me, is cast doubt on her claim that she didn't know the real purpose of the directory.


I presume her guilty of claiming to be a minority even though she's not. I think the evidence not only supports this, but is accepted by everyone here.

I don't.
She asserted that she had an amount of NA ancestry on a form thirty years ago. Not the same thing as claiming to be a minority.
I did the same thing, based on the same evidence, in the early eighties. I was not claiming to be a "minority", just answering an asked question, I did not believe my answer made me one. If the institution chose to grant me some sort of priveledge due to my answer- so be it, the question did not ask for specifics.

 

[theprestige]

Would you prefer ancestry?

Yes.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes.

Done for the one I could.

 

[wareyin]

They're claiming a negative. I think the best they can possibly achieve is agnosticism.

This sounds suspiciously like nothing could possibly make you accept their claim.

I'm saying that's evidence of a general lack of interest on her part in her Native American heritage, which includes family apocrypha about ancestral affiliation with the Cherokee.

This should be obvious, but Harvard is not in Oklahoma. The Chief of the Oklahoma based Cherokee Nation from 1999 to 2011 is not going to have any idea how much interest she had in 1987 to 1995 while she was in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. This does not support your claim.

Also, she listed herself in the minority directory for years before Harvard. Is there any evidence that she ever pursued networking relationships with any of the other people in that directory?

As you are agnostic regarding the actual claims of 30 Harvard faculty involved in her hiring, how in the world is the lack of evidence for networking so convincing? And what sort of evidence are you looking for? Recorded phone calls? Emails from the pre-internet days?

Again, it's evidence of her general lack of interest in her heritage, and in building relationships with other Native Americans.

It is decades after her expressed interest. People's interests change over the course of 20+ years. And refusing to meet with people upset with her over things she had not actually done doesn't actually show a "general lack of interest in her heritage". And, for the bazillionth time in the thread, she is not a Native American, nor did she claim to be.

Just to be clear, can you quote exactly what that listing says?

This one was mine. I'm still curious if you or Drewbot realize how it deflates your claims that Harvard (or other University) hired her because of her claims to have NA ancestry.

 

[theprestige]

This sounds suspiciously like nothing could possibly make you accept their claim.

Like I said, they're claiming a negative. Those are notoriously difficult to prove.

As you are agnostic regarding the actual claims of 30 Harvard faculty involved in her hiring, how in the world is the lack of evidence for networking so convincing?

It's not. Again, this is not a claim I'm trying to prove, or a conclusion I'm trying to force on you.

And what sort of evidence are you looking for? Recorded phone calls? Emails from the pre-internet days?

I'd settle for testimony from someone who actually networked with Warren during that period.

It is decades after her expressed interest. People's interests change over the course of 20+ years. And refusing to meet with people upset with her over things she had not actually done doesn't actually show a "general lack of interest in her heritage". And, for the bazillionth time in the thread, she is not a Native American, nor did she claim to be.

She claimed to be a minority. Which minority did she have in mind? Pacific Islander?

This one was mine. I'm still curious if you or Drewbot realize how it deflates your claims that Harvard (or other University) hired her because of her claims to have NA ancestry.

Consider the claim deflated. Show me where I made it, and I'll retract it.

 

[wareyin]

Like I said, they're claiming a negative. Those are notoriously difficult to prove.

Especially when one really really wants to believe otherwise.

I'd settle for testimony from someone who actually networked with Warren during that period.

And yet you won't accept the testimony of those involved in her hiring. Interesting.
But can we flesh out your interest in proving networking a bit more? To start with, what will you accept as networking? Attending a brunch? Meeting over drinks? Was on some letter chain?

She claimed to be a minority. Which minority did she have in mind? Pacific Islander?

Why don't you share with the class? Please provide your quote where she did claim to be a minority, and then we can go from there.

Consider the claim deflated. Show me where I made it, and I'll retract it.

My mistake, Drewbot made the claim, you were Just Asking Questions

 

[smartcooky]

She asserted that she had an amount of NA ancestry on a form thirty years ago. Not the same thing as claiming to be a minority.

Exactly!

I did the same thing, based on the same evidence, in the early eighties. I was not claiming to be a "minority", just answering an asked question, I did not believe my answer made me one. If the institution chose to grant me some sort of priveledge due to my answer- so be it, the question did not ask for specifics.

THIS!

When I have to fill out a form that asks my place of birth, I put the name of the town in England where I was born. This does not mean I am claiming to be English.

If it asks where my parents were born (as the application for NZ Citizenship used to ask) and I say that they were from England and Switzerland, that does not mean I am claiming to be English or Swiss (even though I am actually half of each by ancestry, and entitled to hold both a British and a Swiss passport should I so choose).

 

[WilliamSeger]

The fun part is that it was common for insurance companies to drop plans and doctors long before the ACA went into effect. During one year I had to choose a new primary care physician three separate times because the old doctor had been dropped from the insurance company list.

But apparently Obama not spelling out every detail of a complicated plan made him just as bad as Trump who tells easily debunked whoppers several times a week tweet.

FTFY

 

[WilliamSeger]

You're welcome.

FWIW, here's why I think Warren probably knew the directory was for minority recruiting.

First of all, the timeline. She listed herself in the directory for several years prior to getting hired by Harvard. Following her hire (and Harvard mysteriously getting the impression she was a Native American and a person of color), she stopped listing herself in the directory.

Second, her proffered explanation. She has said that she listed herself because she thought the directory was used for minority networking. But other than listing herself in the directory, she hasn't shown much interest at all in minority networking. It doesn't make sense that an intelligent law professor would list themselves expecting a certain result, and then not notice that they weren't getting the result for several years. It also doesn't make sense that taking this one ineffectual action would be the only real attempt they made to get the result they desired.

"I thought it was for networking and I didn't find out it was for recruiting until after I coincidentally got hired at Harvard (who coincidentally thought I was a minority) and I coincidentally didn't really put any effort into networking anyway" isn't a very plausible scenario, to me.

So if the question is, "did Warren know the directory was used primarily for minority recruitment?", then my answer is "probably yes".

That whole theory assumes that either Harvard looked in the directory and then reached out to her and offered her a job without mentioning why she was selected, or Warren applied for a position hoping they would look her up in the directory and think she was a minority without her mentioning it during the interviewing process. I don't know who initiated the interviewing, but in either case, if minority status was really a consideration by either party, I'd think that either Harvard would ask her about it to confirm or she would bring it up herself. There's no evidence of either, and in fact there is a justification for why she was hired over a minority, so the whole theory just doesn't make sense.

 

[Vixen]

Double second cousin. And yes, we do.


(Boston Globe)

Reed is Warren's mother's maiden name (Pauline Reed). Harry Reed is Pauline's father.

Here is a picture of Harry Gunn Reed. Sure looks like he may have some NA ancestry to me.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695bda9a3860c44.png[/qimg]

A second cousin even one times two, means there is even more chance the presumed NA 'heritage' comes through marriage rather than blood. All it means is that you share the same great-grandparents.

Please explain in which way Harry Gunn Reed 'looks NA'?

 

[Foolmewunz]

A second cousin even one times two, means there is even more chance the presumed NA 'heritage' comes through marriage rather than blood. All it means is that you share the same great-grandparents.

Please explain in which way Harry Gunn Reed 'looks NA'?

Could you explain this to us simple folk. What is the difference between coming by a part of your ancestry "by blood" and "through marriage"? There is no difference from what I can see. "Blood" ties are merely family/parental ties and being married or not makes no never mind. Unless you're talking about the current generation, those old marriages make up "blood" ties. (Current generation, obviously... I'm married to a Thai; I do not claim Thai ancestry. My son, however, is American-Thai. Are you claiming that his claim on Thainess is not legitimate because his daddy married into it? That makes no sense.)