• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silly Green Monkey said:
I am still puzzled by why checking the box for a portion of her ancestry counts as Identifying As That. I checked all the boxes that applied, or I thought applied, until it started including tribal membership and it sounds like Warren stopped about the same time. I claim an ancestor on the Trail by family lore. I do not identify as Cherokee or Delaware and I never have. My ancestry by lore includes both. Or, it might have been some other tribe, Mom was told as a child that she looked like she had some Indian blood but her family had no idea what it was. My sister had heard we were "just below the amount we could claim" [membership] but I can't go digging around in our family tree because all the access to genealogy information has been sewn up by paid sites.

Ancestry is not identity. Claiming ancestry does not indicate identity one tiny bit.
Click to expand...

Does not seem very skeptical to put such stock in lore.
 
d4m10n said:
Is this a thread about U.S. politics?
Click to expand...


Even when limited to the U.S. there is a fairly wide spectrum of political beliefs described or implied by the term "liberal". All depending on who the speaker is and often what they are trying to suggest.

Sometimes the term is used merely as a pejorative and has little or no relationship to their actual political views, even within the U.S. normative spectrum.

Bill Clinton was described at certain times and by certain parties as being "very liberal". Would you agree with that?

As was Hillary. Maybe even 'dangerously liberal'. Would you agree with that?

Can you expand on what was meant by the use of "liberal" and "very liberal" in the quote you cited, perhaps anchoring it to some actual positions which would allow others to evaluate where on such a spectrum the usages might fall?

Or, failing that, what you think was meant?

Absent such an explanation, one might be compelled to assume that the pejorative usage is all that was implied by you.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Absent such an explanation, one might be compelled to assume that the pejorative usage is all that was implied by you.
Click to expand...

You think Harvard professors were invoking the pejorative usage while identifying themselves as either liberal or very liberal? [emoji849]
 
d4m10n said:
You think Harvard professors were invoking the pejorative usage while identifying themselves as either liberal or very liberal? [emoji849]
Click to expand...


No, but I also don't think that their usage and your own are necessarily identical. Or even particularly similar, for that matter.

That's why I'd like to know in more detail just what you believe they meant by those terms.

That would go some way to explaining your motives for posting the quote.
 
This really shouldn't be all that difficult to suss out, you guys. We've been talking about someone who hopes to win the Democratic nomination in the U.S. by appealing to the sort of activists who caucus for the Democrats or primary voters who choose to vote in the Democratic primary. The people to whom she must appeal are not right wing and only rarely in the political center, as those phrases are generally construed by native speakers of American English.
 
quadraginta said:
Even when limited to the U.S. there is a fairly wide spectrum of political beliefs described or implied by the term "liberal". All depending on who the speaker is and often what they are trying to suggest.

Sometimes the term is used merely as a pejorative and has little or no relationship to their actual political views, even within the U.S. normative spectrum.

Bill Clinton was described at certain times and by certain parties as being "very liberal". Would you agree with that?

As was Hillary. Maybe even 'dangerously liberal'. Would you agree with that?
Can you expand on what was meant by the use of "liberal" and "very liberal" in the quote you cited, perhaps anchoring it to some actual positions which would allow others to evaluate where on such a spectrum the usages might fall?

Or, failing that, what you think was meant?

Absent such an explanation, one might be compelled to assume that the pejorative usage is all that was implied by you.
Click to expand...


Hillary was never liberal. She may have worn a mask at times (can't think of when) but I see nothing about her that is liberal, now or ever.

Bill Clinton was in office decades ago. He was pretty liberal with his wedding vows ;) but other than that? Not so much. Liberalism/the left is sliding more to the left every day. Well at least those making all the noise.

I don't follow politics in any country other than my own, so I don't participate in those discussions.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
I am still puzzled by why checking the box for a portion of her ancestry counts as Identifying As That. I checked all the boxes that applied, or I thought applied, until it started including tribal membership and it sounds like Warren stopped about the same time. I claim an ancestor on the Trail by family lore. I do not identify as Cherokee or Delaware and I never have. My ancestry by lore includes both. Or, it might have been some other tribe, Mom was told as a child that she looked like she had some Indian blood but her family had no idea what it was. My sister had heard we were "just below the amount we could claim" [membership] but I can't go digging around in our family tree because all the access to genealogy information has been sewn up by paid sites.

Ancestry is not identity. Claiming ancestry does not indicate identity one tiny bit.
Click to expand...


:bigclap :bigclap :bigclap

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, what you say does not fit the racist right wing Trumpist "call people pejorative nicknames" narrative.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
This really shouldn't be all that difficult to suss out, you guys. We've been talking about someone who hopes to win the Democratic nomination in the U.S. by appealing to the sort of activists who caucus for the Democrats or primary voters who choose to vote in the Democratic primary. The people to whom she must appeal are not right wing and only rarely in the political center, as those phrases are generally construed by native speakers of American English.
Click to expand...
These terms need clear definition. Because defining things as something else to match your own views is not helpful. Or have people gotten used to the MAGA-coloured glasses?

For example, for me as a non-American, these terms identify the "ultra-right" and "medium right" views. The Dems and the issues they are caucusing on would easily fit with our "centre-rightist" party agendas here in the Soviet Union of Australia.
 
Norman Alexander said:
These terms need clear definition.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics#cite_ref-24

Norman Alexander said:
Or have people gotten used to the MAGA-coloured glasses?
Click to expand...

I'm using these phrases in the usual way, as an American speaking about American politics.

Of course the center is going to move over time, whenever something once considered a radical reform (e.g. Medicare, Same Sex Marriage) becomes the new normal.

Norman Alexander said:
The Dems and the issues they are caucusing on would easily fit with our "centre-rightist" party agendas here in the Soviet Union of Australia.
Click to expand...

*checks subforum name*
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
I am still puzzled by why checking the box for a portion of her ancestry counts as Identifying As That. I checked all the boxes that applied, or I thought applied, until it started including tribal membership and it sounds like Warren stopped about the same time...
Click to expand...
Regrettably, applause notwithstanding, this is false. At least as pertaining to the most recent revelation where she wrote out "American Indian" as her "Race".
 
varwoche said:
Regrettably, applause notwithstanding, this is false. At least as pertaining to the most recent revelation where she wrote out "American Indian" as her "Race".
Click to expand...


In a box labeled specifically that it would not be used to identify her.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How exactly does that matter, given the topic at hand? Warren isn't trying to appeal to either economic conservatives or social conservatives, so far as I can tell, and certainly not yet.
Click to expand...
Correct. Her message is a fairly centrist one, NOT a leftist one. Nothing very startling, rather MOR, really. However to the far-right that is pinko commie stuff, and she is is being denigrated literally as a socialist poo-head who wants to take their guns and freedom.
 
mgidm86 said:
Bill Clinton was in office decades ago. He was pretty liberal with his wedding vows ;) but other than that? Not so much. Liberalism/the left is sliding more to the left every day. Well at least those making all the noise.

I don't follow politics in any country other than my own, so I don't participate in those discussions.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, it is true that what we mean by "liberal" is the norm in the more-developed countries. UHC, gun control, abortion rights - in the U.S. these are "liberal" traits, but just the norm in much of the developed word. Does anyone really think Australia is a left-wing state? Yet it has UHC, gun regulation and mandatory voting. Politicians who pushed for similar agendas in the U.S. would probably be seen wildly and dangerously liberal.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Her message is a fairly centrist one, NOT a leftist one.
Click to expand...

If we choose to use Aussie politics as the baseline for centrism while discussing U.S. politics, yes. Otherwise, no. She has been creating progressive reforms designed to protect citizens against unbridled corporate power for quite awhile now.
 
Distracted1 said:
Well, my eyesight is not what it once was, but it looked like that box was labelled "for statistical purposes only.......will not be shared" or something to that effect.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, I left out a keyword, I noticed and edited. "not" makes a big difference. I hope this is clear from my earlier posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom