• 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.
TragicMonkey said:
You asked the question 'what does that mean?' in response to someone answering 'what did she gain?' with 'a subjective sense of personal identity'. The proposal, which I agree with, is that Warren simply felt a little special to have a (precarious) claim to exotic ancestry. A thoroughly human peculiarity shared by millions.
Click to expand...

Precisely, yes.
 
theprestige said:
I thought she said she did it for networking purposes.
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
I think you are confusing stories. Anonymous data is difficult to use for networking purposes. But I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, confusing stories and confusing speakers. "networking purposes" was my wording. And it was the Harvard Directory, not the Texas Bar card story. She was already past the point of being hired and/or taking advantage of affirmative action when she was listed in the Harvard directory. And the directory has no real official use as far as I know. It's just a directory.
 
theprestige said:
Why do teenage girls fill their diaries with pages of "Mrs. John Doe"?
Click to expand...

It seems clear that some who I thought were adults here are much closer to a 'teenage girl writing in diary' caricature, but that still has no bearing on whether or not an adult lawyer would act the same. Your evidence that anonymous statistics submitted to an authority are treated like a teenage girl diary kept under a bed would be what, again?
 
Warren offended some Native Americans and incurred the wrath of the Cherokee Nation earlier, but she seems to have made amends with the larger Native American community:

Elizabeth Warren receives standing ovation at surprise visit to Native American conference: report

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) received a standing ovation when she made a surprise appearance Tuesday at a Native American conference.

Warren spoke at the National Indian Women's "Supporting Each Other" lunch, where she introduced Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, the chairwoman of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah in Massachusetts, HuffPost first reported. The luncheon took place during an annual meeting of the National Congress of American Indians.

In her speech, Warren praised Native American women, specifically Reps. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) — the first two Native women elected to Congress. The progressive lawmaker, who reportedly received a standing ovation from tribal leaders and other Native attendees as she approached the stage, detailed several legislative priorities related to the Native American community.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Why do teenage girls fill their diaries with pages of "Mrs. John Doe"?
Click to expand...

ProTip: If one finds that their teenage daughter desires to marry an unidentified corpse in the city morgue they should not panic. It is likely just a phase. But, they should stop looking in her diary, that's creepy.
 
theprestige said:
Meh. It's clear something has gotten garbled somewhere along the way. Probably my fault.
Click to expand...

Not your fault, not at all.

The card was presented as something significant and you were intended to think it was significant. That was the whole point of presenting it. That this was a lie or misrepresentation was known and indeed inherent in the presentation. That you have more important stuff to deal with than the minute details of some politician on the other side of the country is to be expected. You are the intended target of a lie that has been tailored to fit your preconceived notions.

It is a credit to you that you did not double down or just ignore the issue.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Which of these constitutes identifying yourself to someone:
1. Saying your name to them.
2. Writing your name down in a secret location you expect they will never see.
Click to expand...
Your question is fundamentally broken/loaded. You're moving the goalposts, by clear implication and none too subtly:

First, "self identification" is not the same thing as "identifying yourself to someone".

Second, a form that's being submitted to an organization is not a "secret location". Minimally, her self-identification was conveyed to one or more people at the organization, and it was apparently factored into their statistics. If the organization seeks diversity, I can well imagine that a person who checks off two under-represented demographics is a welcome addition.
 
Tracing back through the conversation it appears to be you that changed to "self-identification". Who cares what she self identifies as? In all cases I'm aware of she identified as some form of white or non-minority when affirmative action might have applied.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Tracing back through the conversation it appears to be you that changed to "self-identification". Who cares what she self identifies as? In all cases I'm aware of she identified as some form of white or non-minority when affirmative action might have applied.
Click to expand...
In which particular case would you be willing to bet an admissions or hiring committee took her ancestry/ethnicity into account?
 
d4m10n said:
In which particular case would you be willing to bet an admissions or hiring committee took her ancestry/ethnicity into account?
Click to expand...

How about Harvard, when the hiring committee explicitly defended hiring her as a white person over other minority candidates?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...

See my edit. If that often cited* evidence is overwhelming or confusing to anyone, simply search the page for "defense".



*I'm fairly certain that's already been linked to at least 3 times in this thread, but I do understand that it can be difficult to remember that which disproves a cherished notion.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Tracing back through the conversation it appears to be you that changed to "self-identification". Who cares what she self identifies as? In all cases I'm aware of she identified as some form of white or non-minority when affirmative action might have applied.
Click to expand...
Pay better attention please. I corrected an unambiguously false claim. You replied to that with broken, counter-factual goalpost movement.

As to your question, I care about people telling lies; I think less of liars. I'm not alone here, especially in a community of skeptics. While it's uncomfortable when the liar is a person who is on "my side", oh well, reality trumps blind partisanship.
 
Having read through the article, I have failed to find the part where the committee admits to taking her ancestry into account as a factor in her favor (or against her, for that matter).

What did I miss?
 
Last edited:
Can we all agree that there are no documented examples of Warren using her trace Native American ancestry or family lore to get ahead in life?
 
d4m10n said:
Having read through the article, I have failed to find the part where the committee admits to taking her ancestry into account as a factor in her favor (or against her, for that matter).

What did I miss?
Click to expand...

You previously asked for evidence of a hiring committee taking her ethnicity into account. I linked you to evidence that the Harvard hiring committee defended hiring her over minorities, which obviously entails taking her ethnicity into account. Recall, for every single instance of Warren being hired, she claimed white ethnicity.

d4m10n said:
Can we all agree that there are no documented examples of Warren using her trace Native American ancestry or family lore to get ahead in life?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
wareyin said:
You previously asked for evidence of a hiring committee taking her ethnicity into account. I linked you to evidence that the Harvard hiring committee defended hiring her over minorities, which obviously entails taking her ethnicity into account.
Click to expand...

Defending a decision after it is made is not the same thing as making the decision itself; my question was whether they discussed ethnicity or ancestry during the hiring process itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom