• 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.
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...


None. Not sure I'm getting your question. Why would they take her ethnicity in to account? You're suggesting they might discriminate against or in favor of whites? Even so, I don't see how that would be Warren's fault. Perhaps you could explain your question.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
None. Not sure I'm getting your question. Why would they take her ethnicity in to account? You're suggesting they might discriminate against or in favor of whites?
Click to expand...

It gets complicated when it's a white person who thinks they're part Native American is trying to pass as white to get hired for a job. Which they gave her because she's a woman, anyway... Or is she? I don't recall anyone asking Warren if she identifies as female, have we all been just assuming that?
 
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...


I agree with that. Does this address the earlier question you asked of me too? Except for one post where I mistakenly left out the word "not" that has been my point all along. She says she's white/Caucasian/non-minority on official applications where affirmative action might come in to play. She only mentions NA in other situations where it's apparently just amusing or interesting to her.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I have no idea what this means. Perhaps you could rephrase to include some actual meaning?
Click to expand...
In case your ignorance isn't the act it appears to be, here you go...

In post 3153 I corrected a claim that was unambiguously false, concerning a simple factual matter.

Never mind the gibberish you wrote in post 3154.

In post 3163 you asked a question based on misleading premises. As if the form was "secret", and as if the size of the audience changes the fact of the false self-identification, and as if somehow these BS factors cause a crystal clear act of self-identification to not be a real self-identification.

In post 3210 I pointed out that the question you posed in post 3163 is bogus.

This exchange serves to remind me that fact-free bubbles and blind partisanship aren't the exclusive domains of the right. Not that I needed it.

Hope that helps.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No you didn't and no it is not unambiguously false. And 3154 is not gibberish
Click to expand...

OK, full stop. Let's back up to our little genesis moment.

Silly Green Monkey said:
I am still puzzled by why checking the box for a portion of her ancestry counts as Identifying As That.
Click to expand...

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 the latest revelation that revived this thread, we learned that Warren didn't merely check boxes. She wrote out "American Indian" as her "Race". Do you actually dispute this unambiguous fact? (While it appears that SGM wasn't well informed about the latest revelation, so what? That's no crime. They had the good sense not to push back. That would be delusional.)

Then comes your surreal foray through the looking glass:

RecoveringYuppy said:
In a box labeled specifically that it would not be used to identify her.
Click to expand...
Multi-dimensional, fact-free nonsense. It identified her to the organization.

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...
A question based on a premise consisting of 200 proof fact-free nonsense. "Secret location"? What a joke.

Sharpen your pencil.
 
Last edited:
So your point was that check she wrote it out rather than checked a box in that secret location? Yes, FFS. That irrelevant point is correct. And we don't really know that it even identified her to the organization. The way the box is labeled the information the information could have stopped at some data entry clerk.

I don't see how either of these points is relevant to the point SGM was making and it certainly isn't relevant to my point.

I'm afraid with this new information about what you think is at issue I'm entirely as a loss as to what possible point you could be trying to make. In any event, my point still stands and the point that I took away from Silly Green Monkey's post is still completely valid (don't know if SGM agrees).

Warren wrote her ethnicity in to a box that she expected no one (that could give her benefit*) to see.

*Added for those having trouble seeing the point.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The National Congress of American Indians has formally condemned Trump's continued use of "Pocahontas" to reference Warren
Click to expand...

The article continues to propagate this error:

Warren took a test last year that demonstrated she was between 1/64th and 1/1028th Native American and has since apologized multiple times for the confusion caused when she identified herself as Native American.
Click to expand...

The 1/1028 number comes from a math error that was made early in the reporting and then repeated over and over again. She's closer to the 1/64 side of things.

At any rate, the Trumpies will just keep calling her "Pocahontas" and insisting that she's the real racist. Reality and the current thoughts and opinions of Native Americans will have no place in their frame of reference.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'd rather have 'Pocahontas' as my president than a narcissistic, pathological lying, racist, serial adulterer.
Click to expand...
Which is true of roughly half the country, the other roughly half the country would rather the liar to, well any democrat. Which is why this story doesn't matter in the least. She may have lost a vote or two due to here fairly lame response, but nothing substantial and certainly didn't loose any votes on account of the originally story.
 
ahhell said:
Which is true of roughly half the country, the other roughly half the country would rather the liar to, well any democrat. Which is why this story doesn't matter in the least. She may have lost a vote or two due to here fairly lame response, but nothing substantial and certainly didn't loose any votes on account of the originally story.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I think Native Americans may have taken Trump's idiocy more seriously than the rest of us. Yes, they may have been upset that Warren claimed she was Cherokee, but Trump's derogatory usage of "Pocahontas" is an insult to every N.American.
 
ahhell said:
Which is true of roughly half the country, the other roughly half the country would rather the liar to, well any democrat. Which is why this story doesn't matter in the least. She may have lost a vote or two due to here fairly lame response, but nothing substantial and certainly didn't loose any votes on account of the originally story.
Click to expand...

It may not matter much in the general election, but I think it's a little premature to dismiss its significance in the primary. When Democrats are choosing between two Democratic candidates, small differences matter more.
 
Stacyhs said:
Agreed. But I think Native Americans may have taken Trump's idiocy more seriously than the rest of us. Yes, they may have been upset that Warren claimed she was Cherokee, but Trump's derogatory usage of "Pocahontas" is an insult to every N.American.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, I would bet an insignificant sum that more are offended by here claiming Native ancestry than his making fun of it. I'm sure there's some polling on the matter somewhere.
Ziggurat said:
It may not matter much in the general election, but I think it's a little premature to dismiss its significance in the primary. When Democrats are choosing between two Democratic candidates, small differences matter more.
Click to expand...
You may be right about this but from my outsiders standpoint, it would probably only effect those choosing between her and Sanders. As an outsider, I'd go for her over Sanders if I were inclinded to vote for either of them by quite a wide margin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom