BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
When did she benefit?
Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread
- Thread starter Trebuchet
- Start date
- Status
When did she benefit?
In the report of the genetics testing, it stated that there might have been one Native American ancestor 5-6 generations ago, or multiple Native American ancestors 7-9 generations ago.
What happened than was that the "multiple" part got ignored in the reporting, so people did the math based upon a single ancestor 9 generations ago (that's where the incorrect 1/1064 number came from). Which was not what the testing showed at all. The testing company also stated that the genetic markers were arranged in a way that strongly suggested that the single ancestor 5-6 generations ago was the most likely scenario.
I once quipped that I would be willing to be listed by our law firm as bi-sexual if it improved our diversity numbers. And didn't require proof. I may not be the best person to ask this question of.
There is ammo against everyone. They all have their weaknesses and none should be ignored. But that fact is that we have to pick a weakness and then move on. Of the top five candidates, I think this is the least of the weaknesses.
"Better a fake princess than a fake dictator." The counters aren't that tough.
Belz...
Fiend God
Oh, you just lost 6 woke points, Joe.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Thank you. Did they say how likely?
Last edited:
I've got SJW points to spare from the "Wrong Apartment Shooting" thread. Not sure how long it takes them to expire so I might as well spend them when I can.
But yeah the whole notion that your "identity" is this magical and distinct thing separate from all the demographics and factors and qualities that actually make you up is just... mind boggingly stupid to me.
"I claimed Native American Ancestry but I never claimed I identified as Native American" is Jabba "I see the person running, but I don't see the act of running" level nonsense.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I will just say that any one who has ever participated in hiring in an academic institution would find it laughable to think that it would have played any role.
Sure, institutions are absolutely interested in improving diversity, and will do their best to find qualified applicants that help with that. And so if you find qualified candidates from under-represented groups, you work hard to hire them. And that works well for women, African-American and Hispanic applicants. But one of the complaints about Warren is that she is whiter than white, and the only way anyone would know if she was Native American is if she put it in her application.
But that information isn't asked in an application. In fact, it's not even legal to ask that in an application! Applicants are given separate demographic questionnaires that go to HR offices to create diversity data in the applicant pool. The people doing the hiring might see diversity statistics at some point that they can use to assess whether their applicant pool is adequate, but all this is is a breakdown percentage by category. No one who is on the hiring committee ever sees the individual responses before the hire is made (and probably not even after).
And that's consistent with the claim of those who hired her. It's the difference between people who know what they are talking about and people who don't have the first clue.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
This is outstandingly silly.
Having genetic ancestry and being part of a cultural group are two separate things and have been considered so for a long time, which has little if anything to do with 'SJW'. Why this is somehow controversial for non-white groups when it's been perfectly acceptable for white groups is interesting and might be where some think the SJW connection is.
How about we take your same claim and apply it to another group: Jews. What you are saying is that not only is there no distinction between ethnic Jews and cultural Jews, but that believing there is is a denial of reality.
Too 'charged' a subject that the 'SJW' is Godwinning you with? Ok, let's go with Italians. I have Italian ancestors. I am not Italian. I don't speak Italian, don't share cultural practices with Italy (besides those that overlap with modern American culture), and have never been to Italy. But according to you I'm both genetically and culturally Italian. You can substitute any of the identities I have genetic ties to. Welsh, Swedish, German, Native American...
Wait, that last one is interesting. I live near the reservation of the Seneca, but I don't share any practices with them generally either, even though I have family who do. I'm not Seneca, he is. And other cultural groups are free to define who counts as inside their cultural group. (For Seneca one's mother has to be a member of the tribe and you essentially apply.)
Essential your claim that any claims of genetic connection is a claim of identity has long been considered 'mind boggling stupid'.
Last edited:
Cabbage
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,598
I've been told constantly that the one drop rule is racist. Now you're telling me that it's correct.
Not at all. Where did I say anything at all about drops? I merely said America is majority white European-American. That's all.
If I was using the one drop rule, I actually believe there wouldn't be any "whites" at all, so they couldn't very well be a majority, now could they? Probably everyone has a "drop" somewhere in their ancestry.
You're arguing in circles. That was 3 paragraphs of textbook "No True Scotsman" followed with a non-sequitor.
Either you need "Ancestry X" to be part of "Culture X" or you don't. It can't be "You need Ancestry X to be part of Culture X only when I feel like it."
If "Cultural X" and "Ancestry X" aren't linked why link them?
This story is very similar to Trump saying Alabama is in danger from Dorian. That would have been nothing if Trump had just said, "Oh, that was a mistake, I was working with old data." Warren's ancestry would have gone away if she had just said, "Well, that's the story Grandma told me and I'm not going to call Grandma a liar." Instead she got a test that showed, meh. Then you get her fans explaining how being 1/64th native American totally justifies her letting Harvard list her as a minority proffessor and contributing a recipe to "pow wow chow" Its all a joke to Trump and his supporters and Warren's supporters are giving them exactly what they want.
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
It's a stupid claim. I have family lore of Cherokee and Seneca ancestry, along with Italian and German and Irish and English. By your logic I must be extremely busy fitting myself into all these communities. My identity is not dictated by who of my ancestors decided to ****.
For the Cherokee example, they will only accept tribal membership of people descended from those listed on the Dawes Rolls (which includes Europeans who joined the tribe before expulsion) who show a dedicated interest in the community. Tribal traditions, going to gatherings, staying in contact. I (and Warren) may have had Cherokee ancestors going back a bit, but we have had no contact with the tribe, have not matched genealogies with the Dawes Rolls, have not even tried to join the tribe, and don't keep any of the customs.
Stacyhs has a documented Cherokee ancestor and I don't see you accusing HIM of secretly attending meetings. Have anything at all to back up your claim that ancestry is identity 100%?
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
Six years of Trump badgering her to get a DNA test show you are mistaken in your assumption.
I'm saying "Oh you need Ancestry X to be part of our club... but also the people in the club get to say whether or not you are really a true member even if you have the ancestry, but without the ancestry you can't even be considered" is nonsense.
"You have to have ancestry X be part of culture X, but ancestry X doesn't automatically put you into culture X there's this semipermeable membrane of vague other qualifiers" is textbook "No True Scotsman."
People are making the Cherokee nation sound like a fraternity.
"You have to have ancestry X be part of culture X, but ancestry X doesn't automatically put you into culture X there's this semipermeable membrane of vague other qualifiers" is textbook "No True Scotsman."
People are making the Cherokee nation sound like a fraternity.
I'm saying "Oh you need Ancestry X to be part of our club... but also the people in the club get to say whether or not you are really a true member even if you have the ancestry, but without the ancestry you can't even be considered" is nonsense.
"You have to have ancestry X be part of culture X, but ancestry X doesn't automatically put you into culture X there's this semipermeable membrane of vague other qualifiers" is textbook "No True Scotsman."
People are making the Cherokee nation sound like a fraternity.
"You have to have ancestry X be part of culture X, but ancestry X doesn't automatically put you into culture X there's this semipermeable membrane of vague other qualifiers" is textbook "No True Scotsman."
People are making the Cherokee nation sound like a fraternity.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
So she didn't, but she should have. Again, that's the implicit position of Warren and her base.
Belz...
Fiend God
Is it? Where?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
Then your previous response was incoherent. Let's trace this back:
d4m10n is basically referring to the one drop rule here. He's being sarcastic about implausibility, since that was in fact a common viewpoint. I responded:
In other words, Warren was doing exactly that: claiming to be Native American based on a tiny fraction of her ethnic heritage. Then you responded:
The issue is not simply whether or not "majority" constitutes a rational "default". The more important question is whether "any deviation therefrom should be considered significant". Without that part, d4m10n's post and my response holds little significance to the thread. And if you don't agree that "any deviation therefrom should be considered significant", then it's not the correct position. But again, it's the position that Warren herself chose to adopt.
- Status