Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

Drewbot said:
It looks very similar to stolen valor.

If a non-veteran politician put their name in a veteran directory, and said it was because they wanted to hang out with veterans, i'd say bull.

If a non-minority politician put their name in a minority directory, and said it was because they wanted to hang out with other minorities, i'd say bull.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Representing oneself falsely as a veteran is a false claim about one's own actions. Misrepresenting heritage, knowingly or not, is about one's ancestors. I think the latter is far less serious a fault.
 
Drewbot said:
If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 German, 1/4 Macedonian, 1/4 English, I have no claim to citizenship from any of those countries.

If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Cherokee, 1/4 German, 1/4 English, 1/4 Italian, and I have evidence that my Cherokee ancestor was on the Dawes Rolls, then I can claim Native American Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

If I am born in the United States, and My DNA is 1/4 Cherokee, 1/4 German, 1/4 English, 1/4 Italian, and I have no evidence that my Cherokee ancestor was on the Dawes Rolls, then I cannot claim Native American Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

In other words, my grandfather could be 100% Cherokee blood, but if none of his ancestors were on the Dawes Rolls it would not allow membership.
Click to expand...
This always seem very strange to me, it seems to be a peculiarity of Americans.

On my maternal side one generation back everyone was born in Wales, on the paternal side one grand was Welsh the other born in England, but 2 generations back on the paternal side and they were all born on Wales.

I was born in England, I am English, I am not any percentage Welsh.
 
Darat said:
This always seem very strange to me, it seems to be a peculiarity of Americans.

On my maternal side one generation back everyone was born in Wales, on the paternal side one grand was Welsh the other born in England, but 2 generations back on the paternal side and they were all born on Wales.

I was born in England, I am English, I am not any percentage Welsh.
Click to expand...

You're just trying to distance yourself from Prince Charles. It's okay: even though he's prince of the place he's not actually Welsh. He's German.
 
In most cases once you go back more than 2-3 generations National Identity becomes so functionally different from how we use it now that it becomes meaningless. The Nation State as a concept isn't that old and someone calling themselves "German" now and someone calling themselves "German" in 1830 are saying two very, very different things.
 
Stacyhs said:
ISTM that you're the one who got mixed up. There was no 'definition" mix up. I'm pretty sure they knew the difference between "directly descended from William Penn" and "directly descended from Penn's wife's sister". It was a false family story, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

You should at least be consistent in your views. On the one hand you argue that Elizabeth Warren is right to call herself Native American based on her 1/32 - 1/1024 DNA result and because of a faded black and white photo in which one of her relatives 'has high cheekbones' so 'could be Native American'.

Yet your own husband's family who have proven that William Penn is their Great Uncle are fantastists who have been fed a 'false family story' and so their claim can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
In most cases once you go back more than 2-3 generations National Identity becomes so functionally different from how we use it now that it becomes meaningless. The Nation State as a concept isn't that old and someone calling themselves "German" now and someone calling themselves "German" in 1830 are saying two very, very different things.
Click to expand...

It becomes meaningless to some. To others it can be an excuse to discriminate against others. Just ask the Japanese whether third generation Koreans in Japan are Japanese or not.
 
Darat said:
This always seem very strange to me, it seems to be a peculiarity of Americans.

On my maternal side one generation back everyone was born in Wales, on the paternal side one grand was Welsh the other born in England, but 2 generations back on the paternal side and they were all born on Wales.

I was born in England, I am English, I am not any percentage Welsh.
Click to expand...

Ah but can you sing? That's the true test. See you, boyo.
 
varwoche said:
I consider it a fact that Warren lied. So no, we don't have consensus on the facts.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence that Warren's intent was to deceive? If not, then we do have consensus on the facts: You are wrong; she didn't lie.
 
varwoche said:
I find this comparison unconvincing for two reasons: (1) For all practical purposes, you didn't misrepresent yourself. You were legally qualified to make the purchase. Whereas Warren misrepresented herself.
Click to expand...

The reason I didn't misrepresent myself was because I perceived (correctly) that the intent of asking for my birthdate was to determine if I was over 21.

In Warren's case, there is a question of what she perceived the purpose of the field she filled in to be. There's a little ambiguity there, but at least the charitable interpretation based on her statements is that she thought it might be used to pull names for demographic based events and not much more of consequence.

I'm not sure I've seen much of a case about what it was truly and practically used for. Some critics have made some assumptions that it related to diversity quotas or affirmative action or hiring, but those don't seem very well supported.

It does seem that whatever purpose it served, it wasn't actually used for what Warren stated she hoped it might. But her action would only be a misrepresentation to the extent that she knew the way it was intended to be used and intended to subvert that intent. If the practical use of the form lined up with the use suggested by her comments, then that would not be a deception.

If it didn't line up, then she would be mistaken, not lying. Just like if I were mistaken about the purpose of the liquor birthdate prompt and they really wanted to get astrological sign demographics from their customers, it wouldn't make me dishonest because I made a bad guess about the purpose of the prompt.

Now being wrong about the purpose of the prompt might show poor awareness or judgement on Warren's part, even if it didn't show dishonesty.


(2) That's a far more casual scenario.
Click to expand...

It is more casual, but what role does formality play in dishonesty? It can be a more or less severe issue due to the consequences at play, but that doesn't change the core nature.

And while a field in employment paperwork should be taken seriously, there's a LOT of paperwork in a lot of jobs that is complete BS. Not everything people have to fill out for work is of meaningful import. There are a lot of TPS reports.
 
Cabbage said:
Do you have evidence that Warren's intent was to deceive? If not, then we do have consensus on the facts: You are wrong; she didn't lie.
Click to expand...
We know that Warren misrepresented her racial identity. And it's reasonably clear that she's not delusional. That makes it a lie. She's even apologized for it. Do you think her apology is insincere?

Are you familiar with Rachel Dolezal? She was the head of an NAACP chapter. She claimed to be African-American. In fact, she's zero percent African-American. And unless she was completely delusional, she knew this. According to you, did she also not lie?
 
Vixen said:
You should at least be consistent in your views. On the one hand you argue that Elizabeth Warren is right to call herself Native American based on her 1/32 - 1/1024 DNA result and because of a faded black and white photo in which one of her relatives 'has high cheekbones' so 'could be Native American'.
Click to expand...

Citation? Good luck. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

Yet your own husband's family who have proven that William Penn is their Great Uncle are fantastists who have been fed a 'false family story' and so their claim can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Click to expand...

How your brain works in order to get that from my posts is anyone's guess. Maybe someone else here can explain it, because I certainly can't. Anyone? Anyone care to step up and explain it?

Just stop, Vixen. Your complete inability to ever admit you made a mistake is glaringly obvious once again. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Cavemonster said:
In Warren's case, there is a question of what she perceived the purpose of the field she filled in to be. There's a little ambiguity there, but at least the charitable interpretation based on her statements is that she thought it might be used to pull names for demographic based events and not much more of consequence.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're conflating two events. The demographic based events emanate from her entries in a directory at Harvard. The charitable interpretation might well be correct. The form she submitted to the Texas bar where she wrote our her race as American Indian isn't so ambiguous. This wasn't a check all that apply format. More like:

RACE: American Indian
 
Stacyhs said:
How your brain works in order to get that from my posts is anyone's guess. Maybe someone else here can explain it, because I certainly can't. Anyone? Anyone care to step up and explain it?
Click to expand...

She's on one of her "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what you say" crusades?
 
varwoche said:
I suspect you're conflating two events. The demographic based events emanate from her entries in a directory at Harvard. The charitable interpretation might well be correct. The form she submitted to the Texas bar where she wrote our her race as American Indian isn't so ambiguous. This wasn't a check all that apply format. More like:

RACE: American Indian
Click to expand...

That makes it somewhat less casual, but I'm not so sure it changes the core evaluation here.

Whether her action there is read as deceipt, mistake, incompetence or nothing of consquence still hinges on what she thought the purpose of the prompt was.

The difference between checking a box or writing two words doesn't change that. If I had to write out my birthdate longhand and scan it in in order to be admitted to the Jonny Walker site, it doesn't make it more of a misrepresentation than simply choosing the wrong menu items so long as I still believe that I'm not decieving anybody with an active interest in that detail.
 
varwoche said:
I suspect you're conflating two events. The demographic based events emanate from her entries in a directory at Harvard. The charitable interpretation might well be correct. The form she submitted to the Texas bar where she wrote our her race as American Indian isn't so ambiguous. This wasn't a check all that apply format. More like:

RACE: American Indian
Click to expand...

By your standards, how much Native American DNA would someone need to put that down on a form of absolutely zero importance?

My hunch is that by your standards American Indian is not even a race in the US anymore. There can't be more than a dozen or so pure blooded Native Americans in the whole country.
 
Dr. Keith said:
By your standards, how much Native American DNA would someone need to put that down on a form of absolutely zero importance?
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to say a plurality* of your makeup. But that's a complicated question. I'm already on record stating that I'm 1/16 English, and would consider it a lie if I self-identified as English. Certainly more than 1/32 (her makeup as she understood it to be).

It gets complicated when we take into account how a person lives their life. I'd cut slack to a person who was born and raised on a reservation and/or is a member of a tribe. I'd also cut slack if a person is 1/32 NA, but has no idea what the other 31/32 consists of.

My hunch is that by your standards American Indian is not even a race in the US anymore. There can't be more than a dozen or so pure blooded Native Americans in the whole country.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's an interesting curve. That said, one needn't be pure blood to rightfully identify as NA.

* probably not the right word in the context
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom