Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

Belz... said:
Varwoche, you do realise that in order to establish something to be a lie you must do more than to show that the statement is factually incorrect, right?
Click to expand...
We have her own words in essence. Her explanation over the years has consistently pointed to a semi-distant ancestor. If you confirm for me that you're actually unaware of this very public fact, I'll dredge up some old quotes when time allows.

Moreover and equally convincing, a non risible alternate scenario doesn't exist. The possibility that her two white parents somehow duped her doesn't fly.
 
Last edited:
Someone as woke as Elizabeth Warren would have known she wasn't qualified to claim Native American status.

Either she is stupid, or really smart.

If she is really smart, she knew she was trying to game the hiring system, if she was stupid, then she had no idea of what she was doing.

Which is it? A smart , future presidential candidate, stealing the Native American valor, to vie for an Ivy League faculty position? or an idiot, who had no idea she was putting her Native American status into a hiring directory for Ivy league law schools?
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
We have her own words in essence. Her explanation over the years has consistently pointed to a semi-distant ancestor. If you confirm for me that you're actually unaware of this very public fact, I'll dredge up some old quotes when time allows.

Moreover and equally convincing, a non risible alternate scenario doesn't exist. The possibility that her two white parents somehow duped her doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

But an ancestor nonetheless, correct?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Someone as woke as Elizabeth Warren would have known she wasn't qualified to claim Native American status.

Either she is stupid, or really smart.

If she is really smart, she knew she was trying to game the hiring system, if she was stupid, then she had no idea of what she was doing.

Which is it? A smart , future presidential candidate, stealing the Native American valor, to vie for an Ivy League faculty position? or an idiot, who had no idea she was putting her Native American status into a hiring directory for Ivy league law schools?
Click to expand...

Wasn't she a Republican back then? All sorts of sins and errors can be corrected in time.
 
She used to be a Republican. But people change. Should we not allow that?

ETA: ******* ninja assed monkey . . . .
 
Dr. Keith said:
She used to be a Republican. But people change. Should we not allow that?
Click to expand...

You missed my point. Her dreadful sin of appropriation or her evil stupidity date from her Republican days, and therefore are easily understood as natural complications of that terrible sickness. The patient has since recovered from that ailment and we can expect no further lapses into the stupid evil typical of the infected. Indeed, she now bears an immunity to the R. coli.

Eta: ah, crossed posts. I'm leaving this in because it will infuriate some people.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
There's also the premise that Warren claimed her Native ancestry (which is now proven) on her membership roll for the Texas bar to help Warren. That isn't clear to me at all. Much more in keeping with her attitudes toward social justice would be Warren registering as American Indian so that she might be in a better position to provide services (maybe even pro bono?) to Native Americans? Imagine a 30-years' younger and more idealistic Elizabeth Warren for a moment and I don't think "conniving grifter" will come to mind.

Also, explain this to me: Warren identifies as American Indian on her Texas Bar membership card. Okay. First off, her name is "Elizabeth Warren" not "Sunbeam Crow". She shows up in person somewhere. She's not wearing buckskins and beads. She looks like she just fell out of the Talbot's catalogue. The notion that she was trying to fool anyone into thinking she wasn't a white woman is ludicrous. Clearly she had some other motivation for claiming her <actual> Native heritage. She wasn't trying to pull a fast one to get ahead; there's no way such a ruse could possibly have been successful.
Click to expand...

I guess this was too subtle for some folks. Let's try this:

Exhibit A – In the 1980s, young lawyer Elizabeth Warren who was raised to believe she had some Native ancestry writes in "American Indian" in a space to indicate race on a registry for the Texas Bar Association.

Why did she do this? (some options, feel free to add more)
  1. Back in the 1980s, female lawyers registered in the Texas Bar as some additional minority group got a big boost in pay and prestige compared to just being plain old white women. The benefit as so great, that it was worth the risk of her being outed as not really all that Native by anyone who would ever meet her in person.
  2. Back in the 1980s, nothing said "ka-ching!" for a new lawyer in Texas than getting hired by one of those sweet Native American law firms. Those Texas Indians paid big-time, but you had to be Native to get hired by them. In fact, the benefit as so great, that it was worth the risk of her being outed as not really all that Native by the first Native person with whom she spoke.
  3. Back in the 1980s, conditions and treatment of Native Americans in the US was quite a bit worse than it is today. By claiming her Native ancestry on the Texas Bar, Warren might have had access to Native plaintiffs who might not otherwise have been able to afford representation. She was demonstrating kinship; not trying to fool anyone.

Seriously, which of those three scenarios makes the most sense given who Elizabeth Warren is today? (Also, please add your own. I'm especially tickled by the folks convinced that Warren was trying to fool people into thinking she was Native, 'cause nothing screams 'career advancement' louder than being Native in the US, 3 decades ago. In Texas.)
 
Dr. Keith said:
She used to be a Republican. But people change. Should we not allow that?
Click to expand...

Under the new rules of cancel culture, change can only go in one direction. Past sins can never be forgiven, but new sins can always condemn you.
 
Ziggurat said:
Under the new rules of cancel culture, change can only go in one direction. Past sins can never be forgiven, but new sins can always condemn you.
Click to expand...

That is the most Christian thing you have ever whispered in my ear.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not sure how concluding that 31/32 Caucasian = "Native American" is anything other than delusion or dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, that was working under varwoche's definition of: You are the plurality ethnicity of your ancestry. That's not a universal definition, there is no agreed upon standard for what, specifically, "allows" a person to identify as this or that race.

That's Mistake #1.

Mistake #2: Ah yes, the old anachronistic fallacy. At the time in question, she hadn't had a DNA test. She didn't know what amount of Caucasian was present. She didn't know what amount of Native American was present (it could have been > 1/32 for all she knew).

How many times must this be pointed out before people like you realize the obvious flaw?
 
The Shrike said:
I guess this was too subtle for some folks. Let's try this:

Exhibit A – In the 1980s, young lawyer Elizabeth Warren who was raised to believe she had some Native ancestry writes in "American Indian" in a space to indicate race on a registry for the Texas Bar Association.

Why did she do this? (some options, feel free to add more)
  1. Back in the 1980s, female lawyers registered in the Texas Bar as some additional minority group got a big boost in pay and prestige compared to just being plain old white women. The benefit as so great, that it was worth the risk of her being outed as not really all that Native by anyone who would ever meet her in person.
  2. Back in the 1980s, nothing said "ka-ching!" for a new lawyer in Texas than getting hired by one of those sweet Native American law firms. Those Texas Indians paid big-time, but you had to be Native to get hired by them. In fact, the benefit as so great, that it was worth the risk of her being outed as not really all that Native by the first Native person with whom she spoke.
  3. Back in the 1980s, conditions and treatment of Native Americans in the US was quite a bit worse than it is today. By claiming her Native ancestry on the Texas Bar, Warren might have had access to Native plaintiffs who might not otherwise have been able to afford representation. She was demonstrating kinship; not trying to fool anyone.

Seriously, which of those three scenarios makes the most sense given who Elizabeth Warren is today? (Also, please add your own. I'm especially tickled by the folks convinced that Warren was trying to fool people into thinking she was Native, 'cause nothing screams 'career advancement' louder than being Native in the US, 3 decades ago. In Texas.)
Click to expand...

I think the critical premise goes more like this:

  1. Back in the 1980s, affirmative action was gaining some ground and was being practiced by government agencies which tend to hire some amount of lawyers. Whether or not it actually worked on a quota system or minority status created an actual advantage, some people at the time believed it did, and this group might include Warren.

None of the key background there is too controversial. We know affirmative action is a thing. We know people knew about it in the 80s. And while I'm not sure of the details of how it practically operated in the places Warren may have hoped to be employed, there was a decent chunk of people who believed at the time that minority status could acheive some advantages around that time due to affirmative action.

There was even a terrible movie around that time (Soul Man, look it up) about a white law student who dons blackface to get a Harvard scholarship only available to black students.

I don't think there's a great reason to think Warren was gunning for any particular advantage, but the perception that advantages for minorities existed at the time was fairly mainstream, so it isn't impossible or as implausible as your scenarios that she was among the many who believed such a status may create opportunities.
 
The Shrike said:
Seriously, which of those three scenarios makes the most sense given who Elizabeth Warren is today? (Also, please add your own. I'm especially tickled by the folks convinced that Warren was trying to fool people into thinking she was Native, 'cause nothing screams 'career advancement' louder than being Native in the US, 3 decades ago. In Texas.)
Click to expand...

Nothing screams GETTING HIRED AT HLS! louder than being a minority candidate at that time, protests were ongoing at Harvard, and the Dean was under pressure to hire more of them.

Also, she wasn't looking for customers at the time of the directory entry.
She was law faculty. And I don't think she was spending any time looking for clients.
 
Belz... said:
Again, what does that have to do with lying? You're consistently failing to make the connection between one premise and the conclusion.
Click to expand...
I actually don't get what it is you don't get. I don't have time to sort it out right now -- I'll post later.

First though, pardon me but I overstated this...

varwoche said:
We have her own words in essence. Her explanation over the years has consistently pointed to a semi-distant ancestor ... very public fact
Click to expand...
I now see that she's been far more vague than I thought. Apparently a grandparent is said to be small part NA but I'm unable to provide a quote from Warren.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom