Elizabeth Warren - 1/32nd Cherokee? How?

[shuize]

“In the 1930s, when my parents got married, these were hard issues,’’ Warren said. “My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope."


Because Warren's mama was 1/16th Cherokee, and 15/16ths white.

Yeah, this "my mother was persecuted for being an Indian" claim rings false with me as well. It just sounds like more of Warren trying to jump on the "I'm really an oppressed minority, too!" bandwagon.

Of course, if her supposed Cherokee heritage meant as much to her as she claims, I still don't understand why she would ever stop identifying herself as such after she obtained tenure.

 

[davefoc]

Why is this thread still going on?

Elizabeth Warren told an employer that she was part Native American. She believed and still believes that. There is no evidence that she got any special advantage for this. There is no evidence that she broke any laws.

This latest horrible thing that she did was say that she hadn't authorized an employer to list her as native American. May she didn't authorize it. Maybe she just wrote it down and forgot about it.

Wake me up when somebody finds out that she got preferential treatment for entrance to college or for employment by claiming that she was a Native American. I don't see much of an issue if she was wrong about her Native American heritage. Most of us just know what our parents tell us about our heritage and it's pretty clear that a lot of parents make mistakes or lie about this. But so far there isn't any evidence that she was wrong. If this is the best that people can come up with how terrible Elizabeth Warren is then she must be pretty damn ethical. Of course, she is a Democrat and for some people that seems to be enough to turn the tiniest peccadillo into a mountain all the while it is the same people that can wax eloquent for pages on some miscellaneous defense of George Bush for one aspect was the worst presidency in at least the last 60 years or so.

 

[applecorped]

Why is this thread still going on?

Because your posting in it.

Thank you for contributing. It is an unfortunate series of events.

 

[Brainster]

Why is this thread still going on?

Because it remains a hot topic in the news.

Latest news stories involving Elizabeth Warren:

1. Warren defends slow response to heritage questions--CBS News
2. Mass. Senate candidate Warren, in AP interview, discusses Native ...--Washington Post
3. The Myth of Native American Blood--Boston.com

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I claimed native ancestry the same as I claimed all the rest, until I met people of the tribe and they informed me that ancestry didn't matter. It sure mattered to my family though, they were so ashamed of the darkie guy that they wouldn't even say his name. Does no one remember the one-drop rule used to justify discrimination against everyone with even a trace of African ancestry, regardless of their physical appearance?

 

[davefoc]

Has this crap changed anybody's mind a tiny bit? Are there people participating in this thread that thought well gee, I was hoping that she'd win but now this series of horrible revelations has completely disillusioned me about her? Or even something like gee, I thought Elizabeth Warren was perfect and now I guess she doesn't quite measure up to that.

I understand that this kind of political nonsense gets cooked up by both sides (but it seems to be more typical of Republican nonsense) but why are people in this forum commenting on it? How does this compare with say the Tom Delay scandals? Or even Bill Clinton's little adventures.

This thing might be a good time to use the stupid scandal rule. The stupider the scandal ginned up by a candidate's opponents the more honest and ethical the candidate. By that standard Warren is one incredibly honest and ethical human. Seems like it might be a good idea to vote for somebody that has gotten this kind of thorough vetting.

 

[Brainster]

This thing might be a good time to use the stupid scandal rule. The stupider the scandal ginned up by a candidate's opponents the more honest and ethical the candidate. By that standard Warren is one incredibly honest and ethical human. Seems like it might be a good idea to vote for somebody that has gotten this kind of thorough vetting.

You assume that there's nothing here, but:

1. Until Thursday, Warren didn't admit that she even told Harvard about her supposed Cherokee heritage.
2. We have only Warren and Harvard's word for it that it played no part in her hiring. Against that we have the numerous calls for more "diversity" in the Harvard Law faculty back in the 1990s, and the fact that Harvard claimed her as a "minority" on forms filed with the federal government.

Federal statistics like those in the Harvard records, which were compiled for the Department of Labor, rely on a definition of “Native American’’ that requires both ancestry and an official affiliation with a tribe or community. The 1992-93 and 1995-96 Harvard reports indicate the university relied on that definition during those years as well as the years since.

At best, the story so far exposes that Harvard Law has a sham commitment to diversity. In the medium case it shows that Warren cooperated with Harvard to provide them with some cover. And the worst case is that both Warren and Harvard are lying and that Warren was hired at least in part because she enabled them to check off that box on the Department of Labor forms.

 

[marksman]

I find the plagiarism more disturbing than the false ancestry. (Although, if I were Cherokee, I might feel otherwise.) I do like Elizabeth Warren's politics, and were I a Massachusetts voter, I'd likely support her over Scott Brown, but for a Harvard professor to engage in plagiarism is a breach of ethics that troubles me.

 

[WildCat]

Well I certainly won't be voting for Warren.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do like Elizabeth Warren's politics

There's news on that front too. Apparently, Warren made a tidy bundle exploiting home foreclosures.

She's like the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[davefoc]

There's news on that front too. Apparently, Warren made a tidy bundle exploiting home foreclosures.

She's like the gift that keeps on giving.

Oh no, Elizabeth Warren bought and sold houses and made a profit. Oh the depravity.

 

[mikedenk]

This thing might be a good time to use the stupid scandal rule. The stupider the scandal ginned up by a candidate's opponents the more honest and ethical the candidate. By that standard Warren is one incredibly honest and ethical human. Seems like it might be a good idea to vote for somebody that has gotten this kind of thorough vetting.

Yeah, if there's one thing this situation shows us, it's how Warren is "incredibly honest and ethical".

 

[Brainster]

There's news on that front too. Apparently, Warren made a tidy bundle exploiting home foreclosures.

She's like the gift that keeps on giving.

It gets even better. Where did she get the money to do the real estate flips? Why, from her interest-free loan from Harvard:

Warren disclosed the 20-year interest free loan from Harvard, which lent her between $15,000 and $50,000 in 1996, in financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate last September.

 

[davefoc]

It gets even better. Where did she get the money to do the real estate flips? Why, from her interest-free loan from Harvard:

Here's a news flash for you Brainster. Colleges give professors various perks to encourage them to join the staff, or to stay or just because they are part of the good old boy network. Did Warren get some special advantage for doing something bad or unethical?

Here's another news flash, there are people that are paid to do nothing but pore over somebody's life to come up with the worst stuff they can. Obviously when they can't find anything of substance they just take routine stuff and make it sound as bad as possible. Mostly the only people impressed with this kind of thing are the true believing partisans that are convinced that any politician that isn't in their party is evil, it's just a matter of finding the evidence. On occasion, I suppose they may win over a moderate or two that buys in to their crap, but in this case the stuff they have dug up is so mindlessly stupid that the only people that are going to affected are the true believing partisans that get themselves worked up over this kind of thing.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If people were just mocking her for being one of those stereotypical people who "have Native American heritage" then I would have no problem with it. Or if the focus was on Harvard's standards for recognising minority status. My problem is that a lot of the rhetoric gives me this really weird vibe about blood quantum levels and affirmative action that can really open up a can of worms if you spout them off in the wrong place (Apparently, this isn't one of those places). All of the mainstream media I've read that "covered the controversy" never even explained how tribal membership works. And, of course, Warren's own answers did nothing to help this problem. Indian Country, who had very good articles I linked to earlier, notes that Warren has been avoiding Native American press.

I don't think it is all that meaningful in terms of political candidacy, unless it comes out that she did use it deceitfully to get a job (Right now I think the evidence points to "dumb White person"). But I think they way people are talking about it should be talked about, and then that talked about .

 

[shuize]

It gets even better. Where did she get the money to do the real estate flips? Why, from her interest-free loan from Harvard:

She only took the money from Harvard because she knew the "predatory banks" wouldn't lend to an "Indian."

 

[applecorped]

Here's a news flash for you Brainster. Colleges give professors various perks to encourage them to join the staff, or to stay or just because they are part of the good old boy network. Did Warren get some special advantage for doing something bad or unethical?

Here's another news flash, there are people that are paid to do nothing but pore over somebody's life to come up with the worst stuff they can. Obviously when they can't find anything of substance they just take routine stuff and make it sound as bad as possible. Mostly the only people impressed with this kind of thing are the true believing partisans that are convinced that any politician that isn't in their party is evil, it's just a matter of finding the evidence. On occasion, I suppose they may win over a moderate or two that buys in to their crap, but in this case the stuff they have dug up is so mindlessly stupid that the only people that are going to affected are the true believing partisans that get themselves worked up over this kind of thing.

Thank god she didn't put a dog on the roof of her car.

 

[Brainster]

On occasion, I suppose they may win over a moderate or two that buys in to their crap, but in this case the stuff they have dug up is so mindlessly stupid that the only people that are going to affected are the true believing partisans that get themselves worked up over this kind of thing.

Here's a news flash for you:

The vast majority of voters (72 percent) said the issue would not affect their vote, but 31 percent of self-described independents - a critical voting bloc - said the issue makes them less likely to support Warren in November.

 

[tyr_13]

Thank god she didn't put a dog on the roof of her car.

Yes, animal abuse is worse than falsely claiming to be a native American. Thank you Mr. Obvious.

 

[Kestrel]

Here's a news flash for you Brainster. Colleges give professors various perks to encourage them to join the staff, or to stay or just because they are part of the good old boy network. Did Warren get some special advantage for doing something bad or unethical?

Here's another news flash, there are people that are paid to do nothing but pore over somebody's life to come up with the worst stuff they can. Obviously when they can't find anything of substance they just take routine stuff and make it sound as bad as possible. Mostly the only people impressed with this kind of thing are the true believing partisans that are convinced that any politician that isn't in their party is evil, it's just a matter of finding the evidence. On occasion, I suppose they may win over a moderate or two that buys in to their crap, but in this case the stuff they have dug up is so mindlessly stupid that the only people that are going to affected are the true believing partisans that get themselves worked up over this kind of thing.

It's fodder for people who don't want the voters talking about the real issue. Scott Brown didn't do much to help the people of Massachusetts in the Senate. He acted the part of a good team player in the GOP obstructionist game.