• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Elizabeth Warren - 1/32nd Cherokee? How?

Phony how? If I have 1/32 Cherokee ancestry, I'm not allowed to say so? I know lots of people who are part Native American and they all mention it. It's a very interesting thing to most people. Did she use this fact to get something she wasn't entitled to? Is there anyone claiming that Elizabeth Warren isn't freaking brilliant and deserves whatever success she's had? Did she beat out some deserving white guy who deserved her slot more, but because she was 1/32 Cherokee they went with the squaw?

Aside from her checking a box...which was true!...what is she alleged to have done wrong?

Why did she stop checking the box?
 
Why did she stop checking the box?

Maybe the same reason I don't often mention my heritage in real life? That would be being tired of having to explain how that could possibly be and annoyance at the incredulous.
 
Phony how? If I have 1/32 Cherokee ancestry, I'm not allowed to say so?
I think it's phony to self-identify as Native American (or whatever) when one is 1/32 Native American. (If the checkbox said "Trace Native American Ancestory" then I take it back.) I also think her explanation is phony.

I know lots of people who are part Native American and they all mention it.
Mentioning fractional NA ancestory isn't the same thing as self-identifying as NA.

It's a very interesting thing to most people.
And misleading.

Did she use this fact to get something she wasn't entitled to? Is there anyone claiming that Elizabeth Warren isn't freaking brilliant and deserves whatever success she's had? Did she beat out some deserving white guy who deserved her slot more, but because she was 1/32 Cherokee they went with the squaw?
I'm not aware of such accusations (but I haven't followed the story much). I think she was phony regardless.

As the article in the OP notes, Elizabeth Warren is only 1/32nd Cherokee. You know who else is only 1/32nd Cherokee?

Bill John Baker, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation (the largest of the three Federally-recognized Cherokee Indian tribes). As was another previous Principal Chief, W. W. Keeler.
Well shut my mouth.
 
*sigh*

So you're not going to attack her actual positions? You ARE desperate.


Character counts.

It was sleazy of her to claim ancestry based on "family lore" and it was even more sleazy to start whining "they're just attacking me because I'm a woman" after being exposed. The story isn't going away, primarily because she is surprisingly terrible at lying... yet just can't seem to stop BSing about this incident.

I find it amazing that the Democrats in one of the bluest states in the country have drafted two such pathetic candidates in a row for this seat.
 
Tell me at what point is someone allowed to check that box? On what basis did you arrive at your fraction?
 
Character counts.

It was sleazy of her to claim ancestry based on "family lore" and it was even more sleazy to start whining "they're just attacking me because I'm a woman" after being exposed. The story isn't going away, primarily because she is surprisingly terrible at lying... yet just can't seem to stop BSing about this incident.

I find it amazing that the Democrats in one of the bluest states in the country have drafted two such pathetic candidates in a row for this seat.
So being bad at lying is character fault, I would think this would be a refreshing change in a politician. A lot of ancestry claims ar based on family lore until there is evidence to back it up.

If one of the biggest things you can dig up on a person is someone claiming to part of group of people and actually is a member maybe that is a good thing infavor of this person.
 
So being bad at lying is character fault, I would think this would be a refreshing change in a politician. A lot of ancestry claims ar based on family lore until there is evidence to back it up.

If one of the biggest things you can dig up on a person is someone claiming to part of group of people and actually is a member maybe that is a good thing infavor of this person.

She's a phony, not a liar. If you believe that the faculty at Harvard should be more "diverse" (i.e. their ethnic backgrounds should reflect the population at large), then I'd think it would be offensive that someone of Warren's appearance and cultural background would claim to be representative of an underprivileged minority class.
 
The Washington Examiner checks out Warren's qualifications to teach at Harvard, and finds them lacking:

Embattled Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren graduated from the lowest ranked law school of all Harvard Law School professors--and nearly all Ivy League law professors--shedding further light on the importance her claim to be Native American was to advancing her career.

That “box checking,” as critics call it, likely played a role in her Harvard hiring especially when her background is compared to those of the other near-100 Harvard Law School professors and assistant professors, according to an analysis of law schools the professors attended. Most graduated from Harvard, and all from the nation’s top 10. Warren graduated from Rutgers University in Newark, ranked 82nd by Top-Law-Schools.com.

What’s more, only Rutgers has current law school professors who graduated from Rutgers. And in the analysis of the law school degrees of the roughly 350 Ivy League law school professors provided by a Warren critic, only one graduated from a lower-ranked law school than Warren, a Yale professor who attended the University of Nebraska Law School, ranked 89.

They also dig up the fact that Warren's "minority" status was noted by Harvard:

About three years ago, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is of Native American descent, become the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.
 
Snrk

So someone is complaining about the fact that Harvard hired someone from Rutgers?

Wow I could so not care about Ivy League pretension.
 
As the article in the OP notes, Elizabeth Warren is only 1/32nd Cherokee. You know who else is only 1/32nd Cherokee?

Bill John Baker, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation (the largest of the three Federally-recognized Cherokee Indian tribes). As was another previous Principal Chief, W. W. Keeler.

Fixed it for me:
I think it's phony to self-identify as Native American (or whatever) when one is 1/32 Native American, unless one was raised amongst Native Americans (essentially) as a Native American. (If the checkbox said "Trace Native American Ancestory" then I take it back.) I also think her explanation is phony.
According to wiki, Baker and Keeler apparently qualify.
 
the Cherokee Nation will accept anyone descended from someone on the Dawes Rolls (same situation as why Israel will accept anyone the Nazis would kill) but to be Cherokee you have to be part of the community. I've got ancestry, but I have no connections to the Cherokee community, so I'm not Cherokee.

I am supposed to be 1/32nd Cherokee or Blackfoot, so the family claims. But our ancestor neglected to register on the Dawes out of spiteful dignity, so the story goes.
 
I am supposed to be 1/32nd Cherokee or Blackfoot, so the family claims. But our ancestor neglected to register on the Dawes out of spiteful dignity, so the story goes.

Mine probably was, as the family claims he abandoned the tribe halfway through the Walk to go pass for white, but as they won't even mention his name....
 
the Cherokee Nation will accept anyone descended from someone on the Dawes Rolls (same situation as why Israel will accept anyone the Nazis would kill) but to be Cherokee you have to be part of the community. I've got ancestry, but I have no connections to the Cherokee community, so I'm not Cherokee.


Lemme get this straight. Your Cherokee by blood which means to most people that you are Cherokee BUT your not part of the modern Cherokee community so the other Cherokee dont consider you Cherokee?

Did I get that right?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom