TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I think Trump is extra intimidated by smart people who happen to be female.
Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2
- Thread starter Belz...
- Start date
I think Trump is extra intimidated by smart people who happen to be female.
Belz...
Fiend God
Given what other posters have responded to you, racial identity isn't that simple, and you're not in her head.
And how much do you need to be NA?
Last edited:
And it gets even more complicated when people conflate tribal membership with race.
We're not in her head, nor are we in Rachel D's head, nor are we in Trump's head. That doesn't mean we can't reasonably suss out lies.
Further, I interpret at least some of the responses to me as prompted by (political) tribalism, not racial complexity.
I've offered my opinion on this in post 180. In addition... I don't know what the optimal speed limit is for a particular street in my neighborhood. But I know that 60 mph is way too fast. Similarly, I don't know what the threshold should be for in order for someone to legitimately claim to be a certain race. But it's more than 1/32. (Which to be clear, was her approximate, incorrect understanding of her makeup.)
You didn't even try to answer my question about Rachel D.
Last edited:
I'm continuously unimpressed by your arguments -- both form and substance -- and I doubt we're going to further anyone's understanding of anything with our dialog.
Belz...
Fiend God
You can still honestly identify as X even if a group of X doesn't recognise you. I'm sorry but you have not demonstrated to any reasonable degree that she was being deceptive.
Because I honestly don't give a **** about her.
Oh bloody typical Og derangement syndrome that was never proven and anyway even if he did pay her a mammoth hide it doesn't mean anything, I thought you liberals were all for free-love!
Or maybe answering the question would reveal weaknesses in your argument concerning Warren.
I wasn't particularly impressed by your question either. It mattered to you though, seeing as you bothered to ask it. So I replied as a matter of simple courtesy.
We're peers attempting dialog, not inquisitor/ subject. You seem to get confused by this concept with some frequency.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
We seem to be stuck in a loop:
"Warren's not an Indian!"
"Yeah, we know."
"But she's not!"
"And?"
"Listen, you don't get it: she's not an Indian!"
"Yes, we agree. She's not an Indian."
"Why won't you understand she's not an Indian!"
Another 50 pages and it'll start getting old.
"Warren's not an Indian!"
"Yeah, we know."
"But she's not!"
"And?"
"Listen, you don't get it: she's not an Indian!"
"Yes, we agree. She's not an Indian."
"Why won't you understand she's not an Indian!"
Another 50 pages and it'll start getting old.
Whether or not the group recognizes is immaterial so far as I'm concerned. I align with Joe in this regard.
Cabbage
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,598
Actually, you've convinced me you're incapable of recognizing a good argument.
You continue to use the fact of her DNA analysis (what was it, one or two years ago?) as "evidence" that she was lying.....30 years ago. It would be funny were it not so inept and absurd.
And then you're fixated on "1/32". I'll take your word for it that that was her estimation of her NA ancestry 30 years ago. But get this: 1) As I've previously mentioned, 1/32 can absolutely be a plurality of her ethnicity. You claim it wasn't but...............that wasn't known until 30 years later!!!, 2) Then you claim she should have known 31/32 of her background. Again, what a laugh. Would you expect her to know the percentage breakdown of each? How could she possibly know if the percentage of ethnicity A is greater or less than ethnicity B without the DNA test that came 30 years later? She might know she has some Briton or English or German or Komi or whatever; how would you expect her to know if each of those is > or < than 1/32. Oh, and let's not forget the 1/32 we speak of was merely an estimate: At the time in question there is nothing to contradict the possibility that her NA ancestry was more than 1/32.
Every bit of that is solid logic, my friend. Disagree? Kindly point out where I'm wrong. Oh, not that I expect you to, preferring instead to resort to whining and complaining and simply giving up on defending a position you can't defend. Which you've already begun to do. LOL!
You just refuse to learn or admit you're wrong.
Last edited:
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
That's my point. If we have reason to think that Warren was knowingly angling for an unwarrented advantage then that's an ethical issue. And failing to own up to that in the present would be an ethical issue as well.
But if, as she suggested, she just wanted to hang out with some Native American Lawyers (unless there is reason to think she expected some career advantage from doing so) then it's a kind of a weird misstep, but not a dishonest action.
Her participation in an earlier cookbook suggests some sincerity on a desire to connect culturally with her NA roots, which to some extent corroborates her explanation.
But if someone were to show that those forms she filled out were used in ways likely to give hiring advantages and that Warren was aware of that, it would be an ethical issue. Given how 1/3 of the country, including people with a lot of money to spend would love to make Warren look bad right now, I think that if that evidence exists, then we either would have seen it already, or it's being saved for the campaign.
It's not so much that the group recognizes her or not (whatever the hell that even means in this context) it's that either we're talking actual biological percentage of an actual ethnic group, which you can't just "Nope doesn't count because some other members of that ethnic group say so" OR we're talking membership is some exclusive. Not both and not one or the other only when it's convenient.
If Warren is X percentage Native Americans is not up for debate; it's an objective fact that either is or is no true. You can't No True Scotsman Warren in this context anymore then an Irish person can just declare another Irish person "Not really Irish" because they don't like Guinness or the color green or whatever. Some Native American council of elders can't override genetics.
Membership in some tribe is different, but essentially meaningless since Warren didn't claim membership in some tribe on a form, she just claimed the vaguer concept of Native American ethnicity of some degree.
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm sure you'd like to think so.
I can see that you're frustrated by your interactions with the others, but don't take it out on me.
Oh, please. If Warren really believed her family stories, true or not, she wasn't lying by responding to the question the way she did. It's really that simple.
What are you babbling about? If one 'peer' asks a question that goes ignored or is answered in an unsatisfactory manner, do they not get to press for a response that is? Since when do you define how discusions here should be conducted?
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Note that at least one job application of hers (where affirmative action might have come in to play) has been found and she identified as white or Caucasian (I don't remember exact wording) there.
Sometimes a thread actually progresses, facts are presented and discussed, and some reasonable conclusions are reached. This thread is one of them and I have learned a lot from it.
Sometimes at that point interest in further posting will diminish because there is nothing more to add and the thread just fades away.
But sometimes a poster or two just won't let it go. Great if they continue to bring up new information or insights. But often it is just a repetition of posts made many pages earlier. Sometimes pages of what appeared to be points of common agreement are suddenly ignored in the process and the whole discussion starts over from zero, turning the thread into an endless infinite loop like something from a time travel movie.
Sometimes at that point interest in further posting will diminish because there is nothing more to add and the thread just fades away.
But sometimes a poster or two just won't let it go. Great if they continue to bring up new information or insights. But often it is just a repetition of posts made many pages earlier. Sometimes pages of what appeared to be points of common agreement are suddenly ignored in the process and the whole discussion starts over from zero, turning the thread into an endless infinite loop like something from a time travel movie.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
At least in a movie there's a chance of seeing an attractive person with their shirt off.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Warren understood she wasn't an Indian.
Warren claimed to be an Indian anyway.
---
For me, it's not so much about Warren's minor diversity peccadillos. It's more about the clownery that is diversity politics in general. I think the clearest expression of the problem, in Warren's case, is Harvard's celebrating her as a Native American faculty member.
If bringing diverse viewpoints to our institutions is truly important, then Harvard should never have reported her as a Native American. If she was thinking about the value of diversity in academia, or in the workplace, she never would have made the claim. It's offensive. It's offensive to her. It's offensive to the institution. It's offensive to actual Native Americans. It's offensive to everyone being called upon to take diversity seriously.
What exactly is the purpose of diversity? Did Warren's occasional claims of Native American status further that purpose? If so, then this country is messed up in the head about diversity. If not, then Warren herself is messed up in the head about diversity. Or was at the time. Perhaps she's gotten better.
It seems like a lot of Warren's defenders want this to be narrowly about rehabilitating her image. But for me, it's mostly about what the eff is going on with diversity politics that any of this seemed like a good idea to anyone at any point?
Belz...
Fiend God
Wait, did she now?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yep.
She's obviously too smart have ever thought she was Native American. An ancestor? Sure. Heritage? Obviously not. "I am Native American" on an application form? She's not stupid enough to believe that.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Agreed. And she now knows she was wrong, has apologized for it, and the tribe in question has accepted her apology. It was a Very Special Episode and Blossom learned a Valuable Lesson.
So what's the fuss about it still? If you think the misdeeds was so heinous Warren should never be forgiven, fine, that's certainly an opinion you can have. But other people can and have moved on from it. Continual surprise at this is somewhat ridiculous. It's the "but her emails!" of Warren. Those who could be persuaded by that already have been, the remainder have already rejected it.
Again, this is exceptionally weak sauce and if this is the worst that can be held against Warren she's practically a saint. Hell, Trump can't even mention this criticism without being worse than it himself because he keeps saying "Pocahontas".
Even more ridiculous is attempting to use this as ammunition in a case against the ideals of diversity.