Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[varwoche]

It is a serious question. Are you not familiar with the Daughters of the American Revolution? They are an organization made up of people who base at least part of their identity on having an ancestor who participated in the American Revolution over 240 years ago, approximately the same time frame as Warren's Native American ancestor(s).

Yes, they probably have more ancestors who did not participate in the American Revolution. Does that make the DAR BS?

That's so literal that it's absurd. It's the name of an organization for crying out loud, not a specific answer to a specific question on an official form. I'm embarrassed on your behalf.

But to the extent there are individual members of that group on record making specific false claims about their identity, they should expect uncomfortable scrutiny if they ever run for POTUS.

Next up: Campfire Girls who haven't actually started a campfire.

 

[Upchurch]

That's so literal that it's absurd. It's the name of an organization for crying out loud, not a specific answer to a specific question on an official form. I'm embarrassed on your behalf.

It is a claim of identity based on a distant ancestors, just like Warren. I guarantee members of the DAR fill out forms about their ancestry.

But to the extent there are individual members of that group on record making specific false claims about their identity, they should expect uncomfortable scrutiny if they ever run for POTUS.

Repeating the claim that Warren lied does not make it true, especially after admitting that Warren actually has Native American ancestry.

 

[Upchurch]

*Shrug* I view it as politics and picking your battles. Being technically correct on such a minor issue is not worth detailing the stuff that really matters.

“derailing”

 

[varwoche]

And you can't even explain how it is false, except through repetition of your claim that it is, even while acknowledging that she had Native American ancestry... wriggling out of supporting your claim for however many pages?

This is a really difficult concept. Put aside all distractions and brace yourself. It's so difficult that I've been wriggling rather than face this. I'm sorry I held it back for so long. You may be shocked to learn...

Warren is a Caucasian.

On a serious note, I don't understand why this is hard to grasp. It's my sense that your abysmal showing here is due to a (politically) tribal, poorly thought out, defensive reaction. I imagine I'll read this whole thread later and see that there are improvements I could have made in my presentation.

 

[Belz...]

I suppose this is the crux of the disagreement for many here who don't consider it a lie.

if we go back far enough, I'm part African. As are you, as are we all. Do you think it would be truthful to claim your RACE is African American? If not why not?

I think it's fair to say we all have a cut-off point. 1/64 is just six generations back, though. In many places that's enough to be considered a NA.

 

[Upchurch]

This is a really difficult concept. Put aside all distractions and brace yourself. It's so difficult that I've been wriggling rather than face this. I'm sorry I held it back for so long.

Warren is a Caucasian.

But that is not entirely true, is it? You are only telling part of the story, aren’t you? Unlike Warren, you have more than a short line to answer the question.

Does that mean you are lying? If not, why not?

On a serious note, I don't understand why this is hard to grasp. It's my sense that your abysmal showing here is due to a (politically) tribal, poorly thought out, defensive reaction. I imagine I'll read this whole thread later and see that there are improvements I could have made in my presentation.

Oh, I understand what you are arguing. I just think you are making a straw man argument and ignoring vast amounts of context. You haven’t even attempted to address counter arguments, instead simply reiterating your claim over and over, as you essentially did above.

It’s easy to be correct when you merely ignore ways you’re wrong.

 

[varwoche]

I think it's fair to say we all have a cut-off point. 1/64 is just six generations back, though. In many places that's enough to be considered a NA.

(1) Why a cutoff point and why is that fair? 1/64 rates but 1/128 doesn't? You've crafted arbitrary boundaries that let Warren off the hook. (2) According to the DNA test, 1/64 is her maximum ethnicity, as little as 1/1024. Or something like that. (3) Apparently there are "places", better known as tribes, that grant membership to 0%. The race of these people doesn't magically change when they're granted tribal membership. (4) I by and large regard the rules established by "places" as BS. Joe has nailed this but I'll take a whack anyway:

According to Jewish tradition, Jewish identity comes from your mother. If your mother is Jewish and father not, welcome to the tribe otherwise no dice. Obviously, a person with a Jewish father and non Jewish mother is no less ethnic Jew. These are ancient, ignorant beliefs. The rules established by NA tribes adds a layer of contemporary, economic self-interest.

Pardon me for not following up on our earlier exchange. I'll get back to that at some point.

Coincidentally, I'll be working with several Native Americans over the next few weeks. If the vibe is comfortable, I intend to find out what they think about all this.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Warren is a Caucasian.

And also American Indian. You can be both.

 

[Upchurch]

Coincidentally, I'll be working with several Native Americans over the next few weeks. If the vibe is comfortable, I intend to find out what they think about all this.

Why? Didn’t you just say their beliefs about who is Native American and who isn’t is BS?

 

[varwoche]

And also American Indian. You can be both.

Hakuna matata to you, my African brother.

 

[The Shrike]

Coincidentally, I'll be working with several Native Americans over the next few weeks. If the vibe is comfortable, I intend to find out what they think about all this.

Will your experiences trump the ones I've shared here after years of working with Native students on the daily? I've tried to explain that most of our Native students are as white as Warren and could not care less about her 1986 faux pas on her Texas Bar registration card. Yet here we are, 9 pages in.

 

[Belz...]

(1) Why a cutoff point and why is that fair?

Because we're talking about humans. Humans have arbitrary demarcations between things. It's normal.

1/64 rates but 1/128 doesn't?

I never said that. In fact I have not given any thought as to how much NA blood one might need to be considered one. I'm only discussing whether Warren lied i.e. told an untruth deliberately in order to deceive.

You've crafted arbitrary boundaries that let Warren off the hook.

I've done no such thing. You're adding information to my post that isn't there.

(2) According to the DNA test, 1/64 is her maximum ethnicity, as little as 1/1024. Or something like that.

Noted.

Apparently there are "places", better known as tribes, that grant membership to 0%.

Which serves to show how unimportant the DNA test is and how silly it was for her to be baited to it.

The race of these people doesn't magically change when they're granted tribal membership.

Except that we keep saying that race doesn't exist. It's also arbitrary. If they're willing to grant membership to zero-percenters then the membership is the important bit. It changes nothing about ancestry, however.

These are ancient, ignorant beliefs.

How are they ignorant? It's tradition.

 

[Upchurch]

You neglected to answer this, varwoche:

It is a serious question. Are you not familiar with the Daughters of the American Revolution? They are an organization made up of people who base at least part of their identity on having an ancestor who participated in the American Revolution over 240 years ago, approximately the same time frame as Warren's Native American ancestor(s).

Yes, they probably have more ancestors who did not participate in the American Revolution. Does that make the DAR BS?

Are The Daughters of the American Revolution BS? After all, they are similarly only a micro-fraction decedents of anyone who was involved in the American Revolutionary War. If not, how do you reconcile those two contradictory positions?

 

[Cabbage]

(2) According to the DNA test, 1/64 is her maximum ethnicity, as little as 1/1024. Or something like that.

You know, it amazes me that you continue to persist believing this is somehow relevant to the question of whether or not Warren lied. I've personally explained this to you several times. I've seen others explain it as well.

In other words, you know it's irrelevant and you still persist in presenting it as "evidence".

YOU ARE LYING IN THE DEFENSE OF YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, VARWOCHE.

Oh the irony!!!

 

[Stacyhs]

>snipped<

Apparently there are "places", better known as tribes, that grant membership to 0%.

Which serves to show how unimportant the DNA test is and how silly it was for her to be baited to it.>snipped<

Why was she 'silly' to get a DNA test? I've never understood that opinion. To me, it was the most reasonable thing to do at the time. Saying she was "baited to it" is like saying a person was "baited" to providing an alibi to the police. At the time, she was damned if she did and damned if she didn't.

I don't think it's the DNA test (which actually supported her claims) which has become the point of contention, but her having written 'American Indian" on her Texas Bar application, etc. IMO, she was wrong to do that, but she was not wrong to take the DNA test.

 

[Belz...]

Why was she 'silly' to get a DNA test? I've never understood that opinion. To me, it was the most reasonable thing to do at the time.

It was silly because it's just more fuel to the fire and more ammo to her opponents. Letting it lie would've been preferable. And she got baited to play Trump's game rather than just ignore him and focus on issues that matter.

 

[varwoche]

Why? Didn’t you just say their beliefs about who is Native American and who isn’t is BS?

You're over eager to win debate points. I enjoy meeting people and learning how they think.

But more significantly -- from your perspective at least, because you're demonstrating a great deal of confusion on this -- it's irrational to conflate individual people with whatever group they may belong to.

You're not merely expecting me to saddle these people with the beliefs/policies of a group they belong to. That alone is irrational, and somewhat obnoxious* even. You're conflating the physical entities.

Category error.

* Add: That is, I think it would be obnoxious for me to treat people that way, not for you to have posted this absurd challenge.

You neglected to answer this, varwoche:

​

Are The Daughters of the American Revolution BS? After all, they are similarly only a micro-fraction decedents of anyone who was involved in the American Revolutionary War. If not, how do you reconcile those two contradictory positions?

I still don't have a clear picture of the scenario. I'm not knowledgeable about DAR and I'm and not wishing to do a deep dive, so I need a little more clarity. Do I have this right...?

- Members of DAR are required to have a least one ancestor involved in some form or another in the Revolutionary War

- The name of the organization implies that all of a member's ancestors were involved in the war

- Most members only have one ancestor involved in the war

- Members who only have one ancestor involved in the war are in some way analogous with Warren

I'll be pleased to learn I'm not getting the plot line.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was silly because it's just more fuel to the fire and more ammo to her opponents. Letting it lie would've been preferable. And she got baited to play Trump's game rather than just ignore him and focus on issues that matter.

I disagree. If she had not gotten a DNA test, then Trump and his supporters would have claimed that she was afraid to get tested because she made the whole thing up. Trump would still be sarcastically calling her Pocahontas and challenging her to get a DNA test while either insinuating or outright calling her a liar. And, no...I don't miss the irony in that.

Warren's mistake was not in getting the test which actually supported her claim of NA ancestry but in writing down "NA/Indian" on paperwork back in the 1980's. That has been the real point of contention, not the DNA results.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I thought it was a mistake at first, especially when they didn't seem to have predicted the "well that's not Indian enough!" followup, but it seems to have worked in hindsight. Except for the ridiculous circling in this thread, I don't see anyone getting their panties in a bunch over it anymore.

That said, the Warren campaign needs to plan for the GOP wheeling out a tribal leader from somewhere to demand an apology from her and inflame the issue again.

 

[varwoche]

Will your experiences trump the ones I've shared here after years of working with Native students on the daily? I've tried to explain that most of our Native students are as white as Warren and could not care less about her 1986 faux pas on her Texas Bar registration card. Yet here we are, 9 pages in.

Wow. I casually mention I'm meeting someone and you leap to this?? That's flat out bizarre.

It's extremely unlikely my experiences will trump anything, as if that even vaguely occurred to me.