Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[varwoche]

... Can we all agree that the DAR is not being dishonest in their self-identification with their fractional ancestry?

Yes. Furthermore, since they make it clear their ancestry is micro-fractional, they didn't do what Warren did.

 

[varwoche]

I wouldn't address anyone that way, largely for reasons I've already pointed out. Namely, I have no personal connection to Africa. I'm just guessing what the asterisked word was, but I was under the impression that that is much more an American* term than an African one, and I certainly have no African American connections, as per my DNA test. There is a greater historical context why someone like me should not use that particular term.

I have deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Think Mariana Trench. A considerable percentage of my posts on this forum, ever since the day I joined, stand as evidence of this.

So here I am, a Caucasian with ancient African roots and a deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Yet if I go around greeting people with "Whazzup my *****" (the slang form of the N word) I'd be full of more BS than the cow ranch next door. And I bet that most posters would agree.

Why would I be full of BS? Anyone feel free to answer.

 

[Upchurch]

Help me out here. Are you in the camp that she wasn't truthful, but that doesn't necessarily make it a lie? Or are you in the camp that she was truthful? That's the magical thinking camp. That's where if you're passionate about something, and you click your heels three times, that makes it so.

(I would enjoy it if camp1 would hash things out with camp2 and let me be a reader for a while.)

There's one more to add to your straw man camps. The one where she where what she said was true but also a lie.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. Furthermore, since they make it clear their ancestry is micro-fractional, they didn't do what Warren did.

Warren didn't make it clear her ancestry was micro-fractional? Was she claiming her parents were Native American? Her grandparents?

Or are you saying that she because she did not specify every time, she was being unclear?

 

[varwoche]

I have deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Think Mariana Trench. A considerable percentage of my posts on this forum, ever since the day I joined, stand as evidence of this.

So here I am, a Caucasian with ancient African roots and a deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Yet if I go around greeting people with "Whazzup my *****" (the slang form of the N word) I'd be full of more BS than the cow ranch next door. And I bet that most posters would agree.

Why would I be full of BS? Anyone feel free to answer.

I want to add a casual comment that isn't intended to advance an argument nor rebut one. Can't be too careful hereabouts.

Add to my African-American credentials that I'm friends with approx 1/3 of the African Americans in my huge WA state county!

There are about 3 in total. The county is huge geographically. Welcome to the American Redoubt.

 

[Upchurch]

So here I am, a Caucasian with ancient African roots and a deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Yet if I go around greeting people with "Whazzup my *****" (the slang form of the N word) I'd be full of more BS than the cow ranch next door. And I bet that most posters would agree.

Why would I be full of BS? Anyone feel free to answer.

Wait, African roots or African-American roots? Which one are you claiming?

 

[varwoche]

I would need to know what you think those category errors are to do so.

I already explained once. Here, in detail:

(1) I was dismissive of policies/rules of tribes, more generally known as groups. See post 249.

(2) Later on, I mentioned I was looking forward to finding out the opinions of Native American individuals who I'll be working with soon. See post 347.

(3) You called this out. See post 349. Why should I care what these individuals think when I'm dismissive of tribal policies/rules?

This is textbook category error. An individual is not a group. It's irrational to saddle an individual with every aspect of the group they belong to (except for immutable characteristics). This is true as a matter of logic. This is true in real life.

Thinking of individual people that way is narrow-minded and obnoxious, but that's besides the point.

It took way too long to dredge those links ... to explain stuff I suspect you already know.

I have to work long hours over the next 6 weeks. I won't be posting much. I regret that our exchange turned acrimonious, in particular my contribution.

 

[acbytesla]

Let's just say for argument's sake that Elizabeth Warren lied many years ago. Lets say she has lied a few times since. That still puts her behind Trump by tens of thousands. Recent analysis has Trump lying 13 times every day. More than 10,000 since he took office. I think that makes Warren human and Trump a POS.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm highly unimpressed by certain of the arguments that some of the more active posters have put forward. Your blatantly tribal approach to things, not just in this thread, serves as a prime example.

That's your answer? Attack the arguer instead of the argument?

 

[smartcooky]

Help me out here. Are you in the camp that she wasn't truthful, but that doesn't necessarily make it a lie? Or are you in the camp that she was truthful? That's the magical thinking camp. That's where if you're passionate about something, and you click your heels three times, that makes it so.

(I would enjoy it if camp1 would hash things out with camp2 and let me be a reader for a while.)

Camp is a figure of speech by the way. Gotta be careful around here.

I'm in camp 3... lies and untruths are not the same. A lie requires intent on the part of the teller... untruths do not. This is a well understood fact of the English language - something that intelligent, well educated people understand. If you say something that you believe to be true, but later turns out not to be, then that is not a lie, that is a mistake.

Given the above is undeniable fact, then my interpretation is that Warren acted in good faith in the belief that what she wrote down was the truth. At a time before DNA testing, she had every reason to belieive her family story, and no reason at all to doubt it....and as it turns out, what she wrote down was in fact a half truth (or partly true if you prefer).

However, your other assertion, that there is a bright line beyond which you cannot claim you are of a certain "race", and that this bright line applies to all races, is just a completely spurious fabrication, made up by you, to try to defend the indefensible. Even if you just take Native Americans, they cannot even agree between individual tribes where that bright line is, or even if one exists at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

And round and round and round we go........
I get dizzy just reading this thread.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm in camp 3... lies and untruths are not the same. A lie requires intent on the part of the teller... untruths do not. This is a well understood fact of the English language - something that intelligent, well educated people understand. If you say something that you believe to be true, but later turns out not to be, then that is not a lie, that is a mistake.

Given the above is undeniable fact, then my interpretation is that Warren acted in good faith in the belief that what she wrote down was the truth. At a time before DNA testing, she had every reason to belieive her family story, and no reason at all to doubt it....and as it turns out, what she wrote down was in fact a half truth (or partly true if you prefer).

However, your other assertion, that there is a bright line beyond which you cannot claim you are of a certain "race", and that this bright line applies to all races, is just a completely spurious fabrication, made up by you, to try to defend the indefensible. Even if you just take Native Americans, they cannot even agree between individual tribes where that bright line is, or even if one exists at all.

Well said.

Who's to know for certain that family lore is accurate? My father use to say we were related to a famous baseball manager for whom we share the same last name. But genealogy searches don't seem to support this claim.

He also use to tell us as children that he walked miles in the snow in Iowa to school. And then on a visit to his hometown he pointed out the home he grew up in and his school. They were maybe a block away from each other.

It was then I realized my father sometimes told stories. For years I doubted that he was on Omaha beach on D-day. He never said much about it other than he was there. You see my Dad was in the Navy. I couldn't see how this could be true. Given what happened there, I always thought this was probably a huge lie. It made me dislike him more than I did. It turns out he was. He was stationed on an LST (A tank landing craft) that sunk on the beach. He was one of two survivors from that boat. It cost me a pretty penny to find this out but I'm glad it wasn't another story.

 

[Cabbage]

Does he disagree, though?

Does Warren claim to be Native American these days?

If you would pay attention, you would realize the issue is what Warren thought 30 years ago.

 

[Cabbage]

Add: Actually, as theprestige infers, we also have the evidence that she no longer self-identifies this way.

And as I just noted, that's absolutely irrelevant to whether she lied 30 years ago.

This ain't that hard, man.

 

[Cabbage]

Help me out here. Are you in the camp that she wasn't truthful, but that doesn't necessarily make it a lie? Or are you in the camp that she was truthful? That's the magical thinking camp. That's where if you're passionate about something, and you click your heels three times, that makes it so.

Actually, if you truly understand the definition of a lie, that's actually rather accurate: If you believe it, it's not a lie.

Whether the statement is objectively true or not is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Cabbage]

I have deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Think Mariana Trench. A considerable percentage of my posts on this forum, ever since the day I joined, stand as evidence of this.

So here I am, a Caucasian with ancient African roots and a deep affinity for African-American cultural forms. Yet if I go around greeting people with "Whazzup my *****" (the slang form of the N word) I'd be full of more BS than the cow ranch next door. And I bet that most posters would agree.

Why would I be full of BS? Anyone feel free to answer.

Apples and oranges, bro; apples and oranges. Unless you think simply identifying as a certain ethnicity is equivalent to using racial slurs.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, if you truly understand the definition of a lie, that's actually rather accurate: If you believe it, it's not a lie.

Whether the statement is objectively true or not is absolutely irrelevant.

Then again, if you can't show it to be objectively false, it is relevant. Totally.


Person believes something to be true + you can't show that it objectively isn't = not a lie

 

[Cabbage]

I want to add a casual comment that isn't intended to advance an argument nor rebut one. Can't be too careful hereabouts.

Add to my African-American credentials that I'm friends with approx 1/3 of the African Americans in my huge WA state county!

There are about 3 in total. The county is huge geographically. Welcome to the American Redoubt.

The fact that you claiming African ancestry would be a lie (because you actually don't believe it) does not imply anything about another person, her claim, and her beliefs. You might as well claim you like fried chicken, therefore Warren likes fried chicken.

Two different people, man. Two different people. This is news to you?

 

[Cabbage]

I already explained once. Here, in detail:

(1) I was dismissive of policies/rules of tribes, more generally known as groups. See post 249.

(2) Later on, I mentioned I was looking forward to finding out the opinions of Native American individuals who I'll be working with soon. See post 347.

(3) You called this out. See post 349. Why should I care what these individuals think when I'm dismissive of tribal policies/rules?

This is textbook category error. An individual is not a group. It's irrational to saddle an individual with every aspect of the group they belong to (except for immutable characteristics). This is true as a matter of logic. This is true in real life.

Thinking of individual people that way is narrow-minded and obnoxious, but that's besides the point.

It took way too long to dredge those links ... to explain stuff I suspect you already know.

I have to work long hours over the next 6 weeks. I won't be posting much. I regret that our exchange turned acrimonious, in particular my contribution.

What a waste of time--All is irrelevant to what Warren believed and how she identified herself.

Too much of a coward to confront me proving you wrong? I guess some prefer ignorance. I hear it's a good place to wallow.

 

[quadraginta]

As an aside, it still astounds me that Trump didn’t get more flack for using “Pocahontas” as a racial slur.

Really? After all the other things Trump has said and written about so many other people, much of it treading on the line of outright libel and slander?

"Pocahontas" is pretty small potatoes in that storm of bile.

It isn't like his core supporters are going to find it particularly racist, and we certainly can't expect anyone in the GOP to draw attention to it. There was some media mention, but it quickly was left behind in the dust of the Trump wagon barreling ahead with its ever-growing cargo of even more misogyny, racism, and bigotry.