Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[Stacyhs]

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.

The DNA test put the NA ancestor at between 6 and 10 generations back and Warren's family lore claimed a 3X great grandmother was part Cherokee. That puts the ancestor at 5X removed from Warren.

While, imo, that makes her claim completely credible, her detractors naturally jumped on the "10" generations detail and then on her claim of being NA on paperwork over 30 years ago. As I said, that was her mistake. If she had not done so, this whole ludicrous thing would have disappeared long ago.

I agree she will be attacked with the "Pocahontas" slur by Trump and his supporters again if she is the Dem nominee. But I think that reflects far worse on them than on Warren and it will do nothing to help him with the NA vote. I think it will actually increase NA support for Warren.

 

[Upchurch]

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

Yes, they have a set of qualifying actions that counts for "involved".

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

That... is an odd phrasing. I'm not sure what you mean. It only means that they are women with one or more ancestors who were involved in the Revolutionary War as defined by the organization's rules. There is no implication that all of one's ancestors had to have been involved, as that would be impossible.

- Most members only have one ancestor involved in the war

In the war or related activities. I believe they include things like the Boston Tea Party or writing the Declaration of Independence, and whatnot.

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

It is in that both are basing their identity, in part, on having an ancestor approximately the same number of generations removed. The DAR is a long established organization and not considered liars because they only distantly related to the ancestors in question, nor that they are proud of that ancestry.

 

[varwoche]

And also American Indian. You can be both.

Hakuna matata to you, my African brother.

What, no return greeting. My fault. Foreign language.

Whazzup my *****?


Add: Oh, I didn't realize the 5 letter slang form was also censored.

 

[Drewbot]

Or those who do consider it a lie. Why do you consider it a lie? This is the part I've not seen you support.

If she truly thought she was part of Native American culture, why would she apologize for her actions?

Articles written about her being Native American Faculty, but she never, wrote a letter to the editor to correct it?

It's just shady. It's very much like the Hillary flying into a hot airfield in Bosnia story.

 

[Upchurch]

If she truly thought she was part of Native American culture, why would she apologize for her actions?

I've already suggested why I think she did, but whoever said she was a part of Native American culture? I thought she only said she had Native American ancestry.

 

[Drewbot]

I've already suggested why I think she did, but whoever said she was a part of Native American culture? I thought she only said she had Native American ancestry.

To claim Native American Minority status, you must be part of one of the tribal rolls. She claimed Native American Minority Status, not Native American Ancestry.

 

[Drewbot]

She also apologized for these lies:

Warren, asked in a brief interview Tuesday if she’d intended the apology to include labeling herself as Native American when at the University of Pennsylvania and at Harvard University, replied “yes.” She gave the same response when asked if it included labeling herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory.

The date coincided with her first listing as a “minority” by the Association of American Law Schools. Warren reported herself as minority in the directory every year starting in 1986 — when AALS first included a list of minority law professors — to 1995, when her name dropped off the list.

Warren also had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American in December 1989 while working at the University of Pennsylvania. The change came two years after she was hired there.

Several months after Warren started working at Harvard Law School in 1995, she okayed listing her ethnicity as Native American. Harvard listed Warren as Native American in its federal affirmative action forms from 1995 to 2004, records show.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...27df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html

 

[Dr. Keith]

If she truly thought she was part of Native American culture, why would she apologize for her actions?

For most of us life happens along several simultaneous lines, typically we think space as being three dimensions and then time being a fourth one. As we travel along that fourth dimension something happens to most humans: they change. They may just grow older, or they could grow stronger, or the could grow wiser. Or maybe they do a combination of those things.

A person may start off a decade thinking that being a member of the Republican party is wise, but finish the decade as a member of the Democratic party. A person may grow up knowing that their family is considered to be Native American by their friends and extended family member, they may even be proud of this because of the hardships their great grandparents overcame.

They may latter realize that this family identification based on family lore is not universally accepted as evidence of race, and that claiming it as such was a mistake. That person who was once proud to be a republican, once proud to be a Native American, may at some distant point along that fourth dimension of time decide that she is no longer proud of those choices. She may even apologize for those actions.

Or not, just a hypothetical to consider.

 

[Upchurch]

You're over eager to win debate points.

What, no return greeting. My fault. Foreign language.

Whazzup my *****?

This is a tad disingenuous.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This is a tad disingenuous.

You are too kind.

 

[Dr. Keith]

She also apologized for these lies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...27df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html

Oh my god, this changes everything!!!!

If only this had been brought up in the first thread on this topic!!!!!

[Fringe Reset Engaged]

 

[varwoche]

@Upchurch Ok I'll try again. Does this accurately represent your point...?

* DAR requires that members have at least one ancestor involved in the war

* Most/many DAR members have only one ancestor involved in the war

* If there are members who do not meet this minimum requirement, that's besides your point.

* The name of the organization means that members of DAR with only one ancestor involved in the war are analogous with Warren, because they are similarly representing their fractional background.

Would DAR members no longer be analogous if DAR updated it's name every generation? GDAR (grand daughters), GGDAR, etc.?

We're getting pretty far afield for a challenge that amounts to a rank category error.

 

[varwoche]

This is a tad disingenuous.

Wrong. It cuts precisely to the point.

Do you agree it would be BS for us to address one another this way? Why? (I'm Caucasian, emanating originally from Africa of course.)

 

[The Shrike]

She also apologized for these lies:

First, not lies. She has confirmed Native American ancestry consistent with what she was told growing up in Oklahoma where it is quite common for white people to also be Native American.

Second, and more important, please consider the timeline. She first claimed Native American ancestry in 1986. This was the evidently the first time in her career that this option had been presented. She was already full professor at the University of Texas then, and had been for several years. Thus, there is no way her claims about her perceived ethnic background could have factored into the decision to hire her or to any promotion.

In 1989, Warren indicated that she was Native American on paperwork at the University of Pennsylvania. Again, she had already been working at Penn for two years before this. Thus, there is no way her claims about her perceived ethnic background could have factored into the decision to hire her or to any promotion.

In 1995, Warren took a position at Harvard. Her Native American listing there came – you guessed it – after she had already been working there for "several months" according to the quote you shared. Thus, there is no way her claims about her perceived ethnic background could have factored into the decision to hire her or to any promotion.

Starting to see a pattern?

 

[Upchurch]

@Upchurch Ok I'll try again. Does this accurately represent your point...?

* DAR requires that members have at least one ancestor involved in the war

* Most/many DAR members have only one ancestor involved in the war

* If there are members who do not meet this minimum requirement, that's besides your point. [1]
* The name of the organization means that members of DAR with only one ancestor involved in the war are analogous with Warren, because they are similarly representing their fractional background. [2]
Would DAR members no longer be analogous if DAR updated it's name every generation? GDAR (grand daughters), GGDAR, etc.? [3]
We're getting pretty far afield for a challenge that amounts to a rank category error [4].

[1] There are no members who do not meet the minimum requirement, because it is a minimum requirement for membership.

[2] Again, that is an odd way of putting it. The name is just a descriptive name. They take pride in their ancestral connection and identify with it.

[3] Not even a little bit. Even if they were named the GGGGGDAR, the situation would still be analogous. They would still be an organization that identifies and takes pride in their "fractional" ancestral connection to a particular group.

[4] That is a matter of opinion.


I'd say the parallels are obvious. As I have said many times now, both identify, in part, with an ancestor roughly the same generations removed. (I'd argue that DAR members do even more so than Warren, in my experience, but that's neither here nor there.) If you label Warren's identification with Native Americans a lie, should you not similarly label the DAR's identification with people involved in the Revolutionary War?

You were unaware of the DAR before this conversation, correct? What about the Daughters of the Confederacy, a similar but a few generations less distant from the ancestors in question? Warren's identification with a distant ancestry is neither unique or even uncommon. I suggest that you're thinking it is has more to do with your unfamiliarity with these kinds of people than it says anything about Warren.

 

[Upchurch]

Wrong. It cuts precisely to the point.

Do you agree it would be BS for us to address one another this way? Why? (I'm Caucasian, emanating originally from Africa of course.)

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.

If you were to give me an African greeting, I might return it similarly, but I do that with most languages, if I'm capable of not mangling it too horribly.


* TIL: also common in England.

 

[Cabbage]

If she truly thought she was part of Native American culture, why would she apologize for her actions?

Well, there have been cases where I, for example, apologized for something not because I was guilty of any wrong doing but to keep the peace and/or get someone to shut the fnck np.

I realize this behavior may seem quite alien to Trump cult members and apologists.

 

[Upchurch]

From earlier, since I was asked the question again (typo corrected):

I take it you view her apology as snow job?

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

 

[The Shrike]

Well, there have been cases where I, for example, apologized for something not because I was guilty of any wrong doing but to keep the peace and/or get someone to shut the fnck np.

Or, she could have learned (i.e., come to think differently about a subject upon encountering new information about it) that the way she'd been approaching this issue her entire life was actually damaging to Native people not privileged as she is to live their lives as Caucasians in the USA.

Sometimes people – even politicians – can be sincere in their words and deeds.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The DNA test put the NA ancestor at between 6 and 10 generations back and Warren's family lore claimed a 3X great grandmother was part Cherokee. That puts the ancestor at 5X removed from Warren.

While, imo, that makes her claim completely credible, her detractors naturally jumped on the "10" generations detail and then on her claim of being NA on paperwork over 30 years ago. As I said, that was her mistake. If she had not done so, this whole ludicrous thing would have disappeared long ago.

I agree she will be attacked with the "Pocahontas" slur by Trump and his supporters again if she is the Dem nominee. But I think that reflects far worse on them than on Warren and it will do nothing to help him with the NA vote. I think it will actually increase NA support for Warren.

I don't think it would have disappeared. People would be accusing her of not having native ancestry at all. The DNA tests showed she was fundamentally right about her heritage, but her campaign stumbled straight into the counterpunch and is only now recovering.

I agree that she'll have the support of NA communities in general. She's got concrete policies to actually address many of the systemic issues they face. I'm saying the GOP will find or bribe some tribal elder from somewhere to act good and pissed off anyway, and they'll parade him around all the cable news shows until it becomes an issue again, then they'll focus on "the issue" and quietly put him back on the reservation before anyone does any digging. It's their standard play at this point, we've seen it dozens of times.