Status
Not open for further replies.
"Your posts speak for themselves."

Indeed they do, say, we agree on something

(although claiming that warren's fans' lack of care about native American concerns is "iS iRReLeVant tO ThiS diSCussIoNn, bUt AlsO IlluMIatiNg oF yOuR sTaNdaRdS" is some next level irony, yo)
 
HI! let me clear up the egregious confusion and next level strawmen!

"Part Cherokee and part Delaware" can only mean part Cherokee and part Delaware, no other explanation supports his argument.

the DNA test does not show this.

The Cherokee people and numerous other native Americans have strongly and repeatedly criticized Warren for her silly and racist stunt using to try to support her previous claims like her mom was "she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware" .

No need to to guess or to repeatedly rewrite the claims and quotes.

It is really, really simple.

Look like it's Delaware Punch™ time.

So when is DONNY GRAPE JUICE going to pay up?
 
"Your posts speak for themselves."

Indeed they do, say, we agree on something

(although claiming that warren's fans' lack of care about native American concerns is "iS iRReLeVant tO ThiS diSCussIoNn, bUt AlsO IlluMIatiNg oF yOuR sTaNdaRdS" is some next level irony, yo)

Interesting response.
 
The following is not a reply to any specific post. ;)

We need to bear in mind the extent to which "blood quantum" or (in more modern terms) DNA testing may not matter hardly at all to a tribe in terms of how they choose to identify themselves.

Exhibit A:

Every adoreable child in this photo is a current member of the Delaware tribe, and (as it happens) direct descendants of Chief Buckongahelas Journeycake. Notice that none of them have any obvious phenotypic markers which might lead one to surmise Amerindian ancestry. According to my best available genetic data, probably no more than 2-3% of their ancestors were native to the Americas (and most of those were not from the mainland but rather the Caribbean).


Exhibit B:

The Dawes Rolls themselves include people identified as white at the time they were placed on the rolls, such as John D. Marker & Robert J. Lunday.

C8gcRsU.png


These are the same rolls used by many federally recognized tribes for inclusion in their membership.

There are many more Americans who have at least some DNA traceable to native ancestors than there are Americans who can trace their lineage to members of some specific tribe. These are two separate questions, and we need to be quite clear on which one of these two issues Senator Warren was hoping to resolve.
 
To be fair, you can totally end a sentence in a proposition.

Some grammar Rules

Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Do not use no double negatives.
Repetition is something you should never, never use at any time at all.
High flown language should be avoided unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.
Avoid cliches like the plague.​
 
Some grammar Rules

Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Do not use no double negatives.
Repetition is something you should never, never use at any time at all.
High flown language should be avoided unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.
Avoid cliches like the plague.​

Nitpick, those are style, not grammar. I'd argue, even the double negative one.

However:
No, it's a paraphrase, hence the quotation marks.

Is completely wrong in the following context:



From going to, 'My Mom was a Native American and had to elope because of the racist parents-in-law', 'Grandpa had high cheekbones' and ticking Harvard boxes as an ethnic minority needing the benefit of positive discrimination, she changed her story to some vague sixth to tenth generation individual of whom no-one knows the name or tribe, or indeed whether or not he or she is actually Hispanic.


Surprise, surprise! Lo and behold! That's what the DNA test came back with.

The quoted part (yours - in quotation marks) is a lie. Just sayin'.

No, it's a paraphrase, hence the quotation marks.
 
Last edited:
Nitpick, those are style, not grammar. I'd argue, even the double negative one.

However:


Is completely wrong in the following context:

Hah! That's only because you're from UK and therefore don't consider yourself so rulebound! How dare you think that you're above the rules!
 
Do you read? They didn't need parental consent to get married. They did have to go to another town to get the marriage done, which is why it is elopement. Age of participants has nothing to do with what makes a marriage an elopement, only location does. If it's not at home and there's no wedding announcements, guest lists, the whole nine yards, it's an elopement. My mother remarried in something of an elopement in her forties, they didn't tell anyone ahead of time and went before a justice of the peace----not out of town so not as much eloping as Warren's parents did.

I wouldn't call that eloping.

That's rather stretching credulity. A person in their forties 'eloping'...?

You are taking the mickey.
 
According to the kind of folks doing the discriminating, she would have been, and her forebears of the native lineage:

Er, hang on a minute. The story about her being a Native American was, er, a story. So all the extensions about how hard done by Native Americans were then and now is moot.

She was a Republican as of the time she claimed minority status.

That suggests her action was possibly racist motivated. The type of racist attitude that complains about 'political correctness' and rails against 'whites being discriminated against' in positive discrimination quotas in educational and employment opportunities.

How do you know it wasn't a gung-ho, 'If they can call themselves ethnic, I can too, as I don't believe this "ticking boxes" crap so I am going to sabotage it for the idiocy that it is.'

That would be the Republican mind set.
 
You are, not surprisingly, wrong.

This thread has very little to do with whether Warren verified her family dinner table chat legend. You haven't figured this out, yet.

It has to do with conservative bootlickers girding themselves for the 2020 election. They see a potential soft spot and know that Warren has a big bankroll and is preparing to run in 2020.

They don't have to LIKE Trump. But they support him to the tune of disparaging anyone from the nearer right, middle or left. The primary Warren attackers are all, for the purposes of this board, conservatives and Trump enablers.

I was all for Warren until I saw her gilding the lily with the 'elopement' story. All my BS detectors started clanging like crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom