• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think it's preventing her from ANYTHING. I can't see her winning a national election for one reason and one reason only. Her age. Not this faux nonsense.


I think she is fantastic. I'd have voted for her over Hillary or Bernie. Do we really want to run a 70 year old for office...even though Trump will be 74?
But maybe. People still voted for Obama despite his pastor and birtherism.

Her heritage only matters to political junkies on social media and frankly i think for them it serves as only something to talk about. They don't actually care.
I agree with her most of the time, and think she would do a fine job as POTUS. Yet I have an even more superficial reason for thinking she would have a difficult time winning -her voice. It sounds like a caricature of a condescending grade school teacher's. I would that that were not the case- but I find the sound of her voice distracts from the content of her words.
 
Do we really want to run a 70 year old for office...even though Trump will be 74?
But maybe. People still voted for Obama despite his pastor and birtherism.

I'd vote for the right person even if they were 90. I'd trust them to pick a good VP in the event that they croaked or became too ill to finish their term.

It's also worth noting that women tend to live a few more years than men.
 
Democrats are hounding people all over the country for "cultural appropriation". With Fauxcahontas we have what I would think is the highest level of cultural appropriation possible, yet the Democrats yawn and say, "Nothing to see here, please move along". No calls for her to prove it or resign. Nada. There is some serious hypocrisy going on here. Don't even try to convince me she wouldn't be getting Red Henned if she was a Republican.
Laughable, top to bottom. On a skeptic forum, no less.
 
This is just silly, given the age of the current POTUS.

OK, it's silly. Trump is oldest person ever elected a President.

I just think a younger candidate tends to do better. An athletic charismatic 48 year old might do better.
 
I'd vote for the right person even if they were 90. I'd trust them to pick a good VP in the event that they croaked or became too ill to finish their term.

It's also worth noting that women tend to live a few more years than men.

She gets my vote in a minute. Its not really her age per se that bothers me but her electability. In my mind superficial things matter...although I wish they didn't. Being young and appearing more vibrant can make a difference.
 
OK, it's silly. Trump is oldest person ever elected a President.

I just think a younger candidate tends to do better. An athletic charismatic 48 year old might do better.

I think that's demonstrably untrue. Youthful Obama was the outlier, not the norm.
 
She gets my vote in a minute. Its not really her age per se that bothers me but her electability. In my mind superficial things matter...although I wish they didn't. Being young and appearing more vibrant can make a difference.

The people elected Donald Trump. Or, Hillary for the popular vote, and she's 70.

For POTUS, the older people tend to do better as a general rule.
 
A liberal takes the advantage of claiming minority status to apply for liberal jobs at liberal institutions, and the liberals there claim they gave her no consideration of her minority status?

Not much skepticism here on the liberal side of the ISF aisle today.
Why not add that she was once also the night manager of the Starbucks on the far side of the moon, helping to support her Ferrari habit, while at the same time being the true master musician/composer/engineer behind “Boston”.

It’s true.
 
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough here.

What exactly is the big deal in using your (actual) ancestry in your favor, when in academia?

It provokes white fragility. So, nothing legitimate.
 
On a 23andme ad a woman was claiming tests showed she was either 29 percent or 39 percent Native American - I forget which one.

I puzzled over that one because I thought you would get increments like .5, .25, .125, .0625 ... but it would take some inbreeding and/or lots of generations to get to .29 or .39.

Though really I have not steeped myself in the science of it. I did click on the link above relating to Beringia migrations and studying genetic diversity in various sup-populations of "indigenous" Americans (as in "the Americas," not the U.S.). I have a great-grandmother who my mother says was sent to Carlisle Indian School as if it was some honor - but the GGM could not have been 100 percent native; she gave birth to a blue-eyed daughter.

That daughter, my grandmother, showed some home movies taken when she visited relatives (cousins?) in Oklahoma and those people looked like straight-up Indians to me.

But my mother's sister disputed my mom's account of the family history anyway, as if it was low-class, which might make me a victim of cultural genocide.
 
On a 23andme ad a woman was claiming tests showed she was either 29 percent or 39 percent Native American - I forget which one.

I puzzled over that one because I thought you would get increments like .5, .25, .125, .0625 ... but it would take some inbreeding and/or lots of generations to get to .29 or .39.

Though really I have not steeped myself in the science of it. I did click on the link above relating to Beringia migrations and studying genetic diversity in various sup-populations of "indigenous" Americans (as in "the Americas," not the U.S.). I have a great-grandmother who my mother says was sent to Carlisle Indian School as if it was some honor - but the GGM could not have been 100 percent native; she gave birth to a blue-eyed daughter.

That daughter, my grandmother, showed some home movies taken when she visited relatives (cousins?) in Oklahoma and those people looked like straight-up Indians to me.

But my mother's sister disputed my mom's account of the family history anyway, as if it was low-class, which might make me a victim of cultural genocide.

Do you know who else went to that school? The great Jim Thorpe.
 
Do you know who else went to that school? The great Jim Thorpe.
I think I did know that, because I looked it up to see if there might be rosters online. Her name was Alice Reynolds. I interviewed Mom for a biography I wrote for her 80th birthday. Her memory did not turn out to be all that reliable, and I was trying hard to stitch facts together.

It's easy to see how Elizabeth Warren could have internalized family lore about Native ancestry.
 
I think I did know that, because I looked it up to see if there might be rosters online. Her name was Alice Reynolds. I interviewed Mom for a biography I wrote for her 80th birthday. Her memory did not turn out to be all that reliable, and I was trying hard to stitch facts together.

It's easy to see how Elizabeth Warren could have internalized family lore about Native ancestry.

I believed for a long time everything my parents told me. And my Mom and Dad told me two entirely conflicting stories on how they met.

For example, my father told me he walked 2 miles to school every day in the cold Iowa winter. Then years later my family took a trip back to see relatives and he showed us the house he grew up in and then showed us the school he went to. It was a block away! And I called him on it! Oooops! Years later I found out all kinds of things that were exaggerated and not quite right. Family folklore is often very unreliable.
 
What exactly is the big deal in using your (actual) ancestry in your favor, when in academia?

It provokes white fragility. So, nothing legitimate.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

...but seriously what is wrong with claiming your ethnic heritage?

My wife is only around 1½ to 2% Native American (according to 23andme, depending on statistical confidence level) but she is nevertheless a card-carrying member of her tribe. I cannot know with certainty whether this helped her win acceptance from Harvard, but it probably didn't hurt.

Those of you who've never lived in Oklahoma may well be surprised at the number of people here who claim sone tribal affiliation, either formally or else as part of longstanding family lore.
 
Last edited:
No they're not. Me using something of your culture doesn't stop you from doing that also.

I didn't say your use denied access. I'm saying they are denied access through other systematic problems that members of the dominant culture do not face while selling something developed through that culture.

But we might be talking an issue of scale. Would you be willing to consider a hypothetical of worst case cultural appropriation and if it actually is or is not something bad under those circumstances?
 
It's easy to see how Elizabeth Warren could have internalized family lore about Native ancestry.


Very similar to Navin Johnson (The Jerk), who grew up mistakenly believing he was an African-American. Johnson was the inventor of Opti-Grab for glasses, and became a millionaire just like Warren.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom