If Elected, Would Warren Be the First Native American President?

[theprestige]

There's no "right" answer to guess here.



I asked posters who are debating who is "black" and who is "white" to identify where they thought the dividing line between them was. So there's a graded bar - pick the dividing point.



Are you interested in making any attempt?

Ah, I get it. This is some Socratic dialog crap. You can't make your point, so you're hoping to trick someone else else into making it for you.

 

[uke2se]

Besides trolling, what's the point of this thread? If none, could it be moved to AAH, please?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Besides trolling, what's the point of this thread?

Sexism and slander of a democrat of course!

 

[Drewbot]

It would be ideal if color didn't enter into how people are categorized.

In fact, a reframing of this levels of black/white argument, into a 'how can we even tell who is black or white?' type of argument, may help us deal with the deep identity politics we are experiencing now.

I don't care what color someone is.

I'd love to see a Native Australian with dark skin, become PM of Australia, I would hope he/she would protect the beautiful Australian land, better than the current politicians.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Sexism and slander of a democrat of course!

Well, if one way to judge the strength of Trump's possible opponents is by the lameness of the trumper smears, then Warren is looking good!

 

[Belz...]

Well, if one way to judge the strength of Trump's possible opponents is by the lameness of the trumper smears, then Warren is looking good!

"Nancy" is probably the weakest nick he's ever thrown at someone.

 

[autumn1971]

There's no "right" answer to guess here.

I asked posters who are debating who is "black" and who is "white" to identify where they thought the dividing line between them was. So there's a graded bar - pick the dividing point.

Are you interested in making any attempt?

I can’t, but I know that every republican I know in rural Florida had zero problem identifying Obama as “a God damned ******” every time he was mentioned.

 

[theprestige]

Besides trolling, what's the point of this thread? If none, could it be moved to AAH, please?

Sexism and slander of a democrat of course!

The point is none of these things.

Though, if you find you cannot answer the question without getting into sexism and slander, that's good food for thought, and I think a valuable outcome of the thread.

But no, the point is to spark some thoughts, and hopefully some conversation, about race and identity in America, what diversity means, and what makes it valuable. Elizabeth Warren has family lore, and even DNA, but 70% of respondents to the poll agree that these things don't make her Native American in some sense.

Why not? And in what sense?

When asked by the Texas Bar Association, Warren checked the box for Native American. Is it important for the legal profession to have Native American lawyers in its ranks? In what sense?

Harvard listed Warren as a Native American on their faculty. Is it important for academia to have Native American faculty? Why?

Would it be significant if the US had a Native American president?

If it's not important that Warren checked the box for the Texas Bar Association, why shouldn't she check the box for the Presidency?

If it is important that we not consider her a Native American president, why is it not important that Harvard considered her a Native American professor?

 

[wareyin]

The point is none of these things.

Though, if you find you cannot answer the question without getting into sexism and slander, that's good food for thought, and I think a valuable outcome of the thread.

Sexist, slanderous question leads to answers relating to sexism and slander. That may be a valuable outcome for you, but less so for those who may not be interested in being trolled.

But no, the point is to spark some thoughts, and hopefully some conversation, about race and identity in America, what diversity means, and what makes it valuable. Elizabeth Warren has family lore, and even DNA, but 70% of respondents to the poll agree that these things don't make her Native American in some sense.

Why not? And in what sense?

In the sense a large part of Americans of Irish, or Italian, or Scottish ancestry are happy to proclaim themselves Irish, Italian, or Scottish. This feigned confusion over identity makes it seem as though you have never been around a St Patricks Day Parade, or seen any mobster movie. Somehow I don't think you are that inexperienced, or that confused when you see an American with a "Kiss me, I'm Irish" t-shirt on.

 

[theprestige]

Sexist, slanderous question

How is the question either of those things?

 

[llwyd]

Hmm, I think I like this: unmistakeable alarm and as far as fake scandals go this is so not Benghazi! - I think clearly no Americans died in the course of this particular imaginary action. And no decades of relentless demonizing behind her in any case. Not that I would particular support Warren but good for her anyway.

 

[wareyin]

How is the question either of those things?

Ah, I get it. This is some Socratic dialog crap. You can't make your point, so you're hoping to trick someone else else into making it for you.

 

[applecorped]

How

 

[Belz...]

Ah, I get it. This is some Socratic dialog crap. You can't make your point, so you're hoping to trick someone else else into making it for you.

...what?

 

[theprestige]

Ah, I get it. This is some Socratic dialog crap. You can't make your point, so you're hoping to trick someone else else into making it for you.

Not at all. I sincerely don't see any sexism or slander in my questions. Any of them. I'm asking you to point out what I'm missing.

 

[wareyin]

...what?

I copy-pasta'd theprestige's response regarding those who try to make points by asking questions. He seems to have a lot of questions himself, so I felt it was appropriate.

 

[wareyin]

Not at all. I sincerely don't see any sexism or slander in my questions. Any of them. I'm asking you to point out what I'm missing.

I don't honestly think you are confused about anything in this thread. I'm not buying the feigned confusion about the common American habit of claiming to be 'X' if one has 'X' ancestry, for instance.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The point is none of these things.

Though, if you find you cannot answer the question without getting into sexism and slander, that's good food for thought, and I think a valuable outcome of the thread.

But no, the point is to spark some thoughts, and hopefully some conversation, about race and identity in America, what diversity means, and what makes it valuable. Elizabeth Warren has family lore, and even DNA, but 70% of respondents to the poll agree that these things don't make her Native American in some sense.

Why not? And in what sense?

When asked by the Texas Bar Association, Warren checked the box for Native American. Is it important for the legal profession to have Native American lawyers in its ranks? In what sense?

Harvard listed Warren as a Native American on their faculty. Is it important for academia to have Native American faculty? Why?

Would it be significant if the US had a Native American president?

If it's not important that Warren checked the box for the Texas Bar Association, why shouldn't she check the box for the Presidency?

If it is important that we not consider her a Native American president, why is it not important that Harvard considered her a Native American professor?

Was that the only box she checked? No? So why do you think that's the only ancestry that matters? What makes her native ancestry more important than her European?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Ah, I get it. This is some Socratic dialog crap. You can't make your point, so you're hoping to trick someone else else into making it for you.

Eh, no.

I just wanted to see how "black" and "white" is actually differentiated in the USA by various folks who argue over that subject. It appears most are willing to argue vehemently over what colour people look like and thus what their "ethnicity" is without having the first idea if their vehemently held views actually have little or no basis in reality. It's utter bias.

Example 1: Most "white" people will find that their skin colour is actually closer to the "dark" end of that scale than they thought. I'm of white Anglo descent, and yet my own shade of skin colour is about 75% to the dark brown end. Does that make me 75% negro? But that is roughly the same "darkness" as many Australian aboriginal skins. Does that make me that ethnicity? No, on both counts.

Example 2: I have a verifiable ancestral line back to Rebecca Rolfe, who originated in Virginia colony area before the USA even existed. You may know her by another name used as an epithet recently - Pocahontas. At about 10 generations, I am roughly 1/1000th Tsenacommacah native blood. In fact, I have a much more verifiable claim for this than Elizabeth Warren does for her Cherokee ancestry. So will I be claiming tribal heritage as a result? Of course not. Same as Elizabeth Warren is not.

 

[Mumbles]

Eh, no.

I just wanted to see how "black" and "white" is actually differentiated in the USA by various folks who argue over that subject. It appears most are willing to argue vehemently over what colour people look like and thus what their "ethnicity" is without having the first idea if their vehemently held views actually have little or no basis in reality. It's utter bias.

Basic rule - whiteness is exclusionary, by design. The point being to create an underclass to be used to create wealth for *some* white people. Irish and Italian folks used to be excluded, white Hispanic people currently are in flux (thus why racists claimed that George Zimmerman "wasn't really white!" when he "discovered" a afro-Latino distant ancestor), dark skinned folks (African, Southern Asian, or Aboriginal) are excluded for the foreseeable future.

A black guy who can, and does, "pass" is often seen as a liar, an invader, especially by the far-right. On the other hand, folks like Jay Smooth or Adam Serwer are generally accepted by other black people, despite being light-skinned (such people aren't all that unusual). IOW, black people responded to whiteness, and white supremacism, in a "strength through numbers" manner, and generally became inclusive.

Which, again, is why it's ridiculous to hear people suddenly saying that Obama, and only him, shouldn't be considered "black". We all know it's because he was elected president, and that nobody would listen to Biracial DeAndre the drug dealer.