"Pocahontas" Pwns President

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
 Geez. So saying something is possible is a claim?  Boy I really pounded the table on this one. So very opinionated and leaving no room for doubt. 

 it's not the "quite possible" part that I was arguing with.  It was your direct claim that there was evidence she actually "checked a box" on an application.  Which the article you yourself cited concluded there was no evidence for.

Smedley said:
Right, but there is evidence that she checked a box for Minority/Native American, which leaves her motivation for doing so open for interpretation. 
Let me ask you this -- if she didn't check the box as a way to personally benefit (even if she didn't end up personally benefiting), why do you reckon she checked the box?

why cite snopes or any other source if you're going to conclude that it says the opposite of what it actually says?

I stand by my statements, ie that the citation I previously pulled from the article:

"it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools"

supports my previous claim:

"there is evidence that she checked a box for Minority/Native American, which leaves her motivation for doing so open for interpretation." 

I never used the word "application", contrary to your claims that I did. And yes I know that she checked the box after she was hired, but professional directories were the predecessor to today's LinkedIn, so -- to bring it back to my overarching point as to why this whole thing is a thing -- it's possible her motivation in checking the box was to personally benefit. 

If you want to deny the above and continue to insist that the article concludes the opposite of what I say, have at it. 

It isn't clear how much, if at all, Warren used her Native American ancestry to advance her career, but one thing about this story that is clear is that both Penn and Harvard claimed that Warren was a Native American in publicity and in their own diversity reports.

I think Warren has been overly criticized for this, but I don't get why Penn and Harvard's policies aren't symbolic of a problem with affirmative action which is that a lot of the beneficiaries aren't people who are directly and personally living with the legacy of American racism, ethnic cleansing, and slavery.  

Warren is as white as anyone comes and isn't from a Cherokee community.  If affirmative action is justified based on a way to pay a moral debt from America's past atrocities or just "diversity," claiming Elizabeth Warren as Native American is ridiculous and it demonstrates how the system could be abused.  

Who’s with me for a seach of the AALS submission archives to see if there was a box to check?

I'm white.  Family lore from the German side has Asian ancestors.  I never claimed to be part Asian.  When an early DNA test with difficult to interpret results seemed to back up the family lore, I still never claimed to be anything but white.  If someone was talking about ancestors, sure, I'd mention it, but for any demographic type answers, I'm basically "Wonder bread" white.  A newer, easier to understand test does dispute the earlier test taken by a relative, but even if it had backed it up the first test I still wouldn't claim to be anything but white.  It isn't about some DNA or some 10th great grandparent who may or may not have been from Asia, it is that in our society today I am easily recognizable as white, and to claim to be anything else would just have seemed pathetic and laughable. 

Someone mentioned people claiming Native American ancestry.  I think that the white people today who make these claims truly believe it, they're not lying in the traditional sense.  But I also read somewhere (will try to find a source later) that among white people who claim Native ancestry, 9 out of 10 can't be backed up when tested.  If your great great great grandmother lied, for whatever reason, all the subsequent generations probably took it as fact and never questioned it. This doesn't make these people liars, just mistaken.  

Question: 

Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

 Hard to say. We all have fractional African ancestry.

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

I would hope not. If I need genetic tests to know that somebody has African ancestry, then it is pretty likely that they went through life without being treated differently based on their skin color.

This trashing of Senator Warren is sounding a lot like the trashing of Secretary Clinton "from the left" that we saw last time.  There are some people for whom Senator Warren would not be their preferred 2020 candidate, but jumping onto and pushing stupid GOP talking points against who you DON'T want isn't the way to go to help whomever you might prefer.

Elizabeth Warren grew up in Oklahoma as did her parents,etc. She and her siblings listened to family tales of Indian ancestors. Oklahoma was home to many Indians years ago and today. If I were Elizabeth Warren I would get tired of hearing Trump's nasty words and would want to verify my ancestry. She did the right thing. Maybe it was years ago but Indian blood was proven.

AGAIN I Recommend going to her website.  It very clearly in video format shows what she claimed and interviews people at her schools, shows her family history as people clearly from many generations of Oklahomans.  It’s not at all a reach to think there was intermarriage with settlers and Indians in this part of the country.  

As far as presidential material she will be 70 in 2020, I personally would like to see younger folks in that position and I doubt she has aspirations to run.  

She is clearly a progressive hero and one of our greatest advocates in congress 

https://elizabethwarren.com/fact-squad/heritage/

tjohn said:

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

I would hope not. If I need genetic tests to know that somebody has African ancestry, then it is pretty likely that they went through life without being treated differently based on their skin color.

 tjohn, your response is well-intentioned but misses the mark in that people of color who can and do "pass" as white often pay a price within their own communities and often/understandably have a sense of a false identity.  An acquaintance of mine who is much lighter than her hispanic relatives was bullied and belittled as a child and adolescent by her own mother for having light skin!  Even now, in her fifties, some colleagues express incredulity about her ancestry.  At her father's recent funeral she heard trash talk related to her skin color.  

I think that, as whites, most of us have little clue about the impact of "color" on others' lives.

nakaille said:

tjohn said:

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

I would hope not. If I need genetic tests to know that somebody has African ancestry, then it is pretty likely that they went through life without being treated differently based on their skin color.

 tjohn, your response is well-intentioned but misses the mark in that people of color who can and do "pass" as white often pay a price within their own communities and often/understandably have a sense of a false identity.  An acquaintance of mine who is much lighter than her hispanic relatives was bullied and belittled as a child and adolescent by her own mother for having light skin!  Even now, in her fifties, some colleagues express incredulity about her ancestry.  At her father's recent funeral she heard trash talk related to her skin color.  
I think that, as whites, most of us have little clue about the impact of "color" on others' lives.

I know that. I was referring more to people that grew up with none of that experience yet could point to an African-American great great great grandparent or something like that.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
 Geez. So saying something is possible is a claim?  Boy I really pounded the table on this one. So very opinionated and leaving no room for doubt. 

 it's not the "quite possible" part that I was arguing with.  It was your direct claim that there was evidence she actually "checked a box" on an application.  Which the article you yourself cited concluded there was no evidence for.

Smedley said:
Right, but there is evidence that she checked a box for Minority/Native American, which leaves her motivation for doing so open for interpretation. 
Let me ask you this -- if she didn't check the box as a way to personally benefit (even if she didn't end up personally benefiting), why do you reckon she checked the box?

why cite snopes or any other source if you're going to conclude that it says the opposite of what it actually says?

I stand by my statements, ie that the citation I previously pulled from the article:
"it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools"
supports my previous claim:
"there is evidence that she checked a box for Minority/Native American, which leaves her motivation for doing so open for interpretation." 
I never used the word "application", contrary to your claims that I did. And yes I know that she checked the box after she was hired, but professional directories were the predecessor to today's LinkedIn, so -- to bring it back to my overarching point as to why this whole thing is a thing -- it's possible her motivation in checking the box was to personally benefit. 
If you want to deny the above and continue to insist that the article concludes the opposite of what I say, have at it. 

this is an extreme stretch given what the article says. It's not "quite possible" that Warren claimed Native American history to gain a personal benefit.  Given what's in that article, it's actually quite doubtful that any claim she made was for personal benefit.  She didn't get a job, a promotion, a raise, a home, a loan or any other benefit from that claim.  What "benefit" was even possible if everyone she knew considered her to be a white woman?

Given what we know, the reason behind her claim was almost certainly completely innocent -- she made the claim because that was the family lore shared with her and her relatives across generations.  Usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.

This is all complete BS. We have a man in our oval office who claims to grab women by the p*ssy, hides his tax returns, is in love with bad guys like Russia and North Korea, was helped by the Russians to get elected, lost the popular vote by 3.5 million votes, went bankrupt six times, is a casino boss carny and a game show host, paid a sex worker over 100 grand to cheat on his wife with, publicly mocks people by calling them horrible little names like a schoolyard bully, does the complete opposite of unifying our country, and people are arguing about Warren quoting a family legend about ancestry, and then actually confirms it? WTF? This is ridiculous. 

In a weird way, it's a nice break from the criminality and corruption running across the conservative class these days. This is an old-fashioned "controversy." No voter suppression, no bone saws. 

ridski said:

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

 Hard to say. We all have fractional African ancestry.

 And most of us have some Neanderthal ancestry! I'm gonna pad my cv with this item.

GL2 said:
Let's not forget the very unhelpful statement by Cherokee Nation official.

 Yeah, their response is maybe the worst part of this for Warren.   Can anyone explain why they would do this?   I understand that they have reasons to be protective of their heritage,  but their contribution only helps Trump; someone who would gladly F-$k them over just because it’s Wednesday.   Couldn’t they have approached EW privately and asked her to stop talking about it?  

GL2 said:

ridski said:

Runner_Guy said:
Question: 
Do you think the public reaction would be different if instead of having (and claiming) fractional Native American ancestry, Warren having (and claiming) fractional African ancestry?  

 Hard to say. We all have fractional African ancestry.

 And most of us have some Neanderthal ancestry! I'm gonna pad my cv with this item.

I took DNA tests from two of the more well-known companies that do consumer testing.  One initially reported me to have 90% of my DNA from Ireland and the UK, with the other 10% from the Iberian peninsula and Scandinavia. More recently they updated it as 100% Ireland and UK (they say with more testing, they can reanalyze previous results more accurately).  The other company has me at 90% Ireland/UK, 7% Western/Central Europe, and 3% Ashkenazi.  The last one was something of a surprise.

I'm not sure how precise any of it is.  But it did confirm our family stories that my paternal side is entirely Irish-American, and my maternal side is half Irish-American and half English/Welsh American.  Good thing, because I'd hate anyone to think that on St. Patrick's Day I was making any nefarious claims of Irish heritage for personal benefit.

Runner_Guy said:
It isn't clear how much, if at all, Warren used her Native American ancestry to advance her career, but one thing about this story that is clear is that both Penn and Harvard claimed that Warren was a Native American in publicity and in their own diversity reports.
I think Warren has been overly criticized for this, but I don't get why Penn and Harvard's policies aren't symbolic of a problem with affirmative action which is that a lot of the beneficiaries aren't people who are directly and personally living with the legacy of American racism, ethnic cleansing, and slavery.  
Warren is as white as anyone comes and isn't from a Cherokee community.  If affirmative action is justified based on a way to pay a moral debt from America's past atrocities or just "diversity," claiming Elizabeth Warren as Native American is ridiculous and it demonstrates how the system could be abused.  

 How has she ever benefited from affirmative action?

ml1 said:

 

-It's not "quite possible" that Warren claimed Native American history to gain a personal benefit.  Given what's in that article, it's actually quite doubtful that any claim she made was for personal benefit.  She didn't get a job, a promotion, a raise, a home, a loan or any other benefit from that claim. 

I don't follow your logic here. 

I am not a veteran. If I check veteran status on a job application, but I don't get the job, does that make it quite doubtful that I checked the box for personal benefit?

-What "benefit" was even possible if everyone she knew considered her to be a white woman?

The benefit of someone from another law school who doesn't know her being intrigued by her background and reaching out regarding a career opportunity. 

-Given what we know, the reason behind her claim was almost certainly completely innocent -- she made the claim because that was the family lore shared with her and her relatives across generations.  Usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.

Warren herself said "I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

 

-It's not "quite possible" that Warren claimed Native American history to gain a personal benefit.  Given what's in that article, it's actually quite doubtful that any claim she made was for personal benefit.  She didn't get a job, a promotion, a raise, a home, a loan or any other benefit from that claim. 
I don't follow your logic here. 
I am not a veteran. If I check veteran status on a job application, but I don't get the job, does that make it quite doubtful that I checked the box for personal benefit?
-What "benefit" was even possible if everyone she knew considered her to be a white woman?

The benefit of someone from another law school who doesn't know her being intrigued by her background and reaching out regarding a career opportunity. 
-Given what we know, the reason behind her claim was almost certainly completely innocent -- she made the claim because that was the family lore shared with her and her relatives across generations.  Usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.

Warren herself said "I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

 Seriously?  That's what we should care about?  "I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am"?  I cannot imagine being the slightest bit troubled by that.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

 

-It's not "quite possible" that Warren claimed Native American history to gain a personal benefit.  Given what's in that article, it's actually quite doubtful that any claim she made was for personal benefit.  She didn't get a job, a promotion, a raise, a home, a loan or any other benefit from that claim. 
I don't follow your logic here. 
I am not a veteran. If I check veteran status on a job application, but I don't get the job, does that make it quite doubtful that I checked the box for personal benefit?
-What "benefit" was even possible if everyone she knew considered her to be a white woman?

The benefit of someone from another law school who doesn't know her being intrigued by her background and reaching out regarding a career opportunity. 
-Given what we know, the reason behind her claim was almost certainly completely innocent -- she made the claim because that was the family lore shared with her and her relatives across generations.  Usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.

Warren herself said "I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

the snopes article and the politifact article make it clear that no one who ever talked to Warren about a job thought she was anything but white.  She filled out job applications as white.

but luncheons!  

you are really grasping to make this look like something sinister.

I especially loved her contribution as “Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee” to the 1984 classic “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Covilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole”.

Her “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” is a delight.

Cherokee staples.  Crab and Mayo.

ml1 said:

the snopes article and the politifact article make it clear that no one who ever talked to Warren about a job thought she was anything but white.  She filled out job applications as white.

but luncheons!  
you are really grasping to make this look like something sinister.

 Now, if we were talking about dinners, or maybe a chance to get in on the ground floor of the next Mohegan Sun-type casino investment, THEN we'd be talking scandal ...

Robert_Casotto said:
I especially loved her contribution as “Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee” to the 1984 classic “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Covilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole”.


Her “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” is a delight.


Cherokee staples.  Crab and Mayo.

 Yes, by conservative standards, this is scandalous. Sexual assault... meh. They are only women.

dave23 said:

Robert_Casotto said:
I especially loved her contribution as “Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee” to the 1984 classic “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Covilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole”.


Her “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” is a delight.


Cherokee staples.  Crab and Mayo.

 Yes, by conservative standards, this is scandalous. Sexual assault... meh. They are only women.

 That would be the Donald Trump pamphlet "How to Get to Third Base: Move on Them Like a B*tch".

Robert_Casotto said:
I especially loved her contribution as “Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee” to the 1984 classic “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Covilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole”.


Her “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” is a delight.


Cherokee staples.  Crab and Mayo.

That's the smoking gun right there.  She lied her way into that recipe book to great personal benefit.

It's not sinister. That was never my point. My point was this whole situation raises valid concerns about a potential presidential candidate's judgement and honesty. Which is why this is a story. And at this critical juncture, the Democrats have to be focused on winning in 2018 and then in 2020, not on sideshow stuff like this.   

So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

Smedley said:
It's not sinister. That was never my point. My point was this whole situation raises valid concerns about a potential presidential candidate's judgement and honesty. Which is why this is a story. And at this critical juncture, the Democrats have to be focused on winning in 2018 and then in 2020, not on sideshow stuff like this.   
So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

 I think Democrats have a ways to go before they catch up with post-truth Republican politics.