Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

Thread: Elizabeth Warren and Indian heritage, checking off boxes

  1. #41
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    7,287
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    She's not laying claim to tribal membership, she's just proving that she wasn't lying (or mistaken) when she said she had native heritage. It's clear she's nothing more than a convenient target.
    A convenient target. For the Cherokee. Whose opinion perhaps should have some more weight than a bunch of white folks'.

    "A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. "Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

  2. #42
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,010
    It would be interesting to know when her ancestors came here. Figuring 25 years per generation 6 generations ago would be 150 years, or roughly 1870. 8 generations would be more like 1820. It seems entirely conceivable that her family lore did know of someone in the family that long ago had a native american spouse. That's the only thing she's ever claimed. Yes, it was perhaps wrong of her to use that to list herself as being in any way a minority, depending on one's opinion on the "one drop" rule. But the bigger point she has successfully made is that she wasn't lying when she said her family had native american blood and trump is a racist for calling her Pocahontas.

    At the end of the day it's kind of sad that this even matters. Or that there are people grumbling about her (factually accurate) claims but not flipping out over the much much bigger, and much more voluminous in quantity, lies that Trump has told. But it does matter if she intends to run for president in a couple of years.

  3. #43
    Senior Member flowerseverywhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,347
    My sibs and I are doing Geneology research and did our DNA. We were starting from scratch as we know none of our relatives save our parents and one grandfather. Interesting journey. We thought we were 50% French Canadian and 50% African American. Ding dong, we are wrong.

    More like 30% African American, 30% French Canadian, 20% British and the rest Portuguese and Native American. Which is why we are pretty dark skinned.

    Every day one one of us finds a new surprise, an unknown relative. Like a several thousand piece puzzle. Who knows what we will find. Family stories just kind of evolve.

    Unfortunately this is all a distraction. Immigration, the deficit, health care and several other pressing and very important issues are being ignored but this stupidity is the headlines. But, but Hillaryís emails....

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,966
    Unfortunately this is all a distraction. Immigration, the deficit, health care and several other pressing and very important issues are being ignored but this stupidity is the headlines.
    yes, individual minor cheating are such a joke against the problems we face.

    I guess if she really wanted to make right, she could take up native American issues. Of course these are going to vary some, a few tribes are doing well economically, and many are doing very badly. But you have to admit it would be kind of cool, and stemming all criticism at the pass, if she took up a bunch of native American advisors to her campaign and gave them serious input on issues.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  5. #45
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VT/NJ
    Posts
    8,479
    What was the best political move for her? To defend herself and make a 5 minutes video to prove there's some truth to her claims, or just "consider the source" and move on? I'm not sure her video/DNA test are going to accomplish what she hopes.

    People who stand in the path of Donald Trump while he's at work making cartoon Garbage Pail kids out of them have tough choices--defend or deflect or ignore. Unfortunately, he's a master marketer, and his 2-3 word zingers work. Ask any advertiser who's ever written a jingle.

    If you could defend yourself using his tactics, fighting fire with fire, that would be fine. Not exactly the civil thing to do and most of us don't want to go down to his level. But long intellectual responses won't work--maybe with some people, but probably only the "friendlies" who have the patience to sit through a long-winded explanation.

    Did Marco Rubio survive "little Marco"? Did Cruz survive "Lyin' Ted"? Did Hillary survive "Crooked Hillary"?

    Will Warren survive Donald Trump if she runs in 2020? I doubt it.

    What should we call Donald, if we were to go by his playbook?
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  6. #46
    Senior Member CathyA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,700
    How about Demented Donnie?

  7. #47
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post

    What should we call Donald, if we were to go by his playbook?
    The Whopper King?

    From what I've seen of Warren, I think she could go head to head with Don without loosing her dignity. I noticed in the news today she called him "creepy". That could be a catchy nickname.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,503
    If you like Warren, youíll see this as vindication. If you donít, youíll see it as hilarious.

    She does deserve credit for a creative and original political stunt.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    759
    Elizabeth Warren's "DNA Test" does not prove anything, except maybe that she is under attack, and she needs to defend herself.

    Regardless of her merits as a politician, I gather that in 1986 she began listing herself in a legal directory as "minority". She ceased doing so in the mid-1990s. Around 2012 this bit of deceptive information was publicized. It has been used by her political opponents to attack her ever since.

    I believe that truth and reconciliation would be served if Elizabeth Warren would admit that she lied, and would make amends to Cherokee and other people for whatever harm her deception may have caused them.

    In the context of the current election campaign and all the mud-slinging that goes with it, Elizabeth Warren is not the biggest liar or the dirtiest liar in the USA.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,371
    I think the best political move for her is to state that she took the DNA test to verify her grandmother's claim that she had Cherokee ancestors.
    She should then state that she understands this does not make her a member of the Cherokee tribe, and she was working with her best understanding at the time as to what it meant to be Cherokee.

    She is giving great offense to the people of the Cherokee nation and other tribes at this point in the way she is handling this. So she needs to explain that she was ignorant of what it meant to be Cherokee, and that she should not have claimed it.

    When I found my Cherokee ancestors, I had to educate myself about what that meant to the Cherokee tribe, that they did not consider me "Cherokee" just because I could name ancestors like Moytoy of Tellico and John Trader Vann who were my grandfathers.

    It is about identity and how the tribe defines itself, which is obviously different than how I thought about it or Elizabeth Warren. I think the cookbook thing can be forgiven as an honest mistake. The Harvard Law identification as "a woman of color" not so much.

    So I think she should start apologizing to people whose experiences she has appropriated inappropriately.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •