|
Post by Don on Oct 15, 2018 14:03:52 GMT -5
The test did not show she's "an indian" it shows she has a tiny portion of indian DNA with much more of other groups. She's absolutely not "an indian" so from that standpoint the Chief Cheeto owes her nothing.
Didn't she also tell a story about how her parents had to elope because her mother was "too indian" or some such crap?
She's another politician: a lying liar who lies and people don't have a problem with it if they're on the Blue team.
This is as sad as people still supporting the Chief Cheeto.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 14:06:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 15, 2018 14:08:06 GMT -5
The test did not show she's "an indian" it shows she has a tiny portion of indian DNA with much more of other groups. She's absolutely not "an indian" so from that standpoint the Chief Cheeto owes her nothing. Didn't she also tell a story about how her parents had to elope because her mother was "too indian" or some such crap? She's another politician: a lying liar who lies and people don't have a problem with it if they're on the Blue team. This is as sad as people still supporting the Chief Cheeto.
Well, it depends on what your definition of "Indian" is...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 14:16:42 GMT -5
The test did not show she's "an indian" it shows she has a tiny portion of indian DNA with much more of other groups. She's absolutely not "an indian" so from that standpoint the Chief Cheeto owes her nothing. Didn't she also tell a story about how her parents had to elope because her mother was "too indian" or some such crap? She's another politician: a lying liar who lies and people don't have a problem with it if they're on the Blue team. This is as sad as people still supporting the Chief Cheeto. That's...some serious nitpicking. www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/05/trump_offers_1_million_for_pocahontas_elizabeth_warren_to_take_dna_test.htmlI say he owes the million. And how do you know her story about her parents is a lie? I'm serious here. My mom's real Polish maiden name sounds very Jewish. She's not Jewish. But during WWII, her father changed the family name to sound less Jewish because everyone assumed they were Jewish, he'd encountered some prejudice on that account, and he was afraid that what was happening there would happen here. (As I've noted, I have at least Polish relative who died in Auschwitz. There may be others.) So, some parent could well have given a boy a hassle about dating my mom because she was "too Jewish," even though she wasn't Jewish at all. Prejudice doesn't necessarily need much of a toehold. ETA: At no time did Warren ever claim to be 100% native american -- she claimed that she thought she had a Cherokee ancestor. (And it couldn't have been a particularly recent one, or she would have known for sure -- it was always going to be a small percentage because it couldn't have been anything else. Trump's challenge was that she take a DNA test. She did. It in fact proved that she had a native american ancestor. As a nitpicking lawyer, I think she wins hands down (not that she's going to sue, or that she should). markesq, what say you?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 15, 2018 14:34:40 GMT -5
Trump's Pocahontas jabs are indeed offensive and racist. But I'm with rob about Elizabeth Warren being kind of pathetic and bringing this on herself. She chose to check those boxes back in 1986, to identify as a "minority." Maybe that never got her a job or any other tangible rewards, but it's quite a step further to officially claim minority status than just to repeat an interesting family legend about having a Native American ancestor. I haven't done one of those DNA tests on myself yet (I keep meaning to). But based on the information Elizabeth Warren had prior to her learning about her gen-u-wine authentic Indian blood, I have as much claim to Indian heritage and I guess should be checking all those "Native American" boxes. My mother is a serious amateur genealogist and has uncovered actual documented evidence (in the form of family letters) referring to an Indian great-grandmother - or is it great-great-grandmother? I can't remember. But anyway, if true, I have an Indian ancestor much more recent than 6-10 generations back. I think anyone who knows me, my upbringing, and what my pasty face looks like would consider it 100% ridiculous bullshit for me to go around claiming I am of Native American descent, even if it is technically true. So I don't see why Warren shouldn't rightly be mocked for doing it. Sure, now she has to defend herself because Trump's been calling her a liar, but she gave him the stick to beat her with.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 15, 2018 14:47:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 14:49:19 GMT -5
I will concur that to some extent she brought it on herself. I say "to some extent" because I don't think ANYTHING justifies or could justify Trump's Pocahantas jabs, and I think far too much is being made of it.
That said, she surely made too much of her ancestry. I don't have a problem with her getting a certain degree of mocking for it, but the degree she's getting is ridiculous, IMO.
To me, this falls in that category of Paul Ryan's stupid marathon fib. Yeah, he fibbed. It was stupid. It was annoying to many of us who've run marathons (running geeks are weird and we care about that stuff). But it's an eyeroll and I really don't care about it.
Most people stretch some things, romanticize, and yes, even tell some fibs, especially when talking about their backgrounds. How upset I get about it depends.
Here, if she took a scholarship/position that should have gone to someone of Cherokee blood, well, I'll join the outrage train. But otherwise...
And here I may have a bias -- a personal one, not a political one. I fret every time I face that stupid little box. Because of my name, if I check Caucasian, I get asked because a lot of places really really really really want to put you in the diversity box. I explain that I'm only part Spanish, and it's from Spain. They often say "well, that qualifies as Hispanic". I say "yeah, but I really identify as Caucasian." And sometimes they don't ask -- they just check me off as Hispanic whatever I say, because my name.
I'm not going to fret about it. I was a summa cum laude undergrad with test scores in the 99th percentile, I graduated from Yale Law School and got a very high score on the bar exam, to the extent it matters (it doesn't). I don't have anything to prove, and I doubt very much whether my Hispanic name made any important difference to my career.
But I betcha if I ran for political office, some asshole would dig up someplace, somewhere that listed me as Hispanic, and chortle over how my grandfather (a coal miner from Spain) wasn't "really" Hispanic and I was just trying to get an edge, and nothing I said would make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 15, 2018 14:51:01 GMT -5
What a terrible headline. RCP is usually more honest than that.
Trump DID NOT repeat DID NOT offer to pay a million dollars simply for taking the test. Even the possibility of taking the test was predicated on facing Warren in a debate and making the offer then. Note this quote from NT's post, backed up by the details in the RCP article:
"At a rally in July, Trump imagined facing Warren in a debate, then said he would bring a DNA test and toss it to her. “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” he said."
The test did not show she's an indian, as I explained in my earlier post. Trump's a bigoted jackass, but that's no excuse for changing the facts of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 15, 2018 15:12:59 GMT -5
The hyperbolic claims are all yours. You're not following. I know that humanity traces back to Africa. I'm aware of everything in the bit you quoted, in fact. My point is that when someone identifies themselves by race/ethnicity--they say they're white, they're black, they're Native American, etc.--the retort of "well, we're all African actually" isn't much of a retort at all. I would think you'd agree with that, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 15, 2018 15:59:42 GMT -5
The Hill article posted above has the same errors of fact presented, and I note that Elizabeth Warren has called for Trump to pay up based on the same errors of fact. I smell partisanship, bigly.
The Left's narrative depends entirely on taking the bet out of the context of the imaginary debate. I thought "taking things out of context" was a bad thing when The Right does it.
"You are welcome to your own opinions; you are not welcome to your own facts." I think somebody famous said something like that sometime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 16:04:40 GMT -5
What a terrible headline. RCP is usually more honest than that. Trump DID NOT repeat DID NOT offer to pay a million dollars simply for taking the test. Even the possibility of taking the test was predicated on facing Warren in a debate and making the offer then. Note this quote from NT's post, backed up by the details in the RCP article: "At a rally in July, Trump imagined facing Warren in a debate, then said he would bring a DNA test and toss it to her. “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” he said." The test did not show she's an indian, as I explained in my earlier post. Trump's a bigoted jackass, but that's no excuse for changing the facts of the matter. As a lawyer, I'd be delighted to argue about how Trump's statement should be read. Since Elizabeth Warren never claimed that she was 100% Native American, obviously Trump could not reasonably have made that challenge expecting that the results could possibly come up 100% "Indian." Correct? Indeed, nor did she claim either of her parents or grandparents was 100% "Indian". Thus, it would not have been reasonable for Trump to make that challenge with any expectation that the results would show that she was even as much as 25% "Indian." Correct? Indeed, since she couldn't identify how far back the ancestor was, the reasonable expectation, based on what she asserted about her own background -- that she believed an unknown ancestor at least a couple of generations back was Cherokee -- it would have been completely UNreasonable for Trump to make that challenge on the basis of Warren's statements expecting anything greater than 6 -12% "Indian" -- those percentages would correlate to a great great grandparent or a great grandparent, respectively. Since Warren claimed fairly distance ancestry (which is exactly what the test showed), on what planet would it have been a reasonable expectation for Trump to make that challenge expecting her to be 100% "Indian" or anything like it? He could not have reasonably done so -- therefore, his challenge must have been (1) to take the DNA test, and (2) that it would not show that she was partially "Indian." On the basis of what Warren had claimed, that "partially " couldn't have been more than 12.5% "Indian", so Trump's challenge couldn't have related to more than that unless -- gasp! -- he was exaggerating what she claimed to make a fucking racist point at his rallies. I understand she's about 5%, correct? Yeah, could have been a great great grandparent who was mostly Cherokee, or another generation or so back that was entirely Cherokee. (My understand is that this isn't a 100% precise thing.) So, yeah, I think she won her bet. All that said, I agree it was certainly cheesy of her to allow herself to be listed as Native American based on that little fragment, especially when she didn't know for sure. It was also, as far as I can see, really not that big a deal. Giggling at her is fine. I'll even accept a certain degree of scoffing. But come on. It's really not that big a deal. And c.e., I gotta be honest, I can't stop rolling my eyes at you and your indignation at Warren here. You're actively supportive of a president who tells huge, horrible, substantive lies (lies that actually matter) every single day. You were all supportive of a Supreme Court candidate being confirmed despite telling lies under oath at his hearing. Puhleez.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 15, 2018 16:20:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 15, 2018 16:45:58 GMT -5
I understand she's about 5%, correct? Yeah, could have been a great great grandparent who was mostly Cherokee, or another generation or so back that was entirely Cherokee. (My understand is that this isn't a 100% precise thing.) So, yeah, I think she won her bet. Closer to 0.5% than to 5%.* But the fact that you can "lawyer" this to show how she won her bet is really one of the points I was making. Still disagree. It's at least as big of a deal as Trump falsely claiming that he's "self-made," I think. And at least as big of a deal as those pols--like Blumenthal and his military service--who massage the facts about their past (i.e. lie about their past) to garner more support. Maybe it wasn't in 1986, when Warren was just a prof, but now she's doubled down on the whole thing by choosing to "prove" her Native American pedigree. And why? To simply counter Trump? To win a bet? No. To get more attention and more support. So one can argue that she never received any quantifiable benefits from calling herself a Native American in the past, but it seems to me that now she is seeking exactly that. Moreover, Warren's bs continues the problematic--imo--trend of identity politics trumping (pardon the pun) everything else. * For point of info: 1st generation (parents) : 50% DNA (from each) 2nd generation (parents) : 25% DNA (from each) 3rd generation (parents) : 12.5% DNA (from each) 4th generation (parents) : 6.25% DNA (from each) 5th generation (parents) : 3.13% DNA (from each) 6th generation (parents) : 1.56% DNA (from each) 7th generation (parents) : 0.78% DNA (from each) 8th generation (parents) : 0.39% DNA (from each) 9th generation (parents) : 0.20% DNA (from each) 10th generation (parents) : 0.10% DNA (from each) The report says Warren's Native American ancestor is probably coming in between the 6th and 10th generations. Best case scenario, she's less than 2%. Worse case she's 0.1%.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Oct 15, 2018 16:48:19 GMT -5
I won't speak for any of my kin, but as a member of the Cherokee nation I will say this:
Warren trying to defend her claims this way is in the same "I'm a piece of shit" neighborhood as Blumenthal is in defending his "war record".
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 15, 2018 16:58:33 GMT -5
All that said, I agree it was certainly cheesy of her to allow herself to be listed as Native American based on that little fragment, especially when she didn't know for sure. It was also, as far as I can see, really not that big a deal. Giggling at her is fine. I'll even accept a certain degree of scoffing. But come on. It's really not that big a deal. It's not a big deal, but I wouldn't say it's no deal. Claiming minority status has actual legal and economic significance - like being able to qualify as a "minority owned" business, and enabling your law school to brag about its "diversity" because you're on the faculty. I mean, how do you think actual Native American professors feel about Elizabeth Warren being who her school held up as their token Indian to brag about their diversity? Even if she never actually did benefit from it, she probably didn't check those boxes on a lark. C'mon Cass, it's sleazy. No, not as sleazy as calling her "Pocahontas," but it doesn't deserve to be defended. Trump, of course, took a legitimate criticism and turned it into a ridiculous, offensive, racist punchline that he repeats at every opportunity because that's what Trump does. But the criticism is still deserved. It also doesn't erase her other fine qualities, but she should just walk back the whole Native American thing rather than doubling down on a 0.001% result from a DNA test. And while Trump's "bet" was as ridiculous and offensive as the Pocahontas cracks, no way would proving somewhere waaaay back in your family tree is a Native American make you "an Indian," IMO, and if you're really defending that as a lawyer, I'd be fascinated to hear the legal theory under which he could be held to it. (I would assume that if he and Warren had actually formalized that wager, they'd have agreed on some minimum percentage of NA ancestry she had to prove, and I doubt very much Trump would have agreed that 6 generations back was sufficient.)
|
|