Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This seems like a weird conclusion. I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren because I don't agree with most of her policies, but I think this whole uproar about her faculty yearbook is about as stupid as it gets because (a) her mother's belief about her ancestry seems to be corroborated by her DNA test; and (b) even if she mistakenly believed she had a Native American heritage, who cares that she was listed in a yearbook as a minority?
1. It was a joke! You know, like T**** said about 5th Avenue? I said the same thing about Al Franken on Hennepin Avenue. You SJWs have no sense of humor.
2. The PP continues to make excuses for Warren, no matter what anyone says.
Her mother's belief has not really been corroborated, and Warren used that "ancestry" for a reason.
It doesn't matter if I can find an example, the fact is, it could happen and that child would still be considered a Native American and you know it.
Living the culture has nothing to do with biology. If living the culture was the litmus test, I could become Native American by following and living their culture.
Your argument is a huge fail.
Yes, it does matter. Like I said, you are hunting unicorns. If your hypothetical has never happened then it is irrelevant.
On the other hand, people with no NA DNA have been adopted into NA tribes, so it is possible to become ethnically NA without having NA ancestors by blood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Warren didn't claim NA heritage to get benefits and we do not know that she checked the minority box or if she merely checked the NA box along with others as part of her heritage. Checking boxes indicating heritage, which we have all done without proof or a DNA test to back it up.
She did check the box, though, when even by her own family lore her NA ancestry was minuscule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
This seems like a weird conclusion. I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren because I don't agree with most of her policies, but I think this whole uproar about her faculty yearbook is about as stupid as it gets because (a) her mother's belief about her ancestry seems to be corroborated by her DNA test; and (b) even if she mistakenly believed she had a Native American heritage, who cares that she was listed in a yearbook as a minority?
She cared enough to claim NA heritage when even by her own family stories the connection was trivial. She never had any contact with the NA culture at all. She was pretending to be something she is not. If she had had a black ancestor six to ten generations back would she have claimed to be African American?
Yes, it does matter. Like I said, you are hunting unicorns. If your hypothetical has never happened then it is irrelevant.
On the other hand, people with no NA DNA have been adopted into NA tribes, so it is possible to become ethnically NA without having NA ancestors by blood.
She did check the box, though, when even by her own family lore her NA ancestry was minuscule.
She cared enough to claim NA heritage when even by her own family stories the connection was trivial. She never had any contact with the NA culture at all. She was pretending to be something she is not. If she had had a black ancestor six to ten generations back would she have claimed to be African American?
Would I care if she was listed as a minority in a faculty yearbook in the mid-90s because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Would I care if she submitted a half-dozen recipes to an African-American themed cookbook in 1985 because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Would I care if said she had African-American heritage because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Would I care if she was listed as a minority in a faculty yearbook in the mid-90s because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Would I care if she submitted a half-dozen recipes to an African-American themed cookbook in 1985 because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Would I care if said she had African-American heritage because she had a black ancestor six to ten generations ago? No, I would not care.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
I tell you what I care about.
I care about people making a huge deal over cultural appropriation.... so much that they invented a crazy thing to complain about called "Cultural appropriation" then those same people using cultural appropriation to gain advantage.
that's exactly who and what Lieawatha is....so I care.
I care about people making a huge deal over cultural appropriation.... so much that they invented a crazy thing to complain about called "Cultural appropriation" then those same people using cultural appropriation to gain advantage.
that's exactly who and what Lieawatha is....so I care.
also Wing Stop is awesome.
What "advantage" did Elizabeth Warren "gain"?
Are you defining "cultural appropriation" as (i) telling people that you have a Native American ancestor (apparently true), (ii) being listed in a faculty yearbook as a minority two decades ago, and/or (iii) sending in recipes to a Native American cookbook in 1985? If so that is a really weird definition.
Are you defining "cultural appropriation" as (i) telling people that you have a Native American ancestor (apparently true), (ii) being listed in a faculty yearbook as a minority two decades ago, and/or (iii) sending in recipes to a Native American cookbook in 1985? If so that is a really weird definition.
right TEPL you keep telling yourself that.
what everyone else sees is you guys on the left picking this hill to die on. You are defending this woman because she is one of yours. No one sees this as some kind of noble defense of an individual that has been wronged.
its just partisan nuttiness. but you keep on telling yourself that this is principle.
what everyone else sees is you guys on the left picking this hill to die on. You are defending this woman because she is one of yours. No one sees this as some kind of noble defense of an individual that has been wronged.
its just partisan nuttiness. but you keep on telling yourself that this is principle.
I guess I might be on the left, but I'm not wasting my time on this subject that Trump decided we should waste our time on rather than focus on what really matters to most Americans. Trump has shown himself for being the low-class character he is with his insulting ways that jazz up his base, and Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated poor judgement and thin skin by letting Trump get under it!
This seems like a weird conclusion. I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren because I don't agree with most of her policies, but I think this whole uproar about her faculty yearbook is about as stupid as it gets because (a) her mother's belief about her ancestry seems to be corroborated by her DNA test; and (b) even if she mistakenly believed she had a Native American heritage, who cares that she was listed in a yearbook as a minority?
That's not all it was. She was touted as a token minority by Harvard to prove their faculty was "diverse," in the Harvard Crimson (school newspaper), no less, so she wasn't oblivious to Harvard using her self-claimed minority status that way.
Quote:
"Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.
Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."
And she was touted by Penn as a minority faculty member in a published list of faculty award winners.
Warren NEVER corrected either employer, Penn nor Harvard. Never told them she was White, not NA. She let them continue to think she was a minority, based on what she herself reported to them, and let them promote and publicize her as such.
what everyone else sees is you guys on the left picking this hill to die on. You are defending this woman because she is one of yours. No one sees this as some kind of noble defense of an individual that has been wronged.
its just partisan nuttiness. but you keep on telling yourself that this is principle.
I'm not on the left. I have said multiple times that I disagree with many of Warren's policies.
You made a statement about some "advantage" she gained and how she was "appropriating" Native American culture. That was your claim. If you can't back it up, that's ok. Many people make all sorts of claims based on their feelings and conjecture rather than on facts. You wouldn't be the first.
I would say there are at least a few. Why wouldn't there be? Probably a lot of Smiths and Joneses, etc., as well. Do you think having an NA surname is a requirement to be listed as a member of a tribe? Isn't that an awfully narrow-minded perspective?
And why couldn't one of those few be related to Elizabeth Warren?
Can you prove otherwise?
Narrow-minded right back at you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
