Culturally Insensitive man bets a million dollars...

[Gameface]

In my family my understanding (disclaimer: this is not based on DNA evidence, it's just what my family has said) is that both my grandparents on my father's side are English, although they claim to have some Native American genes in the family. I don't go around claiming to be Native American, but that's the story they tell.

On my mother's side my grandmother is English but my grandfather (who died the year I was born) always claimed to be Irish. He was an immigrant to the U.S., hard drinking, short and liked to gamble. When I was still in elementary school my grandmother on that side came to SLC to visit my mom, my grandma lived in Joplin, MO, which is where my mom grew up. They headed over to the family history place and did some research. They couldn't come to any definitive conclusions, but what my mom said after that was that the best they could tell my grandfather was a jewish immigrant from Russia. She figured claiming to be Irish just played better where he ended up than claiming to be a Russian Jew. But had you asked her before that she would have said she was half Irish. Would you laugh and mock her, make leprechaun jokes about her and call her a liar if you found out that she was wrong?

 

[LogGrad98]

Look, I think the mocking way you are addressing what is essentially an issue created by Donald Trump and not Elizabeth Warren, based on her understanding of her family history is ugly. That's it. I overreacted in my response to it, but either way, I think it's ugly. There is no evidence I've seen that Elizabeth Warren went around waving an "I'm a native American" flag, just that in very limited ways she passed on her understanding of her family ancestry as told by her family. So to put her down when until a few days ago the only thing she had to go on was what she was told by her family, about her family, it's real low-brow stuff.

I think you need to re-read my posts. If anything I was going after the fact that OneBrow is so staunchly defending her, when it is obvious somewhere along the line she both brought this up to people and felt strongly enough about it to get a DNA test and publish said DNA test a proof positive she is Native American. I think that she is, indeed, being disingenuous at the least, but really I was going after the statements OB presented to defend her, that she never publicized it at all (which we know to be false) and that she was looking for people with shared memories, of an ancestor that was 12 times or more removed, based exclusively on family stories. Sure we all have family stories, but this kind of take, that you are truly a native american, is a bit extreme no matter how strongly her mother presented it.

As far as your mother's story goes, first off tell me where I called her an "injun" or whatever would be equivalent to leprechaun in that example. Secondly, if your mother used a DNA test to prove it, publicized it as a means to win an argument, and was doing so to save face because her claims could not be substantiated and it was part of her presidential bid, then absolutely someone should dig a little deeper. Do you think that we should just ignore anything anyone says because they might be a mom, that it is above scrutiny given the context, because of her motherhood? Or do you expect one side to be honest, or they need to be shot, and the other side gets a pass because we should never question what they put forth.

It is almost like your hatred of Trump, justified as it absolutely is, is blinding you to the fact that just because someone opposes him it does not immediately exonerate them from their own behaviors. Scrutiny is still justified.

And if you can show me where I said demeaning things about her, I will not only apologize but delete my account.

One last thing, right now there is a strong pull associated with all things minority, especially on the left. I think we need this focus, we need to get to the point where people are just people and no one is treated differently because they look or talk differently than the majority. So given that heightened attention, especially among democrats, for an aspiring presidential candidate to use that atmosphere for personal gain...even if that gain is just a boost to their reputation as a fighter for the people because, doggone-it, I am one of you...by fostering the idea that they are somehow part of these protected groups is not just disingenuous, it is down right hypocritical. Whether she told Harvard to publish it, or just allowed it when they did, it is hard to get past the fact that she is still touting it, all while pretending she isn't.

 

[Gameface]

I think you need to re-read my posts. If anything I was going after the fact that OneBrow is so staunchly defending her, when it is obvious somewhere along the line she both brought this up to people and felt strongly enough about it to get a DNA test and publish said DNA test a proof positive she is Native American. I think that she is, indeed, being disingenuous at the least, but really I was going after the statements OB presented to defend her, that she never publicized it at all (which we know to be false) and that she was looking for people with shared memories, of an ancestor that was 12 times or more removed, based exclusively on family stories. Sure we all have family stories, but this kind of take, that you are truly a native american, is a bit extreme no matter how strongly her mother presented it.

As far as your mother's story goes, first off tell me where I called her an "injun" or whatever would be equivalent to leprechaun in that example. Secondly, if your mother used a DNA test to prove it, publicized it as a means to win an argument, and was doing so to save face because her claims could not be substantiated and it was part of her presidential bid, then absolutely someone should dig a little deeper. Do you think that we should just ignore anything anyone says because they might be a mom, that it is above scrutiny given the context, because of her motherhood? Or do you expect one side to be honest, or they need to be shot, and the other side gets a pass because we should never question what they put forth.

It is almost like your hatred of Trump, justified as it absolutely is, is blinding you to the fact that just because someone opposes him it does not immediately exonerate them from their own behaviors. Scrutiny is still justified.

And if you can show me where I said demeaning things about her, I will not only apologize but delete my account.

One last thing, right now there is a strong pull associated with all things minority, especially on the left. I think we need this focus, we need to get to the point where people are just people and no one is treated differently because they look or talk differently than the majority. So given that heightened attention, especially among democrats, for an aspiring presidential candidate to use that atmosphere for personal gain...even if that gain is just a boost to their reputation as a fighter for the people because, doggone-it, I am one of you...by fostering the idea that they are somehow part of these protected groups is not just disingenuous, it is down right hypocritical. Whether she told Harvard to publish it, or just allowed it when they did, it is hard to get past the fact that she is still touting it, all while pretending she isn't.

Okay, I'm not going to go back and look right now, but you absolutely deserve the benefit of the doubt. I saw a string of posts that I took as being snarky and insulting but I might have missed context and meaning. I've already said my "lost respect" post was a stupid overreaction, but I'll go further and apologize to you. Stoked and I have PM'd and if there's more to say there we can cover it in PMs.

@Archie Moses this goes for you as well. my post was an overreaction, so I'm sorry.

 

[Archie Moses]

Okay, I'm not going to go back and look right now, but you absolutely deserve the benefit of the doubt. I saw a string of posts that I took as being snarky and insulting but I might have missed context and meaning. I've already said my "lost respect" post was a stupid overreaction, but I'll go further and apologize to you. Stoked and I have PM'd and if there's more to say there we can cover it in PMs.

@Archie Moses this goes for you as well. my post was an overreaction, so I'm sorry.

I didn't take it personal. I know I've been a dick and snarky too. We probably have a lot of the same beliefs and a lot of different ones too. If I ever go too far, please call me out. A lot of my posts are to stir the pot and create reactions and a lot of them are tongue-in-cheek. I'm wrong sometimes, have weird povs and may come across as a little aggressive. Me being me.

 

[Archie Moses]

Do you really think that a professional on that level is not going to vet what is being printed in public material by their employer about them, especially when it would directly affect their reputation? I would actually be surprised if the university would publish any kind of info about professors without their input.

And again you have to wonder, how would the employer have known to list her as native in the first place if she never publicized it?

Maybe she told them or is that too right and only found on far right papers? Lol *wink wink nudge nudge*

 

[One Brow]

If people have less respect for me because of my take on Warren then it speaks more to me about them than me.

I think it says you are the type of person who poses with a wooden statue of a stereotypical Native American and calls "Senator Elizabeth Warren".

Wait, *you* said that.

 

[One Brow]

Do you really think that a professional on that level is not going to vet what is being printed in public material by their employer about them, especially when it would directly affect their reputation? I would actually be surprised if the university would publish any kind of info about professors without their input.

My employer does. I was not consulted on my bio they put online.

Warren has already made clear that she signed up for an informal list, not on a formal document.

 

[One Brow]

I think you need to re-read my posts. If anything I was going after the fact that OneBrow is so staunchly defending her, when it is obvious somewhere along the line she both brought this up to people and felt strongly enough about it to get a DNA test and publish said DNA test a proof positive she is Native American.

Funny, I don't recall defending her, unless you mean I was correcting inaccurate statements. Yes, after years of heckling, she got upset (aka, "felt stongly") enough to get a DNA test, which I agree was not a good decision.

Politically, Warren's Native American ancestry has only been something the right used to make fun of her, never something she used to advance her career. This has been documented more than once in this thread, and by posters other than myself. However, that's only factual, and I suppose you don't care as much about facts as about smears on this particular issue. So, enjoy the smearing.

 

[Gameface]

I just want to understand something... So ****ing what if EW said that she had some NA ancestry? How is that something to condemn her for? How is she the villain here?

 

[Stoked]

I just want to understand something... So ****ing what if EW said that she had some NA ancestry? How is that something to condemn her for? How is she the villain here?

I don’t think she’s a villain at all. I am gonna laugh about it. The villain is the same one as it was in several other high profile spats.

 

[LogGrad98]

My employer does. I was not consulted on my bio they put online.

Warren has already made clear that she signed up for an informal list, not on a formal document.

Have you ever read your bio? Would you dispute it if it weren't correct?

 

[LogGrad98]

Funny, I don't recall defending her, unless you mean I was correcting inaccurate statements. Yes, after years of heckling, she got upset (aka, "felt stongly") enough to get a DNA test, which I agree was not a good decision.

Politically, Warren's Native American ancestry has only been something the right used to make fun of her, never something she used to advance her career. This has been documented more than once in this thread, and by posters other than myself. However, that's only factual, and I suppose you don't care as much about facts as about smears on this particular issue. So, enjoy the smearing.

Lol nice little ad hominem, and great deflection. Fact is, it made her look better politically so she never corrected it, let her employer use it which made her more valuable in their eyes. Ever heard of sins of omission?