Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[cardboardbox]

I'm more African than Warran is Native.

[Judge Jude]

Sure I can agree, but where are you getting this from? You still haven't answered the question of what she has gained specifically from claiming Native American status.

aside from the unknowable - did her bogus claim of Indian ancestry listed on her Penn status help her get into Harvard, which gets to claim they had no idea who she was until she bounced back to "white" status on her official application - it seems you are comfortable with her bizarre claim as long as there is no "blue dress" proof that it benefited her.

so absent such lockdown proof, we're good with Warren claiming a bogus status because it's not offensive unless...

pro tip: it's offensive.

and this seems like a smart gambit: make up a bogus status, and even when it gets uncovered as bogus, you're still good to go, absent 110 pct proof that you could not have advanced otherwise. and your ancestry status can go as far back as 200+ years ago, and it's all good as long as you wear the proper laundry.

I imagine that affirmative action programs are thrilled with this change in the atmosphere.

after all, what could go wrong?

I am trying to remember which party actually is supportive of minority groups in this country, and not just Elizabeth Warren.

[Sour Masher]

JJ makes a compelling case on this issue. It isnt a great issue for her. However, on the list of sins committed by politicians, Warren being overzealous in embracing her, it turns out, distant NA heritage is a relatively minor one unworthy of the level attention Trump et al have given it. It is not like Warren was pulling a Rachael Dolezal. And it does seem likely that it started within the context of family pride in having a NA on the family tree, but that seems to have been exploited by Harvard inappropriately more than by her. But yeah, she should have called BS on Harvard claiming her as a "woman of color" hire. That is some BS right there, if they did that. Really, she should drop this issue, and let it die out. But, it is hard for her to ignore it when Trump keeps offensively calling her Pocahontas.

[Judge Jude]

SM, I think it is obvious that I also agree how vulgar the "Pocahontas" language is - among his other vulgarities.

I am in what I think accurate polling only tabs as an 8 pct real "undecided" likely voter electorate.
I already know what Trump is (hell, I have interviewed him a number of times).

what is the D side? 2018 and beyond. my state has Bob Menendez for US Senate re-election. should I vote for him?
my House seat also is in play. am open to pitches.

[frae]

SM, I think it is obvious that I also agree how vulgar the "Pocahontas" language is - among his other vulgarities.

I am in what I think accurate polling only tabs as an 8 pct real "undecided" likely voter electorate.
I already know what Trump is (hell, I have interviewed him a number of times).

what is the D side? 2018 and beyond. my state has Bob Menendez for US Senate re-election. should I vote for him?
my House seat also is in play. am open to pitches.

For the house specifically there is currently no check on Republican polices. Republicans are not going to run oversite on Pres Trump and with such an unpredictable leader who is over his head on foreign policy I think it is very important we have at least one branch of the government able to stand up and say No.

[DMT]

aside from the unknowable - did her bogus claim of Indian ancestry listed on her Penn status help her get into Harvard, which gets to claim they had no idea who she was until she bounced back to "white" status on her official application - it seems you are comfortable with her bizarre claim as long as there is no "blue dress" proof that it benefited her.

so absent such lockdown proof, we're good with Warren claiming a bogus status because it's not offensive unless...

pro tip: it's offensive.

and this seems like a smart gambit: make up a bogus status, and even when it gets uncovered as bogus, you're still good to go, absent 110 pct proof that you could not have advanced otherwise. and your ancestry status can go as far back as 200+ years ago, and it's all good as long as you wear the proper laundry.

I imagine that affirmative action programs are thrilled with this change in the atmosphere.

after all, what could go wrong?

I am trying to remember which party actually is supportive of minority groups in this country, and not just Elizabeth Warren.

I'm confused because I agreed with your point but rather than answer my question you act like she's committed some heinous act even though you haven't actually shown any examples of her trying to benefit. You really think Harvard only hired her for her heritage? Gimme a break. Like I said, I haven't been following too closely but of all the things to get riled up over, this seems silly.

[DMT]

I'm more African than Warran is Native.

Your coming to terms might be worth a separate thread.

[OaklandA's]

I imagine that affirmative action programs are thrilled with this change in the atmosphere.

Just for the record, for admission purposes, the general rule is at least 25% (i.e., at least one grandparent) to claim a protected status. That is why Warren likely never claimed it on her applications - she knew she was nowhere close to that.

[chancellor]

Just for the record, for admission purposes, the general rule is at least 25% (i.e., at least one grandparent) to claim a protected status. That is why Warren likely never claimed it on her applications - she knew she was nowhere close to that.

This is true in some cases, other tribes require 50%, others 1/8 or even 1/16.

[OaklandA's]

I am trying to remember which party actually is supportive of minority groups in this country, and not just Elizabeth Warren.

I know you are asking this rhetorically, but seriously, this is ridiculous. Which party is trying to end affirmative action? Which party is pushing for more stop-and-frisk? Which party does not believe that police violence against minorities is an issue? Which party is saying that the real discrimination victims are whites? Which party is pushing voting policies that disproportionately affect minorities' chances of voting? Which party is pushing to deport millions of undocumented residents, even if they have not committed any crimes besides entering the country? Which party has a leader who calls black NFL players "SOBs"? Which party has a leader who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and that Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. citizen? Which party has a leader who sees good people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally?

The answer to all of those questions is the GOP, but you're confused because, even though we have pretty strong evidence that she applied as "Caucasian" on all of her job applications, Elizabeth Warren thought she had more Native American ancestry than she actually does. Talk about your false equivalencies...

[Teenwolf]

I'm saying that you keep dodging the core issue - is it offensive for someone to claim an ethnicity and be lauded as a 'trailblazer' for having a relative that by the best estimate came along 200 years ago?

from Cherokee.org today:

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. — Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued the following statement Monday in response to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test claiming Native Heritage:

"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."

..................

I want and I need a Democratic Party that actually looks out for the interests of minorities. the Rs won't, for damn sure.

why the need to rally 'round Warren for this nonsense? Native Americans have had a troubled history in trying to co-exist, and a wealthy old white lady trying to tie her political ambitions to them is wildly inappropriate.

be the better party - it's a damn low bar to clear these days.

Bahahaha... you're ridiculous. I wont have time to battle on this, but I just have to bust a gut laughing at "be the better party"...

Yeah, be like the Republicans and cheat the Natives in North Dakota out of their legal right to vote! That's how a party shows respect for minorities!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/no...erican-voters/

[chancellor]

I'm not sure which is the most fun - watching Elizabeth Warren get dunked on by the Cherokee Nation, or watching her get dunked on by The Onion.

[B-Fly]

Worth reading, particularly because it largely pre-dates the Elizabeth Warren context, and it's also pretty fascinating historically and culturally.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/10/cherokee_blood_why_do_so_many_americans_believe_they_have_cherokee_ancestry.html

I suspect that Elizabeth Warren was raised on family stories of their "Cherokee blood" and that she internalized the family's pride in this connection. Ultimately, I think it was silly of her to list herself (or to allow Harvard Law to list her) as Native American if she didn't have at the very least a clear knowledge of where on the family tree she had a Cherokee ancestor. There's an unpleasant whiff of appropriation here that I think will not serve her well politically. Is it a huge moral/character failing? I don't think so. It just makes her look a bit foolish, even though Trump is ultimately the one who turned this from a non-issue to a potential political liability. In a crowded field likely to be competing for the 2020 nomination, that might be enough to put her down a notch.

[B-Fly]

Judge Jude, I don't think Elizabeth Warren ever intended to tie her political ambitions to Native American identity. The DNA test was presumably an attempt to get ahead of or get past a potential political liability issue for her should she face Trump in 2020. The test lends support to the fact that her past references to Native American heritage were not fabricated from whole cloth. They lend some corroboration to her family's oral history. Ultimately, I assume she was largely hoping that any blowback around this will be taken care of now, over the next few weeks (months), and then will be old news by the time primaries begin. The rollout hasn't gone well for her, so far, largely because of the (understandable) negative reaction from Cherokee Nation.

[nots]

Boston Globe is paywalled, but my guy Chris Mathews has this quote from their story posted on tonight's show: "she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995."

that's before she landed at Harvard, a member of the Ivy League that is under fire for allegations of discrimination against Asian-Americans who have dominated test scoring and other key aspects in recent years.

I can't assume Harvard is an honest broker here, sorry.

the McCarthy case is early, but if he had any knowledge of the brother-in-law's shady dealings then obviously I would denounce that as well.

I would want her to answer why she changed her ethnicity at Penn if it wasn’t to gain some sort of advantage. I’m sure there could be a reason, but I can’t think of one.
The smart play for her right now is for her to stop claiming to be Cherokee. The tribe doesn’t consider her to be a part of it and the news story yesterday showing her with such a small fraction of NA blood doesn’t help her claim. This thing will blow over, as long as she doesn’t keep talking about her ‘Native American heritage’ or the ‘family stories’ because some point soon, she is going to come across as someone who appropriating another’s culture. Just shut up and move on.