You know what’s even funnier? Every single person who disagrees with you is a racist crypto white-supremacist. And on this left leaning board, no one agrees with you. Super duper funny.
oops
Yet in that entire post, you didn’t address the claims of my argument at all 
Note she is trying to pivot now but still hasn’t apologized, and her position in the 2020 polls is dropping.
After the DNA debacle, Elizabeth Warren’s outreach to minority communities makes a pivot
Perhaps if you had attacked my argument, which is what would change my mind, instead of building a tit-for-tat argument it wouldn’t have been as much of a waste.
My point is that it will have a negative impact on Warren’s political career, the fact that you were looking for tit-for-tat wins while ignoring what I was arguing is why you missed that.
While I fully get you don’t think that this was “racist” I am betting you are not representative of the minority groups that are critical for us winning against Trump.
While I did try to take the time to explain to posters why this is viewed as racist, which it is, my concerns that it would result in a reduced voter turn out which would help trump are being echoed by Democratic strategists.
She needs to make an honest pivot to not just be a white savior, but to honestly give these disenfranchised populations a voice.
To quote from the AP story above.
How about attacking my argument vs focusing on discrediting the rat hole of trying to explain why the DNA test is racist, and realizing white fragility is real, note another quote from that.
Which is another example of minorities having to treat white people with kid gloves due to this fragility.
All Warren had to do was something similar to “In the 1990s I thought I was being helpful by pointing out that there is more diversity than sometimes meets the eyes, but I was unaware of the challenges around identity and severity for Native Americans, but now I understand why my actions were hurtful and I pledge to move forward in a way that helps Native voices be heard.”
An action like that backed with further actions would have boosted her poll numbers among a portion of those communities, where the DNA test demonstrated she has more in common with Trump than an ally.
As I stated before and you ignored, I fully expect the Republicans to play off this misstep if she does win the nomination. Elizabeth Warren was fully capable of short circuiting this attack but it is becoming more and more clear that she want to play the white savior role and not the ally role which will directly impact her electability.
To quote my cite from the Nation above.
And:
So how about you come back on how this isn’t radicalized, as apparently you have an issue with it being labeled as such.
How about hyperbole, I have tried to target ideas here. If us white progressives were so great about our understanding of racism it wouldn’t still be a problem. Often just like sexism those of us on the left just resort to benevolent forms which are just as dehumanizing and destructive.
But how about giving me proof that DNA tests and heritage aren’t racialized? And how I am wrong?
In this thread the ONLY cite or link you have added was trying to paint the Cherokee Nation as being racist, like the fact that they are racist changes Elizabeth Warren’s actions at all.
https://www.thenation.com/article/dna-tests-elizabeth-warren-native-american-race-science/
I’m not going to be convinced because you think that if one person is racist it justifies racist acts.
I expect you haven’t provided any cites because Science is not on your side here.
Here are a couple more cites, because I do think it is important to understand this technology.
#1 a blog post from the scientist explaining how using his research to justify racial realism is a wrongheaded perspective that asserts racial categories are genetically determined
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/07/12/written-in-blood/
Another very long and comprehensive cite that will help explain this more with more cites and explanation.
I suggest that everyone who thinks of themselves as trying to be progressive read and understand those pages.
Even if you don’t take commercial genetic testing seriously, they risk internalizing the outdated social and scientific assumptions hidden behind these reported results. Remember that it takes active effort to avoid implicit biases from becoming explicit actions. We will probably always have implicit biases too.
I don’t actually think of myself as trying to be progressive, so I’ll just skip that.
At the core though, your whole argument is kinda self contradictory. You’ve expended countless pixels on how useless family tree and DNA is for establishing tribal/racial background and we should just let the tribe decide. But family tree is exactly how the Cherokee Nation decides. You have to be related to someone on the original rolls.
DNA doesn’t matter at all, lineage does. The evidence she tried to use has nothing to do with long term lineage unless you subscribe to race realism, which is racism.
That is why I keep using that term. You are conflating two separate subjects and claiming they are the same.
If you actually bothered to read my cites you would know why.
No, you specifically downplayed lineage as well. Remember how everyone is related to Charlemagne? Remember how unimpressed you were with that other Senator’s relationship to Pocahontas?
Everyone modern European is related to Charlemagne, which is exactly why the racist claim that racial categories prove that she is Cherokee is invalid. It directly relates to her claim that she may have shared an common ancestor 15,000 years ago with someone in Peru makes her Native American.
The fact that you refuse to read my cites which explain this indicates you are not a serious poster, so have fun with the last word.
I am no longer going to play “definition” games if you are unwilling to any work to try and justify your inferred claim that race is a biological trait.
No, you just had the last word.
However, one can make that claim on the basis of self identification. And if you want to base your self identification on a DNA test or s story your mother told you, or just growing up in that culture- you have every right to. You totally ignore self-identification, you dont seem willing to give Warren the right of self identification.
Yes, the Indian tribes here in America get to decide who is and who is not a member. They often do this by ancestry. However, as I have now said sixe times and you have ignore six times- the Tribes select their legal members by whatever method they choose-you dont have to have any NA ancestry, and even if you have full NA ancestry, a tribe can still exclude you.
And your buddies the Cherokee Nation are well known racists, having kicked out all their black members, for 100% racist reasons. So, yes, the tribes can pick and choose who they want- but we can still say they are racist when they do so for bad reasons.
No, lineage doesn’t matter either. Only* self identification.* Claiming that lineage matters leads us to the “one drop” and similar racist methods- it is racist.
Is it really worth it for me to try responding with anything other than a cowed admission of utter defeat?
Is it worth responding with a “But…”?
Is it worth responding with “Well, I understand your point about A, however in regard to B…”?
Is it worth even responding with “My good sir, you have opened my eyes to many things, for which I thank you, and yet perhaps you might consider. . .”?
Even those posters who have met you half way and thanked you for your contributions have been bludgeoned with your cudgel.
No, my last post did not address your argument. At this point I feel no obligation to do so when you have repeatedly misrepresented every counter-argument and, worse still, every poster who does not agree with you.
My intent was only to point out that while dismissing and deriding other posters for “ad hominem” attacks, you have repeatedly resorted to the same, to a ridiculous*(ad hominem!)* extent.
Which brings us to your repeated cries of tu quoque!
My second reply to you, which you branded as “alt-right style whataboutism tu quoque”, was simply to suggest you should cut others the same slack you’re willing give yourself when using so-called racial language.
If tu quoqe is the fallacy of appealing to hypocrisy in order to discredit an argument, well, I was not trying to discredit your argument (that lumping people together under a racial label is wrong … which I agree with).
I was discrediting your outrage.
To summarize my thoughts on this topic:
I think Warren made a mistake in claiming Native American heritage based only on family stories.
I think in doing so she inadvertently trivialized the significance of cultural identity for Cherokee and Delaware peoples.
I think she made a mistake in taking Trump’s bait.
I think the DNA test is unhelpful at best and understand how it could be insulting to peoples who have been discriminated against or disenfranchised on the basis of genetics.
I think Warren has tried, perhaps clumsily, to shine a light on Native American issues.
As far as I know, Warren has never claimed tribal status, cook books notwithstanding, so I think those shouting “only the tribes get to decided who belongs” are accusing her of something she hasn’t done.
I don’t know whether this will cost her the nomination in 2020, but if it does, it’s because people are dumb.
I think Warren is OK.
As to the broader issue of race:
Despite your apparent assumption that I would never ascribe to something so repugnant as a belief in a
biological basis for race* (and I don’t know why you would make that assumption when you’ve already lumped me in with the alt-right) I actually do think there is a biological/genetic basis for race.
In so far as our genes determine many of our outward traits, and our outward traits have been used to group us, often rather arbitrarily, into “races” or ethnic groups.
Do I think that genetics justifies the concept of race? No.
I think the very concept of race is flawed, but for bad or worse, it has shaped the way we see and treat each other, and so it enters into discussions of cultural/ethnic identity and discrimination.
*(Post #60. Although really it’s hard to parse whether you were saying you were “betting that it is not [my] intent” to argue for a biological basis for race, or whether you were graciously assuming that it’s wasn’t my intent to “hand wave away” the concerns of minority groups [in which case, thank you?].)
As for ethnic identification, it has been used both to denigrate and oppress people, which is bad, and to unify and protect people, which is good.
Genetic science has given us insights into the development of our species while providing us with a few useful medical markers along the way. That’s good.
It’s also been used to push racist agendas. That’s bad.
And it’s been used by some folks to trace their genetic heritage, which is, … curious? questionable? I’ll go with murky.
That wasn’t addressed to you, but to the OP, Dacien, who started this thread, in Elections.
Perhaps you missed that.
Noted. But again, that wasn’t addressed to you, but to the OP, Dacien, who started this thread, in Elections.
How about I not come back to argue a point I haven’t made about something I don’t have an issue with?
Assuming you meant “racialized” instead of “radicalized”, if people want to call out the racialized nature of ancestry testing, I have no issue with that at all. So long as they’re only targeting actual racists and not bashing anyone who ever took an ancestry test for any reason whatsoever.
At this point, are you not even beginning to question your ability to understand other people’s opinions?
Ahem
So, Dacien, would you care to respond to my previous question?
Well, that can’t be right.
He already let you have the last word back on page 3, Post #134.
So there is no role to ethnicity, no genetic content to passing down phenotypes and appearances, and the reason Native Americans are brown is because they choose to be?
I’m with you on the fuzziness of DNA testing and how they are stepping beyond science when they do their interpretations. I’m with you that Warren doesn’t appear to have any actual recorded family lineage to any Native Americans. I’m with you that it is poorly understood and given credit how far back the different populations and tribes of Native Americans separated and spread. The fact that their common ancestor is so distant is a solid point in favor of rejecting the DNA testing for worth.
I don’t think it ignores the sovereign structure of the Cherokee Nation or any federally recognized tribe or any non-recognized tribes to point out that people do have a genetic heritage, and that heritage exists whether or not the person is a member of any social group or community built around that heritage.
That doesn’t mean the common understanding of race is real or correct.
Okay, I’m defending that proposition. You seem to be advocating an inherent hypocrisy.
Where have I argued that Native American tribes don’t have the right to determine who has citizenship?
Identity is a tougher nut to crack. It’s like saying I don’t want Trump to be an atheist because we don’t want him. That does nothing to change whether or not Trump has any actual religious beliefs. Similarly, if someone truly has a Cherokee ancestor, saying they’re not a member of the tribe doesn’t change who the ancestor was.
How does she do that in your opinion?
Thank you. Something like that from Warren would be a point in her favor.
I’m unclear on what you mean by white savior role. But you are right that the Right will try to make hay of this, just like Trump will continue to call her Pocahontas while pushing an administration that actively harms Native Americans.
I think he advocates personal lineage, but it needs verifiable evidence, i.e. names on tribal roles, genealogy, etc. Not just rumors. Also, number of generations plays a role - the further back we go, the more related we all are. Trying to parse those relationships by DNA testing is what is in question, as it doesn’t appear to be a fine-grained enough tool. And is being used by many to support racist ideology.
Yes, but that doesn’t change whether or not DNA testing for ethnicity is valid.
I’m not on board with you here. I think self-identification is important, but there’s also a biological element to our person that we can’t just waive away or wish into existence. Understanding a real concept of ethnicity does not mean we accept the racist purposes that others wish to impose.
Warren used a lie to help advance her career.
You are concerned about this one lie?
How many times has Trump lied to advance his career? This is akin to having a dozen bulls in your china shop, but you spend all your time fretting about the fly that happens in.
Don’t you think Trump will destroy her on this false heritage claim if Warren was the Democratic nominee for President?
Trump can have 100 bulls in his china shop. What else is new? When a politician gets thrust into the limelight the initial lie or false claim is a big test. Some can’t overcome it. I think Warren did poorly on this topic.
Whomever the Democrats nominate needs to be transparently clean, otherwise, Trump will drag that person down and beat them with experience.
Jesus Christ couldn’t stand a chance against Trump when it comes to the Republican vote. If there are absolutely no blemishes on the Democratic candidate then they will be invented and then pushed by the GOP. They will lie about the positions, the background and even the country of origin. The candidate will suddenly become a far left-wing socialist who will either be a dreaded insider that can’t be trusted or a naive outsider that doesn’t know how things work.
The only thing that matters is that the candidate is not a Republican-all else, whether true or false, is just justification for the hate already felt.
BTW, you totally misunderstood the “bull in a china shop” analogy-Trump IS the “hundred bulls” in our china shop, and you are the one having a hissy fit over a possible fly wandering in.
That’s news to me.
In what way?