Frankly, your use of the phrase " Your attempt to argue an alt-right style whataboutism tu quoque doesn’t change those realities." tells me you’re not worth attempting a conversation with.
That sentiment would mean more coming from her.
BTW, not every part of Cherokee leadership is super pissed at her for this.
Exactly, the reason I find her actions as problematic is her refusal to apologize.
To expand:
I do find my fellow political party members tendency to dismiss and silence native communities objections worrying. I don’t have the right to take offence for her actions against native communities, but my world views require me to take offense to her dismissal of their voices.
I want to note, while not passing judgement, that I am the only poster who linked to Native peoples voices in this thread.
We will never be in a post-racial utopia, we simply notice differences too much. We will always need to check our implicit biases and prevent them resulting in explicit actions of prejudice. I truly think that our party can change the tide, but perhaps other readers could reflect on why they didn’t share native voices, and maybe relate that to the GOPs All-male White House health bill photo
All Americans deserve a voice, but it is easy to unintentionally silence those who you think you are helping. Why look to non-Native voices to make your decisions on if Native peoples have a right to be offended or not?
Perhaps reflecting on the fact that in the past white people have often resorted to claims of ancestry to justify breaking treaties and to discriminate against native peoples. Also consider that native Americans are the only ethnic group that has to have blood proof to gain access to federal benefits.
I get that it is easy to dismiss if you want Senator Warren to run, but why do you also think that Trump supporters overlooking his racism a moral failing when you excuse it in yourself.
This is not a trivial or simple topic and I may be wrong, but don’t take the easy way out and leave it examined just because you are rooting for a candidate. The right will use it because it is hypocritical. While there will always be inconstant policies they simply have to look that the left is dismissing the relevant native voices here to justify their beliefs.
Perhaps writing to Senator Warren and encouraging her to make a true and respectful apology is a way to return her as a viable candidate. But elections aren’t won by convincing the faithful these days and the Democrats can’t afford to toss away the swing voters and reluctant voters.
Wow, did you ignore the entire other 90% of that article?
Etc…
I don’t see any claims above that people belong to a group aren’t allowed to have their own beliefs.
None of this matters at all and I am at a complete loss for why people think her taking the test is a major knock against her. Maybe she shouldn’t have because it justifies Trump’s bullshit as a valid attack, but that’s not remotely disqualifying.
Some of us progressives do think that eugenics and racism are a real concern. This event is directly related to the power structure that keeps racism alive. Her refusal to treat a disadvantaged group with respect demonstrates an lack of qualifications in a POTUS role as we need someone who will work honestly to roll back the race based policies of the Trump administration and move us forward to a truly free society.
That is the kicker about politics, some of us actually strongly believe we should try to perfect the imperfect system that the founding fathers envisioned. To me the western worlds rise towards proto-fascism is the primary concern for this next election. As there is little chance that we will have a super majority in both houses and the executive a marginal candidate flawed in this area is a serious concern.
Lets be clear, the fact she thinks this flawed test was vindication is direct evidence that she subscribes to the flawed theory of a biological basis for race. While this may not impact you the implication are quite well documented.
No. Why the “wow”? It’s already established that she’s gotten lots of flack. I am pointing out that the leader of one of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes is not mad at her. Why are you dismissing that opinion? Is he not Cherokee enough for you?
No, as I tend to try and not be biased, although I admit I am imperfect and also ignorant, I just don’t assume that one speaker who belongs to the group speaks for all individuals.
You do realize that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is a distinct separate if nation from the Cherokee Nation even if they are related? Why are you assuming that one individual from one federally recognized tribe speaks for all of the other hundreds of nations? This is the problem with homogenizing these diverse groups that I was trying to point out above.
If someone insulted the British would the French get to say it is OK even if individuals were allowed to speak for everyone in a group?
With the understanding that I am trying to describe an attribution error here and not stating the above statement is exactly like Trump, but that it easier to view our in-group biases by looking at out-groups consider this incident with Trump.
Donald Trump Points Out Black Rally Attendee, Tells Crowd To ‘Look At My African-American’
I am betting you can view that as being a racial token. The thing to ponder is why when an entirely seporate native group was the one that complained about Senator Warren’s claims in 2012 and she has refused to talk to that group or to apologize to that specific, distinct group, dismissing that groups objections by pointing to another nation’s comments is just another form or racial toking.
She could have addressed this, but is not treating individual groups as individual groups. She is assuming that all native nations are some homogenized “other”. As this directly coincides with institutionalized racist policies and power structures, yes this is racism. Trying to use DNA samples from South America to justify her racism is an escalation of this non scientific concept of a biological basis for race.
See what you’re doing? The elected chief of that tribe of 16000 is “one speaker who belongs to the group”. And also, they are kind of separated from the “real” Cherokee nation. Physician, heal thyself.
No, he is the elected chief of another tribe and not the elected chief the tribe that originally objected.
The Cherokee Nation is the group that objected, and that is the group that she needed to address, not the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
Canada cannot accept an apology for Trumps insults of Mexico. Why do you assume that one Cherokee nation speaks for the other two sovereign nations? These are distinct groups with their own history and culture and governments. They are not some amorphous “other” despite racists historical attempts to bundle them as such. The fact that we still sell these racist concepts to our children is one of the main issue we need to address to remove the impact of our institutionalized racist power imbalance.
I’m sorry, but the Eastern Cherokee tribe are the left behinds from the trail of tears. They have every right to talk about Cherokee heritage whatever special algorithm you have running in your head. It’s goddamned ridiculous to make a Canada-Mexico analogy.
And the Germans are the left behinds from the Anglo-Saxon migration to England.
It is a strawman to claim I am suggesting they cannot speech of their Cherokee heritage, I am suggesting that denying the right to tribal sovereignty is wrong.
Perhaps you are unaware of the issues with this and how our racist policies impacted these tribes, or how Trump is actively trying to legally disenfranchise these people like you are suggesting is true today?
Why do you insist that independent tribes are not sovereign, why do you think that their treaties do not matter? Or are you just unaware of the complex issues with disenfranchisement that you are advocating for? This is still a good example of “othering” and you are still basing your arguments on a non-existent biological basis for race and relating it to sovereignty, culture and group membership.
Many European countries are just as closely related, why do you not question their rights to be independent governments?
Let’s be blunt, you are a paternalistic racist. You love all the little child races but you get to decide whose turn it is to speak.
And wtf? How have I even remotely “insist[ed] that independent tribes are not sovereign”? Are you mixing me up with some other conversation you’re having?
Nice Ad hominem, but you may want to look of the meaning of paternalistic racist
Your arguments are suggesting that a majority race has right to rule over the minority race for its own good. I am merely stating that Elizabeth Warren needs to directly address the group of people who stated they were offended by her claims. And that her DNA test added flames to the fire and is at minimum tone deaf but is really racist.
Obviously as you have resorted to name calling you are a big fragile about this subject. But I encourage you to re-think what I posted above when you aren’t in such a defensive state.
We were born into this system and I make no assumptions that we can divine an understanding of others experiences. I’ll quit responding but I do believe in you more than you probably think. While you may still think I am wrong if you revisit this with a more open mind I think that you will find that your are able to respond in a way that will convince me of your point.
When a debater resorts to direct personal attacks I assume that they no longer think they have an intellectual basis to defend their position. Feel free to try and rephrase your objections to my point of view if this is not an accurate assumption.
This is the direct issued statement that I think many on the left are dismissing to help with this process.
It is not my feelings that matter here, it is the dismissal of their voice that drove me to even engage in this thread. I am not a saint, but your claims are pretty absurd, but that is true of all Ad hominem attacks.
No, that is pure insanity. Please quote what led you to such an insane opinion.
Per your request, here are your posts claiming that the Cherokee nation isn’t free to be offended and have to ask the permission of other, separate groups.
Do you honestly not see the issue with requiring separate sovereign groups to get permission from other groups to be offended is a problem.
But mostly I assumed you didn’t fully understand what “paternalistic racist” was so I rephrased the meaning of the term in my response. Your arguments are implying that the Cherokee Nation, which once again, was the group that originally voiced their objection, needs some permission from other tribes or that because they are “Cherokee” must let any objection they communicate be dismissed by another tribe.
If you don’t see how that is enabling the current institutionalized racist status quo I have obviously failed at my attempts communicating that point.
Feel free to convince me that there is some reason outside of “othering” that one distinct group isn’t allowed to take offence without the permission of other groups though. It would be amusing to try and tie this concern with your claim that I was being “paternalistic racist”.
Advocating for disadvantaged voices to be taken serious may not be fully altruistic, but please explain how it is “paternalistic racism”. Perhaps start with how one federally recognized tribe isn’t allowed to have their own opinions. Denying individuals or individual groups a voice or requiring them to ask permission to do so is closer to “paternalistic racism” which was my point.
Your statements seem to be similar to a claim that the Cherokee Nation was acting above their “rightful place”.
Those quotes don’t remotely back up your point. Quite the opposite. You are the one wanting to dismiss the opinion of the elected leader of a sovereign tribe. Not once, certainly not in the posts you just quoted, do I even hint that other Cherokee leaders aren’t allowed a different opinion.
And calling you a paternalistic racist isn’t ad hominem. I am categorizing your position. You have decided who speaks for the Cherokee. Unless you are some Cherokee chief, you are such a person.
Perhaps this is what you are missing
To quote again:
There is no “real” nation of Cherokee, there is a tribe of people of Cherokee decent called the “Cherokee Nation”
https://webtest2.cherokee.org/Default.aspx
That is the short name for a SPECIFIC TRIBE not the collection of ALL TRIBES of Cherokee decent.
The Sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation” are the ones that objected to Warren’s claims. She never directly addressed or apologized to* the Sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation”* I assume that you were ignorant that was a SPECIFIC NAME for a SPECIFIC FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBE
The short name for people from the USA is “Americans” even if that title technically applies to Canadians, Mexicans and other people who live on the North and South American contents.
Why do you insist that the sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation” must get permission from their other recitatives?
Why does a chief from a group that is not the sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation” allowed to dismiss the concerns of the sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation” because they are related.
If someone offends you, can your second cousin third removed decide that you have no justification on being offended? You are dismissing the sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation”'s right to have normal human responses like being offended.
The fact that you are expecting the permission of all sovereign groups of people who have “Cherokee” ancestry is the issue here.
Please quit trying to build a strawman that when I use the term “Cherokee Nation” I mean anything but the sovereign group of people who go by the name “Cherokee Nation” I didn’t choose that name, and as they don’t use the other name “Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma” I am simply using the form they commonly use to refer to themselves.