Here’s the thing, I’m not justifying continued oppression of a minority group. That’s your crazy unsupportable assertion. I’m saying that I don’t give the Cherokee Nation as much moral authority as you do. That’s not suppressing them. I support their sovereignty and right to self determination. I don’t have to fucking like them. Sorry.
I dont see anyone being racist. Nor does anyone else. Perhaps a little too proud of a story she heard.
And I dont see any insult.
Let’s say I thought I was 1/4 black, so I sometimes mentioned that. Would that be racist? Actually, my Grandmother is Spanish, so does that make me Hispanic?
I dont watch Youtubes, but just for you- and no where on that vid does she claim to be Cherokee. so much for that cite. (She does say that her mother** said **she was part Cherokee, and perhaps she was. You can be “part” NA without being a member of a federal tribe you know, that’s what “part” means.) Indeed the quote you were talking about is in your second cite "As a kid, I never asked my mom about documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage," Warren said in a 2012 campaign ad. “What kid would? But I knew my father’s family didn’t like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware. So my parents had to elope.”
I didnt have wave away “pages” of cites. I waved away a cookbook, which we haven’t even seen, and no one has said exactly what she claim in it, and was from 19fucking84. Hey, do you get mad at the Barefoot Contessa ? She’s not only not a contessa, she’s not even Italian! Man, super racist! No, it’s a act she puts on, based upon the name of a store she used to own.
So, now you have one false cite.
You have another cite that sez that back in 1984 she said something about Cherokee- without any context… Maybe she meant she thought those were Cherokee recipes. Maybe she was doing a Barefoot Contessa thing. But in any case, it was back in 1984.
Cherokee Nation Faces Scrutiny For Expelling Blacks
How is that not racism?
Rachel Dolezal?
But “blackface” is a better analogy because it is about power. Both are taking something important from someone else and use it for ridicule and entertainment mixed with a very real history of oppression. Had blackface not been used as a tool of oppression it would be less offensive, same thing with Native Americans cultural cleansing.
But you are still arguing this from the historical racist point of view, family linage and not DNA is what is important to this particular group of Native peoples, and you literally have no evidence that the 5 segments of DNA Warren has are even represented in the Cherokee Nation or even the other two federally recognized tribes with Cherokee ancestry…
You are purely guessing so because “they are all the same”
But perhaps you want to consider it from the black perspective, look over this thread, where white women on Instagram actually try to make themselves look black to gain fans.
https://twitter.com/WannasWorld/status/1059989652487069696
I don’t get a say in that but as you wanted to invoke that claim judge for your self.
Cultural cleansing, or an attempt to actually “breed” native populations out of existence. The UN today simply just labels this as genocide. Another way to think about it, despite Hänsel und Gretel being one of the more well known Brothers Grimm stories, a German would have to be careful about relating that story and it’s ovens to Jewish people.
The mandating of “blood quantum” as a criterion for tribal membership, which, because of intermarriage between Indians and non-Indians over time, inevitably operates to achieve “statistical extermination” is a form of ethnic cleansing, and yes is a sensitive subject.
Perhaps reading “Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide” by Andrea Smith will help understand at least her perspective on the history.
How is saying this is a “Cherokee recipe” in a cookbook- after your Mother said you were part cherokee, and your recipes were solicited- be equivalent to Blackface? How is that “ridicule”? If anything it is the opposite.
How am I arguing from " historical racist point of view"? You seem to be calling me a racist.
I never said she was a legal member of that specific (and racist) Cherokee Tribe or any legal Cherokee tribe. She claimed to be “PART” Cherokee, based upon what her mother told her. And she could be. Anyway, it’s not linage. It is whatever eash tribe choses. They can, and have, fully legally, make a person with not a drop of NA blood a legal member of their tribe, and they can drop people from their tribes who are NA on both sides going back generations. The definition is a legalistic one.
I never said "they are all the same". Show me those words.
What does “Cultural cleansing” have to do with a recipe in a cookbook?
This last paragraph makes no sense. Each tribe defines for itself who are it’s members. Tomorrow, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians could hold a meeting and decide to allow adopted members, and vote Warren in. Then, she would be a Cherokee. Sometime ago the Cherokee Nation kicked all it’s black members out- because the tribe made a racist decision.
You don’t claim to be a member of a Cherokee tribe, they claim you. But I’m not going to cut up your meat for you like a child forever.
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/cherokee-group-challenges-warren-076873
Here are some cites that will hopefully understand why a DNA claim that assumes all peoples from north and south america are a single population is racist and why the Indian princess ancestor idea is tone deaf.
https://timeline.com/part-cherokee-elizabeth-warren-cf6be035967e
The fact that you are woefully ill-informed, unwilling to check previous cites and thus probably intentionally ignorant doesn’t mean that you get to decide if a marginalized group is offended or not.
Have you even heard of boarding schools, if not search for that too.
She didnt claim to be a Member of a Cherokee tribe. Nowhere, no how.
And no one is making that claim.
Your cites consisted of a YouTube vid, and a politifact cite, both of whom I looked at.
Nor did I say that that group can’t claim they are offended. I am offended by this post of yours.
Strawman, I didn’t say she was a member of the Cherokee tribe, but her relative who was of Cherokee descent would have needed to.
Yet you are accepting her use racist pseudoscience which used to claim she is of Cherokee descent. It is immaterial if it was Warren or her Grandmother that were accepted by the tribe, either way the the invocation of the racist concept that sharing DNA with someone from Central America or Mexico “proves” her claims is false.
Note how you still ignored this cite which shows that her family story of even the eloping was probably false.
Your absurd claim that I only ever offered two cites on this thread shows that you are using birther like logic, I posted a link to this earlier in the thread.
Lets be clear,
[ul]
[li]There is no genealogical evidence she is Cherokee.[/li][li]There is no evidence that any of her claims are true[/li][li]There is evidence that her racist relatives thought “high cheekbones” made them Indian.[/li][li]Resorting to a racist biological concept of race is still racist.[/li][/ul]
You can try and ignore the core facts by trying to massage this as much as you want, but you are making claims that are based in core racist ideals to support them.
There is simply no evidence that the markers found were carried by any members of the Cherokee tribe EVER, those mutations may be completely isolated to Mexico and further South. None of the current evidence demonstrates she is Cherokee, unless one believes in a racist homogenized unified racial grouping of “Native Americans” comprising all individuals from pre-European contact North and South America.
“You don’t claim to be a member of a Cherokee tribe, they claim you.” would apply to her claimed ancestor too.
“Hey look I have some DNA that fits if there were a biological basis in race and if those those 1800s racist concepts were true” Isn’t science, it is being a freaking overt racist because as I also posted and you ignored DNA from 1000s of years ago are not used for Cherokee membership.
I know you will just go with your circular argument again and ignore the fact that it’s core claims are based in racist theories, but that doesn’t change the facts. I am pretty sure you personally don’t subscribe to those racist theories so why do you insist on leaving the issues with that examined?
Boy, if you read your posts, it sure sounds like it. Ok, show me a cite that claims her RELATIVE claims she is a* Member* of the Cherokee tribe.
Where do you get that? Where did I say her DNA test showed she was a Cherokee descent? She said her mother told her she was part Cherokee. Can you disprove that her Mother said that?
Are you saying you can’t be of part NA heritage without legally belonging to a registered tribe?
Nice cite, but where does it say Warren claimed to be a legal member of the Cherokee Nation? Does it disprove that her Mother told her that? Does it disprove that she is of part NA descent?
And they have wonderful crap like this "“Warren’s employment document at the University of Texas allowed her to check multiple boxes specifying “the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify.” The options included “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” but she chose only white.” Note the phrase with which you most closely identify , that doesn’t mean she didnt think she had some NA heritage it just means she more closely IDs as white, which make sense.
Then this:*"Is this the form that she “checked the box” on?
If so, it is clear to see why she won’t release the records. She does not legally meet the criteria to be counted as a Native American for diversity reports to the EEOC."*
Actually, since this is a “Self identification” form, you can check any box you like. It is not a form that says “Are you a registered member of a registered NA tribe?”
The fact that there is “no genealogical evidence she is Cherokee” is meaningless as she never claimed to be a legal member of that tribe. She said her Mother told her she was.
And what does this mean "Resorting to a racist biological concept of race is still racist"? ALL concepts of race are racist, other than self identification. If she chooses to self identify as Black, Hispanic or even NA, then that is her right. Only thing about being NA is that you can’t get certain benefits without being a r*egistered Member of a recognized NA tribe. *She has never claimed to be a registered Member of a recognized NA tribe. And being a *registered Member of a recognized NA tribe
- has nothing to do with race, it is purely a legal concept. You can be 100% NA and not be a registered Member of a recognized NA tribe and you can have nary a drop of NA blood and still be a registered Member of a recognized NA tribe. It is purely a LEGAL concept and not a racial one. Claiming it is racial is racist.
In fact, claiming that any other concept of race other than self identification is racist. Thus, who is making the racist claims here?
I never claimed that her DNA test showed she was Cherokee or even NA, where did i claim that? The DNA test is not evidence of anything.
There is some irony here. For years, oral history was dismissed by academicians. Now we have someone who is reciting recent oral history and being pilloried for it because there is no genealogical evidence for it.
But sure, go ahead and demonize someone who would be 1000x better at supporting Native American rights than whatever Republican gets elected.
Remember: when you play Russian roulette you don’t need to have every chamber loaded.
Out of all the crazy stuff going on in the country, out of all the corruption, it’s not a big deal.
As far as being a potential presidential candidate, and leader, it’s a big misstep. It makes her look bad. Like someone else said, she tried to rub it in Trump’s face that she had a very small amount of Native American DNA in her. It just drew attention to the fact that she wasn’t a member of tribe, and that it appeared like she used it in the past in an attempt to get ahead in her career.
Are you offering us any actual proof of these insinuations, or are you content with “people are saying”?
This thread reminds me of a kid who just learned the word “poop” and wants to use it every chance they can, except the word is “racist”.
There’s No Scientific Basis for Race,
While I personally restrict the term to the stipulative form of “prejudice plus power”,
A ‘white’ federal legislator using inferred statistics to justify a biological bases for racial distinctions is freaking racism.
Your ad hominem attack is far more childish. If you think there is a biological basis for race feel free to provide cites, or just own the fact that you believe in racial theories.
DNA can be use for scientific purposes or it can be used for anthropometry, craniometry, or other pseudo-disciplines like DNA race assignment.
“Race” being a social construct doesn’t mean that we don’t fall into different groups or there’s no variation. But when you don’t use the new categories that are more valid groupings but use limited data to assign people to Samuel Morton’s racial categories, which was done in this case it is racism.
If you seriously think I am using the term in a trivial fashion, and are bothered by someone using a serious term in a trivial way, I encourage you to learn more about the subject because I am being very targeted and precise with my use of the term in this case.
Perhaps read this,
Or if you have access read what scientists are trying to teach teachers to stop this non-scientific BS of a biological basis for race.
Here is another link that will try to explain why “Two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other”
But I give up, hopefully this changes with time but it is quite clear that at least on the SDMB elections area, people are more interested in protecting the flawed 18th century idea of a biological basis for human races.
I tried to fight ignorance, but the fact that only responses were hand-waving away cites and personal attacks like yours shows that it won’t happen today.
You are so cute. Poop, poop, poop.
Knock it off. If you have nothing to contribute, then don’t.
[/moderating]
And my assumptions were correct, why are you unwilling to own your belief in eugenics and books like:
From another thread:
Thanks for confirming my fears, while you may not subscribe to the “white genocide conspiracy theory” and may not have the courage to argue what you actually want to argue; going through your previous posts demonstrates arguments that directly illustrate this is similar, if not as extreme as Trump’s alt-right base. Europeans “are losing their culture” is a well known dog whistle.
Hopefully at some point you will take time to reflect on this, but yes your viewpoint is exactly the type of opinion I am afraid will dissuade minority voters and hand the next election to Trump.
Every one of us will always have implicit biases and prefer our own groups, but face your own fears and get over your fragility with these topics. I get that racism is uncomfortable to talk about but despite your childish retorts I don’t think you are very happy with yourself right now. Find the courage to address your fears or at least own your beliefs. I am not arguing that you don’t have a right to those, but I damn sure want to make sure your fears aren’t given access to the power of government to oppress others.
“White” isn’t a biological thing, and coming to terms with that won’t hurt as much as you think it will. But this is an areas where you seem unwilling to have real conversation…
Has this debate technique ever actually worked for you in the past? It may have ended discussions in the past but let me fill you in, that wasn’t because you “won” but because the other person is too embarrassed for you to continue.
I am betting you are actually far more capable than your above posts suggest, so how about giving it a try?
Moral of the story: never tell your children about their family history, unless you want them to grow up to be racists.
That’s true- mostly
There are only three Basis for Race, and two arent very good:
-
Self identification. You identify with whatever race or ethnicity you choose. If you make that choice, it is racist to call you on it. You can do this on the basic of a DNA test if that makes you happy. But it is YOUR choice.
-
Legal: Recognized Native American tribes in the USA can decide who is and who isnt a *legal *member of that tribe. However, you dont have to have any NA ancestry, and even if you have full NA ancestry, a tribe can still exclude you. So really, this isnt a "racial’ thing at all, it is more like belonging to a exclusive organization or club.
-
The Coroner and DNA results: When the coroner has a unknown victim, he can make a rough approximation of “race”, but it is by no means conclusive and it is more of a educated guess based upon DNA and outward appearance. * Somewhat *scientific, but not conclusive.
So, actually the only real way is #1.
And Warren has self identified as native American, which she has every right to, where it is on the basis of a DNA test or her mothers stories, it makes no difference. She could just as well, and just as legitimately, claim to be black or hispanic or whatever she chooses. Self identification is her right, and *no one has the right to challenge her on it. * She has *not *claimed legal membership in a recognized Native American tribe, so the Cherokee nation is being racist when they attack her. She has self identified. So, saying she is NOT a Native American is being racist.