Right. Stand Watie, leader of the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles and the last Confederate general to surrender, is probably the most prominent example.
The Oklahoma tribes practiced slavery, and that is probably the defining feature of “Southern culture”. Could there be any lower rung on the ladder than being a black slave forced to follow one’s Indian owners on the Trail of Tears?
How is that relevant to this discussion? Does it make it more likely Ibn Warraq’s generalization about “Southerners who told their children about the Indian princess” applies to the former Indian Territory?
It goes to your claim that Oklahoma is not the South.
I’m going to let this go. Looking back on some of Ibn Warraq’s other commentary about distant NA heritage, it applies to Oklahoma whether it’s part of the South or not.
This, on the other hand, I think is a mistake.
There is quite a huge reason to believe there is a difference between ‘white’ and ‘black’ people’s relative heritage, namely that any perceptible blackness typically consigns one to black society and status. The tendency, throughout almost all of the country’s history, has been for ever-more “white blood” to be incorporated into the American standard of blackness. The reverse exists; certainly more ‘white’ people than know it have African genetic ancestry within the last three centuries. But there is nothing like the immense cultural-tidal force operating in the other direction.
So while it might be true that many ‘black’ and ‘white’ Americans imagine Native ancestry where there is none, if they are each positing this as an explanation of apparently “mixed” heritage to the exclusion of each other, it’s far more likely that the black person is mistaken.
I don’t know exactly how the list gets updated. The actual web site for the American Association of Law Professors doesn’t have a lot of info. The news article we linked to earlier was vague about how one gets and stays on the list.
However, we do have the words of Warren herself, who has stated that she put herself on the list to meet people of a similar background and claims she later removed herself since that wasn’t working out.
So, assuming she’s telling the truth, she both put herself on and took herself off. I don’t know if this required annual action on her part or not.
I think you’ve got a point. She may have lied about being a woman too!. Just look at her! She’s so unattractive she might really just be a man! When she was applying to Harvard she checked the box saying she was female. This says much about her character!
The noble Scott Brown stripped naked to prove his gender to the general public. I feel Elizabeth Warren should be help to the same standard.
Naked pics or she’s a liar.
I’m confused about the position some in this thread:
Warren claims to have a Cherokee ancestor. She is under no obligation to prove her statement.
Brown claims she does not have a Cherokee ancestor. He is obliged to prove his statement.
Leaving aside proving a positive (Warren) vs. proving a negative (Brown) and whether she is mistaken or knowingly lied or any advantage she may have gotten by being part Cherokee, why is there a dichotomy between who needs to prove what?
This thread makes me want to hurl. My couple of pennies: This whole Brown/Warren debacle unnerves me, not because Brown is down Warren’s throat for listing herself as a Native American even though she’s whiter than a lily, but because it doesn’t seem to be an indictment of her actions which he deems (and frankly, so do I) to have been dishonest; it comes across as another assault on Affirmative Action in general, which is odd because this racial indication didn’t take place on an application to law school or anything. It was just something she slapped on a directory of lawyers, so when Brown asks her to come clean about her “motivations,” I have a hard time figuring out what they were that he seems to think are so nefarious.
But anyway, not so sure I believe Warren ever honestly identified as Native American. I’m supposed to believe that she did because one time over Thanksgiving dinner her aunt Irene mentioned that their great great something or other was Cherokee (or maybe it was Choctaw?), and that this heritage, which is something that she’s only heard about and makes up 1/32 of her lineage, is something she identified herself as? Honestly, how can you identify yourself as part of an ethnic group that you’ve had zero connection with in your life, and have only heard about through occasional stories that the old people in your family have told? To paraphrase **steronz **loosely from page one, “Dude, if you’ve been white your entire life, you’re white, I don’t care what your uncle Jacob told you his great great great grandmother was.” Yeah, if Elizabeth Warren is going to tell me she ever thought of herself as Native American, she’s full of shit.
Her parents told her they eloped because her father’s family disapproved of the marriage on the basis of her mother’s background.
Oh, okay, I didn’t know that. Well now I believe that she honestly identified herself as being an ethnicity that makes up about 3% of her and that she’s had no real connection with at any part of her life.
The problem is this: the actual story is a lot less moronic than the version you made up, so the made up version doesn’t illustrate your point. If she identified as a Native American because of aunt Irene’s table gossip, she has issues; if she did because her parents told her it actually affected their lives, it’s not so weird or unbelievable.
Because Brown has made a campaign issue - currently his *central *one - of his flat assertions that she has lied about her ancestry, and that she used said purported lie to advance her career. Warren has *not *made her belief in having some Indian ancestry into a campaign issue.
Since we’re talking about a campaign, it is the candidate who has raised the issue who must support his claim.
It seems you believe the same thing that Warren believes herself. As opposed the the Scott Brown “Who Does She Think She Is, Sitting Bull?” line of bullshit.
Because the appropriate response to “my great-grandmother was cherokee” is “That’s nice, dear.”
First, that’s irrelevant to me because they were thrust upon me. Someone came up with the documents and made a claim with what we all thought at the time were real proof. I made a decision based on that proof. Second, we knew before the documents came out that he went to the state National Guard instead of to Vietnam, which seemed typical of a privileged rich kid, so yes, we should have sought the documents if there was a suspicion about that. Third, Bush may have said he was here or there, but differing accounts from people who knew him at the time conflicted with his account, so there was a reason to seek the documents. Fourth, Scott Brown’s assertion that Warren is not part Native American consists of looking at her and saying she’s “clearly” not. No credible claim can come from him that he had any reason to doubt her. Last, Warren didn’t bring up her heritage as an excuse or to pander. It was just something she, according to Brown, checked off a box years ago. If she was running as Native American Chief Warren instead of former Harvard Professor and Consumer Advocate Warren, then maybe Brown would have a reason to doubt her credentials.
What I’d like to know is, whatever her race is, why didn’t Brown find credible evidence first before coming with that attack? His “just look at her” tactic is poor and ignorant. He comes off as racist
Instead of a defense against Romney you intended that to be, I see it more of an attack on the last few GOP candidates. Also, McCain did not run on his decades worth of business experience. It is proper if you are using your past business experiences as criteria for presidential material to make sure those business records are transparent. Romney was not in charge of Bain the last 2 years. He was a decade ago. Those records should be released. Plus, the public should know how much taxes he avoided paying by having accounts offshore. McCain didn’t have those, nor was it suspected, even of his rich wife.
Don’t try to qualify Romney’s payments as a buttload. His percentage was less than yours and mine. He might have paid more net to the government and charities, but he should have paid much more. The fact that he hid it and tried to ignore the question for so long does not speak well for his honesty. And Reid’s source has not been proven wrong. We did not get Romney’s past taxes, only a summary. If they are as shady as the ones he did release, I would still doubt Romney for being truthful
Her character has nothing to do with her race. She said she’s part Native American. Barring evidence, we should all believe her. Unless you can tell race by sight. Her race is none of my business nor is it of yours
I guess I’m confused because I thought the standard set by Harry Reid and the Democrats re: Romney’s taxes was that when someone makes unfounded accusations that it is up to the accused to disprove the accusation.
Honest question: Can anyone claim to be of any race then? Business owners can claim to be minorities to get government contracts? Every applicant to Harvard can claim to be Hispanic or Black? Certainly none will admit being Asian.
This would be OK with you?
I think that my post was quite clear that I knew they are forgeries now but not at the time. When the documents came out on CBS, I thought they were real, so I questioned Bush’s service
What makes you think what Reid said was unfounded?