Correct.
The problem is that just because you say it’s racist and “clearly worse” doesn’t make it racist or actually worse. So this analogy doesn’t quite succeed. I agree the comment is kind of dumb and proves nothing at all, but it also isn’t racist.
Why isn’t Brown’s comment just “kind of dumb”? He’s not implying anything negative about Indians. IMO, they’re both dumb.
That seems fair to me.
He’s asking others to participate and use skin color as a basis for judging Warren.
I never said Brown’s comments were racist. I would say his accusation is dumber because he is calling Brown a liar based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether or not she’s a Native American, which is very dumb. You shouldn’t make accusations against people when you not only don’t know if what you’re saying is true, you have no idea how you’d know if it’s true or not. She’s defending herself based on a characteristic that also has little to do with her status, but she believes she has a solid basis for claiming the heritage.
My mistake then. When you agreed with “Plenty of people in this thread were calling Brown racist for looking at Warren in the debate and declaring she “clearly is not” a Native American.” I took it to mean that you thought the comment was racist, not just agreeing with the fact that other people had made that claim.
I work in a city that proudly proclaims itself to be “Indian Capitol of the Nation”. I’ve never heard of the “high-cheek bones” thing. Around here, if you look like an Indian, you probably are. If you don’t look like one, you probably still are.
Boston?
This isn’t true. Digging through a thread checking every cite for something is a heck of a lot more work than just telling you that it’s already been posted and saying you should go do it yourself.
What exactly do you doubt? That Warren was on the list for nine years and dropped off the list the same year that she got her tenure at Harvard?
I wish.
Well, when I applied to the U. of Hawaii ten years after dropping out of Harvard, I declared myself to be an Eskimo, just because I was annoyed at being asked about my race. They had to accept my claim because there wasn’t any way to prove it one way or another apart from blood tests. Didn’t seem to affect my admitance in any way, and I never got any benefits that I knew of.
Gee, I got a pound of blubber every month… did you check your mailbox regularly? I’m thinking someone (campus postmistress?) didn’t want to just leave a leaky parcel of unrefrigerated cetacean vascularized adipose tissue.
There’s your mistake. They used to steal the fermented beaver tail out of my mailbox so often I finally had to have it held at the post office.
To be fair, she was attempting to refute that claim with an absurd one too (high cheek bones, as if they proved anything about heritage).
Practising law without a licence is disappointing.
However, I still agree with Warren’s policy stances more than Brown’s.
Is Browns Senate staff running around making war hoops going to attract a large enough racist base in Massachusetts to counter the votes of native Americans and those who find this presentation of racism abhorrent?
[/QUOTE]
You can question the morality of this tactic but it is politically sound. As an incumbent you want to go on the offensive and cast doubt on the character or bona fides of the challenger. That way you’re not talking about your crappy record, and voters (who are generally not following the race that closely) simply vote for the person that’s already in place rather than “take a chance” on the challenger.
Brown is really attacking her honesty and integrity, not her race. It’s essentially a smear tactic. Whether it works will depend on Warren’s ability to turn it back on Brown. Right now the narrative is this attack, not Brown’s record. She needs to reverse that and make some headlines about Brown’s character or record. Time to put on the hand-wraps and start swinging.
Brown had better notice how this tactic isn’t working, in time for the next debate. Warren’s pulling ahead, although with plenty of time and undecideds left.
Because that affirmative accusation is not being made to you for the argument that she should be a senator. Brown’s affirmative accusation is being made for the argument that she should not be a senator.
I don’t get to go back and find out something you said to someone else in completely different circumstances and then somehow tell you you have to prove it. Only her current claims are up for being challenged. I mean, imagine if we could argue against you by claiming that you lied to your grandmother one day about eating the cookies. You couldn’t prove that you didn’t lie about them, but it would be completely irrelevant to any argument being made.
Plus, as you’ve already stated, she thought she was part Native American whether she was or not, so even the tangential relevance that Brown claims is invalid. Someone not knowing their racial heritage is not a reason for someone not to vote for them or even think badly of them at all. Just like I wouldn’t think badly of you if you lied to your grandmother.
One party doesn’t get to arbitrarily make things relevant.
I wouldn’t put this down to racism so much as underhanded insinuation. Mr Brown displays an ordinary sort of ignorance I imagine is typical amongst Easterners who’ve never spent a lot of time in places like Oklahoma and Texas, where American Indian mixtures are a commonplace. He would then know, as several of us here have pointed out, that it is typical for someone with a considerable portion of Cherokee blood to have an utterly Anglo appearance.
No, Mr. Brown, you cannot tell simply by looking. But, bless his heart, he just didn’t know any better.
No. You’re being way to generous to politicians in general, and Warren specifically. True, she didn’t say, “You should vote for me because I am part native American.” But that is not the only scenario under which her claim could/should be scrutinized.
Hypothetically: let’s say that a candidate had change his name to a Hispanic one in an attempt to take advantage of affirmative action guidelines at a college he wanted attend. Let’s say he did change his name, and then checked the box indicating that he was Hispanic, thereby depriving a true Hispanic from the spot which he lied his way into. Now, it’s 20 years later and the faux-Hispanic is now a candidate for office. Since checking the box on the college application he never brought up his heritage at all. Not once. Do you think that the issue of lying on his application goes to his character or not. And if so, isn’t it right that a person’s character can be part of what an electorate looks at?
Now, that does not mirror what Warren even might have done. But it does show that just because the candidate hasn’t made it an issue as a reason to vote for him, that it is not rightly on the table. And that at the time, the candidate made an affirmative claim that a competitor and voters have a right to question.
Do you agree. If not, where and why?
What makes you claim she was lying?
What makes you claim that I claim she was lying? I gave a hypothetical. I even explicitly stated that the hypothetical I posed did NOT mirror the Warren situation. We don’t know if she was lying or not. I even corrected a poster upthread who insisted she was.