advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: October 15, 2018 07:06PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
what does this have to do with Elizabeth Warren and her claims?

You introduced Chuck Hoskin Jr. into the discussion, did you not?

Hoskin cites genealogist David Cornsilk for his statements on tribal membership.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 15, 2018 07:41PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
what does this have to do with Elizabeth Warren and her claims?

You introduced Chuck Hoskin Jr. into the discussion, did you not?

Hoskin cites genealogist David Cornsilk for his statements on tribal membership.


those are your quotes - what do they have to do with Elizabeth Warren's claims?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Yoyodyne ArtWorks
Date: October 15, 2018 09:57PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Here is the Boston Globe's reporting on this today:

Critics questioned whether Warren, who had risen from humble beginnings to become a Harvard Law School professor, had gained advantage along the way from claiming Native American heritage. During her academic career as a law professor, she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995. (She was a visiting professor at Harvard during the 1992-1993 academic year.) Ivy League universities, like the ones where Warren taught, were under great pressure to show they had diverse staffs.

In an interview with the Globe published last month, Warren explained that she identified herself as Native American in the late 1980s and early 1990s as many of the matriarchs of her family were dying and she began to feel that her family stories and history were becoming lost.

[www.bostonglobe.com]


The fact that she made these claims and that at least at Harvard she was touted as having NA heritage; this is not in dispute. That's why she published the DNA test results and why we've had this weird thing since her 2012 Senate campaign.

It's just a mistake, but the DNA test is not making it better.

I don't like her approach, I think it's disrespectful to tribal people.

I don't like Trump's approach, he's a racist jerk.

I like Elizabeth Warren but I agree with this post, not a cool move on her part.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: October 15, 2018 10:03PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
what does this have to do with Elizabeth Warren and her claims?

You introduced Chuck Hoskin Jr. into the discussion, did you not?

Hoskin cites genealogist David Cornsilk for his statements on tribal membership.


those are your quotes - what do they have to do with Elizabeth Warren's claims?

You also asked who Jones was, did you not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2018 10:07PM by DeusxMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Janit
Date: October 16, 2018 07:27AM
Quote
Yoyodyne ArtWorks
Quote
Lemon Drop
Here is the Boston Globe's reporting on this today:

Critics questioned whether Warren, who had risen from humble beginnings to become a Harvard Law School professor, had gained advantage along the way from claiming Native American heritage. During her academic career as a law professor, she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995. (She was a visiting professor at Harvard during the 1992-1993 academic year.) Ivy League universities, like the ones where Warren taught, were under great pressure to show they had diverse staffs.

In an interview with the Globe published last month, Warren explained that she identified herself as Native American in the late 1980s and early 1990s as many of the matriarchs of her family were dying and she began to feel that her family stories and history were becoming lost.

[www.bostonglobe.com]


The fact that she made these claims and that at least at Harvard she was touted as having NA heritage; this is not in dispute. That's why she published the DNA test results and why we've had this weird thing since her 2012 Senate campaign.

It's just a mistake, but the DNA test is not making it better.

I don't like her approach, I think it's disrespectful to tribal people.

I don't like Trump's approach, he's a racist jerk.

I like Elizabeth Warren but I agree with this post, not a cool move on her part.

Which part -- the fact that she identified as NA back in the early 90s when she had no idea she would go into politics, or the fact that she is clarifying it now?

What everyone seems to miss here is that Warren will be criticized and bullied for misrepresented offenses no matter what she does. She is a brilliant, passionate woman, and that makes her a target for anyone who wants to find a way to invalidate her as a dishonest angry bitch.

The more fearful NA communities deny her any connection at all because she's too white, her parents had to elope because her family was considered too NA. And as a woman, she's too successful for it to be deserved. It is a matter of some irony that Trump paints Warren as though she's a "pure white" woman who was so incompetent that she needed to claim NA status in order to get her job.

And then there are the people who fear DNA testing because it may show them to be not exactly what their family stories say they are -- too white, not white enough, or with parents who are not their parents.

I would hope that all this would lead to a nuanced discussion of both the strengths and the dangers of "identity," but maybe I am being too optimistic.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Acer
Date: October 16, 2018 09:00AM
The gaslighting right would have you think she pretended to be Native American in order to use Affirmative Action to get a completely free ride through law school, plus food stamps and an Obamaphone.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Janit
Date: October 16, 2018 09:08AM
It is also worth noting that the statistical analysis gives a range of 6-10 generations. This is because of the statistical nature of DNA inheritance. The further one goes out, the more it is about probability ranges rather than exact numbers. It is quite possible that the actual NA ancestor is closer than 6 generations.

Furthermore, the reference NA populations used in the analysis were NA peoples from Mexico and Canada. US NA populations have generally declined to do DNA testing because they believe that DNA testing would be used to undermine their sovereignty. There will necessarily be some genetic distance between the non-US NA populations used and US NA populations. Therefore, a comparison of Warren directly to US NA populations would likely show an even closer connection. Unfortunately, such analysis is not possible at this time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: numbered
Date: October 16, 2018 09:37AM
David Reich, in his book _Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past_, talks about many cases in the groundbreaking DNA research his Harvard team has done. However, the one group that has fought his research, and denied the science is Native Americans living in the US. Janit suggests above that resisting DNA analysis is fear of being undermined. My sense from reading Reich is that Janit is being charitable. Basically, most US based native groups have climate-denier levels of opposition to DNA research.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: October 16, 2018 10:43AM
The issues here are bigger than one epistemology can contain, and broader than politics or science or cultural anthropology.

I cannot resolve the matter, nor speak on it from a position of authority. I can tell, from my knowledge of the issues, that at least these things matter:

  • For legal, cultural, and political reasons, tribal membership is a sovereign issue disconnected from DNA science
  • Many indigenous peoples, though not all, are skeptical of or outright reject Western science as a final authority on what is 'objective' or 'real,' especially in matters of identity
  • Racial politics and bigotry around heritage are American traditions, and many families have experienced racialized bias regardless of the facts of their ancestry
  • Families with racial ambiguity in their history often make up palatable stories to explain their histories
  • When assembling a mixed-race family legend, family storytellers often opt to include accounts of racial diversity that are most acceptable/desirable in the present
  • Because racism is considered more real and shameful by progressives than by conservatives, accusations of being a 'racial imposter' are especially potent against liberals

It's a mess all around. Warren has probably learned that she should have been more responsible in how she addressed her family's heritage in the past. However, the president and others have forced the issue to the front, leaving Warren stuck dealing with it in the present. All the same, she could have worked with tribes rather than working around them in this process, and probably should have. Instead of trying to right wrongs (hers and others'), she tried to score points.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 11:07AM
Quote
Janit
Quote
Yoyodyne ArtWorks
Quote
Lemon Drop
Here is the Boston Globe's reporting on this today:

Critics questioned whether Warren, who had risen from humble beginnings to become a Harvard Law School professor, had gained advantage along the way from claiming Native American heritage. During her academic career as a law professor, she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995. (She was a visiting professor at Harvard during the 1992-1993 academic year.) Ivy League universities, like the ones where Warren taught, were under great pressure to show they had diverse staffs.

In an interview with the Globe published last month, Warren explained that she identified herself as Native American in the late 1980s and early 1990s as many of the matriarchs of her family were dying and she began to feel that her family stories and history were becoming lost.

[www.bostonglobe.com]


The fact that she made these claims and that at least at Harvard she was touted as having NA heritage; this is not in dispute. That's why she published the DNA test results and why we've had this weird thing since her 2012 Senate campaign.

It's just a mistake, but the DNA test is not making it better.

I don't like her approach, I think it's disrespectful to tribal people.

I don't like Trump's approach, he's a racist jerk.

I like Elizabeth Warren but I agree with this post, not a cool move on her part.

Which part -- the fact that she identified as NA back in the early 90s when she had no idea she would go into politics, or the fact that she is clarifying it now?

What everyone seems to miss here is that Warren will be criticized and bullied for misrepresented offenses no matter what she does. She is a brilliant, passionate woman, and that makes her a target for anyone who wants to find a way to invalidate her as a dishonest angry bitch.

The more fearful NA communities deny her any connection at all because she's too white, her parents had to elope because her family was considered too NA. And as a woman, she's too successful for it to be deserved. It is a matter of some irony that Trump paints Warren as though she's a "pure white" woman who was so incompetent that she needed to claim NA status in order to get her job.

And then there are the people who fear DNA testing because it may show them to be not exactly what their family stories say they are -- too white, not white enough, or with parents who are not their parents.

I would hope that all this would lead to a nuanced discussion of both the strengths and the dangers of "identity," but maybe I am being too optimistic.


This is pretty offensive stuff Janit, I'm a bit surprised. You don't seem to have a lot of awareness around NA communities and their realities and concerns. You're actually defending a highly privileged European white woman trying to excuse some poor decision-making in her past over the lived realities of tribal people. You should do some research on the "blood quantum" concept and where that came from; and how throughout history tribal people have had their identities claimed and codified by others; they are taking that back now. It must be quite startling to white people.

Being female does not inoculate Elizabeth Warren, or any candidate, from fair criticism. Yes she's treated horribly by Republicans and she can stand up for herself well; I admire that. But she has let this thing get under her skin and she would have been better to work with tribal people on what concerns them and become an ally; she managed to get on the wrong side because she made it about herself, not them. I think she has a lot of leadership skill but on this issue she did not succeed.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Acer
Date: October 16, 2018 11:35AM
So, basically, let me see if I have this. The jury is still out on her Cherokee heritage because there are insufficient Cherokee samples to even draw a conclusion one way or the other. What she DOES have evidence of is a DNA connection further back to native southerly americans, presumably a people that may have migrated to North America at some point to become part of the northerly native american DNA mix.

For a European decent, it would be like saying, sorry, don't have enough samples yet from Bostonians to decide one way on the other on your Mayflower Pilgrim connection, but we do see DNA matching peoples from the British Isles.

Politics aside, it brings up some interesting anthropology.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Janit
Date: October 16, 2018 12:57PM
Quote
Acer
So, basically, let me see if I have this. The jury is still out on her Cherokee heritage because there are insufficient Cherokee samples to even draw a conclusion one way or the other. What she DOES have evidence of is a DNA connection further back to native southerly americans, presumably a people that may have migrated to North America at some point to become part of the northerly native american DNA mix.

For a European decent, it would be like saying, sorry, don't have enough samples yet from Bostonians to decide one way on the other on your Mayflower Pilgrim connection, but we do see DNA matching peoples from the British Isles.

Politics aside, it brings up some interesting anthropology.

Not a bad analogy. Some of the analysis indicates she falls between the current Mexican NA populations and the current Canadian NA populations. Those groups have been more willing to do DNA testing than the US NA populations, presumably because the issues around tribal identity in the US are so acrimonious.

Matters of tribal enrollment and dis-enrollment have become quite contentious in recent years, especially since the casino business has brought a lot of money into play in some areas. There have been a few segments on This American LIfe recently about some of these conflicts -- I don't have ready links, but they tell stories of long-time members being thrown out of the tribes in order to improve the financial and power positions of the members that remain.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 01:36PM
Some information that might be helpful:


The common myth about Indian Casino Riches goes a little something like this:

Every tribe has a casino in which every Indian has a job—if the Indian wants one. But why would the Indian want to work when every Indian gets lots and lots of money from the profits of the casino?

Here are the facts:

Not every tribe has a casino. According to a NIGC fact sheet, out of 567 federally recognized tribes, only 238 tribes operate 474 gaming facilities in 28 states. Thus, 329 tribes (58 percent) have no gaming operations. Indeed, the rural and unpopulated geographic locations of many Native nations discourage gaming.

Not every Indian has a job. As of the first half of 2013, Natives experienced unemployment at 11.3 percent—greater than the nation average of 6.9 percent. Many tribes operate gaming facilities primarily to generate employment. The total number of jobs by Indian gambling created nationwide is impressive: 628,000. But up to 75 percent of those jobs go to non-Indian employees. Areas of extremely high unemployment with a high density of Native folk are the exception—80 percent of gaming employees in North and South Dakota are Indian. But jobs at Indian Casinos are low-paying and lag behind national wages for the same group of workers.

Not every Indian gets money from casino profits. Whereas other gambling institutions may do as their stakeholders please with their net profits, tribal nations must follow strict rules.


[newsmaven.io]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Janit
Date: October 16, 2018 01:53PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is pretty offensive stuff Janit, I'm a bit surprised. You don't seem to have a lot of awareness around NA communities and their realities and concerns. You're actually defending a highly privileged European white woman trying to excuse some poor decision-making in her past over the lived realities of tribal people. You should do some research on the "blood quantum" concept and where that came from; and how throughout history tribal people have had their identities claimed and codified by others; they are taking that back now. It must be quite startling to white people.

Being female does not inoculate Elizabeth Warren, or any candidate, from fair criticism. Yes she's treated horribly by Republicans and she can stand up for herself well; I admire that. But she has let this thing get under her skin and she would have been better to work with tribal people on what concerns them and become an ally; she managed to get on the wrong side because she made it about herself, not them. I think she has a lot of leadership skill but on this issue she did not succeed.

You reinforce my point here. Elizabeth Warren has succeeded so well at passing as a "highly privileged European white woman" that you assume that is what she is. Read her biography.

Warren came from a working class Oklahoma family and her parents had to elope because of her mother's perceived NA ancestry. So yes, her mother's identity was certainly codified by others. Warren went to college on full scholarship, left after 2 years to get married, finished her BA at a commuter college, and transferred from small school to small school every time her husband got transferred. Before going to law school she worked as a speech pathologist.

Warren was smart and she clearly learned how to cultivate the type of self-presentation required to fit into the faculties of upper echelon Law Schools. Nevertheless, her origins show in her choice of subject and in her focus on how the US financial system uses and abuses the ordinary person. With her smarts she probably could have become a killer corporate lawyer, but that is not what she chose to do.

Was she naive in her approach to her NA ancestry? Yes, but don't treat her as though she came from money and had everything handed to her. She didn't.

And please stop with the ad hominem attacks regarding my progressive creds. I am old enough now that being told I don't have the correct opinion no longer bothers me. I have been silk-screening protest signs since the sixties, and I am still here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 01:56PM by Janit.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 01:54PM
Quote
numbered
David Reich, in his book _Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past_, talks about many cases in the groundbreaking DNA research his Harvard team has done. However, the one group that has fought his research, and denied the science is Native Americans living in the US. Janit suggests above that resisting DNA analysis is fear of being undermined. My sense from reading Reich is that Janit is being charitable. Basically, most US based native groups have climate-denier levels of opposition to DNA research.

what evidence supports your claim? Because I personally know and work with a lot of Indians and have never heard this type of opposition to science.

Here's what the National Congress of American Indians has to say on DNA testing. They are far from opposed. I'm afraid it's not what you claim, numbered.

[genetics.ncai.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 01:58PM
Quote
Janit
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is pretty offensive stuff Janit, I'm a bit surprised. You don't seem to have a lot of awareness around NA communities and their realities and concerns. You're actually defending a highly privileged European white woman trying to excuse some poor decision-making in her past over the lived realities of tribal people. You should do some research on the "blood quantum" concept and where that came from; and how throughout history tribal people have had their identities claimed and codified by others; they are taking that back now. It must be quite startling to white people.

Being female does not inoculate Elizabeth Warren, or any candidate, from fair criticism. Yes she's treated horribly by Republicans and she can stand up for herself well; I admire that. But she has let this thing get under her skin and she would have been better to work with tribal people on what concerns them and become an ally; she managed to get on the wrong side because she made it about herself, not them. I think she has a lot of leadership skill but on this issue she did not succeed.

You reinforce my point here. Elizabeth Warren has succeeded so well at passing as a "highly privileged European white woman" that you assume that is what she is. Read her biography.

Warren came from a working class Oklahoma family and her parents had to elope because of her mother's perceived NA ancestry. So yes, her mother's identity was certainly codified by others. She went to college on full scholarship, left after 2 years to get married, finished her BA at a commuter college, and transferred from small school to small school every time her husband got transferred. Before going to law school she worked as a speech pathologist.

Warren was smart and she clearly learned how to cultivate the type of self-presentation required to fit into the faculties of upper echelon Law Schools. Nevertheless, her origins show in her choice of subject and in her focus on how the US financial system uses and abuses the ordinary person. With her smarts she probably could have become a killer corporate lawyer, but that is not what she chose to do.

Was she naive in her approach to her NA ancestry? Yes, but don't treat her as though she came from money and had everything handed to her. She didn't.

And please stop with the ad hominem attacks regarding my progressive creds. I am old enough now that being told I don't have the correct opinion no longer bothers me. I have been silk-screening protest signs since the sixties, and I am still here.

succeeded at "passing??" my lord, the cultural appropriations just won't stop coming.

I read the website and listened to the videos, I know all about her background. Her privilege is that of a white woman, which is a lot, particularly compared with the people with whom she falsely tried to claim some type of heritage. Skin color trumps economic background every day of the week. The claims of her mother's background are not verified by anyone, in fact they've been countered by her family members.

She's not in any way an Indian, but she tried to present herself as part of that community. That was just a lie. Let's move on, pretty sure the rest of the country has by now (maybe except for CNN)

PS: I don't know anything about your professional background, and don't care that much really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 01:59PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: $tevie
Date: October 16, 2018 02:14PM
Lemon, she said "progressive", not "professional". Maybe if you would read what people are actually saying instead of what you think they are saying, you could stop being so antagonistic. People ARE allowed to disagree with you, like it or not, so please stop being so hostile.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 02:32PM
Quote
$tevie
Lemon, she said "progressive", not "professional". Maybe if you would read what people are actually saying instead of what you think they are saying, you could stop being so antagonistic. People ARE allowed to disagree with you, like it or not, so please stop being so hostile.

Thanks for pointing that out Stevie, my apologies for the misread. I never attacked Janit's political background, I don't know anything about that either and don't see the relevance. I'm staying on point with this specific discussion, as far as I can tell.

Sure people can disagree but not make up "facts" to defend a failing argument. Trying to move the blame to Indians, after Warren's political maneuver backfired, is offensive to me. Sorry, but it is.

Aren't we always criticizing the other side for that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Speedy
Date: October 16, 2018 03:26PM
popcorn smiley



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 03:36PM
This is Elizabeth Warren self-identifying as "Native American" to the Harvard Law School student body, faculty and staff in 1996 via an article published in The Crimson.

Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.

Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American
.

[www.thecrimson.com]


This was a misrepresentation, to be charitable.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: October 16, 2018 03:50PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is Elizabeth Warren self-identifying as "Native American" to the Harvard Law School student body, faculty and staff in 1996 via an article published in The Crimson.

Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.

Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American
.

[www.thecrimson.com]


This was a misrepresentation, to be charitable.

This comment is not intended to defend any action taken by Elizabeth Warren to claim Native American status, or not taken to correct that mistake. She should have remedied the error far earlier.

That being said, I am totally aware of how university administrations behave around matters of diversity and inclusion, and they are often THE WORST. They may well have sent out their PR minion with a list of all the 'official minorities' to boast about, without consulting the employees first. It may never have been Warren's plan to publicize her claimed ancestry; it's not at all unusual for institutions to make disclosures that might otherwise seem personally revealing in the interest of defending themselves or their purity.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: numbered
Date: October 16, 2018 04:06PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
They are far from opposed. I'm afraid it's not what you claim, numbered.

Ah, so a web site of explanation about testing contradicts Reich's chapter on the challenges his lab has faced with American tribes? Or the pressure from tribal leaderships to prevent members from sharing DNA with the lab?

I think Reich is quite gentle in his treatment for all the history we know. But he does cite actual resistance to his work.

I don't claim to have made a study...but I don't think you read the book.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 04:26PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is Elizabeth Warren self-identifying as "Native American" to the Harvard Law School student body, faculty and staff in 1996 via an article published in The Crimson.

Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.

Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American
.

[www.thecrimson.com]


This was a misrepresentation, to be charitable.

This comment is not intended to defend any action taken by Elizabeth Warren to claim Native American status, or not taken to correct that mistake. She should have remedied the error far earlier.

That being said, I am totally aware of how university administrations behave around matters of diversity and inclusion, and they are often THE WORST. They may well have sent out their PR minion with a list of all the 'official minorities' to boast about, without consulting the employees first. It may never have been Warren's plan to publicize her claimed ancestry; it's not at all unusual for institutions to make disclosures that might otherwise seem personally revealing in the interest of defending themselves or their purity.

Warren had a brilliant academic law career before moving into politics. She deserves all accolades for that. Very impressive, the woman is very hard working and smart.

She did this weird thing while teaching at Univ of Penn Law School and it's really at the heart of her political problem with this issue. She had herself listed as a minority law professor in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools; this was in the early to mid 90's before everyone checked everything on the internet. So this directory was the go-to for schools when they wanted to recruit someone. Warren says she was recruited by Harvard, after being at Penn. Her claim of minority status was not the reason she got hired by Harvard, by all accounts.
But after hiring her they apparently touted her as one of the few people of color on the faculty, and of course she is not.

It's just kind of a weird situation; a flukey mistake by an otherwise very bright and ethical person. She should have had reverse opp research done on herself when she ran in 2012 (maybe she did and this didn't come up) then she could have developed a response that included allyship, rather than alienation, from American Indians.

She still could. We'll see.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 04:30PM
Quote
numbered
Quote
Lemon Drop
They are far from opposed. I'm afraid it's not what you claim, numbered.

Ah, so a web site of explanation about testing contradicts Reich's chapter on the challenges his lab has faced with American tribes? Or the pressure from tribal leaderships to prevent members from sharing DNA with the lab?

I think Reich is quite gentle in his treatment for all the history we know. But he does cite actual resistance to his work.

I don't claim to have made a study...but I don't think you read the book.

I wasn't contradicting Reich, I was challenging YOUR hyperbolic and IMO bigoted statement about American Indians and science. This one person running into resistance in research says nothing about the point of view of the millions of American Indians.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: October 16, 2018 05:03PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
It's just kind of a weird situation; a flukey mistake by an otherwise very bright and ethical person. She should have had reverse opp research done on herself when she ran in 2012 (maybe she did and this didn't come up) then she could have developed a response that included allyship, rather than alienation, from American Indians.

She still could. We'll see.

This totally came up in 2012. Scott Brown called her on it. She got elected anyway.

She didn't own it then, and she's not owning it now. So, it still won't go away.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2018 05:33PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
Lemon Drop
It's just kind of a weird situation; a flukey mistake by an otherwise very bright and ethical person. She should have had reverse opp research done on herself when she ran in 2012 (maybe she did and this didn't come up) then she could have developed a response that included allyship, rather than alienation, from American Indians.

She still could. We'll see.

This totally came up in 2012. Scott Brown called her on it. She got elected anyway.

She didn't own it then, and she's not owning it now. So, it still won't go away.

I meant maybe it didn't come up when she did reverse opp-research on herself and she got caught off guard. Of course it came up in the election, that's what started all of this.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: October 16, 2018 05:45PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
Lemon Drop
It's just kind of a weird situation; a flukey mistake by an otherwise very bright and ethical person. She should have had reverse opp research done on herself when she ran in 2012 (maybe she did and this didn't come up) then she could have developed a response that included allyship, rather than alienation, from American Indians.

She still could. We'll see.

This totally came up in 2012. Scott Brown called her on it. She got elected anyway.

She didn't own it then, and she's not owning it now. So, it still won't go away.

I meant maybe it didn't come up when she did reverse opp-research on herself and she got caught off guard. Of course it came up in the election, that's what started all of this.

Ah gotcha. Well, she goofed then, and doubled down on the mistake by playing a game with the president. It's a tone-deafness that feels all too familiar from the 2016 campaign.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Regarding Elizabeth Warren: Fauxcahontas NOT Faux!
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: October 16, 2018 09:08PM
It's like this: if you have exaggerated a trait or a characteristic or a skill on your resume, then you are probably fine with what Warren did in her career. If you have not done that, the opposite is probably true.

Factor in the animosity from a truly disenfranchised people like native Americans toward someone who was claiming that identity to further a career goal, and that just adds to the queasy feeling.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 97
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018