Democratic Candidate Elizabeth Warren says she is 1/32nd Cherokee. Making such a claim isn't her problem. The problem is that she used that to claim minority status in college admittance and on her CV to get jobs, even being advertised as a minority Professor at Harvard Law.
In all fairness she did submit a few recipes to a cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow" back in 1983.
This reminds me of Mattys recent post about Americans and our nuts ass obsession over our descent. I'm Northern European. Maybe when I get old and lame I'll grow to be interested in my genealogy (happened to my dad).
purplefood wrote:Yeah that obsession never made sense to me...
It's a nation of immigrants, some of which maintain close cultural ties to their old world identities. My mother's family spoke Dutch in the home until my great grandmother died when I was 7. My grandfather and all his siblings spoke the travellers cant and their parents were "traveling musicians" when the state took their kids away. Which was a common euphemism at the time for Gypsies in the US. When my wife and I have children they will have my whole mess plus a maternal family that uniformly speaks Spanish, but not so much English. Ancestry is an important part of heritage but we aren't totally obsessed with it (the Mormons are).
purplefood wrote:Yeah that obsession never made sense to me...
It's a nation of immigrants, some of which maintain close cultural ties to their old world identities. My mother's family spoke Dutch in the home until my great grandmother died when I was 7. My grandfather and all his siblings spoke the travellers cant and their parents were "traveling musicians" when the state took their kids away. Which was a common euphemism at the time for Gypsies in the US. When my wife and I have children they will have my whole mess plus a maternal family that uniformly speaks Spanish, but not so much English. Ancestry is an important part of heritage but we aren't totally obsessed with it (the Mormons are).
I get that part and I understand that...
What I don't understand is when an 4th/5th generation American claims to be Irish because one of his ancestors was...
That's when it seems weird to me...
purplefood wrote:Yeah that obsession never made sense to me...
It's a nation of immigrants, some of which maintain close cultural ties to their old world identities. My mother's family spoke Dutch in the home until my great grandmother died when I was 7. My grandfather and all his siblings spoke the travellers cant and their parents were "traveling musicians" when the state took their kids away. Which was a common euphemism at the time for Gypsies in the US. When my wife and I have children they will have my whole mess plus a maternal family that uniformly speaks Spanish, but not so much English. Ancestry is an important part of heritage but we aren't totally obsessed with it (the Mormons are).
I get that part and I understand that...
What I don't understand is when an 4th/5th generation American claims to be Irish because one of his ancestors was...
That's when it seems weird to me...
Oh...THOSE people. Unfortunatly (for you mostly I suppose) I can relate to that as well. Some of those people are rightfully claiming a heterogeneous Irish heritage. I don't know about places like say Chicago or New York but in Montana there is a town called Butte. It's population is something like 70% Irish if not more. Similarly the valley I am from has two towns with a near uniform Dutch population. The towns are called Manhattan and Amsterdam...When I meet other natives and hear a last name like Shea or Leary...or virtually anything with an O' on the front I can immediately say "Butte huh?" and watch them kick the dirt and nod affirmative. It's harder to spot the Dutch as contrary to popular belief not all Dutch names start with Van, and most are analogous to German names and misspelled via immigration papers. Most of those people have never married outside the Irish, and especially outside the Catholic church. Their claim to being Irish is a passport short of being the same as most people in the Republic. Most of them aren't the plastic paddy Irish you see in movies or TV. I think part of the claim even beyond 4 or 5 generations is roughly like being of Chinese decent the same number of generations...you don't stop being Chinese, or different just because time has passed. That's the reason in big cities there is a China Town, or Little Italy, or Little Haiti. The Irish are somewhat more integrated but still maintain a tie to Ireland...in many ways I think that is also the root cause for the wide support of the IRA.
Speaking of the NA tribes, most of them have formal rules for how to document/declare your ancestry, which generally only mean you have to be a small fraction "by blood" of that tribe to claim membership. The small fractions I understand are in part due to how depleted and small in number many of the tribes are.
Here's one of the first pages that game up with a quick google for claiming tribal membership as a Cherokee:
I've copied the details below in the spoiler tags, because they're pretty long, with four different groups of people/sets of criteria, but here's category 4:
Category 4.
Information about Indian ancestry of individuals in this category of Cherokees is more difficult to locate. This is primarily because the federal government has never maintained a list of all the persons of Cherokee Indian descent, indicating their tribal affiliation, degree of Indian blood or other data. In order to establish Cherokee ancestry you should use the same methods prescribed in "Indian Ancestry" and "Genealogical Research" material. (Reference directories " INDIAN ANCESTRY" and " GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH")
in North Carolina are the largest. The Oklahoma tribe only requires that you have an ancestor on the Dawes rolls (a census from the early 1900’s) but there is no blood percentage required. The Eastern band requires an ancestor on the Baker roll of 1924 and additionally one sixteenth Eastern Cherokee blood. There is another federally recognized group known as the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians. They use the same Dawes roll requirements as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, but also require one fourth “Keetoowah Cherokee Blood”.
There are also state recognized tribes such as the Georgia Tribe of the Eastern Cherokee. This particular tribe requires applicants to have an ancestor on “one of the many US Government Cherokee Indian Rolls”. Even if you are not able to become a member of a Cherokee tribe doesn’t mean you are not Cherokee. It simply means your ancestors may have avoided being included on those government rolls. In that case you can complete the “Declaration of Cherokee Heritage”on this site and receive a Cherokee Documentation Number (CDN) that references your claim.
Spoiler:
Tribal Enrollment Eligibility
First, let’s clear up some confusing information. There are three key Cherokee tribes. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
The following information is provided by the U.S. Department of Interior:
About 200 years ago the Cherokee Indians were one tribe, or "Indian Nation" that lived in the southeast part of what is now the United States. During the 1830's and 1840's, the period covered by the Indian Removal Act, many Cherokees were moved west to a territory that is now the State of Oklahoma. A number remained in the southeast and gathered in North Carolina where they purchased land and continued to live. Others went into the Appalachian Mountains to escape being moved west and many of their descendants may still live there now.
Today, individuals of Cherokee ancestry fall into the following categories:
(1) Living persons who were listed on the final rolls of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Dawes Commission Rolls) that were approved and descendants of these persons. These final rolls were closed in 1907.
(2) Individuals enrolled as members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina and their descendants who are eligible for enrollment with the Band.
(3) Persons on the list of members identified by a resolution dated April 19, 1949, and certified by the Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes Agency and their descendants who are eligible for enrollment with the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indian of Oklahoma.
(4) All other persons of Cherokee Indian ancestry.
Category 1.
After about a half century of self-government, a law enacted in 1906 directed that final rolls be made and that each enrollee be given an allotment of land or paid cash in lieu of an allotment. The Cherokees formally organized in 1975 with the adoption of a new Constitution that superseded the 1839 Cherokee Nation Constitution. This new Constitution establishes a Cherokee Register for the inclusion of any Cherokee for membership purposes in the Cherokee Nation. Members must be citizens as proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. Including in this are the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware Agreement dated May 8, 1867, and the Shawnee Cherokees of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated June 9, 1869, and/or their descendants.
P.L. 100-472, authorizes through a planning and negotiation process Indian Tribes to administer and manage programs, activities, function, and services previously managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Pursuant to P.L. 100-472 the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has entered into a Self-governance Compact and now provides those services previously provided by the BIA. Enrollment and allotment records are maintained by the Cherokee Nation. Any question with regard to the Cherokee Nation should be referred to:
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
(918)456-0671 Fax (918)456-6485.
Category 2.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina is a federally recognized tribe and has its own requirements for membership. Inquiries as to these requirements, or for information shown in the records may be addressed to the BIA's Cherokee Agency, Cherokee, North Carolina 28719, (704) 497-9131, or
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
(207) 497-2771, Fax (704)497-2952
ask for the Tribal Enrollment Office.
Category 3.
By the Act of August 10, 1946, 60 Stat. 976, Congress recognized the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) for the purposes of organizing under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. In 1950, the UKB organized under a Constitution and Bylaws approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Members of the UKB consist of all persons whose names appear on the list of members identified by a resolution dated April 19, 1949, and certified by the Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes Agency on November 26, 1949, with the governing body of the UKB having the power to prescribe rules and regulations governing future membership. The supreme governing body (UKB Council) consist of 9 members, elected to represent the nine districts of the old Cherokee Nation and four officers, elected at large. Information may be obtained by writing
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 746
Tahlequah Oklahoma, 74465-9432
(918) 456-5491 Fax (918) 456-9601.
Category 4.
Information about Indian ancestry of individuals in this category of Cherokees is more difficult to locate. This is primarily because the federal government has never maintained a list of all the persons of Cherokee Indian descent, indicating their tribal affiliation, degree of Indian blood or other data. In order to establish Cherokee ancestry you should use the same methods prescribed in "Indian Ancestry" and "Genealogical Research" material. (Reference directories " INDIAN ANCESTRY" and " GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH")
in North Carolina are the largest. The Oklahoma tribe only requires that you have an ancestor on the Dawes rolls (a census from the early 1900’s) but there is no blood percentage required. The Eastern band requires an ancestor on the Baker roll of 1924 and additionally one sixteenth Eastern Cherokee blood. There is another federally recognized group known as the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians. They use the same Dawes roll requirements as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, but also require one fourth “Keetoowah Cherokee Blood”.
There are also state recognized tribes such as the Georgia Tribe of the Eastern Cherokee. This particular tribe requires applicants to have an ancestor on “one of the many US Government Cherokee Indian Rolls”. Even if you are not able to become a member of a Cherokee tribe doesn’t mean you are not Cherokee. It simply means your ancestors may have avoided being included on those government rolls. In that case you can complete the “Declaration of Cherokee Heritage”on this site and receive a Cherokee Documentation Number (CDN) that references your claim.
Immigration, assimilation, and cultural heritage is an interesting subject. Me and my younger brother are an interesting example of that.
We moved from Germany to the US in 97, I was 16 and he was 10. I had already established a German identity in my own mind and was proud of my heritage. I learned everything I could about the US, and I have dual citizenship, but to me I was just as German as I was American. I keep German mementos, I speak it at home with family, I cook German things, I do a lot to keep it alive. When we have kids the plan is for me to speak German to them to help them grow up bilingual.
My brother was younger than me and fell into the "I am different and I need to fit in" cycle that is common with 1st generation immigrants. He became very American, and doesn't really have much interest in Germany and German culture. He speaks English only for the most part which makes my mom angry since she tries to speak German to us, although he knows better than to speak English with me. If it was not for his last name, you would not know he is German. He wanted to fit in and I guess he is the model for "become American if you want to live here".
Which to me is kind of sad, because I actually have US citizenship and he doesn't. He only has German citizenship and he doesn't really care about it all. Take pride in who you are now, but also always honor where you came from.
Man, I've seen some weak sauce political attacks this season, but this is so far the far-and-away winner.
He mother told her she had native ancestry when she was a child, based upon a marriage certificate that showed such from 1890something. An amateur genealogist was unable to locate this 130-odd year old marriage certificate, so she isn't really an Native after all. This is, inexplicably, a scandal of some sort. Perhaps when she identified as a Native in a 1984 cookbook she knew she would apply for Harvard in a decade and it would come in handy.
By the way, how many resumes have you seen that list the applicants ethnicity on them?
She has to be able to trace her lineage back to someone on the Dawes Roll by direct lineage. Either she can or cannot. To claim tribal affiliation and receive benefits (if there is any) the tribe has to recognize you, and you get enrolled with a number tattooed on your inner lip (not really..it is just a card). When claiming tribal affiliation for college or jobs or IHS I have always had to show my ID and I look native. I wonder how people get past that. People claiming native ancestry when they do not is not have any is not new, with the exclusion of an estimated 100k people the Dawes Roll it could be true and just not recognized. The roll is a little better than blood quantum. Lets say I am 1/2 native and my wife is as well but of another tribe, our kid is now 1/4 native because of the Dawes Act. My kid is not any less indoctrinated in our culture as someone with a higher degree of blood quantum. This is an issue for some natives as degrees of blood do not equate to cultural experience.
I thought the interview is odd especially the part where they talk about how she looks. I found it kind of funny how the lady in the interview stated she was angry about Warrens high cheek bones comment then they discussed Warrens features as not looking native but european.
Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
J-Roc77 wrote:I thought the interview is odd especially the part where they talk about how she looks. I found it kind of funny how the lady in the interview stated she was angry about Warrens high cheek bones comment then they discussed Warrens features as not looking native but european.
I thinking going by how someone looks is the best way to do determine that; just as it's plain to see who is an African-American:
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Samus_aran115 wrote:That woman is an idiot. Anything less than 1/8 is totally worthless, and she knows it.
Depends on the tribe. She claimed Cherokee, which actually doesn't have a minimum blood requirement, only a requirement that you can somehow trace your lineage back to a member on the original rolls.
So no, less than 1/8th is not worthless, and she would not be an idiot. But thanks for the meaningful insight
Oh come on, seriously? If you're 1/32nd cherokee, what are you really contributing to the preservation of your tribe? Nothing, unless you happen to be personally involved in everything that goes on with them and have incredibly extensive knowledge of traditional knowledge and history, which would be lucky.
I don't doubt that these sort of "whitie" indians have contributed a lot to preservation and heritage, but some of them are just posers who cling to their measly heritage to find some sort of belonging, or to escape the stereotypes of their dominant race (ie, "well, my people didn't enslave blacks. They lived off the land hurrdurr").
"My grandmother's dad was japanese! So that means I'm a little bit japanese! I'm studying the language and going to move to kyoto after school! Being Japanese is so great and unique!"
There's a difference between those sorts of people and someone who claims tribal citizenship based on the laws of that tribe. She may have simply been mistaken.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Oh come on, seriously? If you're 1/32nd cherokee, what are you really contributing to the preservation of your tribe? Nothing, unless you happen to be personally involved in everything that goes on with them and have incredibly extensive knowledge of traditional knowledge and history, which would be lucky.
I don't doubt that these sort of "whitie" indians have contributed a lot to preservation and heritage, but some of them are just posers who cling to their measly heritage to find some sort of belonging, or to escape the stereotypes of their dominant race (ie, "well, my people didn't enslave blacks. They lived off the land hurrdurr").
"My grandmother's dad was japanese! So that means I'm a little bit japanese! I'm studying the language and going to move to kyoto after school! Being Japanese is so great and unique!"
Well, if she would legally be a Cherokee based on the laws of the tribe (which she could have been) then she can vote in their elections and be a part of the tribe in every single legal way.
Sorry if it offends you that somebody could be a member of a tribe even though in your eyes they are not "indian" enough. If the Cherokee tribe didn't want these 'white posers', then I would imagine they would have a law requiring a minimum blood content.
But feel free to rage over 'white people' following the laws of the tribes.
If she really thinks she has something genuine to contribute to the preservation, then good on her, and I wish her the best... But to accept financial aid based on a loose connection with a highly venerated and respected people is a little sly, and not entirely honest. She could have been possibly taking away an opportunity from someone else who could've used it, simply to save a buck or two.
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.
d-usa wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:That woman is an idiot. Anything less than 1/8 is totally worthless, and she knows it.
Depends on the tribe. She claimed Cherokee, which actually doesn't have a minimum blood requirement, only a requirement that you can somehow trace your lineage back to a member on the original rolls.
So no, less than 1/8th is not worthless, and she would not be an idiot. But thanks for the meaningful insight
I think my post above shows how quantum is a flawed measure. Not saying she was not FAR removed from the culture, just that some people with a lower blood quantum may be misrepresented by the number.
'Could be' and 'are' are two radically different things. I could be the Queen of England, but I probably am not. As it is it would appear that while she could have been, she isn't nor does the evidence suggest that she ever has been.
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.
d-usa wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:That woman is an idiot. Anything less than 1/8 is totally worthless, and she knows it.
Depends on the tribe. She claimed Cherokee, which actually doesn't have a minimum blood requirement, only a requirement that you can somehow trace your lineage back to a member on the original rolls.
So no, less than 1/8th is not worthless, and she would not be an idiot. But thanks for the meaningful insight
I think my post above shows how quantum is a flawed measure. Not saying she was not FAR removed from the culture, just that some people with a lower blood quantum may be misrepresented by the number.
Samus_aran115 wrote:That woman is an idiot. Anything less than 1/8 is totally worthless, and she knows it.
It depends on who you are and your personal ideas about "racial" identity.
Scientists don't believe there is any link between "race" and behavioural characteristics.
We get ideas about race and ethnicity from our cultural background. In this woman's background, it seems that some importance was attached to a fairly distant ancestor. If she was proud of that, maybe it was good to self-identify with a disadvantaged minority. Surely better to accept some diversity in one's ancestry than to insist one is descended in pure and direct line.
UK television did an interesting programme a couple of years ago in which they did genetic analysis and tracing on volunteers to find out if some clearly "white" "English" people might have what used to be called a touch of the tar brush.
Needless to say, some of the most outspokenly "white, British and proud of it", anti-immigration participants, turned out to have genes found commonly in north African populations, and hilarity ensued.
The message here is that if minor degrees of genetic ethnicity are important to you, they are important to you, but be careful because it can be a double edged blade.
The affair demonstrates that "race" is still a very touchy subject in the USA.
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.
d-usa wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:That woman is an idiot. Anything less than 1/8 is totally worthless, and she knows it.
Depends on the tribe. She claimed Cherokee, which actually doesn't have a minimum blood requirement, only a requirement that you can somehow trace your lineage back to a member on the original rolls.
So no, less than 1/8th is not worthless, and she would not be an idiot. But thanks for the meaningful insight
I think my post above shows how quantum is a flawed measure. Not saying she was not FAR removed from the culture, just that some people with a lower blood quantum may be misrepresented by the number.
Its like a broken record, you need new material.
Yes pointing out that others often stereotype my people in negative ways when it just happened is me pulling the race card. Any attempt to straighten out misconceptions or falsehoods about my culture apparently should be left to other cultures to decide. And yes me speaking up about it is apparently not what I should do as it may offend dominant culture. Also when Monster rain points out that there are interesting differences in what slurs are allowed and what are not me showing a native take on Chief Wahoo is totally irrelevant and pulling the race card.
Could you outline your position on why I should let others misrepresent me and my people and why I should not further a conversation by providing more examples?
Yeah sensitive man is sensitive. I hardly think joking about boozing is hate speech. I mean, the discussion you are referring to was regarding a BBC story about native Americans having a serious problem with booze, is it racist to mention that?
If that's the case, i should be upset every time people mention the light hearted British bad teeth or the similar common Irish drunk stereotype.
There is no need to get so defensive if someone isn't being genuinely rude and aggressive with some light hearted, good humoured stereo typing.
Personally i find political correctness and the desperate desire to be constantly offended all the time about as offensive as genuine bigotry!
I think that people would get along better without both.
Be that as it may, i apologise if i offended your delicate sensibilities, feel free to retort with a light hearted blanket statement about the British, Irish or if you come right down to it, pretty much anyone. I'm sure there's even a Frenchman if you go back far enough.
Actually Matty I am usually above that unless i know the person, then they are fair game. Often people forget we are right here standing next to someone when they make some off color remark as people seem to forget we exist. Most people would not make those jokes about black people as common courtesy dictates it is offensive; however, it is not often that people extend that courtesy to first nation people as I tried to show with the word switch out and chief wahoo. Often we get accused of thin skin or being rude when we point it out. Well thats fine with me, I will keep showing where lines are drawn if people keep crossing them. I am pretty diplomatic compared to some of my family I think.
As for your question "I mean, the discussion you are referring to was regarding a BBC story about native Americans having a serious problem with booze, is it racist to mention that? " Nope not at all racist to discuss, it may be off color to imply that natives are drunks as that is a pretty broad generalization. The drunk population is mainly concentrated in the poverty stricken 1/3rd, as I said before it is a symptom of being in poverty that is compounded by genetics and not a condition brought on by our ethnicity. When you joke about us being drunks many natives take it as an insult to injury. Yup lots of us are poor and we do not find the situation we are dealing with funny.
Oh and for the record I never said it was hate speech that was someone else's qualifier (which they also said it is not also...because it is not), I said unintentional racism.
It's also a broad generalisation to say that the Irish are all drunks because of the ones that turn to drink whilst in poverty, but no-one would argue against that. And you cannot have 'symptoms' of poverty; its not a disease. Are you, personally, in that 1/3rd that live in poverty?
mattyrm wrote:Yeah sensitive man is sensitive. I hardly think joking about boozing is hate speech. I mean, the discussion you are referring to was regarding a BBC story about native Americans having a serious problem with booze, is it racist to mention that?
...
It becomes racist if one extrapolates from that particular story to the generalisation that native americans are genetically disposed to be physical and cultural drunkards.
If it's sad to be offended by bigoted, racist comments, isn't it even more sad to be offended by people wanting not to be offended by such comments?
Some of the anti-PC movement is a fight-back by bigots to reclaim the public space and discourse from which they have been excluded.
'Could be' and 'are' are two radically different things. I could be the Queen of England, but I probably am not...
HRH Ahtman....
Hmmmmm has a certain ring to it don't you think Ma'am?
I could get behind something like that. Of course, it's not like you'd need a vote of confidence from a mere peasant such as myself to assume your rightful place, Your Majesty.
Bores wrote:It's also a broad generalisation to say that the Irish are all drunks because of the ones that turn to drink whilst in poverty, but no-one would argue against that.
I think some would argue against that, in fact...
It is a broad generalization to say that the natives are all drunks because of the ones that turn to drink whilst in poverty. But I would argue against that. In fact I know quite a few natives who do argue against that among other native interests.
Are you, personally, in that 1/3rd that live in poverty?
Nope. Is it relevant? Nope. Lets say a well to do black man is in a class or work or something, a guy next to him says "black people steal" he does not need to be a member of thr portion more likely to be exposed to some sort of crime to take offense.
As for the symptoms of poverty point. I call shenanigans. I mean semantics. Are you just saying you disagree with the term "symptoms"? I can describe it without the term symptom if needed! I am also unsure if I understand your point fully as I am unsure if you trying to say that it is the drinking that caused the irish poverty? I seem to remember a fair amount or discrimination in their history in the US and over the pond.
Firstly, allow me to apologise for the way i presented my initial post, it was some what more aggressive than i intended.
My point about it being a broad generalisation was that whilst the stereotype persists that Irish people are drunks, it is from the same vain as your arguement in that it is only the minority. However, contrary to what i can only assume you think i am saying, i am infact stating that a stereotype is just that; it is just a broad generalisation used by, effectively, idiots to make sense of a complex world and being created from ignorance, instead of taking offence i see them as humourous as it shows humanities inability to 'work'.
It is relevant as you have no understanding of being in a position of hopelessness in an unforgiving society that is fundamentally based on wealth. To state that this stereotype is unique to (First nation people?) alone is ridiculous as many social and ethnic groups have been labelled as 'drunks' because of poverty: The Irish, The Germans and The working class have all, and still are, stereotyped as 'drunks'. Why is it then a stereotype to these groups but racism towards your own culture?
Yes, the Irish did get much abuse on both sides of the pond. Signs stating: No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish were common in Britain and America in the 1900's and up until the '60's. When my grandparents came to England they suffered abuse and racism. My Grandfather, as a result, speaks very little english and will only travel in the area he feels safe in. I however, having grown up in an English culture, am used to people slinging insults and stereotypical beliefs about the Irish at me and as i previously mentioned i find them humourous as they are the beliefs of ignorant people.
Yes i took issue with the use of the word 'symptom' as it seemed callous and rude given its context.
Thank you for the clarification on the other points it cleared up your first post. I didn't think it was aggressive, I just was unsure of the your total point. I think we have agreement on some issues, however,there are some points disagree with.
Bores wrote: It is relevant as you have no understanding of being in a position of hopelessness in an unforgiving society that is fundamentally based on wealth.
You do not need to be homeless to know that it sucks to be homeless and be able to try to understand their situation. I may have more connection though to my people than a random person I have no affiliation with. I lived and worked on several reservations for over 30 years. It is not just that there is a large portion of my people who are in poverty, there are people I know who are in poverty. They include people I grew up with, played sports, went to powwows, religious events, they even slept at my house on weekends. Many natives travel to other reservations for events school. We sleep at other families houses when attending powwows sometimes someone who we just met through friends, we are pretty interconnected at least as far as we want to drive or fly for events conferences and gatherings.
To state that this stereotype is unique to (First nation people?) alone is ridiculous
I do not think it is unique to our culture, I do not think I implied that. The tangent about the irish stereotype supports that I think.
Irish, The Germans and The working class have all, and still are, stereotyped as 'drunks'. Why is it then a stereotype to these groups but racism towards your own culture?
I don't think I implied that other stereotypes could not be considered racist. Sure they could depending on the application. I posted a chief wahoo picture that also shows this on page 1.
There are difference due to societal factors in the use of those stereotypes/slurs used for Irish or German today, those groups are no longer being discriminated against as they used to be.The Irish and German cultures also currently do not have a disproportionate population at this time that is in poverty as the Natives do. When those cultures were considered minorities in the past it is likely that those insults carried more weight to the listener than they do now. 1900's saying Irish are drunks may have gotten someones front teeth knocked to the back of their skull.
Oh, and First Nations is often how natives refer to themselves in Canada, for some reason I thought you were from Canada. Native or Native American is also used.
Ah, thankyou for clearing the first nation issue up; being from England i didn't wish to offend.
I totally agree: slightly off-topic, is a reserve the traditional lands of a tribe or an area given to them within which they are independent?
I feel we are looking at the same issue from two slightly different angles. As i know very little about Native American history i am looking at the issue in question from a view-point that i can understand and relate too which is, for obvious reasons, different from your own. However, from what i do know, haven't Native Americans been oppressed by colonists for centuries? So aren't the racism and stereotypes also as old as the conflict itself?
In reference to your last paragraph: Does this mean that poverty in the Native population is a recent thing?
I totally agree: slightly off-topic, is a reserve the traditional lands of a tribe or an area given to them within which they are independent?
Yes and No. My tribe is originally from the New York and Ontario area, we are now located with other tribes in Oklahoma. The tribes I have worked and lived with are further west and some have a portion of their native lands but also have many different tribes sharing land.
I feel we are looking at the same issue from two slightly different angles. As i know very little about Native American history i am looking at the issue in question from a view-point that i can understand and relate too which is, for obvious reasons, different from your own. However, from what i do know, haven't Native Americans been oppressed by colonists for centuries? So aren't the racism and stereotypes also as old as the conflict itself?
Yes.
In reference to your last paragraph: Does this mean that poverty in the Native population is a recent thing?
Nope, this has been ongoing since the influx or europeans. The government policies have changed making it easier on us, like no longer allowed to shoot us or take our lands for instance. Well the government still can! But they can do that to everybody.
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.
J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.
While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.
Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.
Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.
Uh huh.
Neato. Would you say any of the above is inappropriate or see how some people may think they are? You may have found one that some people do not take as much offense to but 1 exception does not disprove anything. Add to that you do not have the majority of the characterized population asking for its removal. I would say that lack of concern is due to the point I already addressed on the differences of those situations. It is a couple posts up you can just read that (4th post above this one so you don't have to look for it too hard).
“Trojans,” “Spartans” and “Vikings” are popular sports team names that pick out groups according to nationality, race or ethnicity, but these are also fundamentally different from Indian mascots. These names do not depict existing peoples and cannot, therefore, affect the lives of those they depict (for better or for worse) – neither can they be regarded as appropriate or inappropriate by the groups in question. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Boston Celtics actually are examples of sports teams whose names and images depict an existing racial or ethnic group, but even these are significantly different from the cases of Indian mascots. The Celtics play in a city with a large Irish population, the Fighting Irish represent a university established and largely populated by Irish people. Although it may appear that these would constitute examples of mascotizing analogous to that of American Indians, they do not for the simple reason that they were thought up and instituted by the very people (or group) that they depict. There is no such Indian mascot that was similarly devised by Indian persons. Another relevant difference between these cases is that what Irish people say about the mascots that depict them is taken as decisive in establishing the legitimacy of the mascots. The team names “Celtics” and “Fighting Irish” tend to be quite popular among persons of Irish heritage, and this popularity is taken as a reliable indicator of the appropriateness of these names. But the fact that Indian mascots tend to be grossly unpopular among Indians is not taken as an indicator that there may be something inappropriate about them – if it were, then there would be no more Indian mascots. The only persons who defend the use of American Indians as sports team mascots are those who profit from the use of such images – coincidentally, there is no group of American Indian affiliation that profits even from a single mascot.
- Dr. Chris Kraatz - The Truth about American Indian Mascots
I think a number of Scandinavian people would object to the idea of Vikings (as a race) as no longer extant. But, it's a fair enough point. Objection withdrawn.
On the subject of Sports Mascots..... There are reasons that there are not many teams (that I can find) named for the French, Athenians, Artists or non agressive animals.
Many of the mascots were chosen based on a perceived skill, aggression, and/or general toughness.
This is one of the many reasons that the Florida tribe of Seminoles support FSU and their choice of mascot.
Mannahnin wrote:Vikings were never a race. Viking was a verb, and viking as a noun meant someone who engaged in it.
Sure. We could get into semantic debates over what constitutes a "race" and what constitutes a people, culture, society, and so on. We could also dig into the etymology of each and every tribe name of the native Americans, and indeed any "race" across the face of the planet to determine, linguistically speaking, just who is and isn't a "race".
I'm sure the research would be as fascinating as it would be pointless.
Mannahnin wrote:Vikings were never a race. Viking was a verb, and viking as a noun meant someone who engaged in it.
Sure. We could get into semantic debates over what constitutes a "race" and what constitutes a people, culture, society, and so on. We could also dig into the etymology of each and every tribe name of the native Americans, and indeed any "race" across the face of the planet to determine, linguistically speaking, just who is and isn't a "race".
I'm sure the research would be as fascinating as it would be pointless.
What does that have to do with Mannahnin's point? A Viking is no more a race than a Hoplite is.
It means, that in popular usage, viking denotes a specific people in specific regions in a specific period of time. Example: Dakota typically means "friend" or "ally" within the language and yet also refers to a whole tribe. Obviously not all Dakota would be considered friends either within the tribe or outside of it. The word chairman doesn't mean a person that is a chair. Examples could go on. My point being that the etymology of a word does not necessarily have much bearing on its usage.
And yet common usage refers to the white race, the black race, the asian race... and so on instead of saying Irish, Italian, Somalian, Sudanese, Japanese, Chinese and so forth. However, If we took the more specific terms, we could then go further and divide them into specific tribes, clans, septs, families, and so on until we would just have to make do with speaking of individuals. Are Cherokee and Sioux separate races or are they all "Native Americans" or are they "indigenous" since Mayans and Inuit are technically Native American as well? Further what do these terms mean? The discussion inevitable leads to a state of infinite regress. "Race," as a category is an exercise in using broad terms, which is why there has been a movement towards finding some other term which implies more specificity. Anyway, my post was in response to the article where the author specifically uses the writes "groups according to nationality, race or ethnicity." The terms have variously been taken to mean the same thing in different periods of time; German for example refers to a race, nationality, and ethnicity. It's vague. I know a number of people in the Asatru community who say they hail from Viking heritage. That may or may not be technically correct. But, it is comprehensible in common usage, which is all I ever claimed.
Well, 'viking', in the parlance of our time, is used to refer to pre christian Scandinavians - despite those who know better. I would argue that it's about the same as calling people 'Indians' since they are both appellations either placed or adopted by outside groups that are used in a fundamentally incorrect way. I guess I can see why Indians as a mascot would offend, because as far as I know the term 'Indian' itself is found vaguely offensive. However I don't understand why Braves for example is found offensive, unless used in a specifically terrible way - it is at its root a fairly complementary term and idea. And it is generic enough, unlike say the Fighting Sioux.
I don't think so; I don't think anyone uses Viking to refer to a race or a people unless it's out of ignorance. The difference between calling a team the Vikings vs. calling them the Indians is that Vikings were specifically the warriors and raiders. It's not saying "all Swedes are bearded, horned helmet-wearning loonies", so it's a bit different than calling a team "the indians", referring to a people as a whole. "Braves" might work; IIRC it was a term for a young male warrior or hunter. I'm not finding it on the wiki page, though, so it may not be considered an acceptable term.
Ahtman wrote:Democratic Candidate Elizabeth Warren says she is 1/32nd Cherokee. Making such a claim isn't her problem. The problem is that she used that to claim minority status in college admittance and on her CV to get jobs, even being advertised as a minority Professor at Harvard Law.[/url]
Mannahnin wrote:I don't think so; I don't think anyone uses Viking to refer to a race or a people unless it's out of ignorance. The difference between calling a team the Vikings vs. calling them the Indians is that Vikings were specifically the warriors and raiders. It's not saying "all Swedes are bearded, horned helmet-wearning loonies"
That's a stereotype Mannahin. You should be ashamed.
The Modern Viking Goes Hunting
16.6.2006 Words by Ketill the Angry
The Modern Viking is a single man. He is the new standard for the swinging and easygoing, yet reliable and understanding gentleman, but as his name indicates, the Modern Viking must be a Viking as well as being Modern. Therefore he is in touch with his heritage and nationality, and knows that an attitude of overtly unrestrained sexual activity, and the advertising thereof, is out of the question.
Thus, the Modern Viking finds himself trapped in a social conundrum of sorts. How is he to remain modest and good-natured whilst still indulging in the earthly delights available to most single and attractive young men? There are many different ways to achieve this, and Odin knows that the Modern Viking has attempted quite a few himself. To assist his fellow, less experienced Modern Vikings, he has decided to mention a couple of alternatives to common male cock-ups in the dating game.
Try to keep up-to-date with pertinent imformation
In order to strike up a conversation with an attractive woman of breeding age, it is important to keep abreast of issues which might interest an individual of her social stature. This may or may not include popular music (“Have you heard the new Raconteurs album? I hear it makes for the most invigorating listen.”), publicly known individuals (“A minute avian informed me that Jude Law and Sienna Miller have reconciliated.”), or in the event that you yourself are approached and questioned on a subject, any little tidbit that could be related (“A cigarette? Why, certainly, but I fear they may have adverse effects on your health, madame[oiselle].”)
Be advised, though, the lady in question may not take too well to a Modern Viking that appears too interested and/or knowledgeable in her affairs (“A cigarette? But I thought I heard you tell your friend you were quitting when you accompanied her to the bathroom.”) or any affairs at all, for that matter (“A cigarette? With you being a westerner, I can safely assure you that you would not be asking me for one if not for the advent of the Crimean War, during which Russian soldiers would ration their western captives cigarettes as a gesture of good faith, following their defeat at Sevastopol...”). Also, it is important to be truthful and not exaggerate your knowledge on a subject (“A cigarette? It’s a widely known fact that people who smoke cigarettes spontaneously combust when they come into contact with giraffes and certain other even-toed ungulates.”). Above all, do not dominate the conversation and be receptive to her questions (“Why, yes I do go skiing now and again, but I think David Williams played drums for Augie March.”), and most importantly: Maintain your dignity. Never allow yourself to attempt to sidestep the conversation into dubious territory (“I only go skiing after sexually satisfying a woman, thereby making me a very experienced skier.”). This will only indicate shallow desperation and a directness unbecoming of a Modern Viking.
Only indicate interest in one woman
No woman takes kindly to being a Modern Viking’s second choice. Thereby it is important for the Modern Viking to constrain his interest in companionship to one person. He should approach just the one he desires the most and hint at unique qualities you may perceive her to have; although not necessarily with words. The Modern Viking simply listens closely to what she has to say, and agrees, where applicable, (“Yes, I too feel that John Kerry bears a striking resemblance to Bruce Campbell.”) or elaborates further to continue the conversation (“He also looks slightly like Hugh Jackman.”), or alternately, he may want to disagree and engage in some harmless verbal sparring (“No, I don’t think they look at all alike.
In fact, I think John Kerry looks much more like Whoopi Goldberg than Bruce Campbell.”).
Above all, the Modern Viking should try to give the impression that he is interested in her and her opinions alone, and is not simply in pursuit of an individual who can be coerced into bed with him (“I’d rather not talk about John Kerry when I’m trying to get laid.”) or someone to listen to his problems (“John Kerry has more in common with me than anyone else – we’re both losers.”). This gives the impression that the Modern Viking is desperate for somebody – anybody – and makes the object of your affection feel like gutter trash.
Also, the Modern Viking does not try to inspire jealousy by pitting one potential ‘companion’ against another (“I believe I heard that young lady over there declare that she could supress her gag reflex for an indefinite amount of time.”) or attempt to portray those who have enjoyed his intimate affections as an elite society she should feel ‘honoured’ to be a part of (“These hands only make contact with the finest of breasts.”). These portay the Modern Viking as being promiscuous and sex-obsessed, neither of which are qualities of the true Modern Viking.
One more thing: Under no circumstances whatsoever does the Modern Viking attempt to seduce two (“You both look so ravishing that I can barely decide which one to grope first.”) or more (“Alright, who in here wants to feth?”) women at the same time. The reasons for this are manifold and obvious.
Ahtman wrote:Democratic Candidate Elizabeth Warren says she is 1/32nd Cherokee. Making such a claim isn't her problem. The problem is that she used that to claim minority status in college admittance and on her CV to get jobs, even being advertised as a minority Professor at Harvard Law.[/url]
I just dropped by to give a big ol' facepalm for modern assessments of native blood claims. There are two opposing and annoying issues that come up all the time surrounding these kind of cases:
1) People try to appropriate native culture for their own regardless of actual blood. This leads to some pretty crazy offshoots. This is pretty true of most cultures though, even modern ones. (As a side note, this can also be used to gain the benefits of race in other areas, like college, etc so on.)
2) No other race in the US is held to the same standard of blood quantity in order to prove they are who they are. The opposite used to be true for African-Americans in the past (one drop rules), but Native Americans must prove their ancestry. I have intentionally never sought to register with my tribes because I don't really dig the whole idea of having to prove blood.
Can you imagine if she claimed to be Irish and there was this kind of press coverage? 'Genealogists found no evidence to support her claim of Irish ancestry."
Monster Rain wrote:Funny how touchy a people can be after being practically exterminated, amirite?
Although you're joking, I've actually had a lot of soul searching on that topic recently. Sometimes I wonder if we have been effectively exterminated at this point.
Native America is very much alive, but it has been so horribly crippled that it cannot continue in any recognizable form from what it was.
Of course, it doesn't help that I have largely abandoned the outward parts of my culture. Le sigh.
pretre wrote:2) No other race in the US is held to the same standard of blood quantity in order to prove they are who they are. The opposite used to be true for African-Americans in the past (one drop rules), but Native Americans must prove their ancestry. I have intentionally never sought to register with my tribes because I don't really dig the whole idea of having to prove blood.
I suspect if you were trying to claim some privilege or status based on African-American heritage and were not recognizable as such, somebody might ask for evidence. There's a reason tribes require proof: because you're entitled to a gak ton of benefits if you demonstrate you're an actual Native American.
pretre wrote:Can you imagine if she claimed to be Irish and there was this kind of press coverage? 'Genealogists found no evidence to support her claim of Irish ancestry."
Can you imagine if Harvard touted their commitment to diversity by claiming to have a person of Irish descent on their teaching staff?
biccat wrote:I suspect if you were trying to claim some privilege or status based on African-American heritage and were not recognizable as such, somebody might ask for evidence. There's a reason tribes require proof: because you're entitled to a gak ton of benefits if you demonstrate you're an actual Native American.
Would you though? Also, are African-Americans required to have a card that shows their blood quantity for proof purposes? I really don't think it would happen. Heck, what other race has to have a card to prove they are what they are?
Also, those benefits are HIGHLY dependent on the tribe. There's a big difference between making yourself dependent for casino checks and proving your blood. And this phenomenon (of 'benefits' for being indian) is much older than financial benefits. The history of registering with your tribe goes back quite some time to the period where Native Americans were specifically exempted from being citizens, despite naturalization.
Part of the reason that you situations like this is because many native americans of 100 years or so ago found it easier to leave their tribe, pass as other races ('black irish') and marry into families so as to get the rights that everyone else got. This creates a lot of difficulties in tracing ancestry for these kinds of families is that those ancestors did everything they could to hide their actual race and left no records for anyone to investigate.
Can you imagine if Harvard touted their commitment to diversity by claiming to have a person of Irish descent on their teaching staff?
'Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of African Ancestry'
'Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of Hispanic Ancestry'
'Private Detectives have found no evidence to support her claim of Lesbianism'
Whatever, no other race or diverse class would have to deal with this kind of thing. Regardless if they are considered a 'diverse' race or not.
Yes. If you don't look "black" you're going to have a tough time passing as "black."
pretre wrote:The history of registering with your tribe goes back quite some time to the period where Native Americans were specifically exempted from being citizens, despite naturalization.
There are a number of reasons why Native Americans were exempted from being citizens. Largely because the United States recognized the sovereignty of Native American tribes. It wasn't just the US asserting this, it was the tribes themselves that wanted to keep up their population.
pretre wrote:This creates a lot of difficulties in tracing ancestry for these kinds of families is that those ancestors did everything they could to hide their actual race and left no records for anyone to investigate.
Still, there should be at least some level of evidence, right? Should someone (who clearly appears to be European) simply be able to claim status as whatever race they want? Or should we ask for at least some level of proof?
pretre wrote:'Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of African Ancestry'
'Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of Hispanic Ancestry'
'Private Detectives have found no evidence to support her claim of Lesbianism'
Whatever, no other race or diverse class would have to deal with this kind of thing. Regardless if they are considered a 'diverse' race or not.
If she were claiming to be African, Hispanic, or a Lesbian, then yes, we should ask those questions.
Monster Rain wrote:Funny how touchy a people can be after being practically exterminated, amirite?
Although you're joking, I've actually had a lot of soul searching on that topic recently. Sometimes I wonder if we have been effectively exterminated at this point.
Though I couched it in a rather lighthearted post, I'm actually serious.
Based on this nation's history, I think that Native Americans have every right to be selective as to who receives benefit for being recognized as a member of that ethnic background.
One thing to keep in mind that in addition to being a race, the tribes are also actually nations and as such you are not simply a member of a race but also a citizen of the tribe.
So the "do you have to prove you are black" argument is not very relevant. A better example would be "could you claim US citizenship without proof".
Yes. If you don't look "black" you're going to have a tough time passing as "black."
Okay, but you are talking in generalizations. Name one specific instance where when applying for a job as 'black' you had to prove blood. We have one for native american as the OP.
There are a number of reasons why Native Americans were exempted from being citizens. Largely because the United States recognized the sovereignty of Native American tribes. It wasn't just the US asserting this, it was the tribes themselves that wanted to keep up their population.
Sure, sure. No disagreement.
Still, there should be at least some level of evidence, right? Should someone (who clearly appears to be European) simply be able to claim status as whatever race they want? Or should we ask for at least some level of proof?
Why shouldn't she? What if she wants to say she's Hispanic? Are we going to have this level of investigation to find which of her ancestors gave her that status?
If she were claiming to be African, Hispanic, or a Lesbian, then yes, we should ask those questions.
But it would never happen. Do you really think there would be a news article asking if she was a real Lesbian or just trying to get benefits for being one with sex-ologists investigating? No.
Show me one instance in recent history where someone was investigated for either of those three while applying for political office or really any job.
pretre wrote:Show me one instance in recent history where someone was investigated for either of those three while applying for political office or really any job.
Show me an example of a person that would be considered white that has run for office while claiming to be black and took advantage of Affirmative Action and you might have an argument. The problem isn't really just in claiming a shared heritage, the problem is when you want to, essentially, cash in on it. Once one takes the step from "This is who I am" to "This is who I am now gimme stuff because of it" another layer, such as even a cursory inquiry, comes into play and seems like a reasonable thing to consider.
If she had never taken money for school or sought hiring preference based on her heritage no one would care that much.
As to investigating those three, once being lesbianism, you better believe that Opposition Research investigators and people doing the vetting look for instances of homosexuality, or if openly gay, insistence of straightness.
pretre wrote:Okay, but you are talking in generalizations. Name one specific instance where when applying for a job as 'black' you had to prove blood. We have one for native american as the OP.
She's not required to "proove blood" for the job. She's required to "proove blood" to back up her prior statements. She can be a Senator regardless of her ancestry.
pretre wrote:Why shouldn't she? What if she wants to say she's Hispanic? Are we going to have this level of investigation to find which of her ancestors gave her that status?
I think we should.
pretre wrote:Do you really think there would be a news article asking if she was a real Lesbian or just trying to get benefits for being one with sex-ologists investigating?
I do. People question the sexuality and religious beliefs (which should, IMO, be off-limits) of politicians all the time.
pretre wrote:Show me one instance in recent history where someone was investigated for either of those three while applying for political office or really any job.
Nothing comes to mind offhand, but I'm sure they exist.
biccat wrote:She's not required to "proove blood" for the job. She's required to "proove blood" to back up her prior statements. She can be a Senator regardless of her ancestry.
Now you're just dancing around my statements. Fine, name one specific instance where a candidate made a statement of african-american ancestry and was questioned when they were running for office. Heck, name one instance where anyone had to 'prove blood' to back up their statements about ancestry. And god help us all if you go all birther on this.
pretre wrote:Why shouldn't she? What if she wants to say she's Hispanic? Are we going to have this level of investigation to find which of her ancestors gave her that status?
I think we should.
Really? Wtf business of anyone is it who your ancestors are?
I do. People question the sexuality and religious beliefs (which should, IMO, be off-limits) of politicians all the time.
But no one is asking them to prove they are straight or african american. Again, you are comparing people who say 'Rick Santorum must be gay since he is homophobic' to, 'Scientists say there is no proof of Rick Santorum's straightness.' It isn't the same.
Nothing comes to mind offhand, but I'm sure they exist.
biccat wrote:She's not required to "proove blood" for the job. She's required to "proove blood" to back up her prior statements. She can be a Senator regardless of her ancestry.
Now you're just dancing around my statements. Fine, name one specific instance where a candidate made a statement of african-american ancestry and was questioned when they were running for office. Heck, name one instance where anyone had to 'prove blood' to back up their statements about ancestry. And god help us all if you go all birther on this.
Again, find an instance of a white man/woman getting Affirmative Action or preferential consideration in hiring by claiming to be black and then running for office and you might have something. Odds are you will run into the same thing in which they are asked to back up their claims.
You are missing the point. There aren't any because no one would make the same uproar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically, other ethnicities are not treated to the blood test for admission. Although it would be a silly reversal of the one drop rule if someone was asked to prove they WERE an African American.
pretre wrote:You are missing the point. There aren't any because no one would make the same uproar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically, other ethnicities are not treated to the blood test for admission.
But again, tribal membership is also about Citizenship. If an opening depended on Irish, German, or Kenyan citizenship for admission, then applicants would have to show that they are citizens of these countries. And each country gets to set their own rules for who is considered a citizen.
Native tribes are nations, and they set the rules for who is considered a citizen of their nation.
It's not this:
"I am black", "OK"
"I am hispanic", "OK"
"I am white", "OK"
"I am native american", "Hold it right there!"
it is more like:
"I am a citizen of the 'xyz' tribe, here is my tribal card", "OK"
The proof is demanded by the actual tribe, not some random person.
Agreed that Citizenship is a different thing, but was she claiming citizenship? No.
Not all Native Americans are citizens of a tribe. In fact, some tribes aren't recognized so you can't be a citizen of them.
So it is 'hold it right there!' when someone claims they are NA. It isn't like she was collecting tribal benefits, citizenship or anything. She was claiming an ancestry.
Is a person of Irish descent not Irish because they don't hold Irish citizenship?
pretre wrote:So it is 'hold it right there!' when someone claims they are NA. It isn't like she was collecting tribal benefits, citizenship or anything. She was claiming an ancestry.
The main issue is that she did more than claim ancestry. She sought and recieved benefits based on that ancestry.
If a person of Irish descent wants to claim citizenship benefits from Ireland I imagine they in fact would have to prove they were a citizen.
pretre wrote:So it is 'hold it right there!' when someone claims they are NA. It isn't like she was collecting tribal benefits, citizenship or anything. She was claiming an ancestry.
The main issue is that she did more than claim ancestry. She sought and recieved benefits based on that ancestry.
If a person of Irish descent wants to claim citizenship benefits from Ireland I imagine they in fact would have to prove they were a citizen.
She did not claim citizenship benefits. She claimed that she had NA ancestry.
If a person of Irish descent wants to claim they are Irish, they have to prove nothing.
Citizenship is a red herring. Everything she got, she got from claiming ancestry, not citizenship.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, if she was trying to claim Citizenship, sure she would have to prove something, but she is not. She is claiming ancestry.
Ahtman wrote:Petre, read the thread again because, at best, you appear to have skimmed it. She did more than claim ancestry, she also claimed benefits.
No need to attack my reading comprehension. I read it. Also, there's an R in my username.
To your point, you are right. There is not a disagreement there. But she claimed benefits from ancestry, not citizenship.
Citizenship isn't a minority qualification, ethnicity is. No college says 'Oh we have a Professor who is a African American Citizen'.
I am not disagreeing that she received benefits, but citizenship has nothing to do with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's put it this way. If you were applying for a scholarship for hispanic youth, would they require you to provide proof of hispanic blood? Would they require you to provide proof of citizenship to a spanish speaking country?
Ouze wrote:There are an awful lot of problems with using that article as a foundation of an argument.
She's the one claiming Indian ancestry. She has the burden here, not her opponents. She met that burden initially by identifying an ancester of NA birth (great x4 grandmother). But that evidence has been refuted. So now we're back to zero evidence to support her claim.
pretre wrote:Let's put it this way. If you were applying for a scholarship for hispanic youth, would they require you to provide proof of hispanic blood?
Yes. You or your family (parents, grandparents) must be descended from at least one of the following countries: Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic. Students from Brazil are eligible to apply.
However, students from Belize, Guyana, Portugal, Suriname and French Guiana are not considered Hispanic.
pretre wrote:Let's put it this way. If you were applying for a scholarship for hispanic youth, would they require you to provide proof of hispanic blood?
No proof required, it just asks that you be of Polish Ancestry.
A. Applicant must be a citizen of the United States of America and of Polish ancestry.
NOTE: If not born in the U.S., submit evidence of U.S. citizenship, e.g., copy of pertinent passport page or provide date and ID number of Naturalization document.
Yes. You or your family (parents, grandparents) must be descended from at least one of the following countries: Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic. Students from Brazil are eligible to apply.
However, students from Belize, Guyana, Portugal, Suriname and French Guiana are not considered Hispanic.
Where is proof required? My point was that there is no requirement to provide proof, simply the assertion that you need to be of that ancestry.
So again, if you were applying for a scholarship, you wouldn't need to provide proof of blood for being hispanic. Back to you. Want to find some more links that make my point?
Ahtman wrote:Petre, read the thread again because, at best, you appear to have skimmed it. She did more than claim ancestry, she also claimed benefits.
How was she able to claim benefits when she have to present documentary proof of entitlement?
Ahtman wrote:Petre, read the thread again because, at best, you appear to have skimmed it. She did more than claim ancestry, she also claimed benefits.
How was she able to claim benefits when she have to present documentary proof of entitlement?
Were the documents forged?
I think Ahtman's point is that she got the 'benefits' of being a diversity pick for the staff by claiming ancestry. As with most ancestry claims, I'm sure no one made her provide proof so there was nothing to forge.
I don't think she received any other benefits other than that. (Unless inclusion in a cookbook is a benefit.) Someone may have seen something else though.
Ouze wrote:There are an awful lot of problems with using that article as a foundation of an argument.
She's the one claiming Indian ancestry. She has the burden here, not her opponents. She met that burden initially by identifying an ancester of NA birth (great x4 grandmother). But that evidence has been refuted. So now we're back to zero evidence to support her claim.
That contention is not present in the article you cited.
We're equally at zero evidence her claim is untrue.
Ouze wrote:There are an awful lot of problems with using that article as a foundation of an argument.
She's the one claiming Indian ancestry. She has the burden here, not her opponents. She met that burden initially by identifying an ancester of NA birth (great x4 grandmother). But that evidence has been refuted. So now we're back to zero evidence to support her claim.
That contention is not present in the article you cited.
We're equally at zero evidence her claim is untrue.
edit, underlined for clarity
There are two links, both of which are not every article available, and in one a Cherokee Genealogist says that they have found no evidence at all that there is any truth to the claim. Going on information available I imagine the expert in the field to be more reliable than 'my mom once told me that she heard'. That isn't equal evidence at all, that is expert testimony versus anecdotal.
Here is the "expert testimony" which, for some reason, you guys seem able to ascertain an opinion from:
“NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is,” said Tom Champoux, spokesman for the NEHGS. “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”
If you wish to determine a standing from that Rorschach I won't stop you, but I am not going to.
Additionally, these are the same experts that started earlier that they did have evidence, right? So I have to wonder about their competence and credibility.
Actually I think the term is "minority women." At the time Warren was hired, Harvard Law had zero non-white female professors. Warren was the first "minority woman" professor.
1996: "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic." 1998: "on hiring at Harvard Law School: Since 1989 the school has appointed to the faculty or voted tenure for four African-Americans, a Hispanic professor and eight women, including a Native American" 1998 (again): "Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"
Around that time Harvard was contending with the protest (and fallout therefrom) of Derrick Bell, a black tenured professor who complained about the lack of racial diversity at Harvard.
Ouze wrote:Here is the "expert testimony" which, for some reason, you guys seem able to ascertain an opinion from:
“NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is,” said Tom Champoux, spokesman for the NEHGS. “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”
If you wish to determine a standing from that Rorschach I won't stop you, but I am not going to.
Additionally, these are the same experts that started earlier that they did have evidence, right? So I have to wonder about their competence and credibility.
That isn't the Cherokee Genealogist that was interviewed so is not the statement I was referring to that you can listen to in the OP. If I have to venture a guess, I would say that the Cherokee Genologist that has looked into the matter of Cherokee Genealogy would probably have more experience in that specific area than the New England Historic Genealogical Society. Their databases and specialty is that of New England, which the Cherokee aren't from, which may account for the fact the NEHGS originally said that it was true, then shortly after changed it's statement to the one you listed.
Wait, we can cite breitbart as a legitimate source with a straight face now?
In all seriousness, the reason to leave race blank in a time when indians are being rounded up and 'deported' is pretty darn obvious. As I pointed out previously in this thread, a large number of native people tried to pass as white or dark skinned europeans in an effort to escape oppression.*
It is certainly not outside the realm of possiblity as well that a captor might fall in love with a captive. That's never happened before.
*My own family changed their name to a French Canadian name and left Canada in order to find a better life. My grandmother went to her deathbed denying that she was anything than a nice french-canadian woman.
Edit: I also would reiterate that this "storm in a teacup" would not have occured if she claimed any other ethnicity.
Kilkrazy wrote:If the Cherokee genealogist thinks this is a big deal and he has a strong case, he should lay his dossier before the relevant authorities.
Without doing that he just looks like a sour graper.
One, it was a she, which makes me wonder if you even listened to the interview before having an opinion on it. Two, it is a big deal, but not illegal so I don't know who the relevant authorities would be. They have taken it to the media and presented it to us so I am not sure what else is needed as far as that is concerned.
As for Briebart, there is a scan of the license, which is a neutral piece of evidence. The point of the license isn't that it proves she isn't, but considering that it was touted as specifically stating that it was the proof she was, which it does not.
They also have links to lots of other articles and research that aren't Briebart if you so desire. It isn't hard to do a google search. If you feel better here is one from a hotbed or conservative journalism, The Atlantic.
I'm not saying she is a terrible person or that she is disqualified from running for public office. I do think lying about one's ancestry to get a leg up is certainly not something we should pretend to condone either.
The question isn't whether a person can appear to be one thing but also be another, as we all know that is possible. This isn't 'oh she looks white so she can't be a Native', but 'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.
I don't think there is much more to add at this point and to keep it from dragging on endlessly I'll just go ahead and bow out. I will certainly read responses and consider them I just don't want to get to caught up on one topic.
pretre wrote:Wait, we can cite breitbart as a legitimate source with a straight face now?
People cite Huffington post pretty regularly, so yes.
pretre wrote:In all seriousness, the reason to leave race blank in a time when indians are being rounded up and 'deported' is pretty darn obvious. As I pointed out previously in this thread, a large number of native people tried to pass as white or dark skinned europeans in an effort to escape oppression.
It is certainly not outside the realm of possiblity as well that a captor might fall in love with a captive. That's never happened before.
Yes, but now you're in the realm of "total speculation."
Is it possible she is 1/32 (or less) Native American? Sure. Is there any evidence to support that? No. The only evidence she had that supported that assertion is nonexistant.
Ahtman wrote:They also have links to lots of other articles and research that aren't Briebart if you so desire. It isn't hard to do a google search. If you feel better here is one from a hotbed or conservative journalism, The Atlantic.
And that one is a bit more balanced. Having Native American ancestors is not uncommon and as listed in the article, a lot of people think they do when they do not necessarily have proof. The real point is, however, that if she said she had Indian (Asian) ancestors, no one would have batted an eye and asked her to prove it.
I do think lying about one's ancestry to get a leg up is certainly not something we should pretend to condone either.
Again, the Atlantic provides a much more balanced view on this. Elizabeth Warren really thinks that she is part Native American. Having met numerous 'white indians' over the years, it is not uncommon for someone to have native blood and not look it. She had no reason to think that her grandparents were liars. Why would she?
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.
The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "
How exactly did she profit?
The Atlantic Again wrote:If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.
The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "
How exactly did she profit?
She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.
The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "
How exactly did she profit?
She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.
Except I quoted the guy who brought her on and said that wasn't a factor.
I think you may misunderstand the idea of 'tribe'. I doubt he is getting on the rolls. It is like getting an honorary degree; you don't have a real degree, you just are being honored. They are making him part of the family, so to speak.
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.
The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "
How exactly did she profit?
She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.
Except I quoted the guy who brought her on and said that wasn't a factor.
Try again Pretre.... This was on her application to ATTEND the college.... not work for them.
The Atlantic article also says that the best she got for benefits was the cookbook. Both her college degrees were obtained without listing ethnicity (u of Houston and rutgers). Check the article.
The Atlantic wrote:The best argument she's got in her defense is that, based on the public evidence so far, she doesn't appear to have used her claim of Native American ancestry to gain access to anything much more significant than a cookbook; in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
Warren, who graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 and got her law degree from Rutgers University in 1976, did not seek to take advantage of affirmative action policies during her education, according documents obtained by the Associated Press and The Boston Globe. On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.
While a teacher at the University of Texas, she listed herself as "white." But between 1986 and 1995, she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty; the University of Pennsylvania in a 2005 "minority equity report" also listed her as one of the minority professors who had taught at its law school.
The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk ofNative American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.
"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."
He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary,the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."
"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.
That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."
Simply saying "No" on to the "Program for Minority Group Students" does not mean she didn't benefit from being considered as a minority for purposes of "diversity". She put it on her admittance form and application... I doing so her paperwork was automatically seperated into the "Minority" catagory for consideration. And at that time, "Minority" applicants were chosen first on that status then on test scores, usually with a lower score requirement.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."
If anyone thinks professors, especially law professors, get hired on the basis of "teaching ability" I have a metal span crossing a river linking two disparate plots of land that you may be interested in purchasing, for a modest fee.
Skimming through this thread, I noticed one thing that seemed off. Last I knew Cherokee nation required a minimum of 1/64th blood quantum. Which is why we have great NDN humour like;
Q: What do you get when you have 64 Cherokees in a room together?
A: 1 Fullblood.
The politician in question was an idiot. The fact we have people doing these things and checking boxes, and then affirmative action is silliness.
Harlen, host of Native America Calling radio show advocated during the last census, that we push for everyone in the country to self label as Native American.
@ pretre, I get it to be offended by the testing requirements, but that is how it is.
For those not in the know, the US Government set up the first test for tribal membership at 1/4 blood quantum, and used this for all kinds of reasons, allocation of commodities, whos children they stole to put into indian schools, etc.
Later it was left to each tribe to set its own membership standards, and most tribes kept the 1/4 blood requirement. There is constant debate about it all amongst a lot of tribes. Some wanting to lessen it to 1/8, some wanting to keep it how it is. There is a lot of warring within a tribe about who is more indian than whom, especially amongst kids.
The same is seen in the black communities, about who is black and less black, etc.
Yes a lot of people ditched thier tribal identity earlier on, so they could get the rights afforded by everyone else in the fledgling country. Black Irish, Black Danish, was the common label.
It is all a very complicated thing. The simple part is, she is an idiot, and her universities used that fact to make themselves look "diverse."
