Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's not saying "all Swedes are bearded, horned helmet-wearning loonies"

He isn't wearing a horned helmet.

pretre wrote:Would you though?

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.

pretre wrote:

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".

biccat wrote:

pretre wrote:Would you though?

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.

Oh well then. Your point is obviously proven.

pretre wrote:

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.

Really? You really think if a white candidate claimed to be black that it wouldn't be questioned?

pretre wrote:And god help us all if you go all birther on this.

If you're going to make insulting comments, I see no reason to participate further.

biccat wrote:

pretre wrote:And god help us all if you go all birther on this.

If you're going to make insulting comments, I see no reason to participate further.

Oh come on, it's a joke. Lighten up. edit: Unless you're actually a birther, in which case you probably need to be more serious.

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:You are missing the point. There aren't any because no one would make the same uproar.

Really? You really think if a white candidate claimed to be black that it wouldn't be questioned?

To this same degree?

Edit: Also, you completely got me. I was like 'What? Does Futurama actually address this subject in an episode?' and clicked it. I lol'd.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Petre, read the thread again because, at best, you appear to have skimmed it. She did more than claim ancestry, she also claimed benefits.

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?

Unlikely.

Edit: Amusingly enough, the Hispanic College Fund does require you to prove you are an American citizen though. http://scholarships.hispanicfund.org/applications/subsectionID.1,pageID.231/default.asp

biccat wrote:Turns out she's probably not even 1/32 Cherokee.

Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of Cherokee ancestry.

There are an awful lot of problems with using that article as a foundation of an argument. For example, your sentence could be accurately rephrased as "Same geneologists who said she had cherokee ancestry now say maybe not, they aren't really sure anymore, aren't taking a position on the matter; and why did they even get interviewed for this article".

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?

Lets put it this way: Yes.

Also, Yes.

Do I have to be Hispanic/Latino to apply?

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.

biccat wrote:

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?

Lets put it this way: Yes.

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?

Were the documents forged?

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

It all sounds a bit like...

Kilkrazy wrote:It all sounds a bit like...

Pretty much.

biccat wrote:

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

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.

Personally I don't really think it matters that much either way, myself. She has minority status from being a woman...