This thread had gone way off topic so it's closed.

If we want to discuss Pocahontas then somebody can create a new thread.

It's Fauxcahontas.

Anyway, here's a new thread.

The problem is not her claiming to be something she's not. The problem is that she was touted as being the first tenured "woman of color" at Harvard, and presumably took the slot that would have gone to a real "woman of color" had she corrected the claim.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This thread had gone way off topic so it's closed.

If we want to discuss Pocahontas then somebody can create a new thread.

It's Fauxcahontas.

Anyway, here's a new thread.

The problem is not her claiming to be something she's not. The problem is that she was touted as being the first tenured "woman of color" at Harvard, and presumably took the slot that would have gone to a real "woman of color" had she corrected the claim.

Isn't that Harvard's fault? She got tenure before they found out she claimed native ancestry.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's Fauxcahontas.

Anyway, here's a new thread.

The problem is not her claiming to be something she's not. The problem is that she was touted as being the first tenured "woman of color" at Harvard, and presumably took the slot that would have gone to a real "woman of color" had she corrected the claim.

Isn't that Harvard's fault? She got tenure before they found out she claimed native ancestry.

She claimed it in college, long before she was even hired by Harvard.

The whole policy of taking people's ancestry into account in admission, hiring, and promotion decisions is despicable. Harvard is one of the worst offenders. But given that it's being done, and that her side of the political spectrum was the driving force behind the policy, she shouldn't have taken the faculty slot set aside for a "woman of color." Some other person who really was a "woman of color" missed out because of it.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Why so many on here seemingly afraid of Eliz. Warren? So much effort being made to denigrate her so far ahead of 2020. Does anyone actually see her heading the Democratic ticket in 2020? Really?

I realize that no matter how good the economy is Donald can't get over the 45% approval rating, and only some middle-aged, middle-class, angry white guys seem to support him, but I don't think that Elizabeth (Our National Nanny) Warren is going to be there to take him on. If he runs again.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Warren using a DNA test to try claim she has Native ties is embarrassing and completely ignorant to the indigenous people.

---

Why so many on here seemingly afraid of Eliz. Warren? So much effort being made to denigrate her so far ahead of 2020. Does anyone actually see her heading the Democratic ticket in 2020? Really?

I realize that no matter how good the economy is Donald can't get over the 45% approval rating, and only some middle-aged, middle-class, angry white guys seem to support him, but I don't think that Elizabeth (Our National Nanny) Warren is going to be there to take him on. If he runs again.

Afraid? I am actually disappointed that she decided to take herself out of the 2020 race in 2018 with this nonsense. Trump would have smoked her like a turkey.

How does it feel to hate the country you live in?

---

Why so many on here seemingly afraid of Eliz. Warren? So much effort being made to denigrate her so far ahead of 2020. Does anyone actually see her heading the Democratic ticket in 2020? Really?

I realize that no matter how good the economy is Donald can't get over the 45% approval rating, and only some middle-aged, middle-class, angry white guys seem to support him, but I don't think that Elizabeth (Our National Nanny) Warren is going to be there to take him on. If he runs again.

In what universe could you have possibly construed that anyone is afraid Elizabeth Warren? Your debate tactics need improvement.

---

Why so many on here seemingly afraid of Eliz. Warren? So much effort being made to denigrate her so far ahead of 2020. Does anyone actually see her heading the Democratic ticket in 2020? Really?

I realize that no matter how good the economy is Donald can't get over the 45% approval rating, and only some middle-aged, middle-class, angry white guys seem to support him, but I don't think that Elizabeth (Our National Nanny) Warren is going to be there to take him on. If he runs again.

In what universe could you have possibly construed that anyone is afraid Elizabeth Warren? Your debate tactics need improvement.

Adam2012 is concerned because this puts into context his claim to be Republican when he's only 1/1024th Republican.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Isn't that Harvard's fault? She got tenure before they found out she claimed native ancestry.

She claimed it in college, long before she was even hired by Harvard.

The whole policy of taking people's ancestry into account in admission, hiring, and promotion decisions is despicable. Harvard is one of the worst offenders. But given that it's being done, and that her side of the political spectrum was the driving force behind the policy, she shouldn't have taken the faculty slot set aside for a "woman of color." Some other person who really was a "woman of color" missed out because of it.

I generally agree, but Harvard didn't have a faculty spot set aside for a woman of color. One board, focused on legal scholarship, granted her tenure, then a totally separate board, focused on public relations and marketing, and later, touted her status as evidence of Harvard's commitment to give opportunities to minorities.  The timeline has been completely fleshed out by multiple investigations.

Yes, taking race into account for hiring and promotion is bad, no matter which race is favored.  Yes, Warren may have checked the box hoping to get special teeatment.  But so far no evidence has been presented that she actually got special treatment.

---

In what universe could you have possibly construed that anyone is afraid Elizabeth Warren? Your debate tactics need improvement.

Adam2012 is concerned because this puts into context his claim to be Republican when he's only 1/1024th Republican.

Kim Tallbear, a University of Alberta professor and author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science told The Atlantic. (Tallbear is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe and has written extensively on this topic.)

Additionally, having some Native American ancestry “proven” from a DNA test does not automatically mean that someone is or should be, say, a member of the Cherokee tribe. “People think that there’s a DNA test that can prove if somebody is Native American or not. There isn’t,” Tallbear told New Scientist. Tribal affiliation is about more than genetics. It is also about history, culture, and political identity. The same is true of every culture, but these issues are especially sensitive given the history of the Native Americans in the US.

Tallbear noted that it’s popular for white people to claim Native American ancestry, but “tribe” is a federally recognized status, and being Cherokee is about more than DNA analysis. And as DNA tests have become more and more widespread, people are showing up at tribal-enrollment offices with their results. “That worries us in a land where we already feel there’s very little understanding about the history of our tribes, our relationships with colonial powers, and the conditions of our lives now,” she said.

In a statement provided today, Tallbear pointed out that Warren shouldn’t continue to defend her ancestry claims despite refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation members that challenge her. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is indigenous,” Tallbear writes. “She and much of the US American public privilege the voices of (mostly white) genome scientists and implicitly cede to them the power to define indigenous identity.” Similarly, the Cherokee Nation said in a statement that “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/...ntity-politics

---

There is no evidence Warren's Native American heritage was a factor in Warren's hiring for a tenured position at Harvard or any other step in her career. The OP is piecing together an unrelated college application (of which I can find no source, one would be helpful, her application to Rutgers Law School says the exact opposite) with his dubious claim of some fathom minority set aside tenured position and arriving at a conclusion which magically supports a disdain of affirmative action. Shocking!

If it's not about the Pocahontas slur, if there's no reason to fear a Warren campaign for POTUS, why does Trump even bring it up? Oh, yeah...he loves to hear the cheers and jeers.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There is no evidence Warren's Native American heritage was a factor in Warren's hiring for a tenured position at Harvard or any other step in her career. The OP is piecing together an unrelated college application (of which I can find no source, one would be helpful, her application to Rutgers Law School says the exact opposite) with his dubious claim of some fathom minority set aside tenured position and arriving at a conclusion which magically supports a disdain of affirmative action. Shocking!

If it's not about the Pocahontas slur, if there's no reason to fear a Warren campaign for POTUS, why does Trump even bring it up? Oh, yeah...he loves to hear the cheers and jeers.

Trump also brought up creepy porn lawyer. Does that mean he fears a CPR campaign? Nope. It's all about pointing out the sheer lunacy of the folks you identify with RJ.

---

There is no evidence Warren's Native American heritage was a factor in Warren's hiring for a tenured position at Harvard or any other step in her career. The OP is piecing together an unrelated college application (of which I can find no source, one would be helpful, her application to Rutgers Law School says the exact opposite) with his dubious claim of some fathom minority set aside tenured position and arriving at a conclusion which magically supports a disdain of affirmative action. Shocking!

If it's not about the Pocahontas slur, if there's no reason to fear a Warren campaign for POTUS, why does Trump even bring it up? Oh, yeah...he loves to hear the cheers and jeers.

Oh you mean like when he said he would lock Hillary up and the crowd would go crazy and yet he's never even once actually tried to put her in jail?

I mean anyone can go ahead and love Trump but let's call a spade a spade here. He loves the attention and will say literally anything to get his fan base to go crazy.

---

Adam2012 is concerned because this puts into context his claim to be Republican when he's only 1/1024th Republican.

Kim Tallbear, a University of Alberta professor and author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science told The Atlantic. (Tallbear is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe and has written extensively on this topic.)

Additionally, having some Native American ancestry “proven” from a DNA test does not automatically mean that someone is or should be, say, a member of the Cherokee tribe. “People think that there’s a DNA test that can prove if somebody is Native American or not. There isn’t,” Tallbear told New Scientist. Tribal affiliation is about more than genetics. It is also about history, culture, and political identity. The same is true of every culture, but these issues are especially sensitive given the history of the Native Americans in the US.

Tallbear noted that it’s popular for white people to claim Native American ancestry, but “tribe” is a federally recognized status, and being Cherokee is about more than DNA analysis. And as DNA tests have become more and more widespread, people are showing up at tribal-enrollment offices with their results. “That worries us in a land where we already feel there’s very little understanding about the history of our tribes, our relationships with colonial powers, and the conditions of our lives now,” she said.

In a statement provided today, Tallbear pointed out that Warren shouldn’t continue to defend her ancestry claims despite refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation members that challenge her. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is indigenous,” Tallbear writes. “She and much of the US American public privilege the voices of (mostly white) genome scientists and implicitly cede to them the power to define indigenous identity.” Similarly, the Cherokee Nation said in a statement that “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/...ntity-politics

1) Unless Warren's DNA test was fraudulent, she definitely has a native ancestor.
2) That native ancestor could have come from any native tribe.  No specific native tribe has any duty to recognize her as a member. They are right that it's about identity, and DNA is only a small part of identity.  Warren, this week anyway, is clearly saying that she only claims native ancestry, not native identity.  These tribes are pushing back on a claim that Warren is not making.
3) DNA is not part of some "settler-colonial" definition.  It's just science.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Adam2012 is concerned because this puts into context his claim to be Republican when he's only 1/1024th Republican.

Kim Tallbear, a University of Alberta professor and author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science told The Atlantic. (Tallbear is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe and has written extensively on this topic.)

Additionally, having some Native American ancestry “proven” from a DNA test does not automatically mean that someone is or should be, say, a member of the Cherokee tribe. “People think that there’s a DNA test that can prove if somebody is Native American or not. There isn’t,” Tallbear told New Scientist. Tribal affiliation is about more than genetics. It is also about history, culture, and political identity. The same is true of every culture, but these issues are especially sensitive given the history of the Native Americans in the US.

Tallbear noted that it’s popular for white people to claim Native American ancestry, but “tribe” is a federally recognized status, and being Cherokee is about more than DNA analysis. And as DNA tests have become more and more widespread, people are showing up at tribal-enrollment offices with their results. “That worries us in a land where we already feel there’s very little understanding about the history of our tribes, our relationships with colonial powers, and the conditions of our lives now,” she said.

In a statement provided today, Tallbear pointed out that Warren shouldn’t continue to defend her ancestry claims despite refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation members that challenge her. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is indigenous,” Tallbear writes. “She and much of the US American public privilege the voices of (mostly white) genome scientists and implicitly cede to them the power to define indigenous identity.” Similarly, the Cherokee Nation said in a statement that “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/...ntity-politics

There is someone missing on the "fake" list: Donald J. Trump, rich and self-made millionaire.

Most of you wouldn't know a Republican if you fell over one. What you seem to be is a nationalist. Perhaps that's due to your German heritage.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Why so many on here seemingly afraid of Eliz. Warren? So much effort being made to denigrate her so far ahead of 2020. Does anyone actually see her heading the Democratic ticket in 2020? Really?

I realize that no matter how good the economy is Donald can't get over the 45% approval rating, and only some middle-aged, middle-class, angry white guys seem to support him, but I don't think that Elizabeth (Our National Nanny) Warren is going to be there to take him on. If he runs again.

Afraid? I am actually disappointed that she decided to take herself out of the 2020 race in 2018 with this nonsense. Trump would have smoked her like a turkey.

How does it feel to hate the country you live in?

This from a guy who fell for a con man's fake story. Is that loving your country - supporting someone for President who is a lazy, doltish con man? You're not feeling love of country. You're just an insecure middle-aged white guy looking for revenge. Hope looking like a sad person is worth it to you.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Kim Tallbear, a University of Alberta professor and author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science told The Atlantic. (Tallbear is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe and has written extensively on this topic.)

Additionally, having some Native American ancestry “proven” from a DNA test does not automatically mean that someone is or should be, say, a member of the Cherokee tribe. “People think that there’s a DNA test that can prove if somebody is Native American or not. There isn’t,” Tallbear told New Scientist. Tribal affiliation is about more than genetics. It is also about history, culture, and political identity. The same is true of every culture, but these issues are especially sensitive given the history of the Native Americans in the US.

Tallbear noted that it’s popular for white people to claim Native American ancestry, but “tribe” is a federally recognized status, and being Cherokee is about more than DNA analysis. And as DNA tests have become more and more widespread, people are showing up at tribal-enrollment offices with their results. “That worries us in a land where we already feel there’s very little understanding about the history of our tribes, our relationships with colonial powers, and the conditions of our lives now,” she said.

In a statement provided today, Tallbear pointed out that Warren shouldn’t continue to defend her ancestry claims despite refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation members that challenge her. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is indigenous,” Tallbear writes. “She and much of the US American public privilege the voices of (mostly white) genome scientists and implicitly cede to them the power to define indigenous identity.” Similarly, the Cherokee Nation said in a statement that “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/...ntity-politics

1) Unless Warren's DNA test was fraudulent, she definitely has a native ancestor.
2) That native ancestor could have come from any native tribe.  No specific native tribe has any duty to recognize her as a member. They are right that it's about identity, and DNA is only a small part of identity.  Warren, this week anyway, is clearly saying that she only claims native ancestry, not native identity.  These tribes are pushing back on a claim that Warren is not making.
3) DNA is not part of some "settler-colonial" definition.  It's just science.

1) They did not use Cherokee DNA, they used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
2 & 3) She claimed Cherokee status at Harvard, google it if you are not aware of the topic. If she was abiding by Cherokee standards, that meant she was claiming she was at least 1/16th Cherokee. It is the entire reason she is being mocked for her false claim.    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-native-ameri/

---

Afraid? I am actually disappointed that she decided to take herself out of the 2020 race in 2018 with this nonsense. Trump would have smoked her like a turkey.

How does it feel to hate the country you live in?

This from a guy who fell for a con man's fake story. Is that loving your country - supporting someone for President who is a lazy, doltish con man? You're not feeling love of country. You're just an insecure middle-aged white guy looking for revenge. Hope looking like a sad person is worth it to you.

Ugg, we are back to the "POTUS is lazy" thing again?  That liberal talking points wheel is running out of topics, huh?

---

Kim Tallbear, a University of Alberta professor and author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science told The Atlantic. (Tallbear is a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe and has written extensively on this topic.)

Additionally, having some Native American ancestry “proven” from a DNA test does not automatically mean that someone is or should be, say, a member of the Cherokee tribe. “People think that there’s a DNA test that can prove if somebody is Native American or not. There isn’t,” Tallbear told New Scientist. Tribal affiliation is about more than genetics. It is also about history, culture, and political identity. The same is true of every culture, but these issues are especially sensitive given the history of the Native Americans in the US.

Tallbear noted that it’s popular for white people to claim Native American ancestry, but “tribe” is a federally recognized status, and being Cherokee is about more than DNA analysis. And as DNA tests have become more and more widespread, people are showing up at tribal-enrollment offices with their results. “That worries us in a land where we already feel there’s very little understanding about the history of our tribes, our relationships with colonial powers, and the conditions of our lives now,” she said.

In a statement provided today, Tallbear pointed out that Warren shouldn’t continue to defend her ancestry claims despite refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation members that challenge her. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is indigenous,” Tallbear writes. “She and much of the US American public privilege the voices of (mostly white) genome scientists and implicitly cede to them the power to define indigenous identity.” Similarly, the Cherokee Nation said in a statement that “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/...ntity-politics

There is someone missing on the "fake" list: Donald J. Trump, rich and self-made millionaire.

Most of you wouldn't know a Republican if you fell over one. What you seem to be is a nationalist. Perhaps that's due to your German heritage.

I bet your DNA test will show 1/1028th German heritage..  So you are speaking about yourself.

---

There is someone missing on the "fake" list: Donald J. Trump, rich and self-made millionaire.

Most of you wouldn't know a Republican if you fell over one. What you seem to be is a nationalist. Perhaps that's due to your German heritage.

I bet your DNA test will show 1/1028th German heritage..  So you are speaking about yourself.

Wow - what a comeback. Hope you didn't spend too much time on that one. Talk about missing the point.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.