FOX NEWS is the MEDIA OUTLET FOR WHITE SUPREMACISM

[_mikwut]

Ok. So not one responded to what my point was and what I supplied ample evidence for. I'll try again. There is a clear distinction between claiming oneself American Indian from a purely ethnicity standpoint and from a true heritage or tribal affiliation. I stated clearly and plainly that due to her legal education and professorship the issue of the importance of tribal affiliation would have been known to her. She undeniably would have had the knowledge to check her mother's lore of Cherokee on the internet for heaven's sake. But she put herself out as a minority and this is problematic for several reasons. It gives the race joining virtue signaling and it undermines diversity programs, especially a program as difficult as Harvards. Here's another article clearly explaining what she did, I have added there is no way she didn't understand the distinction. https://theintercept.com/2018/10/16/eli ... n-harvard/

To even attempt to respond to Trump's challenge (which is admittedly a big goof as well) was a demonstration of her still attempting to put off some kind of blood in her lineage as applicable to what she did by claiming the minority status at certain points. My point in my above post was to demonstrate she knew about this distinction even before becoming a professor and yet she still claimed this. That is a problem.

I don't care about a horse race between Trump and her concerning what is more problematic. My overall point to E and Gunnar was that folks so sensitive to race and diversity should not give a pass to this, it is a problem that doesn't deserve to simply be granted a total pass with the mama and papa family lore.

I am not going to answer the racist questions. I clearly stated that I don't think Trump is a white supremacist and I don't think Elizabeth Warren is racist for the cheekbones i think they both get face palms from me and I already said that. It isn't me that has to respond to hypocrisy or I am woke with Warren but not with Trump. I am pointing the hypocrisy finger at you guys that make racism such an enormous issue but seem to have a narrow focus and don't make such a stink elsewhere.

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

mik,

If she knew and she knows. What was her motive?

[_moksha]

What is the FoxNews dog whistles I am just too dumb to see that are white supremacist?

mikwut

Too dumb to see is such a harsh expression. Why not use the expression "choose not to see"?

[_canpakes]

mik,

If she knew and she knows. What was her motive?

The distinction mikwut wants to impose is somewhat telling. For mikwut, Warren is a racist who apparently can never atone for her intentional sins of claiming some NA heritage committed for no identified nefarious reasons other than family folklore. But, Trump? He’s just a silly goofball who accidentally repeats racist and emotionally-charged statements every second hour of every day. But, no worries about that, right?

Warren must be ostracized from polite society and eliminated from serious consideration as a candidate, but no-one should be allowed to mention any of Trump’s actions, because that would be ... hypocritical?

[_EAllusion]

mik,

If she knew and she knows. What was her motive?

The distinction mikwut wants to impose is somewhat telling. For mikwut, Warren is a racist who apparently can never atone for her intentional sins of claiming some NA heritage committed for no identified nefarious reasons other than family folklore. But, Trump? He’s just a silly goofball who accidentally repeats racist and emotionally-charged statements every second hour of every day. But, no worries about that, right?

Warren must be ostracized from polite society and eliminated from serious consideration as a candidate, but no-one should be allowed to mention any of Trump’s actions, because that would be ... hypocritical?

Mikwut is saying they are equally unserious or serious. He decides to go with unserious. While he is willing to say Trump is "worse" that is a meaningless concession because at the end of the day, you either say both are horrible racists or not. Trump being a walking Stormfront poster whipping up fear and rage in his supporters equals "goofball" behavior that, while worse than Warren's, isn't so bad. But because you or I might think this is serious, he thinks consistency dictates we should be appalled by Warren to the point of writing her off as a racist.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ok. So not one responded to what my point was and what I supplied ample evidence for. I'll try again. There is a clear distinction between claiming oneself American Indian from a purely ethnicity standpoint and from a true heritage or tribal affiliation. I stated clearly and plainly that due to her legal education and professorship the issue of the importance of tribal affiliation would have been known to her. She undeniably would have had the knowledge to check her mother's lore of Cherokee on the internet for heaven's sake.

For heaven's sake the internet wasn't around when she was claiming Native American heritage.

EA already explained this well enough. I'll just go on to add that your "hypocrisy on the left" narrative is just dumb.

And about that "internet" thing... I've been googling a lot about this and it seems that outside of the Native American's critical response to Warren, that there is actually an established basis for claiming Native American ancestry via DNA results...

What are the most typical requirements for membership?

Each tribe has a base roll which was established, usually, in the early 20th century, listing the members of the tribe at that time. Your first challenge will be to prove direct lineal descent from someone listed on that base roll. Then you must prove that you have the required level of blood quantum – the percentage of your genetic make-up that is native by bloodline. Most tribes require a 1/4 blood quantum – that is, you must be at least one-fourth Native American – but note that the Eastern Band of the Cherokees requires that you be only 1/16 or higher to join, and the Cherokee Nation has no minimum quantum restriction, so long as you can prove descent. There may be other conditions for membership as well: requirements for tribal residency or continued contact with the tribe are common.

Am I 1/16 Native American?

I was told by my grandmother that her grandmother was full blood Native American. Can any of my results be wrong??

It's quite common for people who think they should have some Native American DNA not to have any in the test. One very common reason is that family stories of Native American ancestry aren't true--have you found a paper trail on your grandmother's side of the family that would back up her grandmother being Native American? Secondly, even full blood Native Americans usually weren't actually 100% Native American, they often had varying degrees of European already, so your 1/16 on paper might be a lot less than that if grandma's grandma was only 75% or 50% Native American DNA. And whether you have 1/16 or something less, ethnicities don't split 50/50 every generation so it could have diluted out completely by the time it got to you. Then add on top of that the fact that most of Ancestry's reference database of Native Americans are from Latin American not US/Canada, so even if you do have a smidge of Native American there might not be anything in the database that's close enough for it to match you with that.

To me the fact that she bothered to do DNA testing shows that she never tried to intentionally mislead anyone as she clearly believed, based on family lore, that she had Native American ancestry - and she does. When Native American groups got upset about her claims it seemed to have more to do with the fact that it was eliciting racial slurs from critics including the President.

The presidential hopeful "reached out to us and has apologized to the tribe," Cherokee Nation executive director of communications Julie Hubbard said in a statement. "We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests," Hubbard added. "We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end."

[_EAllusion]

Anyway, here is a list of things Donald Trump himself has called racist:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -that-way/

For some strange reason I'm sure none of us can figure out, it turns out that what Donald Trump finds racist either involves 1) people of color or 2) people who have condemned his racism or 3) both.

There are two exceptions. Donald Trump once condemned David Duke as a racist. Most recently, this was back when he was considering running on the reform party ticket and his main challenger would've been Pat Buchanan. Of course, Donald Trump the Republican party candidate is just a more overt, less polite version of Buchanan without the religious conservatism, though with the backing of religious conservatives. That version of Donald Trump claimed to have no idea who David Duke was.

The other exception is he condemned the Charlottlesville demonstrators in remarks written for him that he read like it was a hostage video. When given the chance to speak extemporaneously on it, he clarified that there were very fine people in the "blood and soil" crowd and we shouldn't be quick to condemn all of them.

[_EAllusion]

When Native American groups got upset about her claims it seemed to have more to do with the fact that it was eliciting racial slurs from critics including the President.

Your quote here:

The presidential hopeful "reached out to us and has apologized to the tribe," Cherokee Nation executive director of communications Julie Hubbard said in a statement. "We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests," Hubbard added. "We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end."

Explains what upset Native American groups. Warren's response was tin-eared and fed into the idea that being Native American is about having the right "blood" while eliding the importance of cultural heritage and actual participation in a tribe. After getting a ton of flak for it, she seems to have figured this out and has subsequently apologized.

[_canpakes]

Mikwut is saying they are equally unserious or serious. He decides to go with unserious. While he is willing to say Trump is "worse" that is a meaningless concession because at the end of the day, you either say both are horrible racists or not. Trump being a walking Stormfront poster whipping up fear and rage in his supporters equals "goofball" behavior that, while worse than Warren's, isn't so bad. But because you or I might think this is serious, he thinks consistency dictates we should be appalled by Warren to the point of writing her off as a racist.

Yes, all racism is the same. Right? ; )

Maybe I’m crazy, but I think that intention and intensity factor into the discussion, and mikwut is pretending that neither exist or matter.

To that, add what you are saying above - promote a false balance between the two ... but then add actual hypocrisy into the argument by claiming Warren’s transgression demands atonement yet Trump’s should be ignored for the good of all.

It’s just goofy.

[_canpakes]

The other exception is he condemned the Charlottlesville demonstrators in remarks written for him that he read like it was a hostage video. When given the chance to speak extemporaneously on it, he clarified that there were very fine people in the "blood and soil" crowd and we shouldn't be quick to condemn all of them.

You can always tell which parts of his public statements he has been forced to read by some adult in the room, based on his delivery.