The Massacre that started the Alt-Right

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
I don't care what Herbert & Krugman said nearly 30years later (post Reagan's death).

Looks like the overwhelming majority of the nation thought Reagan a pretty good candidate....




Even more so, after he had 4 years on the job....




Doubt we'll ever see electoral maps that look like this again (in either color).
The majority of people in our Nation thought slavery was fine at some point. That most people did it/supported it isn't a strong argument and certainly stands as no argument contributing to whether or not a person was racist.

Another Reagan chart we will likely not see again

imrs6.php_.jpg

He ushered in the era in which the "fiscal conservative" party wasn't actually fiscally conservative.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
The majority of people in our Nation thought slavery was fine at some point. That most people did it/supported it isn't a strong argument and certainly stands as no argument contributing to whether or not a person was racist.

Another Reagan chart we will likely not see again

View attachment 611

He ushered in the era in which the "fiscal conservative" party wasn't actually fiscally conservative.
bloody keynesian
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
it's easy for us White people to dismiss such things but that's literally white privilege.
White privilege....lmao. If white privilege is a real thing, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian..? Why did Rachael Dozeal lie about being Black..? Why didn't Obama identify with his maternal side..? o_O

The only group of people it's perfectly acceptable to make fun of, or actually discriminate against today, are white people. Specifically, white men. Even more so if they are conservative, heterosexual, & bonus points if they are religious.

I don't buy into the white privilege myth at all. Not even a little bit. The only real privilege anyone has in 2019, is financial privilege.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
White privilege....lmao. If white privilege is a real thing, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian..?
It must be unsubstantiated claim day ;)

She did not lie about being Indian. She claimed (based on family stories) she had Native American ancestry. She then had a DNA test that was analyzed anonymously by a Stanford expert in Indigenous American DNA, in which he found she did in fact have distant Native American ancestry via small segments of Native DNA.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people that like to lie about what was said, claimed, and what happened.

She is not Native American, she does descend from Native Americans. Much like I'm not Black but via DNA I have confirmed I likely have at least 3 Black ancestors and like Elizabeth Warren my grandmother and possibly my father also show small amounts of Native American DNA so I too likely descend from an "Indian" or two somewhere.

It is in fact racist to suggest someone can recognize say their distant English, Irish, French, etc heritage but not Native American (not saying that you are or aren't specifically doing this, but people out there challenge a recognizing of an immigrant era Native ancestor but not European ones).

Why did Rachael Dozeal lie about being Black..?
What does that have to do with anything? Certainly has nothing to do with the privilege white people have of ignoring racism by White people against others, the specific context of mine you are responding to.

Why didn't Obama identify with his maternal side..? o_O
I mean... come on.... you know the answer right? You have to. That society looks at him and he looks Black, so society identified him as such. Likewise in everything I've seen he fully recognizes and identifies with his 50% white ancestry (I mean he was raised quite a bit by his white grandparents) even if it's not what people see and identify him as).

Honestly this is victim blaming. Why does a 50/50 person identify as Black when society has long forced those people to be identified as such. They didn't make society set those rules, neither did you or I, but there's no way I will believe you are ignorant to them.

The only group of people it's perfectly acceptable to make fun of, or actually discriminate against today, are white people. Specifically, white men. Even more so if they are conservative, heterosexual, & bonus points if they are religious.
This is white privilege IMHO. Something I've been guilty of myself growing up and spending most my life all of the things you listed.

"equality feels like oppression when you're used to privilege"

Basically a certain group of us White people are finally losing some of our overwhelming majority (though still remain the largest block) and have to face what other groups have faced all along at harder levels. See us poor White people have the indignity of having to put up with being called racist! Others dealt with their discrimination by being lynched, beat, run out of town, or legally segregated.

Due to such a long history of White privilege even the softest consequence of not being in overwhelming power, of being faced with basic verbal criticism leaves us screaming about discrimination. There is no right not to be criticized, that is simply a consequential right of being overwhelmingly empowered.

It's hard to share your toys when you're an only child.

I don't buy into the white privilege myth at all. Not even a little bit. The only real privilege anyone has in 2019, is financial privilege.
You realize that not having to buy into white privilege is itself part of white privilege. Just like there's a lot of rich people who don't buy into financial privilege due to that privilege.

There are in fact basic facts. Black people are nearly 3x more likely to be poor than White people. That financial privilege you speak of is in fact race biased against Black people and for White people. Not an opinion, an actual fact. Those biased poverty levels for Blacks that are going strong today have existed since the creation of the United States. It has never not been here and especially became relevant when slaves were freed and went from slavery to racially biased poverty.

See it's easy for you and I to understand financial privilege since we both grew up poor. It's far harder to face and understand a privilege we didn't have to experience the downside of.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
It must be unsubstantiated claim day ;)

She did not lie about being Indian. She claimed (based on family stories) she had Native American ancestry. She then had a DNA test that was analyzed anonymously by a Stanford expert in Indigenous American DNA, in which he found she did in fact have distant Native American ancestry via small segments of Native DNA.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people that like to lie about what was said, claimed, and what happened.

She is not Native American, she does descend from Native Americans. Much like I'm not Black but via DNA I have confirmed I likely have at least 3 Black ancestors and like Elizabeth Warren my grandmother and possibly my father also show small amounts of Native American DNA so I too likely descend from an "Indian" or two somewhere.

It is in fact racist to suggest someone can recognize say their distant English, Irish, French, etc heritage but not Native American (not saying that you are or aren't specifically doing this, but people out there challenge a recognizing of an immigrant era Native ancestor but not European ones).
Come on man...!!! She was touted as a minority at Harvard...!! She benefited from claiming she was Native American. She claimed minority status for benefit. That is ridiculous. Many years later.... she had a DNA test claimed 1/1024...!! hahahahahaha. Don't drink the kool aid Matt. She's dirty on this subject.

This is white privilege IMHO. Something I've been guilty of myself growing up and spending most my life all of the things you listed.

"equality feels like oppression when you're used to privilege"

Basically a certain group of us White people are finally losing some of our overwhelming majority (though still remain the largest block) and have to face what other groups have faced all along at harder levels. See us poor White people have the indignity of having to put up with being called racist! Others dealt with their discrimination by being lynched, beat, run out of town, or legally segregated.

Due to such a long history of White privilege even the softest consequence of not being in overwhelming power, of being faced with basic verbal criticism leaves us screaming about discrimination. There is no right not to be criticized, that is simply a consequential right of being overwhelmingly empowered.

It's hard to share your toys when you're an only child.

You realize that not having to buy into white privilege is itself part of white privilege. Just like there's a lot of rich people who don't buy into financial privilege due to that privilege.
o_Oo_Oo_O We'll never agree on this subject.
There are in fact basic facts. Black people are nearly 3x more likely to be poor than White people. That financial privilege you speak of is in fact race biased against Black people and for White people. Not an opinion, an actual fact. Those biased poverty levels for Blacks that are going strong today have existed since the creation of the United States. It has never not been here and especially became relevant when slaves were freed and went from slavery to racially biased poverty.
Nonsense. Hardly a fact. The results, or achievements may be different but, the system is not racist against black people. Hardly. If anything it's slanted in their favor. Plenty of poor people of all backgrounds, become successful. On the flip, plenty of people who grew up poor, never overcome being poor. Nobody is held back today (2019) solely because of the color of their skin. That is ridiculous.
See it's easy for you and I to understand financial privilege since we both grew up poor. It's far harder to face and understand a privilege we didn't have to experience the downside of.
I've dealt with many obstacles in life. I've been discriminated against (for multiple reasons), at one time or another in my life. I didn't let it bring me down, or use it as an excuse.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Regarding the Southern Strategy with Nixon, targeting racists whites during this era, and Ronald Reagan as well as dog whistles. One of the most revealing interviews is that of Lee Atwater (which was kept anonymous until his death, likely due to the off the record part), I've censored one specifically offensive word that will be obvious. This was while he was serving in Reagans administration in 1981.

----
Lee Atwater: That should be a first of his. Now in 1968, the whole Southern strategy that Harry had put together, the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. And now they don't have to do that.All you gotta do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues his campaigned on since 1964. And that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, you know that old cluster of being tough with national defense. And it's going to be very hard for Reagan to lose.

Alexander Lamis: Whether he, I'm not saying that he does this consciously, but the fact is that he does get the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by doing away, by cutting down on food stamps.

Lee Atwater: Here's how I would approach that issue as a statistician or a political scientist. Or as a psychologist, which I'm not, is how abstract you handle the race thing. Now once you start out, and now you don't quote me on this, you start out in 1954 by saying 'ni****, ni****, ni****.' By 1968 you can't say 'ni****,' that hurts you, backfires, so you say stuff like ‘forced bussing, states rights’ and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now you're talking about cutting taxes and all these things. What you’re talking about are totally economic things, and the byproduct often is Blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded, that we're doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.

Do you follow me?

Because obviously sitting around saying, 'we want to cut taxes, we want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the bussing thing, and a hell of lot more abstract than, 'ni****, ni****.'

So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.

----

The great part is even being off the record how he back pedals some, but then just talks how obviously these things are interpreted as dog whistles. This is an audio recording and I recommend hearing it, he's speaking very casually, and speaks in patterns trying to avoid admitting anything but kind of like "wink wink" but

"So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner."

This doesn't mean any talk of those issues are dog whistles, but if someone critical to many Republican campaigns and key Republican individuals can easily identify these things as obvious dog whistles, as more "abstract than , ''ni****, ni****.' then no one else has any excuse now for not recognizing that these things were in fact used as dog whistles by some people and communicated here in some politics.

The interesting thing with this is he spells this out, but also tries to make a defense for how in supporting Reagan they can avoid those dog whistles and just talk economics... but just take some time and look for the things that Reagan said, if they match up to these dog whistles.

This is why politics can be soul sucking. You can see how someone might self justify saying things that are dog whistles away. Thinking, hey I don't believe these things, if I happen to say things that others might interpret as racist motivations and decide to vote for me, what do I care? I'm not racist.

This is why I personally make no claim on whether Reagan was racist or not. Did you knowingly use dog whistles, I consider this highly likely. He was a very smart and clever man. He was surrounded by people like this that were also very smart and clever. He is not the only one to do this. Though they did it more subtly Democrats also embraced this in the moderate democrat era of the 90s lead by the Clintons. People from both parties were part of this. The difference of course is most of those White democrats admit now they were wrong to do it, they are honest with the history of it.

I still don't know how people can deny the Southern Strategy and Southern switch, look it's easy in simple presidential maps.

Here's 1956... 8 years before the Civil Rights Act would be signed into law

All pictures from:
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/



Here's 1960 during the lead up towards the Civil Rights act



Here's 1964, this was a couple months after the Civil Rights of 1964 was signed into law


The Republican that lost was Barry Goldwater and the coalition that founded during his run and were motivated to surge in his loss is often considered by many (of either political affiliation, many books on this subject) as the foundation of the modern Conservative/Republican movement. Whether or not Trump means a new era different from that I won't touch, but it's all important history.

So people talking about pre 1864 Democrats in regards to much of the south doesn't equally apply to Democrats after that. It wasn't a binary switch, all went A or B... if you look at the other Southern States who didn't switch in that last chart they are all close to. Most States history (anywhere) aren't absolutes, but there are in fact trends and patterns and ignoring history is dangerous.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Come on man...!!! She was touted as a minority at Harvard...!! She benefited from claiming she was Native American. She claimed minority status for benefit. That is ridiculous. Many years later.... she had a DNA test claimed 1/1024...!! hahahahahaha. Don't drink the kool aid Matt. She's dirty on this subject.
You now me better than this, you make a lot of claims and offer no substance. This is in fact a subject I researched a couple years ago (this was a smaller issue that made a tiny blip long before Trump made it a big issue with his racist "Pocahontas" insult, and to clarify I mean racist by using an iconic and respected cultural figure as analogous with a racial pejorative, which pretty much by definition is racist) quite a bit. On some forms she mentioned having Indian heritage, that directory was used for some random newsletter sort of article and lists. There has in fact been quite extensive investigation on this and all her colleagues as well as those who hired her never considered her Indian (most if not all even knew she had some Native ancestry). In fact when she was hired (I believe it was at Harvard) she was very clearly considered White and had to be justified vs hiring a minority via regulations. I won't go into it more, there's plenty out there. There's no basis for this claim, there is in fact data and facts out there on that and at most there is the tiniest of criticism (the sort we all can be subjected to). You pulled these stock propaganda lines on the wrong person man ;)

On the DNA thing, you are pulling false lines on the wrong person again. I am heavily involved in genetic genealogy having done autosomal and Y DNA tests on my tests, including a comprehensive Big Y test. Doing Y DNA testing on my uncle, great uncle, wife's brother, and autosomal DNA testing on at least 4+ relatives. I am a co-admin of my own surname's DNA project (The Langley Surname Project). I have spent a great deal of time reading about and studying for myself small segments of autosomal DNA that show up Native American and African. I am not an expert by any means but I am an active amateur and most people criticizing the DNA test have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

I highly recommend you don't rely on political talking points and verify the data you are referring to, or just not cite it. No it wasn't 1/1024. Here's the report

http://templatelab.com/bustamante-report-2018/

You can research Bustamante but he is in fact a leading expert in Native American DNA studies, someone I've seen on genetic related problems as an expert long before this test.

Some important citations

----
The analysis also identified 5 genetic segments as Native American in origin at high confidence, defined at the 99% posterior probability value.

...

The largest segment identified as having Native American ancestry is on chromosome 10. This segment is 13.4 centiMorgans in genetic length, and spans approximately 4,700,000 DNA bases.

...

Conclusion. While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago
----

5 high confidence segments is significant. This means that even if one beats the odds and is wrong the others are still likely accurate. Meaning she does have Native ancestry (or more accurately there is a high degree of likelihood she does, much like having a paper trail to an immigrant ancestor means it's highly likely not absolute, DNA being more reliable in a general sense). Likewise the 13 cM size of the largest segment is significant. This is large enough to reach the 98-99%+ chances of being IBD.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent

Where you see the oft repeated 1/1024 is the 10 generations upper range. The reports means 1/64-1/1024 of her ancestry is Native American. I know you are good enough with numbers to know that these numbers are closer than one might presume. As the source stated thats 6-10 generations ago. Meaning 6 generations is 4x great grandparents and 10 generations are 8x grandparents.

Roughly meaning 6 generations = 180 years (30 years per generation as a rough genealogical guide) meaning someone born 1770 and 10 meaning someone born roughly 1650 from when Elizabeth Warren was born. Both correlate with common sources of immigration for White American ancestors which contained cultures people regularly identify with. For example someone my have a Scottish last name like my wife's paternal ancestry Gilchrist. That might be their only Scottish line but they identify with Scottish heritage. The same for English, French, Irish, German, etc.

For someone reason people want Elizabeth Warren to treat this cultural bridge ancestor different than how most Americans treat all their European ancestors.

The DNA proves she has Native American heritage, not that she's Native American, and that's all she claimed. She is doing nothing different than countless other Americans.


o_Oo_Oo_O We'll never agree on this subject.
Quite possibly, I'm always good agreeing to disagree.

Nonsense. Hardly a fact. The results, or achievements may be different but, the system is not racist against black people. Hardly. If anything it's slanted in their favor. Plenty of poor people of all backgrounds, become successful. On the flip, plenty of people who grew up poor, never overcome being poor. Nobody is held back today (2019) solely because of the color of their skin. That is ridiculous.
Your argument doesn't address the nearly 3x poverty rate Black people have and doesn't even really challenge the other fact I pointed out that Black people have never been on equal footing with inherited poverty. Even if one were to believe Black people aren't actively held back today (something I disagree with, but can ignore since it's not relevant) that doesn't mean they don't suffer from the greater povery of their race in the past and how heavily poverty is in fact inherited and how low mobility is.

I've dealt with many obstacles in life. I've been discriminated against (for multiple reasons), at one time or another in my life. I didn't let it bring me down, or use it as an excuse.
Said like a White person who has white privilege who can easily dismiss a type of discrimination you may have never faced. I'm sorry but you are making the argument for White privilege right there. You say you believe in financial privilege but it contradicts that very claim you make right there as well.

Like it or not but the facts are that if you're black you are far more likely to be born poor and have to deal with the bad end of that financial privilege you specifically mentioned. Not an opinion, this is simply a fact. Now you or I may have bucked the odds and grew up poor and White, that doesn't dismiss the trends in the data and a racial disparity that is simply a fact and does exist (whatever you argue the causes are).
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
She never claimed she was an Indian...??? Maybe this is fake..?!










Your argument doesn't address the nearly 3x poverty rate Black people have and doesn't even really challenge the other fact I pointed out that Black people have never been on equal footing with inherited poverty. Even if one were to believe Black people aren't actively held back today (something I disagree with, but can ignore since it's not relevant) that doesn't mean they don't suffer from the greater povery of their race in the past and how heavily poverty is in fact inherited and how low mobility is.
I've never said that there weren't higher rates of poverty among black folks. I'm challenging that our country is racist against black folks.

Said like a White person who has white privilege who can easily dismiss a type of discrimination you may have never faced. I'm sorry but you are making the argument for White privilege right there. You say you believe in financial privilege but it contradicts that very claim you make right there as well.
No. Said like a person who could've ended up in prison, or a perpetual state of poverty myself. As an adult, I'm a product of the decisions I've made in life. Both good, & bad. Is anybody else responsible for their own plight in life..? At what point do people become responsible for the decisions they make ? Lots of people make bad decisions, or suffer from the bad decisions of their parents. Plenty overcome them, regardless of their skin tone. Having said that plenty don't. Yet, it doesn't make our country racist because some people, or groups of people don't.

Like it or not but the facts are that if you're black you are far more likely to be born poor and have to deal with the bad end of that financial privilege you specifically mentioned. Not an opinion, this is simply a fact. Now you or I may have bucked the odds and grew up poor and White, that doesn't dismiss the trends in the data and a racial disparity that is simply a fact and does exist (whatever you argue the causes are).
That disparity, doesn't automatically default to racism, or a government that discriminates against folks based on their skin tone.
 
Last edited:

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
@5fish ,
Most definitely Google Ku Klux Klan endorses Calvin Coolidge. I am not arguing Coolidge supported the Klan. However with 14 million white adults in the KKK by the early 1920s Coolidge was not in a position to condemn the Klan either. Definitely different views on Coolidge being either friendly or hostile to the Klan. Not dissimilar to whats happing know with Trump.
Kirk's Raider's
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Not dissimilar to whats happing know with Trump.

It may be more dissimilar than you may think. Trump show open sympathy towards white nationalist and supremacists... I do not know if Coolidge was openly sympathy towards the Klan...
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
It may be more dissimilar than you may think. Trump show open sympathy towards white nationalist and supremacists... I do not know if Coolidge was openly sympathy towards the Klan...
Not so sure about that read or Google "for decades the Ku Klux Klan endorsed political candidates." Philip Bumbs Washington Post.
Coolidge never condemned the Klan and was called out for that by the NAACP. Fred Trump the Donald's father was arrested at a 1927 Klan March in Queens.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
While Fred Trump then 21 was arrested at the May 30 Memorial Day Parade in 1927 Queens it is unclear if Trump was or was not a Klan's men. Trump's charge's were dropped and the Grand Jury Association President of Queens condemned the NYPD for brutality.
Unclear if Fred Trump opposed or supported the Klan as a young man. On the other hand Fred and Donald Trump were fined for housing discrimination.
Kirk's Raider's
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
She never claimed she was an Indian...??? Maybe this is fake..?!
She was told by her mother and others in the family she had Indian heritage. Would you not believe your mother if she told you had Indian heritage in your family...

I have a story: My mom is a Guard from the Northeast coast of North Carolina and she told me growing up that our ancestor shipwreck off that coast and decided to stay in America. I told this story to a Liberian in Currituck county, NC., who handles ancestry and she laughed out loud for a while. She went on to tell me everyone around there has the same story in their family folklore... My point is for years I thought my ancestor was shipwrecked and stayed in America because my mom told me. It is a false story but I believed it to be true until I learned otherwise.

@Viper21 this shading of MS. Warren is nothing but foolishness... I could tell you some folklore on my dad's side of the family. I learned to be false as well... My point is we do not question our family history from our parents... until we learn otherwise so when Ms. Warren was doing her thing she was believing it was true...

My question to you, your thoughts on Lee Atwater and the bringing the Dixiecrats to the Republican party without using the N-word...
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
She was told by her mother and others in the family she had Indian heritage. Would you not believe your mother if she told you had Indian heritage in your family...
Far cry from believing you have "Indian Heritage", & claiming your race as American Indian. Or being claimed as a "woman of color" by Harvard.
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
You know how many white looking Americans I have met that said they had an Indian ancestor... I do not get the throwing shade at her for she was misinformed by family... Let's get back to Lee Atwater and the Republicans... and Dixiecrats...
You missed, or ignored, the actual point of my post.

Far cry from believing you have "Indian Heritage", & claiming your race as American Indian. Or being claimed as a "woman of color" by Harvard.

She filled out official forms, & registrations listing American Indian as her race. There is significant difference in claiming you have some Indian heritage vs. trying to pass yourself off as Native American. She was counted in the statistics as a minority. She was featured by Harvard, as a "minority law teacher" .

If someone can't see the difference between, ... a person believing they have Indian ancestry vs. someone actually claiming Native American as their race (when they clearly aren't)..... it's because one doesn't want to.

For the record. My wife is a card carrying member of an Indian Nation. Her paternal great grandmother was 100% Native American. My wife checks white, on census forms. My children are eligible for membership in the same Indian Nation. They claim their race as white, even though it would benefit them to claim Native American (in their careers, etc), & they legally could. Why don't they..?? Because they are majority white. My wife, & even my children, have more Native American blood than Elizabeth Warren does....
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
She never claimed she was an Indian...??? Maybe this is fake..?!





So I can't believe you don't know what you're doing, genuinely I know you do. Cherry picking random things and twisting it into the false exaggerated narrative you placed. I specifically (and clearly) was talking about her DNA results and releasing those in which she claims Native American ancestry not to be Native American herself. Again you must know this.

I never argued she never claimed being Indian in her entire life, that is not what she's claiming now and you didn't address my point at all by ignoring the massive amount of information and investigations out there where they again interview and consul massive amounts of former colleagues, employers, etc. I can only guess you literally went out cherry picking for anything that fit your narrative and ignored the massive amount of things that don't. If you don't know this then please research this, a great article on this that is the most comprehensive here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html
This article points out why your last image doesn't mean what you think it means.

Your #1 image is valid and again doesn't contradict the context of our conversation, which is the present claims including those surrounding the DNA. She has publicly apologized for the few times she mentioned it in the past. I'm sure there's some other random ones that people haven't even uncovered, on the other hand there are a lot of times she didn't in fact. At the time she believed what many Americans do, their family stories about Native ancestry. Being involved in genealogy I can't even tell how many times I've heard these same stories, including my own. In fact some of the DNA i found was in one of the areas of ancestry in which I had no stories lol. It's a naive thing many White (and Black) Americans do, including Warren in the past (which again she mentioned). I'll add (and if you read the articles pointing to it you probably know this already) this is in fact a more recently discovered piece of data. Likely new to me (like I said I spent time in the past looking into this and found it mostly simple mistakes and again countless evidence that still stands it didn't really benefit her in any provable way). This is something that should be criticized (though not as sharply as people are, I elaborate that on the bigger paragraph below so I won't get into it, most people talking on this don't understand tribal membership rules, or understand being "Native American" is in fact hard to specify) but that's it. She made a mistake on a document in the 80s. This doesn't discount again the countless evidence that this didn't benefit her (and the fact that it only recently came out pretty much supports that even this was something largely irrelevant on some paperwork).

Your #2 image is basically what I pointed out myself, where in various directory references she included she had Native American heritage and it was included in various other resulting articles etc.

Your #3 image... This probably contradicts your point. You realize under race she checked "Other" and the other options were "Black" "Oriental" and "Mexican American." If anything this looks like specifically asking if you are a minority that probably qualifies under some sort of equal opportunity scenario, "Other" being for all that don't fit. The image just doesn't include enough information (but again that would be the most likely assumption based purely on what was spliced into that image).

Additionally not all tribes require a specific blood quantum. The Cherokee Nation for example (the big federally one in Oklahoma, vs the Eastern Cherokee tribe and various other smaller ones) doesn't. Not sure if he's still the Chief, but a few years ago the Principal Chief John Baker was only 1/32nd Cherokee himself. The Principal Chief during the Trail of Tears period was John Ross who was only 1/8th himself (and favored the support of the older more pure blood Cherokees in fact). What they require is an ancestor on a specific role, which Warren hasn't claimed and doesn't have. So singling out DNA being small is actually a misnomer regarding tribes, some do but others don't require it. Keep in mind there are many different tribes as well. Many aren't federally recognized but are indeed recognized by States. It gets very complicated fast if your familiar with this area, again something I've spent quite a bit of time researching myself. Many tribe members (again even in the biggest federally recognized Cherokee Nation) look White and have similar levels of blood to Warren. This doesn't make them not Native and certainly doesn't mean she can't represent her ancestry. Many of the major tribes that survived longer did so by intermixing. This resulted in very early European blood being introduced and that often increased over time.

You are trying to find anything to attack her on, don't believe the propaganda, like anyone there are things to criticize her in this but they aren't what you are claiming and they're not what one side is pitching them as. It's amazed me at how many people have responded with complete ignorance regarding what her DNA test was and what she said it was, most of those people are completely ignorant to the entire range of subjects regarding it.

I've never said that there weren't higher rates of poverty among black folks. I'm challenging that our country is racist against black folks.
Then you agree poverty is racially biased in America. Even if one were to believe racism ended at some date magically, let's say 1980. The poverty rates have never equalized, ever. So the heritage of racism is still an inherited cost on Black people. This was a good portion of what I've been specifically talking about.

No. Said like a person who could've ended up in prison, or a perpetual state of poverty myself. As an adult, I'm a product of the decisions I've made in life. Both good, & bad. Is anybody else responsible for their own plight in life..? At what point do people become responsible for the decisions they make ? Lots of people make bad decisions, or suffer from the bad decisions of their parents. Plenty overcome them, regardless of their skin tone. Having said that plenty don't. Yet, it doesn't make our country racist because some people, or groups of people don't.
Mobility stats show the reality. There are a lot of very hard working poor people that stay poor. There are a lot of lazy bad decision making rich people that stay rich.

Also I'm sorry but you aren't a product of just the decisions you made in life. You could get struck by lightning, get hit by a car, etc. Even if you are extremely safe your life could have ended for various reasons completely out of your control. Yes plenty of people pay the consequences from their bad decisions, but there are countless things outside of our control. We have an influence for sure, I too worked hard to get out of the poverty I was raised in. I saw plenty of people who failed to do so and didn't. Though plenty work hard and make equally good decisions but are just unlucky. Something like the Great Recession that wasn't that long ago is a stark reminder of this. I was fortunate that the industry I chose left me in high demand and getting raises while others were laid off and met with relentless competition in looking for more work. Things happen and industries rise an fall, regional situations rise and fall, natural disaster can hit, random accidents, etc.

I stand by my point, you said you believe in financial privilege while plenty of rich people have the luxury of denying it. Likewise when you are the dominant race it's easy to dismiss racism.

That disparity, doesn't automatically default to racism, or a government that discriminates against folks based on their skin tone.
No but it is here at least because of a history of racism. Black people have always been far poorer in America and in much of history it is because of racism. Poverty is often inherited. People who break out of it are far fewer than those that don't. Like it or not but racism is why that stat is still slanted. Stopping the racism doesn't dramatically correct it, that would take deliberate action.

Again I still disagree racism doesn't exist. I mean I grew up with racism around me (and within me) in my White conservative group (despite going to a school that was equal white and hispanic but with a small portion of african american too). Denying racism is part of that racism. It doesn't mean every White person is racist, it doesn't even mean that all uses of the label of racism are valid. Though denying it does in fact damage our society in a way that's easy for us White people to ignore.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
You missed, or ignored, the actual point of my post.

Far cry from believing you have "Indian Heritage", & claiming your race as American Indian. Or being claimed as a "woman of color" by Harvard.

She filled out official forms, & registrations listing American Indian as her race. There is significant difference in claiming you have some Indian heritage vs. trying to pass yourself off as Native American. She was counted in the statistics as a minority. She was featured by Harvard, as a "minority law teacher" .

If someone can't see the difference between, ... a person believing they have Indian ancestry vs. someone actually claiming Native American as their race (when they clearly aren't)..... it's because one doesn't want to.

For the record. My wife is a card carrying member of an Indian Nation. Her paternal great grandmother was 100% Native American. My wife checks white, on census forms. My children are eligible for membership in the same Indian Nation. They claim their race as white, even though it would benefit them to claim Native American (in their careers, etc), & they legally could. Why don't they..?? Because they are majority white. My wife, & even my children, have more Native American blood than Elizabeth Warren does....
Just to clarify, unless your wife or children have done a DNA test you can't be sure of that final claim. What you can claim is tribe recognized blood quantum. That is not the same as DNA. Europeans were intermixing with many major tribes quite early, much of it was tracked, not all of it was, additionally autosomal DNA is not inherited equally. This is why the DNA analysis on Warren said such a big range of 6th-10th generation (which even that is just a guess). If you show up 20% Native DNA for example that doesn't mean 1/5th of your ancestry is in fact Native American. You inherit 50% of each of your parents autosomal DNA. This means you might inherit the portions of DNA that a 50/50 parent has that is European for example, more than their Native side, or the opposite. Combine this with each generations back (to the power of 2 of course) and you can see how the DNA can mix basically randomly.

A great grandmother for example, you have 4 great grandparents. That means that roughly 25% of your DNA came from them. That isn't even exact though, something in the range of 20%-30% for example (there are better stats on this out there, but we're talking about odds and ranges not what a specific person has). That means your wife doesn't have 75% (or say 70%-80%) of that ancestor. Maybe she inherited a smaller portion of that DNA. Likewise again many tribes have untracked older European DNA from the early mixing days.

Blood quantum is not DNA proportion, it's not even a guarantee of that many Native Ancestors either. It is a tracked method of ancestry and like all tracked methods can have flaws as well.
 
Top