A point about Elizabeth Warren's Native American Ancestry

:lolup::rofl2:

Trump lapdog

You missed my earlier post on this thread about how lefties are limited in how they can respond to the post of mine that you quoted.

Lefties can only bark and growl in reply to my post the way an angry dog in a cage does. There are no counter arguments that can be made about it.

As usual, I was able to predict how you would respond. Your next post will NOT contain any legitimate arguments to my post, only more of what I already predicted.
 
You missed my earlier post on this thread about how lefties are limited in how they can respond to the post of mine that you quoted.



As usual, I was able to predict how you would respond. Your next post will NOT contain any legitimate arguments to my post, only more of what I already predicted.

From 16 months ago. It still applies.

“6/30/17

I predict Evmetro will post some babbling piece of bullshit and when people reply to point that out, he will respond with a juvenile “I told you so!”

Thank you in advance for proving me correct.”

Thanks for validating my prediction from over a year ago.
 
Which Pocahontas do think it is offensive to, the white one, or the Native American one?

What is offensive is using the name of an historical figure as a racial slur for a person today, based merely on them sharing some ancestry. If it helps, picture it in a context where your political prejudices would run the opposite direction. For example, picture if Hillary Clinton started referring to Ben Carson as "Shaka Zulu." She'd rightly be called out for her racism, just as those who are calling Warren "Pocahontas" are being called out for theirs.
 
What is offensive is using the name of an historical figure as a racial slur for a person today, based merely on them sharing some ancestry. If it helps, picture it in a context where your political prejudices would run the opposite direction. For example, picture if Hillary Clinton started referring to Ben Carson as "Shaka Zulu." She'd rightly be called out for her racism, just as those who are calling Warren "Pocahontas" are being called out for theirs.

Pocahontas is the absolutely perfect word to use to mock a white chick who attempts to hijack rightful claims to Native American Indian Heritage. She had absolutely NO right to make ANY claim to it, but she hijacked it to use as leverage for her personal gain. Shame on her. I can't believe the left is defending such whiteness, and I can't believe they are not calling it out how racist she is for hijacking Indian Heritage that she is not entitled to.
 
Pocahontas is the absolutely perfect word to use to mock a white chick who attempts to hijack rightful claims to Native American Indian Heritage. She had absolutely NO right to make ANY claim to it, but she hijacked it to use as leverage for her personal gain. Shame on her. I can't believe the left is defending such whiteness, and I can't believe they are not calling it out how racist she is for hijacking Indian Heritage that she is not entitled to.

What was the personal gain?

Babble on.
 
What was the personal gain?

Babble on.

Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory. Critics note that she had not done that in her student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas.

"the real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

Domer, the biggest problem now, is that she and the left continue to claim that she is somehow entitled to claim some American Indian Heritage, in spite of a dna test that shows she is as white as white can be. 1/1000% of any race is not enough to make ANY claim to having that heritage.
 
What was the personal gain?

Babble on.

Harvard Law School officials listed Warren as one of several minority hires in 1996.

“Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic,” then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura told the Harvard Crimson in a 1996 article.

Chmura later told the publication that Warren was the first woman with a minority background to be tenured at HLS.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co...a_minority_hire_really_university_should_have
 
Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory. Critics note that she had not done that in her student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas.

"the real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

Domer, the biggest problem now, is that she and the left continue to claim that she is somehow entitled to claim some American Indian Heritage, in spite of a dna test that shows she is as white as white can be. 1/1000% of any race is not enough to make ANY claim to having that heritage.

Pathetic failure to prove your claim. Just Metrobabble

“Warren started her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87).[59] During this period Warren used to teach Sunday School.[60] Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[61]

Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Penn to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[59] As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who had attended law school at an American public university.[61] Warren was a highly influential law professor. Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren.”
 
Pathetic failure to prove your claim. Just Metrobabble

“Warren started her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87).[59] During this period Warren used to teach Sunday School.[60] Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[61]

Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Penn to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[59] As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who had attended law school at an American public university.[61] Warren was a highly influential law professor. Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren.”

It looks like that stuff you posted has already been filtered and edited for lefties. You didn't post links like I did, so I am not sure what lefty source you used. No big deal though, since you are fighting for the left. Evince probably won't request a source link from you.

Yep, she hijacked Indian Heritage for personal gain. She is America's whitest racist for doing this.
 
Pocahontas is the absolutely perfect word to use

Only from the perspective of a racist. For those who do not see ethnic slurs as acceptable ways of framing political critiques, it's a disgusting plunge into a fetid sewer.

I can't believe they are not calling it out how racist she is for hijacking Indian Heritage that she is not entitled to.

As you know, she didn't "hijack Indian Heritage." Instead she pointed out her own Native American ancestry. This resulted in the usual faux outrage from the right, who have no policy ideas and so they're forced to rely entirely on scandals and pseudo scandals to confront their political foes. It's the same crew who spent years pretending they thought Obama was born in Kenya. Pathetic.
 
As you know, she didn't "hijack Indian Heritage." Instead she pointed out her own Native American ancestry.

Stop shielding America's whitest racist. 1/1000% of ANY race in a person's DNA does not mean that the person can claim that as their heritage. That white racist is as white as they come, and she hijacked heritage that she is not entitled to. Shame on white Pocahontas, and shame on you for defending this ugly Heritage thief.
 
As you're keenly aware, she does, in fact, share ancestry with Native Americans.

Claiming to share heritage with a people who make up 1/1000% of her DNA is downright fraud. She stole from Native American Indians, and they are not happy about it. She absolutely does not share any heritage with American Indians.
 
As you're keenly aware, she does, in fact, share ancestry with Native Americans.

25% DNA just barely entitles a person to claim heritage, and 50% of mine goes unrecognized. 10% is probably past the limit of what is legitimate.

!/!000 and staking a claim = fraud, theft, lying, cheating racist.
 
Stop shielding America's whitest racist.

Trump? I have NEVER shielded him.

1/1000% of ANY race in a person's DNA does not mean that the person can claim that as their heritage.

She said she had Native American ancestry, based on family stories. Turns out she was right. I understand this really hurts your feelings, since the orange one committed the loonies on the right to denying it, but now you know you were wrong. Accept your mistake, learn from it, and move on. Throwing a tantrum with racist epithets merely calls attention to your error.
 
Claiming to share heritage with a people who make up 1/1000% of her DNA is downright fraud.

First, can we all just take a step back and have a good laugh at how absurdly horrible right-wingers are with basic elementary-school-level math? The actual expert claim was that she had a Native American ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago. Obviously, that's between about 1.53% and 0.10%. 1/1000% would be 0.001%. You're off by two orders of magnitude from the low-end estimate and by three orders of magnitude from the high end. A two-orders-of-magnitude error would be akin to me estimating that Donald Trump weighs 12 tons. It takes a special kind of poor education to screw up that big.

Anyway, setting aside your severe difficulties with mathematics, her claim was about ancestry. She said that her family history spoke of distant Native American ancestors. We've long known she was telling the truth when she recounting hearing those stories, since even right-wing members of her family have confirmed that oral history. Now we also know that those stories, themselves, were truthful, since she does, in fact, have distant Native American ancestors. This has triggered an epic meltdown among the right-wing snowflakes, since they hate the idea that Trump led them into such an embarrassing situation. So now they're trying to pivot to vague attacks about how it's wrong to claim a heritage (whatever that means) without some specified DNA component.

She stole from Native American Indians

You know perfectly well she did nothing of the sort. Even if, in some metaphysical sense, she made a claim to that heritage, based on distant ancestry, that doesn't steal anything. That heritage is still there for anyone who had it before.
 
Warren claimed Indian blood back long ago. She never claimed she was an Indian with a huge percentage. Never. That is Emertos claim over and over. Not Warrens. . Her DNA test proved she was correct, just like she said, a trace of Indian heritage. Scientific proof. Glad that discussion is over and settled.
 
25% DNA just barely entitles a person to claim heritage

According to what? Let's say, for example, that among the passengers of the Mayflower were four of my own ancestors. Would I be entitled to claim that Pilgrim heritage? Well, based on an average generation length of 30 years, that was about 13 generations ago. So, I'd have about 8,192 grandparents at that point. Four out of 8,192 would be about 0.05%. Far less of my DNA would consist of that of Mayflower passengers than Warren's does of Native Americans. Yet, should that mean I have no right to claim Pilgrim heritage? If so, then I suppose just about nobody could claim heritage based on pretty much anything from before a couple centuries ago, since those contributions from our ancestors would be incredibly diluted by now.

I don't recognize an arbitrary DNA percentage cut-off for when someone can claim heritage. Tribal affiliation is another matter. That's a political thing, determined by those who control those political units. In the same way that a nation can deny someone citizenship even if she can prove she's 100% descended from people of that nation, a Native American tribe can deny membership to whoever their own internal rules determine. But Warren isn't trying to claim tribal membership. She's just pointing out, correctly, that she has some Native American ancestors. For some reason, this has reduced right wingers into blubbering messes.
 
Back
Top