Author Topic: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?  (Read 5203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2018, 05:59:56 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28212
  • Tommy Points: 2152
i luv this thread  ;D

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2018, 06:08:13 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13884
  • Tommy Points: 1536
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person (for senate) solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 06:47:05 PM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2018, 06:15:24 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3813
  • Tommy Points: 254
Why has nobody brought up that only a sadist would want to move up and in the university faculty racket.

It's nuts, as evidenced by the twisted hiring, course and committee assignments, and (where not already dead) tenure review processes.  That's if one survives the politics-heavy patronage system of graduate school and post-docs.

 But looking beyond that... my take is that, frankly, I don't care, other than I don't care for a liar and cheat. The college hiring game is crooked as anything, and the notion of looking for a reason to get her through as a matter of faculty hiring politics...it is very plausible that she was encouraged to go with it. As a French-Canadian-Irish-Norwegian male, I have been told I'd be lucky to keep consistent adjunct work, likely to be regulated to last-minute assignments once the folks whose names were needed in the catalog were taken care of. If she stretched it to get her foot in that horrid door, I don't care.

Cultural appropriation?  It's not like she's running around taking about 'my people' the natives, or has been. She's not carrying her files around in a hand-weaved basket. It has not been central to her public service agenda, so far as I know.

It was a way for a bully to taunt and ridicule her. She told the family story in the national political realm. She was ridiculed and bullied more. She (finally) has some sort of possibly corroborating evidence to support the family story. If that's it, if this is about validating her family story and revealing the prez as a jackhole, then all should be well and good, as this seems solid enough for that purpose.

Cherokee?  Whateve.  What should have happened here is the Cherokee Nation, rather than pitching a fit, should have invited her to visit the Native's museums and restaurants  to learn about the Cherokee nation and culture, and recommended books by tribal members, etc. It would've been great advertising. But they probably don't have one.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2018, 06:30:23 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37038
  • Tommy Points: -27542
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2018, 06:45:35 PM »

Online knuckleballer

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4535
  • Tommy Points: 418
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.

I'm curious to your thoughts on Bloomberg?  There's talk of him running.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2018, 07:05:38 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13884
  • Tommy Points: 1536
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.

I'm curious to your thoughts on Bloomberg?  There's talk of him running.

To Roy: I'm in agreement generally about Biden -- I think he's an OK candidate, doesn't move me -- but of the "usual suspects" makes a decent Trump opponent.  To knuckleballer's suggestion, I am pretty high on Bloomberg.  He offers a lot of what Trump does without many of the negatives -- therefore he'd be a candidate who could pull votes from republicans. With the SCOTUS firmly in the hands of conservatives, it's possible that some R's will let go of that as a primary motivator, and be open to getting Trump out.

 Both Bloomberg and Biden are on the old side -- Biden 75 and Bloomberg 76 -- meaning both would turn 80 in office.  That's pushing it a little for POTUS.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2018, 07:43:14 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1130
  • Tommy Points: 105
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.

Color me skeptical but after years of watching republicans reflexively obstruct anything the last democratic president wanted to do and repeatedly call their democratic colleagues a mob, criminals and a bunch of other non-sense I just can't see how the two sides would find common ground. I think a democratic president could go 90% of the way to the republican side and still never get a single member to break ranks and actually work with him. And before anyone mis understands I think if roles are reversed and there was a republican president and democratic congress you'd get the same obstructionism. The two halfs of this country are just too far apart, theres been too much bad blood.


I think democrats should go the other way, do what the republicans do and give the country a clear picture of what you stand for. Make the case for a more socialist government, if you arent going to find common ground at least make it clear what you stand for.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2018, 08:16:17 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13884
  • Tommy Points: 1536
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.

Color me skeptical but after years of watching republicans reflexively obstruct anything the last democratic president wanted to do and repeatedly call their democratic colleagues a mob, criminals and a bunch of other non-sense I just can't see how the two sides would find common ground. I think a democratic president could go 90% of the way to the republican side and still never get a single member to break ranks and actually work with him. And before anyone mis understands I think if roles are reversed and there was a republican president and democratic congress you'd get the same obstructionism. The two halfs of this country are just too far apart, theres been too much bad blood.


I think democrats should go the other way, do what the republicans do and give the country a clear picture of what you stand for. Make the case for a more socialist government, if you arent going to find common ground at least make it clear what you stand for.

I think you've described exactly what the dems will do.  Unfortunately, I don't see this as a winning strategy.  To me the winning strategy needs to be total focus on one thing: Beat Trump. Reject Trump. Get him out of our lives.   

While most Americans ascribe to some "socialisitic" ideas -- protections for those in need: elderly, disabled, hungry children -- equal education opportunities, affordable healthcare... -- most Americans will not tolerate the label "socialist", and Trump will easily brand a true progressive dem as a socialist. 

I am completely convinced that there is a majority (or at least a plurality) of Americans who would embrace a pragmatic, moderate, centrist in the Baker, Kasich, Bloomberg Lieberman mold -- who wouldn't appeal precisely to either party's ideology but would be tolerable to both. 

We've gone from divided to hateful in the last two years -- I'm not sure how much more Donald Trump this country can endure.  I am disgusted (pretty much) by the current Dem options, and I am disgusted that no decent R seems to be willing to take on Trump in the primaries.  Jeff Flake seems like a good guy, but I think he would get chewed up by Trump in a NY minute.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2018, 08:24:05 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 241
  • Tommy Points: 96
The only relevance to me is in the hope that this will ultimately lead her either to not run for POTUS, or for democratic voters to withdraw support for her if she does run.  She isn't a winning candidate anyway and it would be great for her to be out of consideration. 

As far as her role in the US Senate, she provides a progressive voice and that is fine with me.  She joins the dozens of less than ethical senators -- and I've come to accept a lower bar for ethics at that level of government.  Not that I'd go much lower than misrepresenting one's racial status on an application, but if I'm not disqualifying for things like extra-marital affairs or purposely misstating an opponents policy view, use of an illegal drug, perhaps a DUI conviction -- I suppose Warren's transgression is in the ballpark of many of her colleagues.  I don't think I'd refuse to vote for a person solely on any of the above... but that's me. 

On the other hand, I think we need a morally unblemished leader to replace the current POTUS -- I'd like that person to be as honorable and admirable as possible. Dems should not be saying "we've got our own candidate with questionable ethics", they should be putting forth a nominee who can be a credible polar opposite to the liar we have in the White House.  Liz is disqualified as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is all pretty fair. I hate that many of our prominent politicians have a layer of slime on them, but objectively, Warren only minorities sticks out for her sliminess.

I think Biden has the nomination on lock down. He is obviously credentialed, but he doesn’t strike me as the post-Trump unifier we need. He’s more respectable than Warren, Harris, Booker, etc., but he’s certainly a dedicated partisan.

I would love a morally-centered version of Bill Clinton to arrive. We need somebody who says “screw it, I’ll work with a Republican Congress, so long as they’ll work with me”.  Get something, give something.

I'm curious to your thoughts on Bloomberg?  There's talk of him running.

How about Hickenlooper?!?!

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2018, 08:52:14 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13884
  • Tommy Points: 1536
Just saw Carly Fiorina on Anderson Cooper.  I don't particularly care for her politics, but would love for her to challenge Trump in the primaries.  She is articulate and strong.  One on one in a debate situation, I think she'd be one of very few who could skewer him.   I doubt she'll run again, but hope she does. 

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #100 on: October 18, 2018, 08:59:15 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3676
  • Tommy Points: 615
Even you have to admit that she is a minuscule amount from your link:

Quote
It started with a Boston Globe report, which initially indicated that the test showed she was at best 1/32nd Native American and possibly just 1/512th Native American. After confessing twice to a math error, the Globe corrected the numbers to 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. That would translate to between 98.44 percent and 99.9 percent not Native American.

Mike Reed, the RNC spokesman who circulated the Times article, said in response: “The bottom line is Elizabeth Warren has, at most, a minuscule amount of Native American heritage and it is obvious she had absolutely no right to claim minority status while climbing the professional ladder to the Ivy League.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cdb55c11870



You, of course, quoted two bits of text from the article that represent notions that the article actually counters.   

The article points out that the Globe report interpretation of the "between 6 and 10 generations" statement to mean between 1/64 and 1/1024 is wrong.    The amount of indigenous DNA in her genome is static.  The variance in generation would only change how many ancestors had be part of the tree to contribute to it.

And Mike Reed's statement (as if an RNC guy is going to say something objectively helpful here) is wrong unless you believe that having 10 times the percentage of indigenous DNA as the average person in Utah is miniscule.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2018, 09:13:32 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37038
  • Tommy Points: -27542
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Even you have to admit that she is a minuscule amount from your link:

Quote
It started with a Boston Globe report, which initially indicated that the test showed she was at best 1/32nd Native American and possibly just 1/512th Native American. After confessing twice to a math error, the Globe corrected the numbers to 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. That would translate to between 98.44 percent and 99.9 percent not Native American.

Mike Reed, the RNC spokesman who circulated the Times article, said in response: “The bottom line is Elizabeth Warren has, at most, a minuscule amount of Native American heritage and it is obvious she had absolutely no right to claim minority status while climbing the professional ladder to the Ivy League.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cdb55c11870



You, of course, quoted two bits of text from the article that represent notions that the article actually counters.   

The article points out that the Globe report interpretation of the "between 6 and 10 generations" statement to mean between 1/64 and 1/1024 is wrong.    The amount of indigenous DNA in her genome is static.  The variance in generation would only change how many ancestors had be part of the tree to contribute to it.

And Mike Reed's statement (as if an RNC guy is going to say something objectively helpful here) is wrong unless you believe that having 10 times the percentage of indigenous DNA as the average person in Utah is miniscule.

So, bottom line:  should Warren be listed as a "woman of color"?

Should all people with a non-white ancestor going back 6 to 10 generations be able to label themselves as a minority?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #102 on: October 18, 2018, 09:17:15 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3676
  • Tommy Points: 615
Just saw Carly Fiorina on Anderson Cooper.  I don't particularly care for her politics, but would love for her to challenge Trump in the primaries.  She is articulate and strong.  One on one in a debate situation, I think she'd be one of very few who could skewer him.   I doubt she'll run again, but hope she does.

I'm skeptical any decent republican will have the stomach to challenge Trump in the primaries.    They would have to have a tremendous sense of ego and ambition to want to go through that.   Is someone like Fiorina really up for being the target of Tiny's nastiness?

Regarding a possible centrist, I would personally vote for Bloomberg, despite his age.  I've met him, years ago.  He is incredibly intelligent and articulate and very pragmatic.   But I agree with what others have said, that it is very difficult to get a centrist through our modern primary system.

Among the many things that this country needs to do to fix the broken parts of our democracy, doing more to increase participation by more people in the primaries would go a long way towards pushing them back to the middle.

I would be in favor of making election days holidays and even offering some token benefit/incentive to get people to vote.  Maybe hand out a voucher to take $5 off their taxes or whatever.  Or a nice t-shirt.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #103 on: October 18, 2018, 09:20:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37038
  • Tommy Points: -27542
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Just saw Carly Fiorina on Anderson Cooper.  I don't particularly care for her politics, but would love for her to challenge Trump in the primaries.  She is articulate and strong.  One on one in a debate situation, I think she'd be one of very few who could skewer him.   I doubt she'll run again, but hope she does.

If Trump was smart, he wouldn't agree to any debates in the primaries.  He's going to cruise to victory, so why engage with opponents?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Is Elizabeth Warren an American Indian?
« Reply #104 on: October 18, 2018, 09:46:48 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3676
  • Tommy Points: 615
Even you have to admit that she is a minuscule amount from your link:

Quote
It started with a Boston Globe report, which initially indicated that the test showed she was at best 1/32nd Native American and possibly just 1/512th Native American. After confessing twice to a math error, the Globe corrected the numbers to 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. That would translate to between 98.44 percent and 99.9 percent not Native American.

Mike Reed, the RNC spokesman who circulated the Times article, said in response: “The bottom line is Elizabeth Warren has, at most, a minuscule amount of Native American heritage and it is obvious she had absolutely no right to claim minority status while climbing the professional ladder to the Ivy League.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cdb55c11870



You, of course, quoted two bits of text from the article that represent notions that the article actually counters.   

The article points out that the Globe report interpretation of the "between 6 and 10 generations" statement to mean between 1/64 and 1/1024 is wrong.    The amount of indigenous DNA in her genome is static.  The variance in generation would only change how many ancestors had be part of the tree to contribute to it.

And Mike Reed's statement (as if an RNC guy is going to say something objectively helpful here) is wrong unless you believe that having 10 times the percentage of indigenous DNA as the average person in Utah is miniscule.

So, bottom line:  should Warren be listed as a "woman of color"?

Should all people with a non-white ancestor going back 6 to 10 generations be able to label themselves as a minority?

Leading question, counselor.

If you are looking for an easy one-line answer to how people should racially/ethnically identify, you are going to be frustrated.

I personally don't care how she self-identifies.   She should claim to be part of whatever different ethnicities / subcultures that make up who she is.   Not for you or me to dictate that.

I think some folks really have an exaggerated notion about the benefits of labeling oneself a 'minority'.  I can only speak personally, but I've yet to see a single tangible benefit of it other than my children are beautiful (Even the 'white' one).   I've experienced many tangible negatives.   And I'm far, far better off than most.

And again, you confuse the meaning of the result.   You use "a non-white ancestors" (singular) in association with a range of generations back (6 to 10).   The analysis indicates that if the admixing is back as far as 10 generations, then it would involve multiple indigenous people being part of the tree.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required