Elizabeth Warren? Seriously?

[Pogo]

You, Frank, were the only poster to even attempt an answer (yesterday), which as I pointed out the same day, utterly fails as it does nothing but pose questions without answering any.

So if we count this post that's 0-for-7.

She has no Cherokee ancestors.

None

And your proof is.......... oh that's right, it never showed up.

We've show you repeatedly her ancestors actually murdered Cherokees

I didn't really look at that so I don't know if you did (and considering your track record of veracity so far I have serious doubts) but even if true, how does that support your mythology? Is it impossible for one Cherokee to murder another? Is it impossible for both oppressor and oppressed castes to be members of the same family over time? Do tell.

What do you have besides her cheekbones?

This record, from 2½ years ago...
The fact that she's from freaking Oklahoma...

>> "I'm not exaggerating at all when I say the majority of white people in Oklahoma -- a real majority -- will say, I'm Cherokee.' It's an interesting state in that way," Tallbear said. "To me, this whole story says a lot more about being an Oklahoman than anything else." -- The Myth of Native American Blood <<​

Couple of Pinnocchios awarded Scott Brown here for trying to float this thing...
The video of Scott Brown trying to back away from the whole thing (top of first link)...
And the complete dearth of evidence to the contrary.

What do you have? Oh yes, cheekbones.
Deep.

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship. And that citizenship documentation itself was assembled in flawed, arbitrary and out-of-context ways, so it's hardly a benchmark of anything approaching any concept of precision anyway.

 

[Cross]

She has no Cherokee ancestors.

None

And your proof is.......... oh that's right, it never showed up.

We've show you repeatedly her ancestors actually murdered Cherokees

I didn't really look at that so I don't know if you did (and considering your track record of veracity so far I have serious doubts) but even if true, how does that support your mythology? Is it impossible for one Cherokee to murder another? Is it impossible for both oppressor and oppressed castes to be members of the same family over time? Do tell.

What do you have besides her cheekbones?

This record, from 2½ years ago...
The fact that she's from freaking Oklahoma...

>> "I'm not exaggerating at all when I say the majority of white people in Oklahoma -- a real majority -- will say, I'm Cherokee.' It's an interesting state in that way," Tallbear said. "To me, this whole story says a lot more about being an Oklahoman than anything else." -- The Myth of Native American Blood <<​

Couple of Pinnocchios awarded Scott Brown here for trying to float this thing...
The video of Scott Brown trying to back away from the whole thing (top of first link)...
And the complete dearth of evidence to the contrary.

What do you have? Oh yes, cheekbones.
Deep.

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

 

[ChrisL]

And your proof is.......... oh that's right, it never showed up.

I didn't really look at that so I don't know if you did (and considering your track record of veracity so far I have serious doubts) but even if true, how does that support your mythology? Is it impossible for one Cherokee to murder another? Is it impossible for both oppressor and oppressed castes to be members of the same family over time? Do tell.

This record, from 2½ years ago...
The fact that she's from freaking Oklahoma...

>> "I'm not exaggerating at all when I say the majority of white people in Oklahoma -- a real majority -- will say, I'm Cherokee.' It's an interesting state in that way," Tallbear said. "To me, this whole story says a lot more about being an Oklahoman than anything else." -- The Myth of Native American Blood <<​

Couple of Pinnocchios awarded Scott Brown here for trying to float this thing...
The video of Scott Brown trying to back away from the whole thing (top of first link)...
And the complete dearth of evidence to the contrary.

What do you have? Oh yes, cheekbones.
Deep.

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

 

[Pogo]

And your proof is.......... oh that's right, it never showed up.

I didn't really look at that so I don't know if you did (and considering your track record of veracity so far I have serious doubts) but even if true, how does that support your mythology? Is it impossible for one Cherokee to murder another? Is it impossible for both oppressor and oppressed castes to be members of the same family over time? Do tell.

This record, from 2½ years ago...
The fact that she's from freaking Oklahoma...

>> "I'm not exaggerating at all when I say the majority of white people in Oklahoma -- a real majority -- will say, I'm Cherokee.' It's an interesting state in that way," Tallbear said. "To me, this whole story says a lot more about being an Oklahoman than anything else." -- The Myth of Native American Blood <<​

Couple of Pinnocchios awarded Scott Brown here for trying to float this thing...
The video of Scott Brown trying to back away from the whole thing (top of first link)...
And the complete dearth of evidence to the contrary.

What do you have? Oh yes, cheekbones.
Deep.

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

What "document" is that?

 

[Pogo]

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

 

[ChrisL]

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

Come on, those pictures are hilarious! She said she thought she was a native American based upon stories told to her by her grammy. That's also kind of funny. Hee-hee! A woman allegedly intelligent enough to graduate from Harvard University and it never occurred to her to perhaps confirm those anecdotes? That is just silly to believe that.

 

[Cross]

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

What "document" is that?

Any...she doesn't have any...

 

[Pogo]

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

Come on, those pictures are hilarious! She said she thought she was a native American based upon stories told to her by her grammy. That's also kind of funny. Hee-hee! A woman allegedly intelligent enough to graduate from Harvard University and it never occurred to her to perhaps confirm those anecdotes? That is just silly to believe that.

She's from Oklahoma, where Cherokees have been ever since we force-marched them (from right here where I have local road signs in Cherokee) and where according to an earlier source most of the population of the state claims Cherokee descent. Duh.

Again, did your grammy or your parents not tell you stories? If they did, did you immediately pop out of your chair and head out the door to the library declaring "I'm gonna need to verify that!"? I don't think family life works that way. Mine didn't. I've still got family background that's based on oral history that I can't point to on a piece of paper-- that doesn't make me a "liar'.

So what, if that's her lineage? Is it your habit to go around mocking family ethnicities and folklore?

 

[AntiParty]

Liz Warren will make a great candidate and if the best Republicans can do is post squaw pictures she should win easily

^I mean, look at that OP............It looks like a 12 year old made it. I'll try to quote without pictures.

"She is so stupid! She is a big dumby stupid face that doesn't know a thing! She is clearly a liar and stupid! She can't even post factual pictures about candidates on forum posts in attempts to slam someone just because they are big stupid dumb people."

^
Did that sum up every GOP argument this last few years, or just this post? The GOP deserves better.

The most significant argument I've heard is that her grandma says they have Indian ancestors and the Right is saying, "She's bat shit crazy! She can't prove that!"............

Not too brainy. Who cares if she has Indian ancestors..I'll bet a lot more of us do than we think. Doesn't matter in politics.

 

[ChrisL]

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

Come on, those pictures are hilarious! She said she thought she was a native American based upon stories told to her by her grammy. That's also kind of funny. Hee-hee! A woman allegedly intelligent enough to graduate from Harvard University and it never occurred to her to perhaps confirm those anecdotes? That is just silly to believe that.

She's from Oklahoma, where Cherokees have been ever since we force-marched them (from right here where I have road signs in Cherokee) and where according to an earlier source most of the population of the state claims Cherokee descent. Duh.

Again, did your grammy or your parents not tell you stories? If they did, did you immediately pop out of your chair and head out the door to the library declaring "I'm gonna need to verify that!"? I don't think family life works that way. Mine didn't.

So what, if that's her lineage? Is it your habit to go around mocking family ethnicities and folklore?

I certainly wouldn't go applying for special privileges because of some story my grammy told me. Not to mention the fact that I kind of doubt Elizabeth Warren faced much discrimination due to her "minority status." What say you?

 

[Pogo]

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

What "document" is that?

Any...she doesn't have any...

Once again:
"She claimed minority status on the document" ---- I made it real big for ya... what "document" are we talkin'?

 

[AntiParty]

To the contrary of what? The article states that Warren claimed minority status in some documents with no evidence to back that up...the reason they gave Brown a couple of Pinocchios was because he went to far in accusing her of using an undocumented claim to get a position...he could not prove that specific claim because it appears she was qualified...

and so Warren is an Oklahoman not a Cherokee

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

^See

They will focus on propaganda like this all the way up to the loss. And never question the reason or where it came from.

They SHOULD focus on reasonable debate fixated on facts instead of something that has nothing to do with politics at all. Can't imagine why the GOP loses.

 

[ChrisL]

"To the contrary" means it's these wags' burden of proof to show that she "lied" -- which requires them to prove that she has no Cherokee/Delaware blood -- which they can't do. Not that she said there is and they don't believe it.

That they can't prove that negative is not the point of interest here -- we all know they can't . What's interesting is that they'lll never admit to being unable to prove that, or that they've been running on fumes the whole time. Another day or two they'll be right back to it as if all of this never happened.

I just find that kind of partisan-hack denialism psychologically fascinating.

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

^See

They will focus on propaganda like this all the way up to the loss. And never question the reason or where it came from.

Was she lying about her grammy's stories too? Elizabeth! You naughty girl! Lol!

 

[Pogo]

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

Come on, those pictures are hilarious! She said she thought she was a native American based upon stories told to her by her grammy. That's also kind of funny. Hee-hee! A woman allegedly intelligent enough to graduate from Harvard University and it never occurred to her to perhaps confirm those anecdotes? That is just silly to believe that.

She's from Oklahoma, where Cherokees have been ever since we force-marched them (from right here where I have road signs in Cherokee) and where according to an earlier source most of the population of the state claims Cherokee descent. Duh.

Again, did your grammy or your parents not tell you stories? If they did, did you immediately pop out of your chair and head out the door to the library declaring "I'm gonna need to verify that!"? I don't think family life works that way. Mine didn't.

So what, if that's her lineage? Is it your habit to go around mocking family ethnicities and folklore?

I certainly wouldn't go applying for special privileges because of some story my grammy told me. Not to mention the fact that I kind of doubt Elizabeth Warren faced much discrimination due to her "minority status." What say you?

-- And where did she do any of that?


See what I mean about living on myths?

 

[AntiParty]

Nope...it's something she has claimed time and again, a claim she cannot document, when she made the claim on the Directory of Law Professors she should have met the Cherokee or Deleware tribe requirements, she doesn't, in reality she embellished or lied....and if you read your own link you will come to understand that Tallbear is explaining why a claim of Native American has to be backed by documentation....

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

What "document" is that?

Any...she doesn't have any...

Once again:
"She claimed minority status on the document" ---- I made it real big for ya... what "document" are we talkin'?

Women are not a statistical minority, as in most societies -- they are roughly equal in number to men -- but they do qualify as a minority group because they tend to have less power and fewer privileges than men.

Or......Let me google that for you

 

[ChrisL]

But her grammy told her stories!

Awww... didn't your grammy tell you stories?
Poor baby.

Aside from all the denialist psycho gymnastics of purporting to prove the negative, it's also fascinating that some apparently find Elizabeth Warren so threatening that all they can do is mine photoshopped Indian pictures to try to poison the well, based on a bullshit myth they can't prove...

Must be something there...

Come on, those pictures are hilarious! She said she thought she was a native American based upon stories told to her by her grammy. That's also kind of funny. Hee-hee! A woman allegedly intelligent enough to graduate from Harvard University and it never occurred to her to perhaps confirm those anecdotes? That is just silly to believe that.

She's from Oklahoma, where Cherokees have been ever since we force-marched them (from right here where I have road signs in Cherokee) and where according to an earlier source most of the population of the state claims Cherokee descent. Duh.

Again, did your grammy or your parents not tell you stories? If they did, did you immediately pop out of your chair and head out the door to the library declaring "I'm gonna need to verify that!"? I don't think family life works that way. Mine didn't.

So what, if that's her lineage? Is it your habit to go around mocking family ethnicities and folklore?

I certainly wouldn't go applying for special privileges because of some story my grammy told me. Not to mention the fact that I kind of doubt Elizabeth Warren faced much discrimination due to her "minority status." What say you?

-- And where did she do any of that?


See what I mean about living on myths?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

 

[ChrisL]

Come on, this woman is ridiculous. If she's not a liar, then she's an idiot. Either way, it's not looking good.

 

[AntiParty]

Come on, this woman is ridiculous. If she's not a liar, then she's an idiot. Either way, it's not looking good.

^
Just look at all of that factual information! "She's a big stupid dumby face!"

 

[Pogo]

"Cannot document" is not the same as "lie". It means it's not documented.

"Lying" on the other hand requires that the subject (a) declares a fact while (b) knowing that fact is untrue. That does not exist here.

And I did read my own link, well before now, and that's not what the writer said. Let's roll that tape:

>> "If you want to understand Native American identity," Tallbear said, "you need to get outside of that binary, one-drop framework. Native Americans do not fit in that binary. We have been racialized very differently in relationship to whites."

How do we know Native Americans are racialized differently, Tallbear said? Because a white person -- say, Elizabeth Warren, for example -- can absorb a Native American ancestor and still maintain an identity as white. If Warren had a black ancestor, that fact would threaten her white identity.

The dominant framework for Native American identity, Tallbear said, operates on the level of citizenship: Cherokees know they are Cherokee because of a complex history of legal treaties, and because they can document a connection to tribes whose members were identified and listed in official rolls. Were those rolls, which date back to the 1800s and were largely dictated by federal agents, flawed? Certainly. "You have to imagine, you're literally lining up all the Native Americans in a tribe and inevitably it's 'Your dad's white, your mom's Indian, let's make a decision,' " Tallbear said. "Federal agents were also using non-tribal ideas about belonging. But those base rolls are what we have inherited, and that's what we use."

... The incessant, one-drop-rule focus on Warren's blond hair and blue eyes betrays how little her fiercest critics and the entire mainstream media understand about what Native American identity is, where it came from and what it looks like.

By little, I mean not at all: If Native American identity operates likes that of any other nation-state, then you can be Cherokee and look just like Warren. The same way that legendary soccer player Pelé and legendary supermodel Gisele Bündchen can both be Brazilian.

"Elizabeth Warren doesn't not look Cherokee by Cherokee Nation standards at all," Tallbear said. "Going back eight, nine, 10 generations, there are Cherokee that look Asian, Cherokee that look black and Cherokee that look white." <<

(emphasis added to the pertinent)
​

So what she's talking about in the first part is citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. That's a different concept from ethnicity -- which is what being "1/32nd" (or whatever proportion) Cherokee means. It doesn't refer to citizenship.

Nope when she claimed Minority status on that document she was claiming to be Cherokee or Delaware...she cannot make that claim because:

1. She cannot not meet either Cherokee or Deleware Tribe requirements for Cherokee or Delaware citizenship
2. She cannot even provide any documents that relate her to a native American.

Government Agencies require documentation proving 25 percent minority heritage, she has no documentation.
She was a well versed Professor of Law as it relates to business, one would have a hard time convincing me she didn't know that.

She is at the very least a poser...

What "document" is that?

Any...she doesn't have any...

Once again:
"She claimed minority status on the document" ---- I made it real big for ya... what "document" are we talkin'?

Women are not a statistical minority, as in most societies -- they are roughly equal in number to men -- but they do qualify as a minority group because they tend to have less power and fewer privileges than men.

Or......Let me google that for you

Yeah I know -- I'm asking him what this "document" is he refers to. The "women and minority" connection comes later. Don't spoil my plot.

 

[ChrisL]

Come on, this woman is ridiculous. If she's not a liar, then she's an idiot. Either way, it's not looking good.

^
Just look at all of that factual information! "She's a big stupid dumby face!"

Oh geez, another partisan douche. Are you denying the facts? She's either a liar or an idiot. Which one?