First Transracial Senator?
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
"emotion"DNDKNINMB (Don't Know Don't Care Not Interested Not My Battle)
i think your in the wrong thread...
In the US there are at least five races - Black, White, Yellow, Red, and Brown. They are sociological races, based primarily on skin tone and color combined with a selection from a variety of physical features historically correlated in the US.
Not in the US.
Races in the US are assigned to the person by the society, in various ways. Only those of borderline or uncertain physical appearance can exercise choice, by acting as though they were members of the race they prefer.
Once assigned, which is often at birth, one is then associated with the other members of that race, by the members of the other races (and often by members of one's own).
You don't. Perhaps you are confused by the common term "African-American"? That is a term in English that is read the same way "Irish-American" or "Mexican-American" is read. The only difference is that the ancestors of the people it refers to were enslaved, and their families destroyed - along with the family histories of who their ancestors were and how they lived and where they lived. So unlike other Americans they do not know their ancestral culture(s) or place(s) of origin - only the continent, which is Africa. That is unusual for human beings.
They are almost all members of the "Black" race, in the US. So are others of appropriate appearance - such as Micronesians and some Bengalis and recent immigrants from Somalia etc. So "Black" designates the larger Race, and African-American a (major) subcategory.
You were lied to by bad people. Avoid them in the future, unless you gain some benefit by believing liars.
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
i want to add, using the term "pocahontus" is no different to using the word "Kunta Kinte" in my opinion and i should imagine to be deeply insulting to native americans and northern native americans.
when i heard the POTUS say it it was like he was saying "Kunta Kinte".
like calling an African American "Kunta Kinte" because they claim to have heritage to African American slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta_Kinte
who was Pocahontas ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Early_life
In other words made up groupings of ONE race into various ad lib groupings with no foundation in reality
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
does it not occur to you that the application of the word "Race" when applied to human Terra firma residents born to the same species is a vernacular distinction of culture and sub group of variant genetic dispersions of the same speciation ?In other words made up groupings of ONE race into various ad lib groupings with no foundation in reality
other animals are not called "races"
i.e what race of animal is that ?
it is what "species".Cultural heritage is no different to political ideation.
like calling all american US citizens communists because they are political.
There is no name for people who seek to engage in political formation of society.
it is social engineering by scientific definition in a sense.
they are discribed by their sub grouping of speciation into political partys. not races.(races being the missing word to define those who form join and vote and fund political partys.)
It occurs to me it might be true in the vernacular BUT it has been hijacked and now used to denote perceived superior or inferior aspects of the other "race"
Think it would be better if it ceased to be used but I'm not optimistic
You don’t seem to get it. It has nothing to do with the subject of the story, but everything to do with her ability and reluctance to substantiate it. If Warren had made the claim that she was HIV positive based solely on a rumor that a former boyfriend had also tested positive for the virus, would you consider that an example of sound reasoning on her part? After hearing such a claim, should a recommendation for her to get medically tested be considered out of line?
If Trump needed more proof than a birth certificate to make his case, I have no doubt he would’ve spit his DNA in a vile to get it. Lying sack of shit that he is, when the truth matters to him personally, at least he’s willing to put some effort into presenting it.
In a letter to Maher before filing the lawsuit, Trump’s lawyer wrote, “Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/ent...gainst-comic-bill-maher-idUSBRE9310PL20130402
Assuming she’s a qualified human being, her genetic makeup and ancestry are irrelevant to her duties as a US Senator. Her approach in the substantiation of claims regarding those or any other subjects is relevant in assessing her reasoning skills as a senator
It’s a dubious claim because she’s made no attempt to render it otherwise.
If she can’t prove it to herself, then why expect anyone else to accept it on face value?
By her own admission she is only relying on what amounts to a family myth.
No direct-line relatives of Warren are listed on the Dawes Rolls, according to Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak (the doubled name is not a typo), the independent genealogist who identified Michelle Obama's slave ancestors in 2009 in a project with The New York Times.
But a lack of Native ancestry despite the family stories she's heard all her life would also be consistent with one of the most common genealogical myths in the United States.
"Many more Americans believe they have Native ancestry than actually do (we always suspected this, but can now confirm it through genetic testing)," said Smolenyak in an email. "In fact, in terms of wide-spread ancestral myths, this is one of the top two (the other being those who think their names were changed at Ellis Island). And someone who hails from Oklahoma would be even more prone to accept a tale of Native heritage than most."
She added: "There's also a tendency to accept what our relatives (especially our elders) tell us."
As for Warren, "I can't confirm or refute Cherokee heritage without extensive research," she said. "All I can say is that Ms. Warren's scenario is a wildly common one -- minus the public scrutiny, of course."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...zabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/
My bigotry? You mean my intolerance for self deception? And by extension the deception of others?
I‘m not demanding anything of Elizabeth Warren, I’m simply advising her for the sake of her own intellectual integrity, and the accompanying respect it derives, to put a greater effort into settling an issue she herself generated. As a multi-millionaire, Warren has ample resources to research her genealogy. If after a credible attempt the results were inconclusive, hanging her hat on the family stories would be as good a choice as any, and she could feel even more secure in her present belief. Or the family stories could be left in tatters, as they were in this case.
Alice Collins Plebuch, raised in a proud Irish Catholic family, sent away for a “just-for-fun DNA test” — but the results changed her life. She found out that somewhere in her family, she had Jewish roots.
Plebuch told the Washington Post about her surprising journey of self-discovery in a recent story.
Plebuch, now 69, was bewildered by the results of the test. “I really lost all my identity,” Plebuch said. “I felt adrift. I didn’t know who I was — you know, who I really was.”
After much searching, she ultimately discovered that her father was Jewish — and was not genetically related to his parents.
Through much sleuth work, and some luck, she got to the root of the issue: a baby mix-up at the Bronx hospital where her father was born, back in 1913.
“Somehow, a Jewish child had gone home with an Irish family, and an Irish child had gone home with a Jewish family,” the Post reported. “This was a mistake that no one had ever detected, a mistake that could only have been uncovered with DNA technology.”
https://forward.com/fast-forward/378361/one-womans-surprising-dna-discovery-of-jewish-roots/
She may not need a DNA test to believe it herself, but she does need to do more work on the issue to make a convincing case to others. Yes, she would have to present a better quality of proof than she has thus far to convince me an others of her claim, which has nothing to do with her outward appearance and everything to do with the lack of evidence presented. I have living relatives that bear no physical resemblance to myself, yet I’m confident that testing would confirm a genetic link, so where does this assertion of a need for physical conformity come from?
When people like you give weak explanations a pass to promote some ill conceived notion of personal truth and fairness, you make the world a dumber and less respectable place. Kind of like what this other misguided lady does.
OK then. You can rage and scream when reality TV isn't real, and when Hurricane Heist and Sharknado portray meteorology incorrectly. Seems like a waste of time, but if you get your jollies doing that, go for it.
If that happened to you, and it turned out positive, would you post the results on a public forum?
Because it's not that important.
No conservative should be throwing around the term "intellectual integrity" without irony.
That falsehood wasn't on the general news.
You seem to be trying to pretend that sociological races are not part of reality. There is only one race in America whose members can get away with that in daily life.
She did substantiate it. She told everyone how and where and when she came by the story.
Red ancestry is a lethal and communicable disease whose accurate diagnosis is imperative, in your world. Got it.
No wonder you think Warren is hiding something from you.
Hold that thought.
And since her approach is admirable, honest, and forthright;
and since in addition it demonstrates steady and unswayed good judgment in not pandering to a mob of wingnut racist imbeciles badgering her about her private family matters and her parents's stories;
her skills and resources and high quality as a Senator are verified, reassuringly to her supporters. They chose well.
She did not generate any "issue". It's settled already, as far as she is concerned. You and your ilk are the only people who have any issues with how it is settled.
And a DNA test wouldn't settle anything that isn't settled already. Seriously - if it shows Red genetics, it is about as likely to have picked up an ancestor she hasn't heard about as the one she has, and if it doesn't there are at least as many ways to account for it that agree with her family story as disagree. And all it can show in any case are probabilities.
To whom? Nobody with any sense.
He does, of course. The father's name on a birth certificate is just a family story. Lots of babies have different genetic fathers than the name on their birth certificate. That proves nothing.
And this is much more serious than Warren's ancestry. Trump's possible transpecies cover-up bears directly on his qualifications for the Presidency as well as his security and blackmail risk.
Last edited:
btw: Warren, regardless of circumstance, is unlikely to be the first "transracial" US Senator - in the past until quite recently, under the "one drop" rule legally and culturally in force in the US, the odds of a Senator who claimed to be white in fact being black were not small.
A fascinating claim. Please present the evidence you have that Warren has never researched her own genealogy.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
and then, there's this:
But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.
The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.
But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.
The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.
Since Warren did not prepare or file or apparently even read those documents, you can narrow the scope of your search to "Harvard administrator". That would also make sense from the cui bono perspective - Warren gained nothing.
And we know for a fact that Harvard was not otherwise "promoting" her as a racial or ethnic diversity hire, because we saw what that looked like when they hired Lani Guanier a couple of years later as their "first minority female professor of law".
It looked like this: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/lani-guinier-joins-faculty-of-law-school-at-harvard.html
Warren was among those "11 women, all white".
https://today.law.harvard.edu/lani-guinier-present-visible/
Warren, whose office was down the hall, was not in anybody's thoughts as a "woman of color" - not even a young female journalist's .
And even Breitbart has a hard time hanging anything on Warren's Harvard tenure, being forced into the "innuendo by leading question" mode of slander when the evidence proves recalcitrant: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ren-woman-of-color-and-when-did-they-know-it/
Last edited:
Sorry I didn't see you sitting next to me while I was watching the news
Not saying that in the real world sociological groups are not designated as such but making up groups does not give the made up groupings legitimacy in the real real world
They remain made up groupings designed to classify persons to a arbitrary system for various reasons generally for convenience of a administrative type
As in
You forgot that we all see the same "general news".
The facts can come from anywhere - common reality. The lies and falsehoods are field marks - they have particular sources. Righty-rant falsehoods come from righty-rant sources - not general news.
Go tell the Baltimore police that in the real world there aren't any black people in Baltimore.
Then tell the black people that in the real world they are in the same race as the white people.
So that's what the Reservations, the jails, the wage scale designations, the redlined banking neighborhoods, the stop-n-frisk laws, the welfare rule enforcement policies, the disparities in sentencing, the school district financing boundaries, the impunities of police violence, the targeted bureaucratic complications of voting registration and vote casting, are:
conveniences of an administrative type.