Rejoice! Pocahontas is actually 0.1-1.56% Native American!

[MumblesBadly]

And that conjecture was thoroughly investigated by the Boston Globe and found to be not supported by the evidence.

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...O0K/story.html

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in that Pound Hall room at Harvard Law School. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.

Bottom line: She never used her Native American heritage to further her career.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the point we are raising.

We are past the point of claiming that she got hired by claiming she was Native American. I'm willing to concede that likely didn't happen.

So stop repeating that same response over and over.

My problem is that AFTER she was tenured at Harvard, she officially changed her ethnicity there. This had to be for "minority cred" or some sort of perceived gain. Presumably she felt that being a minority professor at Harvard would give her more credibility.

That was dishonest and exploitative, no matter which way you try to slice it.

Cred with whom??? She was already tenured at Harvard before changing her ethnicity. And we’re talking *Harvard* Law School, a top tier school. And by that point, and given her specialty (bankruptcy law), her colleagues within the discipline both at Harvard and elsewhere wouldn’t have cared what her reported ethnicity was. This wasn’t like the case of that white woman who faked being Black in order to enhance her cred within the Black community *and* in her racially-focused career.

If Warren had specialized in law directly related to Native American issues, and used her NA heritage as a flag to wave to enhance her cred on the matter, then her designated heritage would matter to *her* career. But she didn’t. So her NA designation had no meaningful impact on either her career or her “cred”.

But, and I say this again having worked in academia, the *administration* almost surely used her NA designation in boosting its faculty’s diversity-related reporting. Because college administrators are slippery that way. To them, it probably looked like a lost opportunity to not try to benefit, diversity metric-wise, from free-riding on an existing faculty member’s ethnic ID change when noone there had made any special effort to make the faculty more ethnically diverse. Because college admins care about such things given the politics of faculty diversity within the American university system.

But if you have some idea of whom Warren was trying to improve her “cred” with other than who I discuss her that would enhance her academic career, please be specific.

[dwai]

shut up, mumbles

[duped_samaritan]

And that conjecture was thoroughly investigated by the Boston Globe and found to be not supported by the evidence.

Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...O0K/story.html



Bottom line: She never used her Native American heritage to further her career.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the point we are raising.

We are past the point of claiming that she got hired by claiming she was Native American. I'm willing to concede that likely didn't happen.

So stop repeating that same response over and over.

My problem is that AFTER she was tenured at Harvard, she officially changed her ethnicity there. This had to be for "minority cred" or some sort of perceived gain. Presumably she felt that being a minority professor at Harvard would give her more credibility.

That was dishonest and exploitative, no matter which way you try to slice it.

Cred with whom??? She was already tenured at Harvard before changing her ethnicity. And we’re talking *Harvard* Law School, a top tier school. And by that point, and given her specialty (bankruptcy law), her colleagues within the discipline both at Harvard and elsewhere wouldn’t have cared what her reported ethnicity was. This wasn’t like the case of that white woman who faked being Black in order to enhance her cred within the Black community *and* in her racially-focused career.

If Warren had specialized in law directly related to Native American issues, and used her NA heritage as a flag to wave to enhance her cred on the matter, then her designated heritage would matter to *her* career. But she didn’t. So her NA designation had no meaningful impact on either her career or her “cred”.

But, and I say this again having worked in academia, the *administration* almost surely used her NA designation in boosting its faculty’s diversity-related reporting. Because college administrators are slippery that way. To them, it probably looked like a lost opportunity to not try to benefit, diversity metric-wise, from free-riding on an existing faculty member’s ethnic ID change when noone there had made any special effort to make the faculty more ethnically diverse. Because college admins care about such things given the politics of faculty diversity within the American university system.

But if you have some idea of whom Warren was trying to improve her “cred” with other than who I discuss her that would enhance her academic career, please be specific.

edit: I see I basically just said what mumbles said - gonna leave it anyway.

I imagine she did it to benefit her department or possibly the University as a whole, which, I guess you could argue it may have benefited her personally. (maybe she was owed a favor or something?) Can't really argue it gave her any more job security or made her more valuable to Harvard since she was already tenured.

Perhaps Harvard was getting heat for not having a diverse enough faculty, or maybe there was some sort of incentive (qualify for more grants or maybe just get better ranking in national top 100 lists) to higher more diverse professors. Warren thought "oh hey, I'm part NA, let me help!"

[BCR]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the point we are raising.

We are past the point of claiming that she got hired by claiming she was Native American. I'm willing to concede that likely didn't happen.

So stop repeating that same response over and over.

My problem is that AFTER she was tenured at Harvard, she officially changed her ethnicity there. This had to be for "minority cred" or some sort of perceived gain. Presumably she felt that being a minority professor at Harvard would give her more credibility.

That was dishonest and exploitative, no matter which way you try to slice it.

Cred with whom??? She was already tenured at Harvard before changing her ethnicity. And we’re talking *Harvard* Law School, a top tier school. And by that point, and given her specialty (bankruptcy law), her colleagues within the discipline both at Harvard and elsewhere wouldn’t have cared what her reported ethnicity was. This wasn’t like the case of that white woman who faked being Black in order to enhance her cred within the Black community *and* in her racially-focused career.

If Warren had specialized in law directly related to Native American issues, and used her NA heritage as a flag to wave to enhance her cred on the matter, then her designated heritage would matter to *her* career. But she didn’t. So her NA designation had no meaningful impact on either her career or her “cred”.

But, and I say this again having worked in academia, the *administration* almost surely used her NA designation in boosting its faculty’s diversity-related reporting. Because college administrators are slippery that way. To them, it probably looked like a lost opportunity to not try to benefit, diversity metric-wise, from free-riding on an existing faculty member’s ethnic ID change when noone there had made any special effort to make the faculty more ethnically diverse. Because college admins care about such things given the politics of faculty diversity within the American university system.

But if you have some idea of whom Warren was trying to improve her “cred” with other than who I discuss her that would enhance her academic career, please be specific.

edit: I see I basically just said what mumbles said - gonna leave it anyway.

I imagine she did it to benefit her department or possibly the University as a whole, which, I guess you could argue it may have benefited her personally. (maybe she was owed a favor or something?) Can't really argue it gave her any more job security or made her more valuable to Harvard since she was already tenured.

Perhaps Harvard was getting heat for not having a diverse enough faculty, or maybe there was some sort of incentive (qualify for more grants or maybe just get better ranking in national top 100 lists) to higher more diverse professors. Warren thought "oh hey, I'm part NA, let me help!"

If the Boston Globe article is accurate, it seems she made a lot of moves career wise to benefit her husbands advancement. That she was kind of content to remain in the Southwest, but that he often wanted positions at more prestigious schools. It would seem her official mention of being a minority professor beyond family lore occurred when she was at Penn, and already being wooed by Harvard because of her excellence. I would guess it’s some intersection of truly thinking she was more NA than she is, trying to help her husband by him having a minority wife that he was bringing along who was incredibly qualified and already being sought out.

Then adding it officially as NA falls into your explanation. Possibly wanting to help the school.

I find the video posted earlier where she talks of her grandparents disallowing her parents marriage more problematic than a change on a form when she was already tenured. I’ve never seen a picture of her mother, but this family lore was either that she was way more Native American than she is, because if her mom was a straight honky like the tests would seem to show, it’s hard to reconcile that Romeo and Juliet interview she gave in regards to their courtship. Given her character over the course of her life, and her life’s mission of fairness, I would give her the benefit of the doubt that someone in the past got it very wrong. Or she made a few poor decisions for her husband or for the benefit of her employer. I could see either way. Particularly given she grew up in Oklahoma, which has, I’d guess, the most native Americans per capita of the lower 48.

Academia is such a bubble that I can see her also doing it for some type of acceptance. That bubble is also likely why she didn’t foresee that her release of the results would be so widely mocked. I mean, she’s really smart. Without a chorus of like-minded academics in her ear, I can’t imagine how she thought this would be a good idea.

[Tellafriend]

Academia is such a bubble that I can see her also doing it for some type of acceptance. That bubble is also likely why she didn’t foresee that her release of the results would be so widely mocked. I mean, she’s really smart. Without a chorus of like-minded academics in her ear, I can’t imagine how she thought this would be a good idea.

She told the story so much and used it to her benefit that should couldn't back down from it = hubris. Which, if you think about it, resembles Trump.

[devidee]

[Tellafriend]

[Sanlmar]

we need mandatory DNA testing to out every murderous savage masquerading as a white person

Zap, author & illustrator of such nauseating stupidity, self-indulgence, cruelty and horror that even I find them unprintable.

He’s also an idiot-savant with whom God has serious, frequent and intimate conversations.

I just can’t imagine what He’s telling Zap - nor am I certain the message isn’t getting scrambled during transmission.

I err on the side of unquestioned fealty & Love

[donkdowndonedied]

Ahh yes, and lets now add "welcher" to Trunp's list of accomplishments.

#winnerswinning

Fkn stooge why did u quote my comment to make ur post which obviously should have been a stand-alone, ur almost as out of it as FPS

Not sure why you're going on about it. Most Trump fans are straight retards. You've had periods in the past where you didn't qualify as a tard. So I direct Trump criticism to you, because he's your boy, and now we can add welcher to his list of quality human traits. Join #proudboys, probably a bunch of welchers in there too.

[Dan Druff]

You guys know I will criticize Trump when he deserves it, but calling him a "welcher" here is BS.

He never said, "I'll give a million dollars if Elizabeth Warren proves she has one drop of Native American blood."

He said that he would give the money if she "proved she's Native American with a DNA test".

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.

[Dan Druff]

It also seems that Elizabeth Warren has some kind of weird obsession with wanting to be Native American, to where she descends into pathological dishonesty for this one particular topic.

In 2012 (long before Trump was mocking her), it was found that her "Pow Wow Chow" Cherokee cookbook was plagiarized word-for-word: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...echniques.html

The book featured recipes from Warren's family, but some of Elizabeth's "own" recipes were directly plagiarized from articles and books previously published.

Somehow this got very little play in the American media (perhaps because Warren wasn't as much of a nationally known figure at that point, and perhaps because the left-leaning media always loved her).

It should be noted that the book was written in 1984, long before Warren became a politician or public figure. However, she was still 35 at the time, and can't claim it was a youthful mistake.

Then, of course, is the much-discussed interview where she claimed that her mom's Native heritage made it difficult to date her father due to familial pressures,

She honestly does remind me of Rachel Dolezal in some ways. Both women fixated upon an ethnicity they wished they had, claimed they were of that ethnicity, and then invented personal stories to support it.

[Dan Druff]

I think a lot of people are fixating upon this because, aside from this whole Native American hoax, Warren seems like a straight shooter and earnest politician.

She's the anti-Hillary in some ways. No shady past, no questionable dealings, no constant suspicions about breaking the rules, the law, or both.

A lot of Democrats were excited about her, despite her rather bland an unexciting demeanor.

Then came this Native American thing, and now she doubled down on the whole mess by releasing that silly DNA test, which just makes her look even more crazy/foolish.

Now there's renewed focus on the cookbook and the "mom was Native American so my dad's parents didn't approve" stories, and suddenly Warren is looking a lot more like a whack job and a punchline.

If your entire appeal has come from being outspoken, blustery, and controversial, as Donald Trump's is, then you can easily survive something stupid like this,

If your appeal mainly comes from the appearance of no-nonsense honesty, it becomes a lot harder for people to reconcile this story.

In the end, people may end up thinking, "This Warren chick is just as dishonest and crazy as the rest of those politicians. I thought she was different, but never mind", and that may be that.

[donkdowndonedied]

You guys know I will criticize Trump when he deserves it, but calling him a "welcher" here is BS.

He never said, "I'll give a million dollars if Elizabeth Warren proves she has one drop of Native American blood."

He said that he would give the money if she "proved she's Native American with a DNA test".

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.

Well there wasn't really technically a bet. Everyone knew she never claimed to be full 100% Indian. Now you say that is what would be required?

I don't care to defend Warren. I don't particularly like her anymore. Too close to Hillary for my tastes.

However, she is a hell of a lot more Native American than me. I took one of those tests and the most brown in me is from around the czech/polish area. There ain't no Spain, no Italy, none of that shit. I'm as pure white as white can be bro. This bitch is 100%+ more native american than I'll ever be. So by my standards what she said is true.

Did Warren ever talk about being in a "tribe" ? Then why use that standard?

I thought she claimed that she had an ancestor that was native american which apparently is true. Although there is a video clip of her talking about her grandparents being involved (lol embarassing). She's obviously a smart woman, but too into liberal identity politics.

And Trump is still a welcher. Like why even defend him? He's such a douchebag, welching is nothing special. Not like it has lowered him any lower or anything.. just another minor thing added to the list. He lies incessantly. I'd never expected him to pay the bet to begin with.

[sonatine]

And Trump is still a welcher. Like why even defend him?

those hits tho.

[gimmick]

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.

The DNA test didn't prove she isn't as Native American as she said. Only thing i've seen was the claim of 5th generation ancestor and that's still on the table. It's only likelier after the DNA test.

Native tribes requiring 1/16 also isn't true. Range is 1/4-1/32 and none of them give you anything from just having a DNA test. DNA tests can't differentiate tribes.

1/7th of her sample couldn't be assigned to any ethnicity. DNA testing for ethnicity has been around 15 years. At this point it's slightly more credible than elaborate hand waving. It's such an exact science that it doesn't matter if you use samples from SA or NA Natives.

After 7th generation the blood of your ancestors starts getting washed very rapidly. The 10th generation that keeps getting mentioned (1/1024 bit) is already mostly washed away. You only have blood from 13% of those ancestors. From 900 10th generation ancestors you don't have any DNA in you.

Oh and i only cared about the DNA part in this story. The rest is your domestic politics that isn't likely to spill, so i don't really care. Though not a fan of strawmen and moving goal posts.

[thesidedish]

[thesidedish]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1053728510668349445

So how many #OrangeManBad drones itt besides mumbles does this apply to? Been enough days that we can tally it up

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1052387851088867330

[Dan Druff]

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.

The DNA test didn't prove she isn't as Native American as she said. Only thing i've seen was the claim of 5th generation ancestor and that's still on the table. It's only likelier after the DNA test.

Native tribes requiring 1/16 also isn't true. Range is 1/4-1/32 and none of them give you anything from just having a DNA test. DNA tests can't differentiate tribes.

1/7th of her sample couldn't be assigned to any ethnicity. DNA testing for ethnicity has been around 15 years. At this point it's slightly more credible than elaborate hand waving. It's such an exact science that it doesn't matter if you use samples from SA or NA Natives.

After 7th generation the blood of your ancestors starts getting washed very rapidly. The 10th generation that keeps getting mentioned (1/1024 bit) is already mostly washed away. You only have blood from 13% of those ancestors. From 900 10th generation ancestors you don't have any DNA in you.

Oh and i only cared about the DNA part in this story. The rest is your domestic politics that isn't likely to spill, so i don't really care. Though not a fan of strawmen and moving goal posts.

She claims to be Cherokee.

The tribe only considers you Cherokee if you have a direct ancestor on the "Dawes Rolls" -- a census taken between 1899 and 1906.

http://webtest2.cherokee.org/Service...ip/Citizenship

This means the ancestor could be born as recently as 112 years ago (only 43 years before Warren was born), or as long ago as the early 1800s. (I'm assuming there was no one over 100 on the Dawes Rolls.)

Since Warren was born in 1949, six generations back would disqualify most of the people on the Dawes Rolls (they'd have been dead by 1899). 8 generations back would disqualify all of them.

The rest of your post seems to further discredit Warren, as you're stating that it's an "inexact science" and basically impossible to prove Native American heritage back 7 generations through a DNA test. So that would make her release of the DNA results (and the mainstream media's subsequent fawning over it) that much more ridiculous.

Bottom line is that claiming a racial identity from a single maybe-relative from 200 years ago is absurd, and Elizabeth Warren needs to own that misstep, rather than doubling down on it and trying to release "proof" that she was right all along.

[duped_samaritan]

He never said, "I'll give a million dollars if Elizabeth Warren proves she has one drop of Native American blood."

He said that he would give the money if she "proved she's Native American with a DNA test".

It's actually even more ambiguous than that.
He said:

"I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian"

You guys know I will criticize Trump when he deserves it.

You've put more effort into criticizing Warren and Harvard University than Trump lately. What should we assume?

[thesidedish]

It's actually even more ambiguous than that.
He said:

"I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian"

You guys know I will criticize Trump when he deserves it.

You've put more effort into criticizing Warren and Harvard University than Trump lately. What should we assume?

Lol what a maroon. U might be worse than hongthonger tbh. Maybe i think that just becuz hes been MIA. Uhhhhh maybe cuz theres been way more posts in this thread than the trump thread lately moron?? #OrangeManBad. Who gives a fk what u assume anyways, u dont know what ur doing and appear to be years of defeat away from figuring out you've been a stooge about it the whole time #OrangeManBad