The apparent premise of Scott Brown's campaign is that Elizabeth Warren made up being Native American as PART, not all of her ethnic heritage, to gain some sort of unfair advantage through affirmative action.
He apparently is too weak on any factual issues, so this is his fall-back position.
At no point has Scott Brown actually shown that Elizabeth Warren is NOT part Native American in her heritage or her DNA. His assertion rests on a claim that she doesn't LOOK Native American (or, presumably 'talk Native American'). This is like claiming that someone isn't black enough or doesn't speak ''black enough", or Asian or Latino or whatever group you choose.
We are, nationally, a melting pot of groups of people, and of individuals who have combined from these ethnicities.
The problem of course is that you can't reliably tell anything about someone by just looking at them or listening to their speech. This is an issue of the failure of Scott Brown because he relies on superficial characteristics and stereotypes.
Here is a photo of Bill John Baker, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, which is arguably as authentically and verifiably Cherokee / Native American as one can get. Does he 'look Indian' enough to you to be obvious at a glance what HIS ethnicity or genetic heritage is? Does he look MORE genuinely Native American than say........... Elizabeth Warren?
Chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee; he was born in Cherokee County, Oklahoma where many people are of mixed ethnicity - as is Elizabeth Warren.
This is a photo of Elizabeth Warren. Would you say she LOOKS as Native American as Bill John Baker? Or are the only LEGITIMATE Native Americans (like 'Legitimate' rape) have to look like an historic stereotype to be valid and genuine.
Bill John Baker's predecessor as Chief of the Cherokee nation was Chad Smith. Here's what Chad Smith looks like. Smith was voted out, and Baker was voted in, in part over a scandal involving Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and in part over the issue of the inclusion of Cherokee Freedman in the Cherokee nation. The Cherokee Freedmen controversy dates back to the support of the Union side of the Civil War and a Cherokee Nation abolition of slavery act in 1863, in support of the emancipation of black slaves under Lincoln. So, in some interesting, if tangential ways, race figures into this issue along with our NATIONAL heritage, and with more recent right wing political corruption and dirty dealing.
There is something profoundly wrong in trying to make another person feel bad about who he or she is, to make them feel ashamed of their heritage by demeaning it, or them. There is something very wrong about demeaning an entire group of people.
The Senate staffers of Scott Brown have behaved in a racist, bigoted, insulting manner.
Why are they still employed by Scott Brown in his Senate Office at tax payer's expense, representing the state and people of Massachusetts? Scott Brown is losing, and even prominent Republicans in Massachusetts think this is turning his campaign into a circus, when he should be focusing on substantive issues rather than this insulting farce.
For that matter - why is Scott Brown still representing anyone but himself? Come November, it is looking like Scott Brown AND his staffers will be out on his lily white behind - not that the color of his tush matters, only that he is gone. Scott Brown got into office because he ran a much better and more substantive campaign than his opposition last time; he is not doing so this time, not with this tactic. This tactic suggests Brown doesn't understand being American, part of a melting pot of people, of 'e pluribus unum', out of many, one.
He apparently is too weak on any factual issues, so this is his fall-back position.
At no point has Scott Brown actually shown that Elizabeth Warren is NOT part Native American in her heritage or her DNA. His assertion rests on a claim that she doesn't LOOK Native American (or, presumably 'talk Native American'). This is like claiming that someone isn't black enough or doesn't speak ''black enough", or Asian or Latino or whatever group you choose.
We are, nationally, a melting pot of groups of people, and of individuals who have combined from these ethnicities.
The problem of course is that you can't reliably tell anything about someone by just looking at them or listening to their speech. This is an issue of the failure of Scott Brown because he relies on superficial characteristics and stereotypes.
Here is a photo of Bill John Baker, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, which is arguably as authentically and verifiably Cherokee / Native American as one can get. Does he 'look Indian' enough to you to be obvious at a glance what HIS ethnicity or genetic heritage is? Does he look MORE genuinely Native American than say........... Elizabeth Warren?
Chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee; he was born in Cherokee County, Oklahoma where many people are of mixed ethnicity - as is Elizabeth Warren.
This is a photo of Elizabeth Warren. Would you say she LOOKS as Native American as Bill John Baker? Or are the only LEGITIMATE Native Americans (like 'Legitimate' rape) have to look like an historic stereotype to be valid and genuine.
There is something profoundly wrong in trying to make another person feel bad about who he or she is, to make them feel ashamed of their heritage by demeaning it, or them. There is something very wrong about demeaning an entire group of people.
The Senate staffers of Scott Brown have behaved in a racist, bigoted, insulting manner.
Why are they still employed by Scott Brown in his Senate Office at tax payer's expense, representing the state and people of Massachusetts? Scott Brown is losing, and even prominent Republicans in Massachusetts think this is turning his campaign into a circus, when he should be focusing on substantive issues rather than this insulting farce.
For that matter - why is Scott Brown still representing anyone but himself? Come November, it is looking like Scott Brown AND his staffers will be out on his lily white behind - not that the color of his tush matters, only that he is gone. Scott Brown got into office because he ran a much better and more substantive campaign than his opposition last time; he is not doing so this time, not with this tactic. This tactic suggests Brown doesn't understand being American, part of a melting pot of people, of 'e pluribus unum', out of many, one.
We seem to have had another 'drive by' commenting, where someone visits, makes an comment full of unsubstantiated accusations, and then runs away when they can't provide facts to refute a substantive refutation of their accusations.
ReplyDeleteSad. But typical of the right wing ideology that puts what they want to believe in place of what is factual.
I've noticed you generally defer to a person in authority to settle matters of fact. The Aurora shooter was clad in invincible body armor because a cop said so in a news conference - no further inquiry allowed. Elizabeth Warren committed no law license wrong because a bureaucrat said so in a news conference - no other opinion conceivable.
ReplyDeleteIs there no authority to decide if a person is a Cherokee? Bureau of Indian Affairs? Tribal council? Seems as if some entity ought to be able to settle this matter quickly enough. You note John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee and he's accepted as Indian well enough to be elected to a leadership position. Can't somebody certify whether Ms. Warren is Cherokee or not?
To allege facts about ancestry that are not supported by officialdom is birtherism. Is Elizabeth Warren a birther?
Joe Doakes foolishly wrote:
Delete" The Aurora shooter was clad in invincible body armor because a cop said so in a news conference - no further inquiry allowed."
Joe, the Aurora sheriff, the chief of police, the prosecuting attorney, and at one point the FBI spokesperson, in over a dozen press sessions, and for an extended period of time on their official web site, described in detail that the Aurora shooter was wearing ballistic armor, which they elaborated was bullet proof / or in the case of a few kinds of particularly penetrating ammunition, bullet resistant.
THAT is not 'because a cop said so in a news conference', it goes far beyond that.
What you claimed was entirely speculative, and overstated something in a California news paper article on line which said that a hunting vest had been sold to the Aurora shooter but DID NOT CLAIM THAT WAS WHAT HE WAS WEARING IT at the time of the shooting.
The claim you made Holmes wore a not-bullet-proof hunting vest was a little twist on what the retailer said THAT YOU MADE UP, but was not what the retailer claimed. The retailer wasn't there. The retailer did not arrest James Holmes. The retailer has not said Holmes EVER wore the vest anywhere, much less at the shooting in the theater.
Now the law enforcement and prosecutors and FBI were in actual possession of fact, having arrested James Holmes. Their description of FACT was corroborated by people who were present and by the video. They HAVE the body armor.
So this is NOT a case where 'no other inquiry is allowed'. You have made no 'inquiry'. You made shit up, and claimed it was fact -- and THIRD HAND unconfirmed information at that. You didn't get proof from the retailer; you don't know if they were trying to make a buck on the tragedy or if they really sold and delivered ANYTHING.
What you came up with was more of a "Fact-turd", created out of what you wanted to believe and pure bullshit.
This is a perfect example of how you seem to be unable to distinguish fact from wishful thinking or ideology-driven alternative reality. It is an example of poor quality non-critical rationalizing combined with poor reading for comprehension.
If you have an actual FACT that counters what was said by multiple qualified informed sources more than a dozen times over a period of days that shows otherwise bring it. So far - you haven't.
Buying a hunting vest is not wearing a hunting vest, where someone ALSO bought ballistic protection, and is reliably reported as wearing the latter and shown in video to be wearing the latter.
For EXAMPLE, I have not found anywhere that James Holmes legal defense team claims he was wearing a hunting vest, not armor. THAT would be a reliable counter argument made by someone qualified to present fact in court who was also informed, UNLIKE a retailer who only claims a sale.
Elizabeth Warren has been very up front about this being information that is a tradition in her family. The WaPo fact checkers confirmed that this was so among her immediate siblings and aunts and uncles; some of her less close relatives were divided about remembering for sure (which is not the same thing as denying it is true).
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Warren appears to belong to a different group, the Cherokee Freedmen. The current Chief, John Baker, won election to his position through two things - one was that the tribe was involved in one of the Abramoff scandals, and tried to cover it up; and the other had to do with having kicked members of the Cherokee nation out for not being on the Dawes Rolls despite having been established as members for some 200 years prior to the previous Cherokee admin booting them off the membership rolls. Baker - an attorney in his own right - was the lead attorney in a court case that readmitted descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen to the Cherokee nation. It is my understanding that Warren would have to apply / reapply under the freedmen inclusion.
I provided a link to the freedmen controversy in one of my Warren posts. However it is not necessary for her to prove anything; it is up to Brown to prove she is not telling the truth - which he cannot do on the basis of how she looks, as many of the other members of the official Cherokee nation who are as much as 1/2 established Cherokee as official tribal members are as blond and blue eyed as Warren -- MANY of them, including tribal officers. Including the previous chief who is as light skinned as Warren (see the photo I provided).
What I suggested Warren do that is more definitive (since she also claims to be part Delaware Indian, through both sides of the family, but also in a small fraction) is that she get Henry Louis Gates to do an analysis of her genome and geneology - something he excells at on multiple public television series.
My guess is that since fool Scott Brown has been spending his money on ads doubling down on this is that she is suckering him by giving him enough rope to hang himself. She is a smart woman, an excellent attorney, who is inclined to know more than she says.
DeleteHere is the rub - EVERY school to which she has ever been admitted or which has ever employed her as a professor has put IN WRITING that she was not admitted or RECRUITED to those schools under affirmative action, and that her minority status because of her Indian heritage was not something she used for advancement. From pretty early on, she was an outstanding researcher and professor, as well as a high performing student.
Harvard USED HER, as a minority - which was not at her urging or seeking. She would qualify for that however as a woman anyway, when Harvard was stressing their professorial diversity, not the other way round.
Warren's interest in identifying her heritage was in meeting other people of the same heritage, which is supported by her contributing things like recipes to Native American cookbooks for a fund raising project, etc., during the same time.
Elizabeth Warren is claiming her heritage, and family history. That is not birtherism, as it doesn't affect her qualifications for the senate, and at no time affected her qualification as a student or professor. So....why should she have to? Can you prove your ethnic heritage? Would it withstand a geneological scrutiny? Maybe, maybe not. But since she isn't and hasn't relied on her heritage for anything she is doing - unlike a birth certificate proving you are a natural born citizen of the U.S. to be president - why should she have to? It doesn't matter to her job at Harvard, or any other job, including serving in the Senate.
If she wants to run for the job of the next principal Chief of the Cherokee nation, on the other hand, she absolutely should prove it.
You aren't very good at facts, Joe Doakes, or at valid comparisons. Scott Brown is the birther or birther equivalent in this scenario.
Do you know the facts yet, Joe, about the old right conservatives responsible for Jim Crow - including right wing Republicans as distinct from moderate (not extinct) Republicans? Do you know your history about how the old right became the new right - the REPUBLICAN racist right, that included former conservative democrats?
Are you ready to be honest Joe Doakes about racism, or are you going to continue to play at silly buggers, as Laci would term it?
Show us why Elizabeth Warren NEEDS to prove anything. You have to show that she relied on that claim for admission or hiring to do so --- and you can't, because the facts show clearly otherwise. Warren was RECRUITED, she never applied for employment as a law professor, including turning down Harvard at least once, possibly twice, when they tried to hire her.
ReplyDeleteNor is there any evidence that she relied on any kind of affirmative action for entry into any college she attended - those schools assert that was not at any time a criteria for her admission.
NO, the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not decide if a person is a Cherokee. Further, one can be part Cherokee but not decide they wish to formally be recorded as part of the official tribal entity that is the Cherokee nation. That is analogous to a person being a legal citizen who is entitled to register to vote, but has not done so. She doesn't need to prove anything to anyone to assert that her family believes they are descended from not only Cherokee, but also Delaware Indians. Her siblings and other family members have confirmed that is what their parents and grandparents told them - so? So what? Why should she have to prove anything?
Scott Brown is accusing her of fraud; that is criminal conduct. She is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and Brown's sole basis of his claim is she doesn't appear to look like what HE thinks a person who is part Native American should look like. That is a false assumption on his part, not proof -- which as an attorney, Scott Brown should know.
Are you one of those people who want to change that legal tradition in this country? Conservatives - they give lip service to freedom all over the place, but they don't mean it.
So yes, you agree that you generally defer to authority to settle questions of fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, there is an authority who determines who is recognized as Cherokee.
But no, that authority doesn't recognize her as Cherokee.
So now you don't recognize that authority as legitimate. Now you are willing to credit rumor and gossip and legend to cast doubt on the official story. Just like a birther.
At least the White House released something that looked like a birth certificate in support of his claims. Okay, so nobody in their right mind would accept a Photoshopped .pdf image of a document in lieu of a certified copy from the custodian of record; but at least they tried.
Warren may not be in the same league as Ward Churchill but it's not for lack of trying.
.
Joe, you have no excuses for not answering why it is you were factually inaccurate on conservative opposition and racism during the civil rights era.
ReplyDeleteI do defer to authority in the sense that I seek information from sources that have that information, yes.
We aren't talking here about whether or not Warren is or is not Cherokee. One can be Cherokee without choosing to be part of the Cherokee Nation, and the Cherokee Nation also asserts that many of those individuals who qualify to be members have not chosen to join - but that they wish to be supportive of those individuals as well.
It's like being Jewish, which qualifies you to go to Israel and be a dual citizen. Just because you don't decide to do that doesn't make you less Jewish.
In fact the Cherokee nation and the principal Chief DO support Warren and her claims about her heritage; so if that is your standard, then she has established her legitimacy.
Scott Brown is the birther here; he has made an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim about both Warren's heritage being false, and claimed she used that heritage for affirmative action.
The appropriate body in Hawaii confirmed that Obama is a citizen (are YOU a silly birther, Joe?). The supreme court has been satisfied as to the authenticity of it; multiple state secretaries of state have sought that same information confirming the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate, and been satisfied. You really can't claim that all that has been proffered was a photoshopeed copy --- what was provided WAS a certified copy and multiples of those HAVE been provided.
Scott Brown is trying to generate rumor, gossip, and innuendo. I've provided fact.
You haven't. And your dodging admitting you were wrong, and misrepresenting claims which are not facts is also wrong and bad, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
YOU and Scott Brown are more like Ward Churchill than Elizabeth Warren, and more like Orly Taitz as well.
Got any facts, FOR A CHANGE, Joe?
You have been consistently intellectually and factually dishonest. Tsk tsk tsk.
Didn't anyone raise you better than to do those things - or has being conservative corrupted you totally with the epic failures of epistemic closure?
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteJoe Doakes is a sockpuppet. You know that. Why are his bullshit comments even published?
Scott Brown's campaign has nothing to use except character assassination (not that having anything else to use would preclude their using character assassination).
I suspect that Joe is personally a very nice man. I've met a lot of conservatives who generally - except for their politics, and the intellectual impairment associated with the politics - perfectly delightful people.
ReplyDeleteJoe appears to be willing to sign on in support of every wacko notion from the right just this side of the worst extremists and to demonstrate perfectly their worst errors of fact and reasoning.
When I work with dog training, the handler and dog I pick for demonstrations of what is wrong and how to do the targeted lesson content properly are always the ones who do EVERYTHING as wrong as possible. They offer the greatest opportunity for improvement, often dramatic improvement, and they are the ones most likely to show the same individual mistakes someone else is making.
With Joe, I can fact check where he makes errors of factual content - usually his failure to read for comprehension mistakes, AND his errors of reasoning - like not getting that you don't have to belong to the Cherokee nation, as an organization, to be Cherokee, the same way you can be of Jewish heritage but not ever belong to or support a synagog, or apply for dual Israeli citizenship.
Brown has no legitimate basis to claim anything about Warren's heritage, much less continue to claim fraud where there is none. That he is doing so rather than addressing issues with his ad money shows how weak his position really is politically, and pretty much guarantees he is on his way out, another down ballot victim of failed political positions.
Warren retains much more control by not being manipulated into any further response. Obama didn't persuade the fact averse tea party birther nut jobs by producing his documentation; although reasonable people who did not suffer from factual disconnect would have recognized that when states requesting that confirmation kept him on the ballot, it had been provided in verified form.
Warren won't persuade anyone who thinks Scott is reasonable or makes sense when he he doesn't any more than the other birthers would change their minds when offered fact. They are as delusional as schizophrenics who hear voices, or have hallucinations like believing the CIA has implanted listening devices in their dental fillings.
There is no dealing rationally with the irrational, so don't waste your time or energy on them any more than minimally necessary, and stay on the substantive. Warren seems to understand that concept.