We are all Slave now.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I have two sisters who got very different results from 23 and me, so I'm a touch skeptical still. I also don't think it matters - I suspect many if not most people with ancestors who lived on the frontier pre-Civil War have some rumors of Native American blood somewhere in their heritage. After years of trying to deny it, suddenly it became cool back in the 60s and our grandparents brought out the old stories. That was real progress.

But Liz is going to have fun with this for a while. She put out a very good video.

Yeah, these things aren't very accurate and they are entirely dependent on the pool that they already have. So if there aren't that many of a particular demographic, that demographic may not show. There's a good article from earlier in the year that explains why these things should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Kinda don't love playing into the nativist notion of race that the DNA test implies, but what are you gonna do?

2. The argument that nature plays a bigger role than nurture, while holding much validity, is abused. The interplay between the two is so complex that to focus on either one, bluntly, as more significant than the other, obscures and avoids a much more thoughtful assessment. This obsession with genetic heritage atomizes and divides people. It's exactly the wrong sort of a fixation for people to busy themselves with at the current time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Kinda don't love playing into the nativist notion of race that the DNA test implies, but what are you gonna do?

It all depends on the framing. If the question is whether she really is Native American in part, she is playing his game and it's not helping. But it she can turn it into a story about Trump talking big and not delivering, that's different.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It all depends on the framing. If the question is whether she really is Native American in part, she is playing his game and it's not helping. But it she can turn it into a story about Trump talking big and not delivering, that's different.

Isn't claiming that heritage the game she played first? How is that Trump's game?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Isn't claiming that heritage the game she played first? How is that Trump's game?

There's no political upside in debating about whether she is part Native American, whether or not that's interesting for other reasons. But there is political upside in debating about whether Trump is a big-talking liar who makes promises and walks away from them. Everyone knows that's true, and the political moment will come to talk about it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It all depends on the framing. If the question is whether she really is Native American in part, she is playing his game and it's not helping. But it she can turn it into a story about Trump talking big and not delivering, that's different.

She has a strong "origins" story, and I think part of this is getting that out there. Too much emphasis on the DNA test will hurt that; just the right amount will help.

That said, she needs to step up some activism on behalf of all of our Indigenous bretheran.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There's no political upside in debating about whether she is part Native American,

you don't think there was an upside in claiming the heritage? are you politically tone deaf?

[Adder]

Counterpoint from a politically active local.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Counterpoint from a politically active local.

There are a whole variety of experiences and points of view that can be genuine in here.

I have a good friend who recently discovered that her father, whom they all thought was of Acadian ancestry from New Brunswick, was really First Nations and was forcibly taken by Canadian Priests and put in a Catholic orphanage, along with many other First Nations children. So at age 50 she's rediscovering her heritage, and by blood she's fully half First Nations. Her kids suddenly look very different to schools. The tribe, whose chief is her cousin, is welcoming to her, but she's of course staying in her fancy suburban house in the Boston area not moving up to their lands.

Her experience lacks any of the cultural experience of being raised in the tribe, but may reflect some of the repressions that's occurred even more.

Those of us with trace bits of heritage or rumored heritage can still acknowledge that without claiming tribal kinship or experience, of course. And these trace bits can be funny - our family has a very very small trace of blood from Spanish Conversos, Jews who converted at the time of the Inquisition and expulsion, so we're suddenly welcomed back into Spain as citizens these days.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you don't think there was an upside in claiming the heritage? are you politically tone deaf?

No, I don't. No, I'm not.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Isn't claiming that heritage the game she played first? How is that Trump's game?

No. It's not. At least, politically.

Brown brought it up when running against her because she was listed as Native American in a fucking law school directory like, 25 years ago, when she was a professor. He, being a typical Republican, wanted to make it an issue and Trump, being a racist piece of shit, seized on it.

If she hasn't traded on it for gain (while ignoring or rejecting it whenever convenient) as a student or a professor, this shouldn't be an issue at all. The only people who care about stuff like this are white people who think being Native American magically imbues you with powers of automatic scholastic admission or professional advantage. It's the perfect pretend issue for a politician who wants to act like she's some sort of hypocrite for embracing what white people typically reject and for using it to succeed over other super-deserving white people who are getting screwed.

I'm currently having this argument with someone else. But why anyone who isn't a typical Republican cares about this at all is beyond me.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There's no political upside in debating about whether she is part Native American, whether or not that's interesting for other reasons. But there is political upside in debating about whether Trump is a big-talking liar who makes promises and walks away from them. Everyone knows that's true, and the political moment will come to talk about it.

Huh? There's huge political upside in debating whether she is Native American. Or, more accurately, asserting she is not.

First, you don't ask whether she traded on the heritage or not. You just say she did so repeatedly until that it becomes a reality for a lot of conservatives and sympathetic independents. Second, you cite an expert like the guy from the Boston Globe who said she was only 1/64th-1/1024th Native American repeatedly until that sticks as well. Leave her to argue that 1/64th-1/1024th isn't well within a margin of error.

Trump will do the first, but is too lazy to do the second, which involves reading, numbers, and perhaps rudimentary understanding of statistics.

But this is all academic. I'd be surprised if Warren got any traction, for quite unrelated reasons. Wall Street, banks generally, and almost all large corporations hate her. She's going to be starved of that campaign funding, while it goes to someone else, and to PACs aimed at making sure she is never the nominee. Warren has to take on both the Right and Moderate Left money machines. You might say this is indistinguishable from Bernie. I think that's incorrect. Bernie was actually getting a lot of support from the Right, which viewed him as a weaker candidate than Clinton and a weapon with which to hobble Hillary. Warren will find no such stealth allies. She'd be a true little guy vs. the corporate state candidate. That's a near unwinnable proposition.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are a whole variety of experiences and points of view that can be genuine in here.

I have a good friend who recently discovered that her father, whom they all thought was of Acadian ancestry from New Brunswick, was really First Nations and was forcibly taken by Canadian Priests and put in a Catholic orphanage, along with many other First Nations children. So at age 50 she's rediscovering her heritage, and by blood she's fully half First Nations. Her kids suddenly look very different to schools. The tribe, whose chief is her cousin, is welcoming to her, but she's of course staying in her fancy suburban house in the Boston area not moving up to their lands.

Her experience lacks any of the cultural experience of being raised in the tribe, but may reflect some of the repressions that's occurred even more.

Those of us with trace bits of heritage or rumored heritage can still acknowledge that without claiming tribal kinship or experience, of course. And these trace bits can be funny - our family has a very very small trace of blood from Spanish Conversos, Jews who converted at the time of the Inquisition and expulsion, so we're suddenly welcomed back into Spain as citizens these days.

I found out I'm exactly what I thought I was and not much more. The only bonus was finding out a grandparent had a love child from an affair.

The world never gives me anything nice or interesting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. It's not. At least, politically.

Brown brought it up when running against her because she was listed as Native American in a fucking law school directory like, 25 years ago, when she was a professor. He, being a typical Republican, wanted to make it an issue and Trump, being a racist piece of shit, seized on it.

If she hasn't traded on it for gain (while ignoring or rejecting it whenever convenient) as a student or a professor, this shouldn't be an issue at all. The only people who care about stuff like this are white people who think being Native American magically imbues you with powers of automatic scholastic admission or professional advantage. It's the perfect pretend issue for a politician who wants to act like she's some sort of hypocrite for embracing what white people typically reject and for using it to succeed over other super-deserving white people who are getting screwed.

I'm currently having this argument with someone else. But why anyone who isn't a typical Republican cares about this at all is beyond me.

TM

I don't care about it, I just didn't think it a non-issue and had forgotten the ancient history to the claim.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But this is all academic. I'd be surprised if Warren got any traction, for quite unrelated reasons. Wall Street, banks generally, and almost all large corporations hate her. She's going to be starved of that campaign funding, while it goes to someone else, and to PACs aimed at making sure she is never the nominee. Warren has to take on both the Right and Moderate Left money machines. You might say this is indistinguishable from Bernie. I think that's incorrect. Bernie was actually getting a lot of support from the Right, which viewed him as a weaker candidate than Clinton and a weapon with which to hobble Hillary. Warren will find no such stealth allies. She'd be a true little guy vs. the corporate state candidate. That's a near unwinnable proposition.

Beating Hillary in 2016 was an almost impossible wall for Bernie. 2020 dems do not have that problem- who is the accepted stakeholder? and even if she starts the outsider, fucking outsiders can win- in re Trump