Who and what are you?
C’mon, it’s the question of the day, isn’t it? Who are you and what aggrieved group does that place you in?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has gone so far as to have her DNA tested to prove she can lay claim to being a native American. This would be a native American of the American Indian sort as opposed to any of the first offspring of the European colonists who began arriving on the Eastern edge of the continent in the 1500s and 1600s, about the time the Athabascans from the Arctic began colonizing the Southwest corner of the country on the way to becoming the Navajo Nation.
Warren’s great, great, great, great, great-grandmother or -grandfather – or someone back as far as great to the eighth power – appears to have been of Native American descent, according to the DNA; so in Warren’s view, contested by others, she is of Native American heritage.
Why does this matter? Why?
Because this is what we have become.
Citizens of the increasingly Ununited States and other major democracies, The Economist recently lamented, “are retreating into group identities defined by race, religion or sexuality.”
The Economist is a British news magazine now labeled as skewing slightly to the right despite its beginnings as a liberal entity. The quote above came from its “manifesto for renewing liberalism” that proffered an old definition for a term that has itself fractured under the weight of identity politics:
“We were created 175 years ago to campaign for liberalism—not the leftish “progressivism” of American university campuses or the rightish “ultraliberalism” conjured up by the French commentariat, but a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets, limited government and a faith in human progress brought about by debate and reform.”
This was the sort of liberalism, the magazine noted, that built the free world as we know it today. And it is the sort of liberalism, The Economist worries, that is dying “as the common interest has fragmented.
“Identity politics is a valid response to discrimination but, as identities multiply, the politics of each group collides with the politics of all the rest.
“Instead of generating useful compromises, debate becomes an exercise in tribal outrage.”
A million tribes
If you’re a black American reading this, you have every right to be outraged at having been victimized. This country has a nasty history of slavery and racism. And while President Lyndon Johnson’s well-intentioned “Great Society” might have shown some immediate gains in helping black Americans fight their way out of poverty, those gains plateaued a long time ago.
Some in the black community now contend the programs designed to help black Americans only served to mire people of color, especially young black men and single women, in poverty.
So feel aggrieved.
Or maybe you’re one of those now feeling under attack for the “white privilege” tied to the color of your skin. Maybe it’s unfair you get blamed for the past sins of others you’ve never known. But someone has to be blamed for the fact the world isn’t perfect, don’t they?
And white privilege exists. There’s no doubt about that. In many parts of this country, if you’re stopped by an officer of the law, he’s likely to treat you differently if your skin is white. Why isn’t that your fault for being born pale?
Sure if you grew up in white poverty and pulled yourself out, it’s understandable you get more than a little upset at being attacked for your white privilege given there are more than twice as many white people as black people living in poverty in this country today.
OK, so you fought your way out, and now you are being punished as an oppressor for that effort.
Go ahead, feel aggrieved.
And Native Americans? Are there any with a greater reason to feel aggrieved?
Everyone knows now that Columbus was downright evil (as were many if not most of the explorers of his time), and he was at the vanguard of a White takeover of the Americas that was racist and often brutal.
It was all horrible by modern standards. Maybe you would have been better off if Columbus had never arrived. And then again maybe not. Maybe the tribes of the Americas would have ended up fighting bloody war after bloody war after bloody war as the tribes of Europe did from 1400 on.
And then maybe after the deaths of millions, the Americas would have spawned their own technocrats to double or triple lifespans and push back poverty and make life easy. Yes, easy. We all have it easy today.
If you have any doubts, go back to trying to live like an Alaska Athabascan circa 1500. The now infamous Chris McCandless retreated to the wilderness to try living like an Alaskan circa 1900, which was itself way easier than in 1500, and look at what happened to him.
He didn’t last but months before he died.
It’s nice to think of the old Alaska as some sort of Edenesque wilderness, but that’s not reality. There are reasons the average Native lifespan in Alaska in 1950 was still only 46. Life was hard even then, and disease easily killed people.
But, it’s possible an America and an Alaska sans the white folk could have evolved into exactly what it is today except without the white folk. No one can know what might have happened. We only know what did happen, and there were plenty of early white folk who mistreated American Indians and Alaska Natives.
And this state in particular is still home to plenty of racists.
So feel aggrieved.
There is hardly anyone in America today who can’t some up with some reason, often a legitimate reason, to feel aggrieved – even the rich sons of the ruling class of white privilege who seem to get blamed a ton.
Really, who doesn’t blame them for something? And if there’s even one thing on the list for which they’re not fully responsible, well, then they have a reason to feel aggrieved.
As for the rest of us….
Feminists? Of course. Men are pigs, and that testosterone in their blood tends to make them aggressive pigs. Feel aggrieved.
Hispanics? Of course. Some in this country want a bunch of you to leave, and then they want to build a wall to make sure you don’t back in. Feel aggrieved.
Homosexuals? Of course. There are people who think you should be denied sexual relief because of the way you have sex when it’s none of their damn business as to what anyone does in private. Feel aggrieved.
Muslims? Yes. Christians? Yes. Liberals? Yes. Conservatives? Yes. Jews? Yes. Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.
As a victim of color-blindness and lefthandedness, I should feel aggrieved. The Americans with Disabilities Act has for some reason chosen to ignore my disabilities. People in wheelchairs get ramps, as they should, and I get modern technical devices overflowing with red and green lights that look the same to me, and circular saws designed to blow dust in my eyes.
I almost feel guilty that I’m not aggrieved. Maybe I should be aggrieved at my parents for the way I was raised. They sent me to church camp, though they weren’t religious, to learn to sing “We Shall Overcome” in case the Freedom Riders trying to force integration in the American South needed backup.
They were liberals in that old sense of liberalism cited by The Economist, “universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets, limited government and a faith in human progress brought about by debate and reform.”
We were lower-middle class bordering on poor at times, but we never thought of ourselves as members of the underclass. We embraced the idea it was an American tradition to help others, and to look forward to building a better society instead of dwelling on what cannot be undone.
The dustbins of history are full of grievances. Dwelling on them doesn’t get you anywhere.
The Dr. Martin Luther King understood. But his days of dreaming of an American where “all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning. ‘My country, ’tis of thee, great land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim ‘s pride, from every mountain side, let freedom ring” now seem like ancient history.
Today there would be those protesting the mention of God (too Christian), the land of liberty (only rich enjoy it); pilgrim’s pride (oppressors), and probably even the ringing (noise pollution).
This is a fractured nation full of people looking to find ways they or their tribe have been wronged.
Blame all around
The Economist points the finger of blame for today’s bitter, angry, often-ugly partisanship at ” leaders on the right, in particular, who exploit the insecurity engendered by immigration as a way of whipping up support. And they use smug left-wing arguments about political correctness to feed their voters’ sense of being looked down on. The result is polarisation.”
Pointing to the right is an easy thing to do given the demeanor of the man in The White House. But the reality is that both the exploitation and promotion of insecurities has been a two-way street down which leaders on both the left and right in this country have driven their herds.
They can’t seem to help themselves. The response to Trump has to become Trump like.
In war, there is merit to the “Don’t retreat, reload” advice of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who wrote the playbook for Trump’s ascendancy. But as this country learned in Vietnam and the Russians learned in Afghanistan and the U.S. learned yet again in Iraq, peacemaking is in many ways more difficult than making war.
Winning war is at some level easy: Apply overwhelming force at the enemy’s weakest point and then kill them like they’re cockroaches.
Winning the peace is not so easy. That requires building alliances. That requires people talking to each other – not at each other. That requires people putting aside their personal grievances to work toward greater shared success. And it requires politicians engaging the populace at its level, something for which Trump – a rich, white guy – gets too little credit.
He connects with a lot of working-class Americans. As for the liberal class in this country, as well as globallyThe Economist pretty well tags the beast:
“The ruling class live in a bubble. They go to the same colleges, marry each other, live in the same streets and work in the same offices. Remote from power, most people are expected to be content with growing material prosperity instead. Yet, amid stagnating productivity and the fiscal austerity that followed the financial crisis of 2008, even this promise has often been broken.
“That is one reason loyalty to mainstream parties is corroding. Britain’s Conservatives, perhaps the most successful party in history, now raise more money from the wills of dead people than they do from the gifts of the living. In the first election in unified Germany, in 1990, the traditional parties won over 80 percent of the vote; the latest poll gives them just 45 percent, compared with a total of 41.5 percent for the far right, the far left and the Greens….
“It is the moment for a liberal reinvention. Liberals need to spend less time dismissing their critics as fools and bigots and more fixing what is wrong. The true spirit of liberalism is not self-preserving, but radical and disruptive. The Economist was founded to campaign for the repeal of the Corn Laws, which charged duties on imports of grain into Victorian Britain. Today that sounds comically small-bore. But in the 1840s, 60% of the income of factory workers went on food, a third of that on bread. We were created to take the part of the poor against the corn-cultivating gentry. Today, in that same vision, liberals need to side with a struggling precariat against the patricians.”
But can they? It is a lot easier to call your political opponents names than to try to refute wrongheadedness with reason and logic, or subdue your anger to try to find common ground.
This is your best article yet. I consider myself a member of the classic liberalism crowd, most modern conservatives don’t know what that means and I haven’t found a modern liberal that knows what it means. For those that don’t know look up the term classic liberalism, it was essentially the foundation of this country as a constitutional republic and is also the foundation of what is commonly referred to as “democracy” around the world today. The closest a political party comes to classic liberalism in this country today is the Libertarian Party
This country was once called the great melting pot. That was for a simple reason, all of us together made a great stew because we would blend and meld together no matter our differences. It’s unfortunate that some, on both sides of the aisle, attempt to distort our differences for political gain.
Elizabeth”Sitting Bullshit”Warren is another example of the need for term limits.During the Kavanaugh inquisition She and Mazi Hirono were out protesting with the Vagina Headdress wearing Femi Nazi’s in D.C. when they should have been in the halls of Gov’t. doing their jobs!Grounds for immediate dismissal!The leaders of this country aren’t someone I’d follow out of a burning ammo factory into the arms of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders!The Donald is a shining example of a leader and someone that I know the founding fathers would have voted for as he is a citizen legislator as the founding fathers intended.He’s got skin in the game and took a hit financially to lead this country back to prosperity.If you see yourself as anything but American your missing the target and you’re not helping to MAGA much like the Dems…What a travesty!
Just going to cherry pick one part of your post here, wolf: The Donald is a shining example of a disgusting misogynist. His tone, manner and background concerning the fairer sex is downright despicable, and the only people who are alright with it are either misogynists themselves or wincing-ly turn away choking down the rhetoric because he seems to be doing a good job with the economy and they have to take the bad with the good. There’s your “shining example.”
The problem with these discussions is that are rooted in hate. Hateful rhetoric is being encouraged by both sides now, more so than any point I can remember in my life.
Some truth to what you say Jason . Another reason people are wincing away is becouse they know Donald is an independent thinker and actor and they are hoping beyond hope Donald can bring to light the corruption in politics and right our ship . Donald has dealt with hardball vicious buisness his entire life and is one of the few Americans who can stand up to the attacks and rhetoric without wincing or changing course . He knows who and what he deals with. He has bumped shoulders with the worst people imaginable. It has given him advance knowledge and practice few others have . He doesn’t really care what people say or think of him .He will act on his own thoughts versus most people who act on how he they think they will be perceived. He’s his own man . That qualifies him as leader but not necessarily an example to emulate or even someone you would invite home , though I would just to become more educated . Sometimes it’s the Alpha wolf who leads the pack . We truly need a strong independent minded person in office. In this era where Clinton and the big money people have brought America we need a strong wolf to shoulder our government in the right direction. A leader of a violent pack has to appear invulnerable . Our world leaders ( verifiable with past research) and the current democratic horde are a violent pack ready to take him down at first sighn of weakness . Thus why he so often acts the ass . Trump was once a Democrat so he knows them well. Obviously no excuse for his discusting verbal statements but to get real insight on who he really is notice the fact he has his daughter as a trusted advisor. That says something on who he really is . If you research trump you will see he had a woman run a large section of his business and appoints woman repeatedly to top posts in his government. Actions speak louder than his words Imo. Just thoughts- . I’m one of the hopeful Americans.
Opinion, I agree with you on many important issues, but I have to say this: none of that even comes close to excusing him for his hateful, misogynistic rhetoric against women who he perceives as an obstacle or threat.
Sure, some of what you say is true regarding his leadership, but for me, a man who loves women and truly respects them for who and what they are, I have a really hard time choking down Trump’s positives in light of his negatives. For example: getting Meghan Kelly fired and hounded by bullies online and in person for being literally the one single journalist at FOX to ask him a tough question during the primaries; referring to women such as Rosie O’Donnel, Sormy Daniels, Carly Fiorina with charming appellations such as “Horseface” in order to marginalize them down to a throw away label, the Billy Bush tapes, etc. He’s a bully who smashes anyone who opposes him, and he comes from a school of thought where women are objects of derision.
I don’t care what school of thought your from, that way of talking about, acting towards or marginalizing women is not right, no matter how good a job he’s doing in other departments.
Jason Very true . Can’t argue against what you say .
One thing you might think about is he is nearly equally a complete ass to men . Just a huge trash talker .
So true how Trump degrades the women around him.
Back in 2015, Katie was one of first reporters to cover his campaign speeches and he immediately singled her out as “Little Katie” from the liberal press when he recognized her in the audience.
She said it made her nervous and uncomfortable to attend.
This piece really resonated with me. Thank you!
Kimberly H. Collins Professional Transcripts P.O. Box 771871 Eagle River, AK 99577 907-696-7266 office 907-696-7267 fax 907-301-1510 cell
“…appears to have been of Native American descent, according to the DNA;”
Not based on the actual test. There isn’t a functional way to test for Native American DNA as the sample pool available is too small. Warren’s test, done by a private geneticist, tested her DNA against Peruvian, Colombian, and Mexican DNA, using a theory about, as you note, early migration.
Per her own test she is 1/1024th South American of some kind, or, by percentage, about 0.09%. Even if you equate that with actual “Native American,” the _average_ American is considered by researchers to be about 0.18% Native American by heritage. Warren managed to “prove” she’s actually “whiter” than average, likely even less Native American than you or I (my recorded extended ancestry hints at some Penobscot in the Scots-side woodpile).
Here is a WP article disposing of much of your above post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?utm_term=.9b0295876cc6
Bill: the WaPo story calling bull also contains bull, to wit: “her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans.”
actually “her claim to some Native American heritage is much strong than that of the majority of the residents of Utah.”
it’s a stretch to conclude the 185 individuals from Utah are representative of the U.S. as a whole.
and there’s this taken verbatim from the story:
“With reporters believing that Warren’s genome was only as much as 1.56 percent Native American, the article’s line that ‘European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American’ made it appear as if Warren’s sample was even smaller than that of the average American.”
wouldn’t 1.56 percent Native American be BIGGER than .18 percent? wouldn’t that 1.56 make it appear as if Warrens sample was bigger than that of the average American, not smaller?
Craig, your“With reporters believing that Warren’s genome was only as much as 1.56 percent Native American, the article’s line that ‘European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American’ made it appear as if Warren’s sample was even smaller than that of the average American.” is a quote from RNC news release. And it doesn’t go into detail, either-just that the “only as much as” seems to be the problem.
As far as those Utah folks, “Remember we said that the Bustamante study said she had 10 times more than the individuals from Utah? That’s the relevant statistic, indicating that her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans.”
actually, Bill, in rereading that mess of a story, the quote would appear to be a reference to the New York Times story which is the only antecedent to which “the article” could be referring. if it were the news release, the reference should be to “the news release.”
i’m still, however, confused as to how “Warrens genome…only as much as 1.56 percent” can be “smaller than that of the average American” at .18 percent. i’m pretty sure 1.56 percent is bigger than .18.
and i’m still lost as to how one concludes Utah residents – more than 50 percent of whom are Mormons with all the weird advice they’ve been given over the years on interracial marriage -are representative of all Americans?
although if we take that statement on Utah and back it out using Warren as the starting point, the average Utahan would have .156 percent which is very close to .18 percent but the report dismisses that as inaccurate.
that story left me more confused than anything. but the graphics were pretty.
Identity politics has become a freakshow. I get asked if I am military or retired military order to get the military discount. Since I am neither I don’t even know what it is and have never received it. I would feel filthy and ashamed for claiming to have served when I did not.
At the other end of the spectrum is Elizabeth Warren, who decided to claim she was Native American in order to get the corresponding premiums. The first was a Harvard Law professorship, which for white people usually only happens if your law degree is from Harvard or Yale. Hers is from Rutgers, which is nothing to be ashamed of but not one of the top – more like #74.
I like what Sammy Davis supposedly said: …Talk about handicap – I’m a one-eyed Negro Jew…What have I got? No looks, no money, no education. Just talent.
The worst part about that link is that that is the fact checking department, seems like they are more the obfuscate and make stuff up department. Their slogan should be “if we can’t dazzle them with pretty pictures, we will bore them with incorrect numbers”.
Well Craig, the part that you keep missing is that the story was about the range from .1 percent to 1.56 and not just the 1.56 you keep referring to.
And nobody said that those Utah folks were representative of Americans, either. What was said was that Warren’s native ancestry was 10 times greater than those Utah folks and that made her greater than the average American.
The “fact” checkers were clearly trying to imply that Warren had the highest possible percentage of ancestry (even if it’s not Cherokee, as she has previously claimed), hence the 1.56% being used instead of the 0.1%, why didn’t they just use the range of 0.1% to 1.56%? She took a purity test that shows she is more genetically “pure” than even she could have imagined and then shared it with the nation to celebrate…what kind of person does that?
None of which matters any, this argument over bloodlines and literal bloodline purity tests is sickening.
Steve-O, if you look again you will see that the fact checkers (as you call them) don’t even mention that 1.56% you accuse them of.
You should stick to “correlation” since your thinking of that is more towards “speculation.” Heheh!
I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’ve just confirmed what I suspected, you post nonsense and don’t even know what you are saying.
The piece you linked to is the “fact checker” section in the wapo, a direct quote from that piece says “Warren’s genome was only as much as 1.56 percent Native American”.
Bill, you no longer have even a shred of credibility. Try reading more and typing less, you might learn something.
Steve-O, as usual you are resorting to bullshit again.
My posting of that link was to show that Matthewcarberryblog had posted bullshit (Per her own test she is 1/1024th South American of some kind, or, by percentage, about 0.09%). And said link showed that her native heritage was a range with Matthew’s number at one extreme. Further, I posted that my link “disposed of much of Mathew’s post.”
Now, as to your quote, you left off “With reporters believing that….” and it was not just reporters believing but also Matthewcarberry.
For some reason Craig also chose to only mention that 1.56% and I suspect he also just wants to muddy the water here. The important issue is that the media and Matthewcarberry completely missed the boat (and facts) here. You, on the other hand, just don’t have a clue about anything IMO.
here is the definitive analysis on the subject:
Thanks Bill, I’m glad in your opinion I have no clue.
You provided the link and you don’t know what it says…call it bullshit if it makes you feel better.
It is what it is, Steve-O.
Both you and Craig immediately started attacking the messenger, rather than the message. Only takes a second to see that Matthewcarberry fucked up, just like that messenger pointed out that many in the media did.
So……………………………both you and Craig evidently didn’t like where that article was going so attempted to discredit it. Frankly I’m shocked that anyone would subject themselves to such ridicule but like I said above, “it is what it is.”
Jokes on the both of you!
What are you talking about Bill? You think Craig and I attacked the messenger, which messenger did either of us attack? Both of us pointed out the piece you linked to was incorrect, in other words we did the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
I pointed out that you don’t even know what is in the piece you linked only after you made astonishingly absurd statements about what was or wasn’t in that piece. I’m sorry if you take that as me attacking the messenger but that isn’t and I wasn’t.
Are you daft, as well, Steve-O??
The messenger in this case was the Washington Post fact-checker analysis. They clearly exposed Matthewcarberry’s bullshit post right above my post and you and Craig both immediately attempted to distract from their message (for your own as yet unexplained reasons).
That’s what I called attacking the messenger and I’ll continue to say it. You evidently didn’t like their message but that’s a piss-poor excuse IMO.
At least Matthewcarberry saw the writing on the wall and has made himself scarce-you, on the other hand, continue to beat a ridiculous drum.
Hey drum, I mean Bill…I don’t think you understand what attacking the messenger and not the message means. The wapo “fact” checker piece isn’t factual, neither Craig nor myself attacked the person writing the “fact” checking piece, we attacked the message. When people say attack the messenger not the message, what they mean is you attack the person bringing the message…that didn’t happen, except for you attacking anyone you disagree with.
Well Steve-O, you want to quibble over whether/not your attack of the Glenn Kessler message is not an attack on the messenger that’s certainly your prerogative but the result is the same. And its just your opinion that its not factual-take it up with them, rather than bullshit your way on these pages.
Your intention was to attack the message that was spot on as to what was posted by Matthewcarberry because why (again)? What a joke! The blunder was by Matthewcarberry and you said nothing about it, then proceeded to post a bunch of bullshit about facts?
Frankly I didn’t see anything factually wrong with their message and they hit the nail exactly on the head as to why I posted it.
I’m not quibbling about anything, simply explaining to you how you are wrong.
The link you posted has updated their “facts” specifically the following:
With reporters believing that Warren’s genome was only as little as 0.01 percent Native American*, the article’s line that “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American” made it appear as if Warren’s sample was even smaller than that of the average American. (*Note: an earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to the high end of range, 1.56 percent.)
Your fact checkers aren’t very good at checking their facts, well until after the fact…you can say this is attacking the message and the messenger if it makes you feel better.
That’s interesting Steve-O but you will notice that their conclusions didn’t change a bit. Further, there is nothing in their latest update that shows where they got the “as little as .01 %.”
Not even Matthewcarberry got that low. And he took the extreme lower end of the range given (although he used .9% and didn’t explain where he got it).
I’m going to guess that there will be more updates coming.
Yeah, your fact checkers aren’t very good at checking facts we’ve already established that. I don’t care if they didn’t change their faulty conclusions since their faulty conclusions are based on faulty data and are clearly only used to support their preconcieved notions, that’s why no matter what number they use their conclusions do not change.
It’s math Bill, if she had a single ancestor that was a native american 6 generations ago she would be 1/64 native american, 1/64=1.5625%. If she had a single ancestor that was native american 10 generations ago she would be 1/1024 native american, 1/1024=0.09765625%
Steve-O, you’ve not shown their conclusions are faulty. And your math doesn’t take into consideration for more than one ancestor.
It’s not my math Bill, it’s just math anyone can do…even you.
Maybe you missed the part where the report said she has one ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago? They said this in your “fact” check piece “Her results are consistent with a single ancestor”
You can believe whatever you want Bill, using a fact checking source that plays loose with the facts isn’t a good thing to base your beliefs on though.
Your problem here Steve-O is that you are making an assumption that you can’t back up. The article does not conclude that there was one ancestor, either.
That math you use makes that assumption but that is not known. The original range from .1% to 1.56% also made a similar assumption but as the article title suggests, just about everything you’ve read about this test is wrong. And like the politicians and reporters, you are not very good at understanding genetics either.
Here is the money quote that you conveniently just took a part of: “There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.”
Anyway, Steve-O being “consistent with” does not mean there was one ancestor and thus your math range is based on your faulty assumption.
Once again, it’s not my math Bill, it’s just math. It’s also not my assumption, it’s what the piece you linked to says “Her results are consistent with a single ancestor” You just quoted it Bill. I’m using the data YOU provided! Are you saying you aren’t a valid source of this information?
The report says one ancestor, that’s where the percentages come from. If you want to run the numbers on an untold number of ancestors that the report didn’t find, then feel free to do so. It’s easy to do unless of course you write a “fact” check article for the wapo or an article in the Boston Globe.
Steve-O, the report does not say one ancestor!
Just that it could be one ancestor-it could also be up to a dozen or more as stated in the quote I submitted.
You are out of your element here Steve-O, but I’ve come to realize that this is consistent with your regular behavior. Heheh!
You know, I was wondering why you left of the money part of the quote you used as you can probably read-it’s reading with understanding that is not your strong suit.
You crack me up Bill, you even quote it “a single ancestor”, single as in one…from the report. What you refer to as the “money” part of the quote is the nonsense part of the quote, “could be” and “possibly” don’t hold a candle to “are” as in “Her results are consistent with a single ancestor”. You bring could be and possibly, these are weak wishy washy words. I bring one single definite word and I am the one that is out of my element? Thanks for the jokes Bill, it’s been a tough go for you lately.
We now know why this article came about and it’s because there are enough fools around that think like you do. I suspect that you just have some sort of agenda, otherwise you wouldn’t be so quick to make a fool of yourself. And we also know why they removed the 1.56% and .1% for the range endpoints-because goofballs like yourself jump on them without knowing what they mean. Granted, were there just one ancestor, then those ranges would have made sense. When they can’t guarantee only one ancestor the range doesn’t make sense.
That, of course, doesn’t matter to you. Heheh!
At least they didn’t say was not consistent with-so your possibility is alive but that doesn’t have a single thing to do with their conclusion. Just quit with the bullshit!
The reason this issue came up has nothing to do with me. It has to do with a senator who claimed she is a native american, she took a dna test that says she is not a native american. I keep pointing out the factual discrepancies that you keep insisting upon. I can keep playing this game as long as you want, but the fact remains by the dna test that Warren took and provided says she has at most 1.56% and at least 0.09% dna that is something other than white, it may or maynot be native american. I have no idea why you are still trying to prove your point when everyone has accepted the fact that senator warren isn’t native american, other than you and her. Those straws you are grasping at are gone Bill…”a single ancestor”…as in one.
And you are done, you have nothing more to add, game over bud, move on, you chose the wrong side…again.
Steve-O you are plain full of shit. The subject of whether/not Warren is Native American has nothing to do with anything. You may believe she is not but that really has nothing to do with this argument.
She has taken a test that shows she has native american ancestry and the range you provide is bullshit. The explanation of her test shows that that range is bullshit but for some reason you keep insisting she has only one ancestor when the explanation clearly says she could have had up to a dozen.
You are full of shit here and you can’t admit it. Tough noogies!
The entire subject is about Warren being native american or not, in fact if it wasn’t a question we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.
“Her results are consistent with a single ancestor” what do you think that means? The report says it didn’t use native american dna to show that she has native american dna, what do you think that means?
Steve-O it’s only a question you want to answer. Warren clearly has native american ancestry-the only question left is what amount might qualify to the term Native American. I don’t know or care.
The term consistent with a single ancestor means that she could have a single ancestor but it does not mean that “a single ancestor” is the only possibility. Hence the portion of the quote that said she could have up to a dozen ancestors out to 10 generations.
As far as the lack of DNA information from Native Americans, that explanation was given and was substituted by other Indigenous Peoples from elsewhere in Americas. You have a problem with that?
She’s not Native American Bill. Let’s just say she has 1.56% Native American dna which (per her dna test) is highly doubtful, that does not make her a Native American. Do I have a problem with her dna test substituting other groups to say she is part of a completely different group? Yes because that’s not how science works, that’s how it works when you make stuff up that isn’t there. Which groups did they use to substitute the Native American gene again?
Here you go Steve-O: “(Note: Bustamante did not have access to Native American DNA because of mistrust in the community that DNA results could affect tribal identity, so he relied on samples of indigenous people from Mexico, Peru and Colombia — populations in the Americas with high native American genetic ancestry.”
Now you have a problem with this but it’s not because it’s not science. It’s bullshit!
They go on to say: “There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level.” Of course you wouldn’t accept such science because of “why”, again??
And finally, you seem to be the only person who keeps insisting she is not native american (even though nobody I know of has suggested any such thing) because of some random picked percentage of native american ancestry that is below your threshold (what is the proper ancestry percentage?).
This seems to be identifying the problem you have Steve-O. Ancestry vs. Identity.
You seem to be the only one concerned that Warren is claiming Native citizenship. Granted you’ve formed your position a little differently but you get the idea.
Are you actually suggesting that because Warren identifies as a Native American that she is Native American?
Elizabeth Warren is the one claiming to be Native American, she had a dna test to “prove” it, that test does not prove she is Native American, and yet she seems to think it does and for whatever reason you also seem to think it does. A test that uses substitute data that differentiates “between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level” isn’t very specific and it sure doesn’t make Warren a Cherokee as she has claimed.
What exactly is “Native citizenship” anyways?
Native citizenship appears to be what individual tribes require to be considered as members. And Warren is claiming to have Native American ancestry, something that you seem to avoid while attempting to create a “strawman” that you can knock down. That’s all that she is claiming and attempting to discredit Don Trump’s attempts to show she has none (ancestry).
Here is another news source showing how her dna testing showed her to have native american ancestry.
She’s not Native American Bill.
You keep saying that Steve-O but I’m not sure anyone is suggesting she is (I’m surely not).
What is a Native American, Steve-O??
She did Bill, it’s the central theme of this entire conversation.
That’s bullshit Steve-O.
And you’ve still not said what it is that makes one a Native American! Try to stay on topic here Steve-O.
If the topic isn’t Elizabeth Warrens claim that she is Native American, pray tell, what exactly do you think the topic is?
Steve-O, as long as I’ve been reading of this topic the issue has been whether/not Warren had Native American ancestry or Native American heritage, and how much of this she does have.
Are you going to give us your definition of a Native American?? You seem to have a feel for just what a Native American is-what is it?
You’ve got me confused now Bill, you think the topic is about Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Native America, but you also think that it’s not about her ancestry?
You previously said “The subject of whether/not Warren is Native American has nothing to do with anything.” But now you say “as long as I’ve been reading of this topic the issue has been whether/not Warren had Native American ancestry or Native American heritage” which is it Bill?
What is it with the Democratic party that so fully embraces cultural mis-appropriation and stolen valor? Not a good look at all.
The theme that is central to Warren’s Native American heritage claim is that she is indeed a Native American, with all of the privilege, understanding and bonding that implies, along with any benefits for that matter, too. Personally, I think that most people are looking at her claims that having some person 10 generations back in her line who donated some DNA as giving her the right to claim special minority status is as ridiculous as it is insulting to real Native Americans. Not to mention that if we’re going to water down minority status that far, we’re going to run out of minority groups really fast. Pretty much everyone is going to something, now.
Steve-O, the bullshit is getting too deep on here for hip boots!
You say Warren says she is Native American but you don’t give us a link where she said this. Further, you say she is not Native American but you don’t say why-what is a Native American??
There is such a thing as native american ancestry and native american heritage but they both involve a look at said ancestry IMO.
You are just screwing around because you’ve already lost the argument but can’t admit defeat. Just stop with the bullshit!
Jason, while your the expert on your opinion, your statement: “The theme that is central to Warren’s Native American heritage claim is that she is indeed a Native American, with all of the privilege, understanding and bonding that implies, along with any benefits for that matter, too,” doesn’t pass any smell test.
I’ve been hounding Steve-O about what is a Native American without much luck-perhaps you’d like to jump in here with your own thoughts on this. You seem to think that Warren, by claiming Native American heritage, also thinks of herself as a Native American. Go ahead and explain your thinking since you’ll not find anything of the sort in the record (just in your mind, along with Steve-O).
Here’s your link Bill, it’s a good article perhaps you should read it…
Bill, you don’t know what a Native American is?
I’ll let you in on a secret, Elizabeth Warren isn’t one.
I would not be surprised if Trump himself had more Native American blood than Warren
Nice Steve-O, your link is nothing more than Craig’s opinion which proves what?? That he is full of shit, too!?
You got nothing Steve-O yet can’t admit it. You’ve been full of shit on this Native American issue and still are. Go ahead and start calling Warren Pocahontas if it makes you feel any better.
It’s all you got left!
Which would show what, Jason?? What would your theme be then? And, of course, it must be relative to Democratic Party somehow.
I found another link for you https://www.google.com you just type in whatever you want and it finds it for you. For example, you could type in “did Elizabeth Warren claim to be Native America” or “Elizabeth Warren Native American”. I don’t need to provide you with links to things that are common knowledge Bill. You are arguing with yourself about nothing.
Steve-O, you only need to provide a link if you want to be taken seriously.
Clearly you don’t.
You are plain full of shit, Steve-O.
So Bill, on this link that I need to provide, can I just grab one at random and copy the link even if I haven’t read it or know anything about it? What if it has factually incorrect information in it, will that help make me look serious?
Common Bill, you said yourself that Warren isn’t a Native American. Why are you still arguing with yourself over this? You know she has claimed to be a Native American, everyone that has read anything about her knows this. What would a link provided by me do for you? The straws are all gone buddy, stop grasping for them.
Steve-O, you can start by showing where I’ve said that Warren was not a Native American. You will not be able to show it because I’ve never said anything so absurd.
Next, Steve-O try and post a link where Warren has said that she is a Native American, as opposed to having Native American (ancestry, blood or heritage). Like I say, try and post it because I don’t think you have such and if you did you wouldn’t be hiding behind your “common knowledge” bullshit.
And take your time-maybe enlist Jason Barron as he seems to have a “theme” that might help you out.
So now you think she is Native American?
I said “She’s not a Native American Bill” and you responded “You keep saying that Steve-O but I’m not sure anyone is suggesting she is (I’m surely not).” Maybe I misunderstood your comment…
I’m not going to find links for you Bill, do your own homework. It is common knowledge that Elizabeth Warren has claimed she is a Native American it is the entire reason this is even a conversation. Use the links I’ve already provided if for some reason you think we are talking about Warrens ancestry for no particular reason.
Steve-O, what do you mean “maybe?” That comment was as clear as a bell. I’ve never suggested Warren was (or was not) Native American. You are the only one on here saying one way or the other but even you won’t give your reasonings. You don’t have a clue as to what the term even means, I’ll wager but go ahead and attempt to show us your reasons.
You are full of shit, Steve-O!
You won’t give a link because you don’t have one. It’s as simple as that.
Wasn’t Jason Barron able to help you out?? He seems to have left the kitchen as it was getting a little hot.
Clear as a bell, Bill. You couldn’t be any clearer while you straddle that fence and cover all your bases by saying anything and everything to try and prove some kind of point about your own inability to admit you are wrong.
She’s still not a Native American Bill.
Well Steve-O we’ll just have to agree to disagree and you won’t back up your bullshit so we can all agree that you are just trying to bullshit us all on here. Perhaps you are waiting for someone to bail your ass out, like Jason took his turn in the barrel recently, but don’t wait too long.
You are going down, big-time. Funny it is being blamed on your misunderstanding a simple statement.
Yessir Steve-O, you are still full of shit and like I said-whatever you do don’t give us any back-up to your theories unless you are serious.
Are you threatening me Bill? I’m going down big-time, what is that supposed to mean?
Your failure to acknowledge the painfully obvious has nothing to do with me. Elizabeth Warren has claimed to be a Native American, the fact that you do not accept that has nothing to do with me. I don’t need to provide you with links to things that are common knowledge and in the news, in fact they are the reason the article you keep commenting on is even an article, your failure to understand this very, very simple concept has nothing to do with me…it’s all you Bill, but you already know that.
Boy Steve-O, you are reaching now. Did you feel threatened? Heheh!
I don’t know how else to say this but you are still full of shit, Steve-O.
Go ahead and give us something to hang our hat on, about that common knowledge bullshit, too.
Yessir, Steve-O whenever you decide to get serious just provide some of that common knowledge you speak of. WhoooooooHoooooooooooooo!
We are waiting!?? Maybe Craig will bail you out, as you are needing it! Have you noticed that he has dropped out, too?
“You are going down, big-time” that’s another one of those common knowledge things, as in it’s common knowledge when somebody tells somebody else that they are going down big-time it’s a threat. It’s all you Bill, on full display. It might be good for you to take a few minutes away from the keyboard, you are getting awfully worked up over this. Take a deep breath and think about the direction you’ve chosen, it’s all you Bill…it’s all you.
Steve-O, it’s you that is taking this shit too seriously-some threat, right. Just so you are comforted, my meaning was that you would be going down under your own weight. Only so much bullshit is tolerated, even with the partisans on this site.
I don’t know how else to put it, Steve-O except that you’ve been full of shit from almost your first post here. You have overloaded your ass and can’t back up a single thing you’ve said.
Like I said before, when you get serious you’ll make a feeble attempt to post a link that you can’t produce (otherwise you would have done it by now).
Until then, you are still full of shit!
What would a link provided by me do for you?
Steve-O, either back up your bullshit or give it up!
So Bill, if I provide you with a link that Elizabeth Warren says she is Native American will you believe that? Do you think that all off this hoopla came out of thin air and that she had a dna test done for no reason?
You and I both know that you’ve already googled it and you know she has repeatedly claimed to be a Native American, we also both know that if I provide you a link that shows as much nothing will change except you will change the subject once again.
It’s common knowledge Bill, it’s the reason she took a dna test, it’s the reason for this article. I have no idea why you continue to argue against very simple facts, it’s all you Bill, it’s all you.
She’s not a Native American.
Steve-O, you are still full of shit!
If you want to be taken seriously while saying that I’m full of shit you need to provide a link. Seriously though, it’s your choice to remain willfully ignorant and call bullshit on simple common knowledge. I don’t understand why you would want to, but it’s all you Bill.
“being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born” – Elizabeth Warren
Pretty good reach, there Steve-O.
Anyone with half a brain stem knows her meaning, even you. I believe that Don Trump even used a similar term when he posed his million $ to charity if her DNA showed she “was Indian.” He, of course, is half-stepping now but everyone knew he was only talking some percentage of Indian DNA.
Frankly, I doubt there is any formal criteria for someone listing themselves as a minority (on say a census) but I also suspect there is no penalty for a false answer (whatever that is). The minority term, I suspect, really has no definition (you don’t seem to have one for Native American) or the definition is subjective (depending on who is giving it).
Your position on what is a Native American is clearly on the order of a definition of “obscenity/pornography: I know it when I see it.”
I maintain that you are still full of shit, Steve-O.
Bill, have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? You are the boy who cried bullshit, your words no longer carry any meaning. Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it bullshit, it makes it something you disagree with.
“Being Native American is part of who our family is and I’m glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it,” – Elizabeth Warren
You are still full of shit, Steve-O!
Good point Bill, you make a very compelling argument.
“my Papaw — had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do” – Elizabeth Warren
Steve o , your ability to stay rational and keep good humor is impressive. Well done . American to the core .
Thanks Opinion, sure is interesting to see how some people think on full display. I’m guessing that Craigs latest article might have gathered a little inspiration from this thread.
thanks. all contributions are greatly, greatly appreciated.
i guess i’m exposing my biases here, but i think journalists should write at least a fraction as much about the divisiveness tearing this country apart as they write to add to the divisiveness.
We are all VICTIMS!
David, one of my favorite Hemingway quotes:
“The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
Damn. That line chokes me up every time.
Yes, great article. So many sentences i would like to quote. As usual, wIsh you would condense it a little. 😁
If only I could string words together so well. You guessed it. I feel aggrieved.
Craig, perhaps Warren was related to those Vikings that inhabited Canada around the year 1000?
I’ve never heard straws squeal more than those you are currently grasping at!!!
Steve-O, you don’t think Warren looks Viking??
She is whatever she identifies as…even if her dna says she isn’t.
You are taking this way to seriously, Steve-O!
I think she has strong DNA links to the Bernie tribe from the Red Sandersching province of China.
The Economist was classically liberal – in favor of free markets – as in Adam Smith. Starting >40 years ago I used to be a weekly reader. They liked the US more than US news organizations. They are now left of center as it relates to politics. They endorsed Obama and Hillary for POTUS.
Maybe the Economist has always aimed to be a “centrist” publication with their global outlook on the world and now it is our country (and more so the GOP) which has shifted it’s opinions to the far right?
The official positions of the Republican party haven’t really changed in decades. The shift has mostly been to the Left by Dems, based on their positions.
I agree the Democratic Party has changed, but I feel more towards the right as well…only 1 Democratic Senator even questions the proxy war in Yemen or arms sales to Saudi???
Where is the “D” anti war party of years ago?
As for the GOP, I am certain that I could pull up a ton of articles to support my belief that the R’s have shifted far right from earlier administrations.
“The GOP under Donald Trump manifestly isn’t the Republican Party of a generation ago. The turn against free trade, the harshness on immigration, the rising admiration for Russia’s ruler, the tolerance of debauchery and bad character in political leaders — today’s Republicanism is indeed a far cry from that of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.”
I believe Ronnie Regan was quoted “Mr. Gorbachev, Please take down that wall”.
About 180 degree turn in my opinion from Trump.
When I was reading your words:
“…even the rich sons of the ruling class of white privilege who seem to get blamed a ton…Men are pigs, and that testosterone in their blood tends to make them aggressive pigs.”
I could only remember hearing Brett K’s now famous line; “I liked beer, I still like beer!”
One nation for all, united by Budweiser and Coors!
Well said . Interesting points.
Great article, Craig! So great, I feel the need to pay for it. Thanks for carrying the spear for the rest of us (I hope that doesn’t offend anyone). Cheers!