Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Cleanup

I think it's better to rework her article so it's closer to our mission. I recommend we add parts where we can debunk the bullshit "Native American" conspiracy going on about her, debunk the "supports action against Iran" conspiracy, and call her out on her vote against Bernie Sanders' anti-Monsanto provision, just off the top of my head. Deal? Serocco (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with DNA tests?

This reference to tribal objections to DNA testing is unexplained and is not self explanatory:"Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. stated "using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong." Are they saying science doesn't matter somehow? I don't see the point. I suppose everyone with DNA evidence could claim tribal benefits ( casino profits?), were such tests a valid form of establishing tribal association. I am not impressed with the ethics of that.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"first female professor of color"

Is this supposed to be snark? Dave Wise 2 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Either that or someone got their wires seriously crossed when typing the word “Law”. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revisions

Here are my proposed revisions to merge the "Pocahontas" and "Feud with Trump" sections, which largely recycles content from each other. Note: the second paragraph has an inadvertent space in front of it in source which causes the formatting to be wonky, but it is an easy fix I will make before I put the edit onto the page. I want to make sure I have community approval with the changes that I'm making, and I hope that I merged both sections appropriately. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren - "false" vs "dubious" claims of Cherokee heritage.

(Shamelessly stolen from Hastur's talk page.) Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. While you are correct in your revision to Elizabeth Warren's page that the term "dubious" is more accurate to address the result of her DNA test than "false", I would like to remind people that we are not using the word "DNA" in the section title. We are using the word "heritage", which takes on a vastly different meaning. The Cherokee Nation has stated that she does not have Cherokee heritage, and mentioned that it is personally harmful to them that she claimed that she does. I think that on that note, we here should take a sympathetic stance to them. Perhaps we should not turn the section header into "false claims of Native Heritage", as that could potentially be perceived as sympathetic to Trump's argument that she "has no Indian [sic] blood in her", though I believe we should change the word heritage so as to not seem like apologists for cultural appropriation. What do you think of this proposal? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Trump long ago, when he was fighting Indian casinos, tried to smear Indian identity in general, and perhaps the Cherokees specifically, stating that they 'look white'. The Cherokees are somewhat unusual among US-based Indian tribes in that they have a lot of European ancestry. There are three different relevant concepts: genetics, tribal affiliation (legally-based for the most part), and heritage (cultural upbringing). People can have one or more of each of these. Warren has at most the first one. Bongolian (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough--Hastur! (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I still say "dubious" is misleading. Natives in the states today when recognizing membership of a tribe (sans the forms issues by the US government today, which most natives scoff at) don't look at blood quantum, they exist more as political groups. The other thing is that using a DNA test to measure one's involvement in a tribe is flat out ludicrous. It's like saying that the white great-great grandson of a Confederate plantation slaveowner, who has 3% black blood, is automatically black, let alone that being part Cherokee means nothing. You're either in it, or you're not. And then there's the issue that besides a generic DNA test which have shown many of their own issues today, there's nothing to show she actually is Native. Most of her ancestors were white.

Sources:

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/19/elizabeth-warren-dna-native-americans/

https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/18/elizabeth-warrens-dna-disaster-221607

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/elizabeth-warren-connected-dna-native-american-heritage-here-s-why-ncna921166

http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/05/elizabeth-warrens-ancestry-part-1.html

https://medium.com/@ewarrenisnotcherokee/open-letter-to-elizabeth-warren-from-cherokee-citizens-ab053578bd95

We shouldn't be giving this sort of nonsense any thrift or place here. Though I just noticed that it looks like it's been established on the main page that she was full of it. Still leaving this up here in case anyone disputes it. Darth Heinous (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s basically been confirmed here that the only reason my edits are being reverted is because we want to give Elizabeth Warren “the benefit of the doubt” that she meant no harm when she falsely claimed to have Native identity to promote herself professionally. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 please engage in this conversation. You’ve been very active in reverting edits, but not in discussing them. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If the Indian tribes exist more as political groups, then hiring Warren at Harvard is clearly independent of her claim of association, as Harvard does not give preferences for political association (in theory). There is no evidence Warren's claims of Indian heritage affected the hiring of an Indian economist at Harvard, if one such ever had existed in the pool of applications. More than likely she obtained a position destined to be held by a white male. I am not certain I care about that.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So you’re basing your argument on assumptions, instead of the very real fact that she falsely claimed to be Native and promoted herself as such in the institutions she was a part of? That’s harmful regardless of who else the job could have gone to. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)