Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered"

[Loren Pechtel]

She used these "family stories" to further her career. The DNA test gives a very tiny percentage as being Indian, so it does not really justify calling herself "American Indian" like she did on her Texas bar registration card.

Face it, she lied about her ancestry.

There's a recurring phenomenon across many societies called "hypodescent", the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union to the subordinate group. This practice developed in America back in the 1600s, hand-in-hand with slavery, and it led to the widespread informal and in some cases formal use of the "one-drop rule". To the extent that people have been infected by that thought process, and to the extent that they see American Indians as a low-status ethnicity, for them to infer that someone with an American Indian great**N-grandparent counts as an American Indian can be automatic, the fact that her percentage doesn't really justify it notwithstanding.

So Ms. Warren's statement isn't evidence of her lying so much as evidence of her being easily influenced by mindless memes prevalent in whichever poorly-reasoning subcultures she gets exposed to. Which, come to think of it, could also account for another statement she made.

It occurs to me her family might not even have known the true situation. Think about the one-drop rule applied generation after generation--all that gets passed down in family history is "American Indian", not the percentage. More than a couple of generations back people don't know the actual ratio and from the one-drop it's thought to be 100%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody's harping on this being racist so why would anyone have done the research?

Well, Halfie is presenting it as 'obvious' racism, against whites, and Halfie is usually talking compleat bollocks, so if he has anything like a point, someone would be collecting something better than 'i used to get braced a lot by cops doing their job when i was breaking the law so REVERSE RACISM!!!'

No, he's saying it happens. I don't read him as presenting it as evidence of racism, but rather as a rebuttal to blacks being stopped in white areas being due to racism. Cops get suspicious of anything that doesn't look like it fits, although this is far more socioeconomic than racial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Reverse racism" is also a stupid phrase. It is just plain and simple racism. No race has a monopoly on being racist. Japan is racist, Africans are racist, Indians are racist. Look at all those countries with strong immigration policies. But, only white americans get called racists for wanting strong immigration policies even though the other countries are just as racist.

Even next door neighbors who are friends put up fences between their yards to keep their neighbors out! Yet, they claim a border wall is stupid and doesn't work.

Just because someone else does something wrong is no reason for us to do something wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nobody's harping on this being racist so why would anyone have done the research?

Well, Halfie is presenting it as 'obvious' racism, against whites, and Halfie is usually talking compleat bollocks, so if he has anything like a point, someone would be collecting something better than 'i used to get braced a lot by cops doing their job when i was breaking the law so REVERSE RACISM!!!'

No, he's saying it happens. I don't read him as presenting it as evidence of racism, but rather as a rebuttal to blacks being stopped in white areas being due to racism.

Well, reading his whine about 'why does no one call it racism when' seems to me to be claiming it is based on racism, but it's racism against whites so no one cares. Your milage may vary.

Cops get suspicious of anything that doesn't look like it fits, although this is far more socioeconomic than racial.

That would be my estimation. Which is why i keep asking haIf for supporting evidence. He offers 'this happened to me' without any clue as to how he can filter out other possibilities.

 

[Toni]

That's no more a lie than me claiming to be part German based on what I was told by my parents and grandparents and then finding out on Ancestry.com (which, btw, is full of inaccuracies) that instead of immigrating from Germany, my great greats immigrated from Switzerland.

Saying that you are part-German (which would be true even if your ancestor was Swiss German) is very different than Elizabeth Warren putting "American Indian" as her race on her bar registration card based on some family lore. Or being listed as "minority law professor" by her university.

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

 

[starwater]

That's no more a lie than me claiming to be part German based on what I was told by my parents and grandparents and then finding out on Ancestry.com (which, btw, is full of inaccuracies) that instead of immigrating from Germany, my great greats immigrated from Switzerland.

Saying that you are part-German (which would be true even if your ancestor was Swiss German) is very different than Elizabeth Warren putting "American Indian" as her race on her bar registration card based on some family lore. Or being listed as "minority law professor" by her university.

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

^^^ this

Trying to make something from nothing, because it's a female running for president.

 

[starwater]

She was told by her family that she was. When she found out she corrected her story, big deal. You don’t like her because she is a smart woman running for president. We all know you hate women.

One can think Warren is stupid regardless of her sex. Just like I believe Joe Biden is stupid but it's not because I'm sexist against men.

Nobody is afraid of smart women. That is a leftist myth. We are afraid of stupid women and stupid men.

Meanwhile Trump just reached his 10,000 lie. Deflect much?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meanwhile Trump just reached his 10,000 lie. Deflect much?

Huh? I thought he reached that long ago.

 

[Derec]

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

Of course, Warren calling herself Indian or Chinese or black etc. would not make any difference if there were not benefits associated with belonging to certain specically favored groups. And American Indians (as well as "native" Hawaiians, see the idiocy surrounding Governor Dickless^* not removing those blocking TMT construction) are the most highly favored racial/ethnic group in the United States today.
We should remove any advantages race brings to say college admissions or professor selection, or how you trying to prevent construction of legal construction project is handling by authorities, and just treat everybody the same. Then nobody would care if Warren calls herself a Cherokee princess or whatever.


^* Yes ma'm, it's true. David Ige has no dick.

 

[Derec]

Trying to make something from nothing, because it's a female running for president.

BS. But she is a major candidate who is calling a justified homicide "murder" just to pander to a certain segment of the electorate, to wit the #BLM crowd. That should be pointed out, whether or not she is a "female running for president". Should females be exempt from criticism just because they are females?

 

[ZiprHead]

That's no more a lie than me claiming to be part German based on what I was told by my parents and grandparents and then finding out on Ancestry.com (which, btw, is full of inaccuracies) that instead of immigrating from Germany, my great greats immigrated from Switzerland.

Saying that you are part-German (which would be true even if your ancestor was Swiss German) is very different than Elizabeth Warren putting "American Indian" as her race on her bar registration card based on some family lore. Or being listed as "minority law professor" by her university.

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

Yp, my family on my father's side has said we are related to British royalty based on a tale that a great aunt (she may have only been pretty good. I never met her. ) had done an ancestry search of the family. Supposedly the family has a castle over there.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trying to make something from nothing, because it's a female running for president.

BS. But she is a major candidate who is calling a justified homicide "murder" just to pander to a certain segment of the electorate, to wit the #BLM crowd. That should be pointed out, whether or not she is a "female running for president". Should females be exempt from criticism just because they are females?

 

[starwater]

Trying to make something from nothing, because it's a female running for president.

BS. But she is a major candidate who is calling a justified homicide "murder" just to pander to a certain segment of the electorate, to wit the #BLM crowd. That should be pointed out, whether or not she is a "female running for president". Should females be exempt from criticism just because they are females?

Try that again with people who don't know you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

Yp, my family on my father's side has said we are related to British royalty based on a tale that a great aunt (she may have only been pretty good. I never met her. ) had done an ancestry search of the family. Supposedly the family has a castle over there.

Yeah, i'm allegedly 83rd in line to inherit a castle in Scotland. One good plague and i'm in there.
No one ever mentions WHICH castle..

 

[Elixir]

Should females be exempt from criticism just because they are females?

Of course not! That's reserved for white males.
She could do what the archetypal white male does when criticized though - deny deny deny, change the subject and if anyone brings it up again, just lie and say she didn't say that.
That makes it all good.

 

[Gun Nut]

You only know what your ancestry is based on what your family tells you. If you use DNA tests, you might know more about your ancestry—or maybe not. Such testing was not readily or commonly available in 1986. Today, reliance on databases to determine things like ‘race’ or country/region of ancestry are not particularly accurate, especially if one is talking about very small populations of which few members have their DNA entered into the various data bases. This is certainly try for Native Americans.

Of course, Warren calling herself Indian or Chinese or black etc. would not make any difference if there were not benefits associated with belonging to certain specically favored groups. And American Indians (as well as "native" Hawaiians, see the idiocy surrounding Governor Dickless^* not removing those blocking TMT construction) are the most highly favored racial/ethnic group in the United States today.
We should remove any advantages race brings to say college admissions or professor selection, or how you trying to prevent construction of legal construction project is handling by authorities, and just treat everybody the same. Then nobody would care if Warren calls herself a Cherokee princess or whatever.


^* Yes ma'm, it's true. David Ige has no dick.

I am curious what you know about your family heritage that did not come from your own family member's unchallenged claims to you. Have you seen your mother's birth certificate? Actually held it in your hands and tested the information there? was it a fake document, maybe? Have you actually gone to any family member's country of origin, and searched the records there? I am not challenging anything about your family.. I am just wondering what empirical evidence you may have about any aspect of your family history.
Of course you didn't do any of that... why would Warren have?

My father claimed to be 1/16th Pontiac Indian. I think maybe over the decades the tribe changed a couple of times, lol. I never really believed him, but that is more about my relationship with him than anything else. 2 years ago we all did a DNA test. As I predicted, the backpedaling about where that family story came from and how much he himself believed it began.

 

[Elixir]

My father claimed to be 1/16th Pontiac Indian.

Was he a Chief?


That would be some good genes!

 

[Derec]

I am curious what you know about your family heritage that did not come from your own family member's unchallenged claims to you. Have you seen your mother's birth certificate? Actually held it in your hands and tested the information there? was it a fake document, maybe? Have you actually gone to any family member's country of origin, and searched the records there? I am not challenging anything about your family.. I am just wondering what empirical evidence you may have about any aspect of your family history.
Of course you didn't do any of that... why would Warren have?

Again, the issue with her claim is that it gave her benefits. I have not tried on capitalizing on family lore of ancestors having killed an Ottoman Turk official in a feud, fed him to some pigs they owned and having to hightail it to Austrian-controlled areas to avoid retribution.

My father claimed to be 1/16th Pontiac Indian. I think maybe over the decades the tribe changed a couple of times, lol.

Especially since Pontiac was a guy, not a tribe.

I never really believed him, but that is more about my relationship with him than anything else. 2 years ago we all did a DNA test. As I predicted, the backpedaling about where that family story came from and how much he himself believed it began.

Even if some (say 1/1024) had come through, it is possible that this came from Europe. After all, Amerindians are really from Siberia, and that is connected to Europe.

 

[Derec]

To get back to presidential candidates libeling of Darren Wilson.

On Ferguson, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris Told a Terrible Lie

That’s the complicated nation we inhabit, but the complexity does not mean there aren’t simple obligations that attach to every politician, activist, and member of the media. And the simplest of those obligations is a commitment to the truth. We know that lies and falsehoods can cause riots. They can cause city blocks to burn. They can destroy a man’s life. At the very least, they can further embitter an already toxic public discourse. When issues are most fraught, the obligation of courageous, honest leadership is most imperative.
But Warren and Harris’s failure is more than a failure of leadership. The publication of a false accusation of a crime like murder is libelous under American law. In other words, their lies may well have been illegal. Democrats — especially Democrats who seek to address the very real challenges surrounding police violence in the United States — should demand better. Harris and Warren should do better. They should correct and retract their false statements. There is no excuse for their inflammatory lies.

Now, you can say that National Review is conservative and thus does not really count. So let's look at lefty Vox.

Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris’s controversial Michael Brown tweets, explained

Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris marked the five-year anniversary of the Ferguson, Missouri, police shooting of Michael Brown last week with tweets claiming that the cop who shot Brown “murdered” the 18-year-old black man.
But the evidence, including a report released by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, says otherwise.
[...]
The response to the Warren and Harris tweets, from conservative and more progressive commentators, demonstrates that risk: Because Warren and Harris got the details of the Brown shooting wrong, their bigger message about policing and racism has gotten lost on social media in a sea of criticism over the facts of the shooting.

 

[laughing dog]

Again, the issue with her claim is that it gave her benefits.

Exactly what benefits did she get?