Elizabeth Warren Calls out Ted Cruz's 'significant sacrifice'

[RobinReborn]

Not sure exactly what to make of Elizabeth Warren, but it's interesting to see how much of a mess Ted Cruz is.

 

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/722534798032506880/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

Not sure exactly what to make of Elizabeth Warren, but it's interesting to see how much of a mess Ted Cruz is.

 

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/722534798032506880/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Pochantis, the Amerind Princess is being nasty again.

[RobinReborn]

She is not Native American:

 

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

She is not Native American:

 

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

She once claimed to have descent from aboriginal people.  So I have called her Pochanantas ever since. 

 

Please see  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/04/17/elizabeth-warren-repeats-her-false-claims-of-native-american-ancestry-in-new-book/

 

In her heart of hearts she was a squaw. 

[RobinReborn]

Yeah... a lot of people in the US claim descent from the Natives, it has a certain populist charm to it.

 

But I started this thread to discuss Ted Cruz.  I vaguely remember Yaron Brook saying something positive about him... 

[Robert Campbell]

Robin,

No, Presidential candidates should not complain about sacrifice. (Even though it's become routine for candidates of all parties, running for any office, who are 15 points up in the polls to put their hands out and send emails suggesting that without your donation they're toast.)

Normal people don't want to run for President.  We already know what the gig is, and so do the people who take it.

But it's not like Warren wouldn't make the same complaints, and more, were she to run.

She hates big corporations—and has pulled down huge fees for being their lawyer.

She purports to represent low-paid workers when she falsely claimed Native American ancestry to get her highly-paid job at Harvard Law made permanent (female, minority, Affirmative Action, cha ching!).

She's most likely not running this cycle—she burns with ambition, lots of Dems begged her to—because of the Native American issue.  She could get the media to give her sufficient cover when she was running for Senator in Massachusetts, but running for President would put her in a harsher media environment, for much longer.

Would she campaign in Oklahoma, where she was born?

The Cherokee Nation (consulting a complete list of their members that dates from the 1890s) has said that she is not one of them.

I know Melissa Harris-Perry said, while Warren was running for the Senate, that only "indigenous people" are allowed to ask whether she is really Cherokee—anyone else who does it is a racist and a monster of privilege—the implication being that the Cherokee Nation is no longer indigenous, and has turned into a racist monster of privilege.

But she's off the air, and her defense won't suffice in a national election.

Robert

[BaalChatzaf]

20 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Robin,

No, Presidential candidates should not complain about sacrifice. (Even though it's become routine for candidates of all parties, running for any office, who are 15 points up in the polls to put their hands out and send emails suggesting that without your donation they're toast.)

Normal people don't want to run for President.  We already know what the gig is, and so do the people who take it.

But it's not like Warren wouldn't make the same complaints, and more, were she to run.

She hates big corporations—and has pulled down huge fees for being their lawyer.

She purports to represent low-paid workers when she falsely claimed Native American ancestry to get her highly-paid job at Harvard Law made permanent (female, minority, Affirmative Action, cha ching!).

She's most likely not running this cycle—she burns with ambition, lots of Dems begged her to—because of the Native American issue.  She could get the media to give her sufficient cover when she was running for Senator in Massachusetts, but running for President would put her in a harsher media environment, for much longer.

Would she campaign in Oklahoma, where she was born?

The Cherokee Nation (consulting a complete list of their members that dates from the 1890s) has said that she is not one of them.

I know Melissa Harris-Perry said, while Warren was running for the Senate, that only "indigenous people" are allowed to ask whether she is really Cherokee—anyone else who does it is a racist and a monster of privilege—the implication being that the Cherokee Nation is no longer indigenous, and has turned into a racist monster of privilege.

But she's off the air, and her defense won't suffice in a national election.

Robert

Pochahantas  Sakajaweiah Warren is a pain in the butt. 

[RobinReborn]

20 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

 

I know Melissa Harris-Perry said, while Warren was running for the Senate, that only "indigenous people" are allowed to ask whether she is really Cherokee—anyone else who does it is a racist and a monster of privilege—the implication being that the Cherokee Nation is no longer indigenous, and has turned into a racist monster of privilege.

 

 

Unfortunately there is some truth to that:
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-cherokee-idUSTRE77N08F20110824

 

Summary:  Not only did the Cherokee's own slaves but they expelled descendants of slaves from their tribe.

[Robert Campbell]

43 minutes ago, RobinReborn said:

 

Unfortunately there is some truth to that:
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-cherokee-idUSTRE77N08F20110824

 

Summary:  Not only did the Cherokee's own slaves but they expelled descendants of slaves from their tribe.

Robin,

The Cherokees owned slaves, in North Carolina and Georgia before they were expelled, then after exile to Indian Territory (which all that serial Congressional compromising had put in the slave orbit).  This is not exactly news.

It was legal in those parts, and some of them probably thought holding slaves would make them more acceptable to white Southerners.  Turned out it didn't.

And not all of those descendants were excluded from the tribe.  I've seen the papers (from 1913) identifying a man named Joe Brown (who was usually considered black and, many years later, ran a small record company on the South Side of Chicago) as a "Cherokee freedman," and confirming his allotment of what had been communal tribal land.  His son showed them to me.  The family still owns that land.

All this tells you is that "indigenous peoples" and their folkways were complicated, morally and otherwise.  This should not be news.

And it has no relevance to Elizabeth Warren's case.  For La Warren claims no slave ancestors.

She does have an ancestor who helped to herd those who had been kicked out of North Carolina and Georgia into a stockade in Chattanooga, Tennessee, before they were dispatched along the rest of the trail.

Robert

[RobinReborn]

Did you read the article?  This expulsion of slave descendants happened in 2011.

 

I agree that this isn't relevant to Elizabeth Warren.

 

It's interesting because it shows that oppressed groups can be oppressors.  This isn't necessarily news but it goes against the narrative that I'm frequently exposed to.

[Brant Gaede]

22 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Robin,

The Cherokees owned slaves, in North Carolina and Georgia before they were expelled, then after exile to Indian Territory (which all that serial Congressional compromising had put in the slave orbit).  This is not exactly news.

It was legal in those parts, and some of them probably thought holding slaves would make them more acceptable to white Southerners.  Turned out it didn't.

And not all of those descendants were excluded from the tribe.  I've seen the papers (from 1913) identifying a man named Joe Brown (who was usually considered black and, many years later, ran a small record company on the South Side of Chicago) as a "Cherokee freedman," and confirming his allotment of what had been communal tribal land.  His son showed them to me.  The family still owns that land.

All this tells you is that "indigenous peoples" and their folkways were complicated, morally and otherwise.  This should not be news.

And it has no relevance to Elizabeth Warren's case.  For La Warren claims no slave ancestors.

She does have an ancestor who helped to herd those who had been kicked out of North Carolina and Georgia into a stockade in Chattanooga, Tennessee, before they were dispatched along the rest of the trail.

Robert

The moving to Oklahoma--the "Trail of Tears"--did result in maintaining the strength of a Cherokee tribal identity. Many tribes completely disappeared (nationally). Some Cherokees were left behind and I've known very white looking people with some Cherokee blood from North Carolina. Since Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, I have to be in favor of getting that genocidalist off the twenty dollar bill except for esthetic reasons.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Some Cherokees hid out in the mountains of far Western North Carolina.  Around 1900, they were able to come out of hiding and got a small reservation.  (Mostly visible to us in SC from casino commercials, and a few movies that have been filmed there.)

Most of today's Cherokees have some European ancestry.  Some have a lot.  

Before the Trail of Tears, the faction that wanted to conclude a treaty and move to Indian Territory was led by John Ridge (last name an abbreviated translation of the Cherokee for he who walks along the mountaintop).  His wife was white.  

The faction that wanted to refuse the treaty and stay where they were was led by the top chief, John Ross (last name not an abbreviation of anything Cherokee; he was at least 3/4 Scottish).  

After the Trail of Tears, Ridge and nearly all of the other leaders of his faction were assassinated.  Ross remained chief through the Civll War (when he reluctantly allied with the Confederates; he even tried exile in Kansas to avoid that).

They did keep a tribal identity.

Robert

 

[Robert Campbell]

36 minutes ago, RobinReborn said:

It's interesting because it shows that oppressed groups can be oppressors.

Robin,

Not surprising to anyone who knows the least bit of history.

It's funny how narrative and history manage to have so little in common.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

2 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-cherokee-idUSTRE77N08F20110824

The Federal court case (even if has to go to the Supreme Court) should lead to this tribal decision being overturned.

Congress also has authority to step in.

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

3 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

The Federal court case (even if has to go to the Supreme Court) should lead to this tribal decision being overturned.

Congress also has authority to step in.

Robert

Maybe they'll build a wall.

--Brant

back to Africa?

[Brant Gaede]

10 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Robin,

Not surprising to anyone who knows the least bit of history.

It's funny how narrative and history manage to have so little in common.

Robert

Is that because narrative has a logical flow while history is full of countervailing details and choppiness?

It sounds like a variation of the old, "There is more in heaven and hell . . . ."

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Yeah, history is a lot messier than any elegant, well constructed narrative.

But the deeper problem is that history harbors actual facts, here and there, and narrative may be constructed in purposeful defiance of facts, in order to discourage anyone from examining them.

Robert