No she really shouldn't have. Challenges from Trumpians are the same as challenges from Creationists to debate scientists. They are based on bad faith and only meant to boost the publicity and message of of the one issuing the challenge.
Trump was able to springboard his credentials as "the original name-caller of Pocahontas" from this and he later became the leader of the Trumpians. While this probably didn't play as much into how he won in 2016, it was still free publicity for him anyway.
Such "challenges" are ALWAYS styled as catch-22s, if you respond you lose, because they certainly won't say that you've won, on the other hand if you don't, they'll say you were scared and therefore they win in advance.
Playing their games is a no win situation, the best way to handle this situation is to call them out for their own cowardice and show why they have no right to make such a challenge at all. They'll still try and spin it as you being afraid, but then again you can't stop that and it's easy enough to call them out for the lying sacks of shit they are without giving them the publicity they would otherwise get.
So, also not Native American, but my best understanding is: there’s a long, sordid history of the US government using the conflation of citizenship and DNA/ethnicity to undermine Native sovereignty. If Indian law is seen as based on race/ethnicity rather than on treaty relationships between nations, it’s easy to characterize it as discriminatory and get it struck down or weasel around it, and the US government has taken full advantage of that ambiguity for basically ever. There’s a serious effort to undermine the Indian Child Welfare Act along these lines right now. So really any action or statement that perpetuates the all-too-common misunderstanding of Native Americans as an ethnic group rather than as sovereign nations is pretty threatening. It definitely puts people like Warren who likely do have some Native ancestry in an awkward spot, because it *seems* perfectly logical that you could say, “I have this ancestry, but I would never claim to be a member of a tribe,” but given the history and jurisprudence, it’s not really a needle that can be threaded. For sure it’s weird to not be able to talk about Native heritage in the same inconsequential way we might talk about Irish heritage, but compared to the things that have happened to Native people—genocide, boarding schools, coerced adoptions, etc.—all facilitated by blurring the nationhood/ethnicity distinction, letting some family lore go is a pretty small price.
The problem is that notions of indigineity as a matter of DNA are used to undermine Native sovereignty. See the current effort to strike down ICWA, for example.
I dunno about the French royalty bit, but just about anyone with European ancestry probably has at least one Viking in the family tree somewhere. They really got around.
Also Native Americans *did*/do get evicted, targeted, etc., often justified/facilitated by the introduction of the concept of blood quantum and racial rather than political categorization.
I think rather than a “pull up the ladder” thing, which sounds super cynical, it’s an attempt to preserve the distinction that Native American is a political/citizenship designation, rather than a purely ethnic one. The blurring of that distinction has had some really nasty consequences for Native nations.
Jennifer Bendery. On a bender.
"her ill-considered decision last year to take a DNA test"
Enough. Stop helping Republicans. It wasn't ill considered. She was in a no-win situation.
The better question is, if someone explains that you’re an asshole in terms you can’t deny, would you apologize without excuses?
Well said.
Jim Thome played 1399 of his 2135 career games for Cleveland.
Does that make him 2/3 Indian? (grin)
It was though. We’re not supposed to be the side that can’t handle nuance.
No she really shouldn't have. Challenges from Trumpians are the same as challenges from Creationists to debate scientists. They are based on bad faith and only meant to boost the publicity and message of of the one issuing the challenge.
Trump was able to springboard his credentials as "the original name-caller of Pocahontas" from this and he later became the leader of the Trumpians. While this probably didn't play as much into how he won in 2016, it was still free publicity for him anyway.
Such "challenges" are ALWAYS styled as catch-22s, if you respond you lose, because they certainly won't say that you've won, on the other hand if you don't, they'll say you were scared and therefore they win in advance.
Playing their games is a no win situation, the best way to handle this situation is to call them out for their own cowardice and show why they have no right to make such a challenge at all. They'll still try and spin it as you being afraid, but then again you can't stop that and it's easy enough to call them out for the lying sacks of shit they are without giving them the publicity they would otherwise get.
That's not what my dad said.
So, also not Native American, but my best understanding is: there’s a long, sordid history of the US government using the conflation of citizenship and DNA/ethnicity to undermine Native sovereignty. If Indian law is seen as based on race/ethnicity rather than on treaty relationships between nations, it’s easy to characterize it as discriminatory and get it struck down or weasel around it, and the US government has taken full advantage of that ambiguity for basically ever. There’s a serious effort to undermine the Indian Child Welfare Act along these lines right now. So really any action or statement that perpetuates the all-too-common misunderstanding of Native Americans as an ethnic group rather than as sovereign nations is pretty threatening. It definitely puts people like Warren who likely do have some Native ancestry in an awkward spot, because it *seems* perfectly logical that you could say, “I have this ancestry, but I would never claim to be a member of a tribe,” but given the history and jurisprudence, it’s not really a needle that can be threaded. For sure it’s weird to not be able to talk about Native heritage in the same inconsequential way we might talk about Irish heritage, but compared to the things that have happened to Native people—genocide, boarding schools, coerced adoptions, etc.—all facilitated by blurring the nationhood/ethnicity distinction, letting some family lore go is a pretty small price.
The problem is that notions of indigineity as a matter of DNA are used to undermine Native sovereignty. See the current effort to strike down ICWA, for example.
I remember John Kerry trying to take the high road by not engaging with the swift boat story. When he finally addressed it, it was too late.
I dunno about the French royalty bit, but just about anyone with European ancestry probably has at least one Viking in the family tree somewhere. They really got around.
Also Native Americans *did*/do get evicted, targeted, etc., often justified/facilitated by the introduction of the concept of blood quantum and racial rather than political categorization.
One would think. I guess that's why it's so insidious and potentially damaging.
I think rather than a “pull up the ladder” thing, which sounds super cynical, it’s an attempt to preserve the distinction that Native American is a political/citizenship designation, rather than a purely ethnic one. The blurring of that distinction has had some really nasty consequences for Native nations.
Who is the grumpy guy in the suit on Warren's left?