US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Again, I honestly don’t have the time to do the digging for you. Like I said, it takes a huge amount of effort to educate non natives on something they have no knowledge on and decline to take the word of indigenous people on how it impacts them. If you are truly interested in knowing, go ahead and read the book I suggested upthread. It’s a super complicated subject that can’t really be tackled in a message board thread by only me between my life responsibilities. 

Well, I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't need you to educate me on anything, I want you to specifically back up certain claims you're making:

1. What Warren did is the same as what Rachel Dolezal did

2. Warren made claims to her ancestry during her political campaigns and reached out to Native voters, touted her belief in her ancestry, and pledged to work on issues of concern to them, then didn't back it up once in office.

Neither of these require you to educate me on any aspect of Native American experience. These are not matters of experience but of public record. Which is also why I don't have to, and won't, take your word on either of these questions.

If you don't have the time to have a fact based discussion that requires you to link out to news reports to back up your point, that's your choice. But please don't make it about me refusing to take your word on how things impact you. This isn't that. This is a question of facts and asking you to back statements you made, not about how Warren's behavior impacted you, but about what Warren's behavior was. 

Put another way, if Warren did do what you claim about using her belief in her ancestry to reach out to Native voters, and betrayed promises made to them, we wouldn't view this differently. You wouldn't have to convince me of the wrongness or the racism of that act. I wouldn't question any point you made about how it impacted you. 

But either I'm missing something, or this never happened. If I'm missing something, I want to know and reassess my view of a person who I've found problematic but by no means a cheap hack, which is how I would view her if this turned out to be true.

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

And in Warrens case she used it to trick Indigenous people (and even moreso the woke points white left)  into supporting her and believing she would advocate for us in government during a time a huge segment of her party and especially her wing of it are tired of politicians who don’t understand BIPOC.

And again, you're making a statement that, based on what I know, is misleading at best. On the 2012 election, Warren was not the one who brought up her ancestry. It was the Boston Herald. She never presented herself as a champion of Native American rights as a function of her ancestry, because she didn't bring up her ancestry.

If you have evidence she did, share it. It would be news to several people here who I'm pretty sure will see her a whole other way if there's some event she went to, spoke of her Native ancestry, and claimed that it would motivate her to fight for Native rights, and that therefore she was more deserving of votes.

If you cannot prove this, then all I can say is you successfully muddied what are genuine and reasonable issues with Warren's behavior by using hyperbole and false accusations. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Then quote it. And the bold was just a reference to if people actually wanted these problems fixed, they'd vote for the party telling them they want to fix them. 

 

I'm going to DM it to you first.  If you really want me to I'll just post it.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Let's see if this works

 

Awesome!  Next time Seth Rogan plays two characters in a movie, you should apply to be his stand-in.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Let's see if this works

 

Idk what half-Jewish means, but you certainly look the part more than I with that fro.

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

On the national level, they do, but on a lot of local levels that BIPOC occupy they definitely do not.

Depends on how local, but I wouldn't operate from a starting point that they can't be helpful. Many of them, especially where we live, want to help. They may just be ignorant and need some help. Unfair as that may be, it's how the world works. That's why I cited me being Jewish. I'm very familiar with having to be patient and explain things to people, and trust me, I get just as many stupid questions as you do.

And yes, we do run the world. Welcome to the club, Kal. A copy of the secret master plan is on your way in the mail. Look for the Star of David with the tentacles coming out of it.  

[fionwe1987]

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'm pretty sure I am 100% Tamil Brahmin (quite boring), with maybe some chance of having 'mughal' ancestors, so perhaps a little bit of Central Asia thrown in.

That means I maybe share 50% heritage with Kamala Harris (perhaps the highest on the board), and yet I cant enthuse myself about her based on our tribal identities. She's still way better than many other choices though.

Same here. So I guess we're the co-highest?

I have uncles and auntie's trying to figure out if they knew/are related to Harris's family in Chennai. It's all gross and disgusting, because I'm sure they'd fall over in a faint/be furious if one of their daughters had a Black friend, let alone a spouse. 

I find myself as unenthused about her as you, but I wonder if that's partly because she hasn't made much about this part of her identity. Which... I don't blame her one bit if her extended TamBram family is anything like mine. 

[DanteGabriel]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually I would. We can't just keep calling everything racist, especially when it doesn't meet the definition. Kay has made some very valid arguments. I just think she takes it a step too far at times, and part of the point I've been trying to make is you want to create an environment which fosters a desire to learn and grow, not one that makes people want to retreat, and calling an honest mistake that wasn't even racist racist defeats that goal. 

In the past I would have been more sympathetic to these arguments, but the last few years have taught me that creating a receptive environment for mediocre white people to take baby steps into racial awareness is like trimming the grass nicely so that Charlie Brown can have a nice runway for when Lucy finally lets him kick the ball. White resentment always wins.

[Fury Resurrected]

6 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Well, I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't need you to educate me on anything, I want you to specifically back up certain claims you're making:

1. What Warren did is the same as what Rachel Dolezal did

2. Warren made claims to her ancestry during her political campaigns and reached out to Native voters, touted her belief in her ancestry, and pledged to work on issues of concern to them, then didn't back it up once in office.

Neither of these require you to educate me on any aspect of Native American experience. These are not matters of experience but of public record. Which is also why I don't have to, and won't, take your word on either of these questions.

If you don't have the time to have a fact based discussion that requires you to link out to news reports to back up your point, that's your choice. But please don't make it about me refusing to take your word on how things impact you. This isn't that. This is a question of facts and asking you to back statements you made, not about how Warren's behavior impacted you, but about what Warren's behavior was. 

Put another way, if Warren did do what you claim about using her belief in her ancestry to reach out to Native voters, and betrayed promises made to them, we wouldn't view this differently. You wouldn't have to convince me of the wrongness or the racism of that act. I wouldn't question any point you made about how it impacted you. 

But either I'm missing something, or this never happened. If I'm missing something, I want to know and reassess my view of a person who I've found problematic but by no means a cheap hack, which is how I would view her if this turned out to be true.

And again, you're making a statement that, based on what I know, is misleading at best. On the 2012 election, Warren was not the one who brought up her ancestry. It was the Boston Herald. She never presented herself as a champion of Native American rights as a function of her ancestry, because she didn't bring up her ancestry.

If you have evidence she did, share it. It would be news to several people here who I'm pretty sure will see her a whole other way if there's some event she went to, spoke of her Native ancestry, and claimed that it would motivate her to fight for Native rights, and that therefore she was more deserving of votes.

If you cannot prove this, then all I can say is you successfully muddied what are genuine and reasonable issues with Warren's behavior by using hyperbole and false accusations. 

In order to do all of that, I would need to do A LOT of work providing historical and cultural context you don’t understand and have not really absorbed or responded to the pieces I’ve already given. There’s just a lot involved that you are missing and it’d take more than a message board thread can do, or my time can accommodate, to walk you through all of that. I did recommend a book upthread to get you started if this request comes from a genuine interest to get it and not just a desire to argue. Upthread someone else also linked the whole pow wow chow thing, so you’ve been given resources to avail yourself of to answer those questions for yourself, which will probably be a lot more helpful to you than arguing about it with me.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

23 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

What book was this again?  This thread is moving very fast. 

Killers of the Flower Moon

[JGP]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

About 15 years ago when I lived at the beach I tried to impress some Irish girls working there for the summer by talking about my "Irish" ancestry.  I'd called myself "Irish" for my entire life because that's what I was told.  After a thorough, effective, funny, and public rhetorical dismantling I never even thought about calling myself Irish again. 

This made me laugh. I'm sure the full story is more amusing.

I spent about 4 months in the far north several years ago. Caught the Inuit Games, which was very fucking cool, but one night when later in Dawson City I went to a bar [was bored, don't drink, thank god, thus when pressed avoided a Sourtoe cocktail, replete with a frostbit toe, ugh] and I walked up to a pool table where several Inuit were playing pool, spread my arms and asked who wanted to lose. Without skipping a beat one looked at her friends and said, 'Fucking Irish,' with a laugh, then they subsequently took turns more or less whooping my ass on the table for a couple hours [I won maybe two]

Good times lol

When the Irish bit was dropped I didn't pick it up. It was kind of interesting though. That cocky association, I guess.

[Ormond]

26 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Heh. I've identified as a Canadian settler a couple times, and woo, in certain company that can really ruffle feathers lol 

You do realize that in the United States a White person identifying as "just American" tends to be correlated with right-wing politics? There are people who designate their ancestry as "American" on the US Census, and there is a high positive correlation between counties where a high % of the population use that designation and votes fro Trump. Most of those who I have seen advocate that Whites in the US call themselves "American" are definitely on the right politically. So I don't think you or DMC would really be comfortable with most other people who prefer that designation. 

[fionwe1987]

11 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

In order to do all of that, I would need to do A LOT of work providing historical and cultural context you don’t understand and have not really absorbed or responded to the pieces I’ve already given. There’s just a lot involved that you are missing and it’d take more than a message board thread can do, or my time can accommodate, to walk you through all of that. I did recommend a book upthread to get you started if this request comes from a genuine interest to get it and not just a desire to argue. Upthread someone else also linked the whole pow wow chow thing, so you’ve been given resources to avail yourself of to answer those questions for yourself, which will probably be a lot more helpful to you than arguing about it with me.

Ok, I don't think there's any point continuing this. Once again, you are arguing past me, responding to stuff I'm not asking you to do. I'm not asking you to justify your reaction to Warren's behavior. I'm asking you to prove her behaviour occured. 

Suggesting I read Killers of the Flower Moon to find quotes from Warren's speeches while seeking political office where she claims Native Ancestry and promises to serve as their representative in Congress is about as nonsensical a suggestion as I've ever heard. 

About as absurd as asking me to read about a 1980s cookbook to find evidence of this.

I will take it as confirmation that you have no factual basis for those specific accusations about Warren. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm going to DM it to you first.  If you really want me to I'll just post it.

I was going to tell you don't have to, I stand by what I wrote if I did write it and it's not taken out of context. And the last line from your DM actually supports what I said:

Quote

Read the rest of the thread if you want, you only double down on not trying to get anything out of the current round of negotiations.

Yeah, not anything new, if it's a deal breaker. Extend what we had in place until the end of November, so it's not something used directly in the elections for either side, then if shit is still bad, extend it again until the next Congress is seated and has some time to figure out something different. Like you've said before, we're in a crisis and people are hurting. Just keep things afloat until we can get on the other side of this. If along the way you can get concessions, great,  but not at the expense of hurting a lot of people. 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

You do realize that in the United States a White person identifying as "just American" tends to be correlated with right-wing politics? There are people who designate their ancestry as "American" on the US Census, and there is a high positive correlation between counties where a high % of the population use that designation and votes fro Trump. Most of those who I have seen advocate that Whites in the US call themselves "American" are definitely on the right politically. So I don't think you or DMC would really be comfortable with most other people who prefer that designation. 

No, I didn't know this. On the Census in Canada, iirc, if you were born here you identify as Canadian. I think. It's been a while [I've been moving around a lot-- same city though] You don't have to self identify as such if you're Indigenous though, obviously.  

That's... weirdly interesting in a not sure I want to know more kind of way.  

[edit: and I skip quite a bit of it, re: the CA census]

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

In the past I would have been more sympathetic to these arguments, but the last few years have taught me that creating a receptive environment for mediocre white people to take baby steps into racial awareness is like trimming the grass nicely so that Charlie Brown can have a nice runway for when Lucy finally lets him kick the ball. White resentment always wins.

For a portion of the populace that is white. Forget them, you can give them water, but you can't make them drink it. That however does not mean you should take such a sweeping stance like Kay did. There really are a lot of open minded people who are simply ignorant. You should appeal to them. And it may be wise to just kind of casually dismiss people who have been working on like minded causes simply because they're white and that's the first thing you see. 

[Zorral]

It's bewildering those deathcultists insisting that Kamala Harris is both not black and owes reparations to African Americans, and that she's so black she'll destroy ... o, I dunno ... white male supremacy and dickheaded up their a$$ness ... whatever.

It's bewildering that fighting about Bernie in 2016 is still going on (and about Hillary) as THIS election gets close.

It's well documented within the smaller and wider spread family of my partner that they are descended from a mountain man (not Kit Carson or the famous ones) -- about whom biographies out from academic presses have been written -- who married a full-blood Native woman in Kentucky back around the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The only way it shows is a low capacity for alcohol.  Partner does not identify as Native at all.  Identification is southern cracker.  

[Fury Resurrected]

5 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Ok, I don't think there's any point continuing this. Once again, you are arguing past me, responding to stuff I'm not asking you to do. I'm not asking you to justify your reaction to Warren's behavior. I'm asking you to prove her behaviour occured. 

Suggesting I read Killers of the Flower Moon to find quotes from Warren's speeches while seeking political office where she claims Native Ancestry and promises to serve as their representative in Congress is about as nonsensical a suggestion as I've ever heard. 

About as absurd as asking me to read about a 1980s cookbook to find evidence of this.

I will take it as confirmation that you have no factual basis for those specific accusations about Warren. 

You know she claimed native ancestry, that’s factual. I don’t need to show you more instances of that because you already know about it. It’s been a known thing for a long time and I’m sure you are also aware that as a US senator and as a presidential candidate she has said many, many things publicly that aren’t only in speeches and to comb through them for you is a time consuming task that is pointless because it just adds more instances to something we already know.

But, you also asked me how it’s racist for her to claim it based on the knowledge she had. And THAT is where historical and cultural context are needed to understand. So, sorry I find it pedantic and not important to find the exact number of times Warren checked a box on an application (though someone else talked a little about that), or how many times she mentioned native ancestry. 
 

It does not surprise me that you can’t see the extent of the harms in this situation, and why they are harms. Which is why I have tried to point you in that direction.

[Maithanet]

28 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Killers of the Flower Moon

Pretty sure we already have this book.  We definitely did at some point recently. 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's bewildering those deathcultists insisting that Kamala Harris is both not black and owes reparations to African Americans, and that she's so black she'll destroy ... o, I dunno ... white male supremacy and dickheaded up their a$$ness ... whatever.

It's bewildering that fighting about Bernie in 2016 is still going on (and about Hillary) as THIS election gets close.

It's well documented within the smaller and wider spread family of my partner that they are descended from a mountain man (not Kit Carson or the famous ones) -- about whom biographies out from academic presses have been written -- who married a full-blood Native woman in Kentucky back around the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The only way it shows is a low capacity for alcohol.  Partner does not identify as Native at all.  Identification is southern cracker.  

Please don’t.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

There are people who designate their ancestry as "American" on the US Census, and there is a high positive correlation between counties where a high % of the population use that designation and votes fro Trump. Most of those who I have seen advocate that Whites in the US call themselves "American" are definitely on the right politically. So I don't think you or DMC would really be comfortable with most other people who prefer that designation. 

Hm..trying to figure out your point here.  I completed the census months ago and I don't really remember, but looking here (not sure if the link will take you there exactly, but it's question 9), my answer clearly just should be white:

Quote

Mark one or more boxes AND print origins: White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Chinese; Filipino; Asian Indian; Vietnamese; Korean; Japanese; other Asian; Native Hawaiian; Samoan; Chamorro; other Pacific Islander; some other race.

I don't see, nor recall, any other questions on the census form that would in any way be able to politicize that designation - other than the fact that I'm white.  So, I'm really not sure what you're referring to in terms of what I should be uncomfortable with.  Can you provide any specific examples?

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was going to tell you don't have to, I stand by what I wrote if I did write it and it's not taken out of context. And the last line from your DM actually supports what I said:

Yeah, not anything new, if it's a deal breaker. Extend what we had in place until the end of November, so it's not something used directly in the elections for either side, then if shit is still bad, extend it again until the next Congress is seated and has some time to figure out something different. Like you've said before, we're in a crisis and people are hurting. Just keep things afloat until we can get on the other side of this. If along the way you can get concessions, great,  but not at the expense of hurting a lot of people. 

Ok.

 

Quote

 

  On 7/29/2020 at 12:58 AM, larrytheimp said:

but just because they aren't the worst game in town doesn't mean they're out there getting you the best deal they possibly can. 

 

 

then you said:

Quote

Best deal? Larry, the people you're propping up can't get you anything 99% of the time. Incremental gains are wiser than shooting for the moon, and if you want the latter, do it wisely. 

Promising something every sane person knows isn't going to happen is not good politics. You only set your causes back.

The things I listed that you had issue with, were holding strong or negotiating on $600 a month.  Even when I posted that Moore was explicitly wiling to negotiate on the $200 you castigated anyone asking for the Dems to play hardball.  You repeatedly said they had no power in the process.  We're now in a weird situation where I'm defending the Dem leadership as playing appropriate hardball and you spent pages arguing they should just concede and wait till January.

Eta: i listed what i wanted them to do and you said it was "asking the world" or some such nonsense.