Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Elizabeth Warren is 70 years old and claimed Native heritage until she was, what, 69?
I don't need it to have advanced her career to be bothered by it, but regardless, I can see how those institutions would say that even if it actually had helped her, in order to save face. Didn't Harvard claim she was their first WOC faculty? They at least thought it was worth celebrating.
It's just a gross and self-centered thing for non-Natives to do: attach themselves to a culture in some way that they actually have no interest in participating in and no experience with, particularly when that group still suffers and can never recover from a legacy of genocide and stolen land. Whether it advanced her career or not, it is wrong and unserious for her to be so proud of something that was not connected to any of her actual life experiences.
This isn't on one side of the debate or the other, but...
Lived experience and ethnic heritage are not the same thing, and equating them is something I think should be avoided. If Warren did have substantial Native American ancestry but was raised in an affluent family and location and never participated in tribal culture that would not make that ancestry any less valid
You're acting like it's nuts that someone from OKLAHOMA might believe they have native blood if their parents tell them without a doubt that they do. She did none of this maliciously.
Didn't the DNA test show that she likely did have native blood going back some generations? I thought that the problem was that it wasn't a super high percentage and that tribes took offense to the idea that just having blood would make you one of them, a member of the tribe.
You're acting like it's nuts that someone from OKLAHOMA might believe they have native blood if their parents tell them without a doubt that they do. She did none of this maliciously.
Didn't the DNA test show that she likely did have native blood going back some generations? I thought that the problem was that it wasn't a super high percentage and that tribes took offense to the idea that just having blood would make you one of them, a member of the tribe.
I may be misremembering so somebody correct me.
No that is how it happened, but DNA doesn't exactly work like that, at least that is what Ancestry.com told me when I got my DNA results back. My great-grandmother was pregnant with my grandfather on the boat from Italy coming here. My mom has 71% Italian in her DNA but I only have 4%. Same with my grand mother. She was born in Puerto Rico but I have 15% in DNA. I have 30% French which pulled from the 3% in my dad's DNA.
Just because my DNA shows I am only 4% Italian and 15% Puerto Rican doesn't mean that my grandparents weren't Italian or Puerto Rican.
It could just be the way genetic inheritance works.
Each person gets 50% of their DNA from Mom and 50% from Dad. But that means 50% of each parent’s DNA also gets left behind. Also, what gets passed down and what gets left behind is completely random. So you may not have inherited enough of the genetic markers associated with a particular region—though that doesn't mean that region isn't part of your past.
First political news article today in my feed is about how Bernie has a serious issue in his candidacy in that his time is running out and Warren has eclipsed him. Once again, there are several other candidates that are in much worse positions than him. Lazy hacks.
Follow up: saw an article later about how Harris has wasted basically every opportunity she's had, and the impeachment may be her last chance for glory.
After just receiving my 4th fundraising text and 2 fundraising emails today, I want to agree with the sentiment brought up earlier about fundraising fatigue.
All I heard was “people can evolve!” When it came to Obama and gay marriage, or any other number of Democrats who shifted views on important issues over time, Warren has been a solid Democrat while a senator, she’s not going pull off a Scooby Doo style mask if elected and be all “I was a Republican the whole time!”
After just receiving my 4th fundraising text and 2 fundraising emails today, I want to agree with the sentiment brought up earlier about fundraising fatigue.
Bernie: not sure how efficient he would be without a tremendous amount of left politicians winning, age
Warren: increasingly vague stance on M4A, worry that if she’s already trying to appeal too broadly already, she’s only gonna get worse if she wins the nom
Yeah this is a pretty good response. I'm also pretty bummed out after reading up more on some of Warren's past foreign policy statements.
I think Bernie and Warren have about an equal chance of passing M4A (read: 0%). Maybe that's defeatist of me, but it also means Warren's waffling on it doesn't bother me as much
Elizabeth Warren is 70 years old and claimed Native heritage until she was, what, 69?
I don't need it to have advanced her career to be bothered by it, but regardless, I can see how those institutions would say that even if it actually had helped her, in order to save face. Didn't Harvard claim she was their first WOC faculty? They at least thought it was worth celebrating.
It's just a gross and self-centered thing for non-Natives to do: attach themselves to a culture in some way that they actually have no interest in participating in and no experience with, particularly when that group still suffers and can never recover from a legacy of genocide and stolen land. Whether it advanced her career or not, it is wrong and unserious for her to be so proud of something that was not connected to any of her actual life experiences.
This isn't on one side of the debate or the other, but...
Lived experience and ethnic heritage are not the same thing, and equating them is something I think should be avoided. If Warren did have substantial Native American ancestry but was raised in an affluent family and location and never participated in tribal culture that would not make that ancestry any less valid
Fair. I don't think it makes her ancestry less valid (or, rather, wouldn't if that was her actual ancestry, which it is not). But I think her disinterest in engaging with the culture in any real way or doing any sort of investigation or research into it betrays a lack of seriousness about what Native Americans have endured and still are faced with, which further goes to show that I have not seen anything in this area that she cares about marginalized people, even those she apparently identifies with.
But at the same time, I do think that heritage should have more to do with a shared culture and lived experience, or an interest in your ancestors' experience, than it does with genetics, because if we simply value our bloodlines we are getting into a eugenic area and I find that troubling.
Anyway, maybe tomorrow we can move on from Warren's lack of interest in her supposed Native American heritage and instead talk about her lack of interest in securing healthcare as a right afforded to all Americans! Sound good?
Post by piggy pablo on Sept 30, 2019 23:15:17 GMT -5
I've gotten eight texts from the Bernie campaign in the past week addressing the FEC deadline specifically, including three today, including one after I made a donation this afternoon.
I've gotten three regarding the deadline from Team Warren since the 19th. Just one today.
Me: "what are your plans for providing healthcare for all Americans?"
Liz: "WAFFLES"
Come on dude
To be fair, she is just riding Bernie's coattails with the selfies.
"Now, a number of you as I was walking around wanted selfies," Sanders told the crowd in Warner, New Hampshire. "So if people wanted to form a line, and I'm happy to do selfies with as many people who want them." At the next stop in Laconia: "Lastly, if there's anybody that would like to do a selfie, get on line, let's do it." And finally, here in Rollinsford: "One other thing: Anybody wants a selfie, get on line."
In "don't read the comments" news, it appears that plenty of people are totally cool with Trump enlisting foreign governments to investigate people. In fact, it shows a willingness to get the job done that people appreciate. In the words of SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal, democracy was a mistake.
I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm assuming you must be familiar with the wars following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia led by Milosevic since you have a specific opinion on that. In my mind, it was one of the two times the West (under the auspices of the U.N./K-For) needed to get involved. Serbia was the core of old Soviet-styled power (think Putin and the KGB). It roughly went down like this: Slovenia (borders Italy, Austria, Croatia and Hungary) declares their independence, and Serbia (representing the old power structure which at the time was Serbia-Montenegro) declares war on them. They realize they can't exactly invade Slovenia since they don't share any borders and give up in about a week. Slovenia gets its independence. Next was Croatia. Croatia was more allied with Germany and is a Catholic nation whereas most of the rest of the eastern former Yugoslavia are Eastern Orthodox and tended to be allied with Moscow. Croatia declares independence and Serbia says no dice. They battle back and forth with each occasionally gaining the upper hand supplied with arms from their respective proxies. In the end, Croatia wins the war after an offensive to remove some of the ethnic-Serbian enclaves which the ethnic Serbians wanted to be parts of Serbia within Croatia.
Meanwhile, Serbia decides to dig in for the ethnic Serbs after a referendum on independence passes which they boycotted. Serbia launches attacks within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Remember, Bosnia is comprised of many intermarried families of Bosnian-Serbs, Bosnia-Croats and Muslims who made up the largest share of the population. Serbia dug in and the Croats armed the ethnic Croats. Genocide in Europe was unfolding under the moniker of ethnic cleansing. Serbs were killing Muslims and Croats and Croats were killing Serbs (and occasionally Muslims who they later struck an alliance with). The U.S. became involved via the U.N. auspices of K-For. The American rightwing went nuts over this because of course the US was bending to the will of a world government and wearing its uniforms! "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!" is anti American blah blah blah blah blah. K-For goes in an secures peace and mostly only fights against the Serbians because they are the bad-guys/aggressive assholes anyway. Ultimately many of the players on all sides are convicted of genocide or ethnic cleansing and locked up.
Fast forward 5 years or so and Slobodan Milosevic is still at it but this time against Ethnic Albanians (Muslims) within Serbia. NATO said fuck you, we have had enough of your bullshit already and are going to punish you until you stop the bullshit . This carved out Kosovo and gave the ethnic Albanians a country of their own (think Saddam Hussein going after the Kurds in the Northern 3rd of Iraq). These were bad people who were holding onto cold war dictatorial ideals and thought nothing of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. I think at this point it was Serbia-Montenegro (who later voted themselves a divorce) as Macedonia (who Greece threatened with fighting over the name - like wtf was that?) dropped out and just said screw this. The first round of wars was over then, so they sort of just did their own thing.
It should also be noted that the Yugoslav wars roughly coincided with the Rwandan genocide, in which the West did nothing and was lambasted for it.
NATO's involvement in Yugoslavia didn't occur until after the Rwandan genocide reached its conclusion in 1994. Operation Deliberate Force, a series of air strikes on Bosnian Serb targets in Bosnia, began in 1995.