WaPo uncovers Liz Warren’s 1986 bar app. Race handwritten as “American Indian”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

The “hack” the Boston Globe found - Annie Linskey - is the same reporter who FOIAd Warren’s Texas bar registration card and wrote the article in the OP of this thread. She now works for the Washington Post.

and her informants from Harvard were providing non-biased responses and information to her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

+1 yep!

-1 nope.

You didn’t notice that the reporter who did the deep dive in the Boston Globe is the SAME reporter who dug her Texas bar registration card up for the Washington Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

+1 yep!

-1 nope.

You didn’t notice that the reporter who did the deep dive in the Boston Globe is the SAME reporter who dug her Texas bar registration card up for the Washington Post.

How many years later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

The “hack” the Boston Globe found - Annie Linskey - is the same reporter who FOIAd Warren’s Texas bar registration card and wrote the article in the OP of this thread. She now works for the Washington Post.

and her informants from Harvard were providing non-biased responses and information to her?

Read the piece. There’s a ton of original documents that provide the information.

Look, I’m not crazy about Warren. But you people saying the press are hacks, in a thread based on reporting by the same reporter who exonerated her six months ago, are totally ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

+1 yep!

-1 nope.

You didn’t notice that the reporter who did the deep dive in the Boston Globe is the SAME reporter who dug her Texas bar registration card up for the Washington Post.

How many years later?

The Boston Globe piece is from this last September. Can you people click on links and read? It won’t give you autism.

[Anonymous]

So, please explain why Harvard listed her as a woman of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

+1 yep!

-1 nope.

You didn’t notice that the reporter who did the deep dive in the Boston Globe is the SAME reporter who dug her Texas bar registration card up for the Washington Post.

How many years later?

The Boston Globe piece is from this last September. Can you people click on links and read? It won’t give you autism.

pp here. I didn't make it clear; meant how many years after she first began referring to herself as American Indian, Native American, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like we all can just start listing anything.

People are allowed to self-identity, yes. For example, many Native American tribes also get very upset when African-Americans claim Native American identity, even though intermarriage between these communities is well documented, because of racism/colorism. We don’t want a system where the state is making determinations based on complexion tests.

NA tribes are very strict. They make the determination. There are a lot of benefits associated with being a member of various tribes. along with their own ideal/interest in 'self preservation' -including discouraging marrying and having child birth outside the lineage through a loss in said status. I'm guessing E. Warren would not pass their standards. For NA, they make the determination. Yes, we can all self identify but in this case I would guess a tribe has to agree for her to have actual standing. For AA and really all racial groups it is interesting--as we know the phenotype can be very different from the genotype. My interracial child appears to be Caucasian. For "hispanics/latinos" --that's a culture and a massive mix. Travel to South America and you'll find half of them are displaced Italians. I can see giving a special opportunity to a quechua indian from the Andes. not sure why an Italian/Argentinian merits any special designation. At some point these categories get ludicrous. I am hoping all these check boxes will disappear, but liberals especially seem to love them. That's why E. Warren is so egregious--she's seen to be benefitting (corruptly) from something people like her champion. No one likes that.

I think what people do not understand is if you don't have a tribal card, don't vote in tribal elections, and/or don't maintain a tribal identity (meaning the tribe doesn't acknowledge you as one of them) you have zero right to say you are a member of that tribe. This has been my experience with various tribes (Navajo, Apache, Hopi, Tohono O'odem, and Souix).

I really like Elizabeth Warren's work on the credit card industry. I really think she could help get equity in our economic system for working and middle classes but this discussion will never end because of conservatives belief that there is some magical opportunity in Affirmative Action. Poor Affirmative Action has be misrepresented for so long and the GOP just can't see reality anymore. I think it is unlikely she will ever recover from this.

I agree with some of what you say, but when you say "magical" are you saying that affirmative action doesn not privide for a real opportunity? If that is the case, why is it around?

I think affirmative action is helpful to get your foot in the door but there are really a lot of challenges that affirmative action doesn't help with. I think to many people think that affirmative action levels the playing field, which it doesn't. People think that affirmative action places unqualified people into unmerited positions, which is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like we all can just start listing anything.

People are allowed to self-identity, yes. For example, many Native American tribes also get very upset when African-Americans claim Native American identity, even though intermarriage between these communities is well documented, because of racism/colorism. We don’t want a system where the state is making determinations based on complexion tests.

NA tribes are very strict. They make the determination. There are a lot of benefits associated with being a member of various tribes. along with their own ideal/interest in 'self preservation' -including discouraging marrying and having child birth outside the lineage through a loss in said status. I'm guessing E. Warren would not pass their standards. For NA, they make the determination. Yes, we can all self identify but in this case I would guess a tribe has to agree for her to have actual standing. For AA and really all racial groups it is interesting--as we know the phenotype can be very different from the genotype. My interracial child appears to be Caucasian. For "hispanics/latinos" --that's a culture and a massive mix. Travel to South America and you'll find half of them are displaced Italians. I can see giving a special opportunity to a quechua indian from the Andes. not sure why an Italian/Argentinian merits any special designation. At some point these categories get ludicrous. I am hoping all these check boxes will disappear, but liberals especially seem to love them. That's why E. Warren is so egregious--she's seen to be benefitting (corruptly) from something people like her champion. No one likes that.

I think what people do not understand is if you don't have a tribal card, don't vote in tribal elections, and/or don't maintain a tribal identity (meaning the tribe doesn't acknowledge you as one of them) you have zero right to say you are a member of that tribe. This has been my experience with various tribes (Navajo, Apache, Hopi, Tohono O'odem, and Souix).

I really like Elizabeth Warren's work on the credit card industry. I really think she could help get equity in our economic system for working and middle classes but this discussion will never end because of conservatives belief that there is some magical opportunity in Affirmative Action. Poor Affirmative Action has be misrepresented for so long and the GOP just can't see reality anymore. I think it is unlikely she will ever recover from this.

I agree with some of what you say, but when you say "magical" are you saying that affirmative action doesn not privide for a real opportunity? If that is the case, why is it around?

I think affirmative action is helpful to get your foot in the door but there are really a lot of challenges that affirmative action doesn't help with. I think to many people think that affirmative action levels the playing field, which it doesn't. People think that affirmative action places unqualified people into unmerited positions, which is false.

I don't think the latter; but I definitely think it's an advantage for bright, capable applicants to colleges and for jobs to ALSO be able to list African American or Hispanic, etc on the application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, please explain why Harvard listed her as a woman of color.

pp here. I didn't make it clear; meant how many years after she first began referring to herself as American Indian, Native American, etc.

READ. THE. ARTICLE.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, please explain why Harvard listed her as a woman of color.

pp here. I didn't make it clear; meant how many years after she first began referring to herself as American Indian, Native American, etc.

READ. THE. ARTICLE.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

I did. I was making a point, but thanks.

[Anonymous]

When questioned this week, Warren said something about other possibilities of identifying herself as an American Indian at around "that time."

Why, all of a sudden "around that time?" She was a mature woman--twice married by then and a mother with an established career (teaching in TX at the time.)

[Anonymous]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2014/04/22/elizabeth-warren-glosses-over-native-american-controversy-in-new-book

poseur

[Anonymous]

I like her, but she was never going to be the nominee for reasons nothing to do with her ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Boston papers were in her pocket. They endorsed her campaign - of course they found some hacks to speculate her ethnicity wasn’t a factor.

+1 yep!

-1 nope.

You didn’t notice that the reporter who did the deep dive in the Boston Globe is the SAME reporter who dug her Texas bar registration card up for the Washington Post.

So instead of doing the Globe's bidding, she's doing Bezos's bidding. Bezos doesn't want Warren and her wealth grabbing near the White House. He wants someone in his pocket, like Harris or Booker.