[fifeboy]

martin14 martin14:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Didn't watch the video

Your ignorance, increasing it is.

No, I skipped another pile of dog doo. Could have actually had something relevant in it but the odds were that it didn't. However, when I get my Proctology certificate I'm sure I'll be able to look into more of his stuff.

[herbie]

Well when you're into their kind of scatalogical research you must keep in mind a dried up dog turd is worse than one in a puddle full of blood and worms if the first dog was a Democrat's.

[N_Fiddledog]

I can only repeat:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Didn't watch the video

Feel free to remain as ignorant as you like, just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

It's only necessary you know that if you repeat your lie claiming Elizabeth Warren was "simply mistaken about her heritage," those who wish to know better have access to the information.

And also again, here's why your lie is a lie:

$1:

`This is an important distinction. Elizabeth Warren didn't say that she had Cherokee ancestry. There are a lot of people in the United States that have indigenous American ancestry. My family has indigenous American ancestry. Elizabeth Warren didn't say that she has indigenous American ancestry.

She said she was Cherokee!

The woman listed herself as a minority on numerous official forms.

She paraded herself and promoted herself at Harvard as the 'first woman of color' at Harvard law and that's how she was listed in Fordham review. She made all these insane claims...made up stories about her Grandfather, her Aunt...she talked about how her 'big ol' Cherokee family,' they would exchange recipes. She plagiarized recipes for this book called Pow Wow Chow. I mean she really, was ya know, making bank on these false claims and for so long no one questioned her.

For years she was allowed to do this. She listed herself as a minority - not ancestry - she listed herself as a minority ~

Dana Loesch

So one more time - I'm right. You two are wrong and all you have as an argument is smear and slur. Which is still nothing.

[N_Fiddledog]

And Jeez....

Is there some sort of idiot school where they teach you two idiots if you're shown to be wrong all you have to do is plop out a personal insult against whoever showed you how wrong you were and you become right, or something?

If so, run tell your teacher, because you were just topped again and you're still wrong. Now what are you going to do?

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I can only repeat:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Didn't watch the video

Feel free to remain as ignorant as you like, just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

It's only necessary you know that if you repeat your lie claiming Elizabeth Warren was "simply mistaken about her heritage," those who wish to know better have access to the information.

And also again, here's why your lie is a lie:

$1:

`This is an important distinction. Elizabeth Warren didn't say that she had Cherokee ancestry. There are a lot of people in the United States that have indigenous American ancestry. My family has indigenous American ancestry. Elizabeth Warren didn't say that she has indigenous American ancestry.

She said she was Cherokee!

The woman listed herself as a minority on numerous official forms.

She paraded herself and promoted herself at Harvard as the 'first woman of color' at Harvard law and that's how she was listed in Fordham review. She made all these insane claims...made up stories about her Grandfather, her Aunt...she talked about how her 'big ol' Cherokee family,' they would exchange recipes. She plagiarized recipes for this book called Pow Wow Chow. I mean she really, was ya know, making bank on these false claims and for so long no one questioned her.

For years she was allowed to do this. She listed herself as a minority - not ancestry - she listed herself as a minority ~

Dana Loesch

So one more time - I'm right. You two are wrong and all you have as an argument is smear and slur. Which is still nothing.

My lie? What lie is that?
And besides, no one has answered my question (which was) : Who decides who is a Cherokee? Do you know? If you do than please inform me as I don't. And how pissed are "real Cherokees" about this? Who decides if they are "real"or not. I'm guessing not you!

On a side note this stuff has been going on for a while. I graduated from the University of Louisville in '71 and knew a number of "Cherokee Princesses. I'm sure all of them had history going back to Sequoyah

[martin14]

fifeboy fifeboy:

And besides, no one has answered my question (which was) : Who decides who is a Cherokee? Do you know? If you do than please inform me as I don't. And how pissed are "real Cherokees" about this? Who decides if they are "real"or not. I'm guessing not you!

Since you are completely unable to google;

But you are still required to read.

http://www.nerve.com/life/why-do-so-man ... heir-blood

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... estry.html

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-ful ... r-heritage

this is the best one:

https://timeline.com/part-cherokee-eliz ... 6be035967e

$1:

There’s a running joke in Indian country,” said a spokesperson for the Cherokee Nation in 2012. “If you meet somebody who you wouldn’t necessarily think they’re Native, but they say they’re Native, chances are they’ll tell you they’re Cherokee.”

But “Cherokees are among the best documented people in the world,” says David Cornsilk, a noted researcher of Cherokee genealogy. “We probably come in third after royalty and Mormons.” Between U.S. government records and the multiple existing sets of very thorough tribal kinship records, if you have Cherokee ancestry, there’s bound to be documentation somewhere.

Elizabeth Warren can’t provide that documentation. In defending her claim, she says only, “This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw.” Many people’s mammaws and pappaws have told them the same thing. There is a distinction, of course, between actual, provable citizenship of the Cherokee Nation, and purported heritage.

$1:

Second, let’s look at when white people started to claim Native American heritage in the Southeast. It was in the 1840s or 50s, as the federal challenge to Southern slavery was growing stronger and Civil War loomed on the horizon, that Southerners first started to claim “Cherokee blood.” In the decades prior to the Trail of Tears, Cherokee intermarriage with white settlers had dropped off, as white Southern public opinion had turned against Cherokees. For white people to claim distant Cherokee heritage in 1855 or so had the interesting effect of “legitimating the antiquity of their native-born status as sons or daughters of the South,” as Gregory Smithers writes in Slate. In a crucial moment of swelling Southern pride, pointing out that your family had been here long enough to intermarry with Cherokees was a method of staking a claim to Southern identity. Southern white identity.

Just like Bill Clinton, trying to appeal to White Southerners.

Remember this guy ? You should be old enough.



100% Sicilian.

$1:

In the lead-up to the Trail of Tears, the documentation of Cherokees was extensive and exhaustive. Censuses were conducted, heads were counted, names were recorded, birth and marriage and death were noted — bureaucracy was part of the Indian management and removal process. And meanwhile the Cherokee, who had their own alphabet, were keeping their own records. “There are 30 rolls made of Cherokees between 1817 and 1914,” says David Cornsilk. “There are thousands of linear feet of records created by colonials, missionaries, U.S. officials, schools, travelers and newspapers that trace our ancestries to the mid-1700s. Much of this paper trail was created by the tribe itself.”

If your ancestor’s name can’t be located in those documents, the chance that you’re actually Cherokee is slim to none. Think of it this way, says Cornsilk, “If there were enough Cherokees to produce all the wannabes now claiming to be us, we would have never lost the war!” And he doesn’t mean the Civil War.

In other words, the claim is complete and utter bullshit.
Which is fine, right up until you use the bullshit claim to get into university,
or use it to fill up the 'diversity quota'.
Then you are committing fraud.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ive-ameri/

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

"There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries. This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."

` Fordham law review `

[CharlesAnthony]

martin14 martin14:

Just like Bill Clinton, trying to appeal to White Southerners.

Win for the 1st black president!

[stratos]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

martin14 martin14:

Just like Bill Clinton, trying to appeal to White Southerners.

Win for the 1st black president!

Do you even have a clue about what you are talking about. You comments don't seem to indicate that you do.

[fifeboy]

Martii: based on the first of your sources I read ( Quora)

$1:

Still have a question? Ask your own!

What is your question?
8 ANSWERS
Robert Largent
Robert Largent, worked at Cherokee Nation
Updated Jun 4 2015
Proving you are 100% Cherokee is not really possible. The classification of whether you are "Cherokee" or not is not a science. The % Cherokee recognized by the US government is based upon government documentation.

For the "Cherokees" from Oklahoma your % "Cherokee" is based on the Dawes Rolls. The way the government employees determined what % Indian you were was the eyeball test. The white employees looked at the Indians and said, "you're really dark, you're 100% Cherokee". Or they looked at the Indian and said, "You're not as dark as your brother, you must be 75% Indian". Lots of siblings were given completely different percentages.

Then there were the Indians that didn't trust white men. The ones who survived the Trail of Tears. Last time some white guys asked them to all come to one spot they got escorted across the country. No way were they falling for that again. Lots of 100% Cherokees never registered. And some white people saw a line and got registered as Indians. Remember, these were government employees documenting this. They didn't care.

Then the civil war came and Cherokees started fighting each other as North and South divided them too. Cherokees left, many to Texas and into Mexico (There was no border patrol then).

That leaves DNA testing to "Prove" ethnicity. But you have to have a baseline group to get DNA from. Where do you get it from? Old graves?

On paper there are 100% Cherokees. In fact, who really knows? Then you have to decide, is Cherokee a blood type or a state of mind?

Seems to both back up and refute your argument.
And my first question: What lie did I tell?

[BRAH]

__________________

Oh Snap!

[Thanos]

So you think it's funny to spit in the face of war veterans as long as it's King MAGA the bone-spur draft-dodger doing it? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[N_Fiddledog]

Fifey, Fifey, Fifey...

You're going to do that thing again, aren't you.

That thing you do where you keep pestering on a claim until one is forced to take you by the little hand and show you why the claim is true and only a real nincompoop would actually want his incompetence revealed in public and keep pestering for the reveal of that fact.

Very well...I tried to save you from yourself by ignoring you, but you won't give up so here we go. Here is your lie. I've already mentioned it, but here it is again.

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow (again). Can't you see the difference between the examples you made and being mistaken about your heritage?

Now you may not be a liar, because you may honestly not be bright to understand why that intentional obuscation of the larger issue is just not true.

But I'll give you one more chance before I show you why an obfuscation about Liz just being simply "mistaken about her heritage" is an outright lie. Whether or not you do the intelligent thing and just let it be is up to you.

Hell, I'll even help you. Here's some reference material:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... at/257415/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/c ... ion-forms/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/e ... -cleansed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeyMbPAwgyg

Don't know why I bother though, we both know you won't use it.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Fifey, Fifey, Fifey...

You're going to do that thing again, aren't you.

Well, yes I am, if "that thing" means holding my nose and reading your sources.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That thing you do where you keep pestering on a claim until one is forced to take you by the little hand and show you why the claim is true and only a real nincompoop would actually want his incompetence revealed in public and keep pestering for the reveal of that fact.

Very well...I tried to save you from yourself by ignoring you, but you won't give up so here we go. Here is your lie. I've already mentioned it, but here it is again.

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow (again). Can't you see the difference between the examples you made and being mistaken about your heritage?

Now you may not be a liar, because you may honestly not be bright to understand why that intentional obuscation of the larger issue is just not true.

But I'll give you one more chance before I show you why an obfuscation about Liz just being simply "mistaken about her heritage" is an outright lie. Whether or not you do the intelligent thing and just let it be is up to you.

Hell, I'll even help you. Here's some reference material:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... at/257415/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/c ... ion-forms/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/e ... -cleansed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeyMbPAwgyg

Don't know why I bother though, we both know you won't use it.

1-I have not made a lie. If Warren is actually telling a lie and not just mistaken than I am just stating what she said, not "making a lie!

2- You claim that Warren got into University and placed on faculty of Harvard Law School appears to be contradicted by the very sources you present.
The Atlantic:

$1:

The Democratic Senate candidate can't back up family lore that she is part Cherokee—but neither is there any evidence that she benefited professionally from these stories.

There is more in the body of the article, but unlike some I won't try to win an argument by having people bored out of their minds reading.

Once again my contention is that a- Warren told people what she thought and there is no indication she used it to "gain" anything. b- now it includes (thanks to you and Martii) a belief that some Cherokee think differently from others as to what constitutes "Cherokee."
and c- someone must of called you a dunce in elementary school because you seem to have a need to be thought of as the smartest lad in the class. Too bad about that. Perhaps you should work on the best Pokemon collection. You might do well there.

[N_Fiddledog]

I thank you for telling me what my claim is, but if it really is my claim why don't you let me make it?

Here it is:

This controversy began with Warren registering, listed, or referred to as a Native American, a Minority, or a Person of Color.

Much later when Elizabeth became political and was challenged on this she made reference to a suggested Cherokee ancestry.

There is no evidence of Elizabeth Warren having one drop of Native America, Minority, person of color or even Cherokee blood.

It is not a matter of Lizzie simply "being mistaken about her heritage," it is a matter of her telling a bold-faced lie.

In fact, as this became more evident she told even more ridiculous lies to cover it up:

$1:

Over the ensuing weeks, information was uncovered by a law professor that starting in the mid-1980s, when she was at U. Penn. Law School, Warren had put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools but dropped from that list when she gained tenure at Harvard. When confronted with this information, Warren admitted she had filled out forms listing herself as Native American, claiming she wanted to meet other Native Americans. That explanation was irrational because the faculty directory only listed her as “minority,” not as “Native American,” so putting herself on that list was not a way to meet other Native Americans.

Later, reporters uncovered that Warren had represented herself to both U. Penn and Harvard for federal reporting purposes as Native American. Warren, however, did not meet the two part test under Harvard and EEOC definitions of Native American, a definition which likely was on the page when she checked the box. Warren has refused to release these records.

Do you get it yet? This isn't even a quibble over whether or not Warren has enough native american blood to call herself a native american. She has none. In any case it wasn't her putting herself out there as a Cherokee or even as somebody of Cherokee descent that got her into trouble. She was registering as a native american then listing herself as a minority and was being referred to as a person of color.