The results are in

#201
#201
Grand Vol said:
No, the Tribes themselves get to decide if you have the proof. You can "claim" it on a census all you want, but you darn sure have to be able to produce proof if you are looking for any government benefit. Only the recognized Tribes can do that.

As much as I hate agreeing with Septic (leaves a taste in the mouth) he's correct here.
Click to expand...

Come on GV......you know he meant "claim it" to mean be officially recognized as. To many "possible" and "could be" in this to claim definitive victory by EW.
 
#202
#202
LouderVol said:
the government decides. you have to be 1/16th to claim it. she is no where close to that.
Click to expand...

You're conflating what the government requires for opening casinos and special programs to how people identify. As stated earlier, the Cheif of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee.

If you want to make a convincing argument, start with the belief that actual Native American rarely care about bloodlines and far more about how people fit into their community and culture.
 
#205
#205
Trump should make a Million donation to a charity that improves life on Native American reservations in some way, do it in her name, and post proof on the webz. Post a Twitter pic with a Tweet that says something to the effect of "even though she's possibly 1/100th native american, I made a full donation for the benefit of the first nations. Instead of using the for political benefit, we should be seeing to theirs."

And be done with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and Septic
#206
#206
Septic said:
She's not looking for that.
Click to expand...

When she identified (as in changed her identification from caucasian to Native American) she may not have been looking for tribal affiliation but she certainly was claiming an identification that was not correct.

To me this has nothing to do with Trump - she promoted herself as Native American; her results show that such a claim is pretty ridiculous. Whether or not Trump is a welsher or not is another matter altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol and tumscalcium
#207
#207
Septic said:
I don't think you understand that the "does she have Indian ancestry" argument is settled, there is no "margin of error." You and everyone else are trying to move the goal posts by applying your personal subjectivity's by inserting the "but how much?"
Click to expand...
your own quote of the guy started with "the facts suggest". facts don't suggest. she either does or doesn't. the guy giving the test didn't even feel confident enough to say that she had any at all. he had to say there was a suggestion of it. this isn't an enough argument. this is the tests can't even say. the range says the whole thing could be wrong. I would hope a world class guy doing the test could do better than to tell me whether it was my dad or my great great grandfather that gave me the trait (4 generations). its a laughable result with a HUGE margin of error.

these tests aren't a probability matrix. if all we wanted was the probability of being Native American all you would have to do is look to see if her family has been here for a while, and if so there is a good probability of having some.
 
#208
#208
Septic said:
You're conflating what the government requires for opening casinos and special programs to how people identify. As stated earlier, the Cheif of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee.

If you want to make a convincing argument, start with the belief that actual Native American rarely care about bloodlines and far more about how people fit into their community and culture.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard one way or another if any of the Cherokee have claimed her. are you saying that if the Cherokee Nation came out and denounced her that would work? Because if the negative doesn't work for you, then the positive shouldn't either.

you asked who gets to decide at what level you get to claim it. I gave you that information, the government, you didn't like the answer so now you are deflecting.
 
#209
#209
LouderVol said:
your own quote of the guy started with "the facts suggest". facts don't suggest. she either does or doesn't. the guy giving the test didn't even feel confident enough to say that she had any at all. he had to say there was a suggestion of it. this isn't an enough argument. this is the tests can't even say. the range says the whole thing could be wrong. I would hope a world class guy doing the test could do better than to tell me whether it was my dad or my great great grandfather that gave me the trait (4 generations). its a laughable result with a HUGE margin of error.

these tests aren't a probability matrix. if all we wanted was the probability of being Native American all you would have to do is look to see if her family has been here for a while, and if so there is a good probability of having some.
Click to expand...

Here, why don't you go explain to this guy who the scientific method works? While you're there tell him that he should incorporate "margin of error" into his vernacular when discussing genetic marker absolutes.
 
#210
#210
Septic said:
Here, why don't you go explain to this guy who the scientific method works. While you're there tell him that he should incorporate "margin of error" into his vernacular when discussing genetic marker absolutes.
Click to expand...
maybe he should be clear, instead of suggesting. you used the word "proved", a range (at best its a range and not probability) doesn't prove anything. its my understanding the DNA test can't even go back 10 generations, so if that is included it is saying there is a chance of zero percent Native in her blood. and said Doctor couldn't even come out to make it unequivocal but had to stick to suggestions.
 
#211
#211
LouderVol said:
I haven't heard one way or another if any of the Cherokee have claimed her. are you saying that if the Cherokee Nation came out and denounced her that would work? Because if the negative doesn't work for you, then the positive shouldn't either.

you asked who gets to decide at what level you get to claim it. I gave you that information, the government, you didn't like the answer so now you are deflecting.
Click to expand...

Just because you offer an answer doesn't mean I don't get to denigrate it as shtty or irrelevant (it was both). Suggesting Martians get to decide would have carried just as much substance.

Since shes not looking for governmental benefits, who cares how she identifies to the government?
 
#213
#213
Septic said:
Just because you offer an answer doesn't mean I don't get to denigrate it as shtty or irrelevant (it was both). Suggesting Martians get to decide would have carried just as much substance.

Since shes not looking for governmental benefits, who cares how she identifies to the government?
Click to expand...
She’s already getting gov benefits.


And, the US government doesn’t provide said benefits to the real Indians. The Indians themselves take care of their own.
 
#214
#214
LouderVol said:
maybe he should be clear, instead of suggesting. you used the word "proved", a range (at best its a range and not probability) doesn't prove anything. its my understanding the DNA test can't even go back 10 generations, so if that is included it is saying there is a chance of zero percent Native in her blood. and said Doctor couldn't even come out to make it unequivocal but had to stick to suggestions.
Click to expand...

It was pretty clear what he was suggesting.

Again, I'm not appealing to authority - simply repeating the words that the authority used. If you take issue with the way that the preeminent expert in the field phrased unmistakably affirmative statement confirming Warrens ancestry, that's a you problem - rational people were able to digest his statement without confusion.
 
#216
#216
Obsessed said:
She’s already getting gov benefits.


And, the US government doesn’t provide said benefits to the real Indians. The Indians themselves take care of their own.
Click to expand...

That's not why she's claimed what she's claimed - but you know that.
 
#217
#217
Septic said:
Just because you offer an answer doesn't mean I don't get to denigrate it as shtty or irrelevant (it was both). Suggesting Martians get to decide would have carried just as much substance.

Since shes not looking for governmental benefits, who cares how she identifies to the government?
Click to expand...
she is claiming it for political benefit. so we either let her side determine it, always going to say yes, the other side determine it, always going to say no. or we use an established neutral metric. if you have another valid, existing metric we should use instead go ahead. We don't let Martians determine crap so no they aren't a valid substitution for something that actually exists.

heck if the Cherokee came out and adopted her as part of the tribe even with zero DNA to back it up I would accept that.
 
#219
#219
Septic said:
It was pretty clear what he was suggesting.

Again, I'm not appealing to authority - simply repeating the words that the authority used. If you take issue with the way that the preeminent expert in the field phrased unmistakably affirmative statement confirming Warrens ancestry, that's a you problem - rational people were able to digest his statement without confusion.
Click to expand...
there is no confusion. he said it clear as day. the facts suggest. for a world class expert he is using awfully ambiguous terms. He leaves enough vague-nessity so that people can infer what they want. why give the possible range if he was speaking in a unmistakable affirmative statement? why muddy the water but to cover his backside? why worry about his backside if it is an unmistakable affirmative? it doesn't make sense.
 
#220
#220
In light of Pocahontas Warren's claimed Native American heritage and the findings from her DNA tests that showed that her blood is approximately 0.09% Native American, I would like to officially announce that on football Saturday's in the fall that I would like to be known as a Bourbon American, because at least .15% of my blood is single barrel on gamedays. Thank you in advance for respecting my Bourbon American heritage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Matt2496, volfanhill and 3 others
#221
#221
LouderVol said:
she is claiming it for political benefit. so we either let her side determine it, always going to say yes, the other side determine it, always going to say no. or we use an established neutral metric. if you have another valid, existing metric we should use instead go ahead. We don't let Martians determine crap so no they aren't a valid substitution for something that actually exists.

heck if the Cherokee came out and adopted her as part of the tribe even with zero DNA to back it up I would accept that.
Click to expand...

The one drop rule has been a legal precedent as late as 1985 when it was last employed and upheld.

In the United States, the “one-drop rule” — also known as hypodescent — dates to a 1662 Virginia law on the treatment of mixed-race individuals. The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as “white” on her passport.
Click to expand...
 
#222
#222
Septic said:
I don't think you understand that the "does she have Indian ancestry" argument is settled, there is no "margin of error." You and everyone else are trying to move the goal posts by applying your personal subjectivity's by inserting the "but how much?"
Click to expand...
She doesn't qualify for Native American status according to the SBA..... no small business set asides for her ...... sucks
 
#223
#223
LouderVol said:
there is no confusion. he said it clear as day. the facts suggest. for a world class expert he is using awfully ambiguous terms. He leaves enough vague-nessity so that people can infer what they want. why give the possible range if he was speaking in a unmistakable affirmative statement? why muddy the water but to cover his backside? why worry about his backside if it is an unmistakable affirmative? it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Facts.

The facts do suggest.

I'm glad we can finally agree.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top