gonzoliberal

Is showing Elizabeth Warren in a 'Native American' headress racist?

359 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Phineas Finn said:

Yet another sign of the  bigot in denial -- fall back on a dictionary definition.

Pathetic -- and people wonder why there's still a racial discrimination problem. I think I'll count the minutes until you tell me that flying the Confederate battle flag isn't racist either.

The link shows that there is absolutely no evidence that Warren tried to gain advantage from her family heritage.

Yes, I cite the dictionary because words have specific meanings.  You and some others like to put your own meanings to words which are not correct.  You can't just make stuff up as you go along.

And no, simply flying the Confederate battle flag is not necessarily racist.  Are Confederate reenactors racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

 There is no gene for European or for native Americans.  There are clusters of DNA "bits" that are common to groups but that is far from definitive.  And the bigger problem is the lack of DNA from "ancestors". You apparently need a whole bunch of samples to start identifying clusters, and there aren't a whole lot of current native Americans (or Europeans for that matter) that have DNA that hasn't been intermixed with other ethnic groups.  

Are you being this thickheaded on purpose??

How many times can this be explicitly explained to you.  I feel like I'm talking to Jim Ignitowski during his driving test.

Native Americans have very predominant, traceable, Mongolian markers.

If Warren doesn't have Mongolian markers, she is not Native American.  Why is this so utterly hard for you to understand??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been going on for 12 pages.

Unbelievable for such a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Rael said:

Yea, because most men ride tandem horse rides bare-chested with their best buds. Please, at least argue your points honestly. 

Do you think that the photos of Putin alone bare-chested on horseback ride are homophobic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

This thread has been going on for 12 pages.

Unbelievable for such a non-issue.

All because someone didn't like Warren in an Indian headdress ........

Isn't this place wonderful .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cameron said:

Do you think that the photos of Putin alone bare-chested on horseback ride are homophobic?

Not really, just a bit weird for a government leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smokey 1 said:

Yes, I cite the dictionary because words have specific meanings.  You and some others like to put your own meanings to words which are not correct.  You can't just make stuff up as you go along.

And no, simply flying the Confederate battle flag is not necessarily racist.  Are Confederate reenactors racist?

In the wise, wise words of Ronald Reagan -- there you go again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

Not necessarily, read some of the links presented on this thread.

And the links have what to do with a DNA test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FatBoy said:

It's interesting you automatically assume the test would prove her wrong. 

Why hasn't Warren taken a DNA test? It would put an end to all this. Maybe she's concerned she might not have Native Indian blood in her? Why defend her when she isn't doing all she can to defend herself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, alienrace said:

Are you being this thickheaded on purpose??

How many times can this be explicitly explained to you.  I feel like I'm talking to Jim Ignitowski during his driving test.

Native Americans have very predominant, traceable, Mongolian markers.

If Warren doesn't have Mongolian markers, she is not Native American.  Why is this so utterly hard for you to understand??

Really? What markers precisely? Meaning in which chromosome s do these sequences occur? 

Predominant?

Nonsense. You're talking trace evidence.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3056831

 "However, this gene shows a precipitous drop from mainland China to Taiwan and Southeast Asia and from North to South America, although it is still found in high frequency among Eskimos, Koryaks, Yakuts, Tibetans, Olunchuns, Tungus, Koreans, Japanese, and Ainus. On the other hand, the gene was introduced into Huis, Uyghurs, Indians, Iranians, and spread as far as to include Hungarians and Sardinians in Italy."

In other words the predictive value of this DNA bit is highly questionable in the Warren situation. Even where it is still common as in Eskimos, it is found in "high frequency", meaning it is not absolute. So your first sentence is bull****.

 

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

Why hasn't Warren taken a DNA test? It would put an end to all this. Maybe she's concerned she might not have Native Indian blood in her? Why defend her when she isn't doing all she can to defend herself? 

I believe Warren has told you and Brownie to take a flying leap.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren used a claim of minority status to enhance her career -- none, zip.

Oh, and partisan speculation doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

Why hasn't Warren taken a DNA test? It would put an end to all this. Maybe she's concerned she might not have Native Indian blood in her? Why defend her when she isn't doing all she can to defend herself? 

Maybe she doesn't care what a bunch of right wing nuts think about her because they wouldn't like her regardless of if Scott Brown lied or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hst2 said:

It's such a baseless claim that serves to do nothing but reveal your bias.  But with the birth of the righ's alt-universe, baseless, biased opinion is increasingly accepted as fact. And I have no doubt you think it is a fact, when it's really just a smear.

The fact is, it really shouldn't matter. It's unimportant. 

Please, man, the left has made character assassination and smearing a science.  Your indignation rings as particularly hollow and phony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hst2 said:

I have explained how they are similar.  It doesn't suit your bias, so you ignore it.

I read that the head of the Cherokee Nation is. 003%.

You said they were identical.  They aren't.  They aren't even that similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, veritas said:

Please, man, the left has made character assassination and smearing a science.  Your indignation rings as particularly hollow and phony.

:lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

50 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

Why hasn't Warren taken a DNA test? It would put an end to all this. Maybe she's concerned she might not have Native Indian blood in her? Why defend her when she isn't doing all she can to defend herself? 

Why should she bother to do that? You think she cares what a bunch of right wingers think? She hasn't done anything illegal and she doesn't owe anyone an explanation. 

 

Edited by FatBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ms maggie said:

Really? What markers precisely? Meaning in which chromosome s do these sequences occur? 

Predominant?

Nonsense. You're talking trace evidence.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3056831

 "However, this gene shows a precipitous drop from mainland China to Taiwan and Southeast Asia and from North to South America, although it is still found in high frequency among Eskimos, Koryaks, Yakuts, Tibetans, Olunchuns, Tungus, Koreans, Japanese, and Ainus. On the other hand, the gene was introduced into Huis, Uyghurs, Indians, Iranians, and spread as far as to include Hungarians and Sardinians in Italy."

In other words the predictive value of this DNA bit is highly questionable in the Warren situation. Even where it is still common as in Eskimos, it is found in "high frequency", meaning it is not absolute. So your first sentence is bull****.

 

The first article actually proves my point.

The second is speaking of one particular marker, and actually also proves my point.

Time for you to quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veritas said:

You said they were identical.  They aren't.  They aren't even that similar.

I have explained how they are similar.  It doesn't suit your bias, so you ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, alienrace said:

The first article actually proves my point.

The second is speaking of one particular marker, and actually also proves my point.

Time for you to quit.

Why don't you quote where these articles prove your point? Where this is 100% reliable.

Maintaining that Warren's DNA would positively prove or disprove her NA ancestry is junk science. Despite was ancestry.com says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, a genealogist and qualified genetic scientists on one side.

Internet blowhards and hate-filled cretins on the other.

Gosh, wonder which side I should believe! It's sooooooo close! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, veritas said:

Please, man, the left has made character assassination and smearing a science.  Your indignation rings as particularly hollow and phony.

That's rich. Heard something today that rang so true.

You know why so many Republicans have gone all sweet on Putin?These folks who gave full throated support to RR's "evil empire" stance.

Has Russia turned more friendly to our interests? Is Putin not a murderer and thoroughly corrupt?

So why the change?

Because they think Putin made Obama look weak. And they so hate Obama, they're willing to play nice with this horrible man. They've gone off the rails.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Calamari said:

Let's see, a genealogist and qualified genetic scientists on one side.

Internet blowhards and hate-filled cretins on the other.

Gosh, wonder which side I should believe! It's sooooooo close! :rolleyes:

You are projecting again.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flyboy56 said:

Why hasn't Warren taken a DNA test? It would put an end to all this. Maybe she's concerned she might not have Native Indian blood in her? Why defend her when she isn't doing all she can to defend herself? 

for the same reason your hero won't release his tax returns....apparently it's nunya.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now