Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is the whole Brain Williams kerfuffle a warm up [View all]AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)25. Is that really a thing?
from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-is-part-native-american
Now the Herald has some actual substance on the candidate's claims: Warren's great-great-great grandmother on her mother's side was Cherokee, making Warrenprovided the genealogist didn't miss anything1/32 Native American if her great-great-great grandmother was full-blooded (that's unclear). Warren has said that both of her mother's parents had American Indian blood, in which case the fraction would obviously be a little bit bigger. (It's plausible that some of Warren's relatives would have masked their Cherokee heritage, given the legally prescribed second-class citizenship bestowed upon American Indians for much of the 20th century.) Per newspaper clippings released by her campaign, other members of Warren's family, including a first cousin, have embraced their Cherokee roots and are active in American Indian causes in Oklahoma, where she grew up.
-- snip
The standards for who counts as an American Indian vary from tribe to tribe, and hinge in part on when you applied. Prior to 1963, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (that is, those who weren't forcibly relocated by the federal government in the 1830s) granted tribal membership to anyone who could prove he was 1/32 Cherokee. Per their site: "All direct lineal descendants of the ancestor listed on the 1924 Baker Roll must have been living on August 14, 1963, possess at least 1/32 degree of Eastern Cherokee blood, and have applied for membership prior to August 14, 1963." For those who applied after 1963, the standards went up to 1/16. Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee Nationan umbrella group which includes the Easter Cherokeeis 1/32 Cherokee, which was the subject of a minor controversy prior to his election, but obviously not a deal-breaker.
In other words, without wading too deeply into ongoing debates within the Native American community, Warren could make a fairly a legitimate claim to the title. Growing up in Oklahoma, with a large American Indian population, it's not surprising that she would have viewed her heritage differently than in a place like Massachusetts, which has a large population of political columnists who make teepee jokes. We're probably not talking about "Doctor Michele Bachmann."
-- snip
The standards for who counts as an American Indian vary from tribe to tribe, and hinge in part on when you applied. Prior to 1963, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (that is, those who weren't forcibly relocated by the federal government in the 1830s) granted tribal membership to anyone who could prove he was 1/32 Cherokee. Per their site: "All direct lineal descendants of the ancestor listed on the 1924 Baker Roll must have been living on August 14, 1963, possess at least 1/32 degree of Eastern Cherokee blood, and have applied for membership prior to August 14, 1963." For those who applied after 1963, the standards went up to 1/16. Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee Nationan umbrella group which includes the Easter Cherokeeis 1/32 Cherokee, which was the subject of a minor controversy prior to his election, but obviously not a deal-breaker.
In other words, without wading too deeply into ongoing debates within the Native American community, Warren could make a fairly a legitimate claim to the title. Growing up in Oklahoma, with a large American Indian population, it's not surprising that she would have viewed her heritage differently than in a place like Massachusetts, which has a large population of political columnists who make teepee jokes. We're probably not talking about "Doctor Michele Bachmann."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I would like to see the "Fairness Doctrine" reinstated or "Truth in Journalism" laws. nt
TheBlackAdder
Feb 2015
#32
Yep. She voted to invade Iraq for no legitimate reason. That is war crime of 'aggression'.
on point
Feb 2015
#12
Nah, but if he won the R primary and ran against Hillary...i wonder what people would do
NoJusticeNoPeace
Feb 2015
#62
Plenty of time to ask that question when the Democratic nominee has become obvious.
merrily
Feb 2015
#64
Joe McCarthy, is that you? Actually, it's never the right time for message board loyalty oaths.
merrily
Feb 2015
#66
I knew at the time the war was a fraud. She has no excuse at all and I won't cut her slack.
on point
Feb 2015
#34
And no cost in blood and treasure to the US was too great when it came to her personal ambition.
merrily
Feb 2015
#58
She did not only vote for the Iraq invasion. She stood up in the Senate with her bare face
merrily
Feb 2015
#53
Who knows...I want to know if Bernie is going to switch parties, run, to move her to the left
NoJusticeNoPeace
Feb 2015
#3
The only thing we dont know is what will the libertarian Hillary haters
NoJusticeNoPeace
Feb 2015
#7
You can say that again. I'm bettin Hillary ends up not runnin-would be a smart move on her part.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#14
They can always throw their support to Bernie, who doesn't need to inflate his biography - awesome person that he is.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#39
Shame on you bringing up Hillary lies. Now drink your Koolaid and get ready for HilLIARy.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#16
Thanks AK for settin the record straight. I'd take Elizabeth's record of honesty & genuineness over HilLiarY's any day.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#40
Agree, but the airport bit, important as it was, pales in comparison with her speech urging
merrily
Feb 2015
#59
True but lying about snipers is much easier to hammer on a commercial and is nonpartisan
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#71
Depends on the audience. I think more Democrats opposed her in 2008 for her speech and vote on the
merrily
Feb 2015
#74
If you were running against Clinton in a general election you wouldn't make sure it came up?
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#73
And if you can't trust the people who run your government to tell the truth...
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#52
I think the two things are separate. Also, Ichingcarpenter posted the other day that he
merrily
Feb 2015
#70
Please stop being fearful of the Republicans. It's unbecoming of us Democrats.
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#63