The one drop rule

From Karen, The Lonely Conservative:


Elizabeth Warren Cites Father’s High Cheekbones as Proof of Cherokee Heritage


May 3, 2012 | By

I’ve been so busy this week I haven’t had time to join in the fun with regard to Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee heritage. She said she only listed herself as Native American in the Harvard Law directory so she could make friends and get invited to luncheons. Last night Dennis Miller called her “Spreading Bull” and  Michelle Malkin has dubbed her “Pinocchio-Hontas.”

While the Democrat’s team scrounged for evidence over the weekend, Warren stalled for time by asserting that she didn’t need to provide documentation because family “lore” backed her up. Someone told her a story, you see, and magically conferred native status upon her. Through narrative, all things are possible!

On Tuesday, Warren finally discovered a great-great-great-grandmother supposedly “certified as Cherokee” and a random cousin somehow involved with a museum that preserves Native American art. There’s also a great-great-grandfather somewhere in Warren’s dusty genealogical records who spent time on a Cherokee reservation. Because walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins is now just as good as being born in them.

Native American officials aren’t buying Warren’s 1/10,000th Cherokee claim. Suzan Shown Harjo, a former executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, told the Herald: “If you believe you are these things then that’s fine and dandy, but that doesn’t give you the right to claim yourself as Native American.”

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s fun. Here’s even more fun – Elizabeth Warren explaining that her grandfather had high cheekbones, just like all of the Indians do.

Your Editor had heard of the lovely Mrs Warren’s farcical claim, and he was reminded of the so-called “one drop rule.” I suppose that she’s a “Native American” like Ward Churchill was a “Native American,” not by culture, not by ethnicity, but by convenience; when it happens to be useful, they were “Native Americans.”

From what your Editor knows of his ancestry, it seems improbable that he has any direct descendance from American Indians, but, inasmuch as he was born in the United States, is as much of a “Native American” as anyone can be. Of course, since we’re all something like 20th cousins at the very least, we are all related to each other. Koolo is related, albeit distantly, to Wagonwheel, and your Editor is related to Amanda Marcotte, Nancy Pelosi and the Phoenician.

In the end, the hyphenating of heritage is all bunk anyway.

33 Comments

  1. Elizabeth Warren is an Oklahoma native, as am I. She moved away from the state several years ago and one would never know she was from Oklahoma, much less “Native American”, unless you asked, or if it served a purpose, Warren declared it. I find it somewhat disconcerting for this elitist to have risen to where she is today, in part because of her misleading claim that she is Native American.

  2. And AOHell had an article that all Blue-Eyed people are related by one common ancestor from tens of thousands of years ago. So, I married a Blue-Eyed woman, then it must mean we have lived in incest! :-) And now I wonder about Blue-Eyed Alaskan Malamutes in the mix too.

  3. I, too, am an Oklahoman, LD Jackson. Elizabeth Warren has likely counted on the ignorance of her new pals in Massachusetts who have probably gotten their info on Oklahoma’s demographics from their junior high textbooks that listed Oklahoma as the arid, desolate land where Native Americans were forced to migrate so their “betters” wouldn’t have to mingle with them. When “diversity” became chic, Ms. Warren likely took her cue from another fake Cherokee (and fellow less-than-forthright liberal in academia), Ward Churchill, and jumped on the diversity bandwagon. How glad Harvard obviously was to have on its staff a woman whose ancestor had high cheekbones! There are no records of Ms. Warren’s claim of her heritage–other than something she heard from a family member about a long-ago relative whose Native American heritage cannot be traced any more than Ms. Warren’s Native American heritage can.

    Elizabeth Warren’s “proof” of her Cherokee heritage as the high cheekbones of a relative is racist, of course. Could not those with full lips or wide nostrils claim their “rights” as African Americans with no other proof? Could the brightest kids in school rightfully claim to be 1/32 Asian since Asians are often the summa cum laude graduates? How about the stupid students? Can they blame their stupidity on the heritage of their great, great, great, great grandparents?

    Of course, Massachusetts voters have shown that they don’t always revere truthful politicians. Proof of that was the lengthy tenure of Teddy “I didn’t know she couldn’t swim” Kennedy.

  4. It’s possible that Elizabeth Warren has a touch of red Indian blood from some remote ancestor, many Americans do, but certainly not enough to qualify her for inclusion in a special racial category.

    OTOH, as our Editor and Gretchen mentioned above, Warren’s claim may be every bit as specious and every bit as timely and self-serving as that of the other famous faux Indian, Ward Churchill, the darling of liberal arts students in need of an easy A, left-wing politicians, and Social Science (read Marxist) professors until he was unmasked as unqualified for his academic appointment, an abuser of women, a lying blowhard, and a serial plagiarist.

    But, since Warren’s a so-called Progressive with Harvard credentials she’ll get a pass from the MSM, least her deceptions lead to an examination of other Harvard Progressives who have falsified their backgrounds, like one with the initials Barack Obama.

  5. “But, since Warren’s a so-called Progressive with Harvard credentials she’ll get a pass from the MSM, least her deceptions lead to an examination of other Harvard Progressives who have falsified their backgrounds, like one with the initials Barack Obama.”

    And exactly how did our President falsify his background, ropelight.

    Man, the hate on this blog today is really thick!!! Why is this? Is it because you folks are becoming convinced that you might well lose in November, as the polls and the electoral college tallies are beginning to suggest, and as Romney’s campaign is off to such a terrible start. About all you folks have going for y’all is voter suppression, voter fraud, and Super PACs, which could be formidable, I’ll grant you.

  6. Dennis Miller just tweeted:

    “Elizabeth Warren just clarified things by revealing what she meant to say was that she is 1/32 Johnny Quest’s best friend.”

  7. @ Gretchen

    Glad to see another commenter from our great state.

    As for Elizabeth Warren, it’s a good thing she moved to Massachusetts before she ran for political office. She wouldn’t stand a chance in Oklahoma.

  8. And exactly how did our President falsify his background, ropelight.

    Probably by declaring himself to be “Black” when he is not descended from American slaves (this being the proper definition of “Black” in this country).

  9. Man, the hate on this blog today is really thick!!! Why is this? Is it because you folks are becoming convinced that you might well lose in November, as the polls and the electoral college tallies are beginning to suggest, and as Romney’s campaign is off to such a terrible start. About all you folks have going for y’all is voter suppression, voter fraud, and Super PACs, which could be formidable, I’ll grant you.

    Give it up, Perry. After 4 years of Obama, the economy’s still lousy. He’s become Jimmy Carter Part Two.

  10. Just heard that Elizabeth Warren is being dubbed “Fauxcahontas” in her adopted state of Massachusetts. Seems to fit her.

  11. About all you folks have going for y’all is voter suppression, voter fraud, and Super PACs, which could be formidable, I’ll grant you.

    Considering over 3/4 of the American public thinks your voter suppression nonsense is the stuff of very stupid people, and the fact that voter fraud is the stuff of YOUR party, about all you have going for you is half a brain, SINP.

  12. Perry asked, And exactly how did our President falsify his background, ropelight.

    It’s been simmering below the surface for at least 4 years or so, Hillary Clinton’s campaign pointed it out as far back as the Democrat primary elections prior to the 2008 general election.

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse concluded that significant evidence indicated that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery.

    And, perhaps you missed it, but most recently it was discussed on this site in connection to the strange and quite striking resemblance Barack Obama shares with Malcolm X.

    But, then, you already know all that.

  13. “@ Wagonwheel

    Since when is stating our opinion and pointing out some of the facts the mainstream media refuses to point out akin to hate?”

    One example just popped up, one of the worst offenders, school teacher koolo:

    “Considering over 3/4 of the American public thinks your voter suppression nonsense is the stuff of very stupid people, and the fact that voter fraud is the stuff of YOUR party, about all you have going for you is half a brain, SINP.”

    Hang around, Mr Jackson, you’ll see much more from this source and more!

  14. Here is another example, Mr Jackson, from Hoagie:

    ““Now I restate: You spent thousands of words, on several threads and perhaps dozens of posts defending and endorsing what the Occupy Wall Streeters were doing. Therefore, like it or not you are on record here endorsing the Occupy movement. As noted the CPUSA, NAZI PARTY, al-qaeda, Taliban (and even more I’m not listing) all endorsed OWS too.

    So exactly what bulls**t am I trying to pin on you? You signed up with anti-American, totalitarian, theocratic organizations when you endorsed OWS. You sided with our enemies.

    And I know why. Because you don’t view them as our enemies, you view Republicans and conservatives and Christians and Jews as our enemies. The NAZI’s and commies, well, not too much. The theocrat moslems, they’re okay. But we conservative Lutherans are the real danger to the Republic. And those anti-women Catholics, boy they need the new re-education camps, dontcha know?””

    I see the OWS movement at least as a demonstration, of, among other issues, the inequality of opportunity which has increased in recent times, the high unemployment, low availability of jobs, the continuous shifting of wealth upwards, and to stagnating middle income salaries. To interpret my support as evidence of my siding with our enemies is preposterous, in my view, and untrue as well.

  15. Hang around, Mr Jackson, you’ll see much more from this source and more!

    Indeed, Mr. Jackson. Much of it will come from Wagonwheel himself; in fact, he was suspended from this blog for 2 weeks because he threatened me with notifying my employer of my supposed “antics” because he hated that I continually made a fool out of him, and then he accused another commenter here of cheating on his federal taxes. Not to mention WW constantly calls us “racists,” “haters,” “unpatriotic,” “un-American,” “wingnuts,” and on and on. My comments like the one above are only settling the score, to keep the game even.

    Also keep in mind that WW is no better than 9-11 Truthers and Obama Birthers: He believes the GOP “stole” the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

  16. I see the OWS movement at least as a demonstration, of, among other issues, the inequality of opportunity which has increased in recent times, the high unemployment, low availability of jobs, the continuous shifting of wealth upwards, and to stagnating middle income salaries. To interpret my support as evidence of my siding with our enemies is preposterous, in my view, and untrue as well.

    Keep in mind, Mr. Jackson, that WW constantly called out the Tea Party as “racists” and “haters” … and yet supports the Occupy movement with all its assorted violence, drug use, and even death.

  17. “Keep in mind, Mr. Jackson, that WW constantly called out the Tea Party as “racists” and “haters” … and yet supports the Occupy movement with all its assorted violence, drug use, and even death.”

    First of all, koolo is being dishonest about my depiction of the TEA Party. Although I do not support their solutions to resolving our economic growth problems, my other main complaint has been against their packing heat to President Obama rallies.

    Moreover, of course I do not support the anecdotal poor behavior of some of the demonstrators. And I object to koolo’s characterization of the movement because it is essentially inaccurate.

  18. First of all, koolo is being dishonest about my depiction of the TEA Party. Although I do not support their solutions to resolving our economic growth problems, my other main complaint has been against their packing heat to President Obama rallies.

    I’m hardly dishonest. After all, notice: WW objects to what — one person who had a licensed weapon at an Obama rally, yet notes that the misbehavior of the Occupiers is “anecdotal” of “some” of the protesters. Yet, there are magnitudes more — MUCH more — misbehavior among the Occupiers than there ever was among Tea Partiers.

    WW objects to my characterization only because it’s true. And he doesn’t like that. Much like he didn’t like my calling out his lies and hypocrisy months prior, thus he threatened my livelihood and was thus suspended for two weeks.

  19. “Indeed, Mr. Jackson. Much of it will come from Wagonwheel himself; in fact, he was suspended from this blog for 2 weeks because he threatened me with notifying my employer of my supposed “antics” because he hated that I continually made a fool out of him, and then he accused another commenter here of cheating on his federal taxes. Not to mention WW constantly calls us “racists,” “haters,” “unpatriotic,” “un-American,” “wingnuts,” and on and on. My comments like the one above are only settling the score, to keep the game even.”

    Not one statement here is an accurate depiction of the truth, and, because they are out of context. It is noteworthy that koolo is attempting to justify his slime with a hyperbolic description of my behavior on here.

    Koolo, to make your point, you must produce the quotes in context of that which you allege, otherwise your words are meaningless.

    It will be best for anyone on here to judge for themselves as the days roll on.

  20. my other main complaint has been against their packing heat to President Obama rallies.

    Which you whine about constantly, never mind:

    1. It was perfectly legal.

    and,

    2. The protesters were completely peaceful and there was NEVER any threat to The Annointed One.

    Now, let’s just drop this for good.

  21. Koolo, to make your point, you must produce the quotes in context of that which you allege, otherwise your words are meaningless.

    Also keep in mind, Mr. Jackson, that the above quote is the M.O. of WW — he does this with everyone despite cites/quotes being provided again, and again, and again. His antics are such that even fellow liberals and moderates have chastised this idiocy because even they couldn’t stand it.

    Keep that in mind. Keep in mind, too, that when you do provide a cite/link for WW, he’ll either

    1) disapppear for a while, which means he’ll then claim he “never saw it,”
    2) totally ignore it,
    3) have an issue with the source,
    4) agree with the cite/quote very briefly, but then will add a “but” followed by several paragraphs of why conservatives/the GOP are “worse”

  22. Eric, why would anyone in his right mind wish to pack heat at an Obama event? These are crazy people, and have to be watched!

    One guy.

    Yet thousands commit violent acts in the Occupy movement, but WW will chastise you if you dare criticize them. This is SINP’s lunatic moonbat progressivism for you.

  23. “1) disapppear for a while, which means he’ll then claim he “never saw it,”
    2) totally ignore it,
    3) have an issue with the source,
    4) agree with the cite/quote very briefly, but then will add a “but” followed by several paragraphs of why conservatives/the GOP are “worse””

    You are really fishing here, koolo. Everyone at one time or another does this in one form or another, as this is what blogging is all about.

    “Yet thousands commit violent acts in the Occupy movement, but WW will chastise you if you dare criticize them. This is SINP’s lunatic moonbat progressivism for you.”

    Of course I am critical of the anecdotal violence, so your statement is inaccurate, koolo. In fact, I am the most outspoken on here regarding acts of violence, as in wars, as in overly aggressive police activities, and as in domestic violence.

    As Mr Jackson will see, I am a progressive on many issues, and am so proudly.

  24. Eric, why would anyone in his right mind wish to pack heat at an Obama event?

    Doesn’t matter. They were obeying the law. There was no threat to anyone.

    Now, please drop this stupid nonsense. Permanently.

    These are crazy people, and have to be watched!

    You mean, like you needed to “watch” Koolio, and even threaten to report him to his superiours? Who appointed YOU the Town Snoop?

  25. Not one statement here is an accurate depiction of the truth

    The part about you being banned for two weeks was COMPLETELY accurate. It is your own personal badge of dishonor that you were banned for using truly despicable tactics.

  26. Barack Obama’s supporters carry guns at Obama events for a simple and obvious reason, to keep Obama from suffering the same fate that befell Malcolm X.

  27. WW:
    As Mr Jackson will see, I am a progressive on many issues, and am so proudly.

    You mean you have no problem of spending other people’s money even if the US defaults on the loans BO is building up? Or are you hoping that to restructure the country into a total dependency mode like Julia Marx.

  28. Wagonwheel asked:

    Eric, why would anyone in his right mind wish to pack heat at an Obama event? These are crazy people, and have to be watched!

    An Obama event? The Secret Service let a man who was visibly carrying a firearm into an event where the President was present?

    Not that it matters: if someone is exercising his constitutional rights, it does not matter whether you believe he was doing so wisely. Our constitutional rights are our rights, period, and should not be subject to limitation because someone else thinks they are being exercised improperly.

  29. I find it humorous that those who seem to be eager to denigrate the Tea Party often cite one…ONE…instance in which an apparent Tea Party supporter showed up at an event carrying a legally registered firearm.

    There have been so many Occupiers, a group liberals try desperately to describe as the liberal equivalents to conservative Tea Partiers, who have caused physical harm to others (including police officers), and tens of thousands of dollars in property damage, and who have created filth and trash at virtually every one of their gatherings and who have literally raped and pillaged to the extent that protective areas have had to be set apart to protect potential victims that no one even tries to pinpoint one specific individual to castigate.

    I suppose the Occupiers feel a protective shield about them, giving them license to create their mayhem because, after all, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood before the cameras and applauded their efforts as she implored God to bless them. Who wouldn’t feel protected after that?

  30. Wagonwheel says:

    Moreover, of course I do not support the anecdotal poor behavior of some of the demonstrators. And I object to koolo’s characterization of the movement because it is essentially inaccurate.

    If you are referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement and say Koolo’s characterization of them as violent drug users is inaccurate, I would respectfully disagree. I can point you to multiple examples of the kind of behavior that goes on at their events/riots. There is a vast difference between the way they act and the way the Tea Party conducted themselves. That’s just the plain and simple truth.

Comments are closed.