Yeah, I mean, this stuff is incredibly complex – one thing I’d love to get your thoughts on is the issue of “blood quantum”. As I understand it, this is generally being used by a number of Indigenous communities / tribes, but the idea of using blood quantum actually originated with Europeans, and has a rather problematic history.
Do you happen to know much about this? I’m curious if you could shed some light on this for me – also, in your opinion, are there different attitudes toward this between Canada and the U.S.?
1 - As soon as “money” is involved, ancestry stops being about community and starts being about how one can exclude the most people possible from inclusion.
2 - Using genetics for this purpose is about the worst idea to come about as a result of #1.
3 - As always, what’s important in these sorts of discussions gets lost in the meta-discussion.
The article I read indicated that the Native American ancestor was likely between 6-10 generations ago, most likely 8. If I do the math correctly, that would mean that Warren is 0.4% Native American. So I don’t know what to think - how much ancestry does one need to have to claim ethnicity? I’m as white as wonder bread, but if I have 0.4% African American ancestry, can I claim minority status?
what I want to know is why, being African-American was established as one drop of blood whereas in native populations the govt parses 1/4, 1/8, 1/16th etc.
After reading that article, it is clear that she never claimed, or took advantage, of having more than partial Native blood. She was rightly proud to have some diversity in her ancestry.
Well, in the south in the Jim Crow days, you would be subject to all the restrictions put on POCs, plus additional recriminations for “trying to pass.” So, yes, I suppose so.
No, not explicitly. What it does say, however, is that she was listed in the directory as a minority for nine years prior to the Harvard appointment, then goes on to read “The listings were based on professors reporting that they were members of a minority group, the directory says.”
So does reporting oneself to a directory as being a minority equate to claiming minority status?
There is no evidence that she reported herself as a minority, but rather that she accurately shared that she had some Native American ancestry in her family tree and someone else ran with it. Do you really think Warren would have claimed she was a full-fledged minority based on an oral history from a grandmother, and only for marketing purposes but not to advance her career? It makes no sense. Not to mention that it is splitting the finest of hairs as a desperate means to tangentially question her credibility. Your concern is noted, I’m moving on.
Whoever invented and introduced the idea of “claiming minority status” into the conversation presumably knows what it “equates to.” That doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the topic or the rest of the discussion.
What’s weird about the majority of the BB posts here is that none of them recognise how insensitive (at best) or cynical and racist (at worst) Elizabeth Warren was in doing this.
Many, many “white Americans” with privileged backgrounds will likely have some Indigenous ancestry. But this is hardly the same as being actively involved in a community, being considered a member by the majority of a community, or having close relatives (grandparents or even great grandparents), etc.
This actually demonstrates more white appropriation, and it’s pretty appalling.
I can still hate Trump but simultaneously be really disappointed that Warren herself demonstrates a more insidious form of racism…
