She never claimed in any official document that she was of native descent, she never received any career advancement, this has been known since the allegations were first levelled against her.
That’s not true, as far as I know. I understood that she officially claimed it while teaching at Harvard, or something like that. And she definitely used it politically, as far back as 2012. There is plenty of video evidence of that.
1 Like
What is your issue though ?
The DNA results just prove her claims.
It’s insane, but it’s pretty normal for US relations Between the US and Saudis?
9/11 ring any bells?
2 Likes
Harvard specifically stated that they were unaware of her Native American ancestry when they hired her, therefore it had no impact on their decision to hire her.
Even if she did, as bacchus said, the results are in and ‘shocker’ she does have Native American ancestors within 6ish generations which is what she has stated all along.
Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a statement, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.” - CNN
1 Like
He has that point of view for pretty specific reasons.
He doesn’t want DNA tests to be the standard of claim.
Self identification and acceptance by elders is what makes people Cherokee.
4 Likes
700 hostages including westerners taken by ISIS, with threats to execute 10 a day.
This will test Trump, its situations like these that I always feared would be beyond him. I hope it works out positively.
Er Corbyn anti-semitic? What? You surely don’t believe that rubbish, do you?
The real story should be about how US weapons are murdering thousands and thousands of Yemeni’s in one of the worst genocides ever…
Good strategy.
You get to pick only the one’s you want.
Or, You get the ones you know are part of the community.
Yeah, of course that happens.
Every community shuns certain members for various reasons, some perhaps warranted, but mostly not. I would have thought to it to be about ethnicity and DNA is a reasonable test for inclusion.
Let’s define her for what she actually is,
-
A savage war hawk who was one of the driving forces behind the Libya debacle - that alone should have disqualified her from running in 2016. Have you actually read about the state of Libya? It’s a failed state that’s overrun by terrorists and hosts human slave trading, which you can watch on YouTube. Then there’s the ■■■■■■ up interview “We Came, We Conquered, He Died” where she actually laughed over the grisly death of a human being (whatever your thoughts were on Gaddafi);
-
Deep in the pockets of Wall Street, just like every other establishment politician in the U.S;
-
Opposed LGBQT rights when running in 2008; and
-
Made a mockery of standing up for women’s rights by keeping on a staffer who was accused of harassment toward a female colleague
DNA is a bad test, it allows the Bolts of the world to have a field day.
Somebody that has identified as aboriginal or native American their whole life and it is fully ingrained as their culture finds out they have no DNA.
Or Bolt et al use it as a tool for people to prove themselves.
1 Like
He’s pretty clearly refused to call-out some of his fringe supporters who are. An unfortunate fact is that some of the fringe elements on the left are as anti-semitic as those groups on the right. Corbyn has repeatedly refused to condemn some of those elements who felt empowered by his leadership.
You miss the point. Some people do need to prove themselves. Warren made the comment that she had Cherokee blood in her past, and was called out on it. So the DNA test proved she was correct.
Blood doesn’t always make you part of the tribe though.
And who the fark cares what Bolt, Jones and those other truds think.
4 Likes
Aboriginal people care about Bolt thats why the took him to court.
EDIT: I get your point on proving it, thats why clan acceptance is importance as well as self identification. You don’t ant people fraudulently claiming ancestry.
I have no issues with Hillary being rated based on her own record. She was a hugely flawed candidate, who should have had multiple challengers in the 2016 primary.
But using her husband and his record to berate her is defining her by what her husband did, and what that means for her, rather than her own record. Similarly calling her Billary is saying she isn’t her own distinct candidate, but instead collating her with her husband.
1 Like
Agreed. Has she claimed to be Cherokee anywhere? My understanding is she’s claimed to have a single ancestor 4 generations back who was Cherokee, and the DNA supports that claim. The Republicans want it both ways - call her a liar all the time, then discount it when she actually provides some evidence as being too weak (when in fact it perfectly agrees with what she has always been saying).
1 Like