Harvard Law School’s internal statistics from the time showed the institution was looking for female professors and had set a goal of hiring a tenured woman that year. Oddly, the law school’s internal metrics found that they believed they had sufficient minorities on staff, despite employing only five.If it were discussed, in what way would it have been discussed?
One area that 30 of the 31 professors interviewed by the Globe agreed on: There was no talk about her Native American claims during the meetings over her appointment. One professor emeritus, Lloyd Weinreb, said he believes her Native American ancestry was discussed. But, in an e-mail he questioned his own recollection: “I am not sure enough for you to rely on me,” he wrote.
It’s not even clear that Warren would have been accepted as a true minority hire if she’d been pitched to the faculty that way. “It wouldn’t have even worked in the most diehard communities,” said [David] Wilkins, who was one of the only black law professors on staff. “Let’s be blunt. Elizabeth Warren is a white woman. She may have some Native American roots, but so do most people.”That one comment is more significant, I think, than the fact that 30 out of 31 Harvard lawprofs affirmed to the Globe that there was "no talk about her Native American claims during the meetings over her appointment."
By the way, did the Globe ask these professors if there was any talk outside of the meetings? Was there any written communication? Were the professors asked if they knew that Warren was listed as Native American in the American Association of Law Schools book that all law professors get a copy of every year? Did they know and did they think about it? There could be a decorum according to which you don't openly talk about it in meetings but everyone knows and is taking it into account. And one reason not to talk about is that you know that — as Professor Wilkins clearly stated — the black law professors would have objected if her case had been presented as a minority hire. But those voting on the case may nevertheless have considered it a plus that the school would be able to say that it had a Native American law professor — which in fact it went on to do.
The Harvard Law School students who were clamoring for more diversity also did not view her as a woman of color when she was offered a job.I believe this.
“In order to show a real commitment to diversity they need to do more than pass a resolution and bring in white women,” said Julie A. Su, then a second-year Harvard Law student who was quoted in the Harvard Crimson the day after Warren was offered the job.
And, remarkably, Warren doesn’t even remember getting the offer. “I guess it should have been a big moment,” Warren said, reflecting on her inability to recall the details.That's weird, but it's doesn't affect the matter under discussion. If her putative Native American ancestry were a factor in hiring her, I can't believe it would be part of the communication of the offer.
I mean, at my school, this sort of thing was out and proud. Under our chancellor Donna Shalala, we had "The Madison Plan," which funded 4 hires in one year. Our hires included a Native American whom Professor Wilkins might have looked at and called "a white man," but he was — and this was considered crucial — a citizen of the Cherokee nation.
Perhaps most telling was the role of Randall Kennedy, a law professor who was on the Harvard appointments committee at the time, and was in charge of recruiting minority candidates.Kennedy says he remembers no mentions, and that seems to refer to discussions outside of meetings as opposed to meetings alone, which tweaks my suspicion about what "30 of the 31 professors" told the Globe.
“She was not on the radar screen at all in terms of a racial minority hire,” Kennedy told the Globe. “It was just not an issue. I can’t remember anybody ever mentioning her in this context.”
If you're wondering whether Professor Kennedy is a member of a minority group, I refer you to this book he wrote, the title of which I won't write. (I'd read that book, but I would not listen to the audio version.)
The Boston Globe takes care to give us quotes from Harvard Law School professors Warren antagonists probably know and like — Alan Dershowitz ("occasional Trump defender")....
“This is a made-up issue... This is not an issue that’s worthy of the president or anyone else.”... and Charles Fried ("the former solicitor general to president Ronald Reagan")...
“It had nothing to do with our consideration and deliberation... How many times do you have to have the same thing explained to you?”They sound testy! And imperious. Like people are idiots who don't understand their words — when really it's that people don't believe them. Actually, the testy, imperious denial may heighten suspicion. And race is something that can affect decisionmaking without anyone needing to say it explicitly. Later, maybe no one remembers anything. They may not even see it at the time. But that's too complex and unknowable to see and talk about, unless it's one of those times when we're told we must.
ADDED: Are the last 11 words of this post too enigmatic? I'm thinking of the many calls for a "conversation on race" that are about getting ordinary people to understand the "systemic racism" and "white privilege" they're supposedly failing to see.
Posts
335 comments:
1 – 200 of 335 Newer› Newest»Warren is a liar. She doesn’t remember the day she got a job offer from Harvard? Liar.
And Ann, do I have this right? There is a faculty vote on hiring? Like joining a frat? Are there blackballs too?
Which of those professors wants to be known as the one who told The Globe that Warren was hired to check off the Native American box?
More bulls***
What kinds of official statements were made by Harvard after Warren joined the faculty? When did they appear? If a careful silence was observed about her ancestry during the deliberations, and then there quickly came a splashy display of self-congratulation about the new diversity hire, that would be significant.
Weinreb sounds like someone who has just a bit too much integrity to outright lie like the rest, but knows he can't challenge the narrative or unpleasant consequences will come his way.
So why did Harvard ever list Warren as a Native American? And who at Harvard did that?
No one can remember.
"And Ann, do I have this right? There is a faculty vote on hiring? Like joining a frat? Are there blackballs too?"
I don't know the procedures everywhere, but at Wisconsin, there was an appointments committee, which voted whether to present a candidate for a faculty vote, then a faculty vote, and technically it was advice to the Dean, but the Dean never made any decision other than to follow the faculty vote. There were higher levels of University approval required as well, and these would be significant if we were giving tenure to the new hire (a lateral hire).
Quoting FIDO: “As Ms. McArdle famously said: racism isn't loud; it's a rolled eye. A hidden nod. A quite emphasized word with a fellow adherent."
Hmmm.... re: Randall Kennedy’s book. I won’t say that word either. I remember the last time I said it. It was 28 years ago and I was quoting someone else. I realized from the reaction of my hearers that the word was a no-no in all contexts, even quoting someone. It took Papa John awhile to catch up.
From the Daily Mail:
"In 1996, school paper the Harvard Crimson quoted a Harvard Law spokesperson saying that 'of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic."
So why did Harvard ever list Warren as a Native American? And who at Harvard did that?
Same person that listed Obama as Kenyan in his book publicity. He was Kenyan when that is what he thought would sell his book, the important thing at the time.
So, the Left really wants to run Warren in 2020 and her fake Indian story is a true liability. They're terrible poker players.
Come on. It is common knowledge that the diversity police love twofers. A female + Native American. Had Warren been part of the LGBTQ community she would have been a winning trifecta. The more diversity lists ones name qualifies for the more points toward hire/entry.
Was David Wilkins' African-American ancestry discussed when they hired him?
The only fact that matters, the one they are trying to obscure, is that she listed herself as Native American, without a membership in any tribe and without any basis in fact to support the claim, you know, a lie.
What kind of lobbying and promotional work did Warren do in the months leading up to the hiring decision? She must have studied the process and politics with great care and recruited every ally, worked to neutralize every critic, touted all of her manifold advantages, to win the bid. Were there not words and deeds in the public record that bear on the issue of her race? A student demonstration or a speech planted in the public discourse that talked of the Woeful Lack of Native American Faculty?
Warren is no fool and this was a very big step for her. She would have prepared carefully and that would include using mouthpieces and trying to hide her tracks.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/fordham-piece-called-warren-harvard-laws-first-woman-of-color-123526
But a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color," based, according to the notes at the bottom of the story, on a "telephone interview with Michael Chmura, News Director, Harvard Law (Aug. 6, 1996)."
The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was "Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue."
"There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries," the piece says. "This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."
So Harvard Law school is trying to protect itself. This isn’t really doing anything positive for Warren. She’s on her own.
"One area that 30 of the 31 professors interviewed by the Globe agreed on: There was no talk about her Native American claims during the meetings over her appointment."
These are all lawyers, right?
If it didn't matter, we never would have heard about it.
I'm retired. I don't have to be conscious of, or have an opinion on, this detestable, contentious idiot shit.
What a relief!
This reminds me of the article from University of Chicago explaining that Obama was much much more like a professor, even if he was never given that position. The Universities close ranks when one of their golden children wants to run the country.
I refer you to this book he wrote, the title of which I won't write.
I guessed cunt.
This is a refresher, for anyone who doesn't remember the Obama thing.
Leftists seem to have terrible memory muscles.
I guess Harvard is "circling the wagons" over this. It's an old tactic white people used if they thought the Indians were going to attack.
There is no dispute that Warren formally notified officials at the University of Pennsylvania and then Harvard claiming Native American heritage after she was hired.
Her detractors say she deployed a faux Native American connection to improve her chances of landing teaching jobs at two of the country’s top law schools. However, there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career.. - Politifact
In 1984, a cousin in Oklahoma asked her to contribute recipes for a cookbook billed as "recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families." The book was entitled Pow Wow Chow.
Warren sent five, and under each one, listed herself as Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.
Given that a cousin asked her to participate, this might lend credence to the notion that at least among her family, a tribal connection was taken for granted.
But it didn’t help that her recipes included one for crab with mayonnaise and another for herbed tomatoes — hardly traditional fare.
And to make matters worse, some of the recipes appear to have been copied from the New York Times wire service.
That doesn’t make matters worse, it heightens the comedy!
So if Elizabeth Warren is elected President, will she be called the first Native American President?
Or will they save that distinction for somebody who looks the part?
”I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” . - BHO
First belly laugh of the day, from Maybee’s link.
AllenS at 804: bwahahahhaha! That is awesome. Thanks for the laugh!
I should do a theory that whites depriving blacks of whites saying the word nigger deprives blacks of a way out of a nonexistent cloud by constantly affirming that there is one.
Nigger has the unfavorable connotations stupid and not good for anything but low tasks, and whites conspicously avoiding saying it is to remind blacks of the politeness of white people about them being blacks, who to them remain stupid and not good for anything but low tasks.
You can free the word of blacks by using it for other things. I suggest "offense nigger," one who serves somebody's purpose by taking offense without thinking about it. There's a low task for stupid people, and it's mostly whites who do it.
There's the positive version of nigger, the one who survives on his wits and outsmarts the man, the rogue sentiment. That's mostly the rap version.
Free up the word and see where it goes. It's very unlikely to revert to its imagined race-based roots. Lots of other things are freed with it.
Nothing 'enigmatic' about it at all, I think. The people who "call for a conversation" on ANYTHING, are typically just eager to preach to 'the ignorant'.
If you're wondering whether Professor Kennedy is a member of a minority group, I refer you to this book he wrote,
He black! Because blacks, with very few exceptions like Sowell, only write about how horrible it is to be black.
(I'd read that book, but I would not listen to the audio version.)
The first sentence in its description is false, so I hope it's being peddled as fiction.
Take the wampum out of politics.
Deplorables can count. The Elites first announce a noble Affirmative Action which takes an award from A who deserves it and gives it to B. Than the elites name one of themselves B. Then the elites claim nobody can prove they did that, after all they are the sole Noble Elites.
And Trump laughs.
This story is a perfect example of the Fake News. Althouse cites the law school reference in which Warren listed herself as an Indian. Commenters then provide more evidence including a cookbook.
This is why America hates the MSM. Liars, shills and advocates.
Who's bigger on conversations on race than me.
"those voting on the case may nevertheless have considered it a plus that the school would be able to say that it had a Native American law professor — which in fact it went on to do."
Exactly. No one thought of her as actually Cherokee, it was not the reason for hiring her, but they were happy to count her as minority. Being a properly prog white woman with publications in a sexy area that could be used to vilify mean American capitalism and support more regulation and state power was enough. The facts that her research was shoddy and her credentials second-rate did not stand in the way. Those facts suggest to me that political preference rather than mere minority status drove the hiring.
"They sound testy! And imperious. Like people are idiots who don't understand their words — when really it's that people don't believe them. Actually, the testy, imperious denial may heighten suspicion. And race is something that can affect decisionmaking without anyone needing to say it explicitly. Later, maybe no one remembers anything. They may not even see it at the time. But that's too complex and unknowable to see and talk about, unless it's one of those times when we're told we must."
They do sound testy, and I agree with the thrust of this point, but of course proper Harvard progs (and I include Fried in this context) "see" race all the time. What they do is actually very simple and knowable, including the obfuscation of prog preferences and the contempt for questioners. Law school hiring is just the the pursuit of social justice and prog power by other means. The Asian case against Harvard undergrad admissions shines a telling light on their corruption, which of course they regard as virtue.
The article meets the leftist standards of journalism -- fake and inaccurate, but advancing the narrative.
"Oddly, the law school’s internal metrics found that they believed they had sufficient minorities on staff, despite employing only five."
BWAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"I'm thinking of the many calls for a "conversation on race" that are about getting ordinary people to understand the "systemic racism" and "white privilege" they're supposedly failing to see. "
Oh, you mean the conversations where we are told it is impossible for whites to see the systemic racism and impossible for whites to recognize their white privilege?
If it is impossible for me to understand, what's the point of a conversation? It's like trying to teach my dog differential equations.
"Lloyd Weinreb, said he believes her Native American ancestry was discussed. But, in an e-mail he questioned his own recollection"
Somebody told him he was off the reservation.
"If you're wondering whether Professor Kennedy is a member of a minority group, I refer you to this book he wrote, the title of which I won't write. "
If you're wondering whether Professor Warren is a member of a minority group, I refer you to this book she wrote: Honest Injun: The Strange Career of a Couple of High Cheekbones.
The Harvard law faculty doest protest too much!
"Race is something that can affect decisionmaking without anyone needing to say it explicitly"
Can you imagine being trapped in this - as it's main subject - but being expected to act normally and trust people, when you say, RIGHT THERE, it can't be expected?
Living a life trapped, inside the bubble of such contradictions, is worthy of reparations.
Those are some Brave souls at the Boston Globe. Like a defense attorney fighting a signed confession by his/her client.
Does it matter what Harvard did or thought? It matters what Warren’s intent was when she claimed to be a minority. If you attempt to rob a bank and fail, you’re still going to jail.
"no talk about her Native American claims during the meetings over her appointment."
No need to talk about a box that's already been checked, is there?
Owen said...
What kind of lobbying and promotional work did Warren do in the months leading up to the hiring decision? She must have studied the process and politics with great care ... to win the bid... Warren is no fool and this was a very big step for her...
And Yet, she has NO RECOLLECTION of receiving the job offer
It seems like they may have drawn a line around a female hire because approaching her as a tribal member would trigger an argument about the lack of a black female professor.
Alternate drinking shots and reading the above and it will eventually make sense.
”I don't know the procedures everywhere, but at Wisconsin, there was an appointments committee, which voted whether to present a candidate for a faculty vote, then a faculty vote, and technically it was advice to the Dean, but the Dean never made any decision other than to follow the faculty vote. There were higher levels of University approval required as well, and these would be significant if we were giving tenure to the new hire (a lateral hire).”
This procedure isn’t uniform across departments. We discussed appointments but the chair had sole discretion to recommend a hire to the dean. Now, if the appointment included tenure, then the faculty voted.
Pretty good, Meade.
Living a life trapped, inside the bubble of such contradictions, is worthy of reparations.
Or you can make yourself useful to somebody and earn a living.
Fernandistein, 8:16 -
That’s unfair. And you should see some of the criticism Kennedy has taken from the left, for failing to toe the line, for questioning his (and their) premises at times.
"If you're wondering whether Professor Kennedy is a member of a minority group, I refer you to this book he wrote, the title of which I won't write. "
I read him, many moons ago, and wondered what happened to him. It's kind of a shock he wound up there.
If it is impossible for me to understand, what's the point of a conversation? It's like trying to teach my dog differential equations.
Dogs catch balls pretty easily, going for the spot where the ball will be, not where it is.
The Universities close ranks when one of their golden children wants to run the country.
Harvard is notorious for backing their own even when caught crimson handed.
The explanation from Harvard is even worse than the original accusation.
Essentially, they’re saying we didn’t care enough to look into the (now known to be false) claims of having Native-American ancestry, we just wanted a women. In other words, why look into a lie that might prevent us offering her the position.
This sounds remarkably like an FBI investigation of a Presidential candidates mishandling of government secrets.
I hate to sound like Hardin here but:
It’s all about the women.
rhhardin said...
"Or you can make yourself useful to somebody and earn a living."
In white people's world, they never have to do anything - that's why they got slaves in the first place.
Everybody else has to carry their weight.
For the last 20? years I have been lectured to by my moral and intellectual betters that diversity is not just a goal but a requirement. Black kids needed a Black Principle as a role model. White kids don't need a role model. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum. Now the elites at the Boston Globe and Harvard Law are so sure that, yes, I am as stupid as the all the elites think I am, now I am supposed to believe that a decades long requirement for attaining diversity, was never considered by the exact people that invented the whole farce to begin with.
Yes I am a hick, a racist, bigoted, misogynist. An irredeemable deplorable. But even as stupid as I am, I can recognize battle field prep for the 2020 Presidential election.
Getting lied to, by these jack wagons is too much to tolerate.
If this were so easily explained away, it would have been done long ago. The Globe desperately wants to put this issue to bed so Fauxcahontas can run!
Make myself useful to someone who's decision making is affected - without anyone needing to say it explicitly - by my race.
Yeah, that makes *PERFECT* sense for me to do - if I want trouble in my life.
It seems to me - since white people have been, historically, proven to be afflicted in this way - we would all be better off if THEY were to make themselves useful to others (not so afflicted) since they started this shit in the first place.
"Getting lied to, by these jack wagons is too much to tolerate."
But it's for the greater good, you see.
They sound testy! And imperious. Like people are idiots who don't understand their words — when really it's that people don't believe them. Actually, the testy, imperious denial may heighten suspicion.
Better way to write that last sentence: the testy, imperious denial certainly confirms our belief [that Warren was hired because she checked the “Native American” box.]
And now we head down the Crack trail.
A perfect example of advocacy journ-o-lism where they throw up chaff to obscure the facts, suggest prior statements were misremembered and carefully elide any reporting that might reveal the truth. Why are they working so hard to rewrite Warren’s bio now? And why did she repeatedly make excuses about “high cheekbones” if she wasn’t claiming to be Cherokee? This is the kind of reporting that really supports Trump’s #fakenews narrative! Idiots.
school paper the Harvard Crimson quoted a Harvard Law spokesperson saying that 'of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic.
The Globe had previously found a similar statement from Harvard online- listing the number of Native American professors (I recall they had two). Once people got nosey Harvard took the document offline.
A perfect example of advocacy journ-o-lism where they throw up chaff to obscure the facts, suggest prior statements were misremembered and carefully elide any reporting that might reveal the truth
A big puffy black word cloud of straw men and logic fallacies.
What are the odds that both Penn and Harvard would both offer law faculty jobs to an otherwise undistinguished graduate of Rutgers Law School? Some special sauce was needed...
"Later, maybe no one remembers anything. They may not even see it at the time. But that's too complex and unknowable to see and talk about, unless it's one of those times when we're told we must."
I know why everybody's playing these games - since that's what they are - rather than simply unraveling and re-engineering our past: THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT. This is too much "fun". I see it in the glee of my challengers here: they're ENJOYING antagonizing me. To take that away would be heartbreaking.
Now, who's seen Obama's real birth certificate?
I think we need to consider the nature of the alleged transgression. I believe that affirmative action is simply another name for targeted racial discrimination, and it is reprehensible. Warren acted so as to evade and thereby subvert the systematic racial discrimination practiced by Harvard University. I applaud her behavior, and I hope she serves as a role model for others. She should call herself a Freedom Liar.
The great thing about electing Warren to Big Chief
is that the deplorables can become the resistance again...
Now there are new rules about what's constitutes "resist" ing
What are the odds that both Penn and Harvard would both offer law faculty jobs to an otherwise undistinguished graduate of Rutgers Law School? Some special sauce was needed...
Exactly. If race didn't get Warren hired at Harvard. what did? Are we really supposed to believe she was the best female candidate for the position? What in list of "accomplishments" made her that?
What 30 of the 31 professors chose to remember or forget does not change the central fact, and it is this:
Elizabeth Warren is a fraud.
It seems to me - since white people have been, historically, proven to be afflicted in this way - we would all be better off if THEY were to make themselves useful to others (not so afflicted) since they started this shit in the first place.
Did we? White people are descended from those that were driven off the African plains by those who became Black people. You guys owe me reparations for what you did to my ancestors.
Everybody else has to carry their weight.
White people created the modern world and gave it to everybody. Hell White people created the idea that slavery was wrong, and had to force that idea on the rest of the world.
I'm thinking of the many calls for a "conversation on race" that are about getting ordinary people to understand the "systemic racism" and "white privilege" they're supposedly failing to see.
You mean like Crack’s continuous efforts in the blog threads to get us to see that everything bad that ever happened to him has been all the fault of us Honkies not understanding how evil we are, and how much we owe him? That sort of conversation on race? (Yes, I am exaggerating for effect.)
It won’t ever happen as a conversation; conversstions havre two way communication. It’s happening as a lecture where the unanticipated and unwelcome response has been a loud “You’re full of crap!”
Gahrie said...
It seems to me - since white people have been, historically, proven to be afflicted in this way - we would all be better off if THEY were to make themselves useful to others (not so afflicted) since they started this shit in the first place.
"Did we?"
Yes. Remember, blacks are only talking about white Americans betraying American laws and values.
"White people are descended from those that were driven off the African plains by those who became Black people."
As Obama said about Hillary, you were only "likable enough."
"You guys owe me reparations for what you did to my ancestors."
Take it up with Africa. I keep telling you, your kind cut that tie for us, but you morons can't seem to get that in your heads. You're just not very bright after all.
From the Harvard Native American Law Students Association website:
The education of Native people is woven into the long history of Harvard University. The Charter of 1650 pledges the University to “the education of English and Indian youth” and Harvard’s first Native American graduate graduated in the class of 1665. Since that time, more than 1000 Native people have earned their degrees from Harvard University. Today, almost 170 self-identified Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students attend the University, representing over 50 different tribal nations.
Emphasis mine.
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/nalsa/indian-law-program/
I knew this thread would eventually end up with Crack.
Crack MC said something along the lines of:since they started this shit in the first place.
which confused me
Then!
Gahrie said something like...
White people created the modern world and gave it to everybody. Hell White people created the idea that slavery was wrong, and had to force that idea on the rest of the world.
Then Gilbar said, OH! that shit! Yeah, those White People DID start THAT shit
Gahrie said...
"White people created the modern world (on the backs of blacks) and gave it to everybody (except for blacks - as they extended the welcome mat to others - giving away land and shit) Hell White people created the idea that slavery was wrong (after the escaped slaves made the point clear) and had to force that idea on the rest of the world (like England wasn't already there, or blacks were going to stop running away from here and/or killing whites, like in Haiti, or wherever else slavery existed in order to be free - even Jefferson knew better).
What good is your education, Gahrie, if you only use it to betray yourself?
""circling the wagons" over this. It's an old tactic white people used if they thought the Indians were going to attack."
The battlefield is getting prepped for her nomination campaign in two years for Prsident. The most obvious attack on "Pocahontas" is that she faked being Indian to get the Harvard (and previous) law school jobs. Which, of course, she did. But now we have a bunch of law school faculty, most of whom are part time lawyers, arguing that technically they didn't formally completely use that fact as the basis of hiring her. Good luck with that line. The only people who this is going to impress are those who voted for Crooked Hillary because she went to the other good law school - Yale, and Trump didn't even go to law school (ignoring, of course, that Wharton is far better training for the Presidency than YLS). Most everyone else will think that Harvard Law is where Boston lawyers go to learn to lie.
Isn't the real issue what she said? Did she lie? Did she try to gain an advantage?
"Can you imagine being trapped in this - as it's main subject - but being expected to act normally and trust people, when you say, RIGHT THERE, it can't be expected? Living a life trapped, inside the bubble of such contradictions, is worthy of reparations."
It's terrible to subordinate yourself to others, to let your mind be overcome by worrying and wondering what other people really think. Even if somehow you could force the truth out of them and make them give you money for everything that was bad and wrong, you wouldn't get your life back.
Are you trapped inside the bubble or do you have the power to claim ownership of yourself and to live based on what you think of yourself and not give other people that power over you?
We all have questions like this, because we don't know what other people hide from us. I have a lot of things like this that I have struggled with and still struggle with. But what is the best way to live?
If we could know what everyone really thought, life would be completely different. Our thoughts would be completely different. What you could read in those other minds would be boring and conventional, I think, because we'd learn to limit our thoughts. We wouldn't experiment and explore. The ability to think privately and to speak dishonestly is central to humanity. We're horrible, really. But remove that horribleness, and what would we be?
Big Mike said...
"Crack’s continuous efforts in the blog threads to get us to see that everything bad that ever happened to him has been all the fault of us Honkies not understanding how evil we are, and how much we owe him?"
You guys are silly. Black people have heard white's bullshit for so long we make songs about it. Sorry you don't know us like we know you - you made it that way. You still don't care to learn, so fuck you when it comes to taking the blame for your ignorance. It's your fault.
"That sort of conversation on race? (Yes, I am exaggerating for effect.)"
I ask for one thing - reparations - not affirmative-action, or black supremacy, or welfare, or anything else: just putting a period on an ugly period - and for that, I'm a demon. Y'all's crazy.
"It won’t ever happen as a conversation; conversstions havre two way communication."
But if whites won't listen, how is that two-way communication?
"It’s happening as a lecture where the unanticipated and unwelcome response has been a loud “You’re full of crap!”"
Before anyone has spoken. I know y'all already: you yell “You’re full of crap!” at your assumptions before any black person enters the room.
Perhaps the persons at the "formal, official" meeting did not discuss the "Indian issue" because the outcome was decided in advance. The fix was in.
Michael K said...
"I knew this thread would eventually end up with Crack."
Are you masturbating? You should masturbate. It's all for you, Baby.
If it was not an issue when she was hired and not an issue at any point afterwards, it would not be a issue now. I say the Dems should run her in 20 against President Pence.
Q: optional or mandatory to wear feather Head dress for the oath of office?
Which woke designer will make it? Also avoid culture appropriation
@Crack : Seriously ... have you figured out how to legislation "reparations" to finesse disparate impact challenge to the law?
There will be no reparations, Crack. Think of the demographic changes underway. Do you believe your Latin brothers and sisters are going to get behind that dream of yours? Much less all of we whites who torment you with our every breath. Give it up.
Ann Althouse said...
"It's terrible to subordinate yourself to others, to let your mind be overcome by worrying and wondering what other people really think."
I didn't say or suggest that as what's happening. I was talking about a real phenomena - which you identified - that I have to live with. NOT something in my head.
"Even if somehow you could force the truth out of them and make them give you money for everything that was bad and wrong, you wouldn't get your life back."
You guys are all mouthing the same nonsense. So we can't make blacks 100% whole. How about 75%? How about 50%? Do you see how you sound? If you can't do the whole thing, well, fuck it - NOTHING AT ALL IS THE ANSWER!!! You're just cruel in your ignorance and lack of imagination when it comes to us.
"Are you trapped inside the bubble or do you have the power to claim ownership of yourself and to live based on what you think of yourself and not give other people that power over you?"
Poor people - kept that way over generations - have a limited capacity for freeing themselves from anything. That should be as "self-evident" as the Declaration.
"We all have questions like this, because we don't know what other people hide from us."
No, speak for yourself. I don't walk around in a state of suspicion about people. I open myself up to them harming me - and they do.
"I have a lot of things like this that I have struggled with and still struggle with."
And I have to live with people like you, insecure and struggling with nothing, and seeking answers from gurus and other nut jobs, while hating me for my self-confidence and - like Mean Girls - plotting how to bring that shit to an end.
"But what is the best way to live?"
I told you: one where you don't let beliefs get the upper hand - by anchoring yourself to reality.
"If we could know what everyone really thought, life would be completely different."
I'm a foster child. People have told me what they think, shown me what they think, and acted out their thoughts both for my enjoyment and torture. I'm a foster child I had no choice but to listen and endure. Now I'm an adult. I know all of you better than you know yourselves. I know you lie. I know you will abuse children. I know you will pick on the weak. I know you will create the poor. I also know your insecurity is usually the motivating factor in your actions.
"Our thoughts would be completely different."
Mine usually are. Notice - y'all argue unoriginal thoughts. Incessantly. (I MUST be trying to stop free speech if I won't let everybody speak!) You should try thinking differently.
"What you could read in those other minds would be boring and conventional, I think, because we'd learn to limit our thoughts."
I spend most days talking to one person - my best friend - and that's it. I stay isolated from bad ideas. And that's most of them.
"We wouldn't experiment and explore."
I've been from here to Hong Kong and to the Netherlands and back. Blacks aren't loved anywhere. At least, in Thailand, I could walk around unmolested and in peace.
"The ability to think privately and to speak dishonestly is central to humanity."
I think this is where white people are telling themselves shit to fuck up everything. Didn't you teach blacks about George Washington and the cherry tree? Then why the new rules about lying for yourselves?
"We're horrible, really."
As I keep saying.
"But remove that horribleness, and what would we be?"
Mature adults.
Conclusion: Alie is not a lie if it doesn't matter.
The big wash
Narayanan Subramanian said...
"@Crack : Seriously ... have you figured out how to legislation "reparations" to finesse disparate impact challenge to the law?"
I'm sorry. Please rephrase.
The article says that Wilkins "was one of the only black law professors on staff." What does that mean?
Of course Elizabeth Warren is a "person of color". White is a color, and she's one of the whitest people I've ever seen.
"And I have to live with people like you, insecure and struggling with nothing, and seeking answers from gurus and other nut jobs, while hating me for my self-confidence and - like Mean Girls - plotting how to bring that shit to an end."
No one likes whiny little bitches. I bet even your mama tells you to shut the fuck up.
But if whites won't listen, how is that two-way communication?
We are listening, Crack. We listen, we process, and we respond: “You’re full of crap.”
Crack says he wants reparations but not welfare. Crack also says the white man has kept the black man poor. So what is the *practical* difference between reparations and the welfare that blacks have been collecting for over 50 years, aside from means-testing so that rich blacks like Oprah aren't included? Is this all about making sure Oprah gets her cut?
Michael said...
"There will be no reparations, Crack."
There wasn't going to be freedom for slaves, either. Or a Civil War war. Or an end to Jim Crow. Or a black President. Let me tell you something: While whites are dreaming of sugar plum fairies, blacks are figuring out to to satisfy the demands of our ancestors - and we do - and will. You should think of the strength of that connection as solidly as you do Native Americans to the Earth. We will have reparations.
"Think of the demographic changes underway."
Think of how injustice doesn't change.
"Do you believe your Latin brothers and sisters are going to get behind that dream of yours?"
I live with two Mexicans, both born and raised in Mexico. I told you I live in a neighborhood of blacks, Asians, and Mexicans. They and their families have never been upset about anything I tell them about race in America. They are genuinely interested. They are NOTHING like whites.
"Much less all of we whites who torment you with our every breath. Give it up."
Racist whites always try to flatter themselves: You've only been an impediment to our aspirations - never the conclusion.
Qwinn said...
"What is the *practical* difference between reparations and the welfare that blacks have been collecting for over 50 years, aside from means-testing so that rich blacks like Oprah aren't included?"
Welfare has never been reparations.
"Is this all about making sure Oprah gets her cut?"
Yeah, I'm her biggest fan [rolls eyes].
OT:
The Democrat party merges with mega-corp.
I ask for one thing - reparations - not affirmative-action, or black supremacy, or welfare, or anything else: just putting a period on an ugly period - and for that, I'm a demon. Y'all's crazy.
I know responding to idiocy is idiocy. so be it.
Yes I know, to leftist Utopians, history starts anew with the sunrise. But those that have generational ties to the land know a simple truth. Land passed to heirs, last three generations until that wealth is gone. Meanwhile some other young upstart is using their brains, ambition, and talent amassing their own wealth, it too will then be gone by the 3rd generation. This is a fact that that grandparents have been passing down to their descendants, as a cautionary tale for centuries.
My point is, giving wealth to people has never worked. We have current day examples to prove this, but highlighting history just reinforces my racist behavior.
Did anybody watch that second video I posted here?
I just want you to see how well blacks know your (tired assed) arguments.
In the aughts, claiming Native American ancestry was a common dodge (okay, lie) used by children of the professional class to enhance undergraduate applications to "good" schools.
At some late point in those years, Harvard and some others wised up and began demanding PROOF of said ancestry. Less discerning schools continued to accept some of the applicants and sent gushy acceptance letters lauding the new freshmen for being diverse (and making the colleges look virtuous.)
Still, even the admittees with indigenous great, great, great, great aunts had virtually no any experience of native life, customs or even nearby geography. Meanwhile, Native Americans who might have benefited from such an opportunity never got a shot.
As cynical as I get, I just can't keep up.
"Welfare has never been reparations."
You say this like it's self evident, but I've yet to see you actually make an argument as to why not, or how they are *effectively* any different. The only bit that is self evident is that Oprah gets a cut under one but not the other.
You know what? I don’t believe them.
iowan2 said...
"Land passed to heirs, last three generations until that wealth is gone."
You people are out of your fucking minds. America gave land to whites they denied to blacks. They gave housing to whites after WWII they denied to blacks. That's an injustice, no matter what whites did with it.
"My point is, giving wealth to people has never worked."
My point is, that's beside the point - you pay people for doing them wrong in this country. For some reason, that standard always stops when it comes to blacks - when racists are asked.
"We have current day examples to prove this, but highlighting history just reinforces my racist behavior."
You guys are so trapped in your idiotic bullshit I'm surprised you can hold down jobs.
The point is not whether they considered it but the fact that she put it on her CV (or whatever) for their consideration.
Qwinn said...
"Welfare has never been reparations."
"You say this like it's self evident"
Their names are the tip-off.
Crack
Ask your Mexican friends how keen they would be to give you money because of what white people did to your ancestors. Ask for a friend.
Bullshit answer. I asked how they are *effectively*, in any *practical* way, any different. You're asking for a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks, and you've gotten massive amounts of it. It doesn't count because of what it was *called*? Kiss my ass.
Getting back to the original point of this thread, I might be sympathetic to the Harvard Law faculty if they could point to high quality scholarship on Warren’s part prior to her hiring. In so many words, the position of the Harvard Law Brahmins is to demand that we trust them to have weighed her scholarship and ignored her spurious claims to Native American ethnicity. Seventy years of life on this planet has taught me that when people say “trust us,” it’s because we shouldn’t.
What Pinfold and Gahrie said above can't be underestimated.
In looking at Warren and her career, I've wondered for a long time how a University of Houston (undergrad) and Rutgers law grad landed on the faculty at Harvard Law. Her Indian affirmative action claim covered for those academic deficits.
she was a fraud in her field, of bankruptcy critics, with her associate, Sullivan, formerly president of the university of virginia, her leading critics, that Jacobson has noted has passed on, this was the theory that underlay Obamacare and the stimulus
"You guys are so trapped in your idiotic bullshit I'm surprised you can hold down jobs."
So why do you spend so much time trying to con us out of money we don't have? Or are you just trapped in your own idiotic bullshit?
Stupid bigot.
We smokem peace pipe with Harvard facility on racial preference hiring.
a precis, here:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/06/elizabeth-warrens-academic-claim-to-fame-may-be-no-more-legitimate-than-her-claim-to-be-native-american/
And race is something that can affect decisionmaking without anyone needing to say it explicitly. Later, maybe no one remembers anything. They may not even see it at the time.
Like many things this only holds when minorities are harmed.
It can’t posdibly be turned around to argue it helps them.
The most obvious attack on "Pocahontas" is that she faked being Indian to get the Harvard (and previous) law school jobs.
This is a ridiculous assertion. The only people who actually care about this (like you and Trump) are people who would never vote for her anyway.
What Pinfold and Gahrie said above can't be underestimated.
That should be overestimated.
Freder is also saying “trust us.” Check my comment at 10:31.
Reparations won’t work because it requires something of both parties.
It requires one party to pay. And it requires the other to forever shut up and move on.
There is no evidence such a deal is being offered, let alone can be maintained.
"She may have some Native American roots, but so do most people.”
I don't have the data handy but I would say this is completely false. No, most people do not have Native American roots. And many who think they do, via orally passed family lore, do not.
My wife and I have been amateur genealogists for over 25 years. We have over 31,000 names in our joint tree on Ancestry.com. We have both done the Ancestry DNA test and recently the 23andme test, including both ancestry and health profiles.
What many people are learning from the DNA tests is that quite often their DNA testing does not line up with what they thought their ancestry was from family lore and history. 23andme has some nice video testimonials on their web site from customers along these lines.
I would be a perfect example. I have known for some time from Ancestry.com testing that I have distant cousins who are black. Since my family has been in the South since late 17th/early 18th century, and many were slaveowners, that didn't surprise me, I suspected these cousins shared some European DNA with me. What did surprise me was when I got my 23andme results and found I also have African DNA I share with them! Yep, I have a great-great-grandmother who had African heritage, from Nigeria and coastal West Africa. In fact, I am now proven to have just as much African ancestry as Elizabeth Warren claims to have Native American. When I run the ancestry report on 23andme to list people who have DNA results (and who have agreed to share those results) by how close they are to me genetically, the number 12 person on the list - out of nearly 1050 - is an African-American businessman in SC, who lives very close to where my family was in the early 1800s. I wonder how many Southern rednecks like me have some small amount of African ancestry and don't know it?
So all the past 40 years when I was trying to climb the corporate ladder I could have been claiming - like Warren - I was a minority!
I wonder what my share of the reparations will be?
The only people who actually care about this (like you and Trump) are people who would never vote for her anyway.
That some might be Native American doesn’t seem to matter.
Hence, the entire race thing is a sham.
The only people who actually care about this (like you and Trump) are people who would never vote for her anyway.
Yes, the people who are pushing AA the hardest don’t care at all about whether Warren abused the program intended to help minorities. Anymore than they gave a shit about the sexual depredations of Bill Clinton, or even the shaming and silencing of the victims by Hillary. We get it. Laws are for Republicans.
The only people who cared that Juanita Broaddrick had contemporaneous witnesses to corroborate her rape accusation against Bill Clinton, including a friend who found her bleeding, crying, and with torn clothes (it’s all public record) in her hotel room immediately afterwards, and five others, were people who wouldn’t vote for him anyway because they are anti-woman!
I've belonged to Ancestry.com for a long time, and presently have almost 26,000 1st to 8th cousins, and most people do NOT have Native American DNA.
White people created the modern world (on the backs of blacks)
How many Black people lived in Europe during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment?
and gave it to everybody (except for blacks - as they extended the welcome mat to others - giving away land and shit)
So you equate "the modern world" with wealth, while I equate it with ideas.
Hell White people created the idea that slavery was wrong (after the escaped slaves made the point clear)
I suggest you take a remedial course on the Enlightenment.
and had to force that idea on the rest of the world (like England wasn't already there,
You mean "almost completely White at the time" England?
or blacks were going to stop running away from here and/or killing whites, like in Haiti, or wherever else slavery existed in order to be free - even Jefferson knew better).
Slaves have always opposed slavery...but for thousands of years until the Enlightenment, no one cared.
It is just fun to watch progressives be openly and proudly racist.
You guys are so trapped in your idiotic bullshit I'm surprised you can hold down jobs.
Blacks abort a wide swath of their own. Those that survive? You make a conscious decision to rear without a father. Yes someone one is trapped in their own bullshit. But taking $50,000 of my wealth will help exactly how many fatherless children? You make a decision to abandon your Children, and blame me. I refuse to care about you until you do.
Wish I had posted here earlier. HLS is lying and it's not in any of these professors' interests (or HLS') to say that we was a check-the-box hire and they would not have hired her but for the claim of NA ancestry. Imagine giving that type of ammunition to DT and imagine how the other professors/students -- the entire left-wing hate mob - would treat you after saying that. A lot was written 5 or so years ago about the improbability of her hire by HLS, in terms of her law school, clerkship, career and poor/debunked scholarship. Do a scatter-graph of HLS professors ever hired and EW falls completely outside the closely crowded dots. No one with her lack of credentials had ever been hired before or has been hired since. So why was she picked? DUH!
Diversity or color judgements. And Jew privilege? Redistributive change. Abortion rites or wicked solution. A progressive slope.
"So, the Left really wants to run Warren in 2020...."
I doubt it, as the Dems are not left and Warren, though not really too far left, is still too left for the Dems.
On the other hand, she's the only current Democrat I know of at this time who I might actually vote for if she ran.
The Crack Emcee said...
Qwinn said...
"Welfare has never been reparations."
"You say this like it's self evident"
Their names are the tip-off.
Yeah. Different names.
What is interesting is you are stupid enough to think they are effectively different in outcome because you make the implementation explicitly racist.
A Marxist is a Marxist is a Marxist.
"Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."
This shows the utter irrationality of our views on and definitions of "race," (so-called). Even if it is true that Warren has native American blood in her--and I don't know if she does or not, or if she truly believed she did, as she says, (and no one else can know what she believed, either)--but, even if she has native American ancestry, she is, by our common definition of these things, and parlance, a "white" woman. To call her a "woman of color" due to an attenuated native American blood line is absurd.
Robert Cook said...
"So, the Left really wants to run Warren in 2020...."
I doubt it, as the Dems are not left and Warren, though not really too far left, is still too left for the Dems.
On the other hand, she's the only current Democrat I know of at this time who I might actually vote for if she ran.
Explicitly racist.
They would not be going to such lengths if it weren't an effective line of criticism.
Warren is vulnerable to such an accusation as her only plausible line of attack, the only case she can make for herself, is on moral-ethical grounds. Thats what she has been pushing throughout her career. She is a professional scold on some matters concerning financial regulation.
Its quite amazing that so many think Warren is a plausible candidate. She has no charisma. She has no appeal to crowds. She does not have media skills. She has a very thin track record. And she is not a clever debater.
I am not going to underestimate the power of the MSM and the "system" to push anyone to victory, but it is curious that these aren't building up some better, fresher prospects. They did a superlative job on Obama, who was truly a blank slate. There should be some other better-looking, better spoken blank slate around.
@MountainMan, there was a study done where identical twins and identical triplets, including the famous Dahm triplets, sent DNA samples to 23andme, and got back different results. It was heavily publicized, but as clickbait (something along the lines of “the sad and shocking about the Dahm triplets”) so you may not be aware of the study.
It reminded me about a widely heralded (at the time, back in the late 1970s) application of AI to interpreting digitized electrocardiograms. A skeptical cardiologist took a normal EKG but sampled at twice the rate that the AI program expected, then fed it the same EKG using the odd-numbered points for one run and the even-numbered points for the second run. When the AI program reported two different diagnoses, that was the end of that AI effort.
Repeatability and validation. You need repeatability and validation.
How many Black people lived in Europe during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment?
If today's film and television shows are any guide...millions.
They did a superlative job on Obama, who was truly a blank slate. There should be some other better-looking, better spoken blank slate around.
I can remember back to when George P Bush was the future.
This next election will tell the tale. I expect the Norks are waiting to see if they will have to deal with Trump or if the Democrats will save them.
A lot is hanging on this election. Think 1854.
Another column in which the essential Bullshit tag is missing. All Ann had to write was "more Warren Bullshit' and we would have gotten the point.
My law school was sued in federal court for allegedly discriminating against a white male who sought a tenure-track appointment. There was a trial, and I was one of the witnesses, so I really have had a lot of experience in this area. I saw a lot of things over the years. We won that lawsuit, but the whole theory of the case used by the state's lawyers was that the plaintiff would not have been hired under any policy, not that an out-and-proud affirmative action approach to faculty hiring was permissible. I remember feeling outraged at the time that our policy wasn't defended, but the argument was simply that he wasn't damaged by the policy.
"You guys are all mouthing the same nonsense. So we can't make blacks 100% whole. How about 75%? How about 50%? Do you see how you sound? If you can't do the whole thing, well, fuck it - NOTHING AT ALL IS THE ANSWER!!! You're just cruel in your ignorance and lack of imagination when it comes to us."
Make women whole too. How much do I get?
"Warren? Let's hire her! She's a real doll !"
If I were some billionaire looking to play in US politics, I would go looking for a plausible high-ranking, serving or retired military officer. Preferably a "minority".
The prospects that the Democrats have been using to challenge "red state" Congressional seats since 2006 include a lot of people like that, trying to use biography to sneak them in where their politics dont fit. But this is a misuse of scarce talent. They have been wasting them on kamikaze missions.
The left base wants Warren to run and they will come out by the millions to vote for her. If the Democratic leadership wants to win they will run her. All the nonsense and fake outrage by the right over her heritage and the claims that she used it to get ahead is nothing but, people on the right foolishly think it’s going to keep her down. It won’t
“I should do a theory that whites depriving blacks of whites saying the word nigger deprives blacks of a way out of a nonexistent cloud by constantly affirming that there is one.”
We’ll get this place scrubbed out eventually. Then it will be like it never happened.
I am not going to underestimate the power of the MSM and the "system" to push anyone to victory, but it is curious that these aren't building up some better, fresher prospects. They did a superlative job on Obama, who was truly a blank slate. There should be some other better-looking, better spoken blank slate around.
Corey Booker, Gavin Newsome or Kamala Harris is the plan.
The problem is, the Bernie supporters are still pissed about how they were treated and are attempting to take over the party. The Dems have no bench because incumbency has strangled a whole generation in the crib. So you have the rapidly aging Dem Establishment at the top, a mob of young ignorant Socialists at the bottom and no one in the middle. Are the Bernie supporters going to accept an Establishment type like Clinton or Kerry? Is the Establishment going to accept a Bernie type?
I'm predicting a pretty ugly Democratic primary in 2020. Unless 2018 is the unmitigated disaster for the Democrats that I think it might be. Then sanity might finally take control. But don't bet on it.
Buwaya: “...very thin track record...”. True enough, but let’s not forget that her track record is of NEGATIVE accomplishments like the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, an unconstitutional metastatic mass of punitive and unaccountable regulatory overwatch. That is too geeky to attract a large natural base of opposition, but some highlights can be explained and used to illustrate what a disaster she is.
Althouse said....
...We won that lawsuit, but the whole theory of the case used by the state's lawyers was that the plaintiff would not have been hired under any policy, not that an out-and-proud affirmative action approach to faculty hiring was permissible.
Who's "we" Kimosabe?
Think 1854.
Personally, I hope they call the new party the Whigs.
Crack-
I'll gladly trade one-time reparations for a dismantling of the perpetual assistance state. Deal?
How is the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau unconstitutional, punitive, or unaccountable?
Given that virtually all the work of Congress has to do with corporate finance protection, shouldn't we have at least one small part of government working for consumer finance protection?
She’s terrible at debate and terrible without a script. It didn’t prevent her from winning in Massachusetts but in a national primary I’m not so sure. It will take a Hillary style roped off coronation if lefties will tolerate it.
”Make women whole too. How much do I get?”
Redheads have been discriminated against for centuries. I want my cut.
Oh,yes I believe whatever a group of prog Democrat party academics tell me. Too funny Althouse says she can't even write Nigger, that would be too much for her genteel Democrat party borne sensibilities. It truly is a magically powerful word, almost like an incantation that releases the demons from hell on any caucasoid who utters it. Did the writer of Nigger go on a book tour? I would love to see the awkward introductions and euphemisms coughed up... "Our next guess has written a book. I can't say the title because I am not racist. The N word is as close as I can get without losing my job."
Michael said...
"Crack
Ask your Mexican friends how keen they would be to give you money because of what white people did to your ancestors. Ask for a friend."
Wait - do you really think I have to explain history to Mexicans? They explain Mexican history to me. I fill them in on details of American history, but, overall, they had the gist of things long before we ever met. So, yeah, they got no problem straightening things out as a nation.
Only whites decide we're not when it suits them.
Just horrible people.
If the MSM and Establishment can turn John McCain into the Greatest American Statesman and War Hero Ever, imagine what they could do for Elizabeth Warren.
Inga said...
All the nonsense and fake outrage by the right over her heritage and the claims that she used it to get ahead is nothing but, people on the right foolishly think it’s going to keep her down. It won’t.
You promote the standard "oppression" narrative template here: "bad" people trying to keep her down!
What you ignore is the Peter Principle: what if it was "bad" people raised her up in the first place to her highest level of incompetence?
No outside "oppression" required when someone is elevated to their highest level of incompetence before failing when truly tested. Positions at HLS and winning a Mass senate seat are not the school of hard knocks.
This article was written because even her Massachusetts Senate race in November is likely to be closer than they prefer to declare Warren a viable candidate on the national stage.
"You're asking for a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks, and you've gotten massive amounts of it."
This seems to be a major point of disagreement with the idea of reparations. One, is that reparations would necessarily take the form of a direct transfer of wealth from whites personally, thus reducing white wealth. I think there may be other ways to effect this, if only we could discuss without emotional ranting.
Second, is that reparations have already been paid in the form of welfare payments to black. Not all blacks have actually been on welfare and many millions of whites have. I know I come from a multi generation of white welfare recipients, So the black on welfare were getting no more than what whites were. To me this is not reparations.
As Crack said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. The US Government paid the victims of the Japanese American internment $20,000 each. Using that as a standard and with approximately 25 million black Americans that would work out to about $500 billion (please check my math). That is not an insurmountable figure. And it's not necessary for direct payments from taxpayers. Other funding could be arranged, for example using the untapped natural resources on the huge federally owned land (which was conquered by the US army from the Native Americans).
I'm distressed with the vehemence expressed by those who disagree with Crack which just underscores the emotion this idea evokes in some. I support the idea of reparations with the caveat, expressed by Crack as well, that this closes the wound and we move forward.
“The Dems have no bench because incumbency has strangled a whole generation in the crib.”
To play the metaphor forward at bit, the Dems ate the seed in the corn crib. Alternatively, they aborted a whole political generation.
As for Warren, she clearly gamed the system with a wink and a nod from academia.
jaydub said...
"Why do you spend so much time trying to con us out of money we don't have?"
Where am I waving a tin cup under your nose? I said I'm for reparations. If that fact, merely being stated (which is all that happened) amounts to - literally - YEARS of brutal denunciations by self-identified intelligent fair-minded non-racist white people, then I don't think it's I who have the problem, nor should I have to prove this madness on your part isn't the normal state of things in America because you're demonstrating - right here - that it most certainly is.
@Lovernois: Enjoy your distress. You didn’t build that but you can let it go through yoga and relaxation.
Santa Ana gambled and lost not once but twice, had it happened again, we would own monterey.
Чикелит,
Thanks for your concern for my well-being. I was actually debating which verb to use, perhaps distressed a bit bit too melodramatic. Disappointed? Maybe that's better.
Kevin said...
"Reparations won’t work because it requires something of both parties."
That's almost a self-negating statement.
"It requires one party to pay."
It does no such thing. It requires the nation to pay. I think I'm included in that. Unless you're admitting whites really don't think so, in which case I want reparations.
A"nd it requires the other to forever shut up and move on."
Again, it does no such thing. I hate debating people with such a profound ignorance of a subject. Why do white people do this? I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.
"There is no evidence such a deal is being offered, let alone can be maintained."
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, whether in detail or in general.
The civil rights act of 1964:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Clearly, Professer Warren should be paying reparations to Harvard for her scam.
She'll feel better about herself after she writes that check and gives it to them -- even if she gives it to them and then takes it back. Or, if she doesn't have the money, maybe she can work it off by spending a few weekends doing ["squaw's"] work around campus, do some bead work, or translate a few law review articles into her native tongue.
“Again, it does no such thing. I hate debating people with such a profound ignorance of a subject. Why do white people do this? I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.”
I’ve watched you here for about 10 years off and on. You are profoundly driven by hatred. Thanks for sharing.
Here is a macho response that I directed at Crack several years ago.
""You're asking for a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks, and you've gotten massive amounts of it.""
Only in your fever dreams.
Basically you guys are a bunch of pussies. The USA is Disneyland for whites. Even our poor are in the 1% globally. I was inbued with such a strong sense of humbleness and confidence that I invite people to think less of me so that they are not intimidated. Intimidated by my animal physicality and brutal common sense directness. I was raised a few miles from Crack in the same era in a completely different world. One thing non-native Angelenos don't understand is the hot white iron racism of LA in those days. Even most liberals showed disdain for blacks and mexicans. Certainly all whites practiced a free-market apartheid and LAPD was there to protect and serve.
Us white kids in LA were the crown princes of the world. Happy, fun loving, athletic, smart, industrious, etc etc. Surfing, skiing, swimming, sailing, dirt biking, skateboarding, rock climbing, lawn mowing, construction work, chemistry sets, M-80's, model rockets, model airplanes, radio controlled, dune buggies, sand rails, yadda yadda yadda. Trained in a viking culture to work hard, play harder, keep your mouth shut, accept harsh criticism.
By the time I was 12, I learned that the power hierarchy accepted you when they heap rations of shit on you, much of it true some of it over the top.
What a motherfucking privilege to receive all of these gifts leaving me and my peers in the 10 to the minus 10 in the history of the world. Now I get that most of you white cucks were not bestowed with such gifts because in the land of milk and honey, there are always red-headed step children and other jealous malcontents.
With all of that, I can't even begin to imagine the depth of stoicism required for survival as a young black man in LA. Nor can I imagine how that follows into middle age and beginning decrepitude with no family, no prospects, no connection to the dominant society where people automatically accept you as one of there own.
You people are sick and too shallow, ignorant and stupid to see it.
MountainMan said...
"I don't have the data handy but I would say this is completely false. No, most people do not have Native American roots. And many who think they do, via orally passed family lore, do not."
I had one foster father who was an Indian. He spoke as one and had the straightest hair of any "black" man in South Central. I loved him a lot.
My wife and I have been amateur genealogists for over 25 years. We have over 31,000 names in our joint tree on Ancestry.com. We have both done the Ancestry DNA test and recently the 23andme test, including both ancestry and health profiles.
What many people are learning from the DNA tests is that quite often their DNA testing does not line up with what they thought their ancestry was from family lore and history. 23andme has some nice video testimonials on their web site from customers along these lines.
"Many were slaveowners, that didn't surprise me, I suspected these cousins shared some European DNA with me. What did surprise me was when I got my 23andme results and found I also have African DNA I share with them!"
White people do seem surprised. Reading more American history - real American history - would make it less surprising.
Yep, I have a great-great-grandmother who had African heritage, from Nigeria and coastal West Africa. In fact, I am now proven to have just as much African ancestry as Elizabeth Warren claims to have Native American."
What was most likely a rape in the family is always nice to discover.
"I wonder how many Southern rednecks like me have some small amount of African ancestry and don't know it?"
The same amount, like you, who seem almost gleeful about it - like you learned to dance.
"So all the past 40 years when I was trying to climb the corporate ladder I could have been claiming - like Warren - I was a minority!"
If you buy the "one drop" rule.
"I wonder what my share of the reparations will be?"
You passed your whole life. I'd reconsider your application. NEXT!
I don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the merits of the idea of reparations.
First, we would need to consider were enslaved blacks and their descendants harmed by slavery, Jim Crow laws and the such. If not, then no reparations are needed. If they were then reparations may be needed.
Second, if reparations are needed in what form would they take? We could use the precedent set with the Japanese Americans, or some other method.
I understand that several regular commenters here have a history of sharp exchanges with Crack. And also, that Crack know how to push their buttons.
iowan2 said...
"Blacks abort a wide swath of their own."
White people made it an industry, like the Nazis.
"Those that survive? You make a conscious decision to rear without a father."
White people set that situation up, too. No man in the house or else no help.
"Yes someone one is trapped in their own bullshit."
White people. Just horrible.
"But taking $50,000 of my wealth will help exactly how many fatherless children?"
That's not what it's for. You're all offended by things no one is talking about.
"You make a decision to abandon your Children, and blame me."
White people set up the system and you - a white person - blame blacks. What are we supposed to do? Embrace you?
"I refuse to care about you until you do."
No, I already care, but you've made up a reason not to. Because you're being racist and can't admit it.
Achilles said...
"Yeah. Different names."
They usually do indicate different things.
"What is interesting is you are stupid enough to think they are effectively different in outcome because you make the implementation explicitly racist."
No, I am stupid enough to think they are effectively different because they are. Not to think so is delusional. Are you delusional?
"A Marxist is a Marxist is a Marxist."
And a mind closed to it's own bullshit is just that.
Ann Althouse said...
"Make women whole too. How much do I get?"
You file the suit and I'll back you. But don't stand in our way as whites are and try to claim you're right or decent.
Change Inga's formulation slightly and we can have an historical reference against which we can compare.
"The left base wants [McGovern] to run and they will come out by the millions to vote for [him]. If the Democratic leadership wants to win they will run [him]."
Is there any reason to expect a different result this time in the general election? It may not be as big a disaster as was 1972 because "woman" and greater addiction to "government cheese" than existed back then, but a different result? I doubt it.
"Where am I waving a tin cup under your nose?"
All you do is exaggerate, cajole, posture, whine and bullshit. That's not waiving a tin cup, it's actually just a continual, pathetic con job wherein you claim ownership of others' wealth based on your bullshit. Beggars are occasionally honest, con men are never honest. Don't flatter yourself by ascribing anything other than venal purpose to your scam.
Stupid bigot.
Known Unknown said...
"Crack-
I'll gladly trade one-time reparations for a dismantling of the perpetual assistance state. Deal?"
Isn't that what I said?
[most people have "Native American roots"]
"I don't have the data handy but I would say this is completely false."
You're correct, though the anecdotes the genetics companies use in their advertisements strongly imply otherwise.
The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States
Only a few percent of self-identified "European Americans" have 2% or more of either African or Amerindian DNA
Why would any university want ANY Indigians on their law faculty? Those people have no native tradition of law at all.
Lovernios,
You forgot a step. Identifying and validating who exactly receives them.
Government cheese. Now there is a blast from the past. I remember going with my mother down to the government food distribution center in Boston, I think it was on Dudley Street not far from Upham's Corner, to get blocks of cheese, along with a lot of other food: canned chicken, powdered milk, peanut butter, lard and the like.
What a scam that was, the government bought it at inflated prices from farmers who overproduced and handed it out to poor people, white and black. Should we include that in the reparations paid tally?
I see this denial that Warren's fake indian claim as pure spin and backpedaling on the part of Harvard. I don't believe it and don't have much to say about it.
What I did find interesting in the post was this:
Our hires included a Native American whom Professor Wilkins might have looked at and called "a white man," but he was — and this was considered crucial — a citizen of the Cherokee nation.
I don't think I have ever heard anyone called a "citizen" of an Indian tribe before. As we were discussing the other day, it may have been valid before 1924 when Indians born on a reservation were effectively (legally?) citizens of that sovereign tribe. I'm not even sure I've seen it in reference to pre-1924.
What I have always seen is enrolled tribal member or language along those lines. A quick Bing does not turn up any references to Indian tribal citizenship.
I did find, this page. http://www.cherokee.org/Features/Tribal-Citizenship Apparently the Cherokees consider their members to be "citizens" now. It seems to be a relatively recent thing, in the past 10-15 years or so.
Doesn't seem like citizenship in the Cherokee Nation renders any particular benefits different from "enrolled membership" My guess is a political gimmick.
John Henry
The peanut butter wasn't bad, but have you ever had powdered milk on your corn flakes? Disgusting!
Blogger tim in vermont said...
”I was a constitutional law professor
Bullshit. BHO was never a professor of anything. He was a part timer, adjunct.
Just like me. Except that I probably taught more classes, over more years, arguably at a higher level, than BHO did.
I suspect that he got paid more, though. Just as his wife did for her no-show healthcare job.
John Henry
I'll give Crack one point. Welfare is not reparations. It was created to keep the poor dependent on the state to keep their heads (barely) above water and replaced the old time masters with one federal master.
Serious reparations would require a lump sum payment significant enough to start over, not just keep going, and it would require the protection of the rights of economic participation and political participation: No literacy tests, no whites only clauses and posted prices so that those who just got reparations couldn't be squeezed out of them by refusal to sell at the going rate.
The idea that an immigrant who came here voluntarily has the same background as someone whose family was brought here involuntarily, broken up by slaveowners when it got too strong, and then given the "freedom" to work as shareholders is nonsense. Even the indentured servants in my ancestry got a much better deal.
Whether or not Harvard took it into account is beside the point.
Why did she lie and check the box?
We didn't have a blender, so we had to mix the powdered milk with water by hand. Thin with clumps of unmixed powder. Ugh. Good thing they gave us sugar, too. Pile that on and it became edible.
Sharecroppers, stupid autocorrect.
Perhaps we should consider Warren a homeopathic indian.
John Henry
Post a Comment