Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019
I'm seeing Trump getting trashed — "Twitter Lampoons Trump for Apparent Trail of Tears Joke Aimed at Elizabeth Warren" (Mediaite).
"The joke here is that the Trail of Tears was a genocide. Get it? Get it?"I'll just say 4 things:
1. Trump only wrote (yelled) "TRAIL." He didn't say "Trail of Tears." His haters are zeroing in on the Trail of Tears and insisting that's what he meant to refer to and that's what he thought was funny to say. It seems to me that "trail" is a more general term and a term that relates to Native Americans. It's that more general meaning that makes the specification "of Tears" understandable. It's as if these anti-Trumpsters have never heard of the Great Trail or the Natchez Trace.
2. If Trump's opponents really do feel empathy toward those who suffered in the Trail of Tears, why are they bringing it up to score political points? They're taking something weighty and somber and throwing it around gleefully, because they think they got Trump. Is that a smirk I see on their face?
3. Trump got his opponents to repeat his tweet. They are making it viral, because they think they are hurting him, but they are spotlighting Elizabeth Warren's worst problem and helping to insure that when we think about Elizabeth Warren, we think about her problematic use of the claim that she's Native American.
4. The Trump antagonists are giving us another example of the harshness of the left's demands. Whatever you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the America they have created and want to control. It's scary.
Posts
221 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221"I'd like to step into a working class bar in Long Island City, New York, or Youngstown, Ohio or Warren, Michigan and ask the Trump supporters about the Trail of Tears. I don't think that they could tell me when it occurred, where it occurred, which presidential administrations were involved and which native tribes were involved."
And they'd kick your presumptuous, pompous ass.
THEOLDMAN
Trail beginning at the Red River.. great movie, virile, intelligent white men risking their entire fortune, and their lives to bring red meat to the easterners (also to make much money, greed is always good). Also John Wayne..
Red River https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040724/
Remember when he made fun of the disabled reporter and then denied it?
A reporter that somehow refused to recognize his own reporting.
But if President Trump would just follow the lead of his betters. Right? Isn't that the problem? Like the example Obama set by comparing his bowling to to the Special Olympics? There is true statesmanship.
iowan2 said...Several commentators here are under the delusion that litigating the hosts posts, is the purpose of her writings.
It is not.
I was reacting to Althouse's attempted take down of Big Mike early on and her demand for an apology. But I understand your reflexive white knighting.
Eastern Indian groups did travel quite far distances. The Warrior Path (not Trail per se) went along the Susquehanna in PA. Cherokee would travel north to attack the Iroquois, who would return the favor. You have to have a grudging respect for warrior bands willing to travel from the Carolinas to western NY to kill or kidnap a few of the enemy, then walk back.
"Camp Indian Trails is located 7 miles northwest of Janesville, WI on the Rock River. It is an overnight lodging camp as well as a day camp for Boy Scouts of all ages."
I betcha a guy from New York like Trump could get Warren to drop out of the race for $24
The relocation of the Cherokee was similar to the plan dalet solution to the first Arab Israeli war, there was friction between two factions
Nothing to do with Trump, Warren, or a tearful trail, but two excellent books on Native American topics are:
"Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History," by S. C. Gwynne; and
"Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI," by David Grann.
I don't think DT is even aware of "Trail of Tears."
He meant trail generically.
FWIW, I found this map of old Indian trails in Wisconsin. From what I recall about highways, it looks like many modern roads were built on former Indian trails.
@chickenlittle, how not? The Native Americans had centuries to gradually figure out the most efficient ways to get from point A to point B, and, for that matter, which were good points A and B (and C and ...) to get to.
@ steve uhr: Trump did not make fun of a disabled reporter’s disability. He made fun of the reporter’s comments. The silly voice he used and hand movements are the same he uses on anyone’s comments that he is mocking. The reporters disability has nothing to do with his voice or hand movements. In fact, Serge Kovalesky has a wonderful speaking voice, and his disability causes him to eliminate hand motion in most cases.
Molon labe ! Do we know the name of the trail that led over the mountains south of Thermopylae and joined the main road behind Leonidas?
Trail-of-Tears genocide was perpetrated by a Democratic president.
oops
Quote something I wrote, and ask me about it.
Kavanaugh is vulnerable precisely because he's presented himself as good all the way through. Any hint of a stain wrecks his purity.
Aren't you saying Kavanaugh is too perfect? So perfect that an unsupported allegation from an obvious liar is enough to stain him? And this stain would presumably be disqualifying?
I've got to admit that if I had to say right now, who is more likely to be telling us what is closer to the truth — no stakes, no burden of proof, just who is more likely — I'd have to say her."
So I'll forgive all the commenters who misread what I wrote and fought me over the idea they got in their head when they read what I wrote.
How exactly did we misread you? You are clearly stating that you believed an obvious provocateur with absolutely no supporting evidence, denials from supposed witnesses and who at that point been caught in open lies, rather than a federal judge who had already survived confirmation hearings without this trash being brought up, a committed family man who coaches girls sports and as you point out a spotless reputation.
Just for the record, my biggest beef with you is over what you refuse to say.
If that's not the case for you, why show up?
I'm here for those poor graduate students 200 years from now who will be reading this as research for someone else's book. I would like them to know that at least some of us were sane.
"It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the America they have created and want to control. It's scary."
These are your friends your talking about, Althouse. Remember? You're on the same side they are.
@Gahrie, good on you that you chose to find that direct Althouse quote. But eleven hours ago Althouse wrote "I listened to the testimony in the normal way that you ought to listen to testimony, which is not pre-believing that it's 'lies' (or truth)." Now I have never been a law professor, nor have I even been to law school. But I have served on juries (multiple) and my recollection is that when a witness has been caught in one lie, it is perfectly fair to view the testimony from that witness as tainted. After Feinstein released her letter Christine Blasey Ford fussed that she hadn't wanted the letter released. That's barely within the bounds of belief -- why submit the letter if it was not to be followed up? But then Blasey Ford claimed that she could not come out to Washington because she had a fear of flying, which was obviously a lie, and a stupid lie. Her family lives in a suburb of Washington, DC, and she has flown out to visit them often. She had also flown across the Pacific multiple times.
Next lie, and a stupid lie, was that she knew nothing about polygraphs. The odds of that being true, given that she is a psychologist, was very tiny, and when evidence arose that she had coached a friend how to beat a polygraph, that tiny chance of being true went to zero.
Finally, and most critically, her testimony did not ring true to women, some of whose comments I read on other blogs and some right here on Althouse, who really had been sexually assaulted. They remember every, single, detail of their assault, yet Blasey Ford could not recall where she was, or the date, even down to the year.
But then why would she lie? Part of the answer is that she was certain that there would be no repercussions for lying (and she was right!) and the other part is that she may have borne some grudge against Kavanaugh for something long forgotten by him. Keep in mind that her father and Kavanaugh's father were, perhaps still are, golfing partners. Was he held up to her as a standard for how hard a child should be working in high school? Did she have an unrequited crush on him? This is speculative, of course, in a way that her untruthfulness is absolutely not speculation but clearly established fact. Short of an opportunity to water board her, or an unlikely burst of honesty on her part, we will never know her motive. But she did lie and Althouse did fall for it.
I think the thing that bothered me about the Kavenaugh allegations is first that Fienstein sat on Ford's claim for 6 weeks or so,bright through his scheduled hearings, and then sprung it, in order to force delay. The Dems who were demanding delays then went on to demand further delays to review two more witnesses with ever more incredulous stories. Meanwhile there was no corroboration of Ford's claims whatsoever (the only thing that might have corroborated her story was her therapist's notes, that she refused to tur over, which puts us back to zero corroboration. Zip. Zero. Nada). Moreover she knew few of tge details,band those kept shifting. And, of course, she lied multiple times, including to the Senate. If this had been a criminal case, Kavenaugh very likely could have gotten a directed verdict before even getting to present his own evidence. I think that Ann's Cruel Neutrality should take into account that the two sides weren't even in regards to veracity and corroboration. Ford had an implausible story, lied, and had no quasi independent corroboration. He was never shown to have lied, and had multiple corroborating witnesses. Moreover, outside academia, pretty much everyone knows that women routinely lie about sex, and probably do so more often than men (whose lying instead typically revolves around acquiring sex).
"Here in Warren's political territory we don't seem to have trails with Indian names, but very town has a road, pond, swamp, or rock formation named after Metacomet. "
Henry, you forgot about Ponkapoag Trail in the Blue Hills.
Post a Comment