Aren't you effectively contradicting yourself by contending, "I don’t care if someone is 4/4ths or 1/512ths as long as they know some of their history or language and know historically who their historical adversaries are"? Warren fails to meet two of the three conditions you specify in that assertion, unless you believe that every protestor who has attended an Occupy Wall Street demonstration is automatically Native or Cherokee by virtue of their opposition to the corporate apparatus. You seem to favor deflecting attention to points of reality that are essentially immaterial to the themese addressed in the opinion piece. I'm really uncertain how the inheritance bequeathed to Janna Ryan is germane to this discourse since she obviously is not running against Professor Warren, but if wealth in and of itself is somehow relevant to questions of cultural purity or moral authority, then Warren herself is among the "historical adversaries" just by virtue of the fact that her income places in her the proverbial "one percent." It seems that you're arguing that financial affluence automatically renders Native heritage illegitimate. David Yeaghley, Warner, and McCain are irrelevant to this article, as, frankly, are Ryan and Romney, since Warren isn't running against either. So. . .because the aggregate Southern voting electorate evolved from "Dixicrats" to the "GOP of today," that somehow negates the connection to "history and language" that you outlined as important parameters with respect to the authenticity of cultural identification? Talk about esoteric arguments.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 01:05