I've already addressed the historical minutiae you're now deploying to bolster your argument: in the context of this dialogue, I find the resulting thesis to be a simplistic and deliberately myopic. So, "there are people on the Dawes Rolls from Arkansas". . . legit. How does that fact illuminate any knowledge of Cherokee history or language or cultural on Warren's part? You yourself previously underlined such conditions as significant in self-identifying as Native, and this is the fourth or fifth time since that I've asked you to explain that inconsistency. Unless I'm missing something, you've yet to do so. Premising your reply on the nuances of that historical period is essentially tantamount to contending that such past realities somehow increase the probability that Warren has an unidentified Indian ancestor in the family tree. As I said, that theory can be applied as legitimately to any Caucasian individual from Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or the surrounding region with a locative ineage extending several generations. So, now I guess practically everyone of such descendancy is spontaneously Native irrespective of their functional experience as non-Natives? That's practically magical. So, you're now transitioning to the contention that anyone who finds Warren's conduct problematic, including Cherokees, is part of a political conspiracy? How condescending and patronizing of you, not to mention wildly imaginative. Perhaps you should try your hand at fiction. Why are you reading Indian Country Today if it is an agent of "gotcha politics"? Warren has refused to speak to the editorial team here despite several requests for interviews, as I understand it.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 21:42