The squall of outrage that has erupted in the 72 hours since footage of Massachusetts GOP Senate campaign staffers pantomiming the “tomahawk chop” and issuing war whoops initially emerged confounds logic and strains credulity. In the stampede to condemn Scott Brown for behavior in which he himself never engaged and for arguments that he never promoted, indigenous journalists; liberal commentators; Chairman Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; and, most disappointingly, the National Congress of American Indians upbraided the Senator for facilitating the advancement of an offensive and stereotypical mischaracterization of Native Americans. By and large, they have failed to register the true bigotry in the Bay State political contest: that of Elizabeth Warren, and her consistently racist conduct over the course of the summer.
Various critics of Brown first enjoyed the opportunity to wax moralistic when the Senator broached the subject of his opponent’s decades-long history of ethnic self-identification during the first debate of the campaign season on September 20. Condensing the extensive and unwieldy topic into time-limited opening remarks, Brown correctly noted that the Cambridge professor had advertised herself as an American Indian in a professional context, “and, as you can see, clearly she’s not.” The Senator since clarified that he was invoking a common idiom to emphasize the substantial evidence that suggests Warren is neither culturally or genealogically Native: as documented realities show, her dishonesty is easily discernible. Of course, sanctimonious fury arose, and the backlash mischaracterized Brown as deploying a myopically superficial definition of race as skin deep. The chorus disseminating this perspective would do well to refer to the comments made by Warren in early May, when she defended the claims to Cherokee and Delaware heritage that remain unsubstantiated to this day by declaring that she has, “high cheekbones…like all the Indians do.” Evidently, policing semantic constructs and political correctness is an inherently selective pastime, since Warren herself has invoked reductive stereotypes and external signifiers of ethnicity when she felt they bolstered her fabricated narrative.
Enter the recording of Republican aides mimicking a gesture once popularized for commercial incentive by progressive stalwarts Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. The seconds of inanity captured on the tape in question offend only basic standards of taste: the hyperbole of the scene clearly operates as a satire of the ridiculousness of Warren’s increasingly outlandish improvisations rather than as an expression of anti-Indian animus. But, of course, few authorities wasted any time in taking Brown to task . . . for the conduct of third, fourth, and fifth parties. The rush to ascribe moral responsibility to the Senator for the foolishness of others presents a stark and chilling contrast to the absolution Professor Warren has enjoyed for the appalling prejudice she herself has displayed.
During an interview in Springfield in early summer, the academic proclaimed that she would be “the first Senator from Massachusetts with a Native background.” However, since Harvard Law’s penchant for highlighting her as a “woman of color” who added a uniquely multicultural perspective first came to light in late April, Warren has refused to speak to Native newspapers and websites, including Indian Country Today, the largest indigenous media outlet in the nation. She rebuffed overtures by Native delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte to establish lines of communication. And, most memorably, she initially agreed to receive four liberally inclined Cherokee women who traveled across the nation to request an audience, and then, once they arrived, accused them of advancing a right-wing conspiracy. Nothing suggests that she interacted in a meaningful capacity with the indigenous population in Cambridge at any point during her tenure, and she has displayed no understanding of or familiarity with the rituals, customs, traditions, woes, and concerns that texture the contemporary Indian landscape.
When an individual so deliberately and consistently refuses to engage with a specific minority group, such aversions are generally regarded in and of themselves as commensurate with one pillar of personal bigotry. Imagine if any other candidate so repeatedly declined to acknowledge African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, LGBT men and women, Catholics, Mormons, Christians, or the members of another cultural community. Such demographics should consider how effectively Professor Warren will champion their interests in the Senate when she projects such transparent antagonism and explicit contempt toward the people with whom she insists she is so “proud” to share a heritage that has “always been a part” of her identity.
Racism is on full display in Massachusetts, and it has been so repeatedly since late spring. Senator Brown has comported himself with honor and integrity throughout the course of the election, and assigning culpability to his name for an incident that he has already publicly reprimanded is injudicious in the extreme. Ignoring Professor Warren’s disdain for Native Americans essentially validates it, and conjecture that she will position herself as an ally to indigenous peoples defies her persistent and reprehensible intolerance for them on the stump. Elizabeth Warren is no friend of the Indian unless you consider scorn and derision the hallmarks of camaraderie.
Educated at Darmouth College and Columbia University, Cole DeLaune is a native of Oklahoma and Tennessee. He currently resides in Atlanta, and has contributed editorial content to Vogue and Elle, among other publications. He is a member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.
-
American Indian Kyle Lohse Pitches St. Louis Cardinals to Wild Wild-Card Playoff Win Over Atlanta Braves -
Brookfield Renewable Power Donates 100 Acres of Sacred Mohawk Land to Hiawatha Institute for Indigenous Knowledge -
So-called ‘Navajo’ Underwear — It’s Not Just for Girls Anymore -
Actress Daryl Hannah Arrested Protesting Keystone XL in Texas -
Jacket Said to Have Belonged to Crazy Horse Sells for $10,000 -
VA Approves $28 Million in Grants for Homeless Veterans -
Pow Wow Weekend Planner -
Celebration Honors Onondaga Community College’s Men’s and Women’s 2012 National Champion Lacrosse Teams -
Baseball Playoffs Begin: Kyle Lohse and the St. Louis Cardinals Take on the Atlanta Braves in a Wild Card Game -
Shelly to Salazar: Navajo Gallup Water Supply Should Consist of 98 Percent Navajo Workforce -
Athabasca Chipewyan Launch Treaty 8 Challenge to Shell Canada Over Oil Sands -
NIGC Chair Tracie Stevens Mended Agency’s Relationship With Tribes
What a besotted tirade over nothing. First you construct a totally false scenario and then use it to mow Warren down, what drivel. Brown created this whole flap himself. He brought it up with his dirty opposition research and he made a big deal of it. That was because he has nothing else to reccomend himself. Just because Warren wasn’t on the barricades at Wounded Knee, doesn’t make her a bigot. Talk about a right wind nutso stretch. What has Scott Brown done for Native Americans in the Senate? What will he ever do? Nothing. When he supports his heritage it will be flying to the UK and dancing with the Queen. Mabe the writer DeLaune, should stick to fashion magazines and return to politics when he grows up.
What point of argument is false? Please be specific. Brown clarified his debate remarks, and both apologized (“apologetic” generally being the adjective affiliated with that verb, after all) for the behavior of his staff, who he reprimanded. . . The only thing that’s a stretch is your attempt to characterize a refusal to engage with Native community in the present, as well as a history of no discernible engagement with the Native population in Cambridge, as not being “on the barricades at Wounded Knee.”
Per your question, I’ll pivot back to you: What has Warren done for Native Americans throughout her adulthood of self-identifying as one? Nothing, that we can tell.
I find Senators Brown’s actions troubling to say the least. He knew the props that would be used to suggest that Ms. Warren was not Native were wrong.
What happened here was it backfired on him.
Although I didn’t find the events particularly offensive for the reasons stated in the article, I understand that others do. . .And Brown apologized for the actions of his staffers. He said he reprimanded them, so short of firing them, I’m unsure what the appropriate punitive measure would be. And, if you feel it’s the case that reductive stereotypes warrant termination, that suggests that Warren should resign her candidacy and/or her professorship for her own assertions linking race to physical features (“high cheekbones. . .like all the Indians do”). The point is that there is a total lack of parity in the attention aimed at the nuances of this contest.
This article is a very unpersuasive hatchet job, not worthy of your publication.
There is nothing in it which supports the invective of the author, who obviously has some kind of axe to grind.
If you think a corporatizing elitist like Scott Brown is good for Native Americans, you should have your head examined.
Again, please be specific on the matters on which I am incorrect. Scott Brown isn’t promoting himself as the “first Native Senator from Massachusetts” on the campaign trail, unlike his opponent, who has never demonstrably interacted with the Native community in any meaningful way. Your mileage obviously varies, but I think someone whose campaign has actually engaged with Native American press generally demonstrates less of an aversion to indigenous peoples that a politician who has repeatedly and deliberately stonewalled Indians. Generally, you have to acknowledge people to advocate their interests.
You have to be kidding, right? Warren lies, but that is OK because she is a Dem? That is your argument? Brown is crass, to be sure. But, Warren, disrespects three Native women who wanted nothing but to meet with her, then she turns her back on the Native Democratic reps. And, all that is OK, why? Talk about examining heads.
Let us look at policies.
Brown represents the very corporations that are raping Indian country. Warren is opposed because she is working for corporate regulation. They man hires operatives to do smear campaigns.
Warren should take some courage pills and deal with those Native rights activists who are scolding her even if she thinks it is unfair. Wishing they would go aways is not smart.
But Brown is bad news.
While Mr. DeLaune’s pitiful writing style has improved sadly his construction of argument hasn’t. Personally I’m less offended at being rebuffed than openly mocked, however, I’d rather not have either. The warped claim that the ‘only racism on display has been from the Elizabeth Warren camp’ is offensive. Not only has he dismissed these bigots, he dares to chastise fellow Native Americans. Warren’s claims have been openly criticized, DeLaune cites examples of Native criticism further in the article. He owe’s them an apology.
Mr. DeLaune suffers from a chronic case of Reinforcement theory. He seeks out and retains ideas which support his pre-existing attitudes and beliefs, i.e. supporting Brown, and has used selective perception to both misperceive the actions of Scott Brown’s staff members as satirical and is trying to dismiss their racism. Inane? Tasteless? How about unacceptably racist. How about in trying to mock Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown’s senior staff ONLY managed to mock Native Americans. Satire would be to show(not wear) a fake headdress and equivocate it to Warren’s claims. There is NO satirization of her claim in inauthentically aping Indians, proudly, in a manner which has never been embraced by Indians as anything other than offensive.
This article gives evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s avoidance and what strongly looks to be false declaration of Native heritage. DNA test Mrs. Warren? However, you can’t make someone correct by proving another wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Denial of a wrong, just makes another wrong. Progressive’s have done it too, so what? Their errors don’t justify or excuse what has been denounced as racist. She doesn’t look it? The late Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens is an example of someone who doesn’t look Indian but is. I’ve seen many at IHS who don’t fit the stereotypical look.
In Mr. DeLaune’s drive to sully Warren he would lower his self-respect and the self-respect of Native Americans by vindicating the appalling and blatant racism of Scott Brown’s staff. Well, Mr. DeLaune can’t justify it…their actions are racist. By not firing those racists Scott Brown is associating and actively employing racists. So what does one do? Don’t tolerate it and certainly don’t excuse it. Expect more of both candidates. Write to which candidate you serves most of your interests and tell them they’ve lost your support. If you’re frustrated and disappointed with both, don’t get discouraged and not vote. Vote for a third party. Third party voting is very threatening to both parties, a great example is has been the oversight of Ron Paul.
Does Mr. DeLaune have the ability to write an article to delineate Scott Brown’s platforms which tangibly support Native Americans? Can he keep the mud throwing at Warren out of his argument? Can he see his candidate clearly? Can he counter the criticisms made against Brown and openly clarify how and who exactly Brown would and has helped? Can He give the whys to those who would be adversely affected if he were to win? The idealisms DeLaune sees in Brown’s rhetoric haven’t been supported by Brown’s actions. A journalist needs impartiality, objectivity, strong reasoning; not spin. Liars spin. Politicians spin.
Mr. DeLaune to have integrity you need to look inward and ask if you would accept this behavior regardless of who it’s from. If it’s disagreeable yet someone you like expect more from them. If you can’t, keep looking and actively support someone more deserving of your support.
“The late Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens is an example of someone who doesn’t look Indian but is. I’ve seen many at IHS who don’t fit the stereotypical look.”
What is the “stereotypical look?”
Racism is everywhere, even with those who purport to not be invested in it. I’m sure those individuals with the “stereotypical look” would be quite surprised that they had such a stereotypic look.
A stereotype is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. In my experience the stereotypical indian has been a couple dozen or so Native American actors who’ve worked in film and television and non-natives who have been portrayed as Native American. My family members and I are almost always mistaken as Latin, Pacific Islander, Phillipino, and Hispanic. Usually it’s by members of that race. When people ask our race and we answer Native American the get surprised and say “you don’t look Native American.” Then either you get a look of revered curiosity or a skeptical “what tribe” and “are you registered?” This almost always makes us laugh. But we’re not unusual looking and look like our fellow tribe members in Oklahoma and New Mexico. When we ask what we should look like, they say like on TV or in the movies. Sometimes someone will apologetically say they see it. But you know they’re trying to because they’re apologizing and you can hear that they’re reaching by the tone of their voice. Friends will be honest and say they just don’t know what Indians look like. But it’s a guessing game for us too when we travel across the great US of A and see strong characteristics in other tribes which don’t look familiar.
So when I hear or read that someone doesn’t ‘look’ like a certain race, I ask ‘how do you know?’ Often we don’t. It’s become easier for me to see the physical differences between my Korean, Japanese and Chinese friends because we’ve delineated them throughout the years but to them it’s pretty obvious. And we kid each other when we have to guess someones race. My black friends laugh that people still can’t describe what a black man looks like, i.e. eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, hair line, complexion, etc. And we all kid about when we are upholding a stereotype. But we kid, we’ve never accused another of not being that race or culturally valid. Which is why we’re friends. We don’t like it when others of any race do, you’re correct racism is everywhere, and we’ll try to tactfully say so. I’m sorry I wasn’t tactful enough for you. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the Christopher Stevens was Native and has set a positive example for Native youth to follow. I wouldn’t have guess it, and I didn’t question it’s validity.
Scott Brown said that clearly Warren didn’t look Indian. He then had to back peddle in a separate statement after his faux pas had been pointed out to him and say she didn’t present proof. But in my eyes his initial comment still stands because the statement itself, she doesn’t look it, is made from a preconceived opinion which isn’t based on reason or actual experience that people of a race look a certain way.
Lisa, I’m not sure someone who can’t differentiate between “owe’s” and “owes” should be criticizing anyone else’s writing. But it’s nice to see that you’re making progress yourself: at least you’re not creepily fantasizing about an author’s face turning “red with shame” in vibrant detail like you have in the past. Babysteps.
I disagree with the author in that I found the Brown staffers’ conduct offensive, though I didn’t find it as extreme as to be congruent with racism. I have never seen any Indians engage in the tomahawk chop or issue exaggeratedly cartoonish war whoops, so I don’t see how that relates more the authentic Indian customs than showing a disembodied fake headdress. I’d actually find the headdress more problematic for utilizing an item that has actual ceremonial significance in many customs.
So Brown didn’t fire someone after they used a simplistic and disturbing stereotype. Well, Warren didn’t resign her nomination or her professorship after using the simplistic and disturbing stereotype, “high cheekbones . . . like all the Indians do.” Do you think she should? Furthermore, Brown at least apologized for the incident, unlike Warren.
No one said that it was about looks. Like the article says, Brown said he meant, “as you can see, the evidence shows she clearly is not.” If we’re not taking Warren to task on her “high cheekbones” remark, I think it’s consistent to let Brown amend and revise his comments to express his point more clearly.
I think the argument centered on asking what Brown has done for Native Americans misleading. He hasn’t made their issues the centerpiece of his stint in the Senate, but he also hasn’t publicized himself as an authority or representative of Indians. Warren implicitly and indirectly has by telling interviewers she will the the first indigenous Senator from her state. At this point, Brown has responded for to requests for comment from this website, so I’d say an elected official has to be willing to at least talk to you to do anything about helping your objectives. Warren hasn’t even done as much (how hard is it to assign a spokesman to issue a reply?) and hasn’t done anything for Native Americans throughout her career. So Brown has the leg up on that one. Independents and moderates should definitely support him since he’s apparently willing to accept some responsibility for unnerving sentiments that arise from his campaign. If you’re far to the left and can’t in good conscience support a Republican, then I think you are right: those people should vote for the Green candidate.
You’re right my punctuation was wrong, mine is commentary not publication, and you cannot validate someone’s idealisms and writing style by correcting another’s punctuation. If you could, you’s rule yourself out of the debate since baby steps is a two word phrase. Has your error automatically invalidated your comment or your criticism of my punctuation? No. I stand by my criticism of that last article’s verbosity, overuse of words, and grandiloquence, using pompous or bombastic diction. It and Mr. DeLaune’s rebuttals were truly awful they created vicarious embarrassment: discomfort when watching someone else embarrassing themselves, which is intensified when the person embarrassing themselves is not aware of how embarrassing their behavior is. You do him a disservice by reenforcing his choice to writ dribble. However, I find your description of ‘vibrant detail’ of my comment as proof that concise language and valid argument carried the day since it caused such a visceral reaction from you and it was easily quotable. I challenge you to ask another to read the last and this article and judge which is superior. Yes, Mr. DeLaune is taking baby steps.
I also disagree that the conduct wasn’t congruent with racism since whoops and the ‘tomahawk chop’ isn’t associated with anyone other than Native Americans. These are a portrayal of indians as butchers wandering the country attacking without cause whooping and collecting scalps. This stereotype of a violent culture who needed to be ethnically cleansed for the good of all, including themselves, was successfully used to justify Native American slaughter and to keep indians from organizing, self governing, and gathering for religious and cultural purposes. It became a tool used to create biased federal laws to limit and over-regulate tribal sovereignty over tribal lands and later on reservations. The indian who stood up for himself was trapped by this stereotype, as it easily exaggerated him into a motiveless criminal killer. It was used to sell newspapers and dime novels and was believed by settlers and soldiers who were consequently motivated to kill first. It was a precursor to other negative stereotypes, after used as an excuse to heard native into dependence upon the state, it birthed another stereotype that indians are an entitled lazy burden of moochers upon tax payers. Which has recently evolved into the misconception that we live in luxury with free educations, gas, and have money rolling in from the casinos, therefore if any live in poverty it must be because of their own misdeeds. Created since Jamestown and still existing, it has been the most pervasive, enduring and believed stereotype of or role in history and in media throughout the world.
Scott and Warren did say her heritage was about looks, they stated ‘high cheekbones’ and ‘clearly doesn’t look it.’ Don’t dismiss or justify bad behavior, willful ignorance helps those who want to manipulate you. Accept it if you choose but with the eyes wide open. Both have offended Native American groups, so the indian vote will have to decide who to vote for based upon the a candidate’s stance on other issues and how those correlate with their interests. This isn’t new, life hardly ever hands us clearly cut correct choices. Managing consequences of choice is best done with the most accurate information possible. You say Brown is a better candidate for native people because he has admitted and taken partial responsibility of offending indians, yet how his policies have affected native people would be misleading the point. I say have a higher standard. Asking what has Scott Brown done for Native American’s is misleading how? He’s Mr. DeLaune’s candidate and this is a publication geared toward Native American issues.
It’s better to vote and keep on voting, than get discouraged with choices and not. When faced with two unappealing option why not take a third or fourth. Yes, there are leftist grassroots organization, and there are Libertarian organizations(conservative yes, grassroots yes) which will happily take your vote. And the main two parties do notice those votes. If one were faced with a medical situation and had two choices in which neither were favorable would one seek out information about other possible treatments? Sure, information doesn’t rule options out. One would look at all the options and be watchful and wary of the undesirable elements of that option, not willfully blind of the possible effects of said option. One would want accurate information based on facts and results and wouldn’t give credence to an over-reaching argument based upon deflection.
There’s nothing inconsistent about me pointing out the contradiction in appointing yourself an arbiter of writing quality without being more attentive about your own writing. I’m outlining the presumtuousness of the practice, not condoning it, so it’s rather irrelevant whether or not I didn’t hit the space bar in “babysteps.” I think you yourself demonstrated a personal and visceral reaction with the rather disturbing tangents about Mr. DeLaune acting like royalty and imagining his face turning red with shame in old age. Op-eds by definition are commentary, as well, so I don’t see the difference between commentary above the “Comments” section and commentary below it. If you’re intent was to inspire the reaction “backing away slowly,” you definitely succeeded in your take on previous pieces.
There is a distinction between ignorant offensiveness and scary anti-Indian bigotry, just like there’s one between someone saying, “oh, Indians are such an exotic minority,” or asking if you grew up on a reservation versus someone saying, “Indians are all drunks,” or expressing the sentiment that Indians should be exterminated, for example. The war whoops and tomahawk chops were offensive, but, no, they did not seem to originate in a hatred toward Natives.
Asking what Scott Brown has done for Indians is misleading in a specific manner within the setting of this race because it sets up an implicit comparison with an ideal candidate who has done something for Indians. That’s not the case because he’s running against a woman who has done even less for Indians than he has, even when you adjust the consideration for the fact that she has no votes to judge. Sometimes an election is the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, Brown has acquitted himself of that for Indians who are in the middle or able to bring themselves to vote for a Republican. They’ve both offended people, but the only one who has even made a superficial attempt to take some sort of responsibility and address the issue is Brown. Warren hasn’t even done that. Sure, I understand that some people simply can’t pull the lever for a nominee with an “R” beside their name, which is why I said they should go Green.
You misread or misunderstand what satirization is. Satire uses humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize. Scott Brown’s staff parading around while acting like a negative Native American stereotype doesn’t satirize Elizabeth Warren’s claims. A proper simile can satirize, what I said is a proper satirization would be to equivocate Warren’s claims to the authenticity of a FAKE headdress. The simile equivocates her claims to the FAKE headdresses’ inauthenticity. A true headdress isn’t maligned but the legitimacy of the false one is. One wouldn’t need to wear or parody a headdress only depict the all too common fake one. A simile for this simile would be to counteract a claim that tin is gold by equivocating the tin’s worth to that of iron pyrite, aka false gold. The gold’s value isn’t sullied, but the worth of the tin and iron pyrite is effectively denounced.
I understand just fine that, colloquially speaking, satire does indeed involve hyperbole in the effort to mock and ridicule. Warren has situated herself as a cariacture; she’s even referred to that cartoonish “high cheekbones . . . like all the Indians do” idea to support her self-identification. So . . . those protesters are co-opting the behavior of Indians literally seen in animated television (like Looney Tunes) to parody how over the top Warren’s own portrayal of Indians has been.
What a line of garbage Cole, Delaune!!!!! I grew up in Indian Country of the Dakotas and I know racism when I see it. Scott Brown’s campaign is full of the same put downs and racist comments I saw in all of my years growing up. Why don’t you publish the websites which show Elizabeth Warren using her life story let alone her ethnic heritage for any kind of an advantage. You don’t find it on her offical websites or on Wikepedia. What you find is an intelligent young women who grew up in a working class family who married a smart intellent fella. Her marriage allowed her to work hard and continue her education. She grew up in Oklahoma city and was a city girl whose father was a school janitor who had a heart problem. She excelled in high school and graduated in three years.
There are no listed biographies or autobiographies written about her that report anything about what the social, culturall, and religious life of her family was. Mrs. Warren is a person of mixed ethnicity and what ever cultural activities she was involved in were her own families traditions.
My ethnic back ground is Scandiavian/Irish and did not involve itself in any particular ethnic activities except maybe having ludifisk at one dinner and eating lefsa on the Scandinavian side and on the Irish side wearing green on St. Patrick’s day and dreaming of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. This doesn’t change my ethnic background. Elizabeth Warren’s family life in Oklahoma City doesn’t affect her ethnic genetic heritage. Her family history says she has Native American ancesters and no one has proven this is not true. A DNA test would give some evidence of the probablility of her ethnic background. If she just wishes to accept what her family said, it’s just as valid.
Mrs. Warren is not applying for Native American benefits nor is she trying to affiliate herself with a tribe.
The fact that you are going to such efforts to discredit Mrs. Warren is some indication of your prejudice towards her. This is why most people who have grown up in European American culture do not admit and even hide any hint that they have Native American ancesters. They have to put up with the ignorance and taunting of both the sides. There are Native Americans who call you a wanta be and there are European Americans who will taunt you about being Native American. I am sure my mixed ethnicity would have cause problems for me in past centuries.
My thoughts are that you are a conservative trying to use this non issue for political gain.
By the way I watched the first debate between Senator Scott and Elizabeth Warren on video on the computer at about the time it took place. Almost the first words out of Senator Scott’s mouth were him trying to discredit Mrs. Warren because of her ethnic background. I saw him say that he could tell by looking at Mrs. Warren that she was not Native American. I know that this is impossible having grown up in Indian Country in the Dakotas and having taugh school on the Rez. In communities such as Dunseith, North Dakota and Newtown, North Dakota which are part of reservations you can’t always tell who is Native American and who isn’t by looking at them. You can’t tell by their cultural and family practices because the culture of the communites is mixed European and Native American. I have also spent one summer living the Dale-Selby area of St. Paul, Minnesota were there was a mix of Native Americans, African Americans, and European Americans living in a low income poverty area with a mixed culture. I am well aware of the cultural infighting between the Native American Church, and the different Christian churches and how this splits families. Native Americans whose families have lived for generations in the cities are often cut off from the Native American culture on the Rez. This does not make them less Native American. Its within this context that Elizabeth Warren grew up. Her ethnic heritage had its pluses and minuses. She had lots going against her success as a woman. This whole business is just the Republicans using ethnic prejudice to keep another senate seat.
Has Elizabeth Warren said explicitly what her circumstances are and that if what you state is actually the case?
Yes. Michelle is reporting the truth of what has gone down here in Massachusett. That is more than we can say about Cole Delaune, which is right out of the Scott Brown playbook.
Sorry, Cole, you’re the one who accused someone of racism without an iota of evidence of racism.
Don’t ask me to make your argument for you.
You should apologize.
Lizzy Warren NEEDS to “LADY UP” and be accountable for her actions, i.e. claiming her ‘heritage’ as an American Indian particularly from tenure with Harvard and being a person of ‘color’ as a politician.
To further help, may I suggest the following:
“The New England Historical Genealogical Society initially announced in May 2012 that it had found evidence for Warren’s claims, but later recanted, saying, “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”
A person of Warren’s character who is adament about NOT MEETING with American Indian representatives only further brings legtimate questions to ‘other’ character issues she brings into politics.
One example how she has practiced law in Mass. (which she admits) and gets away with it.
For her actions and the seemingly rationalization provided by good ‘indian scouts’ of the Democratic Clan, I am only reminded of the Great Oz loudly proclaiming,….”pay no atention to that WOMAN behind the curtain”…
Racism and political talking points are nothing but an effort to create impressions not related to the purpose of this publication.
It has always been my impression that Indian Country Today was dedicated to historical facts, news concerning the nations and editorial thought.
This story only serves to further a political intolerance and not worthy of this publication.
Columbus day soon to be (celebrated)is the big lie, and that is what that should be aired by writers. A (celebration) of the beginning of monumental intolerance, lies , genocide and (wink wink) the wanton mixing of races do to total disrespect of native women. If there is some political points to be gained one way or the other,, so what!
There are bigger problems in Indian Country than, is she or isn’t she.
Agreed!
I am a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation is a progressive tribe yet maintaining our culture. We enroll our members based upon an enrollment ordinance that was crafted on requirements imposed upon us by treaty and our own beliefs. Last time I looked, Scott Brown wasn’t on the Tribal Enrollment Committee for the Cherokee Nation, and neither were you. That would presume that neither of you, or anybody else, has the right to say someone is or isn’t a Cherokee Nation member, or has lineage/ancestry dating to the Dawes Roll. This and other assaults on Ms. Warren are demeaning and derogatory. We can fight our battles, and we don’t jump into other tribe’s frays concerning membership or lineage. That’s what makes each of us unique. Even Cherokee Nation members are ridiculed or teased when we say we are Cherokee, because after all, everyone says they are Cherokee. Mr. Brown does not have the right to make this an issue. Ms. Warren isn’t a current tribal member, does not live in Oklahoma or running for office, and isn’t asking my tribe for any support or participating in tribal entitlement programs. No harm, no foul. I wasn’t enrolled until I was 25 years old. My Grandmother was a Cherokee full-blood, my Grandfather was a 1/2 blood Cherokee, my Father was 3/4 Cherokee blood. My Mother is Cherokee and the exact amount is still being researched, however, she was qualified and is enrolled based on what documentation she provided. My Father died un-enrolled. Society doesn’t understand Indian thinking because they didn’t travel the path we did. My Father refused to enroll because he didn’t want the government to dictate that he had to prove he was a Cherokee Indian. Suffice to say, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did recognize him as a 1/2 blood Cherokee in their records. Does that mean he wasn’t Cherokee, or any other Indian? Everyone is trying to fight our fight, but where are they while we fight the Cherokee Freedmen issue? No one is blasting Cherokee Freedmen, chasing them down the halls of Congress demanding they prove their ancestry, wanting them to take DNA testing, etc. I would think that you would be more concerned about the Kiowa rolls to which you are enrolled. That may be a acceptable cause for you. Your position is purely a political motive and once again we Cherokees are being used. Jay Daniels
Though these are all the Cherokee’s unique circumstances, the rest of us become entangled in them because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the general public and other tribal folk.
For instance, it has impacted the Navajo Nation, when unenrolled white people say they are Cherokee because of a “family story” or whatever strange misguided notions tell them to. The previous Censuses took into account those white folk of vague Cherokee heritage and allocated Federal resources differently because of it. And the Navajo Nation suffered, people who live in some of the poorest counties in the country and rely on those funds for basic needs like healthcare or infrastructural monies for roads or plumbing. So it does matter who is or who is not a Cherokee unfortunately.
The fact is neither candidate has given any indication of a clue about Native America. And for the record I was giving Ms. Warren the benefit of the doubt but after not even attempting to reach out to Native folk after this debacle began, I’ve changed my mind about her. I would hope that seeing this mess she would invest in congressional issues affecting Indian Country and issue some sort of false promise, as politicians are wont. But not even that has happened.
Sorry you feel that way swkyle. I respect your right to your opinion. However, I have a right to disagree. The Cherokees don’t take someone’s word that they have Cherokee blood. The Tribal Enrollment Ordinance requires certain documentation to be approved for membership. If you meet the criteria, you are eligible and thus enrolled. What kind of tribe would we if we refused membership to an eligible applicant. Does your tribe do that? As for allocation of funding based on the census, there is a formula that is fair to every group of ethnicity and income level. We didn’t make the rules, we just live by them. Our Principal Chief has issued a statement of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s stand on this issue. Basically, we assist those in the application process. We do not dispute anyone’s ancestry or lineage as being Cherokee unless they apply for membership. Is that how your tribe does it? I don’t see anyone disputing Johnny Depp’s claim of ancestry and even the Comanche recently adopted him into their tribe as is the custom of many tribes. Do I care? No, it’s their business. Ms. Warren has admitted that she should have addressed the issue quickly rather than let it be used against her campaign. True. Mr. Brown stated that he doesn’t have documented evidence that she used her claimed ancestry for special treatment. Hmm, what is everybody arguing about? I guess, in closing, let us take care of our business, and everybody else take care of their business and walk proud! We could use help in the Freedmen Issue for those Freedmen who don’t actually have Cherokee blood. But nobody is rushing in to help on that issue, and we will do just fine without it.
Nope, Mr. Daniels. Warren isn’t out on proclaiming in interviews that she’ll be the first Cherokee-Delaware Senator from her state; she’s out there saying she’ll be the first “Sen from Mass with Native American heritage.” The news coverage this has yielded hasn’t scrutinized the question of, “what does it mean to be Cherokee?” The media has ruminated on, “What does it mean to be Native American?” That’s pretty consistent with the point the author made in a previous statement about mainstream American regarding Indians not as interlinked communities, but rather one large single group. So Mr. DeLaune can write about it all he wants. He’s not weighing in on Cherokee enrollment thresholds. He’s addressing the fact that Warren has disrepected the collective Native media and Native Americans, including and aside from Cherokees.
lets play “identify the member” of the young republican club, another warped worldview
How warped? It sure wasn’t the Dems that freed the slaves.
If the “Elizabeth Warren- Boondoggle” is any indication of what the Democratic Progressive call is – it is just too unfortunate for newly minted voters to witness the hypocrisy this ‘pro-gressive’ psycho agenda incorporates to socio-politico issues.
Previous calls for ‘rights’ and/or ‘recognition’ for women, blacks, homosexuals, etc. were ANSWERED in people as Palin, Bachmann, Clinton, Keyes, Cain, and sadly, in the late US Ambass Stevens, and homosexuals in Muslim countries. Evidently, these people and special interests are NOT women, black or homosexual enough to fulfill the Democratic Progessive agenda.
The question remains how black (OR better yet) how much AMERICAN INDIAN does a person have to be to fit the billet for being an “rightous Indian” in the Democratic Progressive Cause?
As it’s being demonstrated, Elizabeth Warren at her beckoning with the BLESSINGs of the Democratic Committe can flip on/off her ‘heritage claims’ and be polished and invented as an “American” success story….that ‘any-body’ who works hard and is ‘honest’ can succeed as an American success story.
As with most of American Indians, a BIA form 4432 is still a fundamental requirement to obtain basic services as health, education, and welfare. For the rest of Americans Indians, holding on to their heritage is a means to survival considering how Indians today are still being EXPLOITED!
For Elizabeth Warren and contempory wannabe’s indians, Form 4432s and true/honest people NEED NOT APPLY TO THE US NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE.
“
Whoa… a little wordy there, fella. It’s like trying to swallow a pine cone. At least put some peanut butter on it!
Hey, I like your metaphor. Hadn’t heard it before.
Meanwhile the very basic of Indian people (very easily identified as such) who still live in the Indian communities in the out of the way places still suffer and do without. All this high profile (such as this blog) bickering is going on and supposedly on their behalf. Many, many people are so far out of touch with the realities of the goings on in the very real Indian communities. If any thing people….ask Creator to help US ALL…..
“”Various critics of Brown first enjoyed the opportunity to wax moralistic when the Senator broached the subject of his opponent’s decades-long history of ethnic self-identification during the first debate of the campaign season on September 20. Condensing the extensive and unwieldy topic into time-limited opening remarks, Brown correctly noted that the Cambridge professor had advertised herself as an American Indian in a professional context, “and, as you can see, clearly she’s not.” The Senator since clarified that he was invoking a common idiom to emphasize the substantial evidence that suggests Warren is neither culturally or genealogically Native: as documented realities show, her dishonesty is easily discernible.”
Your nasty little smear campaign is clearly in support of Scott Brown, unless you have some other way to profit from it.
Scott Brown was talking about appearance. Only someone who had access to genealogical records could possibly know from such records, and that certainly is not the audience he was speaking to. He meant physical appearance. Yet you
give his excuse as if he was so holy his word could not be doubted.
“comments made by Warren in early May, when she defended the claims to Cherokee and Delaware heritage that remain unsubstantiated to this day by declaring that she has, “high cheekbones…like all the Indians do.”
When did she claim that as proof of anything? She said that was something one of her relatives pointed out, and that led her to believe it, but that’s not claiming it as proof. She could have been Asian or even Hungarian and had high cheekbones, but her Aunt never mentioned that.
As to the overtures from Indian’s at the convention, you have not shown any evidence that any such have occurred of that she received them. When I look in Indian Country Today Media Network what I find is nasty commentaries like yours, with very little truly balanced and fair material showing up on google. With that history, I don’t see why she would bother with you.
It’s actually pretty racist of you, bobklahn, to argue without any evidence that someone is prioritizing financial motives over earnest beliefs and isn’t actually offended by certain conduct.
Genealogical research has been done by both the Warren camp and independent Cherokee researchers, and nothing has turned up to indicate that Mrs. Warren has any Native ancestry.
Apparently you don’t avail yourself of very broad reading materials. The incident at the DNC was covered by both the Boston Herald and the NYTimes . . . but I bet the latter publication is part of a right-wing conspiracy, too? And, hey, maybe those delegates are covert Republicans also?
Warren alluded to the “cheekbones” anecdote as evidentiary support of her heritage. She’s condoning the sentiments expressed by her Aunt Bea,so, yeah, she’s describing that as a major pillar of her Indian identity.
You’re actually offering insight into your own bigotry. Indian Country Today publishes a variety of perspectives and opinions from Native Americans. It might be hard for you to believe, but not all Indians are the same, and the diversity in the Op-Ed section attests to that. But yet you think it’s just peachy that someone running for elected office can’t even be bothered to supply a comment for a news story or even acknowledge Natives in her own party at Charlotte. Talk about racist.
“When I look in Indian Country Today Media Network what I find is nasty commentaries like yours”. Bobklahn, really? I think Cole is the most right leaning fellow we have contributing columns. Geez, dude, Winona Laduke shares with us, Ruth Hopkins, Steve Newcomb, Gabe Galanda and a slew of other rather revolutionary native thinkers. None of them and the many others I find to he humble and respectful humans.
I take offense that I allow “nasty commentaries”, I have been thinking all this time that I allow free thinkers. Maybe you’re right, maybe I should reconsider my approach. Or, maybe we should not get too invested (emotionally) in a system that is not ours.
Anyway, I appreciate your sharing. Keep coming back.
Read more:https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/the-only-racism-on-display-has-been-from-the-elizabeth-warren-camp https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/the-only-racism-on-display-has-been-from-the-elizabeth-warren-camp#ixzz28GwJGxPX
Indian Country Today lowers its standards by publishing Cole R. DeLaune. He has no idea of the racist impact of Tomahawk Chop Brown, of the nasty male supremacy of the Brown Campaign. That he sees no racism in the “cherokee’s sucks” chants is troubling. Let us hear from the grown ups, not GOP operatives.
Probably because most people seem to agree that the cheer was, “Yankees suck!” If you’re going to employ dramatic metaphors, at least address the fact that Warren only became opposed to corporations when it was beneficial to do so. She had no problem working for them prior to her Senate run and advising LTV Steel, Dow Chemical, and Travelers Insurance on how to minimize their financial losses against claims from absestos victims and women who believed they were endangered by silicone breast implants.
How is it not a violation and therefore a rape to portray oneself as a member of a community while refusing to acknowledge that community?
Just because Scott Brown has his own questionable practices does not mean that Warren’s are any less troubling.
tejas,
Sorry friend, but we are neither Dem or Repub. Don’t waste your time focusing on Cole, share with us what you think is the redeeming factor of the Majority rule system that is america’s democracy. Or, why the equation of either Dem or Repub? What does it matter to us? Why does it matter?
Dear Mr. DeLaune, I know a couple of enrolled Kiowa people
in Oklahoma who wonder what in world you’re saying or speaking
to…..stop before it gets worse….
looks pretty obvious that elizabeth warren was caught in a lie and now just hopes it goes away. I recall obama using geronimo in reference to osama bin laden and have yet to hear a apology. reality will tell you nobody outside of indian country cares about either case. i wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about it.
Hate to say this to you pal, but according to Scott Brown’s definition of what an Indian looks like, you don’t fit the bill either, not to mention all the falsehoods in your op ed. ICT needs to insist that you do your homework before giving you a podium to pontificate outright falsehoods about Elizabeth Warren’s claims to Cherokee Heritage.