Page 27 of 75 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 742

Thread: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

  1. #261
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The cool thing about having your quotes right there ^^^^^ for everyone to see is that it's painfully obvious you were lying and can't even admit it when it could not be any clearer. Man up and admit it -- it won't kill you.
    Believe me, I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone of goodwill reading what I posted and drawing conclusions. You're the one who should worry.


    It was your link. Click on it.
    Oh? Where did he say anything about "comments"?


    Given that she was married, and that we're talking about the 19th century, the reasonable assumption is that her husband was the head of the household.
    It might be, except that she was named. Your assumption was that she wasn't.


    But even if that wasn't the case, the questions asked in the census don't provide the purported answers that are claimed.
    Which "answers" are those? You've gone out into the weeds; do you even remember what the "claim" was?


    Fair enough -- I missed that.
    Was that so hard?


    So ... any theory as to why someone in the Warren family lied about it in 2006 in a family newsletter?
    Find someone who claimed they lied. Lots of people believe things about their families which aren't true. Doesn't have to go back that many generations, either.


    I mean the claimed results from early census questions that couldn't possibly provide the information that the author claims he gleaned from them.
    Again, which "claims" are these? His claims were that she was mentioned by name and that she was listed as "white." According to all of your info on census-taking of the day, yes, they could "possibly" have done so.


    It's beyond sad. It's a pathetic attempt to swiftboat a dedicated public servant who's infinitely brighter than that dimwit Scott Brown.
    Yeah. They should be digging up 46 year-old stories about what Romney did as a kid instead, right?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #262
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,173

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    so, Warren is at least 1/32 Indian
    the same percentage of Indian blood as the current Chief of the Western Band of the Cherokee Nation
    she did not claim minority status based on her Indian heritage
    thus, she realized no benefit due to her Indian heritage

    now, what is it that the reich wingers are whining about?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #263
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    912

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I'm not disputing Mr. Baker's bloodlines although I don't know anyone that considers Wikipedia dependable. It's Warren's claim that is proving to be false.

    Now, decades after Ms. Warren first began making these unsubstantiated claims about her Native American heritage, Chris Child, a researcher at the New England Genealogical Office, has offered one bit of evidence that some claim support Ms. Warren's contention that she has Cherokee heritage. But it's not much.

    Mr. Child found that Ms. Warren’s great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, had a brother, William Crawford. In 1894, when William Crawford was about 57 years old, he submitted a marriage application to the officials of Logan County, in what was then Oklahoma Territory. In that application, William Crawford stated he wished to receive a license to marry Mary Long, and he further stated that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was a Cherokee.

    Here's the problem with that evidence: Nowhere do the records of that time support William Crawford's claim.

    We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret "Peggy" Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There's no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father's father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas' birth in 1731.

    O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as "Oma" or "Neoma"—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren's great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.

    It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith's son that Ms. Warren's assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.

    However, it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage.

    Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian.

    So why would Ms. Warren's great-great-grand-uncle make up such a thing? Perhaps he showed the same kind of tendency towards ancestral "embellishment" that she herself seems to exhibit, or perhaps there was some logistical or tactical benefit in the Oklahoma Territory of 1894 to him and his intended bride that encouraged him to make the claim. Or perhaps he believed it to be true, even though in all probability it was not. We will likely never know.
    No Credible Evidence for Warren's Claim to Native American Ancestry

  4. #264
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Believe me, I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone of goodwill reading what I posted and drawing conclusions. You're the one who should worry.
    I worry that you have a bizarre inability to admit the most blatant error. You should be worried about it, too.


    Oh? Where did he say anything about "comments"?
    The link is to nothing BUT comments.


    It might be, except that she was named. Your assumption was that she wasn't.
    There is no indication that she was or was not named. You're lying again.


    Which "answers" are those? You've gone out into the weeds; do you even remember what the "claim" was?
    Concentrate. Try to follow the conversation. The censuses did not ask for the race of individuals in the household, but rather only asked about how many white, black, or mulattos were in the household over all. It did not ask if there were any Indians in the household. Accordingly, there is no way the author could determine from the censuses that the woman was listed as white.

    Was that so hard?
    Not at all -- you should try it some time.

    Find someone who claimed they lied. Lots of people believe things about their families which aren't true. Doesn't have to go back that many generations, either.
    Seems a rather specific thing to claim if there was no basis for it. A lot of people might say, "my great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee", but to pull out of thin air that her son listed her as Cherokee on his wedding application? Doubtful, IMO.

    His claims were that she was mentioned by name and that she was listed as "white." According to all of your info on census-taking of the day, yes, they could "possibly" have done so.
    Again, you are making **** up. He never claimed that she was mentioned by name. You only say that because you realize how weak your argument is if she wasn't listed by name. And of course that's stupid, because it makes no difference if she was listed by name or not. The census only asked for the number of people in the three groups by household.

    Yeah. They should be digging up 46 year-old stories about what Romney did as a kid instead, right?
    Certainly those stories would be more relevant than the race of a candidates great-great-great grandmother.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #265
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry7 View Post
    I'm not disputing Mr. Baker's bloodlines although I don't know anyone that considers Wikipedia dependable. It's Warren's claim that is proving to be false.

    Now, decades after Ms. Warren first began making these unsubstantiated claims about her Native American heritage, Chris Child, a researcher at the New England Genealogical Office, has offered one bit of evidence that some claim support Ms. Warren's contention that she has Cherokee heritage. But it's not much.

    Mr. Child found that Ms. Warren’s great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, had a brother, William Crawford. In 1894, when William Crawford was about 57 years old, he submitted a marriage application to the officials of Logan County, in what was then Oklahoma Territory. In that application, William Crawford stated he wished to receive a license to marry Mary Long, and he further stated that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was a Cherokee.

    Here's the problem with that evidence: Nowhere do the records of that time support William Crawford's claim.

    We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret "Peggy" Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There's no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father's father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas' birth in 1731.

    O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as "Oma" or "Neoma"—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren's great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.

    It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith's son that Ms. Warren's assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.

    However, it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage.

    Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian.

    So why would Ms. Warren's great-great-grand-uncle make up such a thing? Perhaps he showed the same kind of tendency towards ancestral "embellishment" that she herself seems to exhibit, or perhaps there was some logistical or tactical benefit in the Oklahoma Territory of 1894 to him and his intended bride that encouraged him to make the claim. Or perhaps he believed it to be true, even though in all probability it was not. We will likely never know.
    No Credible Evidence for Warren's Claim to Native American Ancestry
    Wikipedia is widely regarded as a good source of information. The article you cite has been discussed ad nauseum above.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #266
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Wikipedia is widely regarded as a good source of information. The article you cite has been discussed ad nauseum above.
    Your own "credible" source disagrees with you.

    Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. From the site:
    Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
    This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.

    It's a starting point, period.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #267
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Your own "credible" source disagrees with you.

    Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. From the site:


    It's a starting point, period.
    The article you cited says that ANY encyclopedia is just a starting point for ACADEMIC research. So yeah, I wouldn't cite it in a doctoral thesis, but it's generally a good source for interweb discussions. It's certainly more credible than Breitbart, insofar as it generally includes hyperlinked footnotes that you can check if you aren't too lazy.

    More Wikpedia on Wikipedia:

    The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1]

    Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature responded to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability have been raised.[by whom?][9] However, omissions sometimes remained an issue, at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information.[citation needed]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
    I have a professor friend who was trying to get a Wikipedia entry about his university's astronomy lab. He was amazed at how much checking they do and how much paperwork you have to fill out to actually get an entry.
    Last edited by AdamT; 05-13-12 at 12:39 AM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #268
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The article you cited says that ANY encyclopedia is just a starting point for ACADEMIC research. So yeah, I wouldn't cite it in a doctoral thesis, but it's generally a good source for interweb discussions. It's certainly more credible than Breitbart, insofar as it generally includes hyperlinked footnotes that you can check if you aren't too lazy.

    More Wikpedia on Wikipedia:



    I have a professor friend who was trying to get a Wikipedia entry about his university's astronomy lab. He was amazed at how much checking they do and how much paperwork you have to fill out to actually get an entry.
    Ah. So academia, where theory is more important than results(fine, it's research) doesn't accept Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source, so that's the focal point you want to go with, fine. Reality, which deals with results requires a higher standard than academia, so if the source is tertiary to academia it is moreso to reality. So, which logical fallacy committed do you want me to address first? The "appeal to authority" or "attack the messenger" fallacy? You have committed both using your own source. Face it, you stepped into the "kill box" and lost.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #269
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Ah. So academia, where theory is more important than results(fine, it's research) doesn't accept Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source, so that's the focal point you want to go with, fine. Reality, which deals with results requires a higher standard than academia, so if the source is tertiary to academia it is moreso to reality. So, which logical fallacy committed do you want me to address first? The "appeal to authority" or "attack the messenger" fallacy? You have committed both using your own source. Face it, you stepped into the "kill box" and lost.
    I think you should try to stick to reality, where Wikipedia is generally considered a pretty good source, and certainly better than any partisan blog, like Breitbart. And by all means you should avoid commenting on academia so as to avoid sounding silly.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #270
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I think you should try to stick to reality, where Wikipedia is generally considered a pretty good source, and certainly better than any partisan blog, like Breitbart. And by all means you should avoid commenting on academia so as to avoid sounding silly.
    Translation: As long as my source says what I want it to it's a great source, until it says it's not a great source and destroys my argument entirely, then I will commit logical fallacies for and against it and other debators as well. Me want my way damnit.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 27 of 75 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •