Pocahontas?

Postby freyjaceleste862 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:57 am

I learnt something today about this derogatory term in the US. Didn't know Pocahontas is an insult to a Native American or one of such descent. No thanks of course to DJT.
love cooking, panty/knicker gags, nappies, handicapped.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:28 am

I'm not aware it was offensive to anyone before Trump used it that way. Pocahontas was simply the name of a semi-mythical/lengendary native American girl considered something of a heroine. At least to white Americans;to Native Americans likely not so much if at all. It is uncertain the Pocahontas story actually even happened though the person herself certainly existed. Her name certainly did not have the negative connotations that such words as squaw do. I think it was only when Dumbold Trump made such a big deal about Elizabeth Warren's claims to be partly Native American that this whole stink started.
And really, what's so odd if Warren is partly Native American? A lot of Americans have Native American ancestry whether they know it or not. I do myself, though it's several generations back and doesn't show except (possibly) for light body hair and a partial intolerance for citrus products. So why it is a big deal tha she claims she is 1/32 Cherokee? I myself am 1/16 Iroquois. I can't prove it either as it is just what I was always told; I have no documentation but why would my parents and other relatives lie to me about it?
I don't think Pocahontas per se was offensive to Native Americans so much as his use of the name as an insult was, though i may be wrong. But considering what a racist Trump is - despite his absurd denials of being one - his calling Senator Warren Pocahontas should be offensive to anyone not just to Native Americans.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Mr Irony » Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:53 am

I prefer the name Fauxcahontas for Elizabeth Warren since she lied about being of American Indian descent to benefit her career.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:39 am

Mr Irony wrote:I prefer the name Fauxcahontas for Elizabeth Warren since she lied about being of American Indian descent to benefit her career.

How do you know she lied? Just because she can't prove it directly doesn't mean anything. Why would being part American Indian be so hard to believe anyway? A lot of people are; including me! I can't prove my ancestry either - not that doing so would benefit me or harm me for that matter anyway near as I know. You probably can't even prove anything about your own ancestry past four generations yourself - if you even know anything about your ancestors that far back. Until the recent genealogy craze a lot of people didn't know anything of their ancestors who weren't still alive.
I only know about mine because my father actually had his genealogy traced back ten generations (an easy feat for him because they all lived in the same area the whole time) and even had a book listing them (which disappeared after he died; i never knew what happened to it) and my mother's family had kept track of everyone in theirs for at least five generations (six if you count me) and a direct line of begats or whatever for another several going back to Quebec (they're mainly French).
And why is her ancestry even relevant? Virtually no one seems to care (or remember) that President Obama is actually half white! So who cares one way or the other if Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee? Big deal!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Mr Irony » Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:11 pm

Her ancestry is relevant because she used the claim to forward her career via affirmative action over other potential more deserving individuals. It wasn't like she made the claim to someone at a cocktail party or among close friends. She certified to it on an official document. Most people would say that saying you are one ethnicity on a legal document when you cannot prove that fact is at best 'misleading' if not an outright lie. It seems pretty clear she made a statement without evidence for personal gain which most people, myself included, find highly distasteful.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:46 pm

Mr Irony wrote:Her ancestry is relevant because she used the claim to forward her career via affirmative action over other potential more deserving individuals. It wasn't like she made the claim to someone at a cocktail party or among close friends. She certified to it on an official document. Most people would say that saying you are one ethnicity on a legal document when you cannot prove that fact is at best 'misleading' if not an outright lie. It seems pretty clear she made a statement without evidence for personal gain which most people, myself included, find highly distasteful.

Really? I don't see how that would even work. I have Iroquois and black ancestry myself but that's never made any difference in my life that I am aware of. When I check boxes for race in medical applications and so on I just check Caucasian since i don't consider 3% Iroquois nor 3% African ancestry particularly relevant... and i cannot believe Affirmative Action or anyone else would consider it relevant either.
Afaik there is absolutely no evidence Elizabeth Warren capitalized or even tried to capitalize on this anyway; at least i cannot find any documentation fo this anywhere. It doesn't sound credible to me anyone would try to, and certainly would never have occurred to me to try to do something like this myself because i think that would be idiotic to so so and likely of no help to me whatsoever. I'd be laughed at if i wanted to claim I was a member of an Indian nation,I doubt the NAACP gives a flying f**k that I had a black ancestor as a great-great-great grandmother who lived and died somewhere in the 19th century. Nor do I think they should.
In any case, relevant or not, Trump's use of the term Pocohontas to mock her should be considered deeply offensive to anyone with any sensitivity at all; regardless of Warren's ancestry. I wouldn't like it if someone named me Squanto or Chaka either, come to think of it... unlikely as that is as my black ancestry shows even less than my Iroquois ancestry does if at all. But the idea of it would be racist regardless of how insulting I thought such terms to be. And that should be the real point here; not Warren's distant ancestry.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby wataru14 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:00 pm

How exactly did she use it to forward her career?

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby freyjaceleste862 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:43 pm

Mr Irony wrote:I prefer the name Fauxcahontas for Elizabeth Warren since she lied about being of American Indian descent to benefit her career.


She lied maybe does she deserve to be called that? You've never lied?
love cooking, panty/knicker gags, nappies, handicapped.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Mr Irony » Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:52 pm

freyjaceleste862 wrote:
Mr Irony wrote:She lied maybe does she deserve to be called that? You've never lied?


On a legal document? No, I haven't.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Mr Irony » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:13 pm

wataru14 wrote:How exactly did she use it to forward her career?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... blication/

A quote from the article:

Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law:

I have known from highly-credible sources for a decade that in the past Warren identified herself as a Native American in order to put herself in a position to benefit from hiring preferences…She was quite outspoken about it at times in the past and, as her current defenses have suggested, she believed that she was entitled to claim it

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby wataru14 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:58 pm

Breitbart? Really? I wouldn't line a birdcage with that rag. Do you have a reputable source?

Even the person quoted in the article is just putting forth hearsay without any specifics. A law professor should know that's not good enough. When did she do this? Where did she do this? Is there documentation? Or just "some guy told me she totally did it"?

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:36 pm

This sounds like a more reputable and unbiased source of information on the matter to me.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... at/257415/
As the sub-headline states:
The Democratic Senate candidate can't back up family lore that she is part Indian -- but neither is there any evidence that she benefited professionally from these stories.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby wataru14 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:43 pm

That is much better. The fact that there's no evidence she gained anything at all by her claim makes the whole thing a complete non-issue for me.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Mr Irony » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:55 pm

wataru14 wrote:That is much better. The fact that there's no evidence she gained anything at all by her claim makes the whole thing a complete non-issue for me.


If it didn't benefit her at all then why do you think she put it on her application?

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby wataru14 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:04 am

Mr Irony wrote:If it didn't benefit her at all then why do you think she put it on her application?


Because she thought it made her look cool? I honestly don't know. She did not use it to gain entrance to Rutgers. The Atlantic article states:

"On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.

So, again, I don't care if she did or she didn't. It's such a non-issue I don't understand why we're talking about it in the first place.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby drawscore » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:03 am

Would it make the politically correct crowd feel any better if she was called "Lieawatha?"

Drawscore

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby drawscore » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:16 am

wataru14 wrote:Because she thought it made her look cool? I honestly don't know. She did not use it to gain entrance to Rutgers. The Atlantic article states: "On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.

So, again, I don't care if she did or she didn't. It's such a non-issue I don't understand why we're talking about it in the first place.


For the record, she claimed Native American ancestry to obtain a teaching position at Harvard. I've heard that she teaches one class, per semester, is paid $400,000 to do it, and yet, rails about "income inequality." The Senate must have been quite a come down for her. A senator's salary is $174,000 a year - less than half of what Harvard pays her.

Drawscore

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby misterg792000 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:28 am

Mr Irony wrote:
wataru14 wrote:That is much better. The fact that there's no evidence she gained anything at all by her claim makes the whole thing a complete non-issue for me.


If it didn't benefit her at all then why do you think she put it on her application?


Because her entire family had grown up hearing that they were part Cherokee. Not at all uncommon in certain parts of the country, yet difficult to definitively prove for a variety of reasons.

drawscore wrote:Would it make the politically correct crowd feel any better if she was called "Lieawatha?"


I like how the simple act of not openly being a racist asshole is enough to get one labelled "politically correct" these days. Tune in next week when drawscore refers to Obama as "Kunta Kinte" and Tammy Duckworth as "Charlie Chan".

Friendly Reminder: you pretended to be a Vietnam vet on this very board.

drawscore wrote:For the record, she claimed Native American ancestry to obtain a teaching position at Harvard. I've heard that she teaches one class, per semester, is paid $400,000 to do it, and yet, rails about "income inequality."


When you're poor, people like drawscore say you're "jealous" if you point out the income equality issue. If you're rich, they then call you a hypocrite if you point it out. Seems like you're doing your best to avoid the subject.
Last edited by misterg792000 on Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby freyjaceleste862 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:31 am

So she lied. Just say she lied. Does calling her Pocahontas help you become POTUS? What nicknames are you going to given Angela Merkel or Helen Clark if you found out they lied Mr. Trump?
love cooking, panty/knicker gags, nappies, handicapped.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:36 am

I can definitely think of much worse things Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton have lied about than this ancestry issue; even assuming Warren lied at all (which I don't think she did for reasons I have already gone into too much personal detail about). The real issue is his racism and his own crooked business practices. Trump is no more fit to be POTUS than *I* am.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby truly_trussed » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:41 am

Jase, at least you proudly served in the US Military. "The Donald" is the first GOP nominee since Wendell Wilkie in 1940 to have no experience in the public sector. Presidents Washington, Polk, Grant and Eisenhower were military generals. Herbert Hoover never held elective office before becoming POTUS but was a cabinet secretary.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby freyjaceleste862 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:44 am

Almost all Presidents before WJ Clinton served if I'm not wrong?
love cooking, panty/knicker gags, nappies, handicapped.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby truly_trussed » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:47 am

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. all served in WW II.

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:10 am

truly_trussed wrote:Jase, at least you proudly served in the US Military. "The Donald" is the first GOP nominee since Wendell Wilkie in 1940 to have no experience in the public sector. Presidents Washington, Polk, Grant and Eisenhower were military generals. Herbert Hoover never held elective office before becoming POTUS but was a cabinet secretary.

I appreciate the vote of confidence but i only ever rose to the rank of buck sergeant; the equivalent of a corporal in the Marines or the Army. I have no real supervisory experience in the military (nor anywhere else unless you count being an editor for small-time freelance publications as supervisory) and i am pretty sure I would be pretty rotten at it. Now, make me an unlimited dictator and perhaps I could handle it and get things done. But POTUS? No; that job would kill me within a week just from sheer frustration.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby truly_trussed » Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:28 am

Well, as a Buck Sergeant I'm sure you did a lot a bucking while bound and gagged and hogtied. :lol:

cheers

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:09 am

truly_trussed wrote:Well, as a Buck Sergeant I'm sure you did a lot a bucking while bound and gagged and hogtied. :lol:

cheers

Yeah, actually i did, some.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Pocahontas?

Postby drawscore » Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:12 am

truly_trussed wrote:Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. all served in WW II.


Going back further, Truman was an Army captain in WW I. Eisenhower graduated from West Point in 1906 ("The class the stars fell on."), and must have also had World War I service.

Drawscore