Imagine if Warren had claimed black ancestry: Would they have shown up with watermelons?

Blue Mass. Group posted this video of Scott Brown staffers doing oh-no-not-at-all-racist war cries and tomahawk chops outside the Eire Pub in Dorchester the other day. And, of course, this being Boston, well, no rally is complete without a "Yankees suck!" chant.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

At least their fearless

By on

At least their fearless leader came out strongly against this kind of behavior, with a clear, unmuddled message. Oh, never mind:

"It is certainly something that I don't condone," said Brown when asked about the video. "The real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

A campaign

By on

claiming to be the good guy neighbor, and a classic bi-partisan, resorting to this type of classic Rovian smear can only mean one thing; Scott Brown is losing, and he knows his record is as thin as tissue paper.

Why attack Warren over her common family heritage, and try to confuse her work on setting up an asbestos trust. Why not focus on that supposedly lengthy checklist of bipartisan votes, of reaching across the isle, of getting things done in Washington?

It's because it doesn't exist, and the citizens of the Commonwealth are not the lambs that these types of sideshows attacks suggest he thinks we are.

Why does Scott Brown think his constituents are brainless children that won't look into the facts of the race, and his record?

Mmmm

By on

"claiming to be the good guy neighbor, and a classic bi-partisan, resorting to this type of classic Rovian smear can only mean one thing; Scott Brown is losing, and he knows his record is as thin as tissue paper".

Orrr People think Liz is a joke!

up
10

That joke

By on

has got Scott Brown seriously off message. Unless you agree that calling someone "professor" in a state where most people live within 15 miles of a college is a slur?

I don't know who's advising Brown, but he sure as hell is drinking the kool-aide if he thinks this destroying of Browns only claim to the seat is a good idea in this state, at this time in the political landscape.

up
10

You need a car!

By on

" in a state where most people live within 15 miles of a college is a slur?" MA is larger than just the Greater Boston Area/ 128 belt. You should get out more!

You need a map

By on

Most PLACES in MA may not be within 15 miles of a college, but a population density weighted map shows that most PEOPLE live within 15 miles of a college.

up
10

AND ...here's a newsflash

There are colleges in MA that are actually outside Rte 128!!! for real, there's these places called WPI and Clark out in Woostah!

Then you got yer Amherst, your mass college of liberal arts in North Adams. Even Paxton has a colllege in it.

up
10

GO EVEN further!

By on

You got Berkshire CC, Elms, Greenfield CC, Mount Holyoke, Westfield, just to name a few.

Or to put it another way, how much of both private and public higher education is directly tied to both our economy, and our status in the nation?

Just about everyone knows someone working in primary, secondary, or higher education teaching in this state, or working at a educational facility.

up
10

Regardless of who you're voting for....

By on

you should care that this has been picked up by the national media outlets and is not showing our outpost on the North Atlantic in a particularly favorable light.

Frankly, I'd rather people associate Massachusetts with a pretty bright spot in an otherwise dim national economy.

Amen!

By on

If you want to know why the GOP has shrunk to 11% of the Massachusetts electorate, well here it is. These people gladly wear their badges, and claim to represent the NE Republican old guard.

Instead they look more like the children running things down in Alabama, or Mississippi.

There's a sickness running through the party. It's ironic that tribalism is front and center, here for everyone to see. But it's not Warren being associated with it.

up
12

The MA GOP does it to itself.

By on

With precisely this kind of nonsense and the imbecile candidates that the party puts up (I don't think that Brown is super bright, but he is not an imbecile). Many people around here would be perfectly happy to vote for a bright traditional "Yankee" Republican (fiscally conservative, socially libertarian - Brown gets kind of near this sometimes, but not close enough). In a remarkable feat of political malnourishment, the MA GOP refuses to field candidates that fit that description. Furthermore, many of the people who would vote for a candidate like that would not like to be associated with idiots like those in the video and the Boston Herald.

Bill Weld would easily win this race. In fact, I often wonder if he remembers me asking him (when I ran into him in NY about 4 years ago) whether he would come back and run again if Senator Kennedy died. He replied that he would not. I have to believe that when he saw the Coakley/Brown race he realized that he made a mistake, and that he kicks himself a little harder each time he hears about this race. (Just listen to this interview from a couple of weeks ago - I'm not so sure that he's totally resigned to political retirement yet.)

Get back to basics, MA GOP, jettison the talk radio idiots and their lemmings, and watch your numbers grow.

The sad thing

By on

is a Yankee Republican would be horribly powerful in Washington, and also be in a prime position to reform the national GOP. If Brown did more of what he claims, he'd be in the prefect spot for re-election, and also would become a beacon to creating the GOP of the future. (with the caveat that he'd have to build a strong primary constituency, otherwise face the loony 10%). I know plenty of moderates and conservatives ready to move and sign up to that cause.

When you are the deciding vote, and you can vote either way, you become more powerful. You might not get the full support of the RNC, but that's when working both sides of the isle come into play, and also when building your own base becomes important.

Saw what you will about Kennedys' politics, but he realized that. He got shit done, and his office worked for anyone, personally, that called.

Brown had nothing to gain from toeing the party line, especially seeing who he claims to represent. He could have been a force, but he didn't have the guts to.

Ditto with Romney. Who's going to be the first to break the fever running through the national platform and reform it?

up
11

My guess?

By on

Angus King.

But you bring up an interesting point about Romney. I think that he's more moderate than the national party has let him be (and that is, in part, why he sucks so badly as a campaigner). Maybe not a hell of a lot, but certainly more.

As an elected President becomes the undisputed head of his/her party, Romney would have the chance to remake the party - as a Senator, Brown does not have nearly as bully a pulpit.

In my most far-fetched thoughts, if Romney wins the election, he publicly thanks everyone in the party and then turns on the CEO in a meeting with its "leaders" (including Rove et al.). The meeting goes something like this: "Hey guys, thanks for the help and for coming by the White House. I'm running this show now, understand? All of you southern, western and religious right crazies can STFU right now - yeah, that's right STFU right now. What you don't like it? Where you gonna go? You gonna start a third party? Ask Ross Perot and Ralph Nader how that works out. I'm taking this party back to the mainstream and you either get on board, or I'm going to leave tire tracks on your back (and maybe my dog, if it falls off the roof). And I'm going to win over 60% of the popular vote in 2016 because of it."

11% is a bit misleading

By on

Over 50% of registered voters in Massachusetts are unenrolled (what other states call Independent). So when you hear things like "there are 3x as many Democrats as Republicans in MA" it's true but it's not an accurate representation of the state of the electorate here.

Similarly, of the < 50% of registered voters, 11% are Republican, let's say 30% are Democrat and the rest are Green, Libertarian and various "Other" parties. The raw numbers aren't really impressive.

Here is data from the 2008 election. I doubt it's changed dramatically since then:

Massachusetts
Democrat: 1,559,464
Republican: 490,259
Other: 28,887
Unenrolled: 2,141,878
Total: 4,220,488

Citation:
http://www.elections.gmu.edu/Registration_2008G.html

Very true

By on

But Conservative != Republican. And that only 10-11% and dropping want to aligns themselves with that brand is telling.

Many Dems themselves are socially liberal/libertarian, but fiscally conservative. Hell, there's still Dems that are socially conservative, and economically commie/union.

We're a pretty purple state, and the the labels are very misleading. I was just pointing out that right now that brand is toxic, and I personally don't think it's a candidate issue, but a lack of ideas and their push towards tribalism.

up
10

Vote for Scott

By on

Six more years of content-free Frat Boy with a Truck bullcrap!

Why aren't these people at work?

By on

These clowns make me a sad, sad OFD but I have to admit that if that chant is going to happen anywhere, it's going to be in Dorchester or Southie.

I saw Scott Brown near South Station around lunch today doing a meet and greet and the people holding signs were young kids who volunteer or people who took a long lunch. Fair enough.

There was also media coverage so it was kept pretty small and contained. Only a few people actually got to be near him.

For what it's worth (nothing), I got a good look at Senator Brown as I was walking by and this has nothing to do with the way I'm voting but I would not throw that guy out of bed for eating crackers.

up
13

The old "at work" line

By on

It seems to make it into just about any thread about people doing anything the poster doesn't deem a worthy activity.

Not everyone works the same shift you do. Don't you ever use restaurants, hospitals, grocery stores, cabs, buses, at times other than M-F 9-5 and notice that the people running such things are WORKING? Therefore, they often have time off during the 9-5 hours.

And either way, while this particular activity is something I find really distasteful, a lot of 9-5 jobs give people personal days and flex time, and some people might use these for protesting or volunteering or picking their noses or whatever they feel is meaningful to them.

You don't win any arguments by suggesting that it's your business when someone does their job.

This questioning of Warren's

By on

This questioning of Warren's ancestry only works if you can prove she is deliberately lying about it for personal gain. If she honestly thinks she's Native American, even though that may be a stretch from most people's point of view, you could paint her as delusional, but a liar and a cheat is another thing altogether. If she thinks she's a Native American, who can say otherwise unless they can provide blood results and a genealogical chart? Brown's comment that she 'doesn't look like one' just strikes me as amazingly childish, and makes him look quite petty.

Imagine if Warren has said, 'Scott Brown can't have been molested as a child because he doesn't look or act like he's been molested,' or 'since Scott Brown won't name his accuser or produce any evidence, I doubt this story that he was molested and I believe he only spoke of the incident to help sell his book and get himself elected'. That would be even more reprehensible, but the principal is the same isn't it?

Oh, and for the record, I believe Brown's story.

Looks

I agree. I somewhat liked Brown until the last debate when really went off on the "Just look at her!" stuff. It just reminds me of some co-workers who get annoyed when people just assume they are Jewish due to their looks and then ask them why they aren't observing the Jewish holidays. Or people who _are_ Jewish and want to observe the holiday but get harassed because they don't "look" Jewish and people think they are trying to get a free day out of work.

If Warren (or anyone else) identifies as Native American then who am I to question them? It's not like she would be sleeping on the street as opposed to a Harvard Prof had she not checked that box. Most people I've known who consider themselves Native American don't look like Pocahontas.

Looks and Reality

By on

I am one of the "dark" ones in my family. I look like my grandmother and great-grandmother, who were of substantially mixed White/African/Native descent. My mother was had nearly see-through fair skin with raven hair despite my grandfather being 1/8 Cherokee in addition to my grandmother's mixed heritage.

With a good tan, I am darker than my relatives by marriage who are Puerto Rican, and people will speak Spanish to me (or sometimes speak English verrrry slowwwwly) in Spain and Mexico, and I field a occasional queries in Spanish and Portuguese when I walk near tourist areas in Boston. I was also told that I appear "high yellow" in a discussion of race with a professor from New Orleans. I identify as white.

Meanwhile, my brother is blonde and fair skinned and quite Nordic looking. One of my sons is olive skinned with black hair (and unfortunately familiar with more than a few anti-Brazilian and anti-Hispanic slurs), the other is blonde and fair like my brother - and people were shocked when his high school class tested their mRNA and his maternal line goes to Africa.

We all have similar heritage and are genetically related. There is an incredible variety, however, in how we appear in the racially galvanized landscape. Grandma, myself, and older son would not pass a "one drop" test on sight, while my mother and brother and younger son would.

That's the problem with assessing heritage according to appearance.
There is an interesting exhibit at the Museum of the Native American in DC about stupefying attempts to judge "racial content" by appearance as a means of allowing or denying franchise, and how it was not really as scientific as it pretended to be. Scott brown is going there, even though it is debunked, even though it harkens back to the days of Jim Crow, even though there is little to distinguich "tomahawk chops and whoops" and black face and pickaninnies.

excellent analogy

By on

excellent analogy

There is a HUGE difference

By on

between doing Native American chants for a person who IS ACTUALLY Native American and doing those chants where someone has ONLY CLAIMED to be a Native American!

She pulled a slippery move in claiming she was a "person of color" when she clearly is not. The purpose of affirmative action is to give those who have been downtrodden a chance to succeed. By doing this, Fauxahontas took away a place from someone who really did have to suffer a disadvantage due only to the color of their skin. Some qualified candidate out there had a very different life because of Fauxcahontas!

up
10

"fauxcahontas", how clever

By on

"fauxcahontas", how clever and funny!!! can you do one with President Obama's name too? It really gives credence to your opinions.

up
12

Explain to me

By on

Explain to me how this excuses the racist actions of the paid Brown staffers in this video.

Let's say that what you propose is correct (it is not, but that is a different conversation and I am sure I will not disabuse you of such a notion). How does anything Elizabeth Warren has claimed justify racist war whoops and such? Would you make such chants and gestures to the face of any Native American? Do you walk around Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun doing war whoops?

Please explain to me why it is ok.

Also, do you have special powers to decide who is of Cherokee decent and who is "clearly not" part Cherokee? Are Elvis, Chuck Norris, Cameron Diaz, and Dolly Parton liars about their heritage? Are they "clearly not" Cherokee, too, based solely on your special ability to tell people's complete ethnic backgrounds?

Furthermore, please cite definitive proof of Warren getting special treatment in hiring due to her claimed heritage. Thanks.

up
10

never judge a book....

By on

in claiming she was a "person of color" when she clearly is not

This is based on what, her physical appearance?

So if a woman has a mustache, is she not a woman because "that's not what women look like"? If LW were a blond Italian, would that imply fraud in your eyes based on her blond hair? (unless you were from Tyrol & knew better)

Have you ever seen a "real Indian"? We don't look like the Land o' Lakes girl. (thanks AICF: http://www.collegefund.org/content/real_indian)

And, guess what? Some of us mixed bloods are blond. Funny how the only people who ask me if I'm part Indian are other mixed race people, whereas the white people (or rather, those who ask me about my heritage) usually want to know if I'm Jewish. My sister looks Indian but is blond with green eyes, whereas I look like my European family, and have light skin & dark brown hair. This is not surprising given that I'm only 1/4 Indian, the rest is mixed Euro. We can't look like every one of our ancestors, only some of them.

Also, until about 40 yrs ago, in many ways it was sadly safer to "pass" if you could, to avoid things like, oh, having your kids taken from you & given to childless white folks, or having them packed off to boarding school to have the Injun driven out of them. And then there's the eugenics movement. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay... http://www.bigorrin.org/archive4.htm http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/turns/theme....

As I see it, in light of our common history, it's patently absurd to expect any mixed blood family in Warren's generation to have maintained records "proving" their Native ancestry, when that very proof was actively sought by authorities in order to destroy them.

You make a good point about the purpose of affirmative action, but your implication that minorities somehow receive benefits is a real slap in the face to those people who struggle every day because they have less social & professional capital than those who look and act "white," regardless of the color of their skin.

**This is based on what, her

By on

**This is based on what, her physical appearance?**

No, don't jump to conclusions.

This is based on her lack of an answer that satisfies anyone.

perhaps you misread?

By on

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I am challenging the poster's point

clearly she is not

. Exactly how does the poster expect her ancestry to be "clear"?

As to your statement

This is based on her lack of an answer that satisfies anyone

, why is it her job to "satisfy" anyone about her ancestry? If your concern is about an advantage she might have gained from her ancestry, where is hysterical, war-whooping request for proof of that advantage? Another poster above made a good point that without proof of this presumed gain, this whole point is moot.

** Exactly how does the

By on

** Exactly how does the poster expect her ancestry to be "clear"?**

I'll take *anything*!

**why is it her job to "satisfy" anyone about her ancestry?**

Because she claimed it to be part of "who she is" and it appears she used 1/32 ancestry (if that!) to her advantage...and quite possibly took a position that should have gone to someone else.

It's about lies and character.

Speaking of lies, her work with Asbestos and the mining company really screw up that narrative of "fighting the big guns for the little guy" huh?

It's about character.

up
14

nope

By on

This is no more about "character" than it would be if we were debating the legitimacy of SB's flippant claims about having Clinton's ear, and his meetings with royalty. This is a petty, flagrant grasp at straws. And, an ignorant one, at that.

Interesting that you respond to my posts without addressing any of my points about the issues and potential consequences of a mixed race family maintaining records "proving" native ancestry for any period before approx. 40 yrs ago. There are no ship's passenger's lists to consult, often no birth certficates or hospital records - plus, for 400 yrs there has existed every incentive to disguise or deny this same heritage out of fear of ostracism, persecution, and worse, extermination.

Also, I'm curious, why is it you want proof of (native) ethnicity, but not proof of supposed advantage gained from same? It would be hard to argue that Native people are a privileged group.

Interesting that you respond

By on

Interesting that you respond to my posts without addressing any of my points about the issues and potential consequences of a mixed race family maintaining records "proving" native ancestry for any period before approx. 40 yrs ago.

Something? Anything?

And even is she is ANY part Cherokee...is 1/32 enough to get special treatment and be listed as a "minority professor"? Give me a break!

Re. your asbestos retardery, she was arguing FOR the creation of a half-BILLION dollar settlement fund to be created by the asbestos company and/or its insurer.

Wow...what a convenient explanation!

No, it was settlement fund for asbestos victims in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits.

And who's idea was that? The people who would only receive $5k? from each settlement?

She was working, not on behalf of the claimants (believe me they did not want the company to get future indefinite immunity), she was getting a pay check from the asbestos company.

Good god you people are fucking stupid.

Says the man who can't realize he is getting bamboozled by the Warren folks.

up
10

It appears to you that she

By on

It appears to you that she "took" a position from someone? All evidence to the contrary, so far though. Witness the people that actually hired her saying that even if she had "checked a box" they didn't know it and it had no bearing on the hirings. See also that such decisions legally cannot be made based on the boxes (allegedly) checked.

Re. your asbestos retardery, she was arguing FOR the creation of a half-BILLION dollar settlement fund to be created by the asbestos company and/or its insurer. So not only was she not arguing to deny settlements, she was trying to ensure that the settlement money was set aside in a protected fund.

Good god you people are fucking stupid.

1/32 ancestry

I tell you, if I found out that anybody had used 1/32 ancestry to claim themselves as Native American, I'd be shocked and appalled.

Say, let's ask the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation what he thinks about the ridiculous idea that somebody with 1/32 blood quantum might care about that ancestry. How about it, Bill John?

No, no

That's Joe Don. But Joe Don does look a little like Bill John (and nothing like Billy Jack).

That's why they provide handy

By on

That's why they provide handy references for every statement of fact. You needn't trust the person who wrote the page. Trust an expert.

Where this is going

By on

I get the impression this is the first shot of a series. Right now it's that she claimed Indian ancestry. Next comes the ad about the asbestos litigation, then the coal mining litigation, the fact that she didn't have a law license (TBD) but was providing counsel and in the words of Lizzie, who knows what else, then you'll see a grand finale with the "godmother of the occupy movement" ad - the message/conclusion - she's not who she says she is. It'll close with the question - who is Liz Warren - and you'll get that clip of her repeating "Who knows?".

I agree - I wish they'd stop all this stuff and get down to the serious issues - like who's going to fix the economy and balance the budget - and how is it that these are not mutually exclusive goals?

And as I've said before - if Liz gets into the Senate and the Dems still control the senate - what's she going to do to get things done - if her plan is to be left of John Kerry as it appears - she's effectively useless to Mass and the country in Washington because you'll still have gridlock. I don't see her voting 46% of the time with the Republicans - 4.6% is probablly about it.

(I'm actually not a huge Kerry fan and given that I would probably vote Democratic in the next election if Brown keeps his seat - I might vote for her instead of Kerry).

up
12

Tough crap

By on

There are quite a few people in this country who don't like that evolution exists. It doesn't satisfy them. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't matter one bit whether it satisfies them as the answer for how humans developed.

Same here. How she came to believe she is part Cherokee and how it has not effected her job positions are settled matter whether it satisfies them or not.

We have a winner!

By on

As I see it, in light of our common history, it's patently absurd to expect any mixed blood family in Warren's generation to have maintained records "proving" their Native ancestry, when that very proof was actively sought by authorities in order to destroy them.

I always thought it odd that my mom's kin sold off a bunch of fairly successful businesses in the South and moved to Oregon as an extended family unit for "opportunity".

In 1873.

There were no "black" people in Oregon at that time. Nope. And my elderly aunts would grab me and flat-iron my hair and scold me to stay out of the sun.

Hey! I heard Howie Carr say that exact same thing several times

By on

today!

She pulled a slippery move in claiming she was a "person of color" when she clearly is not. The purpose of affirmative action is to give those who have been downtrodden a chance to succeed. By doing this, Fauxahontas took away a place from someone who really did have to suffer a disadvantage due only to the color of their skin. Some qualified candidate out there had a very different life because of Fauxcahontas!

Glad to see that you're capable of independent thought!

Is this a story?

By on

OK....a few young guys acting dumb does not a story make.

When I heard this on the news I pictured a group of people in full head-dress doing a war dance with tomahawks, etc.

This is a few young guys doing something silly.

And this was the a story on the news all day?

Huh?

**These young guys are Scott

By on

**These young guys are Scott Brown campaign officials...**

I doubt they are officials...unless he has 19 year old running his campaign.

Again, a few young guys acting dumb does not a story make.

Wow

By on

You're a fucking moron. You sniff paint cleaner as a kid?

Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard (camoflage shirt)

Massachusetts GOP operative Brad Garnett, front and center with tan baseball cap and gray hoodie.

(Also present, though apparently not visibly participating in the whoops and chops, are Greg Casey, Deputy Chief of Staff, (black polo near end of video), Jerry McDermott, State Director, (blue fleece and shades on head), and Jennifer Franks, special assistant, (plaid shirt, beginning)

They look like 19 year olds

By on

They look like 19 year olds to me.

Who cares. You guys are too busy getting a hard-on from Granny Warren to lighten up a bit.

up
15

I agree, this is being blown

By on

I agree, this is being blown out of porportion. Were these same people offended when Warren ignored the Native American delegates at the DNC. Or how about the group that traveled to see her? She just blew them off. Funny for someone who wanted to "meet people just like her" that when the time came, she ran. Tells me alot about her character.

up
11

Classic Racist and Bully Response

By on

lighten up a bit.

Got any more canned "excuses" that = "young white males get a free pass because ... young ... white ... male ..."?

Lighten up a bit. Got any

By on

Lighten up a bit.

Got any more canned "excuses" that = "young white males get a free pass because ... young ... white ... male ..."?

No, not because they are young/white/male...but because they are young...a tad immature, and just being silly.

Like I said...Lighten up.

Yes, it's a story

By on

It's some of Scott Brown's staff doing something racist.

I'd call that a story.

**It's some of Scott Brown's

By on

**It's some of Scott Brown's staff doing something racist. **

Imitating an Indian is racist?

Ok, are you one of Brown's

By on

Ok, are you one of Brown's staffers? Or just a troll?

Either way, thanks for representing your kind so well.

Your phony "probing" of unanswerable questions and fake outrage do a massive disservice to this state's GOP, and as a consequence, to all of us who live here. Many of us would appreciate a substantive debate about economic policy, environmental policy, or voting records. But no, Brown's campaign seems more intent on trying to fan unfounded fears of minority privilege among (gullible) whites. Bound for talk shows, indeed (see post above).

Remember when Brown asked LW to "stop scaring women"? Maybe his campaign should advise him to "stop (trying to) scare white people." It's noteworthy - although not surprising - that most people seem disinclined to take the bait.

Ok, are you one of Brown's staffers? Or just a troll?

And have you stopped beating your wife? I am so f'in tired of people impugning the motives of others. I will say however that I find it ironic that people who ignore inconvenient truths just loved the movie of the same name. Either she practiced law without bar membership or she didn't. Either she chose the US Senate as her first try at elective office or she didn't. I couldn't care less who she represented. Lawyers represent lots of odious people. Doesn't make her a bad person. The sense of entitlement is a bit much, however, IMHO.

up
11

Ok, are you one of Brown's

By on

Ok, are you one of Brown's staffers? Or just a troll?

Louie, maybe youd make some points here if every post didn't start with an insult.

Either way, thanks for representing your kind so well.

No...Thanks YOU for representing your side so well...with insults every time you open your mouth.

Maybe his campaign should advise him to "stop (trying to) scare white people."

Nobody is scared, except the Warren supporters.

It's not about Indians, or is anyone saying that Indians are bad.

It's about ehr claim to be a minority...when she clearly is not.

Please get real. After that, lighten up.

See if you can post an argument without posting an insult because

No, it wasn't.

By on

Perhaps you should brush up on what the word "racist" actually means.

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

How does imitating a war chant (something that is done at all Florida State football games) prove that these guys seeing Caucasians as being superior to Native Americans? Was it in poor taste? Of course, but being "racist" means having prejudiced opinions and acting on them. If they wouldn't let Liz Warren shop in their store, or use their water fountain, that's racist. Making some moronic hand motions is idiotic.

up
11

Also:

Lots of folks are unhappy about football teams that use tomahawk chops and war whoops. Because it's racist. People have been fighting it for years.

heart of the issue

By on

Those definitions of racist that you're using are really the core of the problem with "race" in this country (other places as well, but I'm just talking about the U.S.). First off it posits race as a real concept. It's not. It's not just that the belief of some races having superiority over others is the problem. It is the belief that "race" as a concept is anything more than a man-made construct for social ends and very useless as any sort of verifiable thing. Once you start digging into it, race is a useless idea. You want to talk about cultural differences or the genetics of specific populations, ok, but "race" is like talking about elves and unicorns.

Secondly, reducing racist activity to just the kind of behavior we can all shake our heads about when watching "Mississippi Burning" misses huge realms of wrong. It's not just the extremes like lynchings and apartheid -- it's all the little everyday things that work their way into the behavior, attitudes, beliefs and actions of "good" people who may have black/Latino/Asian friends, "so how could they be racist??"

By making this all about individual behavior, it leaves out the systemic nature of racism. It's a social construct for social ends. It keeps groups of people down to maintain other groups above. By not looking at the bigger picture of systemic racism, you'll never understand white privilege, because racism is just something that white trash do down south or in Appalachia or someplace else. A bunch of rambunctious guys supporting their candidate and calling out hypocrisy of the opponent couldn't possibly be racist. And what does football or old Hollywood movies have to do with race? "Lighten up." No. You get out of the dark.

John-W, I…I think I love

John-W, I…I think I love you.

Seriously though, very well said. Thank you for clarifying in a way that I couldn't because I was busy banging my head against my desk.

Pot meet kettle

By on

Subtle forms of racism? Did you happen to notice that your racist comment accuses only European Americans of racism?

beliefs and actions of "good" people who may have black/Latino/Asian friends, "so how could they be racist??"

bigger picture of systemic racism, you'll never understand white privilege,

Just two examples.

In my experience, racism - or whatever you want to call it - goes many ways - just ask Claudio Martinez next time he doesn't want the opinions of a "privileged white woman". If a white person had made a comment like that s/he'd be looking for a new planet to live on and this guy is still around to complain about somebody taking his reserved parking space.

We all have a lot to learn.

No No No...Jingle bells!!

By on

Stevil, you're smarter than that. When was the last time "European Americans" had their entire culture and very being dominated by another group of people who made them subservient to the economic and social underpinnings of their society? You could make a case for Spain and the Muslims, but otherwise the SYSTEMIC racism I'm referencing is almost exclusively "you and me against the world" (assuming you are like me - a white/Euro-American kinda guy - don't know if that's true).

The point is that racism is more than one person treating another person poorly. "I don't like you, you're white."=="I don't like you you're black." It's an entire society whose norms and expectations are set up for us to "reasonably" justify why we should be nervous walking down the street past a group of black kids versus a group of white kids. Or why people are so ready to hear "black people" when a politician talks about "people on welfare."

Until "European Americans" spend a few generations building the economic base of some country as slaves, I really think reverse racism is complete and utter horseshit that only serves to indicate that the speaker just doesn't get it. That doesn't mean that someone who discriminates against you because you are white is justified. Just don't think that it is equivalent to what a "non-white" person is confronted with on a daily basis in this country. All the bullshit p.c. govt programs in the world won't offset a racist society. It takes education and people willing to try and understand the complexity of what the hell is going on. Going by message boards and blogs, I have little hope for the future.

Agree to disagree

By on

I see the world very differently.

Maybe because I grew up in a town so small that if you told the Jewish kids or the one black kid your age you didn't want to be friends with them you probably had few or no friends (I don't ever recall it being even a remote issue literally from the time we were in kindergarten until we went our separate ways in college). Maybe because I have lived in the big city and I'm not scared to walk past black kids simply because they are black. Maybe it's because when I was in grad school the Black Student's Association brought a good friend to tears telling her that she acted too white and hung out with too many white people. Maybe because I lived as a minority in foreign countries for a good chunk of my adult life and I know the difference between perceived racism and actual racism first hand.

I could go on - perspective I guess. And seeing the groups of multi-racial kids hanging out together downtown clubbing on a Saturday night - I have great hope for the future. Not saying all is well with the world and there's a ways to go, but we've come a long way from Rosa, I think further than you seem to believe.

And thanks for the input on Claudio - looks like we can agree to agree on that one.

Agreed

By on

Sounds good. I'm not going to go into my personal life history or race-experiences, suffice it to say that I have lived and traveled for many years in countries where "white" is a minority. Growing up in Saugus, well let's just say it was a white youth experience. We all have specific anecdotes that might fix the issue in our heads for us, regardless of the more abstract, broader arguments we have over the issue. It's not a mathematical theorem, so at the end of the day people frequently have to end the issue with "agree to disagree" (or we can descend into name calling and mother insults).

My lack of hope has more to do with on-line discourse (and U.S. political discourse) more so than the reality on the streets. I'm also pleased when I see diverse groups of kids hanging out together. But we got to this point because of the pushing that a lot of people have done over the years despite so much reverse racism-type pushback, like we're seeing on this thread. Happily, the point where we "agree to disagree" is moving in the right direction in some venues. The coming 30 years and continued "browning" of the US is going to be really interesting.

And...

By on

Claudio is a tool. HSTF has done some good work but really once people sink into the non-profit/social entrepreneur/philanthropic yadda yadda world (what you might refer to as "poverty pimps" if you're a Howie Carr fan) they aren't much different from politicians. Ego-driven bores waving their dicks over their heads (that includes the women).

No, a white person would not have made a comment like that because then a person from the group in power would be telling a person from a group not in power to shut the fuck up because you're from that powerless group. Claudio, identified as someone from a group that usually does not have power is telling a woman from a group traditionally in power in our society to shut the fuck up. Different scenario, but it doesn't make it alright. It's the worse excuse in the world. And it doesn't make it alright.

Like I said, Claudio is a tool.

It wasn't imitating Indians,

By on

It wasn't imitating Indians, it was acting out a negative and inaccurate stereotype for the sole purpose of mocking and putting down someone who claims Native American heritage. That's what makes it bigoted and racist, not to mention ignorant.

Holy cow *thinking* that that

By on

Holy cow

*thinking* that that is imitating a native American is racist

A few young guys...

By on

who are trying, along with the candidate, of drumming up another non-story about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry. You tell me which is the non-story. Brown obviously thinks its important enough to make it the number one chess move during the debate. Seriously--it's as if Warren had started off the debate by mentioning the Cosmo centerfold. Tacky, trivial, and ultimately ridiculous.

Number one chess move?

By on

Keller brought it up, indirectly, as the first question. Because since the day the Herald broke the story about how she and Harvard gamed the affirmative action numbers, she hasn't deigned to answer the question. So the night that they entered the debate, it was the 800 lb elephant in the room.

We're still waiting on that one.

And when Braude asked her on Monday, for a list of her corporate clients, she went all Lieawatha again. Twenty-four hours later we find out she represented a steel conglomerate trying to weasel out of pension payments to retirees, who no doubt, were getting "hammered".

You want to defend that one? Because based on past performance, I don't expect a straight answer from your candidate any time soon.

You're a whore

By on

now prove why you are not!

You guys are shameless, aren't you? Just because you don't like the answers given to you by Harvard, Warren, Warrens distant relatives and every other fucking person involved in the story; doesn't mean official answers were not given.

The burden of the argument is on YOU. YOU are the ones bringing charges of racism and identity misuse. And YOU are the ones without a scrap of evidence.

Meanwhile there's visual evidence above of Brown staff being bigoted and insensitive at best, racist at worst.

Like I said Bluto, I'm gonna owe you a drink on Nov 3rd. This Alabama Macaca shit don't fly in MA

Nicely done!

By on

Answer an argument with a crude personal insult. And the Brown whooping knuckleheads are crude and childish?

Sorry. Harvard declined to release any records. Warren has declined to offer proof. Both parties gamed the system. Live with it.

Are you disputing that she was a hireling for corporate America, in her work for Travelers and LTV Steel? I know that it doesn't work with the prescribed narrative from Deval et al, but it's actually the case.

Check your geography, what we're seeing here is Oklahoma Macaca shit.

Read it again

By on

it wasn't directed at you. It was a formulation of your argument.

You want to talk about LVT steel? Fine:

Bankruptcy is built to handle “old” claims. The asbestos case we already talked about “old” that aren’t known at the time: people who were exposed but have not yet become sick.

LTV was a little different. The Coal Act was a special fund to pay health benefits to retired mine workers, won by the workers through a series of difficult strikes. The problem was that there were a great many workers, and the healthcare got expensive. The original plan was that companies handle their own ex-employees, and the government would handle the former employees of defunct companies.

In the 80s, a lot of mining and steel companies crashed. A series of companies went bankrupt; some tried to reorganize, which meant that there would continue to be an operating steel company. LTV was one that tried to reorganize.

In 1992, the government tried to address the huge health benefit shortfall by making all operating companies liable for a share of the total bill, even though the total included former employees of other companies. LTV said, wait, we dealt with these old claims for health benefits in the bankruptcy, through which it made some payments, but less than it owed. This was the position taken, I would imagine, by EW in the cert petition.

The cert petition was an appeal from an order that said “nope, this isn’t an old claim, but a new one– that must be paid in full by the reorganized company.” The UMW supported this decision because they wanted as much as possible paid into the fund.

The imposition of old claims against the reorganized company was a factor in the failure of the reorganized company, which shut down all plants and folded completely in 2000.

In the end, the health benefit fund was not paid in full, will not ever be paid in full, and there are 10 to 20 thousand fewer people working in the steel industry.

In my view, that is not a very good outcome, which is why her position was the correct one, even though not successful.

The difficult policy question is how to deal with the pension and benefit obligations of a formerly profitable industry with hundreds of thousands of employees once that industry ceases to exist.

The manner in which Brown, personally, refers to this in today’s paper is grossly misleading. At this point he has driven me completely off the fence–from where I was leaning Brown less than a week ago– to the other side.

To borrow from another post

By on

Your lucid, elaborate point
^
|
|
|
40,000 feet
|
|
|
_
Bluto

He neither cares nor wants to understand.

Me and Teddy Kennedy, 40',000 feet

By on

According to today's Herald:

"Kennedy filed bills to require bankrupt companies to honor their pension agreements to retirees and specifically cited the company Warren worked for, LTV Steel, for using bankruptcy to shirk payments to retired workers."

The silence from Warren is drowning your excuses out on that one.

Please

By on

Do tell how Teddys position is different from Warrens? You do realize what Teddy filed has nothing to with what Warren did?

popcorn.jpg

Please, I'm all ears.

Indirectly?

By on

Are you saying that poor Scotty was bullied or broadsided into attacking Warren on this issue? Pathetic. It was a cringe-worthy moment and he chose to go there himself. And you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that she hasn't "lied" about this issue--it seems pretty clear that this was a real issue for her parents, not some way-off "oh, great-grandpa used to say..." kind of story AND that Native American ancestry, especially in the Cherokee nation, is notoriously hard to prove, poorly documented, etc.

Long story short, all of this has just served to remind me that Scott Brown, who I've been thinking of as this kind of benign, moderate Republican, is actually a total d*ck. His behavior that night, coupled with the video of the idiot goons who are apparently running his campaign (yes, I agree--they do look like nineteen year olds) have been a nice wake-up call.

"I got us a reserv...."

By on

"you can't give somebody something and take it back...what are you some kind of....?"

If there isn't an applicable Seinfeld reference, it didn't happen.

Short answer: Yes

And then the staffers would be anonning on here that libruls asking them to put down their watermelons is racist because watermelons are colored.

The Choppers and Whoopers

By on

What they should do is call a press conference, and announce that, though they have no documentable proof, they are all 1/64 Micmac Indian. This is what they're parents told them, this is who they are. Chopping and whooping, much like Pow Wow Chow, are traditions that have been passed down through the generations. And they decry this attack on their families and their heritage.

I mean, if it's okay for Warren, it should be okay for them.

Silly

By on

The whole thing was silly and inoffensive. You'd have to be REALLY either a party-man [woman] and or shill, or VERY easily offended and have zero sense of humor, to get angry over that 'incident'. I've seen, heard and read FAR worse by various political campaigns ON ALL SIDES.

I am of a very mixed ancestral descent and readily admit political correctness is killing this country and society. It has become far too humorless and tight-a**ed. And one of the big ironies of all this many of the people complaining [honestly, it just makes you look insecure and whiny] have no problem ridiculing so-called WASP. It's open season on those evil white Anglo Saxon Protestants, the most evil people on Earth. Do you hold the same contempt for the Spanish and Portuguese? Because they were a lot worse than the British in regards to their former colonies. And I have a Spanish great grandfather, so I'm part Spanish. No, of course you don't. Are Asians off limits? Why, because they're pure as the driven snow? How about How about 'Natives' who routinely slaughtered and engaged in unrelenting warfare with other 'Natives' in both North and South America?

BOTH PARTIES play people off against each other, BOTH play racial, socioeconomic, and gender politics.

I've got Racist Excuse BINGO

By on

The whole thing was silly and inoffensive.

political correctness is killing this country

open season on those evil white Anglo Saxon Protestants

I have a Spanish great grandfather

It has become far too humorless and tight-a**ed

Are Asians off limits? Why, because they're pure as the driven snow?

How about How about 'Natives' who routinely slaughtered and engaged in unrelenting warfare with other 'Natives'

Go get hot and bothered with your legends of Kennewick man being a pre-land-bridge European colonist - but put the keyboard down, first, please.

WTF are you talking about

By on

Why do you HATE 'straight white males'?

Why do you hate white people who're insufficiently 'ethnic'?

Why do you hate WASP?

Why can't you answer this WITHOUT resorting to silly mocking posts about 'Kennewick Man' [sorry, like 99% of people, I had to look that up; an insider joke? Does it make you feel special and superior?]? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T rationally answer by sane and reasoned posts regarding discrimination, bigotry.

up
12

Bottom line arguments

From what I've heard, the Brown campaign feels that the real issue here is that she is untrustworthy because she apparently claimed a minority status to gain an edge in higher education faculty hiring.

From another bottom line perspective, a white, upper-middle class, straight male is telling people that a female in academia claimed an unfair advantage. You know, because there have never been any institutionalized forms of gender discrimination in higher ed faculty hires. Oh, except for that very public report done in his home state a few years ago that proved otherwise: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21mit.html?pa...

It is a nonissue to most voters (polls have made that clear), so the only reason to continue to beat this dead horse is that he has nothing else to offer. At least, that's my takeaway, and apparently a lot of others opinions it seems.

Scott Brown comes from a privileged background?

By on

SERIOUSLY? No, he doesn't. Far from it. NEITHER CANDIDATE DOES.

Why do you and others have a bug up your arse about 'straight white males'? Why do you hate and then whine about others 'hating'?

Females [even those from high socioeconomic backgrounds and those with 'connections'] have benefited from legalized discrimination, i.e. so-called affirmative action and quotas [formal and informal] for a half century.

My take on discrimination, bigotry and un-fair advantages in our society is it's almost entirely SOCIOECONOMIC, NOT gender based, racial based or certainly not ethnically based. A male of female of any so-called race [we're all part of the human race, aren't we?] or ethnicity is at a distinct disadvantage, especially working class and 'poor' white males, who receive zero special considerations, unlike both 'poor' and advantaged black folks and other 'minorities' [including socioeconomically privileged white females] through affirmative action and quota programs. This has been going on for 40 plus years now, so it's nothing new.The vast majority of people alive today were born under this system where some are legally treated as deserving special privileges above others. White, black, Hispanic, Asian, straight, gay,bisexual, male/female people of a certain socioeconomic class or those who attended the ruling class schools are VERY PRIVILEGED compared to everyone else, regardless of gender, 'race', ethnicity or sexual orientation. Yet many of these privileged people are treated like they were oppressed and deserving of being more equal than others!

As for people not caring about Liz Warren LYING about her Indian/Native status [she LIED to get special advantages] is probably true. Our society has become immune to these ENDLESS scandals and hypocrisy among both our 'elite' and average people. And, likewise most people don't care about the 'whooping' scandal,either.

Hmmm...

Where did I say that Brown came from a privileged background?

I think the fact that you have made that assumption and then based your whole argument against that strawman kinda proves a point. Either way, I can't intelligently respond to your post for reasons that aren't worth listing because you wouldn't care anyway. You have an opinion, and no amount of information or facts will dissuade you from it, it seems.

really?

By on

'From another bottom line perspective, a white, upper-middle class, straight male is telling people that a female in academia claimed an unfair advantage.'

You imply it here,Craig. And you take a gratuitous snark at 'white, upper class STRAIGHT male[s]'.

Great counter-argument

Please make sure to share those with the rest of the Brown campaign staff for the next debate prep.

The PERCEPTION that a white, upper-middle class straight male is calling foul on an issue of discrimination is the problem, and is probably a good part of the reason why the "issue" only motivates people like you who would vehemently oppose pretty much any Dem who ran for the office anyway. Seriously. No one outside of Howie Carr listeners and Herald readers really cares much about this issue, regardless of the facts involved (such as she might very well BE of Native American descent, or that she didn't actually "gain" any advantage anyway). Check the polls. I'm right. Science.

Oh, and since this is the internet and you can't see me, allow me to clarify that I am a white, middle class, straight male. Just to save you time in responding that I must be some man-hating feminist or something (although that would be entertaining!).

You assume incorrectly I wouldn't vote for a Democrat

By on

I have and would again. I'm not a Republican, Craig, I'm independent - un-enrolled.

The fact you're a 'straight' white male is meaningless,also. There are plenty of brainwashed [IMHO] 'straight' white males who'll gladly hate on other 'straight' white males, and they do this for a variety of reasons. Black people can hate or discriminate against other black people, same with Asians, Hispanics, gays, whatever. It's common, actually. I believe most 'hate' is rooted in socioeconomics and a dislike or scorn for those perceived to be lower on the scale than you. I believe people of all 'races', ethnicities, genders, religions, sexual orientation are capable of this, and often directed at their 'own kind'.

I believe Liz Warren is a blatant hypocrite [as are Harvard] for LYING about her fake minority status. Is it the worse thing in the world? No, of course not. I'd overlook it if it was the only thing I dislike about her, but it's not. And when a goofy incident like this occurs, and her supporters respond like uber sensitive teen girls [I think much of the 'outrage' is of course feigned] it just confirms some of my other concerns.

"My take on discrimination,

"My take on discrimination, bigotry and un-fair advantages in our society is it's almost entirely SOCIOECONOMIC, NOT gender based, racial based or certainly not ethnically based."

Wow, okay, so wealthy blacks aren't called n____r and are never, oh, say, pulled over for DWB. No one said that the current president of the United States got into Harvard because he's, you may have noticed, black. No one ever claims a woman slept her way into her job if she's rich. When the border patrol detained the former governor of Arizona and US Ambasador to Bolivia, it had nothing to do with his being hispanic.

There certainly is socioeconomic discrimination. That does not mean that there isn't other bigotry as well.

From boston.com The

By on

From boston.com

The principal chief of the Cherokee Nation today denounced Senator Scott Brown’s campaign staffers for what he called “offensive and racist behavior” against Native Americans, calling on Brown to apologize.

I think it's time for Brown to apologize to Native Americans on behalf of those who work for him. My friends' kids in kindergarten aren't allowed to behave like this and are taught to respect those from different backgrounds. It's a little surprising that these Brown supporters who are grown men haven't already learned that lesson.

It's in the best interest of the citizens of Mass. for Brown and his supporters to get over the fact that Warren does not have documented proof of her Native American heritage so we can all move on to more important issues: such as the economy!

Bigger problem for Brown...and all of us

By on

He needs to do more than he has so far on this issue. This isn't just some sort of bullshit campaign stunt that can be forgotten in a week. This is the paid staff of OUR Senator, already duly elected two years ago to represent ALL OF US, who has insulted the head of Cherokee Nation now. This went from campaign faux pas to embarrassment to the Commonwealth now.

I, for one, apologize that my national representative, Scott Brown, represented us so poorly as to upset members of Cherokee Nation.

Yeah! And what's more, I demand an apology from Deval!

By on

On behalf of Wampanoag nation I demand an apology, if not reparations. I'm not a member yet, by the way. But I'm working up to claiming it.

I mean, look at the official state seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It includes an Indian, with a sword held menacingly over his head. THIS IS OUTGADEOUS, AND AN EMBARRASSMENT TO MASSACHUSETTS!

Since we're wallowing in a a river of self-righteous, convenient apologia, I just thought that I would throw that out there

It's fun watching you go crazy

By on

Of course, the state seal has nothing to do with hostilities towards Indians and all Mashpee Wampanoag complaints about it have always started with "to someone who doesn't know better..." (congrats on being that someone). Secondly, I don't exactly remember arguing that the state seal is perfect and should be left the way it is. So, you can put that straw man away until the Haunted Trail next month. Thirdly, Deval didn't create the seal or encourage its use as a means of ridiculing the regional Indian tribes for political sport. That's quite a different light than what Senator Brown's staff did which you're trying to make into a false equivalency.

So, I think the only thing you got right is that the state seal has an Indian on it. Congratulations.

It was satirical, Kaz

By on

Let me help you work it out, since it's clearly over your head. But work with me here for a minute.

"Thirdly, Deval didn't create the seal or encourage its use...."

See, by making an outrageous claim that a 300 year old seal is the sitting governor's fault, I'm trying to point out the silliness of maintaining it's Brown's direct fault that two of his staffers chopped. And whooped.

And to help you a little further, Jonathan Swift wasn't really proposing that the starving Irish sell their children as food, either.

Huh?

By on

Who is making the claim that Brown is directly at fault? Not I. I simply find him to be responsible for his staff as they are his representatives. If the cashier at McDonalds spits in your food, it's the cashier's fault, but it's McDonalds' responsibility to correct the situation.

This isn't a football game and your side didn't fumble. Scott Brown is a Senator first and candidate second. He has a responsibility to correct a situation that his subordinates created by their intentionally bigoted actions. By distracting from that point, you belittle the seriousness of the offense in an attempt to defuse the situation and turn it back into a political football that can be scored for one side or the other. That is wholly inappropriate.

Furthermore, you were first and foremost attempting to deflect attention from Brown by using a tu quoque logical fallacy ("oh yeah, but Deval..."). To reshape it into some sort of high-minded attempt at satire and hyperbole is naked and unappealing.

This article's title is more racist than the subject itself

By on

Tomahawks and war cries actually reference Genuine aspects of Native American culture, they're stereotypes not because they don't have any basis in reality but because of their generalized use and over-simplified representation of varied cultures/practices.
The watermelon stereotype/symbol was BORN of racist assumptions and mockery, with no basis.
Perhaps you need to check your own assumptions.

No, no, he's saying

It would be more accurate to suggest that Brown's people would have shown up in sombreros and talked like Speedy Gonzalez if Warren claimed she was part Hispanic. Or shown up in pajamas talking like Charlie Chan if she'd claimed she were part Asian.

That makes it better, right?