Monday, November 27, 2017

At a Navajo veterans' event, Trump makes 'Pocahontas' crack

At a Navajo veterans' event, Trump makes 'Pocahontas' crack

I think the Pocahontas joke is actually pretty funny, and an appropriate attack on Warren for her bogus and unsupportable claim to Native American ancestry. Trump's constant repetition of it assures that it will never go away, and that must gall her to no end. Her only hope to stop him is to convince the world that this joke is racist, but only her own choir is buying into that.


The remark was totally out of place here. It was a time to honor some guys who made a tremendous contribution to the Allied victory in WW2, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Warren. It reminded me of his Boy Scout speech in that both were totally inappropriate places to attack his political foes.


Did you know ... ???

* The real Pocahontas died in England. She was buried in St. George's Church in Gravesend.

* Some prominent people really are descended from Pocahontas through her son with John Rolfe. The list includes the astronomer Percival Lowell. The entertainer Wayne Newton is probably related to her, but not directly descended. He appears to be descended from other children of Pocahontas' father.


  1. Even if it is true that Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed a native ancestry to benefit her career prospects, which is highly debatable, the attack, coming from Donald Trump, is pure hypocrisy given that he is hardly a 'self made' person as many of his idiot supporters seem to 'think' he is.

    As to the more general point that Elizabeth Warren incorrectly thought she had native ancestry, a lot of people are wrong about there ancestry. I don't know if this galls on her or not, but I find it to be nothing but a 'yawn' and it's nothing but a sign of the bankruptcy of those on the right that they think this is a big deal.

    1. 'their ancestry' not 'there ancestry.'

      I agree there is nothing inherently racist about referring to her as 'Pocahantas' just juvenile, but what often happens is those who make this charge go a step further and do engage in racist behavior, such as former Senator Scott Brown's campaign team who used pretend Indian War chants as a response to Warren which seems likely to have cost him his reelection. Which was a good thing because he was a lunatic with far greater pretensions than Elizabeth Warren ever had.

    2. Trump's comment is not insulting to Native Americans, but only to Warren for pretending to be one. It is the same as if I claimed to be part black and people started calling me Martin Luther King.

      It appears that Warren's claim to that ancestry is false, although she may have believed it. The only "evidence" is a supposed application for a marriage license that says her great-great-great grandmother was part Cherokee. First of all, it seems that no such document exists. Second, even if that ancestor were 100% Cherokee, Warren would be 1/32. Assuming that ancestor was a quarter Cherokee, Warren would be less than 1%, making her claim to Native American ancestry just about as valid as my claim to be king of Norway based upon my love of herring.

      What seems to be is unfair is the right-wing claim that she used this claim to gain special favors in gaining academic placement or professorships. There is no evidence for that.

      There is evidence, however, that she often (but not always) listed herself as a minority member:

      While Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the 'Minority Law Teacher' list (as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools

      Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, so ultimately she must have created that fiction. ("Warren said she didn’t know Harvard had used her heritage as proof of diversity until reading about the issue in the news." That's probably true, but is worded carefully to avoid self-incrimination. She may not have known that the university was making that claim, but some action of hers was obviously responsible for it.)

      Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.

      Curiously enough, she did not claim to be a member of a minority at Texas or on her Rutgers application.

    3. According to her, her grandmother claimed the family had native ancestry, which wouldn't be a surprise since Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma, and, again many people seem to have mistaken beliefs about their ancestry, though, of course, not all of them mistakenly think they have ancestry with visible minorities.

      I personally don't think there is much to this story, and seems to be much less relevant than the false view from many of Trump's supporters that he is a self made businessman.

      I think it's unlikely that Warren will run for President in 2020, though it seems Trump is afraid she will. If she did, or in her U.S Senate reelection campaign, if Warren were running against perfection, there might be something to this story that deserves to hurt her, but I certainly can't see how any rational person would find this a bigger issue than the defects against former U.S Senator Scott Brown or against Donald Trump.

      (Scott Brown claimed he met with royalty daily.)

      I could be wrong but I think all but the ardent idiot Trump supporters are tired of this name calling in politics right now and that if Trump keeps it up, it will result in him having even less support with the small number of remaining voters who could still support him.

      He is essentially either a not very bright one-note on this, or he is essentially a 'general fighting the last war.'

      If I were running against Elizabeth Warren whether in a Democratic Presidential Primary or as a Republican running against her in her Senate race I would highlight that she is nothing but a typical politician who over-promises and under-delivers. On that charge, there seems to be a disappointingly high amount of credible evidence.

    4. The small number of remaining voters who aren't part of his idiot loyal base who could still support him but presently don't, just to clarify.

    5. Warren seems to me to be just about Trump's equal when it comes to grandstanding and preaching to her own choir. Her choir is, admittedly, more likely to be singing in tune.

      Among the Democrats I am most impressed by Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joe III. He channels a lot of the magic of his great-uncle Jack, and he seems to be a studious, thoughtful and compassionate human being. Is America still capable of idealism?

    6. Adam T: "...the ardent idiot Trump supporters are tired of this name calling"

      This is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy.

      Just be honest, none of us are tired of the name calling. That's why we do it. You are a fucking sad little progressive snowflake...but at least I can admit that I enjoy making fun of you, princess.

    7. You are a big man AndyB

    8. you're pretty big too, unknown

    9. I was referring to elected politicians and campaigning and not what we irrelevant individuals say to each other in small private forums.

      I didn't even notice that I had made these seemingly contradictory comments. The reason is that referring to Warren as 'Pocahantas' is juvenile name calling while referring to Trump's remaining supporters as 'idiots' is simply stating a fact.

      In regards to Warren, I think even her worst attributes are better than Trump's best attributes. I can accept the point if I think it's accurate but in general I'm not impressed by the lazy 'both sides are equally bad'/'both sides do it' false equivalence nonsense.

      This doesn't necessarily say much for Warren though, as she and her supporters worst attributes are better than Trump and his idiot supporters best attributes.

    10. crossing such a low bar doesn't mean to imply that even their best attributes are all that great either.

  2. "I think all but the ardent idiot Trump supporters are tired of this name calling in politics right now..." he said while engaging in name calling...

    1. I guess hearing the truth hurts for you, but you are an idiot.

  3. This sums up my views on lazy false equivalency pretty well:

    Patrick S. Tomlinson‏Verified account
    12m12 minutes ago
    The consensus that a Democratic nominee for President has to be completely free of baggage or controversy after spending years in public service, while the GOP can nominate a man accused of serial child rape, is the worst, laziest, most damaging kind of false-equivalency.