18 May 2012

Heritage Takes An Academic Phony To School


Here's an update to my earlier post about forked tongue Harvard academic Elizabeth Warren's phony claim that she's part Cherokee . . . 

You have claimed something you had no right to claim -- our history and our heritage and our identity.

So you see, heritage and history do go together; that is if you know how to tell the truth about both which, as we know, is an uncommon trait among a number of academics.

Complete story here. I'm telling you, this is just getting way too easy.

13 comments:

Rob Baker said...

I don't want to be a huge dick, but your analysis is a bit off.

1. "She wasn't taken to school." Documentation pending and she has documentation...supposedly.

2. History and Heritage obviously do not go together.

Heritage:

1. property that descends to an heir
2
a : something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor : legacy, inheritance b : tradition
3
: something possessed as a result of one's natural situation or birth : birthright

Essentially, Heritage is a hand down situation. Her story of Cherokee ancestry is heritage as it is passed down from one generation to the next.

The disputed genealogy is what is up for grabs, not history.

3. Warren is not a Historian.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"she has documentation...supposedly."

"Supposedly"? That's news to me. She sure has been slow in producing it.

"History and Heritage obviously do not go together."

I disagree. They are most definitely intertwined, i.e. genealogy.

"Warren is not a Historian."

That's for sure. Evidently, she ain't a Cherokee either.

Rob Baker said...

She makes reference to some type of documentation. What that is or constitutes, I don't know.

I agree that history and heritage are intertwined, but history is always based on and in search of fact. Heritage is hand me down that can and often does conflict with fact.

Warren is a politician....what more can you say?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hello Rob. I think her "heritage" is wishful thinking for the perceived political advantage (as well as "favored" status) it ostensibly confers. She just looks very silly.

History can also conflict with fact (mistakes or purposeful distortion).

Heritage can be hand me down, I agree. But I was thinking of broader, verifiable things like ancestry, etc.

"Warren is a politician....what more can you say?"

Yes, that does seem to infect one with all kinds of nasty problems, doesn't it? (Both sides of the aisle.)

Rob Baker said...

Ancestry would fall under the study of genealogy would it not? And it may be wishful thinking, but I will wait for her 'evidence' to come under subjugation before I make an opinion.

Yes, that does seem to infect one with all kinds of nasty problems, doesn't it? (Both sides of the aisle.)

It certainly does.

Rob Baker said...

I'm not sure if my last comment went through. It's storming.

Ancestry would fall under the genealogy field would it not? Regardless, I will wait for her 'documentation' to come under subjugation before I form an opinion on it.

Yes, that does seem to infect one with all kinds of nasty problems, doesn't it? (Both sides of the aisle.)

That I can agree with.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Ancestry would fall under the study of genealogy would it not?"

True, but it's part of looking at our past which was my original point.

Best,
RGW

Rob Baker said...

History is looking at our past, genealogy and heritage are as well. Theology and Geography fall under those spheres also.

My point is that lumping them together is inaccurate as they are all unique studies.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"lumping them together is inaccurate"

I would disagree, especially for the purpose of my post. Those who make their living from "identity politics" and victimization do this all the time, referring to "the history of _______", which by necessity ties ancestry, genealogy, and history together for political advantage, which is what the non-Cherokee Warren has been doing.

Rob Baker said...

I think the reasons you stated is why they should not be lumped together. The politician is tying them together for their own accord. We need to realize that just because there is a family story (heritage) and a Cherokee history, does not necessarily mean that said person has shared in their trials.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Gee, it must be contagious:

"President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren have more in common than just their liberal political ideology, Harvard Law pedigree, and Democratic Party affiliation. Both claim Cherokee ancestry, and neither can prove it."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/21/Like-Warren-Obama-Claims-Cherokee-Ancestry-But-Offers-No-Proof

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Well Rob, looks like Warren is simply a liar:

"Last night, Elizabeth Warren finally admitted to the Boston Globe that she lied when she made previous statements that she had “no idea” why Harvard Law School referred to her as a “woman of color.” Ms. Warren confessed that she told Harvard Law School when she was hired as a Visiting Professor in 1992 that she was a “woman of color.”

The fruits of identity politics. The left is obsessed with it.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/31/warren-confesses-told-harvard-she-was-woman-of-color