Let’s chuck the Cherokee fixation and deal with today’s challenges

The Boston Herald drumbeating investigation of  Elizabeth Warren’s claim to having Cherokee blood keeps on.   In yesterday’s installment,  the paper published excerpts from a 1984 cookbook called Pow Wow Chow, edited by Warren’s cousin, who compiled recipes from “Five Tribes families.”  The story has gone viral on right wing websites. But so what?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

The Five Tribes included Cherokee, which is how Warren identified herself.  Responsible genealogists are quick to point out that proving one’s Native American heritage is complex,  that  most of those claiming a   “Cherokee heritage” actually come from other tribes initially,  and there are more people with legitimate indigenous roots than those who can provide clear and convincing documentation.                                                                         

Forced west to Oklahoma in the 1830s Trail of Tears  displacement, “Cherokee” women often  intermarried with settlers of European descent who couldn’t afford to bring brides from back East.                                                                                                                                   

For more than a century,  being classified anything other than white was not chic but more to be whispered about.  If  possible, Native Americans  tried to pass, lest they be subject to legal and social discrimination.  They couldn’t vote, own land or go to school with white children.  Then much of the U.S. realized that we were a stew, not a melting pot.  The nation saw strength in diversity, a desire to right past discrimination, and affirmative action.                                                                                                                                                               

In Oklahoma, among those who trace their roots back more than  a century,  some Native American blood is expected, and even celebrated. This ranges from Oklahoma Congressman   Tom Cole, a Chickasaw Indian and the only Native American in Congress, to former Sooner GOP Congressman Mickey Edwards, who was born in Cleveland and was made an honorary Osage Indian.                                                                                                                                                      

That Oklahoma-born Elizabeth Warren heard this part of her heritage passed down from one family to another is not surprising.  That she had no documentation is also not surprising.                                                                                                                                             

My husband’s grandfather was said to have been a member of the cavalry in the czar’s army.  It’s part of family lore  but there is no paper trail.  My grandfather was said to been a cigarette factory owner in Russia in the late 19th century, before he fled conscription in the czar’s army and came to America.  Again, no documentation of that factory.   Children are told about their forebears and, in turn, tell it to their own children.                 

All the brouhaha stems not from the fact that Elizabeth Warren  listed herself years ago as a minority in a national directory of law professors but how she handled the question today.  It’s pretty clear that Harvard hired her not because of affirmative action but because she’s a smart lady and a good professor, with an expertise in bankruptcy law that they were looking for.  What we don’t know is to what extent Harvard made her 1/32 Cherokee blood work for the university at a time when it was under fire for lack of diversity, or whether they got any benefit from the designation. But that’s an issue for Harvard.                                                  

Thankfully, most people understand that there are bigger issues in this campaign, not the least of which is Scott Brown’s efforts to gut strong regulatory support of the Volcker Rule.  He may be heeding his heavy level of financial backing from Wall Street at a time when the nation needs to stand firm on financial regulation, rather than watering it down.                                                                                                                                                          

The Cherokee story has staying power because its gives Brown an opportunity to pander to white male independents. It’s easier for reporters, columnists and bloggers to write about because it doesn’t require explaining the significance of procedural votes  or  delving into complex (sometimes boring) substance.                                                                                            

If the Cherokee  story drags on, perhaps Warren should say, “Look, I am proud of my identity  and what I’ve always been told … that I am part Native American, but I shouldn’t have listed myself as a minority because, practically speaking,  I’m not. Now let’s look at what the real issues are and get focused on the clearcut differences between Scott Brown and me.”                                                                                                                           

I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts in the comments section below.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Let’s chuck the Cherokee fixation and deal with today’s challenges

  1. C R Krieger says:

    Charles Curtis, of Kansas.

    Regards  —  Cliff

    Like

  2. Scott Brown hasn’t “gutted” Washington’s regulations of Wall Street, as he did vote for Elizabeth Warren’s pet project, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Neither Brown nor Warren understand how economic freedom and contract rights tie in with liberty in general.

    Government bureaucrats (something which Warren so enthusiastically wants to be) and their trespasses and guilty-until-proven-innocent regulations, reporting requirements and other red tape obstructions, create chaos and price distortions.

    The crony-capitalist Dodd-Frank law creates many new bureaucracies and imposes further red tape on entrepreneurs, in order to protect established businesses’ profits.

    Here is more:
    http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/capitalism-free-market-dodd-frank-wall/8/12/2010/id/29573

    http://mises.org/page/1431

    http://mises.org/daily/6000/Wall-Street-Math

    Rather than discuss these more substantive issues, the media must waste space and air time for these trivial matters, such as whether Elizabeth Warren drives a Jeep Cherokee or a VW. The news media are at least partially responsible for why we have such an uninformed public, and an economy in disarray.

    Like

  3. aronsbarron says:

    Scott, As a nearly 30-year veteran of both print and broadcast, I regret that I have to agree with your assertion that the news media bear some responsibility for the trivialization of political discourse. They, I think, would answer by saying they are just responding to the demand of the media marketplace.

    Like

    • fina says:

      What is the media supposed to do, report and inform, or choose the most reader/viewer interesting angle to push for market rating purposes? I think it should be the former, but sadly they use the latter. I don’t want to be entertained, amused, or pandered to by my media outlets. I want to be informed and enlightened by them, hopefully in a mature, responsible manner. Just look at the behavior of the media at any of the Boston news stations in their 6:00 PM news programs, and you must see that being able to yuck it up ranks at the top of an anchor’s abilities.

      Like

  4. C R Krieger says:

    In my dead tree edition of Sunday’s New York Times there is this front page headline:  “World Leaders Urge Growth, Not Austerity”.  do we really think the austerity advocates (eg, Chancellor Merkel) are opposed to growth?  Do we really think the pro-growth folks are not concerned about debt sovereign (assuming they aren’t just plain stupid)?  Maybe it isn’t reporters, just headline writers.

    And, between Keynes and Hayek, you can’t split the difference.  That is to say, there is not a “bipartisan” solution.

    Regards  —  Cliff

    Like

  5. Mike Rice says:

    Warren should heed the advice given in the last paragraph of this article – the sooner, the better.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s