Stolen Cherokee Valor
Elizabeth Warren’s narrative of being a descendant of the Cherokee people emboldened Warren not only to consider herself Native American, but also to identify with the most victimized of the victimized.
One doesn’t have to be a scholar of Native American history to know of the Trail of Tears. Of all the Native American roots to come from, being part Cherokee brought with it the full weight of historical victimization.
Without any actual proof other than family “lore,” Warren grabbed that narrative of victimization on the auto-biographical forms she filled out during the mid-1980’s through mid-1990’s, resulting in her inclusion on a relatively small list of Minority Law Teachers.
When confronted with this evidence, Warren waxed poetic about her Native American ancestry, and recounted how her “Aunt Bea” commented how Warren’s lineage had “high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do.”
But this valor was stolen.
As of this writing, there is no evidence that Warren has any Native American ancestry, and the specific claim that she is 1/32 Cherokee based on her great-great-great grandmother has been close to conclusively debunked.
Worse still, the husband of Warren’s alleged Cherokee connection, her great-great-great grandfather, was part of a militia unit which rounded up the Cherokees for the Trail of Tears. In addition to the confirmation by a genealogist working with me who posted his findings at Breitbart.com yesterday, another genealogist has confirmed that finding as reported at The Boston Herald.
Yet as further reported at The Herald, Warren brushes off the fact that her narrative of victimization has falled apart:
Warren doesn’t get it. People don’t like other people who fake it, particularly when the fakery is used to game the system to obtain an undeserved victim status with all the career benefits that might accrue.
Boston talk show host and columnist Howie Carr gets it:
The Beautiful People still can’t figure out what all the fuss is about over Granny Warren’s family “lore.” …
Granny’s fellow multimillionaire academics may pooh-pooh it this summer on the Vineyard, but this is going to be a problem for Pinnochio-hantas. Nobody who ever lost out, or thinks they lost out, on a good school or job because somebody played the racial trump card on them is ever going to vote for that person. Especially if they know the card was a joker, and that it was up her sleeve.
It’s about stolen valor. In this case, stolen Cherokee valor.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Alex, What is the disasterous effect of all liberal policies on the body politic?
This is Warren’s Macaca Moment.
Ha! It only reminds us that the Socialist playbook is a cookbook; they serve Man!
Sorry to quibble, Prof., but “valor” seems misapplied here.
The Cherokee were a remarkable people historically.
But as a people they are not, and were not, “valorous”, though individuals were and still are.
So there is no ethnic “valor” to steal.
But in Orwellian leftist world … up is down. All Native Americans are viewed as a once strong people, now victims of the white man’s American Progress, and Manifest Destiny.
To declare victim status is now “valorous”. You have a point about the actual valor, but I think Warren indeed was trying to steal the “valor” of Native American victimhood. The professor’s usage has some good clout, though the psychology of the “valor” of victimhood might require more study. 🙂
“Status” would have worked better. Even “nobility”.
And, while the Collective tortures words into saying anything, we should insist on letting them speak their true meaning.
Actually, if you leave the politics out of it, including the silly politically correct “native american” b*llsh*t, and study the Cherokee you will find that indeed, they are and were a people of great valor.
Let’s not toss out the truth with the dirty dish water (not to mix a metaphor).
Again, not to get too far into the tall grass here, but…
To my mind, an ethnic group cannot be “valorous”. Individuals show valor. The Cherokee were and are also craven and squalid…looking at individuals.
Cultures may show “valor” of a kind. Warrior cultures would prize physical courage in battle, for instance. Still, that is an individual expression of a cultural value.
It seems a cardinal mistake to romanticize people. They just tend to always be people.
and it might require knowing Warren’s intent. Was she just wanting to be listed as some “minority” to gain favor, even if there would be plausible deniability that she was favored based on that status?
Or were there other venues where she specifically wanted it known she was part Cherokee, with the intent of being “brave” and “valorous” enough to admit to her minority background. Brown apparently is asking her to reveal where else she declared her Native American status, so perhaps her personal trail of tears is not over.
For minority advantage in hiring she only needed the status. But to cock her (high cheek) bone head with pride that goes with the status, that is more about stealing the valor. They took “her people” away, but she overcame and emerged victorious … is her phony assumed role of bravery, subtle as it may have been.
With or without the 1/64th part Cherokee, she is trying to steal something, since she never had anything to overcome as a result of that drop of blood. And she was never brave enough to associate with the Native American causes, AFAIK.
”high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do.”
Isn’t it a high crime for someone from Harvard who worships at the altar of political correctness to refer to Native Americans as Indians? The PCers ought to give her major demerits for that remark. Heck, if she were a Republican they’d label her an insensitve, racist troglodyte who is unfit to serve.
If I, as a conservative Republican, made a comment that included ”high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do,” just how much trouble would I get into with my employer and in general?
It must be okay when a progressive does it. How else does she get away with such a statement?
Warren has the most annoying, preachifying, nanny-like, lecturing manner.
Try as she might, she’ll not be able to turn the story from her years-long fraud and misrepresentation.
November can’t come soon enough.
1. My hearn’ ain’t what it used to be, but it seemed to me that Warren deliberately dropped her g’s in that video.
2. The politics of anger involves walking a fine line. The anger must seem righteous, and not deteriorate into spite. In the video Warren is on the wrong side of that line.
3. According to Warren’s early reviews, she should be coasting to victory and thinking about her Presidential campaign. She is one unhappy Harvard professor.
4. Mockery is the right tactic against Warren. Don’t give her pretexts to play her victim cards. The point is not how an attack would play with conservatives; the point is how it would play with independents. Analogies between Warren & her policies and her ancestor & the Trail of Tears would be double-edged; handle with care.
As a contingent minority status Warren could dress like an Indian and join the Village People.
…as the Village People Idiot.
If it weren’t the People’s Republic, I’d say stick a fork in her, but these libtards kept electing Teddy the Swimmer and Bawney Fwank.
Sooner or later they’ll take her self-inflicted victimhood to their bosom, and comfort her with their votes.
“she found her Indian blood…not in her veins, but on her hands.”
Well done Professor Jacobson. Thank you.
Further research into Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reveals that her
great great great grandmother was not, nor did her family claim that she
was Indian. The marriage license of Warren’s great great granduncle,
William J. Crawford to Mary E. Woolford in 1894 in Logan Co., Oklahoma,
which Childs claims lists Neoma O.C. Smith was being Cherokee. the
original marriage reoord and marriage license can be found here:
Neoma O. C. Smiths parents were Wyat Smith born abt 1768 in South
Carolina and Margaret Peggy Kaigler born 1770 South Carolina. There is no indication that either of O. C. Smith’s parents were Indian either, more probably English or Scottish and German.
The link doesn’t work.
Oops, here is the full link:
Here is a link to the Rootsweb Ancestry World Tree that discusses the marriage “application that Childs found that he claimed was proof that Warren was 1/32 Cherokee:
and also here:
This gives a history of Jonathan H. Crawford’s participation in the Tennessee militia:
She has got native-american blood.
Just on her hands, not in her bloodstream.
“Warren doesn’t get it.” There are two possibilities here; she doesn’t “get it,” or she does “get it.” Neither is acceptable.
The more benevolent of the two is that she simply doesn’t. She lacks understanding of legitimate grievances the unjustly wronged may feel and an appropriate response to them. This may be the result of simple ignorance or an inability to understand despite genuine attempts to do so. The less benevolent position is that she understands fully what has happened, what of her actions, of Harvard’s, and of the guilt industry in general brought on the current brouhaha. Here, in the complete absence of any discriminatory actions by any one or any organization against her, she knowingly attached herself to a wronged cohort for no reason other than it might have been personally rewarding in some way at some time. Knowing particulars of either the motivation or nature of the potential rewards (benefits) is unnecessary; it was self serving and fraudulent. If she truly wanted to assist the unjustly victimized, she could have done it perfectly well without falsely attaching herself to them. But, by doing so, having been caught at it, and objecting so vehemently and emotionally, she has harmed both herself and them. Sympathy for the truly aggrieved is reduced or withdrawn – they’d have been better off without her support – and the sincerity and motivation of her commitment in future endeavors will always subject to question. The same can be said of institutions, all of them, that participate in such practices and schemes.
Either view of “getting it” should disqualify her from serving in public office. What these people do not “get” is that they are not special, they bring no particular gift to us, that world will go on without them, and that the country has many, many, equally qualified, other citizens who do get it.
Stolen Valor is an appropriate term here. As far as I’m concerned there is no difference between Professor Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry and the fellow who never served in the military but now claims that he was a Navy-SEAL-who-served-umpteen-jillian-tours-in-Viet-Nam-and-who got-the-Medal-of-Honor-bit-it’s-all-secret-y’know. Both are claiming a status they never deserved solely for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.
Given that professor Warren had an ancestor who served with the Tennessee militia in the 1830’s it is not at all unlikely that she has an ancestor who — dare I say it — served in the Confederate Army. Elizabeth, the UDC awaits!
Great work, Professor!
Would have been nice if the Boston Herald provided a hyperlink to LI.
When is one of these papers going to give you a steady gig? I think readers want a little diversity beyond journalism-school grads.
[…] gave her campaign 40 whacks. Talk about karma. (BTW, there’s a recent video of the Chad Mitchell Trio singing the song in front of the […]
Elizabeth Warren’s ancestors were to the Cherokees as the Japanese are to the whales.
I hope Warren’s senatorial campaign turns out to be her very own trail of tears.
What a fraud.
“Tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom…”
“Hey, where is that sound coming from?”
“Tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom…”
“It’s the Cherokee Nation, Madam Warren. They want your scalp. RUN!”
“Tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom, tom-tom…”