The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), according to its website, “is the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities.” Not surprisingly, it has weighed in on the obnoxious behavior of Senator Scott “You Checked the Box” Brown’s employees when they protested at Elizabeth Warren’s campaign.
I disagree with the NCAI’s criticism of Warren. Like most people, I doubt she knew about the in’s and out’s of tribal membership. Warren, like most culturally European Americans, sees herself in terms of heritage, not membership. Holding her responsible for failing “to educate a non-Native media and the public unfamiliar with federal tribal enrollment rules or about historic federal policies that make proving Native ancestry very difficult for some people” is logically impossible. It’s also a bit unrealistic to expect her to hold interviews with Native American media when she was trying to damper on an issue that her opponent had raised. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t believe the Native American media interviewed Scott Brown about his accusations, racist accusations which he and his campaign intended to exploit in order to harm Warren’s campaign.
Of interest in this press release is what it means to be an American Indian. (I wrote a little about the politics of Cherokee identity this summer, earning myself a hit piece on Red Mass Group). In a nutshell, American Indian heritage is complicated. It’s regarded differently than being African American or European American. When Warren talks about her heritage, she talks like a European American. She speaks of Cherokee and Delaware ancestry, much like I talk about being French Canadian, Irish, and English. Unfortunately, being an Indian is more complicated. To qualify, some want her to be involved in Indian issues or speak a Native language. For others, a DNA test would help, though even if her DNA were 100% Cherokee, there are some Cherokees who wouldn’t consider her as such because her heritage can’t be traced heritage back to the Dawes Rolls. Warren never made her heritage an issue, Scott Brown did.
As many of my fellow BMGers have pointed out pictorially, Indians don’t always look like the people who played them in Westerns. The NCAI has something to say about this too. Here’s the press release:
“In the last week, the Massachusetts Senate race reached an extremely disturbing place. The National Congress of American Indians is calling for the candidates to return civility to the public discourse and to immediately stop the politicization of Native identity. On Tuesday, video footage was released showing Senator Brown’s staff leading crowds in ‘war whooping’ and ‘tomahawk chopping’ during a clash with Warren supporters. Additionally, last Thursday Senator Brown made inflammatory remarks about Warren’s skin color as an indicator that she is not of Native descent.
The video footage of Senator Brown’s staff engaged in ‘war whooping’ and ‘tomahawk chopping’ is not only offensive and demeaning to Native Americans it is also demoralizing to citizens across the country. It’s concerning that experienced staff members of a United States Senator would act this way; Senator Brown should take corrective action immediately. These actions belittle the democratic process and are emblematic of an irresponsible public discourse on race and Native identity by misinformed individuals and the media.
Elizabeth Warren also bears responsibility for allowing the public discourse about Native identity to become misrepresented. She has every right to be proud of her family, however her campaign failed to educate a non-Native media and the public unfamiliar with federal tribal enrollment rules or about historic federal policies that make proving Native ancestry very difficult for some people. Finally, Warren’s campaign did not respond to requests for interviews from Native media organizations. All of these actions could have gone a long way to reducing tension and increasing awareness.
The video released of Brown’s staffers comes just days after Senator Brown responded to a question during the opening of a September 20, 2012 televised debate between the two candidates in which he referred to Warren’s white skin color as proof that she is not of Native American descent in response to an opening question about character, “I think character is important…what you are referring to is the fact that Professor Warren claimed she is a Native American, a person of color, and as you can see, she is not.”
Skin color or physical appearance has no bearing on one’s Native American heritage or status as an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe. As a result, numerous national television programs and websites have irresponsibly echoed Senator Brown’s statements by referring to someone’s skin color as an indicator for Native American identity. These claims are false and Senator Brown should correct the record and retract his statement immediately.
NCAI is concerned by the negative and racially charged statements and actions that are the result of the politicization of the issue of Native ancestry. This issue has no bearing on the qualifications to be the Senator of Massachusetts.
Native American peoples have long endured discrimination and we will not tolerate, nor should the American people tolerate, a return to hostile environments or ignorant discourse about America’s first peoples. Nor should we tolerate a hostile environment about a common characteristic many people share, a connection to Native American ancestry.
Today, Native people are proud of our ancestors, our place in the American family of governments, and we will not stand for irresponsible behavior or public discourse.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
- According to the 2010 Census – 5.2 million or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population are American Indian or Alaska Native, including those of more than one race. Of this total, 2.9 million were American Indian and Alaska Native only, and 2.3 million were American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races. Source: 2010 Census Brief: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
-According the Bureau of Indian Affairs website –
“Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances. The criterion varies from tribe to tribe, so uniform membership requirements do not exist.
Two common requirements for membership are lineal decendency from someone named on the tribe’s base roll or relationship to a tribal member who descended from someone named on the base roll. (A “base roll” is the original list of members as designated in a tribal constitution or other document specifying enrollment criteria.) Other conditions such as tribal blood quantum, tribal residency, or continued contact with the tribe are common.”
- About the Senator of Massachusetts Responsibilities. In addition to representing the State of Massachusetts, a Senator from the Bay State is one of 100 members of the Senate who engage in nation-to-nation relations between the 566 federally recognized tribal nations in the United States and the federal government. A Massachusetts Senator is also one of two members of the U.S. Senate who represent a state with two federally recognized tribes, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).
Discuss
27 Comments . Leave a comment below.there was a secret audio tape, now revealed, that said:
Charles Fried: Ms Warren, so you’re Native American?
Elizabeth Warren: Yes I am.
Fried: You know we’re under pressure (this is the early 90′s) to increase our minority faculty, so if that’s you, we can offer you a job.
Warren: I’m Native American
Fried: The job’s yours then.
Even if that was 100% true and that tape was revealed, I bet not one person here on BMG would change their vote in November.
So why even pretend that you’re debating this issue in some magical forum? You’re talking to each other in an echo chamber. Why do you get gratification from the constant reinforcement?
I just don’t get it. I’m here because the viewpoints outside my zone stimulate my brain to try to understand why you think this way, and what my response is to the points posed. What you all get is beyond me.
This is what it would be like if you read this post to the average person.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/153603564/
Why would anyone change their vote over something that has nothing to do with the problems facing the country right now?
but at least we’re not constructing an alternative universe complete with imaginary dialogue.
blah, blah, blah, Merrimack, blah, blah, blah
First off, Harvard Law was under pressure to hire women and not so much Native Americans. The evidence from the time that David dug up underlines that. So your counterfactual seems kind of, well, odd.
Second off, as Patrick says, it is true that in this magical forum no one would change their vote based on this. Senator Brown’s campaign seems to think that people would otherwise there wouldn’t be a campaign to release records from Harvard. So it’s under debate due to the less-than-magical Brown campaign.
Finally, I’m wondering what would satisfy Your Crankiness in the above fantasy dialog. Did you want it to go like this instead?
Loved the revised dialogue. Merrimack, let’s not forget that although this issue now seems to be boomeranging badly and hurting Brown with virtually every moderate in the Commonwealth, he is the one that put it on the table. A much more important issue is that Brown hasn’t accomplished anything for Massachusetts during his time in office. Do you have any significant accomplishment of his that you can point to as a reason to vote for the man?
You don’t think that’s a bit of an exaggeration?
A sense that Brown would be more in line with my moderate views, and Warren would be to the left of me. Niki Tsongas keeps talking about what her constituents want, and it doesn’t appear she’s talking to me.
But of course Brown’s spot on the spectrum is in dispute here. On BMG Brown is an extremist McConnell acolyte. If we could start with Brown being in the middle, and everyone here saying that what the country needs is a progressive/liberal, that would be a start.
I also tend to favor candidates that sound more pro-business, and Warren sounds anti-business.
He probably doesn’t have any significant accomplishments. He’s been there two years in a very polarized environment. I do like the ban on congressional insider trading and his legislation changing some of the rules around start up companies raising capital. Warren has zero legislative accomplishments- you can only speculate. If the Senate post-2012 is either Republican or 50:50 look to Warren to have few legislative accomplishments as well two years in.
PS BMG is really a playground for grade school minds. Now we’re back on the photo shoot again.
US Senator Scott Brown boasts in his most recent television ad that President Obama signed into law a bill he filed to prevent members of Congress from using insider information to profit in the stock market.
“So I filed a bill to stop insider trading in Congress, and got it passed and signed into law,” Brown says in the ad, which shows him standing with Obama at a White House signing ceremony.
Brown’s bill, however, was not signed into law. The bill that made it to Obama’s desk was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent.
As the Globe reported in May, Brown’s bill was hastily drafted and set aside by a congressional committee, although he did push the issue and was invited to the signing ceremony with Obama.
Now, as for his other votes; he may say he is a moderate, but he doesn’t vote like a moderate.
I think you have just placed yourself beyond the reach of Reason.
Seems to me that the economy’s in the toilet because of lack of demand, which stems from working Americans having no spending money. Warren wants to restore prosperity to working Americans which will restore the economy.
Brown wants to raise taxes on working Americans unless the Irresponsible cuts on the wealthy are preserved.
… scenario is that we can actually investigate. Maybe there isn’t a tape, but we can take the question directly to the sources. We can ask Warren, we can ask Fried.
I wonder if anyone’s asked. I wonder if anyone has changed their minds based on actual evidence instead of imaginary evidence.
and most of the supporting facts don’t add up.
one of those “supporting facts?”
… what’s your point?
The mere presence of an incentive does not a motive make.
incentive to stick to their story…”
That’s ironic, because so do you.
I don’t see how “the supporting facts don’t add up”. It seems to me that you are mongering opinion as fact in exactly the same way you claim David and others do.
… you’re not beating your wife too. What does that prove. What is that evidence of? Moreover, Warren and Fried aren’t the only people who you could ask questions of in order to build a case.
Of course you can always stick to imaginary questions and imaginary answers. I just hope maintaining a reputation of intellectual integrity is your goal in that case.
.
I created some bizarre scenario about Scott Brown — like, say, his Cosmos shots secretly had companion photos showing the full monty, and everyone knew if those shots got out, his entire campaign would fold because he did ‘porn.’
Wouldn’t that mean all the right-wingers are debating some magical issue in the echo-chambers of a fantasy forum…. like the one that apparently exists in your brain that conjures up these bizarre scenarios, as if they had any impact on what actually exists in the real world?
Leave the fiction for the people who write it, Merrimack. Your stuff is laughably bad and teaches nothing.
PS. Do you know the definition of a straw man? My god, man, look it up.
That Scott Brown release the ENTIRE roll from that shoot. The public has a right to know about the moral character of our Senatorial candidates. Good Lord we cannot have a PORNOGRAPHER as a Senator!!
Hilar.
Seems like the “pornographer” would be the one taking the pix. Wouldn’t that make the model a “pornographee”?
The entire “Heritage” meme should have been dismissed by the media about thirty seconds after it came up. Its proponents join birthers and truthers as scumbags who have more in common with a lynch mob than a political movement.
They are known as “the talent” in the biz.
Just sayin’
While this issue may finally be turning against Brown, both with the racism of his staff and debate comments and the obvious way they have brought it up since his campaign is entering its Hindenberg zone, I worry the longer we talk about it the longer we don’t talk about what we want in our next Senator.
Our next President will have to figure out a way to peacefully disarm Iran, stop global warming, protect universal healthcare, preserve social progress via the Supreme Court, end too big to fail and make our economy work for our middle class. We need an able, intelligent, and passionate ally and advocate to help our President out. That President must be Obama and that Senator must be Warren. The longer we play on Browns court the longer we drop the ball.
It’s time to move on. The Brown campaign harping on this issue has shown itself for what it is, baseless personal attacks of the schoolyard bullying variety, complete with racist actions by his staff. Elizabeth Warren has effectively responded with a well-spoken ad. It is time to focus back to issues that actually have something to do with being a United States Senator.
issue to go away. The fact is that it won’t, and not talking about it won’t make it go away. On the bright side, the heritage issue is demonstrating what we don’t want in our next senator, someone who distracts from his record and attacks his opponents with a racist subtext. By pointing this out, Warren can turn the issue against Scotto and draw a sharper contrast with him by focusing on the issues, not the heritage question.
Campaigns do their best to decide what issues matter, but the opposition and media play a role in deciding what issues matter, and as Mitt Romney can tell you, there is little that can be done to control what gets talked about in campaign season.
I see commercials on it everyday morning when I check the weather. Brown has doubled down on it. It will be an issue at Monday’s debate. I expect Elizabeth Warren will be prepared for it, and though she won’t be able to dispose of it, she has a chance to turn the issue against Brown.
Scott Brown’s disgusting coddling of the racists who populate his campaign is abhorrent to civilized people.
Elizabeth Warren is not a professional politician, and therefore may find it difficult (especially in a debate) to say what needs to be said without falling into unappealing victim-hood. Somebody needs to say it, but who?
In the culture I came of age in (Washington DC metro area, 1960s and 70s), the media would have played this necessary role. Today’s Boston Globe is embarrassingly silent in comparison to the Washington Post (and its related media siblings) of Katherine Graham and Benjamin Bradlee.
She never tried to request enrolling in a nation, so I don’t know why she should be somehow rebuked for not educating the public on enrollment rules.
The whole criticism they attempted seems bizarre, almost like they were afraid to appear overly partisan by only criticizing one candidate, so they reached a very far distance to come up with something to finger-wag her on. It’s silly.
They just should have said Scott Brown was wrong for not apologizing for his staff, that it should never happen again, and that the campaign should stop being about Native American ancestry. Had they just left it at that, there would have been a far greater chance that Scott Brown would have listened, but now he’ll take these other points as some kind of validation — ignoring their requests to drop the issue — and continue on.
In Brown’s universe, it will be “even the NCAI says Warren ‘bears responsibility’” for this issue.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 23 May 11:20 PM