I am glad that @ewarren said she was sorry today for the the harm that she caused, but without her using her platform and power to repair that harm the apology falls flat. What does she need to do next? I'm gonna get specific... #THREAD
Warren has perpetuated misinformation about Cherokee identity that directly undermines tribal sovereignty. Her "apology" didnt set the record straight, bc most ppl still think she has a Cherokee ancestor, the DNA test proved it, and White ppl claiming to be Cherokee need no proof
Here is what she said today:
“I know I’ve made mistakes. I am sorry for the harm that I have caused. I have listened and I have learned a lot.”
Here's what she needs to say:
"I was told a story as a child that my family had a Cherokee ancestor. I now know that story is not true. I am not Native American, I am not "part Cherokee" and my family is not Cherokee. My family and I are White.
In October of 2018 I took a DNA test to try and prove that my family's story was true. The DNA test proved nothing, because only tribal affiliation and kinship prove Cherokee identity, not race or biology. Equating Cherokee identity with the results of a DNA test is wrong.
It was not only my fault, but my privilege to never question what my parents told me. Research on my genealogy going back over 150 years does not reveal a single Native ancestor. Like many people who grew up with such stories, mine was never true.
Native Nations are not relics of the past, but active, contemporary, and distinct political groups who are still fighting for recognition and sovereignty within the United States. Those of us who falsely claim Native identity undermine this fight.
I will continue to use my platform to support Native issues and policies. And I will continue to correct any stereotypes and misinformation about Native identity that I helped promote."
See the difference? One names and then addresses the harm caused and one, well, doesn't.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's no FDA approved treatment for Long Covid, but a proposed bill to fund research could close some crucial gaps. Long Covid is a hell I would not wish on anyone. For me, it was followed by the hell of trying to access care. motherjones.com/politics/2024/…
When I initially got Long Covid, I was not able to work and barely left the house. I had been treated for migraines and concussion-like symptoms, but not Long Covid and decided I wanted to get into a specialty clinic. I had no idea how hard that would be.
There is not a clinic that serves long Covid patients in the state where I live, Oklahoma. When I googled “Long Covid clinic” the first two links were broken.
After some cringe-worthy coverage from non-Native outlets, here is a run down of Native journalists covering last week’s #scotus oral arguments in Haaland v #Brackeen.
.@180099native hosted an analysis and reflection on the oral arguments with Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians), Suzette Brewer (citizen of the Cherokee Nation), and Dr. Sarah Kastelic (Alutiiq)
During the #SCOTUS oral argument in #Brackeen several Justices seemed to think #ICWA takes Native children from foster parents they attached to & that’s bad.
So here’s a list of every time the foster parents in this case moved a foster kid or fought for a kid to be moved:
We’ll start with the Brackeens.
The first child they ever fostered was not an ICWA case bc the kid was not Native. After 5 months, they asked CPS to take the child back bc the 3 yr old was “difficult” and “suffocating”.
In 2019, when the Brackeens fought for and got custody of YRJ the child was a year old. She had been raised the first year of her life by a different Texas foster family, who was willing to adopt her. At the time they got custody, she was not being raised by the Brackeens.
Native leaders, advocates and citizens traveled from across the US to attend oral arguments in Brackeen. Samantha Maltais (Aquinnah Wampanoag) is a law student at Harvard who wanted to attend bc tribal sovereignty is one the line.
Leaders from ICWA Law Center, White Earth and Casey Family Programs got in line at 5am this morning.
The story of YRJ—a little Navajo girl, being raised by the white couple suing to overturn ICWA—was shared by @JanHoffmanNYT for @nytimes, @NinaTotenberg for @NPR & Fox News this week. But their coverage left out some really important info. 🧵:
The Brackeens say ICWA discriminated against them bc it wouldn’t let them adopt Native kids. But in 2019, a family court judge awarded them custody of YRJ over a blood relative. At the time, they weren’t fostering her. She was being raised by some one else.
In child welfare policy—with or without ICWA—relatives are the next best option if children can’t be reunified w/ parents. Brackeens winning over a blood relative (esp when they weren’t fostering her) is an example of their power & privilege—not that they were treated unfairly.
This article is a great example on how the @nytimes coverage of Indigenous issues doesn’t meet the basic standards of journalism. This article grossly misrepresents what happened in the underlying custody cases and the people behind the lawsuit.
The placement didn’t “fall through”. The Brackeens brought a legal arsenal that you never seen in Family Court—the corporate law firm that represents Walmart, Amazon, and Chevron and the State AG of Texas. Only then, did the tribes agree to the adoption.
This author let’s the plaintiffs make their argument about “bonding”, then fails to mention when the Brackeens won custody of a YRJ—over a blood relative—when they weren’t fostering her. The child was being raised by someone else.