“Donald Trump’s Use of ‘Pocahontas’ Has Native Americans Worried,” read a headline from the New York Times. Though Native Americans suffer some of the worst addiction rates and reservations are tough places to live, the Times believes that some Trump tongue-in-cheek is what keeps Native Americans up at night.
“Pocahontas is at it again,” Trump tweeted. Trump has routinely referred to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as the historical figured turned Disney character. This time, Trump was hitting back because Warren had called him a “fraud.”
Pocahontas is at it again! Goofy Elizabeth Warren, one of the least productive U.S. Senators, has a nasty mouth. Hope she is V.P. choice.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2016
“Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself,” Warren said. The Massachusetts Senator claimed that by attacking U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump was using racism to “pound the courts into submission.”
But who is really the fraud? Is it Trump — a man who has rocked the establishment and provided a voice to millions of Americans? Or is it Warren who used Native Americans to bolster her academic career? Or could it be the Times — a newspaper that demeaned Native Americans by suggesting Trump presents their biggest problem?
And who is really thinned-skin? Trump — a man who has been called a toupee-wearing Hitler? Or Warren who screams racism and sexism at every turn only to receive cover from the mainstream media?
Whether he knows it or not, Trump’s Pocahontas criticism of Warren paints a picture of how diversity has paralyzed the Democratic Party. Trump has labeled Warren “Pocahontas” because she listed herself as “Native American” in a directory of law professors. Critics claim that her listing opened the door for her employment at Harvard University.
This issue first emerged on the political scene during her 2012 Senatorial campaign against Scott Brown. Warren was asked to prove her heritage and the proof offered was her Aunt Bea and a picture of her Papaw.
“[M]y Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he – her father, my Papaw — had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do,” Warren explained. Warren must have listened to Cher’s “Half Breed” one too many times.
Can you imagine if a white male generalized that all Indians have high cheekbones? Can you imagine if Rachel Dolezal — the white woman who pretended to be black — tried to claim she was black because she had Brillo-like hair? There would be hell to pay and politically correct indictments would be handed down.
Warren’s Indian con exposes how those on the left have guilted America into embracing diversity only to use diversity for its own less-than-diversified ambitions. Just look at what the left has told America over the years. Diversity, an outcome, must be an indicator of equality, an opportunity. As a result, an altered notion of diversified equality was introduced into our social discourse.
This debate over equality (i.e. whether a woman can run for president) no longer focuses on equal opportunity, but whether those offering the opportunity (i.e. the Democratic Party) are diversifying their numbers — a big difference. Under this construct, individuals are judged on their self-identity, not self-worth.
But doesn’t that describe the state of Democratic affairs? All polls suggest that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary against Trump in the general election. Bernie also has better favorability ratings than Hillary. But even before the AP and the Clinton camp colluded to declare her the presumptive nominee the night before the California Primary — suppressing Bernie’s vote — Democrats wanted Bernie out.
Why force out a man who is appealing to independents, galvanizing the youth vote, and filling stadiums? Because Hillary deserves to be the first female nominee of a major political party and an old white male — even if he is Jewish — should not take that from her. The fact that he might be the better choice is irrelevant.
Look at the “sacrifices” Hillary had to make. From Little Rock to Washington, Hillary had to deal with Bill’s infidelity. How hard must it have been for Hillary to trade in Helen Reddy’s “I am Woman Hear me Roar” for Tammy Lynette’s “Stand by Your Man”? The very least that the Democratic Party could do is give her a chance to sit in the Oval Office.
In addition, just look at the spectacle the Democrats were about to create when Hillary clinched the nomination. Glass ceilings were shattered, women were empowered (unless they crossed paths with Bill), and Democrats were painted as diversity divas.
That brings us back to Warren and the increased speculation she is atop the list to be Hillary’s VP. If that ticket comes to fruition, not only would Hillary be the first female presidential nominee but Warren would be the first vice presidential nominee with high cheekbones.
The fact that Sanders had a better shot at winning, Hillary achieved the top spot by walking over the women her husband harassed, and Warren used the plight of Native Americans to bolster her professional profile means nothing. Such is the cost of living in a diversified world.
If Trump continues hitting Hillary and Warren for their “Pocahontas” approach to presidential politics, all the Democrat duo will have in November is their diversity to keep them warm.