Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
If I may, I think Locke is more maligning the tactical reasoning behind claiming this, more than the societal reason. This is also something I constantly am confused about.
What upside is there to claiming racial history? People of that community won't care, unless you are actively helping that community. The people you're courting are the very very slim and currently shrinking rump republican style voters who want to appear even handed while actually hiding cruel policies in their back pockets. Most voters in her current base are the hard style republican voter, who don't even want to appear even handed and just want to cause maximum pain to the other side, so these people are likely to look unfavorably upon cherokee heritage.
So all in all, it's taking a massive risk for vanishingly small upside. It's hallmark stupidity. If you don't think the casual disregard for racial history in the country isn't enough to go after her about on this one, then think of how remarkably stupid it is to parade around a claim like this when there's literally no upside. That stupidity should not be making decisions for our province.
Edit: here's my dumb metaphor of the day: It's akin to running out on to the deerfoot because you think you saw a $5 bill, only to find it's one of those funny money $5 bills from the dollarama.
|
The "upside" they also try to flex is to fend off calls that they are racist. "I have so and so ancestry, I can't be racist!" It's shallow and transparent to most people, but some buy it.