Obama's kin were slave masters?

[mickeyd]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story

But an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now: It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to genealogical research and census records.

Interesting twist of history to go along with Rev. Sharpton's revelation that his kin were owned, as slaves, my Sen. Strom Thurman's relatives in SC. Isn't life in the USA interesting?

 

[LeatherneckPA]

OMG, GET OVER IT PEOPLE!! Who cares who's family owned slaves 150 years ago, or who was owned. Hell, my ancestors and their families in Ireland are still writhing under the unjust rule of a conquering Empire which refuses to set them free and self-govern.

But you know what? Some people are going to be swayed this media drivel and it will change their vote.

 

[bright eyed]

if all americans w/ kinfolk back 2 generations in the US looked back i am sure we would find lots of interesting things...

i heard Katie Couric did an episode tracing her roots back and she went to her family's plantation and she was saying, "and over there is the gazebo, and back there were the slaves quarters..."

and if most white folks look back they will find lots of black folk they are related to...i think it's at least one in ten if not more.

history is REAL - it did happen...

i think the al sharpton story brings home how recent all this stuff was - 150 years is not much and his great grandfather was owned by thurmond's family? come on - that is pretty recent stuff to "get over"...it's not ancient history...and the reality is that some people benefited greatly from the slave trade and have been able to pass on assets etc. to their kids and some had to just survive and hope for better futures for their kids...

 

[samclem]

Slavery was a terrible institution.
While we are talking about "who benefitted:
There is little doubt that the descendents of Africans who were brought to the US as slaves enjoy a much higher standard of living, longevity, and opportunity than the descendants of Africans who remained in Africa. Does that mean slavery was a "good thing? Not at all. But it is another aspect that is seldom discussed--it's not very PC. Apparently it is much better if everyone is a victim and has someone else to blame/envy.

 

[frayne]

Must be a slow news day. My parents were Adam and Eve.

 

[ADJ]

Slavery was a terrible institution.
While we are talking about "who benefitted:
There is little doubt that the descendents of Africans who were brought to the US as slaves enjoy a much higher standard of living, longevity, and opportunity than the descendants of Africans who remained in Africa. Does that mean slavery was a "good thing? Not at all. But it is another aspect that is seldom discussed--it's not very PC. Apparently it is much better if everyone is a victim and has someone else to blame/envy."

This view is simplistic. While America is economically successful, I see everyday blacks here who are living in dire poverty, in fact shockingly so. While they are dodging bullets in America, the vast majority of Africans are not starving and are not warring (despite what the media would have you believe). It is true that Africa is in dire economic straits but that's because of it's oppression and control for centuries by European powers who deliberately underdeveloped Africa and focus on mono crop economies to benefit the colonizing power. They cultivated and ecouraged dictatorships and did not focus on education and development of the poor.

Europeans did not come bearing gifts offering their new technolgy to help the Africans. No, they came, raped, pillaged, enslaved and conquered. It is any wonder that their economies are developed and Africa's is not? They did not cultivate real democracies or even shared their democratic ideals with Africans, instead they placed in power people that would easily support the colonial power. In fact, most African countries had to fight to their death to be liberated from white rule.

I imagine if you're poor and black male, born in the ghetto here to a welfare mother, the odds of a poor African boy surving to adulthood without being killed or jailed is much better. I think I would prefer the latter and better yet if the African boy gets an opportunity to come and study and work in America. Check out all the foreign born black doctors and all the foreign born blacks that are quickly making it into the middle class. They don't have the same shackles to deal with as American born blacks.

My point - nothing inherently better in being born in America for blacks. We all should focus on how we can make the whole world a better place. Whether it's Latin American, Africa, China, wherever poverty is found, let's fight it. Then the world will be a better place for all people whether you were enslaved or not.

 

[samclem]

This view is simplistic. While America is economically successful, I see everyday blacks here who are living in dire poverty, in fact shockingly so.

To compare poverty in America with poverty as it is experienced in much of Africa is a belly laugh.

It is true that Africa is in dire economic straits but that's because of it's oppression and control for centuries by European powers who deliberately underdeveloped Africa and focus on mono crop economies to benefit the colonizing power. They cultivated and ecouraged dictatorships and did not focus on education and development of the poor.

Europeans did not come bearing gifts offering their new technolgy to help the Africans. No, they came, raped, pillaged, enslaved and conquered. It is any wonder that their economies are developed and Africa's is not?

Yep, European influence was soemtimes beneficial, sometimes not. As has been widely noted, the English did a relatively good job of establishing efficient governments that were relatively corruption-free (by African standards). The French and many others did a less thorough job of leaving their colonies ready for self-rule. But, that was all many decades ago. Just how long is Europe to be held responsible for the mess that is Africa? Africans are being oppressed by Africans today---that's the way it is.

I imagine if you're poor and black male, born in the ghetto here to a welfare mother, the odds of a poor African boy surving to adulthood without being killed or jailed is much better. I think I would prefer the latter and better yet if the African boy gets an opportunity to come and study and work in America. Check out all the foreign born black doctors and all the foreign born blacks that are quickly making it into the middle class. They don't have the same shackles to deal with as American born blacks.

The imigration statistics don't bear this out. Millions of Africans want t coem to America, there is only a trickle the other way. Why aren't those inner city black Americans lining up to get into Ghana? Many reasons, (no shared culture, etc) but mostly just because they are smarter than that.

Poor blacks have about the same life expectancy as poor whites. It's being poor, not being black, that is the problem for these people.

Rewind 250 years and put yourself in the place of an African. As it turns out, there's virtually NOTHING you could have done that would have done more to help assure a better life for your offspring than to be taken to America as a slave. Yes, your life and the lives of your children would be terrible and likely short. But, to think your great-great grandchildren would be better off if you stay on the continent is to ignore the tragic history of Africa and the great progress blacks have made here.

I agree that we need to continue to work on reducing poverty everywhere. Who can be against that?

 

[farmerEd]

There is little doubt that the descendents of Africans who were brought to the US as slaves enjoy a much higher standard of living, longevity, and opportunity than the descendants of Africans who remained in Africa. Does that mean slavery was a "good thing? Not at all. But it is another aspect that is seldom discussed--it's not very PC. Apparently it is much better if everyone is a victim and has someone else to blame/envy.

I get it now...we actually did all those black folks a favor by enslaving them and bringing them to America.....maybe the descendants of slaves should be giving all us white folks reparations...

 

[samclem]

I get it now...we actually did all those black folks a favor by enslaving them and bringing them to America.....maybe the descendants of slaves should be giving all us white folks reparations...

Who are "we" (emphasis added)?? If you personally kept slaves, than I think you have some explaining to do. I was not aware that anyone still alive in the US had kept slaves or been one.

That's what makes the whole business of lokng into ancestors who did "wrong" or were "wronged" a little silly. No--a LOT silly. And unproductive.

 

[bright eyed]

i think people here can easily understand the impact a wealthy great grandfather would/could have on your life - just imagine what it means to have had a slave as a great grandfather (for those of us who are not afrn amn)...

i understand the desire to forget about the past or say it was sooo long ago, but it really wasn't that long ago - and only in the second half of the 20th cty did they even get the proper right to vote so...while it is important to take personal responsibility for your life and i am in no way an advocate for any sort of victim mentality - i think it's easy for me to understand the frustration and anger one would have when people keep trying to tell you it doesn' t matter, stop blaming me, etc....

of course a percentage of people have been able to succeed - some at an extraordinary scale, but poverty in the united states is very real and stark and in many cases comparable to conditions in developing nations...

 

[ADJ]

To compare poverty in America with poverty as it is experienced in much of Africa is a belly laugh.

How one experiences poverty is relative. I am experienced to talk about this because I have worked with third-world poverty and I've worked with poverty in America. Poor Americans are terribly depressed and poor Africans are not. They deal with their poverty differently; mostly because their expecations are different and they are contented and most importantly they have the support of their community and family. Africa is about collectivism. I recently went to the home of a very poor African American family and they did not have water and heat. Yes, right here in America!

As to the rest of your arguments, they are misguided and misinforming. I will not indulge you any further by refuting any of them.

 

[ADJ]

Rewind 250 years and put yourself in the place of an African. As it turns out, there's virtually NOTHING you could have done that would have done more to help assure a better life for your offspring than to be taken to America as a slave. Yes, your life and the lives of your children would be terrible and likely short. But, to think your great-great grandchildren would be better off if you stay on the continent is to ignore the tragic history of Africa and the great progress blacks have made here.

I changed my mind. First off, you're are not responding to my post. I was not suggesting that there's a lot of African immigrants coming to the US or that it is easy to do so. Anyway, let me address the above - this has to be the number one racist/ignorant comment of the century and yes, you are probably a white male. To assert that people were better off being taken on several months journey where they were shackled together naked, suffered terribly, starved, died, tossed overboard and just about 25% of them survived the journey is utterly utterly ridiculous and just makes me mad as hell. Don't read the whitewashed history, read to real one and come again.

 

[ADJ]

Who are "we" (emphasis added)?? If you personally kept slaves, than I think you have some explaining to do. I was not aware that anyone still alive in the US had kept slaves or been one.

That's what makes the whole business of lokng into ancestors who did "wrong" or were "wronged" a little silly. No--a LOT silly. And unproductive.

No you did not keep slaves but you continue to derive the benefits from slavery, oppression and racism. That's what it's all about.

 

[ADJ]

of course a percentage of people have been able to succeed - some at an extraordinary scale, but poverty in the united states is very real and stark and in many cases comparable to conditions in developing nations...

Excellent post and I would like to add that there is psychology of poverty. We can't ignore that. Let's take a typical kid being raised in an environment where all he saw around him was degrading poverty, not much value for education and constantly told that he would face a lot of dificulty because he is black. This kid then starts having children early, may or may not end up on the wrong side of the law, all by the time, he turns 18. It's pretty difficult to have a good life with this start.

I strongly support personal responsibilty, but it's easy for us to sit in our ivory towers totally ignoring what it means to be poor and how the psychology of poverty without intervention prevents success. Personally, most of the successful people that I know that faced such a life growing up, can directly point to the influence/intervention in the their life that made them a success. If you don't have that as a poor kid, especially, a poor black kid, you're more or less doomed.

 

[bright eyed]

Yep, European influence was soemtimes beneficial, sometimes not. As has been widely noted, the English did a relatively good job of establishing efficient governments that were relatively corruption-free (by African standards). The French and many others did a less thorough job of leaving their colonies ready for self-rule. But, that was all many decades ago. Just how long is Europe to be held responsible for the mess that is Africa? Africans are being oppressed by Africans today---that's the way it is.

Poor blacks have about the same life expectancy as poor whites. It's being poor, not being black, that is the problem for these people.

Whoa - what kind of history books are you using

first of all, the french had a different view on colonialism and were much more likely to view their colonies as part of their nation - building governments, etc. the british were harsh extractors of resources (not saying french and others didn't do that too) but just slashed, stole etc...

and i don't know where you got that life expectancy number - but remember that the US is a large and diverse country so statistics don't mean much if it's averages - and the wealthy/poor divide is stark amongs afn amns too. many studies have verified that life expectancy for an afrn am male is akin or worse to that of their cohorts in aftrica or other dvelpg nations in certain areas of this country.


<1990, an article in the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ reported that
“Black men in Harlem were less likely to reach the age of 65 than men in
Bangladesh.” A recent comparison of current federal health data with the
‘2005 Human Development Index’ published by the United Nations shows that
the poor international health status of black men in the United States
persists in the new millennium. Today, the average American can expect to
live 5 years longer than a Palestinian -- unless that American is a black
male, in which case he can expect to die three years sooner.

The life expectancy at birth for black males in the U.S. (68.8) is lower
than that for males in Iran (69.0), Colombia (69.3), and Sri Lanka (71.5) -->>

i think the New England Journal of Med and the UN are reliable sources?

 

[ADJ]

Again, excellent post. You know you're stuff. That's exactly the reason I told him that his post was misguided and misinforming. I just did not have the time to respond.

 

[Gone4Good]

How one experiences poverty is relative.

How one experiences hunger is not.

The whole concept of "relative poverty" is a complete joke when comparing third world poverty to that which is experienced in the developed world. And the sweeping generalization that poverty in the US is somehow as bad, or worse, than in the third world defies not only credulity, but all evidence to the contrary.

Consider this from the United Nations:
The state of food and nutrition in Africa

The report summarized here describes the situation as a deteriorating human tragedy with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM), that is, children weighing less than 80% of standard weight for age, affecting about 30% of children under five years of age. Fifteen countries show areas with PEM prevalence over 50%. . . . Iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) and vitamin A deficiency, apart from retarding growth and causing blindness, respectively, also worsen the effect of PEM and anaemia, and increase mortality and morbidity. Only eight African countries, mainly islands, are unaffected by IDD, while vitamin A deficiency was reported in 22 countries.

And compare that with "poverty" in the US

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

These bullet points apply to the 12.6% of the US population officially categorized as poor by the US census bureau.

And further evidence:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that in 2003, only 1 out of 200 U.S. households with children became so severely food insecure that any of the children went hungry even once during the year. That compares with an estimated 198 Million chronically undernourished people in India (~20% of the population).

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Oh jeez louise. :

Are we actually trying to compare statistics and data for modern conditions with fairly unknown and unknowable conditions in two continents from two hundred years ago and trying to establish relative merits?

I'm guessing that it pretty much sucked to get grabbed from your homeland, taken away from your friends and family, and hauled across the ocean to be beaten and worked while you lived in a barn.

Now lets make sure we wrap up all this emotion and stuff it down some guys shirt to discredit his efforts to be elected to public office.

 

[bright eyed]

Oh jeez louise. :

Now lets make sure we wrap up all this emotion and stuff it down some guys shirt to discredit his efforts to be elected to public office.

as long as he/she stays away from saying things like "macaca" ...

 

[samclem]

I changed my mind.

I liked your other mind better.

I was not suggesting that there's a lot of African immigrants coming to the US or that it is easy to do so.

Please re-read my post. I didn't say that a lot of African migrants were coming to the US--I said that many want to. And very few people want to go the other way. Have you heard the phrase "voting with their feet"?
Most "middle class" people in Africa would, without hesitation, swap their lot for American-style poverty, and (IMO) they'd be smart to do it.

To assert that people were better off being taken on several months journey where they were shackled together naked, suffered terribly, starved, died, tossed overboard and just about 25% of them survived the journey is utterly utterly ridiculous and just makes me mad as hell.

You'll continue to be mad if you don't actually read what people write. Where did I write that these slaves were better off for having been taken as slaves? I never wrote that, and I don't believe it is true.

No you did not keep slaves but you continue to derive the benefits from slavery, oppression and racism. That's what it's all about.

I really don't believe I have personally benefitted from the institution of slavery, unless it benefitted the American economy years ago, and we are still deriving the benefits from that "head-start." Well, then all Americans, to include African Americans, have benefitted to the same degree as everyone else from the jobs created, the roads built, etc, etc. So, let's just drop the whole collective victimhood charade and help people improve their lives in the most meaningful way possible.

 

[laurence]

Uh-hem, Samclem, sorry, usually your arguments strike me as sound, even if I disagree with them, but this time I have to say I find them way out of line. In fact, I find them out of character for you. Let's use a simple analogy. Say you have a foot race, and one athlete is chained up for the first 100 yards of the 1000 yard race. At that point, we realize that this is wrong, and let him free. Then we say, "well, now everything is fair, keep going!" Only he is 100 yards behind the rest of the pack. Then we tell him he's a whiner and to quit playing the victim.

Up until 1860, the majority of the American economy was agriculture, of which cotton and tobacco were the principle commodities. These were only economically viable with the use of slavery. The foundation of this nation was laid with the blood of slavery, like it or not. After the civil war, there was a brief period of advancement for blacks, then reconstruction was reversed, and most blacks became sharecroppers in the south. This ended up being little better than slavery, as they had to rent their land for amounts they could never hope to pay off with their crops. At the end of the 19th century, blacks moved north to the cities for factory jobs, since they were literally starving in the south and being persecuted constantly. Forced into slums and working long hours, some managed to get ahead, most did not.

WWII came along, and still blacks were treated as second rate, segregated from whites even as they were drafted to fight in the war. It wasn't until the civil rights movements of the 50's and 60's that things started to move close to equal. The most white-washed, optimistic view would say that blacks experienced relative equality to whites starting in the 70's.

But who is the largest influence in a person's life? Focus on the Family and all the other right wing media will tell you it's his or her parents. Studies show that educated parents are much more likely to have educated ( and thus, prosperous) children. So I ask you, what do you say to an adult black man who's parents were shut out of good schools, and their parents were forcibly kept in ghetto's, and their parents were sharecroppers, and their parents were slaves not allowed to learn to read? It's all good, it's fair, quit whining?

Comparing the fate of African Americans with those who suffered in Africa under European colonialism is a false dichotomy. Whites went into africa, pitted one tribe against another and carved up countries with multiple ethnic groups to prevent uprisings. You thing the Hutus and Tutsies of Rawanda chose to be in the same country? Slaves didn't want to be "sold down the river" because slavery in Maryland was a whole lot better than slavery in Mississippi. But both are something we should be ashamed of.

 

[samclem]

It's evident that I'm not effectivelly communicating here. The historic treatment of African Americans is a shameful chapter of American History. Though sanctioned institutional racism is gone, the economc effects of slavery and discrimination remain. I agree with Lawrence--the ripples of these issues continue to influence present generations.

So I ask you, what do you say to an adult black man who's parents were shut out of good schools, and their parents were forcibly kept in ghetto's, and their parents were sharecroppers, and their parents were slaves not allowed to learn to read? It's all good, it's fair, quit whining?

I guess I'd say the same thing as I'd say to a poor white kid in Appalachia whose family for generations worked in the mines and have nothing to show for it. Or to the child of an immigrant of any nation whose parents worked in low paying jobs. I'd tell them that "fair" has nothing to do with it. That whining is unlikely to improve your life. That hating others is unlikely to bring you happiness or prosperity and sets an example of victimhood for your kids. IMO, progress begins when people stop seeing themselves as members of a victimized group and start seeing themselves as individuals--as the person most responsible for your own happiness, prosperity, and the values you give your children.

 

[laurence]

...start seeing themselves as individuals--as the person most responsible for your own happiness, prosperity, and the values you give your children.

And this is a part I can agree on. The tragedy is many historically persecuted communities are continuing to de-humanize themselves with conformity to caricatures and stereotypes and self-segregation. Fortunately, I live in SoCal, where a lunch table with a white, asian, and african american sitting together goes completely unnoticed.

 

[bright eyed]

i must say, this is a really great conversation - really i think people should have them more often - or else we will have more michael richards incidents going on in the world.

we all hardly ever talk about these things and it becomes so deep seeded that when it comes out - it's a bit of a mess...

samclem- i think if you really "walked a mile" in someone's shoes your compassion would grow and then you could see that the increasing/prevailing conversation from black leaders and other people is moving more toward personal responsibility etc. but what is the kid supposed to do who's parents were unable for whatever reason to teach them those values, grew up on the street, worse case scenario showed them bad behaviors...i know a lot of kids like this and they are great great kids - but it is soo hard for them to pull it together...

and again, even if your parents were both lawyers, doctors etc. and you went to great schools etc. there are times in every minority's life where you have not been treated fairly - and for someone who doesn't have to deal with that discrimination to say "get over it" can be infuriating...so if anything, it doesn't help make progress on the issue...it's a step back.

 

[donheff]

Sam - after reading this whole thread, I get the impression that you are basically saying that life for the poor in today's America is better than life for the poor in today's Africa. Thus it is the better place to be born. While the point is debatable it certainly isn't reprehensible.

The problem is that you do a Colter and wrap it up with an assertion that the descendants of slaves are better off for it than those of the left behind. But this second point sounds (I realize you don't intend it this way) like an endorsement of the past. It can only make sense in the context of an Africa ravaged by exploitive colonialism, mapped out by a few cartographers divvying up the spoils for their mother countries. If, on the other hand, Europeans had not molested Africa (and thus those slaves never came) today's Africa would be an entirely different place - maybe worse but more likely far better. If you just leave out the "here is a good thought to start a food fight" assertions, you could make your points better.