In first lady's roots, complex path from slavery

In first lady's roots, complex path from slavery

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - In 1850, the elderly master of a South Carolina estate took pen in hand and painstakingly divided up his possessions. Among the spinning wheels, scythes, tablecloths and cattle that he bequeathed to his far-flung heirs was a 6-year-old slave girl valued soon afterward at $475.

In his will, she is described simply as the “negro girl Melvinia.” After his death, she was torn away from the people and places she knew and shipped to Georgia. While she was still a teenager, a white man would father her first-born son under circumstances lost in the passage of time.

In the annal

(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought this was interesting because a few days ago, I read this thread about Nostradamus and how one of his predictions of the Antichrist was that it could be Obama, but here is the quatrain about it.

The great empire will be torn from limb,

The all-powerful one for more than four hundred years:

Great power given to the dark one from slaves come,

The Aryana will not be satisfied thereby.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Obama Nostrdamus prophesy - Snopes.com

That Nostradamus "prophesy" is a hoax.

Gee, that is much better than watching your child get it's head bashed in against a tree because ammo was just too expensive. Or better yet watching your whole tribe be slaughtered to the last person men, women and children. What about being placed on a reservation in the middle of nowhere and given autonomous authority as an independent nation. Which is saying you have all this land now do something, we can no longer help you. Foreign nations get more help then the Native Americans, even today. Go cry somewhere else.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Gee, that is much better than watching your child get it's head bashed in against a tree because ammo was just too expensive. Or better yet watching your whole tribe be slaughtered to the last person men, women and children. What about being placed on a reservation in the middle of nowhere and given autonomous authority as an independent nation. Which is saying you have all this land now do something, we can no longer help you. Foreign nations get more help then the Native Americans, even today. Go cry somewhere else.

respectfully

Jose' Chavez y Chavez

fixed

"We are not separate tribes of Latinos and whites and blacks in America,” Mr. Ball said. “We’ve all mingled, and we have done so for generations.”


how the hell can he say that, Im pretty sure that many people have been "all black" or "all white" in their family tree since the formation of the US (without getting into distant genaeology from milennum ago)

So, is this the part where I feel great pride in my nation, celebrate the accomplishments of the black race because of one man, and cue some corny music?

It will be utterly sad if the Obama's use this finding to justify anything they say or do. The blacks of today - the ones who have not lived a day of their lives in slavery - are an insult and embarrassment to their ancestors. To use THEIR suffering and enslavement to gain perks and favors for yourself is a complete lack of respect and remorse for what they went through.

All black people have roots in slavery. In fact, all people - period - have roots in slavery. If you go back far enough, every person is related. So how is this news? Unless marriage is somehow an accomplishment, Michelle Obama has accomplished nothing as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

she has a garden.
I wonder if she had a garden before she was !st shady

reply to post by Nassim Haramein


Sorry to burst your bubble. The native people that were displaced are not to be confused with the tribes from the central and southern hemisphere. While some, do have a native territory that may encompass parts of Mexico. The true Native Americans, which of course displaced others, are not crying the blues over being mistreated, nor are they demanding reparations. Most that are in touch with their historical side understand warfare and how it is waged. It was a part of their life. I was using it as an example of how two differing cultures view themselves after mistreatment.

And for your info, while the Apache tribe is the strongest in my heritage, the gift of genetics has given me aryan features. I am blond and blue eyed. I have a daughter however that has features that are more to the native set, however she will never be identifiable as a native because of it.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
It will be utterly sad if the Obama's use this finding to justify anything they say or do.

The fact that Michelle's family has roots in slavery is not a new finding. I saw a story about this a year or more ago. Here is a story about it from last October. If they haven't "used" her ancestry to their advantage by now, I don't know why they'd do it now.

I think it's a very interesting story and if it were my history, I'd be proud to talk about it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

What is your history?
I ask because I'm curious what shaped your views on obama.
I already know your views so I don't need a diatribe I want to know why you think what you think.Was your family slave owners?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
So, is this the part where I feel great pride in my nation, celebrate the accomplishments of the black race because of one man, and cue some corny music?

It will be utterly sad if the Obama's use this finding to justify anything they say or do. The blacks of today - the ones who have not lived a day of their lives in slavery - are an insult and embarrassment to their ancestors. To use THEIR suffering and enslavement to gain perks and favors for yourself is a complete lack of respect and remorse for what they went through.

Hmmm... I am black and I am neither an insult nor an embarrassment to my family or ancestors. I do very well, actually. Why are you making such a massive generalization?

reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

How do you know?


[edit on 8-10-2009 by genius/idoit]

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

 

It's not about you!
Since you do well and are not an embarrassment I will assume you can read and comprehend.So why when he clearly said michelle obama do you think that indicates you?(unless you are the fist lady)

Unless marriage is somehow an accomplishment, Michelle Obama has accomplished nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Yes he said Michelle Obama.. Before that, however, He said "Blacks today are an insult and emarrassment to their ancestors. Not Michelle.. BLACKS today. Again, if he was specifically talking about the first lady (and I am not sure why she would be an embarrasment, but it is an opinion) the why say the blacks of today?


There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. How about yours?

I am questioning the generalization. If someone stated that the ATS members today are an insult to the community, I am sure such a broad brush stroke would be questions by many here. What is the difference?

[edit on 10/8/09 by IconoclasticTalamasca]

reply to post by genius/idoit


How do I know what? Please clarify.

reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca


Did you fail to read the sentence after the one you emphasized in my post? If you read it you would see that I am very clearly speaking about the black people today who use their ancestors' slavery to gain favors through things such as the NAACP and Affirmative Action.

Nowhere did I say a word about black people who have accomplished something and are successful without the help of their ancestors' suffering. I highly doubt you honestly think it is morally right for anyone to use what they went through to gain favors, so I'll assume you simply misinterpreted my post.

reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca


Perhaps the only thing more insulting/annoying/offensive than a broad generalization is taking what one knows to be a broad generalization and applying it specifically and literally to drum up a sense of being offended rather than just take it for what it is, a broad generalization.

I read this last night, I was moved by the story, it was interesting, Nothing to argue about though.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

 

Did you fail to read the sentence after the one you emphasized in my post? If you read it you would see that I am very clearly speaking about the black people today who use their ancestors' slavery to gain favors through things such as the NAACP and Affirmative Action.

Nowhere did I say a word about black people who have accomplished something and are successful without the help of their ancestors' suffering. I highly doubt you honestly think it is morally right for anyone to use what they went through to gain favors, so I'll assume you simply misinterpreted my post.

Yes, I read it. You first said that black today- the ones that did not suffer through slavery- were an insult and embarrasment. You then said Michelle had nothing to be proud of.

I pointed out that I am neither of those things, yet I am black. Does not compute.

Is that what you meant? Or did you mean that CERTAIN black people who did not suffer through slavery are an embarrasment and an insult and that The first lady has nothing to be proud of? I don;t want to put words in your mouth, so please elucidate

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

 

Perhaps the only thing more insulting/annoying/offensive than a broad generalization is taking what one knows to be a broad generalization and applying it specifically and literally to drum up a sense of being offended rather than just take it for what it is, a broad generalization.

So it is ok to group an entire group of people in a very negative and disparaging category, and it should not be pointed out because, well, it was just a generalization. Sort of like all Jews are money hungry...but it is just a generalization, right?

I am really not following you. Why is it ok?