Obama the slave owner

[trapsetter]

We've all read this story about Obama's ancestors owning slaves. My question is who leaked this/handed it to the press: the Clintons or the Republicans?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Reitwiesner's research identifies two other presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain's great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.

[/ QUOTE ]

And one of Condi Rice's ancestors:
Burr Woodward Head, plantation owner near Clinton, Greene Co., Ala

So?

My question is: Why does anybody think any of this matters? Do you really think this matters to voters? What someone's ancestor did 145 years ago?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reitwiesner's research identifies two other presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain's great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.

[/ QUOTE ]

And one of Condi Rice's ancestors:
Burr Woodward Head, plantation owner near Clinton, Greene Co., Ala

So?

My question is: Why does anybody think any of this matters? Do you really think this matters to voters? What someone's ancestor did 145 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the amount and history of sexual relations between slave-owners and their slaves, I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial portion of the modern day African-American population who are descended from slaves had slave-owning ancestors.

[4 High]

How many times does this garbage have to be repeated? How many people will keep trying to link it to the Clintons?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times does this garbage have to be repeated? How many people will keep trying to link it to the Clintons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that if Hillary felt truly threatened by Obama that she would not resort to this type of tactic?

NCAces

[trapsetter]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times does this garbage have to be repeated? How many people will keep trying to link it to the Clintons?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're nuts if think the Clintons (Hillary especially) are above the lowest form of political dirt slinging. Hillary cried when Geffen called her and Bill liars and demanded that her political rival ask him to recant his statement. We're talking about a highly insecure, overly emotional, vindictive person here.

She'd do anything she could to topple Obama right now. Anything. Just remember Vince Foster and others who have stood in their way.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reitwiesner's research identifies two other presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain's great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.

[/ QUOTE ]

And one of Condi Rice's ancestors:
Burr Woodward Head, plantation owner near Clinton, Greene Co., Ala

So?

My question is: Why does anybody think any of this matters? Do you really think this matters to voters? What someone's ancestor did 145 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the amount and history of sexual relations between slave-owners and their slaves, I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial portion of the modern day African-American population who are descended from slaves had slave-owning ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant.

[Butso]

Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

that strikes me as quite interesting but is it true? link?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

that strikes me as quite interesting but is it true? link?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember where I read it originally, but a quick google search brings up a couple of books written by different geneticists that stands for that proposition.

I haven't read it, but this book also seems to discuss it:
Alex Shoumatoff's "The Mountain of Name: A History of the Human Family."

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D.