Barack Obama's family past has recently come into some questioning. An article in the Baltimore Sun newspaper has reported that Obama's ancestors owned slaves. While Obama's father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas, records indicate that family on his mother's side owned slaves in Kansas during the 1850's. Obama's great-great-great-great grandfather George Washington Overall owned two slaves, as did his great-great-great-great-great grandmother, Mary Duvall. The information pertaining to the slaves were recorded by the Nelson City 1850 Census in Kansas. The research was conducted by William Addams Reitwiesner, who works for the Library of Congress and has access to such records. Reitwiesner has posted the information on his website with a disclaimer stating it was a "first draft." He went on to say that it would be further looked into if Obama was nominated. The Sun was able to essentially double track Reitwiesner's work through websites like ancestory.com and the Kentucky Library and Archives. Neither Obama himself or any relatives have made comment, referrence of indicated anything about his family history, but a Obama spokesman address the situation by claiming that Obama's ancestors "are representative of America."
It seems that Reitwiesner is using this information almost as blackmail; as if his research is serving as a teaser to intrigue the public and entice further investigations- but only if necessary, i.e only if Obama is elected.
Seeing that the press has had a very difficult time finding any real 'dirt' on Obama, do you think this kind of information will affect him during his campaigning?
Do you think it's a serious issue that he will have to address immediately, or do you think Obama will continue to ignore the actions of his ancestors? Could Obama use this to his advantage, using it to show how progressive our country has come since that time; that he cannot be held resposible for the actions of the past, but can be reponsible for the changes he can make if elected?
http://www.newmediajournal.us/politics.htm
http://www.wargs.com/political/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Obama's link to slave owners should be a non-iddue. Virtually all Americans, regardless of their race or ethnicity, have ancestors who owned slaves or participated in the slave trade. This includes African Americans. Thousands of free blacks in the United States owned slaves (one of the South’s largest slave owners was a free black man) and many—probably most—African Americans have whites who also owned slaves in their family trees. The percentage of freed blacks who owned slaves was small, but so was the percentage of whites who owned slaves. But the way the genetic pool works guarantees that practically everyone is related to them.
Slavery was also practiced in all Northern states and was still legal in some Northern states at the time of the Civil War, so it makes no difference which side of the Mason-Dixie line you happen to have been born on. Most Americans have ancestors who fought for the North as well as ancestors who fought for the South.
Hispanic Americans also have ancestors who owned slaves (more than two-thirds of slaves transported from African to the Americas went to Mexico and South America). American Indian tribes had both before and after the arrival of Europeans (the largest slave market that every existed in the Americas was one the Aztecs maintained near Mexico city prior to the Spanish conquest). Slavery continued to be legal on tribal lands inside the United States after the Civil War. The United States finally ended slavery within its borders by purchasing slaves from the Indian tribes and setting the free.
The Cherokee ware the last to give up their
I don't think this will necessarily hurt Obama in winning the Presidential election, or hurting him when and if he become our next president. Our country has changed dramatically since the 1800's, and it would almost be unfair to hold him accountable for actions that his ancestors made, when in fact slavery in our country during that era was legal. Of course we look at the slavery issues now and are clueless on how our country could have ever allowed such a thing, but that just goes to show how much we have changed. Obama is also half African-American, so I'm sure the issue of his ancestors having slaves has a large impact on him personally.
If this historian is trying to use this as blackmail, I don't think it will work. However, the reports are interesting for the public to know about, but they should not be tied or held against Obama as he has had absolutely nothing to do with owning slaves during this time period.
I agree that the reporter is trying to use this as blackmail toward Obama "only if he becomes elected," which I think is absurd. I don't think that history over 100 years ago should make an impact on the election next year. I think that from a PR standpoint, they should make a statement relatively soon regarding the subject and it should come from Obama personally about the topic.
I doubt it will hurt him through his campaigning, and in my opinion I think it's pathetic that they couldn't find any other form of "dirt" on him that they had to do research from the 1800's. I think he is well spoken and will handle the situation with grace and use it to his advantage.
I dont think that the fact that obama's ancestors owned slaves will effect him. If anything it might affect his populatiry with black voters who think that it is a hit below the belt for a black family in kansas to have owned slaves. It doesnt say how these slaves were treated though, i could see how they migh have been treated more like butlers and maids if there was onlyl two of them as opposed to slaves that have to work on fields and harvest acre's of crops.
I dont like the way that Reitwiesner has singled out obama in this instance. It is intriguing how the black candidate did once own slaves, but im sure that he is not the only one. Many of the candidates that run for election come from old money. This is why it is not hard to believe that they too had relatives that owned slaves, and in some cases im sure that they may have owned more then two slaves.
It would also be interesting to see if the relatives that obama had were white ancestors. The name duvall when first heard sounds kind of like an anglo name. This would be interesting because at first when he declared his run his was questioned on his blackness. If he did have white ancestors that might come back again to hurt him as to him not being black enough. So much so that some of his ancestors owned slaves.
I do not think that this is an issue which will hurt Obama’s campaign as I think most people will agree that you can’t hold Barack accountable for something his ancestors did so long ago. Since this is the only “dirt” the media has been able to really find on Obama they are going to run with it and make as big of a deal as they can with this information. Therefore he needs to quiet the media on this issue before it stirs into a bigger deal than it is.
Obama is better off making a statement than keeping quiet. I think it is best for him to say that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his ancestors and that it has no reflection upon his character. If Obama chooses to say nothing, the media will find some reason why Obama is not speaking up or they might think he is hiding something. So it is better for him to say something than to not say anything at all.
Although the press has had a very difficult time finding any real “dirt” on Obama, they continue as it seems, aimlessly in their search. I agree with the comments made by my fellow classmates that this kind of information will not affect him during his campaigning. I have come to understand that it is not the specific issue the press discovers so much as it is the reaction of the candidate that has a great affect on them and their campaign. As seen in Hilary Clinton’s reaction to David Geffen’s donations to the Obama campaign, a candidate who publicly portrays their frustrations will be criticized in the media. If Obama “plays it cool” and does not react outlandishly against his critics, on this matter, I feel that this issue will fizzle out over time.
I do not think this is a serious issue. As a few of my classmates have mentioned, slavery was legal, at one point in our nations history and it is understood that many Americans owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln the 16th President of the United States, known for being at the forefront of eliminating slavery, allegedly had slaves in the White House. I think Obama should and will continue to ignore the actions of his ancestors. Although our ancestors are important to all of us who have the desire to know where we came from, I feel we should not be thought of as direct representations or replicas of them. I believe it is up to each individual to make the right decisions for themselves and I do not feel this has any direct reflection on the decisions made by our ancestors. Obama is thought by many to be well educated and a wonderful public speaker. I do not feel that his ancestors being suspected of having slaves make him any less of a leader.
Obama could use this to his advantage to show how progressive our country has come since the time when his ancestors we alive. He can also point out the he hails from Chicago, Illinois and not Kansas. Kansas is directly located in the middle of the United States, while Illinois is hugging Lake Michigan, and is closer to the North East. An interesting fact is that Illinois is nicknamed the Land of Lincoln for Lincoln spent a portion of his life dwelling and serving the state that Obama now represents as a U.S. Senator. The state in which the 16th President of the United States, who again was a desired the abolishment of slavery, called home, should not be characterized as a state that supports slavery.
I do not feel Obama can be held responsible for the actions of the past, but in the future if he is elected president I do support the presumption that he can make tremendous strides to promote diversity and equality, with liberty and justice for all.
Post a Comment