McCain's Black Relatives
 

Interesting articles:

"Two Families Named McCain: Candidate's Kin Share a History With Descendants of Slaves"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224...googlenews_wsj

"Some of McCain's black relatives support Obama"
http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?op...2041&Itemid=42

Have these been posted already?

Seriously? Pretty sure by the time McCain could buy his own slaves, slavery was against the law. And how far down the line are these relatives?

Who cares?

Perhaps, but he also denied his family's slave-owning past and then claimed to gloss over the section about the family slaves when he read a relative's memoir. I completely understand why he would do that...

John McCain's family own slaves.....I'm shocked.:rolleyes:

Well this confirms it.

This election has nothing to do with race.

Nothing to see here.

yeah...ditto that surprise.

Has anyone checked whether or not Obama's family owned slaves?

Better question: Does anyone care?

Apparently someone cares enough about this question to act like it's a big deal (and post it), so if this is such an important issue in judging candidates maybe they should.

Didn't most white families who lived in America own slaves at some point?

What does someone's ancestors have to do with them now?

And if we wanna go there, let's talk about Obama's mama and how his dad was an alcoholic drunk driver. Or why DID Obama change his name from Barry to Barack if he is not Muslim or ever was....

(I'm neither an Obama nor McCain supporter)

Yes. :p

Good question.

Why does anyone care whether McCain's family had slaves prior to December 6th, 1865? The answer as to him should be the same as it is for Obama.

A more interesting question, I think, and one which might be whether Obama's Kenyan ancestors were active in the slave trade. Kenya was once a big slave exporting country.

actually right about now...this whole thread is pointless.


Same reason why James Earl Carter is Jimmy and Richard Cheyney is a Dick.

Thanks for the links the articles are pretty interesting.

As a general matter, does it matter if a candidate's ancestors owned slaves? I mean, for me, as a white male living in New England, it doesn't really matter much, but I'm not exactly qualified to speak for others.

ETA: Never mind - question withdrawn.

Most whites don't like talking about slavery...because why should they be held accountable for what their ancestors did?

No. While it might be true that most white Americans today whose ancestors came here long enough ago could find at least one slave-owning ancestor in his or her family tree, most white families did not own slaves.

To give one snapshot: According to the 1860 Census, about 25% percent of families in the 15 states where slavery was legal owned slaves. (Meaning about 75% of families in those states did not own slaves.) Per that same census, this translated into about 8% of all white American families owning slaves.
He didn't change his name; his name has always been Barack, just like his father for whom he is named. Barry was a nickname -- it's no different from the kid Tommy deciding to be the adult Thomas (or Tomás).

Well, this is actually an entirely different thread, and doesn't really address ksig's point at all (should we care of McCain's distant family owned slaves? Why or why not?) . . . Although you might have been joking, in which case, as always, I'm an idiot.

actually, I was being sarcastic...and this thread is actually a Thread to Nowhere

Then I'm completely on your side here, DS

They probably did. Sooooooooo what's your point?

LOL

Thank you. I did not know that.

Because my ancestors were poor and lived in Sicily, therefore more than likely did not own slaves. They did their own dirty work. So no, most whites shouldn't have to be held accountable for what their ancestors did, because alot of them didn't own slaves!

That this whole line of questioning/thinking is beyond pointless.

Then, why comment? That seems pointless too.:confused:

Forget a census, that fact that any person owned slaves ,whether the owners were black or white is disgusting.

I can't comment because I find the entire concept of the thread to be ridiculous?

It is just as relevant as to whether McCain's family owned slaves 150 years ago as it is whether Obama's ancestors owned slaves or participated in the slave trade.

You're right.

This is still a false dilemma (in reference to this thread).

pssst.....check back at post 14....get the picture and move on.

Your welcome to comment because this is a free country and you have rights, or so they say. If you think that this is pointless, why waste time stating such. As for the slave topic please refer to post 26, thanks.:)

Why would you assume they probably did, since most white families did not?

Slightly off topic, and maybe this has been mentioned at GC before and I missed it, but did anyone else hear that Obama is distantly related to Dick Chaney and Harry Truman?

A quarter of white families in states allowing slavery owned at least 1 slave. That doesn't mean a whole lot though since there have been quite a few generations in between slavery and now, so your ancestors cover a lot of families back in the days of slavery.

What's your source for information? And what time frame are you covering? What is the percentage of black/mixed race slaveholders at the time? I've seen the 25% figure banded about in research, but have had trouble sometimes pinning down the specifics of the statement. ( And 25% still means 75% of families DID NOT own even one slave.)

You can't really make a blanket statement like that and have it be accurate. As a basis of comparison, the percentage of New England slaveholders in 1760 is basically the same as southern slaveholders in 1860. If you talked about slavery in 1760 the percentages overall would differ from slavery in 1860. Heck, if you want to have fun with technicalities you could point out that 100% of all slaveholders after the Emancipation Proclamation lived in states of the Union. It's interesting that you specify your percentage as being those who owned at least 1 slave - I've seen percentages as low as 3.7 for southern slaveholders with 50 or more slaves, depending on the year.

Ultimately, getting back to the political aspect of all this, McCain could no more chose his ancestors than you or I. Whether or not his family, or Obama's, owned slaves tells us NOTHING about the candidates and their views on any racial issue of today.

I had seen that number in this thread and repeated it. I was just explaining the logic that the fact that x% of families had a slave doesn't mean that x% of people now have ancestors who had slaves.

It was me, here in post #16. I got the info here. I'll admit that I haven't compared this to the census records themselves, which I can only find on a county by county basis.

No. Very few people owned slaves...

According to this data: http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total

8% did.

Furthermore, what does it matter whether or not his family owned slaves? He's not his ancestors. No one is.

Edit: I know my ancestors did, the German side came over in the late 1880's and the English side were Quakers (vehemently opposed to slavery)

I don't care what the percentage is...I am still stuck on the fact that millions were hauled here in the first place and God only knows how many died from those shores to these shores...this is why I even hate discussing this type of stuff because it's always someone trying to minimalize the impact that the Slave trade had...I don't care if it was 1% ...there are still issues that have gone on for 400+ years we still haven't resolved yet.

For instance....James Byrd wasn't that long ago and THIS just happened again in TEXAS

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...0,977683.story

Some behaviors just won't die...just people.

I don't know that anyone here is trying to minimalize the effect of the slave trade. Even the people who say that a low percentage of whites owned slaves would admit (I would hope) that some of these whites owned large numbers of slaves. Plus, 8% is still 8% too many...

Racism is still rampant today, absolutely. When I was asking my questions, I wasn't making a judgment on the slavery, or excusing anyone's conduct, I was asking it more as a general question about whether the actions of a person's ancestors would affect the perception of that person today.

DS, I don't think anyone is trying to minimize it. I know I'm not and wouldn't.

Some of us have been responding to a specific question:It's not minimizing the extent of slavery to say that a specific claim is not accurate.

I agree that we haven't resolved all of these issues yet. I'd add that we won't unless we are honest about the history, which means both not minimizing and not making claims that aren't true historically.

And that is fine too because you also have to be aware that even though 8% may have owned Africans, that a LARGE percent of the populace still regarded my ancestors less than human and treated them as such which is why I still get pissy when we talk about attitudes today....make sure you read that link I left.