Apart from its terrible smug tone, the story was reasonably interesting, but I'm still a whole lot more concerned about what Hubby is going to do about this country's multitudinous problems.
I had the same thought reading this article as I did watching Gates' program "African American Lives" on PBS (which I loved--I'm a huge fan of the UK's Who Do You Think You Are)--that loads of African Americans can trace their families back centuries further than many other Americans, racists included. When you can go back to 1785 and see that your ancestor was a free black man or 1820 and a slave--either way, your roots In America go back way further than mine and other whites, but aren't given the same credence. I was shocked it hadn't occurred to me before, not in the same way, of looking at the present from the past, as opposed looking at the past from the present.
@Claire Buoyant: His background is interesting too. I'm really looking forward to his Faces of America show, which features at black, white, Hispanic, Asian Americans.
Belonsky is no longer on the masthead, although I must say I don't remember if he was ever on it. They don't seem to last long enough for someone to add them to the Author's Widget lately.
We were one of the last countries in the entire Western Hemisphere not only to ban slavery but to to have a leader coming from anything other than a member of the whitey male ruling class. Mexico had a 100% Native American president while Michelle Obama's great-great-great whatever was being bought and sold like property. Even poor little Haiti defeated a major European power in a slave revolt while Americans had yet to consider black folks as worthy of voting rights. Nothing about slavery should be used as jingoism to make us feel warm and fuzzy about how wonderful it is that black Americans have overcome slavery (an arguable point, perhaps). I hope Michelle Obama sees this for what it is: jingoism that has little to do with her merits as a living, breathing individual human being. Maybe she doesn't want to be that kind of symbol?
Besides, it's completely American to reject Old World obsessions with blood lines and lineages and to accept and embrace our collective mutty-ness.
@gawkimo: It's Old World to obsess over the purity of your bloodline, true, but I disagree with your last point: rejecting your family's history isn't "completely American", it's just foolish. I'm all for embracing our muttiness, but "John Winger" said it best:
We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse.
@gawkimo: I agree with you on mutty-ness, and on the fact that who her forebears were has no moral relevance to who she is. So maybe "pround" wasn't the right word. But if we're not supposed to feel warm or fuzzy about the arrival in the White House of the descendant of a 15-year-old girl who was raped by her owner, how are we supposed to feel? Ashamed? Angry?
@John Cook: Mature, perhaps. Obamas aren't any more a symbol of the urban African American population than I am. If anything they represent the bourgeois establishment of any race in America. (With all the good and bad that implies.) It's funny to watch the Old Guard of the Civil Rights Movement squirm when the president doesn't live up to their expectations.
Today, Dolphus Shields lies in a neglected black cemetery, where patches of grass grow knee-high and many tombstones have toppled.
Assuming the First Lady and her family accept the story's findings, I'd expect some changes are in store at that cemetery. It would certainly be a private matter, but talk about your "teachable moments."
She was a child. He was an adult. Worse than that, he owned her, and it's unlikely she was unaware of what that meant. Worse than that, with a word he could have her tortured, maimed, killed without repercussion.
But add to that the fact he was a white male landowner, likely rich -- and she was a black child slave. He had all the power in the world, to come and go as he pleased, to purchase things, to have realistic hopes and see them through to reality.
She was a slave, and the most she could realistically hope for was, what, not to be a slave? To have enough to eat?
Add to all of this the fact that there was NO CONCEPT of rape of a slave. It was considered uncouth, at worst, to bed your slaves, but it's not like there was any thing to stop it from occurring, nor even the slightest option for a 14-year-old slave girl would be able to act upon. So, even if she was brainwashed into being willing -- what was the option for her other than being willing.
So, just as in cases of kidnapping where the kidnapped child/bride/whatever claims love for the kidnapper -- no. It's rape. Whether she's forced down by the power of his muscles, or the power of servitude, age and inability to make a choice, or the power of a government that refuses to acknowledge the idea of rape of a slave... it's rape.
And no amount of modern revision should imply consent to any of these relationships, Sally Hemings on down...
Andrew, I really don't get why everyone is jumping on you about this. I agree this is an awkward story for the Times to have covered and the fact that CNN took an hour to talk about it this morning made my stomach curl. Why don't I know about the genealogy of Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton?
@yourfriendandneighbor: Well, their family trees were published soon after they found themselves in the White House, and you can Google them and find even now. What makes this story news is that Michelle's ancestor was RAPED by the older man who owner her.
I know my own family tree back hundreds of years. This simple ability is denied to Michelle Obama. We could find a white descendant of the owner, and doing a cheek swap of them and the First Lady, it could be determined if they are related to each other, much like Sally Hemmings and Tom Jefferson's descendants have done, to find that THEY are related to each other. I doubt if this will be done, just because of what an open wound this would be for all concerned.
As far as I know, none of my ancestors were owned by others. I have one guy that was eaten by his shipmates, but that's as weird as my family tree get. This 'ownership' concept is pretty freakin' horrific, Andrew. I care, even if you don't give a rip.
I found the article moving and important and am extremely sympathetic to Cook’s review.
I want to know individual histories, and I want to know the history of the African American nation, who are, as far as I’m concerned, the chosen people of our time.
I enjoyed the historical cataloguing expostion of this story, along with the photos and documents. This information seems a little personal, though, for what became such a big news item, and I may be wrong, but couldn't a similar tree back to slavery be made for many african- americans ( maybe our president excluded?). I sort of fail to see why this is such a shock, along with the shock of having a white ancestor...
@hanneke: As an African-American woman, I can tell you you do not know what you are talking about. You should stay out of the discussion, thank-you-very-much.
@bytememehard: Would you kindly explain where Hanneke ran afoul of your sensibilities? I can't find anything wrong with that statement; I too found the story of Melvinia Shields fascinating, though not at all shocking.
@Cynical Media Bitch: How about this? Yes, you can trace many Afrcan American roots back to similar places. How many of them looked out over the Rose Garden this morning while they had their coffee?
It brings tears to my eyes to think of Melvinia dreaming big dreams for her children, and their children, and so on, the way we all do. Could she ever have dreamed this big? What woud Melvinia have thought had she known her offspring would be the First African American First Lady of ths country? From the depths to the mountaintops.
In response to hanneke, I don't think it is shocking. I think it is triumphant. That is what makes it such a "big news item."
@raincoaster: Being of Canadian descent, I consider you a cousin, not a foreigner.
I can't figure out is why such a wonderfully human story shouldn't be told. We learned about the black McCains during last year's election, after all, and I doubt that cost him many votes. As I've said before, we have a complex and interwoven history on this continent, and drawing lines doesn't really do our history justice.
(The other thing I can't figure out is why an African-American woman would use the picture of a white male from the Vanderbilt family as her avatar, but that's beside the point.)
I think any time someone can trace their lineage it is fascinating, enlightening and valuable. This is why invading armies often destroy the records of the vanquished - you take away their identity.
@Cynical Media Bitch: Yup, and I'm still annoyed that we haven't driven the Dust Bowl Oakies the Hell back out of California.
Oh. One hundred and fifty years ago.
*cough* As you were.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
[www.theroot.com]
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
Besides, it's completely American to reject Old World obsessions with blood lines and lineages and to accept and embrace our collective mutty-ness.
10/08/09
We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse.
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
Assuming the First Lady and her family accept the story's findings, I'd expect some changes are in store at that cemetery. It would certainly be a private matter, but talk about your "teachable moments."
10/08/09
She was a child. He was an adult. Worse than that, he owned her, and it's unlikely she was unaware of what that meant. Worse than that, with a word he could have her tortured, maimed, killed without repercussion.
But add to that the fact he was a white male landowner, likely rich -- and she was a black child slave. He had all the power in the world, to come and go as he pleased, to purchase things, to have realistic hopes and see them through to reality.
She was a slave, and the most she could realistically hope for was, what, not to be a slave? To have enough to eat?
Add to all of this the fact that there was NO CONCEPT of rape of a slave. It was considered uncouth, at worst, to bed your slaves, but it's not like there was any thing to stop it from occurring, nor even the slightest option for a 14-year-old slave girl would be able to act upon. So, even if she was brainwashed into being willing -- what was the option for her other than being willing.
So, just as in cases of kidnapping where the kidnapped child/bride/whatever claims love for the kidnapper -- no. It's rape. Whether she's forced down by the power of his muscles, or the power of servitude, age and inability to make a choice, or the power of a government that refuses to acknowledge the idea of rape of a slave... it's rape.
And no amount of modern revision should imply consent to any of these relationships, Sally Hemings on down...
10/08/09
marriage was a few steps better in past centuries, but not that many. wives were still property.
10/08/09
10/08/09
this is an american story, and those who don't learn its meaning fail at their peril
one country, one people
yes we can
10/08/09
10/08/09
I know my own family tree back hundreds of years. This simple ability is denied to Michelle Obama. We could find a white descendant of the owner, and doing a cheek swap of them and the First Lady, it could be determined if they are related to each other, much like Sally Hemmings and Tom Jefferson's descendants have done, to find that THEY are related to each other. I doubt if this will be done, just because of what an open wound this would be for all concerned.
As far as I know, none of my ancestors were owned by others. I have one guy that was eaten by his shipmates, but that's as weird as my family tree get. This 'ownership' concept is pretty freakin' horrific, Andrew. I care, even if you don't give a rip.
10/08/09
I want to know individual histories, and I want to know the history of the African American nation, who are, as far as I’m concerned, the chosen people of our time.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
It brings tears to my eyes to think of Melvinia dreaming big dreams for her children, and their children, and so on, the way we all do. Could she ever have dreamed this big? What woud Melvinia have thought had she known her offspring would be the First African American First Lady of ths country? From the depths to the mountaintops.
In response to hanneke, I don't think it is shocking. I think it is triumphant. That is what makes it such a "big news item."
10/08/09
I can't figure out is why such a wonderfully human story shouldn't be told. We learned about the black McCains during last year's election, after all, and I doubt that cost him many votes. As I've said before, we have a complex and interwoven history on this continent, and drawing lines doesn't really do our history justice.
(The other thing I can't figure out is why an African-American woman would use the picture of a white male from the Vanderbilt family as her avatar, but that's beside the point.)
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
Oh.
One hundred and fifty years ago.
*cough* As you were.
10/08/09
10/08/09