I’m not particularly inspired today, so before I sign off, one thing. No doubt you’ve seen the story about how Strom Thurmond’s ancestors owned Al Sharpton’s ancestors. Would you please answer a few questions about this for me?
- Who cares?
- Why is this news?
- Is there something interesting about this I’m missing?
- Why does every blog discuss it?
- Who cares?
Thanks.
Laura(southernxyl) says:
If it makes you feel better, my blog is not discussing it.
I thought the story of Thurmond’s biracial daughter was much, much more interesting in a psychological kind of way. To report that the ancestors of a descendent of slave owners owned the ancestor of a descendent of slaves is kind of dog-bites-man.
February 26, 2007, 9:27 pmDoghouse says:
I have to admit, though, that I would get a good laugh if it were determined that they were related. Maybe that means I’m a bad person. But I would still laugh.
February 27, 2007, 12:48 amrightwingprof says:
It was. But we know Thurmond’s ancestors owned slaves, and we know Sharpton’s ancesters were slaves. So why is it even vaguely interesting? Just because it turned out to be Thurmond’s ancestors? And if so, why does that make it interesting?
February 27, 2007, 5:56 pmDarren says:
From what I understood, it wasn’t a direct ancestor of Thurmond’s. One of Thurmond’s ancestors had more than one child; the decendents of one child owned Sharpton’s ancestors, and the decendents of the other child eventually became Strom.
It gets less interesting the more you know.
February 28, 2007, 3:28 pm