http://www.history.ncdcr.gov/1898-wrrc/report/report.htm

If that isn’t obvious enough, lookup anything pertaining to the politics of the American Eugenics Movement or Rev. Wayne Perryman’s lawsuit against the DNC.

However, this ignores the fact that the legacy of slavery is with us today. You can argue, if you want to, that blacks should ignore the manifest injustices which with they still grapple every single day in our society, and which can be traced back to the evils of slavery and discrimination. But we can’t, in all honesty, say that it’s simply all in the past.

It’s true, as you say, that many groups have been discriminated against in our history. But it’s important to note that these injustices were not equal, and have not lingered to the same extent.

For instance, you mention historic discrimination against Catholics. This was, of course, bad, although not remotely as bad as enslavement. What’s really important, though, is that Catholics were always given more opportunities than blacks, and gradually came to be seen simply as white, and as entitled to fair treatment as anyone else.

In the 20th century, then, while Catholics were largely considered the equal of anyone else, blacks were still facing lynching, inferior public schools, discrimination in jobs, housing, higher education, and so on. Meanwhile, massive U.S. government programs helped to build the middle class by providing tremendous funding for higher education, homeownership, small businesses, and so on. These programs were open without limits to Catholics and other white groups, while being mostly closed to blacks.

Naturally, this means that Catholic families in this country have generally benefited from all of this government largess, and more importantly, from the freedom to work hard and pursue the American dream. Black families, meanwhile, were denied all of these benefits, which has lingering effects on later generations and makes it much more of a challenge to catch up.

As I said, this varies by group. The treatment of Native Americans more closely matches that of blacks in this respect, while the fate of Jews in this country more closely matches the pattern of Catholics in this sense.

When it comes to women, meanwhile, I agree with you.

I don’t believe, however, that this in any way diminishes our society’s responsibility for its role in the slave trade and slavery, so I hope that wasn’t what you were implying.

You also write that it was European countries “that actually did all the buying and selling for hundreds of years before we became the United States of America.”

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. The American colonists were plying the Atlantic and bringing over slaves from the earliest days of the colonies. Surely the European nations which traded slaves bear their share of responsibility, but it isn’t as if our society weren’t fully participating, too.

Finally, you note that “we freed the slaves within 100 years of becoming a country.”

We did. We freed our slaves within a century of becoming a country, and only about two and a half centuries after (as colonial settlers) we began trading and owning slaves.

Are you suggesting anything by noting this fact? That we acted quickly enough (“only” a century) that our responsibility for slavery is less, perhaps? Or that our unwillingness to end that profitable business in the first generations after independence proves that we were fully responsible for what took place?

That’s fascinating. My own impression is that Obama is not at all focused on race, but rather believes (perhaps unrealistically) that we can simply move beyond race.

Certainly his social agenda looks remarkably like those of other Democrats. In fact, it’s not very distinctive at all.

As for the judiciary, in that 2001 interview, he specifically says that he thinks it was wrong for the leadership of the civil rights movement to focus on achieving change through the judiciary. He says that the proper approach would have been to seek change through the democratic process.

Have you Googled and read some of the things Ogletree has said?

I interviewed Ogletree for a documentary on PBS. While I certainly don’t agree with some of his more radical proposals, at bottom his goals are quite reasonable.

In any event, Obama has taken a number of positions at odds with Ogletree’s views. There’s no reason to believe that they think alike, any more than McCain could be held to the views of people he’s consulted with or been advised by.

“they kept Michele Obama under wraps for the campaign”

Actually, she’s been speaking in front of the press just about every day. And her views prior to the campaign are not radical.

“I read statements from an interview of an Obama staffer who said what they would do is get Ogletree to be very middle of the road like Roberts to get elected, then after a year or so vote exactly opposite of him.”

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying in that sentence. It sounds like the Obama campaign is supposed to be planning to get Ogletree onto the Supreme Court, and an Obama staffer gave away the secret plan in an interview?

No offense, but there’s no way that Ogletree would be confirmed to the Supreme Court. He’s an advocate of slavery reparations, for cryin’ out loud. I can’t believe anyone would waste time on a secret plan for that. It’s just someone’s paranoid fantasy.

By the way, good reference! 🙂