well the original article I posted had none of that, not a word, it
was purely a look at the history and genealogy of a group of American
citizens. Anything else is what you and others read into it.
BTW "evil" by whose standards? Yours? Mine? "Evil" is a pretty strong
word.
Nancy
-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
--Daniel Boone
On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Clara Callahan wrote:
> Nope, two totally different animals. I would, however, have an
> issue with "Cardwell History Month," and organizations aimed at
> forcing society as a whole to discriminate on behalf of descendants
> of Catholic recusants.
>
> Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: So I guess my looking at
> the circumstances of Thomas Cardwell's life
> and his family being Catholic recusants, a relative who was hung,
> drawn and quartered by the Crown because he was a priest, and why
> Thomas came to Virginia, the life of an indentured servant, is
> beating a dead horse? The Crown no longer executes Catholics, English
> can emigrate to America like anyone else, there are no more
> indentured servants, maybe I should just get over it. Maybe I'm just
> trying to keep those old wounds alive. Or does one assume that
> looking into one's slave ancestry must mean a demand for sympathy,
> apologies, reparations? The article I posted said that nowhere- it
> was an interesting look back into the history and descendants of a
> group of people, that's all. I see nothing at all objectionable in
> that.
>
> Nancy
>
> -------
> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>
> --Daniel Boone
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Clara Callahan wrote:
>
>> Hopefully at least 90% of it is history. I understand what the man
>> is saying and it has nothing to do with racism or white people who
>> think only they are or have a right to be interested in their own
>> history. What comes to mind is that old saying about beating a
>> dead horse while miraculously keeping it alive by using it to
>> garner sympathy and special treatment hundreds of years after the
>> fact. He may not have said it as politically correctly as some
>> would like, but his view has as much validity as any other view
>> here. Furthermore, one thing he is NOT doing is rewriting history
>> as in painting savages who murder and mutilate as wholesome and
>> respectable, which brings to mind another old saying about making a
>> silk purse from a sow's ear.
>>
>> Sunshine49 wrote: It's history. If all
>> history is to be "gotten over", why are we even
>> in this group? Why do any one of us read any record or account, or
>> write any book or paper? Let's just burn it all, it's over, forget
>> about it.
>>
>> Why are YOU in this group? Or are only white people allowed to have
>> an interest in their history?
>>
>> Geez, lighten up...
>>
>> Nancy
>>
>> -------
>> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>>
>> --Daniel Boone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 9:30 PM, Basil Forest wrote:
>>
>>> Get over it. Slavery has been dead since the 13th amendment in 1865.
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>> instructions
>>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
