Many black people in America are descended from slaves, and many white people in America are descended from slave owners. But what are the chances that someone of Sharpton’s profile would be descended from ancestors owned by ancestors of someone of Thurmond’s profile? Weird.
That is quite interesting. The paper left it a little vague. It does not sound like Strom was descended from Julia Thurmond. So the connection is really does not appear to be too close other than the last name.
Not really. Presumably Strom only had one paternal grandfather (assuming paternal grandfather, since the cousin’s name is also Thurmond). Assuming the great-great grandfather had 12 kids, each of whom had 12 of their own, would make for 144 cousins. I’d expect that to be about the upper limit, with reality rather lower.
Well, given that we know ol’ Strom liked to diddle the help in his younger days, we can safely assume that he was just simply carrying on the family tradition. Which, if mental illness has a genetic trait, would answer a whoooole lot of annoying questions about Al.
Got all the rich white attention whore pop culture icon chicks off the front page, for a minute, though, didn’t it? Time for a rich colored attention whore pop culture icon guy. You go, Al!! :rolleyes:
But remember your’re then adding in a cousin relationship (which may go rpetty far) and that we could be talking about an awful lot of descendants of the black slaves in question.
Would that really be “many white people”. You have to imagine less than a 1/3 of the Americans lived in areas with slavery (in the Civil War, this was the population difference between North and South). Of that 1/3, I’ll wager a very small percentage could afford slaves. Then, after 1865, you had tons of immigrants from Europe, further diluting the ex-slaveowning-white-people.
Naturally, a 1902-born South Carolina politician, presumably from an upper class family, had higher odds of descending from a slaveowner.
If the slaveowner in question was his great great grandfather’s granddaughter (divide by two, carry the one…), this would have been in the late 1700s at least, right? Wasn’t slave ownership actually legal back then? I’m not asking if it was moral. Just legal. And considering that it was 18th century South Carolina, wouldn’t it have been fairly common at that time for the wealthy to own slaves?
I really don’t see this as anything other than an attention grab by Sharpton. I mean, if it was ol’ Strom himself who held ownership papers, that’d be one thing. It’s not.
I’m not defending slavery or slave ownership. Just wondering what the whole point of this “revelation” is.
Am I the only person that doesn’t find this news to be terribly note-worthy?
It’s not surprising that someone of Thurmond’s stature would be a descendant of a slaveowner, because that’s who the Southern rich largely were. And it’s not surprising that Al Sharpton is a descendant of at least one slave. Most African-Americans can say the same thing.
So is it really amazing that Sharpton’s ancestor was a slave of Thurmond’s? Find any random A-A and trace their genealogy back far enough, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they had multiple ancestors who crossed tracks with some ancestor of a famous white person.
This was my exact thought process when I heard this on the news. It’s only news because the 2 famous people in this story are both such polarizing figures.
I think I’ve been playing computer games too long. The first time I read the thread title, my mind inserted the definition of “owned” that is often spelled “pwned”. Spent a few moments trying to puzzle that one out, I did.