Talk about irony, it turns out that Al Sharpton's ancestors were owned by Strom Thurmond's ancestors:
The revelations surfaced after Ancestry.com contacted a Daily News reporter who agreed to have his own family tree done. The intrigued reporter then turned around and asked Sharpton if he wanted to participate. Sharpton said he told the paper, ''Go for it.''

The genealogists, who were not paid by the newspaper, uncovered the ancestral ties using a variety of documents that included census, marriage and death records.

They found that Sharpton's great-grandfather, Coleman Sharpton, was a slave owned by Julia Thurmond, whose grandfather was Strom Thurmond's great-great-grandfather. Coleman Sharpton was later freed. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Sharpton-Thurmond.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Small world?

Talk about irony, it turns out that Al Sharpton's ancestors were owned by Strom Thurmond's ancestors:

Small world?

Typical of Al Sharpton.

Why did he only trace back that far? Why not trace all the way back to Africa if hes going to trace his bloodline? I think some people like to focus ONLY on slavery, and sorta pretend like slavery is the only black history, but this ignores the fact that not all of Al Sharpton or anyone elses ancestors were slaves.

Typical of Al Sharpton.

Why did he only trace back that far? Why not trace all the way back to Africa if hes going to trace his bloodline?

Had he done so, he might have uncovered the fact that many of his own people in Africa captured and sold them to the white slave dealers! He surely wouldn't want to admit that a black man, an ancestor even, was deeply involved in slavery! :D

I think some people like to focus ONLY on slavery, and sorta pretend like slavery is the only black history, ....

It's always easier to sit back and complain than it is to get up and get ones ass to work!

Baron Max

I found it tremendously humourous that such polarizing political figures would have, in the past, been connected through slavery.

I found it tremendously humourous that such polarizing political figures would have, in the past, been connected through slavery.

i had a good chuckle as well..as they are both idiots linked through an idiotic practice.

i had a good chuckle as well..as they are both idiots linked through an idiotic practice.
I'll bet that genetic testing would show that they are related by more than that! You don't think that slave owners took liberties with their female slaves?

They cess pooled it! Lousy @#$% This is all over the news, I don't see how this belongs in the cesspool.

Baron Max;1309048Had he done so, he might have uncovered the fact that many of his own people in Africa captured and sold them to the white slave dealers! He surely wouldn't want to admit that a black man, an ancestor even, was deeply involved in slavery! :D

You forgot to mention, that people will sell anything to you if it's at gunpoint. If someone points a gun at you, you might sell your neighbor too.


It's always easier to sit back and complain than it is to get up and get ones ass to work!

Baron Max


People like Al Sharpton like to focus on one specific part of black history as if slavery is the only history of America. This would be as bad as choosing just the holocaust when discussing German history. There is a lot more that went on than just slavery, and the slaughter of brown people everywhere. Also the history of Black people in America is a lot older than America itself, but it all depends on how far back you want to trace. The last few hundred years were bad, but thats a drop in the bucket of world history. You have the whole of African history which goes back for thousands of years to study.

You see, the difference is, immigrants come to America and are more likely to research the countries their ancestors came from and go back thousands of years to see their history. People have bloodlines older than Christ, and at certain points our bloodlines connect to certain great individuals. Al Sharpton however, did not look to see which tribe in Africa he came from, or do a genetic test to see exactly where his genes came from, had he done this he might have been able to trace back to his tribal origins.

It's relatively simple, black is not a race. Black was invented in America. If Al Shrpton does not know his tribal origins in Africa, he does not know his history, because he still interprets his history through the American black and white lens, and through the slavery vortex. There was slavery in Africa too. There was slavery all over the planet, and all of us have at least a few ancestors who were slaves. It's almost impossible to have no ancestors who were slaves if you trace back far enough.

Now, there are royal bloodlines, and things such as that, and Al Sharpton might have a blood connection to that if he traces back, if the man only chooses to focus on slavery thats his choice. As far as to how he became a slave, I don't think it matters if he was sold into it or stolen, because buying is just an innovative way to steal something, and chances are the tribal socieities back then did not have capitalism, but a barter system to begin with, so the chances of it being a fair sale would be slim to none. I doubt Europeans even bothered to master the language, for all we know they could have put a gun to the translators head, gave their demands, and the translator could have talked the king into choosing who to send, so as to make the king still feel like he has some control over the situation.

Something like "yeah, you are king, they don't want you, they want you to choose a percentage of your people to send over, and they'll give you these shiney beads in exchange".

I think in this case, the conquered king had little option but to give into demands, very much like what happened in Rome and in many other places when they get conquered. So slavery is actually a normal occurance, and the behavior was normal, the only difference this time is it was racial. Race was what was new, not slavery. Why is Al Sharpton not talking about the fact that racism was invented during this time? Why is Al Sharpton not talking about the human rights abuses? Slavery was not the problem, it was the form of it, the kind of it, that was the problem.

When you treat people like that, slave or not, it's wrong. It's not the fact that they were slaves, a slave is just a worker who works for free, it's about how they were treated, these slaves were not treated as human, or even as animal, they were treated as property in some economic game, with no chance to earn their freedom or pay back a debt, so it was not an indentured servant.

I'll bet that genetic testing would show that they are related by more than that! You don't think that slave owners took liberties with their female slaves?

That's exactly what happened. Actually maybe thats what did happen and this slavery stuff is a sort of mask for the fact that Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond might be related due to some, past sexual relationships. Honestly, I would not be surprised if thats the case because I cannot see a reaoson why Mr. Sharpton would want to put this out in the news like this unless to embrass the Thurmond family.

It's actually normal, that the conquerer takes slaves from the conquered. This happened with native Americans, this happened with Africans, this happens in every war. What also happens in every war is that, the females are usually taken by the males, they have sexual intercourse, they inter-marry in a lot of cases. This inter-marrying cycle goes on for generations later, and eventually the relations between the two sides mellow out.

I'm not sure why this has not happened in America. At this point the genetics are mixed, people are inter-racially married, and people still argue about slavery? Slavery or not, Americans at this point are one family, due to the fact that they are genetically connected. I don't think it matters how it occured. It may have occured due to a lot of slave owners being rapists, or it might have been slave owners having affairs with their slaves. At this point, the average American black, with the slave history, likely is connected to other races, either native American, or "white", or both, simply due to the fact that when you put a bunch of people in the same house, it can lead to sexual relationships.

Well said, TimeTraveler.
Though I'm not sure why you think that Sharpton did not go any further than what this story zeros in on.
He may very well have gone back 1000 years, the article says nothing contradicting that.
Kepp in mind, as well, that many records only go back as far as this country - many slave traders did not give a shit where the merchandise came from and did not bother keeping census records.

They cess pooled it! Lousy @#$% This is all over the news, I don't see how this belongs in the cesspool.Because of the mocking tone of the thread title. "Hahaha! Isn't it hilarious slavery held Sharpton's ancestors as chattel for a klanner like Thurmond!":rolleyes: You could have included a photo of a lynching to add to your joke.

I just want to hear Al Sharpton somehow blame THIS one on whitey.


" We're winning the war versus Al-Qaeda. But we're losing the war against Al Sharpton!"

I just want to hear Al Sharpton somehow blame THIS one on whitey.


" We're winning the war versus Al-Qaeda. But we're losing the war against Al Sharpton!"Whitey owned his ancestors:rolleyes: Who would you blame? Arabs?:rolleyes:

Because of the mocking tone of the thread title. "Hahaha! Isn't it hilarious slavery held Sharpton's ancestors as chattel for a klanner like Thurmond!":rolleyes: You could have included a photo of a lynching to add to your joke.

You've got to admit, it is pretty funny.

You've got to admit, it is pretty funny.I hate both of those guys but I still don't think slavery is funny. And 150 years isn't a long period of time, not by any means.

Oh.
Maybe we don't have the same sort of humor.

Oh.
Maybe we don't have the same sort of humor.Probaby not:rolleyes:

Because of the mocking tone of the thread title. "Hahaha! Isn't it hilarious slavery held Sharpton's ancestors as chattel for a klanner like Thurmond!":rolleyes: You could have included a photo of a lynching to add to your joke.
Al Sharpton family owned by Strom Thurmond family was the most succinct way to describe the situation. I don't see anything mocking about it.

But it is a funny story. Those guys are two sides of the same coin. Probably second cousins, too. Slavery was a trajic error, but it doesn't mean we can't find some comedy in this situation. It's practically like Darth Vader telling Luke he's his father!