- Moderator
- #121
Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?
Fact checkers are NOT sources.. Not primary, not secondary.. They are tools for people who can't do the work themselves and the JUDGEMENT of these fact checkers is loaded with bias.. In THIS CASE, either one could have Harris's dad's statement and ran the genealogy back 2 or 3 generations.. My wife could do that in 6 minutes on Ancestry.. NEITHER OF THEM had the interest to verify.. Why IS THAT coyote?? The fact that Hamilton Brown (or whoever) WAS a plantation farmer with slaves and unlike the SPIN on Snopes, the slave censuses I saw from the Jamaican govt were for RETAINED slaves that were grandfathered in for a transistion period when Britain had halted the slave trade. So that BullSHIT in Snopes about him ditching slaves was just bullshit..
Strongly disagree here dude. Fact checking CAN be a source, just like news articles, wiki, bloggers, etc. How GOOD a source it is depends on the SAME factors that determine whether these OTHER sources are good. Fact check sources are as good or as bad as ANY OTHER SOURCE. If they provide links to back up what they say, you can follow them, and make your own opinion - how good they are depends on how much support they provide from primary sources but you discount them out of hand. Not sure why, but whatever.
What Snopes stated was "unproven" - not "false". For some reason that sets people off.
The reason was "uncertain links":
However, we have been unable to verify that a line of descent exists between the modern-day Harris family and the 19th-century slave owner. As such, the claim that an ancestor of Sen. Harris owned slaves in Jamaica remains unproven. If evidence emerges that verifies that line of descent, we will update this fact check accordingly.
As far as I know, there aren't any genetic tests surrounding the claims - if there are, provide them.
It looks as if Snopes did due diligence here, and unless there is supporting documentation (perhaps I missed in the flurry of posting) BEYOND what her father's story - then it remains unproven because that is the ONLY source.
Note that in the Snopes article is this statement: Stanford University agreed to send Donald Harris our request for any evidence that might corroborate his claim that his grandmother was a descendant of the planter Hamilton Brown. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response of any kind
Usually, there are records and such surrounding those claims. It isn't uncommon for "family lore" to be wrong. I know this. You know this. Confirmation can be made by birth records, marriage records, census records - not sure any exist to support this and from what Snopes said there are a lot of discrepancies and nothing you posted addresses that.
Even the freebeacom.com article you posted does not offer any direct proof but instead seeks to nibble around the edges. It's primary sources seem to be 1) the father's biography and 2) records showing that Hamilton Brown owned slaves (a statement that is NOT in dispute). The article then goes on to discuss Harris' positions on reparations and a diversion into the unjust pairing of McConnell's position, and the fact his ancestors owned slaves (a righteous grievance since I fully agree he is in no way responsible for his ancestors). But attempting to lay that on Harris in this way, with pretty weakly supported claims is equally wrong. It also ignores one pretty potent point: if she is related to this slaver, it is very likely it was through ownership and rape of a female slave. Jamaica...like the Barbados and other areas were particularly brutal to slaves. Yet...I have not heard her use that in any way in any of her political positions. So we have the Republicans here, attacking her ancestry...and getting a free pass because the Dems do the same. Sheesh.
That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this.
I sure KNOW the diff.. Apparently you don't.. When I say her father WROTE the bio -- that would be AUTObiographical wouldn't it?
You are right - I have them reversed (I always forget which is which). However that doesn't change the point - biographies written by others who research the backgrounds, look for records and primary sources, are often going to be more accurate than autobiographies that are subjective by definition, and may depend to heavily on unsubstantiated or unsubstiable "family lore".
Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.
Tell that to Kamala Harris and her Reparations plan... Or the people picking on Southerners and the Confederacy.. Dont be a hypocrite..
As for Fred Trump -- it's relevant when its relevant to the title\OPost.. Otherwise it's not.. Same with Bush 43's grandpappy...
Actually, I'm seeing the hypocrisy coming from you here.
I've often stated that descendants are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors (unless they choose to take on such a responsibility in atonement).
Children brought over here illegally by their parents as minors are not responsible for the actions of their parents and should not be punished.
Reparations - look at it this way. Our government is responsible for IT'S POLICIES AND LAWS that supported slavery, that brought about Jim Crowe, etc. Just like it was with reparations to Japanese Americans who were interned. Reparations would have to come from the government and of course taxpayer money, but that is money coming from all Americans, not just whites. If that is how reparations are proposed I don't see a problem with it (more problematic are the details).
People picking on southerners? Hell, people pick on the northern "elite", on leftists, on this, on that, on blacks as thugs. So what? If it's about confederate memorials then you ought to yourself be a tad less hypocritical and explain why there are confederate memorials in states like California or at least acknowledge the racist history behind their proliferation. If people blame southerners today for the actions of their ancestors - I am right there with you in saying it's wrong. But rethinking these memorials and their history is something else entirely.
AND EXTREMELY likely that her dad KNOWS a bit about his OWN FREAKIN great grandpa.... You think he's bluffing? It aint like going back SIX generations to find Elizabeth Warrens 1/512th Indian heritage..
Uh maybe. Or, maybe not. It has nothing to do with "bluffing", that isn't the only explanation you know. It's a matter of what one believes to be true. Hamilton Brown died in 1843. That is 177 years ago. There are no records without discrepancies supporting the claims. Now you're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.