Roosevelt: Theodore, Franklin, or Eleanor?

Post Reply New Topic

I was in fact referring to how different nationalities in America's past had no problem intermixing. And trust me, at one time Italian Americans were equated with blacks, as were incredibly the Irish, and even before, Benjamin Franklin made it clear German immigrants weren't white in his eyes, yet other Americans eventually lost their prejudice to mix with them. Today, there are very few Americans who are not of mixed ancestry; that is, they are mutts. And in fact, prior to out and out slavery, Africans were treated like indentured servants like the Scots-Irish, out of which you had mixed children being produced. Those who appeared more black eventually became slaves, while those more white in appearance became absorbed into the white populace. Or in other words, a great many white Americans today have some black ancestry.
As far as Europe is concerned - different ethnic groups were constantly mixing and forming new peoples. In cases like Non-Caucasian peoples like the Huns and Magyars, they eventually mixed with Germanic and Slavic neighbors. In fact, due to their martial reputation, it was a point of pride in late antiquity to boast of Hunnish ancestry. Despite the claims of European nationalists, Europeans have never been racially pure.
And if you think China is racially pure, then you've never heard of the Uygur population - which is in fact very large - in western China. Or how there had been prehistoric whites from central Europe originally, who had become absorbed into the Chinese population, in time. Their blond descendants can still be found from time to time.
And just how is our muttdom going to allow the Chinese to overtake us? Seriously, I'd like to know.
As for your personal attack - I'd rather be known for fashionable nonsense than for racist drivel.

They were all truly remarkable people, and jointly characterised by the courage of their convictions and commitment to values (contrast that with the contest for popularity and markedly demagogue behavior of current times). While I would say Franklin - not least for his commitment to the "Four Freedoms", I balance that against the fact that if there had never been a Teddy, could there have been a Franklin, who was born into a family tradition. Franklin was perhaps unique in that he was the first "modern" president of the USA, and the most elected of any president. The contrast with current times is more and more stark and to me frightening - Franklin would no more have quoted Mussolini favourably than appeared nude in public; he hated fascists and fascist thinking, and Eleanor's influence on his progression to create a fairer and more inclusive society is unknowable, yet was certainly significant, and she too was the first First Lady to become an advocate for both of those things in her own right.

Had Franklin not taken some of the postwar decisions he did - most notably the Marshall Plan (I think) then Western Europe as a whole might well have been totally a fiefdom of Stalin's. Does the current generation even know about this?

Actually, the Marshal Plan was Truman's baby; FDR was already dead. But to be sure, it was in the Roosevelt tradition.

Yes, you are correct in both. FDR was the forefather/promoter (the Lend Lease agreement), Truman was the subsequent promoter of the Marshall Plan. It was a continuum of goals and ideals.