Romofan wrote:
Way to stay above the fray, "Moderator"!
You don't see the Walrus locking this thread, banning you, or editing your posts because you're posting right wing opinions. Moderators are allowed to have opinions, they don't have enshrine 'political neutrality' every time they speak in an unofficial capacity.
As for the topic at hand, Snopes states that Harris's ancestry back to the slave owner Hamilton Brown has never been conclusively proven.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/?fbclid=IwAR3K4RAPvNqpqYs3fsR3tmeWhUe-qh1l7CLZBu2YruXb3L6HLhrLaKTYxv8vermontsavant wrote:
She is not only NOT a descendent of slaves but a distant ancestor, Hamilton Brown was a slave owner in Jamaica in the 1800's.
That is false
according to my sources. Just as the claim that Harris is descended from Hamilton Brown cannot be verified, neither can the claim that she is not descended from slaves. Indeed the same unverified family tree on FamilySearch that shows a connection to Hamilton Brown also lists one Jessian Prince, a 'laborer' in the Jamaican colonies (slave or slave decedent).
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/14/looking-claims-kamala-harris-descendant-slave-owne/I understand the point of 'possible' generational wealth and status being pass on the generations down to Harris, but that would need to be proved, first that she is indeed related at all and second that her branch of the family benefited through time from that ancestors position. People would then be free to decide how much that matters. I am personally against the concept of generational grudges unless the current generation has done something that lives up to their ancestors legacy.
And as a show that I would like to learn more about Vermont's original statements, could you please provide the link to the Forbes article, thanks.