Merc, sorry for your loss. I hope you can overcome your anger. It did me absolutely no good to be pissed off for these past 8 years.

Now:

YAY!

Not really a loss for me, I didn't vote for either one of them. The pain is about to start for many. I will be fine.

glad to hear it, merc. You're a survivor.

Wow.

McCain's speech was very gracious. He showed the class and inner strength that had to come into play when he sacrificed so much for our country. Bravo on him.

Obama's speech...I didn't expect anything less, but was still in awe.

People who don't support Obama like to poke at the fact that people really came out for him, people who maybe never voted, people who had become so apathetic due to the status quo of many years...yet isn't that what our country needed? We needed to pull together, to care about something, to feel a fresh wind in our faces. You can say, tongue in cheek, that he is the Messiah. He is not quite that. He is a man, a good man, a smart man, and a visionary. Can it hurt us to have as our leader a man with charisma and, for want of a better phrase "people skills?"

I have faith in this guy. I am very happy today.

I have faith in our country and a sense of relief the election is over. But I have always been a pessimist. So I will keep my microscope handy and watch for the payoffs. Obama has made a lot of promises that I do not believe he can deliver on and it is among those promises that got him elected.

Now all we can do is wait and see, I suppose.

And I can stop yelling at you. ;)

Dubya said we'd be outta Iraq in like a year or something... maybe even a few months.

This post was to ask where to find the speeches, but I've found them now!

After tearing up at the concession and acceptance speeches last night....Grant Park was simply amazing...I have a great sense of relief. Obama is a moderate. He's smart, bold, persuasive and creative, but also measured and cautious. I like our chances.

Checking the pulse of the cellar was interesting. When Obama started to capture the interest of staunch independent thinkers here, I grew very hopeful. Toad! Griff! To have a president that can unite and help move us out of the petty crap to take on the tough stuff...yow!

For everyone who didn't get to see the President Elect's speech.



The man can speak, everyone needs to accept that at the very least.

Yea but he didn't know wtf he was talking about so he gets a pass.

an eight year pass. In which people died.

Nice gig if you can get it.

That is not what I said. Don't read into it.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.



(posted on reading page one, now I see I'm late on the bandwagon)

WOW! Powerful speech. He did a great job. That is the first time I got to hear the whole thing. Who ever wrote that did a historically good job.

*nods*

I watched it again on youtube today. He said exactly what America and the world have been waiting to hear I think; unity, hope and strength.

Everyone's talking about it here. I cannot tell you how much this elevates your nation in our eyes. I had my ICQ running whilst I was studying last night, with the TV on as well. A good friend and ex-neighbour of mine was messaging me, just awestruck that you'd done it. The nervousness of the first polls closing, and the ardent hope was absolutely shared by people all over the world. My friend, a northern lad not much given to sentimentality, told me he had tears streaming down his face as we realised it was going to be an Obama victory on the night.

As a sidebar to this: the subject of my research last night was an 18th century journal, written by the wife of a naval officer who accompanied him on his travels. In one entry she describes them going aboard a slave carrying ship. There had been an outbreak of disease, with the captain, some crew and slaves affected. In order to stop the spread of the disease, the sick slaves were thrown overboard.

I read her description (she describes it as an inhuman act) of this event, one hour before I saw the son of a black man, married to a descendant of both slaves and slave owners, address the American nation, and the world, as President Elect of the USA.

Bloody hell. Just bloody hell.

I think that's the footnote to his campaign, McCain, a standup guy, the GOP, not so much.

That was awesome, DanaC.

I think this goes for Obama too, there's the worst of times coming up in the next 1 -2 years, and he just volunteered to preside over it.

is this accurate?

It's how he described his wife in his acceptance speech. he said she has both slaves and slave owners in her ancestry. Unless I have misheard that.

All American Blacks whose ancestry in America goes back to the days of slavery are presumed to have the blood of both a mammy and a massa or massa's boy in their genetic mix somewhere. Of course, there's no documentation. Or maybe she took one of those National Geographic sponsored DNA screenings to see how much of herself she should be proud of and how much she should revile.

You make a huge assumption about how she'd view those parts of her ancestry that were slave owners. I have within me the blood of a conquered people and the blood of their conquerors. I have English, Indian, South-African (and most likely African) ancestry (there's some Irish and Jewish in there too). I would love to know more details of that, and I would not revile those who lived under different rules and a different cultural view of the world.

<devil's>But if they're no better (and no worse) than any other peoples, why bother knowing? What difference would it make?</advocate>

Hmm. The multiple broadcasts that fascinated me on PBS, using dna plus historical records to trace families of black Americans were quite moving and hardly the racist affair you flippantly describe. I was struck by how intertwined and complicated the shared history, and how the connections served to challenge simplistic notions of race.

I would love to have my DNA traced. Nothing to do with hating what has happened in the past. People are people are people. I doubt there's been a society that doesn't have murder and mayhem somewhere in its history.

I have Irish blood in my veins, should I cut myself to let some of the English blood out because of the Potato Famine? If I found I had Norman blood, should I rail against the Conquest?

It WOULD be interesting if you did...but, nah. Don't do it. :)

Rail against the Conquest

I smell a band name....

On a more serious note, what does it mean to have this blood or that blood in your veins? Aside from certain genetic diseases or predispositions, what is the importance?

I am genetically Indian, brown skin and all, raised in the vast maw that is American culture. Which is more important? What claim should my Indian heritage have? If the answer is "none", then why should anyone care about things that may or may not exist in their own pedigree?

Because where we are from, is the very story of our existence. What does it matter? Look at the story it tells us. That's worth knowing. No less than it is worth knowing the thoughts and actions of great statesmen.

I have to agree as well.

Where we are from is where we were born, grew, were educated, shared, and played with as children. Where we are from has little to do with what preceded our existence.

Yes, genetics determines health, skin color, and ancestry. But these are so important and significant only to the most biased - who must make judgments based primarily on first impressions. Judging one based upon first impressions is also called racism.

Those genetic factors do contribute. But by far, we are mostly from where we came from which means mostly what occurs after birth.

Only reason that genetics are important: too many people are so racist as to judge only based upon first impressions. Those who judge us based upon who we are need no genetic information to know. Judgments based significantly on genetic information is just another way of judging only based upon first impressions - a concept we often call racism and a major source of unjustified hate.

Yes, if you live in a world where being a rag head, spic, wop, or gook means you cannot be trusted, then you live in a world of racists. Then genetics are imperative to who you are.

You do know you are talking to an historian right?

I think it's important to know who your ancestors are - so you get their stuff when they die.

We discussed this almost a decade ago. History is not unique to any one race (and definitively not unique to genetics). Greek history is the history of all mankind. Chinese history is the history of all mankind. We all inherit our common history.

What makes a person is not the history of his ancestors. What makes a person is how he learns from history of all previous peoples. But what more makes a person (assuming the bias called first impression or racism is universally condemned) are what he learns from his childhood, neighborhoods, education, and social experiences.

Ever meet a Korean girl who speaks with a heavy southern accent?

Genetics only most significant to a person when our peers are racist - also known as judgments based upon first impressions.

Apparently you have a point. Obviously, I am having difficulty grasping what that point is.

an historian> does that have something to do with your uterus?

I totally disagree with most of this statement.

Where my parents came from and the things that influenced their lives had a great influence on mine. They became the parents they were because of their social, emotional and economic circumstances during childhood right up to the time of my birth and beyond which of course affected how they parented me and what sort of examples they set for me as a child.

The same can be said of their parents and their parents parents ad nauseum, so yes, what happened to my ancestors does have a direct effect on who I am today, without one shadow of a doubt in my mind.

@ Lj: nah that'd be an hysterian:P


tw: I agree with this "History is not unique to any one race (and definitively not unique to genetics). Greek history is the history of all mankind. Chinese history is the history of all mankind. We all inherit our common history." But that doesn't contradict my point. Our individual inheritances and stories are that shared history. To understand the past is to understand much about ourselves. To understand how we came about is to understand much about our past.

At a more visceral level, i want to know the story. My story, yes, but more importantly their stories. Each strand of that ancestry, affords me a direct share in those individual (and yet universal)stories.

I agree with this as well, but alas I believe the English erased it. :p

In America and in today's world it should mean nothing. It carries very little weight with me, other than a personal historical significance. We all have a history attached to our genes. I am fasinated by it, for myself, and for my own personal interest. But I do not buy into an idea that it should continue as some social construct to be passed from generation to generation as a burden or a guilt that is held up at every conflict between those of unlike genetic history.

Are we talking about culture or actual genetics?

For me, both. DNA research is a growing and important part of historical study.

Are they ever that far apart? Other than the adopted child thrust into another culture.

Why do we not teach Chinese history in public schools? We need the inspiration of their ancestry simply because we do not bother to teach it to students. To me, that is bias that denies so many students (of all genetics) 'their' history.

Why would a member of another race be able to provide you with that historical insight? Because they learned (after birth and not due to genetics) their history and culture.

But again, a Korean teenager who speaks with a southern accent. Why? She is a product of what was learned and experienced AFTER birth. Her genetics did little to make her what she is - except when someone judges her by her Asian characteristics - also called racism. Her genetics did not teach her Korean history and culture.

I can appreciate wanting to learn history of your unique ancestors. But that ancestry only provided some of your genetic uniqueness. It does provide an interesting story. But it defines little of who you are.

If a Chinaman born in the United States, then do you speak Mandarin or know who the Emperor Chu was? Genetics did not define that knowledge; define the man.

The Apple, Dell, or HP computer all have different genetics. And yet the computer is still defined by the environment (domain) that I access. Those genetics do not change the most signficant factor - The Cellar.

Ancestry defines much in my opinion, if it is something that has been a part of your upbringing. By which I mean the story of your ancestry. It all depends how much you associate in to that story. I personally associate in very strongly. It matters to me what strands there are to my ancestry and what branches to my family tree.

It's more about the culture those genetics bring to most families tw. It's pretty obvious to most of us taking part in this discussion.

Of course you can argue nature versus nurture if you want, but it's been done. Of course a chinese girl doesn't know her culture unless someone teaches her, but if she's born into a chinese household, she's likely to be taught many different aspects of chinese culture by her family while learning American culture outside the home and those two different cultures will meld into something else which will affect how her own children are raised etc etc etc...

But what if you were switched at birth and no one knew?

In which case, you make my point. She is defined by factors after birth - learning from family, education, neighborhood, and social experiences.

I am having difficulty understanding DanaC's point; why genetics so defines a person. I believe genetics is only significantly relevant when society is so racist as to judge based upon first impressions.

Secondary point: racism is not about race or genetics. Racism is bias based on first impressions.

Well, you'd still be a product of the family you're brought up in if you believe in nurture rather than nature.

tw, you never stated your point. You simply argued against Dana's. Who's to know that you're arguing nurture if you don't state your case clearly.

Argue all you like, but you're very difficult to understand most of the time.

I didnt say genetics defines a person. I said its a part of what we are. More importantly the genetic journey that led to each of us is an important story, individually and on a wider level.

tw could save the world,

...if only someone knew what the heck he was trying to say.

Separated at birth could be a bigger problem. "Brother!"

http://www.architecture7s.co.uk/dodgy%20pics/twins.gif

I wasn't asking about history that has a direct influence, via one's parents and upbringing. I am talking about getting a genetic assay to find out that some percentage of your DNA is from, say, Mongolia.

Why would this be relevant to anyone?

For me it'd be interesting, but I wouldn't say that being part mongolian made me who I am. What happened to my ancestors as mongolians would have had an effect on who I am though.

Well stated. HOF material for me.
:fumette:

People have implied that I am somehow a traitor to my "race" since I do not strongly identify as "Indian-American". I resent the implication that someone outside of me can tell me who I am, based on an happenstance of genetics.

Because it is part of what we are, who we are, the genetic journey that led to us.


Nobody outside yourself can tell you who you are. These questions of genetics are only relevant if you are interested and intriged to know.

My surname has been directly and accurately traced to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raasay

The other to here (mother):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Cavan

Interesting, thanks merc.