[Vision2020] Re: Earlier question

[Ted Ryan]

Sunil,

Look, you had time to ask the question in the first place, you had time to ask me why I hadn't answered and now I am guilty of stealing you away from your work and your family.  You have not given any tone to the conversation that has made it pleasant.  If this is so difficult for you why post in the first place?  I did not accuse you of hostility due to your work load; until you told me you had work to do, how am I supposed to know?  

I can certainly appreciate family time and encourage you to partake, but don't get upset when you ask me to answer a question that was not visible in the first place and even after finding it, was not easy to decipher.  The statements out of the slavery pamphlet WERE taken out of context and given the delicate nature of the subject can be misused outside of the whole text.  This has already occurred in this forum, and I fear, you are doing the same thing.

You have already started putting words in the mouths of the authors.  They did not say that "race relations in that period were superior to those of any other time and place".  Even what they did say doesn't mean that there are no race relations that are good right now.  Condoning a multi-racial marriage would have been wrong then and it is wrong now.  Like any marriage, if is entered into as it should, race has no bearing.  I am glad that you are happily married and enjoy your children.  My wife and I have good friends that are a multi-racial couple, and they exemplify the kind of relationship we should all have with those different then us.

Stop for a moment to read and consider what the authors of that book actually said, not what you think they said.

I will chase down those references and send them to you.

Ted Ryan


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sunil Ramalingam 
  To: coffeemonkey100 at hotmail.com 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Earlier question


  Ted,

  Do you think me hostile because I had work to do?  I did point out that I didn't have time to clean up the post earlier; next time I shall pompously add, "I have terribly important appointments that will prevent me from cleaning up my prior post; why, I must be in Orofino by 4," in order to avoid any hard feelings.

  It seems to me that you no longer make the claim that the statements that so charitably describe race relations in the antebellum South were taken out of context; instead you say that they correctly describe the situation, at least most of the time.

  In other words, race relations in that period were superior to those of any other time and place, which I take to include our present time.  Now, anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. were not declared unconstitutional until the early 1960s (that meddling US Supreme Court, at it again.)  Would my mixed marriage have been legal in the anti-bellum South?  I don't think so, but maybe I'm the victim of the Goebbelesque campaign responsible for tarring the reputation of the South.  I'm thinking that if I could not have married the lovely Anne-Marie back then and there, it would have cut way down on our mutual intimacy and harmony, but perhaps I'm wrong.

  The pamphlet may not mourn the passing of slavery; I remain far more interested in the description of race relations in the South at the time, whether found in the pamphlet or in your post.  If you are willing to cite the sources that support your description, I would like to see them; if not, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me who mentioned them in the December archive.  I gave up looking, and I want to play with my kids now instead of looking further.

  Sunil



   

  >From: "Ted Ryan" <coffeemonkey100 at hotmail.com> 
  >To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> 
  >CC: <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
  >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Earlier question 
  >Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:40:48 -0700 
  > 
  >Well, I will look at that.  But you were the one who said "I think".  You can go to the archives for that. 
  > 
  >I don't know why the attachment gets scrubbed, but it makes it more difficult to carry on a conversation when it is interrupted by code. 
  > 
  >A repost would have been a courteous thing to do, I am not sure why you are so hostile about this. 
  > 
  >Ted Ryan 
  >   ----- Original Message ----- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040831/65d1aeaf/attachment.htm