<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As before, paraphrasing and taking out of context
does not adequately describe the pamphlet as a whole. I don't know if race
relations have ever been better. I didn't make that claim. As
far as learning more from the text, ask the authors. I wouldn't have even
worded it the way they did, but I do believe that the relationships
between slave and master were generally good. As to your
questions about the text itself, those are not for me to answer. Ask the
authors. Whether it was legal to marry outside your race in those days, I
don't know. However, being able to marry outside of your race does not, in
and of itself, make race relations any better. And again, if it was
illegal to marry outside your race than it was wrong. There is no such
distinction for marriage.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ted Ryan</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com
href="mailto:coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com">coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:43
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Earlier question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>Ted,</P>
<P>I realize that the word 'superior' was not used in that sentence in the
pamphlet. You appear to be claiming that by paraphrasing, I changed the
meaning of the quoted section. Please explain how my use of it
changes its meaning. I don't think it does. If you think I'm
wrong, please explain how. My point is this: I think the authors are
claiming that race relations have never been better than they were in the
antebellum South. If this is not their claim, then I would like to
be corrected; if you can explain why I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it.</P>
<P>I'm not trying to get into a discussion about multi-racial relationships
per se; I'm not attempting to compare the Northwest or the West to other parts
of the U.S. My only point there is that today people of different
'races' are able to legally marry anywhere in the U.S. I very much doubt that
was legal in the anti-bellum South. Am I wrong?</P>
<P>Sunil<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Ted Ryan" <coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:56:09 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I was taking issue with the word superior, a word not used in
the pamphlet. As far as the condition of multi-racial
relationships, that is highly dependent on geography. There would
be a lot of people in other parts of the country that would tell you (and have
told me) that the relations are non-existent in some places. In my
limited experience, the Northwest is entirely different than many other parts
of the country, so our perception is not necessarily representative of the
whole.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I would like to read some material that supports your point,
"But I am also saying I think they - and you - are wrong when you make the
claim that race relations in the South were harmonious and mutually
intimate." I lot of modern historians might agree, but what do
those that lived it have to say?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Ted Ryan
<DIV></DIV>> ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
<DIV></DIV>> To: coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com
<DIV></DIV>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:40 PM
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Ted,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> You say I am putting words in the mouths of the
authors. OK, let's look at the quote I was discussing:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> 'there has never been a multi-racial society that
existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> That's what they published. I then
wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> '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.'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I don't think that I'm putting words in anyone's
mouth with my paraphrase. If I'm mistaken in this, please tell me
how. You say, 'They did not say that "race relations in that period
were superior to those of any other time and place".'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I disagree with you. I think that's
exactly what they said. What else did they mean by the statement I
quoted at the top of this post?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Yes, I am making the assumption that they would
include the US at the time of the publication of the pamphlet; if this is an
incorrect assumption, can you point to anything in the pamphlet that shows I
should not make this assumption? Mind you, I'm not saying we live
in a multi-racial paradise today, but I am prepared to say that as a society
we have improved a great deal. But I am also saying I think they -
and you - are wrong when you make the claim that race relations in the South
were harmonious and mutually intimate.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Sunil
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >From: "Ted Ryan"
<coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >To: "Sunil Ramalingam"
<sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>> >Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:54 -0700
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Sunil,
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >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?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >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.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >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.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Stop for a moment to read and consider what
the authors of that book actually said, not what you think they said.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >I will chase down those references and send
them to you.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Ted Ryan
<DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>