daughters of the american revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I can't imagine having a family with two daughters one adopted and one not with DAR membership being extended to one but not the other.

Disgusting, really.

I am the original poster who said i was qualified to join but wouldn't want to because of their antisemitic and racist associations. I also said I was not sure if they had done anything to address those associations. If they have, then that's great. I don't think there is anything wrong with people celebrating their heritage, whatever it may be. I am proud of the fact that my ancestors came here before the American Revolution because, well, they are my ancestors. If I had a different heritage, I would be proud of that heritage. But to me racism and antisemitism are deal breakers; so if they have not been addressed, then thanks but no thanks.

However, I do have one adopted child and one biological child and I TOTALLY REJECT the idea that one of my kids is more a part of my family than the other. I understand the bloodline thing and all, but COME ON!!!! My adopted child is MY CHILD just like my biological child is. The idea that one would not be welcome is just really hurtful to me.

Wow, it's such a coincidence that everyone hatin' on the DAR has an adopted kid!

Yes, and I really don't qualify to join; I just hate them because of their stance on adoption.

Please, PP, you sound totally paranoid. Both of my children are boys, BTW, so the DAR issue is irrelevant to me other than that it is heartbreaking to think of my sons in those terms. I can't imagine why anyone who has adoption in their family would want to celebrate their heritage through DAR -- and I hope others who are not directly affected by adoption can relate, just like I would hope that you don't have to be aa to not want to be associated with a racist institution even if you qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how is it relevant what someone did 300 years ago to today? slavery was common everywhere in history, Egypt, Roman, Greek, Africa and the New World. Don't see the point ...

in any event, DAR is not at all racist and does many worthwhile charitable things. Meet some members if you have any questions, and ignore the silly troll on this thread.

You're really on top of things, aren't you? The Marian Anderson issue happened in the 1940's, not 300 years ago. And slavery ended in the 1860's....again, not 300 years ago. Racism in this country did not end -- wait for it -- 300 years ago. That's why many people feel it's important to look at the history of an institution before one joins. Otherwise, you may be associating with racists. Who are, in fact, the silly trolls -- not the poster who pointed out the history of overt racism in the DAR.

I'm a non-white member of the DAR. There are probably no old organizations (as old as DAR) that have perfectly clean pasts when it comes to race relations. Look at organizations like the Red Cross, Rotary International, any number of U.S. sororities and fraternities that do community service and charity work. They all have periods of shameful racism that they have worked (and are working) to overcome.

It's one thing to be aware of the past. It's another to condemn an organization that is trying to do good now for its past. That's a prejudice just like racism is, and the world would be better off the fewer prejudices we have.

Thank you, this sums up exactly how I feel.

I think some of the PPs who are vocally against DAR are those who are interested in it but not qualified to join. I'm very sorry, I wish it were open to all. But a lot of clubs aren't (women only, retired people only, etc), so I understand the hard feelings but think some of you are going pretty far off the deep end!

I'm one of the "vocal" posters and I've never given the slightest thought to joining the DAR -- couldn't possibly join since my family came to this country in the 20th century. It is possible, you know, to think something is unfair even when you have no personal stake in the outcome. It's called having a moral sensitivity.

[Anonymous]

I just had to open this seemingly harmless thread to see what you bitches were squabbling about.
Cabin fever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how is it relevant what someone did 300 years ago to today? slavery was common everywhere in history, Egypt, Roman, Greek, Africa and the New World. Don't see the point ...

in any event, DAR is not at all racist and does many worthwhile charitable things. Meet some members if you have any questions, and ignore the silly troll on this thread.

You're really on top of things, aren't you? The Marian Anderson issue happened in the 1940's, not 300 years ago. And slavery ended in the 1860's....again, not 300 years ago. Racism in this country did not end -- wait for it -- 300 years ago. That's why many people feel it's important to look at the history of an institution before one joins. Otherwise, you may be associating with racists. Who are, in fact, the silly trolls -- not the poster who pointed out the history of overt racism in the DAR.

I'm a non-white member of the DAR. There are probably no old organizations (as old as DAR) that have perfectly clean pasts when it comes to race relations. Look at organizations like the Red Cross, Rotary International, any number of U.S. sororities and fraternities that do community service and charity work. They all have periods of shameful racism that they have worked (and are working) to overcome.

It's one thing to be aware of the past. It's another to condemn an organization that is trying to do good now for its past. That's a prejudice just like racism is, and the world would be better off the fewer prejudices we have.

Thank you, this sums up exactly how I feel.

I think some of the PPs who are vocally against DAR are those who are interested in it but not qualified to join. I'm very sorry, I wish it were open to all. But a lot of clubs aren't (women only, retired people only, etc), so I understand the hard feelings but think some of you are going pretty far off the deep end!

I'm one of the "vocal" posters and I've never given the slightest thought to joining the DAR -- couldn't possibly join since my family came to this country in the 20th century. It is possible, you know, to think something is unfair even when you have no personal stake in the outcome. It's called having a moral sensitivity.

You say "moral sensitivity", I say "sour grapes"!

[Anonymous]

Note to "sour grapes" poster -- that's why quite a few people associate "DAR" with elitist snobs.

Note to "how is what people did 300 years ago relevant?" poster: but isn't this (what people did, or, more accurately, where they happened to be, 300 years ago) the entire premise of DAR? If you argue the irrelevancy of the past, you are in fact arguing the irrelevancy of DAR even as you appear to be trying to defend the organization.

Note to non-white member of DAR, who said "It's one thing to be aware of the past. It's another to condemn an organization that is trying to do good now for its past. That's a prejudice just like racism is, and the world would be better off the fewer prejudices we have": look, no one is going to disagree that the world would be better off with fewer prejudices. But equating the condemnation of an organization's membership rules with RACISM is just a ... bit ... outrageous, don't you think? What's next: people who really dislike anchovies and wonder how others can possibly eat them are "prejudiced" in the same way as racists? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Hey! People who like anchovies are elitist snobs who are bigoted against those of us that are allergic to fish!

Seriously, are you all hearing yourselves? WHO EFFING CARES!? If you can't join anyway, feel however you want. If you can join and don't want to, don't.

For the love of god, people. Just...*shakes head*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey! People who like anchovies are elitist snobs who are bigoted against those of us that are allergic to fish!

Seriously, are you all hearing yourselves? WHO EFFING CARES!? If you can't join anyway, feel however you want. If you can join and don't want to, don't.

For the love of god, people. Just...*shakes head*

Why are you even posting here if you don't care? This thread is voluntary.

[Anonymous]

If anyone still cares, there is a DAR database online that provides the family trees of people who have been authenticated. So, if you can show your relationship to an ancestor who's already been checked out, you are eligible. In many cases this just means getting back to the mid- or early-1800s. FYI.

My husband is eligible (for whatever the male equivalent is), and therefore so is my son. I think it's kind of neat to think of having been on this continent so long, but maybe that's because I'm an immigrant (and my grandparents were immigrants to the country they live in, so my parents are first generation and also immigrants). I will confess that while I find it intellectually interesting, I don't get people who make this a big part of their current identity. And I do know someone who is a Mayflower descendant, and she did say to her biological daughter in front her younger adopted daughter (in answer to a question about the Mayflower book), "you and I are part of this group." How much nicer would it have been to say "your grandmother/father" is in this group, and leave it at that level?