Darrell Stec wrote:

As a rule I discount anything found on a Wiki. You yourself could add or
delete anything on that Wiki whether you know anything about the subject or
not. What is the provenance of that picture? How do we know it represents
the actually portrait of the real Hanson?

Reading the history of the Wiki gives a general idea of the agenda of the
contributors.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/hanson.cfm does not mention whether he was
black or white, but I think if he had been black, they would have found
it worth mentioning. Besides, he was born in Maryland, a state that
allowed slavery.


How often do you find mention that the French general Lafayette was black?

Never, before now. Do you have anything saying he was that's more
credible than the nonsense claiming Hanson was black?

Or that the real engineer of Washington DC was a black man by the name of
Benjamin Banneker instead of L'Enfant who refused to actually oversee its
construction.

So a black overseer, but not a French engineer? Yeah.

Or that the White House was built and serviced by slaves?

Why would that be a surprise to anyone?

Oh great an amateur history buff whose claim to fame was as an Italian
basketball star. Being that he was also a Republican congressman, it makes
everything he says suspect.

Ad hominum attacks are always so effective.

While the information on those websites might be correct, there is a strong
effort to wipe out any contribution of blacks in America and Wikis are an
unfortunate target of both racists and Fundamentalists (who many times are
one and the same).

So you're saying you may be an idiot, but you're not a racist or
fundamentalist.

OK by me.

David