Again, I didn’t get the sense that that was the message or implication she was going for. While I’m certain that there are some people who may believe that everything in the states only existed because of slaves and completely ignore all the historical evidence that there were other people involved in the creation of our country, those people are stupid and are going to willfully misconstrue any statement involving slaves to conform to that narrative. Those are the people who hear “slaves built the White House” and assume that means that ONLY slaves were involved in the working, while completely missing the point of the speech and again willfully ignoring the historical evidence that there were other people involved. There is no point arguing with those people and there is no way you can make a statement that involves slaves that they won’t co-opt. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of American History knows that there were many different kinds of people involved in the building of the White House. It is generally accepted as a given. She didn’t feel the need to emphasize the presence of other people because she accepted that as a given and they were not important to the narrative of her personal history and experience. She assumed that most people would understand that there were other people involved. Why should she have to cater her message to try to subvert the ideas of a small group of people who would still likely use whatever she said to further their cause and are willing to completely ignore any and all historical evidence that contradicts their idea?

At the same time there are people who will completely and wholeheartedly deny that slaves had ANY role in the creation of the White House, the country, the American culture or anything. These people also willfully ignore any and all evidence to the contrary and will take offense at any statement that involves slave labor being used. These people are also very stupid and probably can’t be argued with either- if they are willing to ignore first person historical documents regarding the use and treatment of slaves or the numerous historical accounts of how pro-anti slavery debates were present in the Americas at least as early as the revolutionary war and that the existence of slaves played a large role in the economy of the cotton industry they are not going to listen to commenters on the Internet or even a speech given by the First Lady. Just as there is no way she could have worded her speech to invalidate the “absolutely everything in the USA exists because of slaves” people’s arguments and still get her message across regarding how she feels as a black First Lady living in the White House knowing that slaves were involved in its creation, there is no way that she could have gotten that message across in a way that would be acceptable to the people who deny that black slaves had any impact on the White House’s construction or the foundation of the country.

There is nothing she could have done to appease those people, so she decided to use wording that would most effectively tell the story she was going for, knowing that most people realize that both slaves and free people had a hand in the building of the White House and believing that most people would understand that her stating how the use of slave labor in the construction of the White House has an effect on how she feels about living there as a black woman married to a mixed raced president does not invalidate the work of all the non-slaves on the construction of the White House. Maybe she had too much faith in us and our ability to understand.