Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates Jr. - General Discussion

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, buttersister said:

I think today, any slave-to-owner affection would be called Stockholm syndrome.

I seem to recall a situation from another episode in which the slave owner had a slave wife and children who had their own house, as well as a white wife and children who had a house, and that after emancipation the slave owner chose to live with the former slave wife and children. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Yeah No]

13 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

I wonder if ratings are declining and they are trying to save the show. I'm often bored by it and FF through the guests' performative stuff. There's a pattern of similar types of histories and experiences, which of course are shaped by the limits of archival information.

I've taken that to mean the opposite - that the show is so confident of its popularity and secure in its ratings that it can pick and choose the stories it wants to tell, so it tends to pick similar stories.  Also, I think Gates knows the audience loves those "atypical" stories about subjects involving slaves and former slaves.  He often tells similar stories about finding free black people in the South during the slavery era in someone's tree or former slaves becoming very successful, or marrying white people, etc.  Those stories might be very atypical in general but they're not that rare to hear about on this show.

4 hours ago, buttersister said:

I think today, any slave-to-owner affection would be called Stockholm syndrome.

I agree that it might be considered that today, but my contention is that truth is often stranger than fiction.  What we might assume to be true isn't always true in every case.  And Gates himself has put forth enough pretty atypical stories regarding slaves, former slaves and their owners to show that there's at least a few exceptions to break every rule.  

[Mediocre Gatsby]

The "Mammy" article also said that the woman was blind. I can easily imagine that she wouldn't want to jeopardize her living situation by rocking the boat. 

[Chyromaniac]

It feels like the point Dr Gates was making was not whether the woman in the story was actually happy with her arrangement.  Ultimately, the story isn’t really about her.  Rather, it illustrates a way that southerners of that time attempted to justify slavery. They put stories like this out there to say “it wasn’t all bad- if anything, we took care of them!”  As Crudup says, this man wants to believe that he’s “a good person.”  He lets an old poor blind woman live on his property- as justification for having literally owned her and having made her serve his family for her entire life.  

Edited April 11, 2023 by Chyromaniac

[kassa]

We couldn't read the article about the enslaved woman "cared for" by her enslavers' descendent. It might very well be that the text aligned with the headline in creating an offensive narrative. Maybe the descendent had actual fondness for her and felt responsibility to repay some of what she was owed by the family, but I tend to think if there had been any self-reflection of the kind in the article Gates would have highlighted it. As others have pointed out, Gates hasn't hesitated to latch onto unexpected bonds between people before. More likely, the expression of caring was wrapped up in "we love Ol' Mammy, of course we take care of our own like we always have" talk.

And I'm sure the old lady, blind or not, was capable of knowing from the questions (or identity of the questioner) just what kind of responses were required. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by kassa

[pasdetrois]

On 4/11/2023 at 3:02 AM, Chyromaniac said:

They put stories like this out there to say “it wasn’t all bad- if anything, we took care of them!”

Until recently, southerners (and perhaps others) were treating household help in a similar fashion. One was expected to keep the help on for their lifetimes, covering some of their needs and expenses as they aged. In the 80s I worked with an Alabama man whose parents "gave" him and his newlywed wife an aging married couple who had worked for the man's parents. This couple moved to DC with the newlyweds to do cooking, cleaning, repairs and chauffering. They lived in the property's carriage house and my coworker covered their expenses.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

Until recently, southerners (and perhaps others) were treating household help in a similar fashion. One was expected to keep the help on for their lifetimes, covering some of their needs and expenses as they aged. In the 80s I worked with an Alabama man whose parents "gave" him and his newlywed wife an aging married couple who had worked for the man's parents. This couple moved to DC with the newlyweds to do cooking, cleaning, repairs and chauffering. They lived in the property's carriage house and my coworker covered their expenses.

This discussion has reminded me of my mother's best friend and neighbor from when I was a toddler, living in a modest neighborhood. The friend got divorced (in the 1950s) and married a very wealthy man. They bought a house on the beach in Point Pleasant NJ where we stayed for a couple of weeks one or two summers. They had a live-in cook and housekeeper who was a Black woman. I still recall all these years later the white woman making a remark about the employee having a "long face" and how if they "wanted to be treated like the children" she could "just give" them an "allowance." As an adult, I can now interpret this to mean that the pay wasn't much more than room and board, and that the extra work with 3 or 4 of us staying there was not being compensated. 
I think it was the next summer that we instead rented a cottage nearby for 2 weeks.

[Blergh]

 I concede that it's in the realm of possibility that the aged former slave of Mr. Crudup's ancestor may have just told the columnist what he/she wanted to hear.

However,  I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim that just because someone had written a story about her that claimed a happier ending for her being cared for by her onetime slaveholder's descendant  than had she been left in the street rattling a tin cup to beg for alms( as many blind folks did before and after the Depression), that that alone MUST mean that the article was written SOLELY to claim that slavery hadn't been that bad and that the ONLY possible reason for the slaveholder's great-granddaughter to have cared for the old lady was just to show outsiders that 'we took care of them'. 

I mean, if there was actual evidence in print or other documented sources beyond the article's composition that it had been written JUST to claim that slavery hadn't been that bad (despite it having been abolished more than sixty years earlier) and that the onetime slave in question was lying through her teeth when claiming to have evidently had a positive relationship with her onetime slaveholder's great-granddaughter, I would have given Dr. Gates's claims credence.

However, solely the fact that the former slave wasn't openly a pudding of resentment bubbling with hatred for the 3rd generation of the former slaveholder's progeny doesn't necessarily mean the article had to be a complete tissue of lies and propaganda (even factoring in the unquestionably  patronizing terminology of the aged woman) .

If one attempts to pick apart and dismiss every possible every positive account of people of different backgrounds seeming to want to do right after having had their ancestors had done one party seriously wrong , then what's to stop those who attempt to pick apart and dismiss negative accounts of those who unquestionably had been traumatized, brutalized and/or abused? Simplistically dismissing accounts that don't conform to one's rigid notions about how  one believes others are supposed to act and/or react  is a very dangerous slippery slope.

As I said, I think it's best to consider ALL the available evidence and carefully weigh each part of all available accounts  without flinching- regardless of how discomfited one may be at the thought of someone else not reacting the way one would expect.

[carrps]

Eh, my opinion is that slavery was an unmitigated evil. Some kindnesses along the way don't do much to provide a balance. Sadly, the Jim Crow era was filled with former slave-owning families trying to whitewash their history. They're still trying to re-write history! I've read a lot about the era, and there is very, very little on the positive side of the balance sheet.

[carrps]

I just finished reading Zora Neale Hurston's book Tell My Horse about her time collecting African folklore in Haiti. It's in relatively short chapters on different subjects. I got to the last chapter, and it was a short story from Guinea. At the end of the story was the name: Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Her fieldwork in Haiti was in the late 1930s, and Gates wasn't born until 1950. Hurston died in 1960, so he wouldn't have known her personally. The version of the book I read was a badly done Indian reprint (the original book is hard to find), so I wonder if the editors of that edition just tacked on the story for some reason.

[PRgal]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:15 AM, pasdetrois said:

Until recently, southerners (and perhaps others) were treating household help in a similar fashion. One was expected to keep the help on for their lifetimes, covering some of their needs and expenses as they aged. In the 80s I worked with an Alabama man whose parents "gave" him and his newlywed wife an aging married couple who had worked for the man's parents. This couple moved to DC with the newlyweds to do cooking, cleaning, repairs and chauffering. They lived in the property's carriage house and my coworker covered their expenses.

Not quite the same thing, but when my great-grandmother (my maternal grandmother's mom) married my great-grandfather, part of her dowry was an indentured servant who was probably a tween (maybe 11?) at the time.  This was maybe early 1900s (my grandmother was born some 15 years after my great-grandmother married) or so. My great-grandmother was a few years older than that girl.  The girl wasn't paid a salary, but essentially worked off her wages over the next few years.  Later, when it was worked off, rather than being married off to some guy, she was taken on as a second wife.  So my great-grandmother's maid became a sister wife.  At least that's the story I was told. Kind of creepy by today's standards, but that's what happened.  

[Chalby]

Forgive me everyone, but I have just started watching reruns of this show and I love it. So I will be commenting on your posts as if you just watched it last night.

Thanks in advance for not mocking me for missing the (show)boat.

[Chalby]

On 4/28/2023 at 5:21 PM, PRgal said:

Later, when it was worked off, rather than being married off to some guy, she was taken on as a second wife.  So my great-grandmother's maid became a sister wife.  At least that's the story I was told.

When you think about it, a woman who hasn't any financial independence, has to put up with her husband's decisions. Doubly so if she doesn't have family support (in case she wants out.) I imagine a lot of wives were stuck in pretty sad circumstances

[Chalby]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:52 AM, carrps said:

Sadly, the Jim Crow era was filled with former slave-owning families trying to whitewash their history. They're still trying to re-write history! I've read a lot about the era, and there is very, very little on the positive side of the balance sheet.

This show always teaches me something. As more and more families are being studied, more odd facts are coming out. Especially in regards to owning slaves.

When Henry Louis Gates theorized that the wealthy black families were probably part of an economic "attitude" that normalize slavery, even though some of them were former slaves. He figures it was cheaper to own slaves than to hire seasonal migrant workers; something I never even supposed they would want to.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Chalby

[Chalby]

On 4/13/2023 at 9:34 PM, Blergh said:

As I said, I think it's best to consider ALL the available evidence and carefully weigh each part of all available accounts  without flinching- regardless of how discomfited one may be at the thought of someone else not reacting the way one would expect.

I would think we could find all sorts of "happier" stories about the treatment of slaves, but happy or not, just the fact that slavery existed sent the message that some people are better than others.

Imagine having no say over where you live, when and where you go anywhere, what you wear, what you say, what work you do, and whether you're educated.

Once you are no longer of value, what then? I'd be saying nice things about my owners, too, if I thought they'd keep on supporting me. Of course most owners just cut them loose.

[PRgal]

21 minutes ago, Chalby said:

When you think about it, a woman who hasn't any financial independence, has to put up with her husband's decisions. Doubly so if she doesn't have family support (in case she wants out.) I imagine a lot of wives were stuck in pretty sad circumstances

Women back then had next to no rights.  My grandmother, born in 1923, was only one generation removed from having her feet bound as little girl.  And in some parts of China and its surrounding regions, women a few years YOUNGER than my grandmother had bound feet!   So yes, there could be 95 year olds, still alive, with bound feet. 

[Chalby]

I love the series, Better Things, so when Pamela Adlon was featured, I was interested.

There's one episode where her character, Sam Fox, submits her and her brother's DNA, and they learn their great grandfather's mother, turned in his wife and kids to the Nazis.

So from then on, whenever something turns out bad, they'd respond, "F**k Anatoly's Mom".

Well, that phrase came from her personal historical records during Finding Your Roots... Once I heard the real story, all I could do was shake my head while saying "F**k Anatoly's Mom."

Edited June 11, 2023 by Chalby

[Chalby]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:47 PM, Yeah No said:

On 2/19/2023 at 10:22 AM, realityplease said:

But really, fear drove them - & only when viewed in hindsight, it happened to turn out to be a smart & lucky move. 

 

I think they all started by being brave and smart enough to grasp an opportunity. But as their plans began to fail, fear was their fuel to keep on searching.

[Chalby]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:18 PM, RockShrimp said:

And Especially the “omg a guy who was a German soldier in WWI had a kid who was a nazi?!” How is that shocking?

I think it's fair to say anyone learning the dark underbelly of their ancestors could feel shock, especially if the details were never discussed, or only "good" family stories were shared.

Personally, I would want to know all my family's ugly truths. Apparently, my great grandfather's mother had 7 husbands, 4 of them died mysteriously. There was talk of murder when i was young, but as that side died off, the story died with them. Sadly, I had to turn 50 before I grasped the satisfaction of wanting to know my history. I plan to write notes for my kids.

[Chalby]

On 1/20/2019 at 9:03 AM, HazelEyes4325 said:

in the tub while smoking and sort of nonchalantly telling her youngest child

This made me laugh because whenever I made an impromptu visit to my brother's first wife, she continued her activities while talking. A couple of times, I'd be sitting in the bathroom (I was 15) while she smoked and soaked, telling stories.

[PRgal]

16 minutes ago, Chalby said:

I think it's fair to say anyone learning the dark underbelly of their ancestors could feel shock, especially if the details were never discussed, or only "good" family stories were shared.

Personally, I would want to know all my family's ugly truths. Apparently, my great grandfather's mother had 7 husbands, 4 of them died mysteriously. There was talk of murder when i was young, but as that side died off, the story died with them. Sadly, I had to turn 50 before I grasped the satisfaction of wanting to know my history. I plan to write notes for my kids.

Sometimes (like in my case regarding my grandmother’s family), it’s just “how things were.”  I don’t see it as “whoa, my great-grandfather was a horrible man to have several wives at the same time.”  It’s kind of like how women didn’t have the vote until the 20th century. It’s…how things were.  And women had to fight to get the right.  I wouldn’t cancel/erase it, I’d talk about it and look at it from a historical perspective.  On the other hand, a few years ago, I found out that an ancestor on my father’s side travelled to three countries (Japan, Peru and the United States) over four years back in the 1860s.  He was a scholar/diplomat, meaning he took the imperial exams and worked for the emperor.  Two of my cousins love travelling, so I guess they got the bug from him.  Meanwhile, I do not travel well and it takes days for me to get over jet lag.  I also learned recently that my paternal grandfather was educated by Jesuits at a well-known boys’ academy in Hong Kong, making me the third generation on both sides of my family to have attended a single-sex school.  

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by PRgal

[Blergh]

15 hours ago, Chalby said:

I would think we could find all sorts of "happier" stories about the treatment of slaves, but happy or not, just the fact that slavery existed sent the message that some people are better than others.

Imagine having no say over where you live, when and where you go anywhere, what you wear, what you say, what work you do, and whether you're educated.

Once you are no longer of value, what then? I'd be saying nice things about my owners, too, if I thought they'd keep on supporting me. Of course most owners just cut them loose.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying about slavery (which, has NOT vanished in the 21st century- not by ANY means).

However, I fail to see how refusing to believe that there COULD be more positive interactions between a former slave and a onetime slaveholder's progeny to the point of seeking out this account  for the sole purpose to evidently dismiss all its positive claims (as IMO it appears Dr. Gates did in this instance)  can be of any value.

 As I said, had Dr. Gates had actually presented evidence that the article was a fabrication and/or that any or all positive claims by the aged former slave re her onetime slaveholder's great-granddaughter were total lies and/or faking to the interviewer, I would have been more willing to agree with Dr. Gates's conclusions.

[shapeshifter]

Should we use the term "enslaved people" instead of "slaves" here?

And, if so, is there a similarly more accurate term for "slaveholders"? 
Or not?

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Should we use the term "enslaved people" instead of "slaves" here?

And, if so, is there a similarly more accurate term for "slaveholders"? 
Or not?

According to the National Archives, the preferred terms are enslaved people and enslavers.

 

[shapeshifter]

19 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

According to the National Archives, the preferred terms are enslaved people and enslavers.

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks, @OtterMommy!

[Chalby]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:45 AM, Blergh said:

However, I fail to see how refusing to believe that there COULD be more positive interactions between a former slave and a onetime slaveholder's progeny to the point of seeking out this account  for the sole purpose to evidently dismiss all its positive claims (as IMO it appears Dr. Gates did in this instance)  can be of any value.

Thank you for  explaining further. I see what you were referring to. And you're absolutely correct in stating that slavery still exists today 

[satrunrose]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:34 AM, Blergh said:

I mean, if there was actual evidence in print or other documented sources beyond the article's composition that it had been written JUST to claim that slavery hadn't been that bad (despite it having been abolished more than sixty years earlier) and that the onetime slave in question was lying through her teeth when claiming to have evidently had a positive relationship with her onetime slaveholder's great-granddaughter, I would have given Dr. Gates's claims credence.

I think that's a level of evidence that you're unlikely to find. The context of the article seems to have been during the rise of the "Lost Cause" narrative which means it's not unlikely that a newspaper would be purposefully seeking out positive recollections of the period. Does that mean this formerly enslaved person was lying? Not at all. 60 years is a long time, as you said. That's long enough that rose-coloured glasses can get pretty thick. She might also have been aware that saying good things about her benefactor's ancestors was very much to her benefit and edited her recollections accordingly.  It could also be that she was lucky and her experiences were just a huge exception to the way most enslaved people were treated by their enslavers. 

     Why is it a problem to allow exceptions to hold equal weight with all of the narratives that do portray the antebellum period as one of extreme cruelty purely for the economic benefit of a relatively small number of people? Because while many people can see that the above analysis can still be true despite a small number of narratives from people who have a different, more positive, interpretation of their experiences, many hold up such narratives as "proof" that things were "not that bad" and a certain group "needs to get over it." I don't blame Dr Gates at all for presenting an interpretation that doesn't feed into the increasingly loud voices of the people who feel that way. 

[Chalby]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:45 AM, Blergh said:

I don't disagree with anything you are saying about slavery (which, has NOT vanished in the 21st century- not by ANY means).

However, I fail to see how refusing to believe that there COULD be more positive interactions between a former slave and a onetime slaveholder's progeny to the point of seeking out this account  for the sole purpose to evidently dismiss all its positive claims (as IMO it appears Dr. Gates did in this instance)  can be of any value.

Now that I'm a lot older, but not necessarily wiser, I agree slavery is still present in today's world, and will probably never go away. As long as people feel a need to dominate another group, or profit off their extremely cheap labor, there will be all sorts of "slavery".

That being said, I think people feel a need to criticize all slavery and turn their backs on the possibility of good stories. And as you and I both know, that can't be possible; surely there are good stories out there. And I realize that slavery is not all about one race or ethnicity.

Almost every developing country over the last 3,000 years (plus) has had some form of slavery. For me growing up in the '70s, all I ever learned was that the Americans had slaves and slavery was bad. It's only as I got older and became more "worldly" (and socially aware) that I realized slavery is not isolated to Americans, and, as you said, it's not all negative.

Great post.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Chalby

[Chalby]

On 6/8/2023 at 4:48 PM, OtterMommy said:

According to the National Archives, the preferred terms are enslaved people and enslavers.

 

Does that mean that today we think it's better to call them enslaved? Whereas in the last hundred years they've always been referred to as slaves? I'm confused. Which word is right, and if so why is it right?

[satrunrose]

Enslaved is the more correct term (although you might also come across the term hostages in some reading on the topic). Calling someone, or a group of someones, slaves removes their identity and suggests that is all that they are. It also implies that being slaves was just the way things were and the people doing it (traditionally called masters) had nothing to do with the situation at all.

Using an adjective (enslaved) is supposed to remind us that these people were people with, as you an Blergh say, diverse opinions about being enslaved. Using the terms enslavers also reminds us that people were actively choosing to do this to other humans. It wasn't just the state of nature. 

5 hours ago, Chalby said:

Does that mean that today we think it's better to call them enslaved? Whereas in the last hundred years they've always been referred to as slaves? 

Language isn't value neutral. It defines the boxes society puts people in. As the way we see people and events changes and we understand more about the aftereffects of the way a group has been treated, language changes to show a fairer understanding, and that's okay!

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by satrunrose

[shapeshifter]

24 minutes ago, satrunrose said:

Language isn't value neutral. It defines the boxes society puts people in.

I appreciate your entire post, @satrunrose (maybe you are a teacher IRL?), and especially "Language isn't value neutral. It defines the boxes society puts people in."

[satrunrose]

Thanks@ @shapeshifter! 😀 Good guess, my secret identity is a teacher (who is working on a course on critical theory so it's super on topic!)

[Chalby]

On 7/17/2023 at 4:05 AM, satrunrose said:

Enslaved is the more correct term (although you might also come across the term hostages in some reading on the topic). Calling someone, or a group of someones, slaves removes their identity and suggests that is all that they are. It also implies that being slaves was just the way things were and the people doing it (traditionally called masters) had nothing to do with the situation at all.

Thank you for the explanation. I always want to hear how words evolve and change because I find it both interesting and I also would like to be kept current, as I never want to offend while speaking within a group. The more I can learn the better for me.

[Driad]

New Project Will Recover the Names of Up to 10 Million People Enslaved in America Before Emancipation and Locate their Living Descendants

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Driad said:

New Project Will Recover the Names of Up to 10 Million People Enslaved in America Before Emancipation and Locate their Living Descendants

Is it too much to hope that white people of the US South might meet Black descendants of enslaved people with whom they share ancestors, and, through this, a societal shift in opinions of race might occur throughout the country, realizing it is, after all, an artificial construct?
Maybe not within my lifetime, but within the lifetimes of my now adult daughters?

[ProudMary]

Hints at some of the guests coming to the new season of Finding Your Roots, from their FB page.

 

 

[Driad]

I don't care who they are, as long as there are only two of them per episode and they have interesting ancestor stories.

[NowVoyager]

Hmm... 

Is guest #3 Dionne Warwick??

Is guest #4 Mariah Carey??

[LizDC]

On 9/28/2023 at 3:52 AM, NowVoyager said:

Hmm... 

Is guest #3 Dionne Warwick??

Is guest #4 Mariah Carey??

#4 Can’t be Mariah.  Her debut album wasn’t in 2004.

I think #1 is 

Spoiler

Alanis Morrisette

And #4 might be 

Spoiler

Ciara

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by LizDC

[LizDC]

Season 10 Trailer (via Twitter/X)

Edited October 4, 2023 by LizDC

[ProudMary]

I just watched the trailer and I'm already tearing up for the non-famous, average people who were selected to have their roots discovered. 

It seems to be a good group of celebrities for this 10th Anniversary season of Finding Your Roots. I'm so happy to see LeVar Burton as one of the guests! Also, Wes Studi. 

[Mermaid Under]

The 2024 guest list includes

Valerie Bertinelli, Danielle Brooks, LeVar Burton, Ciara, Michael Douglas, Lena Dunham, Brendan Fraser, Sammy Hagar, Sunny Hostin, Tracy Morgan, Alanis Morissette, Ed O’Neill, Bob Odenkirk, Anthony Ramos, Iliza Shlesinger, Wes Studi, Dionne Warwick, and Jesse Williams

I'm not saying I won't watch, but none of them excite me, many of them I don't know and can't be bothered to Google.   Gates isn't all that enthralling as a host without someone open and engaging on the other side of the table.

I think Bertinelli has done the other genealogy show.  Dionne Warwick seems to have had an interesting life, but she is never particularly well-spoken or likable in any interview I've ever seen her in.  I don't know if Gates can overcome that, regardless of what her story is. On the opposite end of the spectrum, LeVar Burton is always well-spoken and interesting when he is interviewed; I'm afraid Gates will ruin his segment by being too much of a fangirl.

[buttersister]

1 hour ago, Mermaid Under said:

Valerie Bertinelli 

Not much of a fan, but I’m looking forward to the rest, some more than others. Dr. Gates and his crew do great work, so worthwhile.

Edited October 11, 2023 by buttersister
Grammar isn’t just the woman married to granmpa.

[Driad]

The Most Shocking Celebrity Cousin Matches EVER on Finding Your Roots

For those of us who have taken autosomal DNA tests, does anyone know how to find out if we match anyone famous?

[Yeah No]

11 hours ago, Driad said:

The Most Shocking Celebrity Cousin Matches EVER on Finding Your Roots

For those of us who have taken autosomal DNA tests, does anyone know how to find out if we match anyone famous?

Here's the easiest way I know:

Upload a family tree to Family Search and they will match you.

https://www.familysearch.org/discovery/famousrelatives

Here is more on how it works:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/famous-relatives

Interestingly, the list of people it generated for me is very close to the one I got from Ancestry.com's "find famous relatives" feature they had over a decade ago.  It was short-lived, though and I don't know why they got rid of it.  I just read that they used to have a phone app that did the same thing that they got rid of in 2019.  Don't know why.  But at least Familysearch.org still does it.

 

[auntjess]

8 hours ago, Yeah No said:

nterestingly, the list of people it generated for me is very close to the one I got from Ancestry.com's "find famous relatives" feature they had over a decade ago.  It was short-lived, though and I don't know why they got rid of it. 

Maybe famous people got annoyed by lots of folks bothering them as long-lost cousins.

 

[pasdetrois]

I am thrilled about Wes Studi. A great Native American actor and a nice guy.

[Yeah No]

30 minutes ago, auntjess said:

Maybe famous people got annoyed by lots of folks bothering them as long-lost cousins.

They don't claim the list is comprehensive and I don't think they match you with too many living famous people.  The only living famous people on my list on Ancestry.com were 2 former presidents.  The list on Family Search left them off, interestingly.  Most of the people they match you with are historical figures or celebrities from a generation or more ago.  It's based on public information they have so if they have private information they don't publish it.  People that put family trees online have the option of keeping them private.  Also, the only matches I got were on my father's WASP side. I presume that's because there's a lot of genealogy on them going back to the early settlers and beyond.  I didn't get any matches on my Italian or Jewish sides.  I think there is less information online about those groups and much of it may not be available to the public.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Yeah No

[carrps]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

Also, the only matches I got were on my father's WASP side. I presume that's because there's a lot of genealogy on them going back to the early settlers and beyond.  I didn't get any matches on my Italian or Jewish sides.

Yes, I could find a ton of my dad's ancestors -- 98% British -- but it's slim pickings for my mom's Hungarian ancestors. And my dad's direct line has no new immigrants to the US since the 1830s. My mom's parents were immigrants.

 

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

They don't claim the list is comprehensive and I don't think they match you with too many living famous people.  The only living famous people on my list on Ancestry.com were 2 former presidents.  The list on Family Search left them off, interestingly.  Most of the people they match you with are historical figures or celebrities from a generation or more ago.  It's based on public information they have so if they have private information they don't publish it.  People that put family trees online have the option of keeping them private.  Also, the only matches I got were on my father's WASP side. I presume that's because there's a lot of genealogy on them going back to the early settlers and beyond.  I didn't get any matches on my Italian or Jewish sides.  I think there is less information online about those groups and much of it may not be available to the public.

It's the case for a lot of more recent immigrant families.  And some cultures don't want to do these things because there may be some things they want to hide.  In my culture, there's an "official" kinship book that can go back millennia, but is it the truth-truth?  We don't know.  Adoptions can be left hidden - I mean, my dad even told me he didn't think it was a good idea to tell my son he's donor conceived!  I also know someone who wasn't told that he was adopted and only found out because he found the legal documents!