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

[Koalagirl]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:31 PM, zoey1996 said:

NY Times site won't let me read unless I subscribe. ☹️  The information on the other site was very interesting.  Bothered me a bit that they used the phrase, "real parents" to refer to the biological parents.  My adoptive parents are my real parents.

I thought I'd seen some of the segments before, but they're still informative.  I was a bit surprised that John Turturro's didn't mention his brother Nicholas. 

I was surprised they also didn’t mention his cousin, Aida, who is an actress.  I actually worked with Nick in the early ‘90’s. He was a doorman at the hotel where I worked and used to tell us about his various auditions.  

[Driad]

New episodes starting Tuesday, October 13.

[shapeshifter]

42 minutes ago, Driad said:

New episodes starting Tuesday, October 13.

Thanks!

Quote

Season 6 / Episode 11
Henry Louis Gates Jr. steps into the world of fashion and explores the ancestry of three icons of style, Diane von Fürstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and RuPaul, whose fashionable ancestors were just as audacious as they are.

This will be the first episode I've seen since having a conversation with a daughter about not doing an ancestry DNA test. Her focus was: What did I expect to happen after sharing this information? She had a friend who did it as a gift for his parents with the result being the discovery of an adult half-sibling that no one had known about, and that discovery caused deep discord between his parents. It was almost identical to an episode on the show, including someone getting pregnant during a one-night stand with a foreign-exchange student who then left the country. 
I had wanted to do the test because the child who would have been born from the eggs my daughter sold would now be an adult, and I have no grandchildren (yet?). 
But I'm not going to do the test. 
There was also that fictional episode on Grace and Frankie in which someone wanted a kidney. 
Anyway, I'm honoring my daughter's wishes to honor the closed donor agreement,
and I'm wondering if it will change the way I perceive this program.

Edited October 3, 2020 by shapeshifter

[shapeshifter]

 I cried at the possible and equally horrible fates of Diane von Fürstenberg's father's mother; she looked like my father's family and lived in the same area from where they emigrated earlier. 

Narciso Rodriguez's DNA admixture showed 3% North and West African. I guess there wasn't anything definitive about when or where that was blended in. 500 years is a *lot* of history to track. I was oddly relieved that Charlemagne didn't turn up.

Ru Paul may have had the most thoughtfully insightful responses of any on the show ever. And I loved his response to his relation to Cory Booker.

[Silver Raven]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

Narciso Rodriguez's DNA admixture showed 3% North and West African. I guess there wasn't anything definitive about when or where that was blended in. 500 years is a *lot* of history to track. I was oddly relieved that Charlemagne didn't turn up.

They did talk about how one of his ancestors was a Canary Islands native, so that could be the North and West African blood.

 

[biakbiak]

12 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

They did talk about how one of his ancestors was a Canary Islands native, so that could be the North and West African blood.

 

Also, a ton of Spanish people have at least some North African blood because modern day Andalusia and Morocco are so close.

[riverblue22]

RuPaul's ancestor was freed by the slaveowner.  It would be interesting to know if he has any DNA matches with the descendants of the slaveowner's family who could possibly have fathered the two children of Julie the slave.

[Mermaid Under]

This was a new episode, but it appears that it  is the only one.  They are going back to showing reruns.

Quote

RuPaul's ancestor was freed by the slaveowner.  It would be interesting to know if he has any DNA matches with the descendants of the slaveowner's family who could possibly have fathered the two children of Julie the slave.

Without knowing, and just going from what wasn't said during the program when this was discussed, I can guarantee you that they tried to do that.   The researchers who create this show must not have been able to find any descendants, or no one was willing to test.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Mermaid Under

[iMonrey]

Quote

New episodes starting Tuesday, October 13.

Was it? I could have sworn I saw it before. I know I've seen the Tea Leoni one before and that was flagged as "new" by my DVR. They just repurpose previous segments by mixing them with different segments and slap a "new" label on it.

[bybrandy]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Was it? I could have sworn I saw it before. I know I've seen the Tea Leoni one before and that was flagged as "new" by my DVR. They just repurpose previous segments by mixing them with different segments and slap a "new" label on it.

Last season my DVR tagged all the remixed/old episodes as new and NONE of the actual new episodes as new.   

[tljgator]

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Was it?

I think there was one new episode (on that day) and then they started re-purposing and re-arranging from old episodes (like the Tea Leoni one) since then.

[Razzberry]

This is happening more and more.  ID simply renames their shows so the reruns list as "new".  It's bait & switch.

[Yeah No]

On 10/30/2020 at 5:09 PM, bybrandy said:

Last season my DVR tagged all the remixed/old episodes as new and NONE of the actual new episodes as new.   

Oh no so maybe I missed some actual new episodes?  Because my DVR was recording old ones and no new ones for a while.  It's PBS's fault, though.  They are the ones that flag the episodes as new or repeats.  They are the worst, IMO.  They do this with other shows too.  And they often don't even play the show that the program says is going to air, too!  I mean, completely different shows, like instead of "Finding Your Roots" a special about King Tut, LOL.

I am also sick and tired of all the remixed shows branded as new - Very annoying.  I'm deleting more than I'm watching these days.

[Silver Raven]

3 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Oh no so maybe I missed some actual new episodes?  Because my DVR was recording old ones and no new ones for a while.  It's PBS's fault, though.  They are the ones that flag the episodes as new or repeats.  They are the worst, IMO.  They do this with other shows too.  And they often don't even play the show that the program says is going to air, too!  I mean, completely different shows, like instead of "Finding Your Roots" a special about King Tut, LOL.

I am also sick and tired of all the remixed shows branded as new - Very annoying.  I'm deleting more than I'm watching these days.

That could be the fault of your local station.

 

[shapeshifter]

13 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

That could be the fault of your local station.

More specifically, that would be due to the limitations of the software that determines whether an episode is labeled “New” or “Repeat,” which then points the blame for remixes being labeled “New” back to whomever decides to remix the episode so that it consists of parts from different episodes, which is likely done in response to PBS viewer feedback. I doubt the feedback is ranked in importance by the size of any donations, even though that would make sense, since, ultimately, the PBS stations do require such donations to keep the lights on, but there are likely security reasons that keep donation amounts out of the programming software, right? It seems more like one of those rare situations in which any “squeaky wheel gets the grease.” 

[blueray]

I just saw a preview for next weeks "new" episode. And it advertised Scarlette Johanson, which I know is a repeat (as I totally cried during her episode). I really wish they would either make new episodes or not. But I hate the mixing of old episodes. I've seen most of them as I have Passport. It looked like the first real new episode is going to be in January.  But I'm just going on not recalling seeing those people before, I may be wrong.

Edited November 11, 2020 by blueray

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, blueray said:

I just saw a preview for next weeks "new" episode. And it advertised Scarlette Johanson, which I know is a repeat (as I totally cried during her episode). I really wish they would either make new episodes or not. But I hate the mixing of old episodes. I've seen most of them as I have Passport. It looked like the first real new episode is going to be in January.  But I'm just going on not recalling seeing those people before, I may be wrong.

This popped up on my FaceBook feed yesterday, with the words "reexaming" and "new, specially themed" popping out at me--so I've bolded them here:

Quote

"#FindingYourRoots is back tomorrow! We will be reexamining the ancestries of #JulianneMoore, #BillHader, and Kehinde Wiley in a new, specially themed episode. Watch at 8/7c on PBS  to discover how the military heroes in their family trees shaped our country and their lineage."

https://www.facebook.com/FindingYourRootsPBS/posts/3312467442183971

 

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

Henry Louis Gates Jr. explores the family secrets of journalist Gayle King, director Jordan Peele and comic Issa Rae and introduces them to ancestors both black and white, raising profound questions about their family trees

TV website says this is a new episode tonight.  I've lost faith....does anyone remember seeing these people on the show previously?  Somehow I think I've seen Gayle King.  Is this new, or another remix?

[Dehumidifier]

2 hours ago, Mermaid Under said:

TV website says this is a new episode tonight.  I've lost faith....does anyone remember seeing these people on the show previously?  Somehow I think I've seen Gayle King.  Is this new, or another remix?

Agree. Probably a new combo of previously aired episodes. 

[tljgator]

3 hours ago, Mermaid Under said:

TV website says this is a new episode tonight.  I've lost faith....does anyone remember seeing these people on the show previously?  Somehow I think I've seen Gayle King.  Is this new, or another remix?

I feel like we have, too -- maybe on an episode that had other reporters (I wanna say Bryant Gumbel was maybe also on?) -- but I genuinely can't remember anymore...which is probably what they're counting on, lol.

[blueray]

It's annoying that they keep mixing them up. If they don't have new episodes that's fine. Do the work when they can to make more. 

[LizDC]

 

[blueray]

Yay new episodes! Of course I don't particular like Pharell (hate his "music" especially). 

[zoey1996]

I just looked at the episode list, and didn’t see Gayle King listed in any earlier episodes.  We watched it last night; interesting.

I was surprised that Gayle was so surprised at her White/European portion of her DNA.  Her skin tone is on the lighter side, and many Black/African Americans have at least a portion of White/European background.

I’ve also learned since living in Virginia that a number of free Blacks owned other Black people, often due to family connections.  Those who were free would purchase their relatives with the end result that they would free them.

I was unfamiliar with Issa Ray, but knew a bit about Jordan Peele.  Liked to learn a bit more.

[meep.meep]

Issa Ray's facial expressions were an illustration of the perils of going on this show - that you might find out your ancestors are people you really wouldn't want to associate with.  Her relatives being slave traders and then dying in the Haiti slave uprising looked really upsetting to her.

The show last night was one of the few I've seen with all white people.  Pelosi, O'Donnell, and Posen.  They seemed to focus on more recent history rather than tracing them back to villages in the 1600s.

[shapeshifter]

I happened to rewatch the last part of the  Pelosi, O'Donnell, and Posen episode twice and teared up both times because Norah was so thrilled to be a cousin of HLG's, and he was delighted with her joy.

 

4 hours ago, meep.meep said:

The show last night was one of the few I've seen with all white people.  Pelosi, O'Donnell, and Posen.  They seemed to focus on more recent history rather than tracing them back to villages in the 1600s.

Yes but Norah O’Donnell is a cousin of an African American person 😉 and both Italians and Jews were treated as non-white at the time that their families immigrated to America -- and immigrant Irish were "others" as well.

Edited January 13, 2021 by shapeshifter

[BusyOctober]

Watched the newest ep with Glen Close and John Waters.  They both had A LOT going in their lives and in their ancestors.  Who knew Glenn was part of “Up With People” ?

I wouldn’t think John Waters would be surprised to learn somewhere in his southern ancestry that there was involvement with slavery.  Same for Glenn since her Virginia born grandmother mentioned having a ‘Mammy’.  It must be jarring to be confronted with the news that your 2-3-4 GG grandparents owned other human beings.  In the context of present day, it is almost unimaginable that people committed such heinous acts against humanity.  I guess I would feel uncomfortable, and have a hard time meeting Dr. Gates’ eyes if he told me my family had slaves.  However, I would think most people in the 21st century would feel the same way. So it kinda bugs me when Dr. Gates asks, “how does that make you feel to know your 2x GG was a slave master?”  Who is going to say, “Well, sorry about the dehumanizing of generations of people, but thank goodness Granpappy made our family fortune on tobacco!”

My Irish and Italian ancestors didn’t land in the US until the 1870 through 1910’s, so I don’t know if there’s any direct ties to slavery in this country.  There is a family story that one of my maternal grandmother’s GGG uncles, in the 1700’s was a Cardinal in Rome...who also owned a brothel and was by poisoned by one of the ladies who worked there for not supporting his 4 children he had with her.

[Arcadiasw]

On 1/20/2021 at 12:30 PM, BusyOctober said:

 

I wouldn’t think John Waters would be surprised to learn somewhere in his southern ancestry that there was involvement with slavery.  Same for Glenn since her Virginia born grandmother mentioned having a ‘Mammy’.  It must be jarring to be confronted with the news that your 2-3-4 GG grandparents owned other human beings.  In the context of present day, it is almost unimaginable that people committed such heinous acts against humanity.  I guess I would feel uncomfortable, and have a hard time meeting Dr. Gates’ eyes if he told me my family had slaves.  However, I would think most people in the 21st century would feel the same way. So it kinda bugs me when Dr. Gates asks, “how does that make you feel to know your 2x GG was a slave master?”  Who is going to say, “Well, sorry about the dehumanizing of generations of people, but thank goodness Granpappy made our family fortune on tobacco!”

I am surprised when American guests act surprise they have slave owners in their ancestry. Unless you know for a fact your ancestors came to America after the Civil War, you should assume it's a possibility you have slave owners in your ancestry. The "How does it make you feel" questions feels like a reason to fill possible dead air and engage with the guests because they may not say anything unless they are asked their thoughts.  

[blueray]

I think it is kind of shocking to think about. Most (if not all) of the guests probably hoped that wasn't the case. Of course I know personally that my family didn't. We came over in the 1920's and my assessors lived like the character's in Fidder on the Roof. While it is awkward for him to ask, it's important to acknowledge that dark period of US history and work together to improve what still needs to be done. 

[Silver Raven]

I had an ancestor who fought for the Confederacy, but they were poor whites and there was no way they would have had slaves.  The censuses don't show them as owning slaves.  For which I am very grateful.

His father, on the other hand, had brothers who were wealthy, and very probably had slaves. One of them owned land where part of the University of North Carolina was built.

 

 

[shapeshifter]

 

5 hours ago, Arcadiasw said:

I am surprised when American guests act surprise they have slave owners in their ancestry. Unless you know for a fact your ancestors came to America after the Civil War, you should assume it's a possibility you have slave owners in your ancestry

2 hours ago, blueray said:

I think it is kind of shocking to think about. Most (if not all) of the guests probably hoped that wasn't the case. Of course I know personally that my family didn't. We came over in the 1920's and my assessors lived like the character's in Fidder on the Roof. While it is awkward for him to ask, it's important to acknowledge that dark period of US history and work together to improve what still needs to be done. 

I think that means we’re 30th cousins or something, @blueray, heh.

But what is Ashkenazi DNA? Does it include Cossack DNA? Looking at pictures of my father’s family, they all look to me like they should be related to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin rather than related to my mother’s father’s family —who are Sephardic Jews and look more like they are related to Osama Bin Laden’s vast extended family (some of whom wish they weren’t part of that family). 

If Ashkenazi Jewish DNA does include Cossack DNA, then I imagine learning about that would be equivalent to African Americans learning what percentage of European DNA they have. 

Norah O’Donnell was glad to learn that she and HLG Jr. were cousins. But how often are such discoveries happy ones when exploring one’s DNA? Learning that your ancestors owned someone else’s ancestors doesn’t seem like it would ever be a joyous discovery, no matter how much you might be happy to be related to a particular person of African American decent.

I just learned that my oldest daughter did the Ancestry test. It showed she was exactly half Ashkenazi and half white European. She was a little disappointed that there wasn’t any African DNA because her father’s family had been in the US since before the Civil War, but I was a bit relieved for her in terms of potential guilt. She’s a first responder who saves people of all backgrounds, but there’s always enough guilt to go around. 

[Gizkok]

I have just started some serious delving into my own ancestry and was surprised to hear a familiar name.  Glenn Close and I share a pair of ancestors, John and Abigail Strong.  Since they had 17 children I am sure there are even more relatives out there! Clint Eastwood!

[Driad]

I enjoyed John Waters saying he would spit on the grave of his slave-holding ancestor.

Have any guests said they wanted to find descendants of the people whom their ancestors enslaved? There are projects such as the Beyond Kin Project.

[carrps]

I had to go back like seven generations (six?) to find a slaveowner, but I didn't have any immigrants after 1840 on my father's side. So, it wasn't a surprise. Something I dreaded finding and was like a sucker punch to the gut to find out, but not a surprise.

Happily, my direct ancestor from that slave owner left the Carolinas and moved to Pennsylvania where he owned no slaves. This was still in the 18th C. so it could have been possible.

The best  thing I discovered was documentary evidence that my 3-times g-grandfather's farm outside Cincinnati was a stop on the Underground Railroad. A small measure on the other side of the scale.

[shapeshifter]

11 hours ago, carrps said:

The best  thing I discovered was documentary evidence that my 3-times g-grandfather's farm outside Cincinnati was a stop on the Underground Railroad. A small measure on the other side of the scale.

That is very cool. If it had been the same branch of your tree that had been slave owners it would have been actually redemptive, but, even so, it seems that some of your ancestors were people who considered enslaving others for financial gain and chose otherwise. 

Just because mine were not in a position to make such choices doesn't mean they would have --that is, I cannot say whether or not my ancestors would have chosen to enslave others or provide a stop on the Underground Railroad --sort of a "there but for the grace of God go I" kind of history for any of us whose ancestors never had to make that choice.  

Edited January 24, 2021 by shapeshifter

[Driad]

Many people don't know that Northern states allowed slavery for a while. In 1781 a woman then known as Bett (later Elizabeth Freeman) sued the state of Massachusetts for her freedom. Massachusetts abolished slavery shortly afterward.
 

[Yeah No]

9 hours ago, Driad said:

Many people don't know that Northern states allowed slavery for a while. In 1781 a woman then known as Bett (later Elizabeth Freeman) sued the state of Massachusetts for her freedom. Massachusetts abolished slavery shortly afterward.
 

I actually knew that and when I researched my father's Yankee ancestry I delved very deeply into the records to see if any of his ancestors were slave owners.  Given that he was half Jewish on his other side (his father's) and there was also German and French in there, plus my mother was full blooded Sicilian, I wasn't looking through millions of people but even so it was an awful lot.  I didn't find any evidence of slaves, and I kind of doubted that I would given what they were up to at that time. 

I would be pretty disappointed to find out that any of them ever owned slaves.  I am proud to call my early American ancestors "damn rabid Yankees".  They fought for freedom in the Revolution with Ethan Allen.  One was one of the "old men of Menotomy".  Others founded towns in Vermont and New Hampshire.  My father told me many stories his mother told him growing up (unfortunately she died before I was born).  She was very progressive - he used to call her "The poor man's Eleanor Roosevelt".  Well, after all, it had to come from somewhere!  Plus she married a Jew in 1919, so there you go.  She used to tell him we were descended from abolishionists.  I have not found any records to show that to be the case, but pretty much everything she told him so far has turned out to be true.  I wish I could afford to get the kind of extensive genealogy done that Henry gives his guests.  I would love for him to ask me how I feel about my ancestors, to which I would respond, "Pretty damned proud".

Edited January 24, 2021 by Yeah No

[Suzn]

I've not found any direct ancestors who were slave owners, but there was a collateral line that owned slaves.  I had at least one ancestor who was an abolitionist.  I realize I can't take credit for that any more than it would be my fault if ancestors owned slaves.  I am proud to have an abolitionist though.

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, Suzn said:

I've not found any direct ancestors who were slave owners, but there was a collateral line that owned slaves.  I had at least one ancestor who was an abolitionist.  I realize I can't take credit for that any more than it would be my fault if ancestors owned slaves.  I am proud to have an abolitionist though.

I don't take credit for what my ancestors did, but I feel that it is important not to devalue the great things they accomplished by concentrating on things about them that today they would most certainly see differently just as we do.  Women would have to pretty much hate and devalue all men before the late 20th century if we were going to keep grinding that saw.

[carrps]

9 hours ago, Suzn said:

I've not found any direct ancestors who were slave owners, but there was a collateral line that owned slaves.  I had at least one ancestor who was an abolitionist.  I realize I can't take credit for that any more than it would be my fault if ancestors owned slaves.  I am proud to have an abolitionist though.

Yes. this. Even though it made me sick to my stomach to find a slave-owning ancestor, and I felt a real pride that another risked everything to help escaped slaves, I can't take either credit or fault. I just choose to follow the ancestors who chose justice.

[Suzn]

10 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I don't take credit for what my ancestors did, but I feel that it is important not to devalue the great things they accomplished by concentrating on things about them that today they would most certainly see differently just as we do.  Women would have to pretty much hate and devalue all men before the late 20th century if we were going to keep grinding that saw.

We have to be able to put things in a historical perspective.  There were good people and bad people in the past - there are good people and bad people in the present.  We might bear in mind that the attitudes and behaviors of today may look different in a hundred years, 

8 hours ago, carrps said:

Yes. this. Even though it made me sick to my stomach to find a slave-owning ancestor, and I felt a real pride that another risked everything to help escaped slaves, I can't take either credit or fault. I just choose to follow the ancestors who chose justice.

Even without "taking credit'", I am proud of the accomplishments of ancestors.  I am in awe of ancestors that left their homes to pioneer in a new areas.  I have mixed feelings about what they did to start over again with incredible bravery and hard work and on the other hand displacing the Native Americans who were there.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Unless you know for a fact your ancestors came to America after the Civil War, you should assume it's a possibility you have slave owners in your ancestry. 

Not necessarily. I had ancestors in the country pre-Civil War but they were all in the north, and were all poor no-accounts and hillbillies. None of them owned slaves. 

Quote

 The "How does it make you feel" questions feels like a reason to fill possible dead air and engage with the guests because they may not say anything unless they are asked their thoughts.  

It often feels like the purpose of this show is to root out (no pun intended) branches of the family tree that were either enslaved or owned slaves. If you are white and you go on this show then yes, you should expect them to find some slave owners on your family tree somewhere because that's kind of the point of the show. "How does that make you feel" seems sort of confrontational but the celebs who participate should expect it going in.

[PRgal]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:54 AM, Yeah No said:

I don't take credit for what my ancestors did, but I feel that it is important not to devalue the great things they accomplished by concentrating on things about them that today they would most certainly see differently just as we do.  Women would have to pretty much hate and devalue all men before the late 20th century if we were going to keep grinding that saw.

This. One of my maternal great-grandfathers (my maternal grandmother's dad, to be exact) had at least four wives at the same time (polygamous marriages were legal in Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc until the middle of the 20th century - YES, in those COLONIES) and one of the wives/concubines was an indentured servant.  She came with my (genetic) great-grandmother (my maternal grandmother's mom and his first/main wife) when they married and was likely underage (especially since "women" married as teens.  If my great-grandmother was 16 at the time she married, the indentured servant was likely much younger.  Maybe even 12) at the time.  Kind of creepy by our standards, no?  But really, I can't "cancel" this guy because he's part of my history and I have to look at things from a historical perspective and what was acceptable then.  I mean, my great-grandmother, despite coming from a "good" (i.e. at least middle class) family, was barely literate.  This would have been unheard of in the west.  This woman also had bound feet.  And yes, her marriage was arranged.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, PRgal said:

This. One of my maternal great-grandfathers (my maternal grandmother's dad, to be exact) had at least four wives at the same time (polygamous marriages were legal in Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc until the middle of the 20th century - YES, in those COLONIES) and one of the wives/concubines was an indentured servant.  She came with my (genetic) great-grandmother (my maternal grandmother's mom and his first/main wife) when they married and was likely underage (especially since "women" married as teens.  If my great-grandmother was 16 at the time she married, the indentured servant was likely much younger.  Maybe even 12) at the time.  Kind of creepy by our standards, no?  But really, I can't "cancel" this guy because he's part of my history and I have to look at things from a historical perspective and what was acceptable then.  I mean, my great-grandmother, despite coming from a "good" (i.e. at least middle class) family, was barely literate.  This would have been unheard of in the west.  This woman also had bound feet.  And yes, her marriage was arranged.

As a mother myself, I imagine your great-grand hoped the best for her children and often felt a measure of guilt for bringing them into a difficult life. If there is a form of afterlife, she would be happy now to see your life.

[OtterMommy]

If I do some mental gymnastics, I can envision a way in which neither Close nor Waters would have previously considered the fact that they had slave-owning ancestors.  In Waters case, he came from an urban family the family was urban for quite some time in his history.  While incorrect, I can see how he might have believed that only farmers owned slaves.  In Close's case, her Northeastern family history seemed to be the dominant culture, so to speak, so maybe she never really considered her Southern side.

No, there really isn't an excuse for Glenn Close not realizing before the filming of the show that she had slave owning ancestors, especially with Granny Close telling stories about her Mammy.

I didn't realize that Glenn Close had such ties to the College of William and Mary (NOT "William and Mary College," Professor Gates!).  I always knew she attended there and there was a lot of stories and respect for her in the theater department, but her family name of Taliaferro also graces one of the residence halls on campus. 

[PRgal]

9 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

As a mother myself, I imagine your great-grand hoped the best for her children and often felt a measure of guilt for bringing them into a difficult life. If there is a form of afterlife, she would be happy now to see your life.

Difficult life?  My grandmother‘s family was fairly well off.  You don’t get to have four wives if you’re poor.  Unless you mean having to fear the Japanese during WW2 (even though Macau was neutral) or my great grandfather dying when she was a teen. 

[Yeah No]

On 1/25/2021 at 5:15 PM, iMonrey said:

It often feels like the purpose of this show is to root out (no pun intended) branches of the family tree that were either enslaved or owned slaves. If you are white and you go on this show then yes, you should expect them to find some slave owners on your family tree somewhere because that's kind of the point of the show. "How does that make you feel" seems sort of confrontational but the celebs who participate should expect it going in.

I agree with you although I don't know if I think it's the main point of the show.  I just think that if you look hard enough you can find some pretty awful stuff about a lot of otherwise great people, and we run the risk of canceling their accomplishments out of significance if we concentrate on those things.  Asking people how they feel about their ancestors in those cases kind of forces them to veer into that territory unless they want to look like racists.  And that does bug me, I will admit.  I think people should be able to do both things at the same time, disapprove of them having owned slaves but still be able to be publicly proud of their contributions to society (assuming there were any).  People are never all good or all bad and some of those slave owners might have contributed a lot to society despite that. 

I know there's a lot of talk devaluing the founding fathers of this country today based on their slave ownership, but we all now benefit from the work and the risks they took to found this country on some pretty idealistic principles.  Those principles have served us well for the most part except for stuff like slavery, which was pretty contradictory to their own principles anyway.  They're also devalued based on their attitudes towards and treatment of native Americans too.  I can't support any of that but I don't let it blind me to the amazing things they did achieve and how we benefit from them today.  It shouldn't be lost that their idealistic principles toward equality and freedom of speech (among other rights) were actually very progressive for their time and for the most part with some significant tweaks we still believe in them today.  I think that's pretty amazing considering the relative social "dark ages" they arose from.  So I think we always need to see people in context.

One non-race related example of this is JFK.  In his time (which I am just old enough to vaguely remember) he was idolized by the public.  In later decades we found out that he was a womanizing scoundrel in many ways.  Should that cancel his significance out of existence?  I don't think so even as much as I abhor that other part of him with every fiber of my being.

[Arcadiasw]

I was expecting Andy Cohen to be related to Anderson Cooper. 

[iMonrey]

There's just something about Andy Cohen's face that makes me want to punch him.

[blueray]

9 hours ago, Arcadiasw said:

I was expecting Andy Cohen to be related to Anderson Cooper. 

and I was thinking Larry David.