I certainly don’t know what any potential readers of these ramblings might do with their time, but, over the last few years, I have become something of a devotee of the PBS program, “Finding Your Roots,” hosted by Prof. Henry Lewis Gates, Jr.  I have found this program, which has run for ten seasons and a total of 106 episodes to date (early fall-2024), to be extremely interesting, as well as quite entertaining.  If you are familiar with it, please bear with me while I try to explain a bit about it to folks who might not be.

Each hour-long episode features two to four guests, usually fairly well-known people, and shows Dr. Gates presenting them with information which they hadn’t known about their ancestors, places of origin, occupations, etc.  Obviously, these guests have been selected, at least in part, because there is information about their ancestry about which they do not know and they wish to learn about it.  That is, after all, the premise of the show; Gates and his staff seek out what they can find out about the guest’s ancestors, reveal it to them on camera, and have some discussion and reaction to whatever they have found.   

Obviously, it isn’t uncommon for the guests to be at least a bit surprised by what the genealogists have discovered, as family stories are not always accurate (when they exist) and there is often much which has been forgotten, or simply not preserved within the family, or has been shrouded by the events of history, wars, plagues, persecutions, etc.  Thus, especially for those of us who enjoy mystery stories, or have an interest in historical and/or scientific research generally, there is a certain “thrill of the hunt” aspect which the show catches quite nicely.  Of course, the actual events discovered may not always be all that pleasant, as in the cases dealing with folks of Jewish extraction and the Holocaust, or those involved, on either side, with slavery in American history.

Now, while there are certainly many gaps in my knowledge of my family’s history, I believe that I do have a fairly reasonable grasp of sizable portions of it, and my sister (who has actually done a fair amount of pretty careful research using at least some of the available records and sources) knows considerably more.  I don’t wish to say that there have been NO “surprises” up my family tree, but there doesn’t seem to be all that much in the way of truly major (previously unknown) ones so far.  
​
I am reasonably sure that some of my maternal ancestors came over from England on the Mayflower; that I am related to a number of the people involved in the Salem Witch Hunt of 1692, including at least one who was convicted and hanged; and that it’s possible (although almost certainly impossible to prove) that that “witch’s” husband MAY have been personally involved with the execution of Charles I of England.  In any case, some folks from that side of the family came west to Illinois (it’s said in a covered wagon, but I’m doubt that that’s documented, and I don’t have a specific date for that.  We do know that members of the family spread into North Dakota and Wyoming and/or Montana.  I also have reason to believe that some of my maternal ancestors were soldiers who fought on the “Patriotic” side in the Revolutionary War, etc., although I don’t know much about their actual involvement.

My father’s side of the family is less studied, as far as I know, but there are, apparently, connections back to colonial Pennsylvania and Virginia before the “closer” (and better established) connection to eastern Ohio, where family members lived in the Appalachian coal country.  There was at least one child born out of wedlock among this group, but there’s only the one, at least that I know of.  And, there are no KNOWN connections to anyone involved with the owning and/or selling of slaves on either side of the family which, of course, does NOT prove that such connections could not exist.  But, this is NOT intended to be a discussion of MY family history, so I think I’ll stop this diversion now and hope that I have established a bit of credibility as one who is interested in and has a bit (small as it is) of knowledge about genealogy.

What I have found most interesting in my watching of “Finding Your Roots” is what I would have thought would have been pretty obvious before I ever saw my first episode: that 1.) ancestry isn’t always neat, clean, clear and has, in many, many cases, been forgotten or distorted; and 2.) the reactions of the show’s “guests” (especially to what one might call “unpleasant” information which has been discovered by the show’s staff) are quite interesting, although I often find those reactions to often be quite confusing.  So, my real interest in writing this piece is to try to explore those two subjects.  So that’s where this is going.  If you aren’t interested in my thoughts on these topics, the rest of this is unlikely to be of much interest.  Maybe I’ll do better next time.

Somehow, the idea that ANY sort of history would (let alone should) be neat, clean, clear, and the like has always struck me as a bit naive.  Now, I’m not suggesting that it might not be pleasant if that was the case, but we ARE dealing with human beings, and the lives of human beings haven’t always (perhaps even often) been all that simple and straightforward anywhere or anytime in recorded history.  I should hasten to add that this doesn’t, at least to my way of thinking, tend to just be true of individuals, but is equally true of human institutions and organizations, as well.  

As I see it, the simple fact is that “Peoples is peoples,” as Pete, the Manhattan restauranteur, commented to Kermit the Frog in The Muppets Take Manhattan.  I suggest that that could well mean that they are subject to forgetting things, covering up things they feel unhappy about, not wishing to discuss things which are painful or embarrassing to them, etc.  Because of this, there would seem to be any number of reasons why “stuff” might just disappear from the family memory, especially when one considers that the vast majority of us living in the US have some sort of roots in one, or more, “Old Countries,” and communication, let alone transportation, was, not all that long ago, quite difficult, if not all but impossible, for many.  This would make the loss of connections with the family members left  behind not only possible, but likely.

We tend to forget that travel and communication have undergone a MASSIVE change in the last hundred years, or so.  We should remember that the telegraph is less than 200 years old and commercial radio available to the public is only about 100.  The modern idea of having essentially instant communication of words (printed OR spoken), let alone still or moving images from virtually anywhere around the world has happened within the lifetime of currently living individuals.  (By the way, the Internet was invented in the 1970’s, but not actually publicly available until the 1990’s.)  

This means that when most of our ancestors left wherever they came from there was little to no means of really maintaining any sort of meaningful contact with those they left behind, especially if they didn’t have a good deal of time and money.  And, the disruptions of political upheavals, wars, etc., made any sort of communication difficult even for those who had resources.

Then, when you consider that, while divorce, etc. was generally frowned upon in most social spheres, that didn’t mean that morals were, actually, any more rigid than they are today.  In fact, given the evidence brought out on Finding Your Roots, there are quite a large number of families which include one, or more, children who almost certainly (assuming that DNA is accurate) were not “fathered” by their mother’s husband (if such existed).  That fact, alone, would have provided an adequate reason for many people to have incorrect notions about their parentage and/or to have had that sort of information “forgotten” or simply not discussed even within the family.

Also, it’s highly possible (even without DNA testing) that when racial, religious, or ethnic lines were crossed in the production of offspring (and such lines WERE, on fact, crossed), there were even greater pressures to attempt to make sure that this information was NOT available to the general public at large, or even within the “family.”  Based on my casual observation of most of the episodes of Finding Your Roots, there is quite a large number of people who are at least to some extent of mixed race, and many of them didn’t know it prior to being presented the evidence uncovered by Dr. Gates’ team.

I should probably mention that many (although by no means all) of the specific cases studied are of African-Americans, and often involve people who had been held in slavery.  However, there are examples of “hidden” parentage involving other ethnographic/religious groups, as well.  Many such cases were, unsurprisingly, not preserved within the family histories.  This doesn’t seem surprising since the impact of “racial impurity” has been of considerable controversy since well before the creation of the United States.  I remember from my own studies of our history that it was sometimes said that “One drop of Negro blood is enough to make an individual a Negro!”  (I feel that I should point out that, if that is the case, then shouldn’t that magic “one drop” of blood from one racial/religious/ethnic group apply to other groups, as well?   Shouldn’t “one drop” of Caucasian blood makes one a Caucasian?; or Southeast Asian?; or Jewish?; or Native American?; or WHATEVER?)  Seems to me that it’s a pretty stupid sort of criteria in any case, especially in a country which has always claimed to pride itself on (at least until recently) having provided a “welcome” to people from across the world and of many different racial, religious, and ethnic types.  I suspect that very few of Americans can be truly called a truly “pure-blood” anything!

My second point mentioned the reactions of some of the “guests” to the information presented to them on the program.  It has often taken me by surprise that there seem to be a lot of people who appear to be embarrassed, if not outright ashamed, to discover that their ancestors may have done things which are not considered quite “proper” today; like owning slaves, engaging in criminal activities, having had children out-of-wedlock, etc. 

Now, I’m not going to suggest that discovering that sort of thing is something to celebrate.  On the other hand, while I am not aware of any of my ancestors owning slaves, I would not be surprised to discover that at least some of them may well have been involved in some sort of activities of which I would not approve.  I have no way of knowing for sure what these activities might have been, but (recognizing that “Peoples is peoples,”) it seems likely that at least some of them were probably not worthy of sainthood.  Basically, I would be surprised if my ancestors were any more (or unusually less) upright citizens than most others.  

After all, we of the U.S. have plenty to be less than proud of.  Our treatment of those we now refer to a “Native Americans” was (and still is in many ways) shameful for many reasons.  In our efforts to “civilize” them we did just about everything possible to destroy their culture, religion and society, which was perfectly satisfactory to them before we came with our “superior” knowledge (and firepower) to force them into our notion of what was acceptable and “proper.”  American attitudes about such things have always been a bit confusing, at least to me.

Consider this.  The actor, John Wayne, has been quoted as saying:

I believe in white supremacy, until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility.  I don't believe giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people ...  I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from [the Native Americans] ...  Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival.  There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.

On the other hand, It’s worth noting that, in the movie, McLintock, when the local (Comanche) tribe was being corralled up for transport to a reservation by the government, the Comanche chiefs ask Mr. Wayne's character, G. W. McLintock, to speak for them at a hearing where they were appealing to be allowed to stay on their ancestral lands.  The speech he reads, supposedly created by Puma, one of the Comanche chiefs, goes like this: 

We are an old people, and a proud people.  
When the white man first came among us we were as many as the grasses of the prairie.
Now we are few, but we are still proud for if a man loses pride in manhood, he is nothing.
You tell us now that if we will let you send us away to this place called Fort Sill you will feed us and care for us.
Let us tell you this: It is a Comanche law that no chief ever eats unless first he sees that the pots are full of meat in the lodges of the widows and orphans.
It is the Comanche way of life.
This that the white man calls charity is a fine thing for widows and orphans but no warrior can accept it, for if he does, he is no longer a man and when he is no longer a man he is nothing and better off dead.
You say to the Comanche, 'You are widows and orphans, you are not men.'
And we, the Comanche, say we would rather be dead.
It will not be a remembered fight when you kill us because we are few now and have few weapons.
But we will fight and we will die Comanche.

It is said that this movie script "... was developed by John Wayne as a way for him to express his disapproval for how Westerns negatively represent Native Americans, ….”  

I confess that I do not understand how the same person can be responsible for the, personal quote of Mr. Wayne (the FIRST one above) and then have anything to do with fashioning (let alone performing) “Puma’s speech” in this movie.  I am forced to take these conflicting statements as proof that Wayne, like most people, was perfectly capable of having conflicted notions in his beliefs and statements.

So, what does all this mean?  I think it means that probably most humans aren’t perfectly consistent in their thinking and that, even if we wish it were not so, we should be neither afraid of (nor automatically approving of) the thinking, attitudes and beliefs of our ancestors.  I think that people throughout history have responded to all sorts of situations in what they thought (for whatever reasons they could come up with) were the best available way given the options they had at the time.  I don’t believe that slavery existed because some people set out to be evil, but because (given the ideas of the time) it seemed an efficient and practical solution for the desire for cheap labor, there were these “creatures” available, AND the “advanced learning” of the time argued that those “creatures” were not really “people,” but had been provided (by God?) to do the manual labor, etc. which they were “suited for.”  And much the same sort of logic (?) had been applied by many people to many other “not really quite people” groups throughout the world for centuries.

Do I find this rather appalling?  Yes, and I try to avoid engaging in such behaviors and practices.  However, I do not accept any guilt for actions which my ancestors (whom I didn’t know and over whom I have had no possible influence) might have engaged in, and which I disapprove of today.  And, I confess that I am sad that other people seem seem to feel that they are supposed to be “ashamed,” or “embarrassed” by actions taken by their ancestors who were (generally) long dead before they were even born.  I understand being sorry that those events happened, but NOT GUILT!

I am responsible for MY actions, not yours, or theirs.  I try to believe that “We are all children of the same universe” and deserve respect, fair treatment and a right to express our personal beliefs without censorship in any form, as long as they do NOT hurt other people, or require that other people agree with them.  And, I try to grant others the same treatment, provided that they, as it is said they say in Minnesota, “Mind their own damn business.”

Having got that out of my system for a while, I’ll try to come up with something a bit less diatribe-like in a couple of weeks.  Perhaps I’ll succeed, we’ll see…

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

Well, it’s almost the Fourth of July!  In Omaha, that means several days of excessively loud noises; bright, flashy lights; a number of burned hands and other sorts of traumatic circumstances (hopefully without the loss of any eyes or too many burned kids); and veterans and dogs (among those) being upset by and, therefore, hiding from the racket.  It always seems like celebrating the establishment of our country’s founding shouldn’t really require quite so much noise, but whatever.  Now, I DO like fireworks in their place, but on into the night in my neighbor’s driveway and the street in front of of my house, doesn’t seem to me to be all that necessary, or appropriate.  But, what do I know.

Well, he said, actually I think I know something.  I’m quite sure that our forefathers had some idea of the exceptionally radical step they were taking in suggesting that the English colonies in America had the right to declare that they were unhappy being ruled by what had become, at least to their point of view, an essentially despotic foreign power, and that they wanted to be able to establish a government for themselves which, in their opinion, would better serve their needs.

Now, I offer this discussion as one of those who is descended (at least in part) from among those who were VERY early settlers in the English colonies in North America.  I admit that I haven’t done ALL of the research supporting that idea myself, but a good deal of that work has been done by my sister, who I’m quite confident has consulted actual, publicly available sources and hasn’t just made it up.  And, I know that this research has been reinforced by long-standing family records and stories.

So, I’m pretty comfortable in suggesting that I can trace members of my mother’s family back to the Mayflower in 1620, and, from it, to the Plymouth, Massachusetts “Plantation”, and from there to early Boston and Salem, MA.  My father’s side is less clear, at least to me, but (apparently) can be traced back to pre-revolutionary Pennsylvania with a good deal of security, and it’s likely that there are connections to colonial Virginia on Dad’s side, as well.  These known ancestors (both sides), contain at least ten, possibly more, who actually fought on the American side during the Revolutionary War.  It’s also true that no slave-holders have been discovered on either side, although we can’t be absolutely certain that there couldn’t have been some.  After all, owning slaves was a pretty common (and widely accepted) practice in many (if not ALL) of the colonies, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  Remember that Tituba, the slave of the Rev. Samuel Parris, the minister of Salem Village, was one of the first accused of witchcraft in the infamous Salem “Witch Trials,” so slavery WAS accepted at that time even in New England and by members of the clergy.

I don’t offer this as any sort of suggestion that I’m a better American (shouldn’t that really be “United Stater?”, since the people of Central and South American have just as much claim as we do to being “Americans”) than anybody else, but as minimal evidence that I have given these things some thought and have some knowledge about those times and the ideas which were common then.  I have reached the conclusion that our Declaration of Independence (which is what we are supposed to be celebrating on the Fourth) isn’t generally understood very well and that there seem to be a lot of people who don’t have much knowledge of the reasoning behind its creation.  That’s perhaps because we, as a people, have chosen to deemphasize the study of the FACTS of our history, in order to concentrate on the myths we would like to think of as true, but, all too often, weren’t (and still aren’t).

This MIGHT be due (at least in part) to the fact that we tend to look at the British government today, with it’s (largely ceremonial) monarch and it’s two-chamber Parliament (even though the House of Lords has, virtually, no legislative authority of any significance), and we assume that that government (which does resemble ours, superficially) is (and was) much like ours back in “those days.”.  I would suggest that it really isn’t now, and, at that time, was even less like what we ended up with during the latter days of the Eighteenth Century.

One doesn’t have to look much further than the documents of the time, including the text of the Declaration (at the parts most people don’t read because they are “boring”) to discover that one really can’t honestly suggest that England could actually be considered anything approaching a “democracy” during this period, and the American colonies were even less so, as they were directly ruled by George III (the KING) at that point.  By this I mean that George, personally, appointed the governors of the colonies to do his bidding (including not allowing any laws of which he, the KING, had not, personally, approved); HE established “legislative” bodies for these colonies which he (almost completely) controlled;  HE levied taxes on the colonies without any representation of the colonies in ANY, meaningful, legislative body (locally in the colonies OR in England); HE refused to establish a neutral system of justice (which was, sort of, available in England, by making judges dependent on HIS good will for appointment, salary, etc.; HE sent the BRITISH army (solely answerable to him) to be housed, fed, and cared for by the colonies, but NOT subject to civilian justice, during a time of peace; and quite a raft of other actions which HE refused to even explain (let alone justify) to HIS colonies; etc.  This, as it is argued in the Declaration, seems to establish that the King is (was) in fact, a TYRANT, and that HE, therefore, was “… unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  Of course, the notions of “free” people and self-rule were quite UNcommon (and rather radical) at that time, but they were growing in popularity, philosophically.

I mention this about this specific moment in our current history in response to the seeming current popularity of the notion that what this country currently needs is “a good, strong leader to take charge and solve our problems, once and for all.”  I would suggest that this concept might be compared to the ideas which the so-called “Loyalists” among the colonists at that time might have espoused while suggesting that this “good, strong leader” was, of course, quite properly George III.  Currently, someone else is being suggested as a plausible contemporary substitute for that position, and is, in fact, being advocated as an appropriate, and desirable, choice for such.
Perhaps we should remember what the British public discovered between 1649 and 1660, (when THEY declared themselves to be a republic and abolished the monarchy with, according to an unproven family legend, one of my ancestors believed to have been among the executioners, if not, in fact, the one who actually swung the axe on then King Charles I’s head.)  You see, the English of the time discovered that it’s fairly easy to declare a republic, but somewhat harder to maintain one! 
In fact, by 1653, a “Protectorate” was declared with Oliver Cromwell as the Lord Protector, who, essentially, “reigned” (much as a King would) until he died in 1658, at which point his son, Richard, became the next Lord Protector.  The facts appear to be, however, that the Lords Protector hadn’t actually done much to keep the British people especially satisfied with their “rule,” so Richard was soon forced out due to Parliament’s asserting (and getting away with) establishing control not only of the legislative mechanism, but the military, as well.  This would, eventually, lead to the Restoration of the Monarchy (which returned Charles II (son of Charles I) to a somewhat power reduced English throne in 1660.

In any case, I would suggest that the English (almost certainly including the colonists) had some understanding of the problems involved in abolishing a monarchistic system and establishing a more democratic one, but, apparently, enough of those colonists were sufficiently annoyed with George III’s autocratic rule that they figured that it was worth the effort to try to change it.  And so, they did so by declaring their independence and fighting a Revolutionary War against the forces of the King.  That war ended, for all intents and purposes at Yorktown in 1783, although the question of American independence wasn’t really settled until after the War of 1812, if you wish to be “picky.”

However, having declared Independence in 1776 (and fought a war to establish it, even if it wasn’t completely successful) they had to figure out what form a more satisfactory government might take.  They first created a document known as “The Articles of Confederation.”    It was ratified in 1781.  It allowed for quite a high level of independence for the individual colonies (called “states” now) and established quite a weak, minimalistic, central government.  As all US citizens should know, this form of government lasted only until 1789 because it lacked the ability to establish any sense of a unified country (let alone a real NATIONAL government) to deal with the challenges of an expanding nation.  The delegates to the Confederation Congress soon discovered that the limitations they had placed upon the central government (such as in assembling delegates, raising funds, regulating commerce, or having any sort of functional NATIONAL military) rendered it quite ineffective.  Among other issues, the individual states had little stake in supporting any notion with which they might disagree.  And, as some states were more rural and others more industrial, there was a sort of divide which created other sorts of problems from the very beginning.

As a result of that fiasco, a Constitution was written and finally adopted in 1789.  This, if you include the Amendments which have been made to it over the years since its adoption, is the document we have today.  And, I would argue that it’s worked reasonably well.  I do NOT think that it’s perfect and there are some changes which I would suggest that might allow it to work more smoothly in modern times.  I think that the Electoral College, for example, is an anachronistic remnant of a bygone time.  It’s worth noting, for example, that, while they couldn’t be “citizens,” slaves were counted (as three fifths of a person each) in establishing the rules for both taxation and for the numerical membership of the House of Representatives (and, therefore, the number of Presidential Electors) which a state might have.  Of course, “Indians” were not counted as “people” at all, they were simply not counted.  Here’s the actual quote from the original text related to that:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.      

Excerpt From:The Constitution of the United States of America
https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/id985765595
This material may be protected by copyright.

This, of course, meant that states where slavery was common had a larger representation in the legislative arena than they would have had by just counting those who were actually considered to be “real” people (white males who owned property).  Note that even “indentured servants” (at least the male ones), who, I believe, were, mostly Caucasian, were counted as “full people,” in spite of their, essentially, slave-like position in society.  The true slaves were, obviously, not considered to be “real people,” but they were each counted as 3/5ths of one, which seems pretty obvious to have been a sop thrown to the “slave states” in order to gain a greater likelihood of adoption of the document.  

It’s also true, of course that only property-owning, “white” males were actually “real” citizens, who were deemed capable of having the right to actually vote (or serve in public office), although I don’t think that is actually stated in the Constitution, although it DOES state that “Indians” were not counted at all (see above), so, apparently THEY were not to be considered as “people” either.  There are some of these sort of issues (like female citizenship) which have been “modified” (corrected?) in Amendments, but I would suggest that some still remain, if we truly consider the facts.

Anyway, I have wandered through this history lesson because there seem to be a fair number of people running around the country these days claiming to be “Patriots” who don’t seem to have any real idea of what the Constitution actually says, why it says that, nor why their statements supporting someone who is (from his own statements) a real fan of autocratic leaders around the world and seems to be quite certain that the United States would be a much better place (at least for him and his friends) if everybody would just shut up and do what HE tells them to do (which, apparently, consists of abolishing the Constitution and letting “our great, fearless leader” just “solve” all questions which are government-related because of his “superior intelligence, knowledge, and hairstyle.”

Personally, I’m not buying it.  I really don’t believe in just voting for a political party (ANY of them) and I do try to take a look at a candidate’s statements regarding the policies she/he supports and his/her track record (if any).  I’ve yet to discover any candidate for any office for whom I have COMPLETE support, but I do believe (like Mark Twain) that: