There’s an old saying “Every slave is descended from a king, every king is descended from a slave”. It probably wouldn’t bother me; I use genealogy primarily as a way to study the day-to-day aspects of history.
If I learned that my grandfather who died before I was born was involved in a hate crime (something like the Emmett Till murder or the Mississippi Burning murders [I know he’s innocent of those since he didn’t live in Mississippi] it would bother me, but if it was 200 years ago I can’t think of anything that would. In fact, I’d probably appreciate that I found a distant ancestor who was mentioned in sources other than deeds and tax records and cemeteries for a change.
I know for a fact I had ancestors who fought alongside Andrew Jackson at Horseshoe Bend (the battle that destroyed the Creek Nation) and the reason I’m in Alabama today is because of the land that was stolen from the Creeks (many of whom had also fought alongside Andrew Jackson). I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, many more who owned slaves, I had ancestors- both white and black- who were slaves, ancestors who were Saponi Indians and who were involved in all manner of legal disputes. One from Jamestown was the victim in one of the nation’s first child abuse investigations (1630s- her foster mother was horribly abusive to her). One that I found particularly interesting was a gentleman pirate (i.e. a pirate who became a member of the landed gentry- but kept his interest in Chesapeake piracy) in 17th/18th century Philadelphia, and I was actually glad to find him because unlike most of my ancestors there’s a lot written about him.
When I was researching Jamestown ancestors I actually wondered “If I were to learn that the guy who killed and salted and possibly barbecued his pregnant wife was a direct ancestor, would it bother me?”, and decided that no, it wouldn’t, but it might explain why I like my barbecue salty. I used to hate the kayfabe factor on that genealogy show Who Do You Think You Are?* when people would cry over learning a distant ancestor was a slave or involved in the witch trials or an American Indian who was pushed west or whatever- as if they’re hearing for the first time of slavery or witch trials or the Indian removal. Get over your damned mug-for-the-camera selves; you don’t share their trials and tribulations any more than you can take pride in their achievements, you didn’t know them and many generations have buffered you.
*Of course I also dislike the name Who Do You Think You Are?, which kind of goes to the heart of the matter. Emmitt Smith said it best on his episode: “I know who I am, I’m wondering who they were.” I’m not my ancestors; I knew and loved my parents but I’m not them either. I think their stories are interesting and a great way to study both history and the Butterfly Effect (it’s always amazing to me how interconnected all things are: I was born in Alabama because of, among other things, a linen tax in 17th century Ireland, Oliver Cromwell, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, and a broken wagon wheel) and sometimes I’m surprised when I see a picture or read a letter that resonates as familiar, but I don’t take credit for their achievements or blame for their deeds.
I’m the direct descendant of a famous, Northern Civil War General (most southerners would consider him to have committed many notorious, vile crimes), and while it makes for interesting conversation, I have no connection to the guy at all. The only thing that makes it nice is that it’s very easy to trace my ancestry from him back in time to the earliest days of this country, and before it was a country. Most interestingly, one of my great ***great grandfathers is the only person to have signed all 3 founding documents of the US.
One of my ancestors has, in fact, been accused of a vile crime (but nothing was ever proven), but the matter has never been famous. He died before I was born, but I still have family alive who remember him. I don’t think less of him.
Holy shit, KRC! If you’re talking about Larkin Skaggs - former preacher, slavetrader, mercenary, and drunkard - we might be related! He’s a g’g’g’g’great uncle of mine!
Story told on my side of the family is that during Quantrill’s raid on Lawrence, KS, Larkin stole a ring from a prominent lady, who went to Quantrill and demanded its return. Quantrill made him return it. Thus angry, Larkin started drinking and shooting. A teenage boy challenged him in the street, and Larkin shot him dead. The boy’s brother ran up, and Larkin shot him as well.
When town members took exception to this, Larkin left the town for the house of the ring-lady and tried to set fire to it. Unfortunately, he was so drunk, he did this by lighting one match at a time and trying to hold it to the porch while ring-lady blew it out (I suspect that part is apocryphal, but what the hell). Finally, it occurred to Larkin that the sounds of pillage and rapine had faded, and he was the last raider left in the vicinity. So, he jumped on his horse just as the posse was coming up and tried to escape.
Didn’t work. He was shot out of his saddle and killed on the spot. As that was less than satisfying, the posse tied his foot to a horse, and dragged his corpse back to town. Then, they hanged his corpse, set fire to it, cut it down, threw it in a ditch, and allowed passing Indians and slaves to piss on his corpse.
They say all present-day European types are descended from Charlemagne. I feel fairly certain Grandad Charlie cleaved at least a couple of Huns or what not in two.
One ancestor I know for a fact I am descended from was knighted by Queen Elizabeth (that’s I, not II) for suppressing Irish rebellion. An article that appeared about him one time in I believe it was The New York Times said he was known for lining the path to his tent with the skulls of those he had ordered executed.
One of my relatives did commit a very notorious, well known crime. He’s been dead awhile, and many books have been written about him. Google shows over a million hits when I type in his name.
No, it doesn’t bother me at all, and I’ve only read a few of the books.
(We share surnames, so pardon the coyness. I like my anonymity here)
I’m related to one of the 10 men hanged, but while the case is notorious, its still not clear who did what or who got paid to testify to what. People who’ve brought it up within earshot of me have almost always been rabbidly sectarian. :rolleyes:
According to family lore, one of my ancestors was accused of witchcraft (no, not Salem), but acquitted. Imagine my surprise when some research revealed that she’d actually done the accusing! (She was not believed, fortunately.)
If somebody wrote a book about it, no, I wouldn’t care.
I know for a fact that one of my grandfathers was an incestuous rapist. They come no worse than that. Other than occasionally wondering if I or any of my siblings might have been one of his many victims (pretty unlikely), it doesn’t bother me. You can’t control where you come from.
I doubt it would bother me. It probably would if I was enjoying some benefit from the deed (as others have mentioned), but my family is neither wealthy nor priviledged, so I really don’t see how anyone could make such an argument. I don’t believe that the descendents of slaveowners need to feel guilty about their anscestors’ actions. FWIW, my own ethnic background, Irish-Polish, makes it highly unlikely that I have any slave owners in my own background. Perhaps an Irish mobster back in the day, and who knows what happened back in the “old country.”
(bolding mine)
Are you confusing the meanings of descendants ( one’s children, grandchildren, and so forth) with ancestors (one’s parents, grandparents, and so on)?
No, he’s talking about the late 23rd century, when genetic modelling had progressed to the point of being able to discriminate against people based on their spawns’ most likely genetic defects. You did not want to get caught with a recessive gene that could give your offspring Tay-Sachs.
