Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But with the William Bradford thing, even if you didn't like history class, didn't you do TONS of stuff in school for Thanksgiving that wasn't exactly a "class"? You know, drawing pilgrims and Indians, doing plays of the first Thanksgiving, etc? I guess after doing Thanksgiving plays for like 3 years in a row, we all knew who Miles, Priscilla, Squanto, and William Bradford were.
Count me as another person scratching their head -- William Bradford who??? Funny thing is, I remember the other three names.
the British commander in the THE PATRIOT movie was based on Col. Bannistare Tarleton and he had a particularly nasty reputation, in real life, among the Patriots in the southern theatre.
He even called them out by posting a note in a fort calling them cowards and not really man enough to come out and face him etc...
Mel Gibson's character was largely based on Francis Marion too and others, even maybe Patrick Henry to some degree.
but, something happened where the patriots thought some of Tarleton's British regulars had purposefully murdered un-armed patriot militiamen who were surrendering in a recent battle.
Most historians think it was actually just a case of very bad communication during the actual fighting/battle. But then alot of propaganda also followed, but in any case, when the patriot militia did attack the loyalists militia at King's Mountain, some sources say they were shouting "give them Tarleton's play" as they ran up the mountain, killing the loyalists and Col. Ferguson.
they were getting revenge against the British and loyalists for what they seriously thought Col.Tarleton's men had done to some of their own earlier so, at first, they didnt give quarter to the loyalists who wanted to surrender. And still kept killing them as they tried to give up their weapons.
They even quart-martialed some of them and started to hang these unarmed, loyalist americans who were trying to surrender.
Only after they had already hung 9 of them, did John Sevier, one of the most well known patriot militia leaders, step in and made them stop. Then they just took the rest prisoner.
The American Revolution, from the beginning, was actually two wars. There was the 'official' politics and plans and leaders, and an offical militia/army. But a good deal of the conflict was very personal and controlled by nobody. Loyalist neighbor had ticked off patriot neighbor for years, but now they had reason to 'officially' go after one another. Towns which didn't much like each other or shared resources might pick different sides. The result might be destructive to both but was personal from before too. Wars give people 'permission' to attack the other people they don't like and call it patriotism. And people who enjoyed violence and cruelty got a chance to practice it and be seen as heros. (Quadrille's raiders a good example). Neither side could claim any great superior morality in regards to this.
War lets out all sorts of darkness that hides behind rules and is one reason to avoid it.
This comment puzzled me until I watched the show and DH and I were conversing about who the heck William Bradford was...since neither one of us had a clue either.
I never liked History in school, had a terribly boring teacher and as such, really didn't pay much attention to names, places and dates which probably accounts from my failing grade in that subject. If someone were to ask me who Miles Standish was, I would tell them "I dunno...some guy who was a puritan...I think". If the conversation were to continue about what he did, I'd have to say "Hmmm...couldn't tell ya." And last season on WDYTYA I think there were several comments about one of the guests not knowing that one of her ancestor had been confined in Andersonville during the Civil War. There was some discussion about how ridiculous it was that the guest didn't know anything about Andersonville. Again, if someone were to tell me about the details of their ancestor being kept in Andersonville, until I saw that episode, I would have had to have them explain to me where and what Andersonville was. Yeah...really.
As curious as it is, not all researchers had ancestors that were connected to major events such as the deep, rich events that emanated from the colonies or the Civil War. Not a single one of my ancestors was connected to either event and although my DH's ancestors probably have some tie to the colonies, a ridiculous brick wall has kept me guessing over the years. No need to investigate what doesn't apply...which is why I learn so much about history and cultures by watching shows like this one.
I admit that I have actually learned more about historical people and events since I started doing genealogy than I ever did in a formal History class, so I doubt that Sally Field's reaction was staged. Perhaps she was just an average student who like me, didn't pay much attention in school.
Just sayin'...
RVcook
I have an AA in history. I intended to at least make it a BA but employment got in the way and went into programming. But I never stopped being fascinated by history. The interesting thing is that I've learned much much more since I got the AA than before. There's books, there's tons of resources on the internet. There's a lot of historical writers who write accurate fiction which takes you there. I have several shelves of reference books.
Still with all of this I knew there was 'Irish' in my heritage, and they were in Kentucky. But when I started looking up details I found the 'Irish' was mostly Scots Irish, and Ulster was very central. I've looked at the movements of people, and find family all along the way, from Scotland to Ulster, and Ulster to America, and so on. And then the older movements of poor English, Irish, Scots, ect from the shores of the east coast to Kentucky/Tennessee and from there west and south. I knew that the family landed in Iowa, but how they got there was a mystery. But now there is this large and full story of people moving on, hoping for a bit better life, running from poverty or not being given a choice, who looked ahead instead of behind.
What really makes it personal is that in the assorted bad spots in life, I've done that. I don't know if its in the genes or in the collective lessons from family or a bit of both, but I think I share a legacy with family and with the flow of history too.
That is the joy of geneology, even if you find surprises that you'd never expect, that it opens up new doors to travel and new places and times which have a connection to you.
I have an AA in history. I intended to at least make it a BA but employment got in the way and went into programming. But I never stopped being fascinated by history. The interesting thing is that I've learned much much more since I got the AA than before. There's books, there's tons of resources on the internet. There's a lot of historical writers who write accurate fiction which takes you there. I have several shelves of reference books.
Still with all of this I knew there was 'Irish' in my heritage, and they were in Kentucky. But when I started looking up details I found the 'Irish' was mostly Scots Irish, and Ulster was very central. I've looked at the movements of people, and find family all along the way, from Scotland to Ulster, and Ulster to America, and so on. And then the older movements of poor English, Irish, Scots, ect from the shores of the east coast to Kentucky/Tennessee and from there west and south. I knew that the family landed in Iowa, but how they got there was a mystery. But now there is this large and full story of people moving on, hoping for a bit better life, running from poverty or not being given a choice, who looked ahead instead of behind.
What really makes it personal is that in the assorted bad spots in life, I've done that. I don't know if its in the genes or in the collective lessons from family or a bit of both, but I think I share a legacy with family and with the flow of history too.
That is the joy of geneology, even if you find surprises that you'd never expect, that it opens up new doors to travel and new places and times which have a connection to you.
Perfectly stated!
Those highlighted sections show that researchers feel that connection to not only our ancestors, but history too. The very fact that we're all here to discuss FYR, proves that our ancestors were here...alive...and a part of shaping history...even though they may not have been famous.
I really enjoyed Sting's story. I can't even imagine how his ancestors made the decision to move to Australia and then inevitably, move back to the UK. But then, I am constantly amazed at how mobile our own ancestors were. In my DHs ancestors situation, his ggg-grandfather who was apprenticed out (to different people) starting at 5 yrs. old, managed at some point to leave his small rural town and traveled over 500 miles (how is anyone's guess) and settled (for at least one census) in central Illinois. And why did he move? Simple answer: work and thus, a better life.
On a research trip, we found that when we located him in Pike Co., IL, he was listed as a woodchopper. Although at first, we were stumped by this profession, further investigation revealed that many of those living in the area at the time were clearing lands around the Mississippi River so that settlers could make their way west. Ah yes...there is that connection to history.
Those highlighted sections show that researchers feel that connection to not only our ancestors, but history too. The very fact that we're all here to discuss FYR, proves that our ancestors were here...alive...and a part of shaping history...even though they may not have been famous.
I really enjoyed Sting's story. I can't even imagine how his ancestors made the decision to move to Australia and then inevitably, move back to the UK. But then, I am constantly amazed at how mobile our own ancestors were. In my DHs ancestors situation, his ggg-grandfather who was apprenticed out (to different people) starting at 5 yrs. old, managed at some point to leave his small rural town and traveled over 500 miles (how is anyone's guess) and settled (for at least one census) in central Illinois. And why did he move? Simple answer: work and thus, a better life.
On a research trip, we found that when we located him in Pike Co., IL, he was listed as a woodchopper. Although at first, we were stumped by this profession, further investigation revealed that many of those living in the area at the time were clearing lands around the Mississippi River so that settlers could make their way west. Ah yes...there is that connection to history.
RVcook
People today often think that are so much more mobile than other generations, and move freely for personal reasons. But if you consider that people way back when were NOT burdened by a lot of recorded personal history and could really get away from a bad place, and minimal possessions, it was easier to leave and start over. Families tended to be big, and some of the daughters married close and some far, and some of the sons moved on. People reinvented themselves. I have one gggggrandfather who went from Maryland to Pennsulvania and Tennessee more than once. Each place he had land. My guess would be as mobile as we believe ourselves to be, people back then were moreso since they had less holding them to one place.
And I suppose, in European terms, if you had been confined to one place, and were able to leave and go across the seas, you might love the freedom to move on if you chose more than someone who had always had it. Unless you became displaced, the leftovers of the middle ages kept many a poor pesant in one place for generations. What freedom it would be to be able to say I'm done with this place, and pack up and go.
That's something some of us can understand today, especially when the move is to start over and put the past to rest. It's very liberating to drop that load and go.
I would love to know how the whole process works ... are there scores of genealogists researching all sorts of celebs' histories to find "tv-worthy" stories? When they find one do they then contact the celeb to ask "would you like us to feature you on our show?"? Curious if there's been a lot of celebs who've declined. I have the same curiosity with WDYTYA.
I'm also quite jealous of all the resources they can use! I cannot imagine how they find some of these obscure letters written by or about ancestors. Of course I know that a lot of documents have been digitized, but still, it's tremendous how genealogists and historians can find some of these things.
No kidding! I wish I had their resources! I've also wondered just how long they research all those things prior to filming the show. I mean those 'books' they give the person are thick so hold a lot of info. They didn't do that in a week or two, I'm sure. I'd be interested in the pages they don't show on the show but I suppose they think the ones they do show are the most 'interesting'.
The "British invasion "episode of Sallie Field / Sting / Deepak Chopra was definitely very interesting.
As a kid, I had paid attention to history class quite a bit, but if someone had asked me recently (before reading this thread) - "Who was William Bradford?"
Honestly, I probably would not have answered correctly. Simply put, his name just did not stick to my aging selective memory.
Perhaps Sallie Field had just forgotten after all these years after she was taught about it in school. I know there are details of important historical figures I have forgotten over the years. I appreciate history overall more as an adult; I guess now that I have been a part of recent history more so now than as a student years ago.
I adore history and have some some UK heritage so there is a bit more of a personal interest with this topic for me-
Loved the recent episode on those with Greek ancestry. I never knew so much about more recent Greek history prior to watching the show.
Hope everyone enjoyed the "no slavery" aspects of it here in the US also that two guests, Tina Fey and Sedaris had ancestors who were involved in the revolutionary period of this country. It was cool that Tina's greatgreatgreatgreat grandfather was one of the originators of American textiles and had a letter of support from Benjamin Franklin.
I really enjoyed the show and will make sure to watch next week.
Also, I like that they feature three guests at a time. It makes it more interesting but I frequently read 3-4 books back and forth at a time so I don't easily get mixed up in regards to following stories back and forth.
I also liked the Greek episode a lot. Each guest, to me, was really interesting, and they each had very interesting ancestors.
residinghere2007, we aren't saying we don't like them having 3 guests, we just don't like the jumping around among the guest's ancestors. I wish they would do 15 min of guest 1's ancestors, then 15 min of guest 2's ancestors, then 15 min of guest 3's ancestors. I too read several books as one time, and I have no trouble not mixing them up. But when you are talking about ancestors of 3 guests with very similar stories, in my memory, it's easy to forget which guest this person "belonged" to, or that person "belonged" to. It's not like an attention-deficit problem. If you have two different Greek guys who experienced the oppression of the Ottoman Empire, and who fought in the Greek revolution, it's just hard to remember which guy belonged to which guest, since their stories were extremely similar.
They were similar, the Greek "patriot" stories! So I can see how that can be confusing, especially if you get up and stop watching for a bit. Didn't think of that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
