Genealogy discussion of Who Do You think You Are Spring 2016 season (Indians, eyes)
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.
You know what I'd like to see? Just for once they do ordinary people.Alot of us have interesting family histories too.
I must have told my wife this same thing about ten times. Some of the ones they have had were not all that interested, they seemed interested in aspects but since they didn't do the research they just sort of looked blank and make standard statements.
Get people working on the family tree already, but stuck on things.
Or just people with no time because they work, but always wanted to figure it out.
It looks like the Travel Channel's new show "Follow Your Past" focuses on ordinary people too. Watching it for the first time now (DVR'd it). Has an interesting take, taking people to do things similar to what their ancestors did around the world.
Genealogy discussion of Who Do You think You Are Spring 2016 season
I just noticed that no one in this forum started a thread on the new WDYTYA season yet, so here it is.
The new season just started Sunday night 4/3/16 on TLC. The guest was Aisha Tyler.
While I'm glad the show is back on, and while I thought her great great grandfather was an interesting man, this show was disappointing to me for these reasons:
They did the whole episode on the one ancestor. Yes, he had an interesting life--born into slavery, father was a white slave owner who was apparently a bad guy (but who did stay in the kid's life, and even gave him a ranch in adulthood), escaped to Ohio by age 5, got an education, went back to Texas to be a prominent business owner and politically active, later abandoned his family and took off to Idaho. However, they didn't really find many resources on the ancestor, so it really didn't feel like enough to fill a whole hour. They pieced together his whole life from about 4 newspaper articles and an local directory listing. Didn't she have any other interesting ancestors????
They did the unnecessary travel thing again. Flew her to two states just to look at newspaper sources that could have been found online. Not enough exploration of local documents that can only be found locally. Yes, it was cool that in Texas she got to see his house, which is now a historical landmark. But she really didn't get any documentary evidence in Texas.
I feel like they could have devoted a half hour to the man, and then maybe a half hour on more of her ancestors. It really felt like they were stretching the story out to take up an hour.
Side note: I think the airline must have lost Aisha's luggage when she went to Texas. In California and Ohio, she was dressed nicely, but in Texas, it looked like she was wearing her pajamas or something out of a lost-and-found bin. I think she's a beautiful woman, but the rags she was wearing those two days were very distracting.
I hope the rest of the season gets better. I recognized some of the upcoming guests (you can tell I know almost nothing about celebrities. I think of Aisha Tyler as the pretty friend who had the sense to leave Ghost Whisperer before it totally jumped the shark).
Chris Noth from Law & Order, the ugly annoying girl from Scream Queens, Molly Ringwald, Peg Bundy--Katey Segal, and some actor guy I don't know.
I liked tonight's Scott Foley episode. And the juxtaposition of the two ancestors in the same line was wow. From a "life guard" for George Washington during the Revolutionary War to a man sentenced to death for witchcraft. I would have liked a sentence or two on what happened to the latter's family after his death. Obviously they already had children since the later ancestor was profiled, but still. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting episode.
I loved last night's episode! first. They did not spend a whole episode one ancestor but two very interesting people. They also didn't do gratuitous travel. I liked how the wove DAR resources in as well. I want to re-watch the whole part about Washington's body guards.
I don't know Scott Foley, but I respect his reaction to his ancestor who was killed for witchcraft allegations much more than Neil Patrick Harris's reaction this past season on Finding You Roots. He laughed, but then explained that he was not laughing because it was funny but because it was so unbelievable. Then he was very sympathetic toward the ancestor and respectful at the memorial. All NPH could do was crack jokes.
I loved last night's episode! first. They did not spend a whole episode one ancestor but two very interesting people. They also didn't do gratuitous travel. I liked how the wove DAR resources in as well. I want to re-watch the whole part about Washington's body guards.
I don't know Scott Foley, but I respect his reaction to his ancestor who was killed for witchcraft allegations much more than Neil Patrick Harris's reaction this past season on Finding You Roots. He laughed, but then explained that he was not laughing because it was funny but because it was so unbelievable. Then he was very sympathetic toward the ancestor and respectful at the memorial. All NPH could do was crack jokes.
One thing that makes these shows "enjoyable" to watch is seeing the human reactions of the celebrities as they find out information about their ancestors. NPH was ... weird, to say the least. I found his attitude really off-putting, as if he didn't want to tip his hand either way. He just seemed so ... cynical.
Scott Foley was very much into it, and I can only imagine what it would be like to find out you descend from one of those hanged in Salem.
I just noticed that no one in this forum started a thread on the new WDYTYA season yet, so here it is.
The new season just started Sunday night 4/3/16 on TLC. The guest was Aisha Tyler.
While I'm glad the show is back on, and while I thought her great great grandfather was an interesting man, this show was disappointing to me for these reasons:
They did the whole episode on the one ancestor. Yes, he had an interesting life--born into slavery, father was a white slave owner who was apparently a bad guy (but who did stay in the kid's life, and even gave him a ranch in adulthood), escaped to Ohio by age 5, got an education, went back to Texas to be a prominent business owner and politically active, later abandoned his family and took off to Idaho. However, they didn't really find many resources on the ancestor, so it really didn't feel like enough to fill a whole hour. They pieced together his whole life from about 4 newspaper articles and an local directory listing. Didn't she have any other interesting ancestors????
They did the unnecessary travel thing again. Flew her to two states just to look at newspaper sources that could have been found online. Not enough exploration of local documents that can only be found locally. Yes, it was cool that in Texas she got to see his house, which is now a historical landmark. But she really didn't get any documentary evidence in Texas.
I feel like they could have devoted a half hour to the man, and then maybe a half hour on more of her ancestors. It really felt like they were stretching the story out to take up an hour.
Side note: I think the airline must have lost Aisha's luggage when she went to Texas. In California and Ohio, she was dressed nicely, but in Texas, it looked like she was wearing her pajamas or something out of a lost-and-found bin. I think she's a beautiful woman, but the rags she was wearing those two days were very distracting.
I hope the rest of the season gets better. I recognized some of the upcoming guests (you can tell I know almost nothing about celebrities. I think of Aisha Tyler as the pretty friend who had the sense to leave Ghost Whisperer before it totally jumped the shark).
Chris Noth from Law & Order, the ugly annoying girl from Scream Queens, Molly Ringwald, Peg Bundy--Katey Segal, and some actor guy I don't know.
To each their own... pretty much all the things you didn't like I really enjoyed this for. I loved that it focused on one very interesting ancestor, felt so much more meaningful and connected as a viewer. It was also great to see her feel more and more connected through such an in-depth observation.
To each their own... pretty much all the things you didn't like I really enjoyed this for. I loved that it focused on one very interesting ancestor, felt so much more meaningful and connected as a viewer. It was also great to see her feel more and more connected through such an in-depth observation.
I know, we've had this discussion before. But I really think the amount of information they gave us about Tyler's ancestor in 60 minutes was much less than the amount of info we got on either one of Foley's ancestors last night in 30 minutes. It was more "pithy." Don't get me wrong, I was fascinated by Tyler's ancestor's story, but I keep feeling like they were stretching it to last the whole episode. The part with her looking in the window of a closed bar was a total waste for example. We learned nothing new, and she didn't even get to go inside. They could have at least planned it for the afternoon when she could go in and maybe have the owner show her the back rooms, where we know her ancestor worked and maybe held political meetings. But it was a whole segment with no new information. They could have easily tied up that one man's story in 30 minutes and spent a half hour on another one of her ancestors. If they really did look at the man's life "in depth" I wouldn't have so much of an issue. But they didn't get very in-depth, as there were very few actual source documents on him. A couple of census records, a couple of newspaper articles, a school program, and a city directory entry. I wish they had been able to go more in depth.
I know, we've had this discussion before. But I really think the amount of information they gave us about Tyler's ancestor in 60 minutes was much less than the amount of info we got on either one of Foley's ancestors last night in 30 minutes. It was more "pithy." Don't get me wrong, I was fascinated by Tyler's ancestor's story, but I keep feeling like they were stretching it to last the whole episode. The part with her looking in the window of a closed bar was a total waste for example. We learned nothing new, and she didn't even get to go inside. They could have at least planned it for the afternoon when she could go in and maybe have the owner show her the back rooms, where we know her ancestor worked and maybe held political meetings.
I definitely agree, though someone told me long ago, if something some says or does sounds/seems stupid chances are you don't have all the info. I'm guessing they tried to do that, maybe the owner refused or they couldn't get ahold of them, etc. It's possible it was purely laziness on their part but that seems much less likely than many more explanations.
Though I guess this is a good example of how two people can watch the same thing and get a completely different experience. Even without her going in and my wife both felt very impacted by that moment in the show. Mostly due to how it impacted her.
I have yet to watch the latest episode (hoping to watch it today), though I'm guessing they probably have very practical methods for deciding how much is shown about specific people... I'd expect how much it interests and impacts the guest is a big part of it and that ancestor certainly had a big impact on Tyler. You see this on Finding your Roots as well... I think Gates hard a hard time getting significant responses out of NPH so all the emphasis and focus seemed to be on what Gates himself thought was interesting... which was a shame of course since William Farrar's story is very fascinating (and selfishly that being an ancestor of mine I was hoping for more impact from Neil and more participation).
Quote:
But it was a whole segment with no new information. They could have easily tied up that one man's story in 30 minutes and spent a half hour on another one of her ancestors. If they really did look at the man's life "in depth" I wouldn't have so much of an issue. But they didn't get very in-depth, as there were very few actual source documents on him. A couple of census records, a couple of newspaper articles, a school program, and a city directory entry. I wish they had been able to go more in depth.
I'm guessing this comes back to a show for a variety of viewers vs those interested in the genealogy. I certainly would agree that more documents and research would have been interesting, though judging my wife's reaction (since she isn't into genealogy) I think it doesn't matter to most viewers. To them the resulting story, narrative, trail you can communicate in an interesting way is far more interesting than the clues that led you there (not completely, but don't think they want it over-focused).
Despite ways I would've prefer it had gone I loved the first episode, I really enjoyed them delving deeper into the narrative and the historical context... I also felt that it flowed well. They identified a piece of info, speculated on what it might mean for that person in that place and time, questioned whether their thoughts were valid, then dug further and confirmed a lot of their earlier leadings. I thought it was excellently planned out.
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.
Genealogy discussion of Who Do You think You Are Spring 2016 season
