U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2017, 12:21 PM
 
877 posts, read 894,996 times
Reputation: 1227

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollaces View Post
I thought they might be grouping their research so when they do the DNA testing (which wasn't done on the early episodes) there is a similar result.
One thing to keep in mind is just because people show up in the same episode it doesn't mean they were filmed or researched in that order. That's just how they edited it together after it was all filmed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2017, 04:50 PM
 
2,650 posts, read 3,100,880 times
Reputation: 2973
This season has been really good overall. I think this week will be episode 8. I may buy this season on DVD during one of the PBS' fundraiser drives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 07:41 AM
 
16,222 posts, read 8,527,364 times
Reputation: 8353
Forgot to note there was a lot of "buzz" over the episode with Bryant Gumbel on it with some of the genealogy boards/groups I am members of that focus on creole and free "colored" ancestry of America.

Basically the whole Confederate soldier thing. Many felt that Dr. Gates misrepresented Gumbel's ancestor as being a "Confederate Soldier" due to the fact that the regiment that the ancestor joined never actually saw any combat in the Confederate Army and were not allowed to fight for the Confederacy due to their ethnic roots.

So there was a lot of drama over this lol. Many other people felt that even those of us with ancestors who were slaves and forced to labor or serve confederate soldiers should be or are considered to be "Confederate Soldiers" themselves. I don't really believe that since the slaves did not volunteer to fight and I would consider Gumbel's ancestor to be aligned with the confederacy due to his allegiance by way of joining that regiment. I have 4 relatives, including a 3rd great grandfather who was "requisitioned" by the CSA to work in Richmond during the Civil War for the Confederate Army building railroad lines and he was one of the laborerers of the Ironworks of Richmond, VA. I even discovered the 3rd great grandfather received a pension for his service. Some of my online genealogy friends say that means that he was a Confederate solider.

People got very passionate about this.

But I really enjoyed that episode.

I missed the one after that I believe, but saw the most recent with Lupita Ny'ongo as I couldn't remember them ever profiling an African on the show before. I thought it was cool she was a member of the most ancient maternal haplogroup.

I thought Ana Navarro's family history was very interesting as well but felt that it was too much guessing about why her distant great grandfather who moved to Nicaragua and used "Navarro" - his mother's surname, had a bad relationship with his father, which was mentioned in the will of the father. I don't think we can know for sure what their issue was and they shouldn't have guessed it had to do with race, but I know that makes viewers interested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2017, 04:33 AM
 
877 posts, read 894,996 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Forgot to note there was a lot of "buzz" over the episode with Bryant Gumbel on it with some of the genealogy boards/groups I am members of that focus on creole and free "colored" ancestry of America.

Basically the whole Confederate soldier thing. Many felt that Dr. Gates misrepresented Gumbel's ancestor as being a "Confederate Soldier" due to the fact that the regiment that the ancestor joined never actually saw any combat in the Confederate Army and were not allowed to fight for the Confederacy due to their ethnic roots.

So there was a lot of drama over this lol. Many other people felt that even those of us with ancestors who were slaves and forced to labor or serve confederate soldiers should be or are considered to be "Confederate Soldiers" themselves. I don't really believe that since the slaves did not volunteer to fight and I would consider Gumbel's ancestor to be aligned with the confederacy due to his allegiance by way of joining that regiment. I have 4 relatives, including a 3rd great grandfather who was "requisitioned" by the CSA to work in Richmond during the Civil War for the Confederate Army building railroad lines and he was one of the laborerers of the Ironworks of Richmond, VA. I even discovered the 3rd great grandfather received a pension for his service. Some of my online genealogy friends say that means that he was a Confederate solider.

People got very passionate about this.

But I really enjoyed that episode.

I missed the one after that I believe, but saw the most recent with Lupita Ny'ongo as I couldn't remember them ever profiling an African on the show before. I thought it was cool she was a member of the most ancient maternal haplogroup.

I thought Ana Navarro's family history was very interesting as well but felt that it was too much guessing about why her distant great grandfather who moved to Nicaragua and used "Navarro" - his mother's surname, had a bad relationship with his father, which was mentioned in the will of the father. I don't think we can know for sure what their issue was and they shouldn't have guessed it had to do with race, but I know that makes viewers interested.
Yeah, this came up on a civil war forum I participate on.

To be fair to Gates he was clear he never saw action in the Louisiana regiment.

Basically things get complicated fast in this instance. The Louisiana regiment of Blacks certainly sits as a very unique gray area, where seemingly free Blacks enlisted into a State militia of a State that was in the Confederacy at that time.

The Confederacy explicitly made it illegal for Blacks to enlist as combatants from a law passed in the Confederacy on April 21st, 1861 (as troops were forming up after the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's responding call for troops).

This regiment formed outside of that, so was clearly not a legitimate and recognized officially Confederate Army regiment... though again it does sit in a gray area since it was free Black men enlisting seemingly willingly to fight for their State that was part of the Confederacy at that time. Of course Louisiana was unique in the South regarding the status and place of some free Blacks, including being an outlier regarding the rare case of Blacks owning slaves themselves (at levels higher than normal).

This all of course means when you boil it down to a "Confederate Soldier" it gets difficult since one must first determine a definition of the specific use of that term and it might be applied in multiple ways... such as someone officially enlisted as a combatant in the Confederate Army or conversely someone who enlisted as a combatant in a State part of the Confederacy.

With all that said people are taking this extremely rare scenario way too far, Gates is certainly not perpetuating some sort of myth that there were a bunch of Black Confederate combatants... Again it was illegal until the very end of the war and those soldiers never saw combat due to the war ending.

Often people will pass off service records or pensions of Blacks as proof of being a Confederate soldier when nearly all served some sort of support non-combatant role such as cook, laborer, etc... often being enlisted as a slave (and clearly out of their control). This all matches the fact it was illegal. There were pensions given to Blacks who served in these supporting roles in some cases but are specifically differentiated from veteran combatant soldier pensions.

I have indeed seen at least one case of a Black man (recognized as such) getting an actual soldier pension and it lists in it that he served alongside Confederates in battle, seemingly in a combatant role... though upon further investigation this pension is suspect since at the same time as that regiment being elsewhere there are records of him serving in a hospital elsewhere as a laborer.

I've also read first hand accounts of Black laborers in the Confederacy who were forced to bear arms (basically out of desperation by the White Confederates), interestingly in that case the Black man said he was hoping his side would lose and eventually was able to escape and join the Union. He deliberately said the Confederacy made no blacks soldiers.

In general Pensions are not definitive proof, they were done much much later than the event and often have many errors... this is the same for American Revolution pensions, an ancestor of mine got his Revolution pension rejected and had to make it more accurate and re-submit before it got approved lol.

They serve as a starting point but this works the same way for Blacks or Whites in the Civil War, if I find an ancestor's pension record and it says he served in X regiment at Y time... I don't take it as proof he fought in Z battle. I must then find muster rolls or company lists confirming he was with the regiment at least around the same times etc.

I think Bryant Gumbel's response was very apt when Gates said his ancestor was courageous and he responded he was a survivor. It's impossible to conclude someones intentions and what they supported even if they chose to enlist in some militia.

It's easy to forget that The Civil War was the birth of the American conscription (at first in the Confederacy and then in the US), many Whites were forced to fight or joined in fear of consequences no matter what the actually supported on either side. You can't assume what they supported either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2017, 11:49 AM
 
9,237 posts, read 19,660,793 times
Reputation: 22333
I LOVED the Tea Leoni and Gaby Hoffman episode. Those stories were fascinating, and really emphasized how the DNA testing can solve certain mysteries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2017, 12:24 PM
 
6,007 posts, read 5,543,602 times
Reputation: 18354
Did you notice that there was a disclaimer before that episode, that went something along the lines of "information in this program was based on data available at the time." I don't remember seeing that on any other episode, though maybe I just didn't notice it.

I really thought that the Hoffman/Leoni research results were PROBABILITY rather than absolute certainty, and it was conveyed by Gates/the producers more as certainty. If I were the two of them I'd wait another 10 years or so, then have the research done again - just to see if anything is confirmed or disproved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2017, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,269 posts, read 14,335,220 times
Reputation: 12085
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
Did you notice that there was a disclaimer before that episode, that went something along the lines of "information in this program was based on data available at the time." I don't remember seeing that on any other episode, though maybe I just didn't notice it.

I really thought that the Hoffman/Leoni research results were PROBABILITY rather than absolute certainty, and it was conveyed by Gates/the producers more as certainty. If I were the two of them I'd wait another 10 years or so, then have the research done again - just to see if anything is confirmed or disproved.
I'm pretty sure they have that notice on every episode. What about their results do you think may not be accurate, and why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2017, 09:35 AM
 
698 posts, read 443,743 times
Reputation: 859
All historians have to fill in some blanks. There is not some fully proofed and inviolable "Record of Everything" waiting out there for anyone to transcribe from. All that researchers can do is the best job they can of digging and delving through what's left of the past and then reporting back as honestly and impartially as they can on what they have found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 10:29 AM
 
6,007 posts, read 5,543,602 times
Reputation: 18354
Which is why the information should be presented as probability rather than as absolute truth.

I think the DNA evidence should be revisited in another decade or two, after data from considerably more people has been collected. I would certainly do that if I were either of the two women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,269 posts, read 14,335,220 times
Reputation: 12085
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
Which is why the information should be presented as probability rather than as absolute truth.
As far as I can tell, they do. They frequently say "probably" or "that suggests" or "we can't know for sure, but..."

Quote:
I think the DNA evidence should be revisited in another decade or two, after data from considerably more people has been collected. I would certainly do that if I were either of the two women.
I can't remember the details of it, but I seem to recall they used the closest possible relatives they could. That is more effective than comparing with lots of other, more distant relatives and is usually very conclusive. The more closely related you are, the more conclusive it is, and I believe in Leoni's case they tested her mother and what turned out to be her mother's half sibling? With the shared parent deceased, a half sister is as close as it gets. I'm not sure what you think waiting a decade or two would do... they probably aren't going to somehow have closer relatives than that to test, not if the researchers did their job. The only thing that could change is if close relatives refused to test but change their mind in the future - but that's unlikely in my experience. Ultimately, they can't put the show on hold for two decades just to wait and see if other close relatives pop up. They have to trust their researchers did their best to find and contact all of the closest relatives possible and ask them to participate.

And for all we know, they may very well have tested others too, but they just didn't include it in the show because, firstly, they have limited time, and secondly, the info may overwhelm the audience. There's probably a LOT more info (DNA or otherwise) they find, but don't air because they try to simplify it for the audience as best possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top