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.
We can quibble over details like this, but it doesn't change the fact that the study of history or genealogy is not the same thing as honoring certain people or events from history that shouldn't be honored. And as someone who attended a peaceful BLM protest and actually listened to several people make speeches about the intention of the movement, I can say that this is something the movement understands.
This idea that because some people could use genealogy to honor and revere those slave owners means that some people will decide genealogy on the whole is a bad thing and should be stop is like saying that because statues of people like Robert E Lee being taken down means some people are going to demand all statues everywhere of anyone should be removed too. No one thinks that, no one is demanding that, not even the "current movement".
The pictures of the defacement are in my link. You can quibble over whether that "Y'all tired yet?" is part of the actual monument or not, but it happened, it was not fake news, and the site you linked to doesn't include pictures of the actual damage. They choose to publish the fake picture and mention the real defacement in text only.
If you don't think genealogy will ever be a target, you are free to your opinion, but don't tell me what is and is not happening in the world when there are pictures to prove it.
The pictures of the defacement are in my link. You can quibble over whether that "Y'all tired yet?" is part of the actual monument or not,
Your original comment specifically said "statues of Abe Lincoln". The statue was not vandalized.
Quote:
but it happened, it was not fake news, and the site you linked to doesn't include pictures of the actual damage. They choose to publish the fake picture and mention the real defacement in text only.
They showed an actual meme of a faked photo that's going around the internet and that's what the article is about. When you first mentioned it, you were really vague and didn't offer any links, so I had to google it to figure out what you might be referring to. This is what came up. Sorry if that specific photo/meme is not what you were referring, but I'm not psychic. That's why I also brought up the copy of the Emancipation statue in Boston and the talk of removing it, because I wasn't really sure what you were referring to.
Quote:
If you don't think genealogy will ever be a target, you are free to your opinion, but don't tell me what is and is not happening in the world when there are pictures to prove it.
Again, you originally specified it was the actual statue of Lincoln whereas the article you posted specifies the "steps" at the Lincoln Memorial. The photos in the article you posted are from a tweet by the official National Mall Twitter account and that tweet does not even mention the Lincoln Memorial. I've attached a screenshot.
Like I say, we can argue over minor details like this, but that seems like a distraction from the main point I was making, which I see you don't seem to have a response to.
Your original comment specifically said "statues of Abe Lincoln". The statue was not vandalized.
They showed an actual meme of a faked photo that's going around the internet and that's what the article is about. When you first mentioned it, you were really vague and didn't offer any links, so I had to google it to figure out what you might be referring to. This is what came up. Sorry if that specific photo/meme is not what you were referring, but I'm not psychic. That's why I also brought up the copy of the Emancipation statue in Boston and the talk of removing it, because I wasn't really sure what you were referring to.
Again, you originally specified it was the actual statue of Lincoln whereas the article you posted specifies the "steps" at the Lincoln Memorial. The photos in the article you posted are from a tweet by the official National Mall Twitter account and that tweet does not even mention the Lincoln Memorial. I've attached a screenshot.
Like I say, we can argue over minor details like this, but that seems like a distraction from the main point I was making, which I see you don't seem to have a response to.
I have a million and one responses to everything, just like you do, we are cut from the same cloth in that respect. I settled for establishing that actual destruction and vandalism is occurring well beyond Confederate monuments and pointing out that the statue I was discussing was in D.C. I didn't know there was copy in Boston actually coming down, but I am not surprised in the least.
If you take the time to read my original post I said "are under fire or actually being vandalized and purged." When I posted the link I said this, "The Emancipation Statue that is being threatened to be torn down by the mob is in DC," and "The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized." You jumped to the conclusion I was referring to some fake news stuff about paint on a Lincoln statue. I clearly was not.
Time will tell how much fire genealogy comes under. You (or me) saying something doesn't just make it so and arguing about whose crystal ball is clearer is the best way to drive everyone away from the thread and have it closed.
Last edited by westsideboy; 07-01-2020 at 12:50 PM..
If you don't think genealogy will ever be a target, you are free to your opinion...
Bless your heart. Exactly how do you think genealogy would be a "target"? Do you think someone will burn down the Family History Library in Salt Lake City? Do you think some woke great grandchild of yours will someday delete ancestors she doesn't approve of from your family tree? I just don't get what the big "scare" is. Sounds like paranoia.
As a Northerner with Southern roots, my Southern cousins are always eager to point out to me that the Yankees burned down all the courthouses where their ancestors' documents were during the Civil War, so I'm not sure what else can be taken away.
I'll add there are a few easy changes a site like Ancestry.com could make should such criticism come their way.
- Change to Neolithic and earlier populations for genetic reports. So, I would not come back 50% English 25% Scottish/Irish 17% German 8% European Jewish. My reports instead would be 50% Eurasian Steepe nomad, 20% Anatolian Farmer, 10% Western Hunter Gatherer and 10% Natufian/Iran Neolithic (or some such.) If you look at deep ancestry, no one alive today is 100% "European." All white people would have ancestral populations from Western Asian, the Middle East, the Eurasian Steepe, etc.
- "Problematic" ancestors could be marked and would carry a "TW" or disclaimer of some sort. Any user could choose to "turn off" these people and would only see "unknown" or perhaps "click to reveal" instead of listing the person's name in their own tree or the trees of others.
Social stigma and cancel culture can come down hard and fast on just about anything, and it is up to the targeted people or companies to respond. I don't think it is hard to imagine a scenerio where a company like Ancestry.com is forced to stop providing services if cancel culture feels that DNA testing is a way of "identifying with the concept of whiteness" through expressed European ancestry, or maybe pedigrees which contain slave holders "chill and intimidate people of color through reminders of our racist past."
You have some strange ideas. I joined Ancestry before it offered DNA testing. It was a site to build my family tree and it offered access to related records to help me do so. When DNA testing was first offered, I think it was originally intended as a way of finding DNA relatives who had also built trees so that the trees could be compared and improved - trees filled with people no matter what their skin color was. The ethnicity estimate was just a bonus which began to attract non-genealogists over the years.
Ancestry certainly has never limited the DNA test to white people only. That’s wacky. If a black person gets tested, I assume the results are just as likely to show on a map of the world where that person’s ancestors once lived. It wouldn’t be precise but then neither are a lot of European results which can’t even distinguish between French and German ancestry.
If I was African American though and wanted more information about my African roots, I would probably go for DNA testing to a site like this: https://africanancestry.com/home/ which is more likely to give me useful results. I would still use Ancestry for my tree and for access to American records, and maybe even take the Ancestry DNA test to find DNA relatives.
You have some strange ideas. I joined Ancestry before it offered DNA testing. It was a site to build my family tree and it offered access to related records to help me do so. When DNA testing was first offered, I think it was originally intended as a way of finding DNA relatives who had also built trees so that the trees could be compared and improved - trees filled with people no matter what their skin color was. The ethnicity estimate was just a bonus which began to attract non-genealogists over the years.
Ancestry certainly has never limited the DNA test to white people only. That’s wacky. If a black person gets tested, I assume the results are just as likely to show on a map of the world where that person’s ancestors once lived. It wouldn’t be precise but then neither are a lot of European results which can’t even distinguish between French and German ancestry.
If I was African American though and wanted more information about my African roots, I would probably go for DNA testing to a site like this: https://africanancestry.com/home/ which is more likely to give me useful results. I would still use Ancestry for my tree and for access to American records, and maybe even take the Ancestry DNA test to find DNA relatives.
They aren't my ideas. The links I provided to people who actually hold those positions were too political for this thread, but everyone is still free to look them up for themselves if they don't believe there are people out there who actually DO believe it.
That's all from me though. I said my piece and enjoy this sub-forum because we don't argue and stay on topic. Sorry if I went too far afield.
They aren't my ideas. The links I provided to people who actually hold those positions were too political for this thread, but everyone is still free to look them up for themselves if they don't believe there are people out there who actually DO believe it.
That's all from me though. I said my piece and enjoy this sub-forum because we don't argue and stay on topic. Sorry if I went too far afield.
I saw you post some people's opinions about their own ethnicity tests that you removed from the thread, but you didn't answer what you think someone is going to do to your genealogy (a DNA ethnicity test is not genealogy). People may question their own motivations for taking such tests, or debate the ethics of the test, but what does that have to do with you or your ancestors? Your genealogy is a fact and nobody can take it from you. Many Native Americans have also had objections about DNA tests and why white people want to try to use them to prove Native ancestry. Does that scare you too?
If you have a mural of your family tree in a public place, that could draw scrutiny, but I'm guessing nobody is going to care about your family tree or millions of others on a website like Ancestry. It still sounds paranoid to me.
I saw you post some people's opinions about their own ethnicity tests that you removed from the thread, but you didn't answer what you think someone is going to do to your genealogy (a DNA ethnicity test is not genealogy). People may question their own motivations for taking such tests, or debate the ethics of the test, but what does that have to do with you or your ancestors? Your genealogy is a fact and nobody can take it from you. Many Native Americans have also had objections about DNA tests and why white people want to try to use them to prove Native ancestry. Does that scare you too?
If you have a mural of your family tree in a public place, that could draw scrutiny, but I'm guessing nobody is going to care about your family tree or millions of others on a website like Ancestry. It still sounds paranoid to me.
I went about this thread in the wrong way. I think everything is under scrutiny right now, and the arguments that already exist as to why both traditional genealogy and genetic genealogy can be seen in a negative light are likely to be revived at some point soon. Those aren't arguments I agree with or support and I didn't make that clear enough in my posts.
Going into more detail would be too political for this sub-forum, so I apologize for taking everyone with me down the rabbit hole.
Okay, I think people have aired their views and it's time to close this little discussion.
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.
