U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 01:20 AM
 
2,578 posts, read 5,015,500 times
Reputation: 6441

Advertisements

It's only "sensational" if you think there's something disgraceful about having a black ancestor that should be swept under the rug.

There isn't, so it's not. If it was previously unknown, it's merely interesting and informative.
Rate this post positively

 
Old Today, 03:44 AM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
12,917 posts, read 16,465,844 times
Reputation: 31319
Just dropping this here because it's an interesting read.- " Our results suggest that the early US history, beginning in the 17th century (around 12 generations ago), might have been a time of many population interactions resulting in admixture."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,653 posts, read 15,129,799 times
Reputation: 12733
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
It is absolutely accurate that they did not "invariably" mix. You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.
Synonyms of invariably are the following, per Webster:

"always, aye (also ay), consistently, constantly, continually, ever, forever, incessantly, night and day, perpetually, unfailingly."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invariably
I never said the word "invariably". Someone else did. I was responding to your comment "It is extremely uncommon for whites and blacks to have had children together".

Quote:
Most whites never owned slaves or even came into contact with them, especially whites who lived in areas where there were few to zero Africans and no plantations.
True, but I agreed that most white people don't have black ancestry.

Quote:
While "some" whites and "some" blacks have had children together, most have not.
The majority of relationships are not interracial, if that's what you mean, yes - but that's not really what you said. The fact is, while it's uncommon for white people to have black ancestry, the vast majority, if not all African Americans (who have been in the US for generations) have some amount of European ancestry. The average is about 24%. "Finding Your Roots" talks about this a lot as well. You can explore the details in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

And this wouldn't be possible if whites and blacks having children together was so "extremely uncommon" in history. Like I say, much of that is probably the result of slavery, which means much of it is the result of interracial rape from 160+ years ago that no one really saw because it all happened behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening, the proof is in the admixture, and for some European ancestry to be so prevalent among African Americans, even when their ancestry as far back as they are aware has been black, it means that for a large chunk of US history, there were a lot of white slave holders raping black slaves. I did say it depends on the time period and context that we're talking about. I never claimed that consensual interracial relationships have been "invariable" since slavery ended. But equally, it's hard to say how much of that may have continued behind closed doors for the century or so that African Americans (especially women) were commonly servants in white households. Just because it was happening behind closed doors doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Just because it wasn't the ideal picture of two people of different racial background falling in love, getting married, and having kids, doesn't mean blacks and whites weren't having children together. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the "norm" but equally, the stats don't support the claim that it was "extremely uncommon".
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 12:14 PM
 
7,123 posts, read 2,827,747 times
Reputation: 7382
I once encountered Henry Louis Gates Jr when I was biking along the Charles River in Cambridge, MA. He was out on his tricycle type bike and he initiated and offered a very friendly hello greeting as he passed by.
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 12:42 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
10,464 posts, read 5,629,176 times
Reputation: 19598
We are given a sense of randomness in the celebrity guests that Henry Gates features on the program. Apparently he has a role in selecting guests just because he is an admirer or finds them interesting. That is somewhat less than random. Something catches his attention. I was curious about how the show was put together and found an article that covers that.

https://www.familytreemagazine.com/u...0he%20explains.

I have watched a lot of his shows and find it interesting in the number of long-time American black guests descended from non-slave FPOC and almost invariably they are quite amazed because it breaks the mould that we have learned to accept. We, and they, think all blacks were bound to slavery until after the civil war. None of his black guests are without some percentage of white ancestry, which elicits a variety of reactions -- some surprised and some already know or suspect it. The mixed ancestral relationships are not always forced or violent rape but some are apparently consensual and long-term, assumedly loving, relationships.

Among the white guests that are not descended from recent immigrants to America he finds other examples of interest. He points out slave-owner ancestors, which is troublesome for some guests. He finds mixed racial ancestry quite often that typically is embraced by the white guest and met with curiosity.

Recent white immigrant descendants are often faced with ancestors scarred by the Holocaust. Others are descended from parents or grandparents who suffered the deprivations of war or poverty. That is a fairly common background for most white guests, even those with ancestral immigrants in the colonial period.

I would like to see more Hispanic American guests featured on the program He has had a few as well as a handful of Asian Americans. I don't recall any American Indian guests. Of course, he only has successful celebrity guests with little controversy in their past. It would be interesting to see a few failures, stinkers, or controversial figures. Charles Manson is not available but maybe OJ or Patty Hearst or Angela Davis or George Soros or a mafia boss would be an interesting contrast. Pick a couple of homeless people and discover they are descended from royalty, Mayflower passengers, or a president.
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 01:07 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 4,628,222 times
Reputation: 9981
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
We are given a sense of randomness in the celebrity guests that Henry Gates features on the program. Apparently he has a role in selecting guests just because he is an admirer or finds them interesting. That is somewhat less than random. Something catches his attention. I was curious about how the show was put together and found an article that covers that.
Henry is the executive producer of the show, besides being the host/presenter and writer, so I would just assume he was the final say on who will be on the show. I'm sure they might have a small group of people, Henry included to bounce ideas off each other for possible future guests, but in the end it's ultimately his decision on who they choose.

It would be curious to know the people he really wanted on the show, but they said thanks, but no thanks to him.

Last edited by cjseliga; Today at 02:03 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Lifelong SoCalian
511 posts, read 194,755 times
Reputation: 1558
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
I never said the word "invariably". Someone else did. I was responding to your comment "It is extremely uncommon for whites and blacks to have had children together".



True, but I agreed that most white people don't have black ancestry.



The majority of relationships are not interracial, if that's what you mean, yes - but that's not really what you said. The fact is, while it's uncommon for white people to have black ancestry, the vast majority, if not all African Americans (who have been in the US for generations) have some amount of European ancestry. The average is about 24%. "Finding Your Roots" talks about this a lot as well. You can explore the details in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

And this wouldn't be possible if whites and blacks having children together was so "extremely uncommon" in history. Like I say, much of that is probably the result of slavery, which means much of it is the result of interracial rape from 160+ years ago that no one really saw because it all happened behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening, the proof is in the admixture, and for some European ancestry to be so prevalent among African Americans, even when their ancestry as far back as they are aware has been black, it means that for a large chunk of US history, there were a lot of white slave holders raping black slaves. I did say it depends on the time period and context that we're talking about. I never claimed that consensual interracial relationships have been "invariable" since slavery ended. But equally, it's hard to say how much of that may have continued behind closed doors for the century or so that African Americans (especially women) were commonly servants in white households. Just because it was happening behind closed doors doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Just because it wasn't the ideal picture of two people of different racial background falling in love, getting married, and having kids, doesn't mean blacks and whites weren't having children together. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the "norm" but equally, the stats don't support the claim that it was "extremely uncommon".
Respectfully asking, have you ever considered the possibility that the reason why 24% of American blacks have European ancestry could be due to the fact that American blacks simply had more children, and those children had more children which produced cousins, distant cousins and more distant relatives? Have you considered that the large amount of offspring eventually intermarrying again kept the European ancestry consistent at 24% or thereabouts?

So, if you have an African American with 24% European ancestry, or thereabouts, who married a 5th or 6th cousin with about the same level of European ancestry, it stands to reason that their children would consistently be about 24% European ancestry too (on average), and so forth. Because black Americans have largely only mated with other black Americans, the 24% would remain persistent in the population.

Furthermore, it's no secret that there is a cast system within black American culture. Lighter-skinned black women were more desired by black men. We can attribute this to "low self-esteem", "racism", "colonization", "white supremacy" and all of the other academic buzzwords used these days. It sort of stands to reason that if lighter-skinned blacks were more desired by other blacks, then they most likely mated more often and had more children.
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
28,254 posts, read 18,669,490 times
Reputation: 44283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiyo-e View Post
It's only "sensational" if you think there's something disgraceful about having a black ancestor that should be swept under the rug.

There isn't, so it's not. If it was previously unknown, it's merely interesting and informative.
There you go.

But—often the children with white fathers and black mothers were conceived through coercion or rape, and certainly outside of marriage. So, there is a sensationalizing element. Hard to think about one’s great, great, great grandmother being raped or used sexually. It is hard to think about the child that union produced being born into slavery, especially if that child is a direct ancestor.

So, there is that element.
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,653 posts, read 15,129,799 times
Reputation: 12733
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple92680 View Post
Respectfully asking, have you ever considered the possibility that the reason why 24% of American blacks have European ancestry could be due to the fact that American blacks simply had more children, and those children had more children which produced cousins, distant cousins and more distant relatives? Have you considered that the large amount of offspring eventually intermarrying again kept the European ancestry consistent at 24% or thereabouts?

So, if you have an African American with 24% European ancestry, or thereabouts, who married a 5th or 6th cousin with about the same level of European ancestry, it stands to reason that their children would consistently be about 24% European ancestry too (on average), and so forth. Because black Americans have largely only mated with other black Americans, the 24% would remain persistent in the population.
Yes, endogamy probably plays some part - but even so, in order for that to happen, enough of the original progenitors must have had some amount of European ancestry to begin with. For an average African American to be about 24% European and perhaps not even realize it because as far as they know, their parents are black, their grandparents, and their great grandparents were all black - it means that pretty much ALL of those black ancestors had to have a significant portion of European ancestry too. And that wouldn't be so widespread if there weren't a notable amount of whites and blacks having children together to begin with, even if it dates back to slavery. It still means that most, if not all slaves, by the time they were freed, probably had some amount of European ancestry. We could debate just how much endogamy might play a role in that, but ultimately, it's not like all African Americans descend from the same original very few slaves who were raped... you don't get statistics like this without it being a widespread occurrence. About 388,000 slaves were ultimately brought from Africa to North America, so all African Americans who descend from slavery are descended from those 388,000 people. By 1790, there were 700,000 slaves in the US, and almost 4 million by 1860. In order for most/all African Americans to have some European ancestry, we're probably talking about hundreds of thousands of slaves who were raped - granted, over the course of about 250 years - but still, that's enough that I wouldn't call it "extremely uncommon".

Then you have the fact, like I mentioned before, that for the next 100 or so years, it was common (especially in the south) for white households to have black (especially female) servants, and who knows what went on behind closed doors, whether consensual or not. This idea that SFBayBoomer supports that just because whites and blacks lived in different communities in history means they hardly ever came across each others paths is ridiculous. Granted, that's exactly what segregation was about, and segregation did exist for a long time, especially in the south - but whites and blacks still managed to cross paths, and I don't doubt that things sometimes went on behind closed doors. It's just not something that people talked about, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and frankly, with DNA, we're discovering this kind of thing more and more.
Rate this post positively
 
Old Today, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,653 posts, read 15,129,799 times
Reputation: 12733
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
There you go.

But—often the children with white fathers and black mothers were conceived through coercion or rape, and certainly outside of marriage. So, there is a sensationalizing element. Hard to think about one’s great, great, great grandmother being raped or used sexually. It is hard to think about the child that union produced being born into slavery, especially if that child is a direct ancestor.

So, there is that element.
It's also hard to think about one's great, great, great grandfather being a rapist, but we shouldn't hide from history, whether it might seem sensational or not. In my opinion from watching both "Finding Your Roots" and "Who Do You Think You Are?", it's the latter which is much more sensationalized. Gates' approach of "let's sit down and talk about this" has always felt much more real to me.
Rate this post positively
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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