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.
I'm not criticizing (at least not right now) but why do so many people post in this forum about race?
We see all kinds of posts about races mixing, traits of one race vs. another race, "looking like" one race but belonging to another, people passing for a different race or getting mistaken for a different race, shock that a famous person looks like a certain race but is really mixed, etc.
Are people really this obsessed with race and "racial traits"? and if so, why try to make it a discussion about Genealogy if it's really not? Of course some will debate whether the topics like this are really valid, whatever; but my biggest issue is, why post it in "Genealogy?"
First I thought people might be mixing up "genealogy" with "genetics" because some of the discussions get into dominant vs. recessive hereditary traits. But a lot of the threads are just about characteristics of one race or another. Really?
I'm not someone overly sensitive who will call things "racist" as a reflex, but even I am feeling this is weird. Are some people just trying to provoke an argument about race, and they're choosing this forum instead of "great debates" or some other place?
Is there some huge branch of genealogy I'm not aware of that focuses just on racial characteristics? Isn't this forum supposed to be about tracing family history? Maybe I'm the oddball, and most people who are into tracing family history are extremely concerned about the racial background of people in their family trees? What am I missing?
Short answer -- Because there isn't an anthropology forum.
Long answer -- I think it does fascinate some people, and an online forum where they can be anonymous is just the right place for it, and yes -- there is a smattering of racist garbage to some of it.
But because there isn't a real place for this sort of anthropological intellectual discussion on City Data, this is where they all come.
mom, I fully agree with all you wrote here. I try to not let it bother me, but there are so many people now that are what I call "Indian wannabes" and many of those are super-sensitive about whether they should be referred to as "Indian", "American Indian", or "Native American". I am Anglo but have done lots of work with the Caddo and Choctaw and find, unless in a formal setting, most of them say "Indian", but some times will say "he's Caddo", but not "he's Caddo Indian". But in the long term none of this really matters.
There are often "surprises" involved in tracing a family's ancestry and many times in changes who they thought they were. Race plays a very large part in this because until the recent past (and even to this day), Americans were treated very differently based upon 1) what race they looked like and 2) what race they claimed themselves to be. So when generations later, a person discovers that their ancestors were of a different race, it is sometimes surprising and is very relevant.
Race is a part of American history, and most of us here are Americans, so we have American history. Part of genealogy is history, understanding what life was like back then. Part of understanding what life was like includes understanding how race was considered to be important.
It is possible to discuss race civilly, though I haven't browsed much on the threads here.
Racism still exists today, though not as much as it used to, I think. Still, racism is a part of U.S. history, which our ancestors experienced and possibly influenced, at least in their communities. Genealogy and history being inconvenient does not mean that you can ignore it. You take the good with the bad.
Also, genealogy and genetics are related, since you get your genes from your ancestors.
Probably most genealogists aren't that concerned about the race of their ancestors, but if you find an ancestor that is a race other than your own, it's often surprising, and sometimes you want to talk about it. And it is a genealogy topic.
Genealogy, Genetics, and history are all kind of tied in together. You can't strip them all away from each other completely.
If your goal in genealogy is to learn about your ancestors then you are studying history, your own family history. And your family history is not completely separate from the nation's and the world's history, because what goes on in the world effected your ancestors. You are also studying genetics in a way, because your ancestry determines what you look like now. Genetics is a part of genealogy. If you are white, you assume your ancestors probably are mostly or all white as well. If you find something different, it's a surprise.
Last edited by STLCardsBlues1989; 08-11-2011 at 11:56 PM..
I'm not criticizing (at least not right now) but why do so many people post in this forum about race?...Is there some huge branch of genealogy I'm not aware of that focuses just on racial characteristics? Isn't this forum supposed to be about tracing family history? Maybe I'm the oddball, and most people who are into tracing family history are extremely concerned about the racial background of people in their family trees? What am I missing?
What you may be missing is the history of the United States, for one thing.
I think the implication that there is something wrong about being interested in the race of one's ancestors is ridiculous. I am interested in the ethnicity of my ancestors as well. Knowing either of these things may easily lead to a better understanding of other facts about them.
And I do find that most people doing genealogy are interested in both.
If you are into DNA genealogical research, you will almost immediately become involved in the various typologies of human beings.
No really, I get it. Race has been important in history. But if you review the posts in this forum that are about race, there is a weird "tone" to them. Some of the posts seem to have no interest at all in genealogy or even history, but more interested in what physical charactistics belong to which race.
If the posts really tied the idea of race into genealogical research or history, then I wouldn't have a problem. But there is a strange obsession among some posters (people who I think have no actual interest in genealogy) about race, and "looking like" a certain race or ethnicity over another.
Posting about a great grandmother who "passed" for white in the south during the Reconstruction is a very relevant discussion. But posting about someone today appearing to have African facial characteristics and wondering what their background is, is just, in my opinion, being overly concerned with a non-issue.
This history of racial stigma isn't all that old. I'm in my 50s and can remember a time (probably before 1970) when it would have been devastating for a white family to find out they had a non-white ancestor. Most would have guarded that as a secret never to be revealed or discussed, possibly for good reason (in my state before then it was illegal to marry a non-white or to admit them to our main state universities). Perhaps what we're seeing now is a reaction against that ridiculous way of thinking.
Posting about a great grandmother who "passed" for white in the south during the Reconstruction is a very relevant discussion. But posting about someone today appearing to have African facial characteristics and wondering what their background is, is just, in my opinion, being overly concerned with a non-issue.
You mean the Don Cheadle thread?
I think it's okay to wonder what a person's race is while still understanding that it's not important. Race and genetics can be interesting, and you can be interested in that without being biased against or for any race.
I do agree that genealogy needs to be discussed in the genealogy forum, but race can be part of genealogy and is part of genetics. I don't see the problem with discussing it.
No the Cheadle thread was just one of many in the past year.
I guess I just hear too many people saying things day to day about people "looking Jewish" or "she looks like she has some Spanish in her" or "you know, that black guy who looks a little Chinese" and "she's black but she really doesn't have black features." I'm in my early 40s and think it's kind of offensive to talk like that. But these are usually people in their 50s and 60s who say this stuff all the time.
When I worked in Philly it was even worse. People always said stuff like "she's Jewish, but doesn't really look Jewish" or the opposite "he's not Jewish, but he kind of looks like he is" or "my grandkids are mixed, and I'm glad they didn't get a lot of black features" (heard that kind of thing from both white and black people).
Hearing this stuff all the time might make me a little more sensitive to seeing it in postings. If no one else sees it that way, fine. Be glad you don't associate with the people I have to associate with, who talk this way every day.
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.
