| Author |
Message |
Doublethink
Member
08-23-2006
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 12:14 pm 
Brenda, I would guess that the producers vet their researchers well, and the folks that they choose have expertise in that particular geographic region, and the records that can be found there. Still, it doesn't mean that he was an expert on conjurers, I thought he just threw that out there, and I really didn't buy into that explanation. My scanty knowledge of conjurers were that they were healers, and nothing seemed to indicate that Sawney was perceived as a healer.
|
Holly
Member
07-21-2001
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 2:10 pm
If they didn't have celebs with something interesting / at least a little out of the ordinary in their ancestry, the show would be purdy boring. It would just be a list of names.
Exactly! And why they might be apt to <ahem> stretch the truth a bit. It is a reality show after all, and as we've learned, they're all pretty much scripted.
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 6:55 pm
Holly, have you done any genealogical research? I have been working on mine for about 25 yrs now and I know we have a couple other addicts here as well.  The DNA stuff was not at all unusual and the databases are growing daily. A few weeks and a couple hundred dollars and you could get the same result. If you are interested, check out the half dozen or so monthly genealogical magazines the major book stores carry. They have articles on DNA and how it can help your research in pretty much every issue.
Good episode and sorta disproves the theory that they all need to have infamous folks in their background. Blair just had two strong lineages that thrived through the generations. One ancestor who probably did himself no favours by standing up for his rights at the wrong time and place.
|
Jag2000
Member
07-01-2009
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 8:50 pm
Just watched last night's episode with Blair Underwood. What a wonderful story about being a free slave way before the Civil War and then hiring family to protect them by declaring them as slaves. Yes, he had a skeleton in the closet, don't we all, but I felt this was a very heart warming and one of the best WDYTYA's. I felt the first 2 this year were pretty boring. Can't wait to see Jerome Bettis's family history.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 10:10 pm
Exactly! And why they might be apt to <ahem> stretch the truth a bit. It is a reality show after all, and as we've learned, they're all pretty much scripted.
I am saying that the show only airs true stories about celebs with something at least a little interesting in their family history. No doubt in my mind that nothing extra is ever added. Very interesting that some of Blair's maternal ancestors were free as far back as the late 1700s.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 10:24 pm
I can confirm (my brother has done research for the UK version) that
. they do look into more celebrities' family trees than are aired, they pick the most interesting celeb family trees
. research is done by people whose job it is to do genealogical research, and nothing is knowingly fudged
. there is a certain amount of "guesswork," but it's more like very educated guesses, mostly based on a lot of information backing up the part they're not 100% sure on, and remember a lot of professional genealogists research family trees for wills so they really are very careful to get it right (or be sued!)
. the research is done, sometimes in stages, before the celebrities are presented with the information. So the thing that is a bit fixed is the celebrity going into a church or wherever, asking the minister for the church records, and him going off to find them as if he had no idea the celeb was coming in. But that bit's obvious.
I don't know anything about DNA testing and the show, but I know from shows like Oprah that a lot of regions in Africa have had people donate(?) their dna to create better ideas of family trees for research into backgrounds of Americans. And no doubt people from elsewhere as well.
|
Spinner
Member
10-27-2003
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 1:06 am
We've gotten the DNA testing from the Family Tree DNA group that the show uses, not because of the show but because we were interested in a National Geographic research project. Family Tree DNA ( http://familytreedna.com ) is a bit pricey but the results are really interesting and you receive pages and pages of information and explanations. We don't have any "famous" connections and our family backgrounds are pretty typical--England, Ireland, Norway--all European, but the charts that they provided give information about how our particular groups migrated, where they went, when, in what numbers, etc. Each tested person has a "page" on the site that changes as more people get tested and blanks start to be filled in. A LOT of information is provided and we sure had to do some studying to even begin to understand it all.
It's a lot of fun to pursue this sort of thing even when you don't know of any particularly colorful relatives. You don't have to do it all at once; we've just purchased a test kit for one person at a time in the family to spread out the cost.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - 1:03 am
but lets be clear, once you have given your permission to analyze your Blood, its out there. While i'd be generally interested in my genetic ancestry, I know i'm a heinz 57. Its not the same as someone pureblood (or two races) who wants to know more about their motherland.
My issue is HOW the information is used, who keeps it and whether Government will ever get the ability to access it. NOT because i have anything to hide, but because I'm a staunch believer in the abuse of Power that information such as Genetic could give authorities.
just saying this post because anyone who decides to have DNA / genome typing done should be aware that it COULD be abused/ sold / used for socalled "studies"
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 1:21 am
watched the blair episode. Even less impressed then usual.
Why does everyone of African american decent immediately assume everyone in their past were slaves?
even when Blair found out those ancestors from 1800s were born free he wouldnt accept it. Also, why would they suddenly have two slaves fifty years later IF born free?
I doubt that those were family members for one Huge reason... the Ancestor was free PRIOR to the 1802? 1806? freed slave registry.
so what is the chance that sponteneously fifty years later they'd find only TWO relatives? chances are that the two slaves were simply househelp since the Landowner had a fair amount of land and probably a nice house. Anything else is farfetched theory.
one of the things mentioned but not researched fully was that Sauney Early was supposedly from West Indies (re the premise of being a conjurer) The French West Indies would also explain the Bloodline of French in blair's genome.
They also argued for full rights for free blacks - There were about 28,000 free blacks and mulattos in Haiti, many of whom owned slaves of their own.
1315: Louis X, king of France, publishes a decree proclaiming that "France" signifies freedom and that any slave setting foot on the French ground should be freed Yet in reality, French colonies kept using slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 5:04 am
Sun, it's been a week so the names escape me (what I had for breakfast escapes me ) but I think you missed a generation. What I remember is that one generation was found to have been BORN FREE.... his parents had been determined to have BEEN FREED prior to approx. the 1790's. It was that couple that HAD BEEN FREED who had a pair of slaves who were assumed to have been his parents living with him. Does that make more sense?
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 7:43 am
I'm sure all Africans brought to America were slaves to start with. I doubt any African left home (Africa) by choice.
It was explained in more detail than I can remember. (My memory is like Rissa's.) The one free man in Blair's ancestry had to buy / enslave his free parents to protect them, otherwise they would have been truly sold into slavery again. Had to do with laws in the State of Virginia at the time.
|
Holly
Member
07-21-2001
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 7:57 am
No, I think it was that once slaves were freed, they had ONE year in which to leave Virginia. The relative bought them to ensure they could remain there beside the family.
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 9:24 am
You know you (both - CD and Holly) could be right. It could be the 2 older slaves had been freed but repurchased by their child so they could stay in state. Like I said, my memory is swiss cheese but I know it made perfect sense when they explained it during the show.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 11:18 am
Yes, it's what Color and Holly said. The law in Virgnia stated that any freed slave after a certain year had one year to leave the state. So, sometimes slaves were "bought" and listed as slaves by family members so that they could stay and live out their golden years in retirement, with family, rather than have to leave the state.
As to why would African American's assume they had slaves in their descendants? Um, Is this a rhetorical question?
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 11:18 am
That was it, Rissa.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 11:41 am
They had to leave the state within a year OR they would be forcefully re-enslaved. So enslaving your loved ones basically meant they lived free (because you treated them that way) with you and no-one else could enslave them.
|
Goddessatlaw
Member
07-19-2002
| Friday, March 02, 2012 - 2:48 pm
Reba McEntire tonight.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Friday, March 02, 2012 - 3:18 pm
wrong, that is the supposition i was talking about. they assumed that fifty years later it was family, they assumed that they were "FREED" prior to that date but there is NO RECORDS stating that anyone was a slave at all.,.. ever.
French mulatto and slavery abolished generations earlier. I think people are forgetting that many 'coloured folk' looked caucasian and could easily pass until papers were looked at.
i will go back and rewatch/ document exact wording later... i had to do it with marissa's episode and i dont mind doing it with blair's as well.
The true problem is, in my mind, the automatic assumption that Anyone with ANY african genetics would automatically be a Slave.
if from france, the french african family would have been free for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
thats my point, the wringing of hands and moaning "OH we have no history" bull is NOT condusive to raising a proud Happy child/ family. to constantly claim, without fact, that their family was oppressed and slaves is promoting hatred against 'whites'. that Us against THEM mentality is encouraged and slavery used as a reason.
The usa situation is a sore point, i get it. However, this constant claims of bad treatment and being Dragged from homeland has been proved historically to not be accurate. Slavery was alive and well in africa as it was in the north American Native customs.
prisoners and the unwanted were sold to slavers by OTHER africans. BUT there were incidents in which people were rounded up.... but think about it, thats way too much work. Better to take prisoners and others rounded up by the locals. There was a choice, be killed or go with the slavers.
i did a fair amount of reading but may not be remembering the nuances. BUT the cruix was, most slaves were from other africans.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Friday, March 02, 2012 - 6:27 pm
Don't forget that what they present to us is only the summary of all the information they have found. Researchers in that area of the country probably have a very good idea of the make up of the area at that point in history. Just because they didn't tell us the answer to "what if they were from France?" doesn't mean that they didn't research that question and disprove it due to a host of factors they don't have time to tell us about.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Friday, March 02, 2012 - 11:55 pm
very very true kitt.
BUT again, this episode with reba, it happened again, the BROAD assumption that because her ancestor had slaves, it made him bad.
The meanspirited suggestion was that the baby and toddler were sold 'like cattle' meant that he was a bad man. Instead, the first thing our family thought was that the parent or mother died and the child was sold to a place with a family to look after it. Brassfield only had ten slaves in that tax census. it would be very interesting if there were still TEN only after that buying and selling record was made. Then the inference could be true, if parent was still alive but babies were sold.
MY thoughts were that since the original george was an indentured servant working side by side with slaves, he would have been a Very Understanding and KIND hearted owner. THis way of life would have been passed on to his kids.
I cried a little tear along with Reba in UK. we cant understand how rough it was back then and VERY class conscious. There was no way to help your kids but to send them away as children. it was VERY common for people of means to send the kids away to school.
The concept of not seeing your kids each day was NOT unusual. We often colour situations by our own personal feelings based on our current lifestyles.
Heck, i remember the old days in which we would talk to my grandparents once a year since long Distance Phone was so expensive. Now people are glued to their personal cell phones and many ahve nationwide calling.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 12:25 am
This was kind of a dull episode for me. I didn't hear enough info regarding the sale of the slaves to draw conclusions.
The indentured servant stuff was the most interesting aspect. Some have guessed that one of my family lines came over that way, but we cannot find enough info. Sounds so dreadful, but helps explain how kids seemed to come over alone without any other relatives.
|
Mamabatsy
Member
08-05-2005
| Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 12:34 am
Often the indentured servants were the overseers and worse than the slave owners. Not at nine years old, but as they got older. Because they were white, they could join society as they gained their freedom. The slaves didn't have that option. They had no options no matter how "kindly" their owners were. In most cases owners weren't at all inclined to treat slaves well because Africans were not considered human. In many cases owners treated their animals better than they treated their slaves.
By law, slaves weren't allowed to learn to read and write while it was important for the indentured servants to learn so they could really run the farm for the owners.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 6:39 am
interesting. i never knew that about the indentured servants in america. In the uk, they were kept as slaves. The irish especially were treated as lower class then the UK servants. I never have heard that the servants were educated.
IF that is true, it makes perfect sense a parent would send the child off as it was their ONLY chance at an education.
but do remember, it was relatively common for poor people who owed money to basically trade off their child as a permanent servant to a family.
Like any slave, there was no end to it.
from what i've read, the worst overseers were irish. From what i've read about the irish immigration situation, they were angry and basically escaped slavery themselves in UK. this made many of them Powermad when given a chance to lord it over the slaves. i can imagine the brutality of those overseers with sadistic and violent backgrounds.
i've read some horrific accounts from back then. you are right, SOME owners treated their livestock better.
but Some valued their workers.
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Monday, March 05, 2012 - 9:05 am
Well this was the first time that I have gone into an episode liking the celebrity and came out not at all impressed. Can't quite put my finger on it but probably had something to do with Reba being obsessed with asking 'were they wealthy?' every 30 seconds.
I was also less than impressed with what research made the edit this time around. I would have been interested in WHY you would sell babies and toddlers. And why would you buy a baby or toddler? Did the mother die? Was it a punishment to the parents?
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, March 05, 2012 - 10:09 am
I enjoyed the Reba episode. I learned a lot of things I never knew very much about.
|
