0 comment Thursday, November 27, 2014 | admin
The National Geographic website has an interesting map showing the most common surnames in the United States. It's an interactive map, and you can zoom in on your area or whatever area you like to see the most common names there.
Above the map, there is a link to the blog entry which accompanies the map.
It's glaringly obvious that certain parts of the country are increasingly Hispanic, as the name distribution illustrated by the map indicates.
This census bureau list of the most common surnames shows that a great many Spanish surnames have entered the list, names that were not that common a decade or so ago. This is a testament to the rapid increase in the Latino population.
It does seem obvious from the lists that names originating in the British Isles predominate. However it's evident that not all are English; many of the common names are Welsh or Scots in origin.
Welsh names in the list: Williams, Jones, Davis, Evans, Morgan, Rice, Vaughn.
Scots names include Jackson, Wilson, Campbell, McDonald, Murray, Armstrong, and I am sure many others.
Irish names are fairly well-represented, as expected, but more so in certain areas of the country, not evenly distributed in most cases.
There are a number of German names like Schmidt and Hoffman, and Scandinavian names like Hansen and Larson. There are, of course, Scandinavians surnamed Johnson and Anderson, the latter of which may also be Scots.
My mother's maiden name is on the list, but about halfway down, not exactly one of the most common. Her family name, one of the old New England names, is no longer one of the common names in New England; it seems most of the old-stock colonial English names have been crowded out by immigrant-stock names, earlier, Irish or French names, but now probably Hispanic or other.
I think most of the bearers of the Jefferson name, like those surnamed Washington, are slave descendants, as with many of the common names like Anderson and Williams and Jones.
The name Jefferson is, however, only number 106 among common black surnames.
Despite the fact that hardly anybody today claims Anglo-Saxon heritage anymore, the names are still there. So I suspect there are more Anglo-Saxons genes in this country than many think -- but dwindling in proportion as we become outnumbered.
What about you, readers? How does it look from where you are, and are your ancestral names on the list?
Above the map, there is a link to the blog entry which accompanies the map.
It's glaringly obvious that certain parts of the country are increasingly Hispanic, as the name distribution illustrated by the map indicates.
This census bureau list of the most common surnames shows that a great many Spanish surnames have entered the list, names that were not that common a decade or so ago. This is a testament to the rapid increase in the Latino population.
It does seem obvious from the lists that names originating in the British Isles predominate. However it's evident that not all are English; many of the common names are Welsh or Scots in origin.
Welsh names in the list: Williams, Jones, Davis, Evans, Morgan, Rice, Vaughn.
Scots names include Jackson, Wilson, Campbell, McDonald, Murray, Armstrong, and I am sure many others.
Irish names are fairly well-represented, as expected, but more so in certain areas of the country, not evenly distributed in most cases.
There are a number of German names like Schmidt and Hoffman, and Scandinavian names like Hansen and Larson. There are, of course, Scandinavians surnamed Johnson and Anderson, the latter of which may also be Scots.
My mother's maiden name is on the list, but about halfway down, not exactly one of the most common. Her family name, one of the old New England names, is no longer one of the common names in New England; it seems most of the old-stock colonial English names have been crowded out by immigrant-stock names, earlier, Irish or French names, but now probably Hispanic or other.
I think most of the bearers of the Jefferson name, like those surnamed Washington, are slave descendants, as with many of the common names like Anderson and Williams and Jones.
The name Jefferson is, however, only number 106 among common black surnames.
Despite the fact that hardly anybody today claims Anglo-Saxon heritage anymore, the names are still there. So I suspect there are more Anglo-Saxons genes in this country than many think -- but dwindling in proportion as we become outnumbered.
What about you, readers? How does it look from where you are, and are your ancestral names on the list?
Labels: Ancestry, Diversity, Genealogy, Race Replacement, Surnames
0 comment Thursday, November 20, 2014 | admin
Kissing Cousins, which is a post at the WTPOTUS blog, discusses this article, which makes more genealogical claims about the president. The article says, based on the word of a genealogist, that the president is related to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and ex-President George Bush.
It seems to me that we saw these same claims back during the campaign of 2008 and also during the Henry Louis Gates story, and I scoffed at them then as being propagandistic. To me, these kinds of articles try, firstly, to establish distinguished ancestry for favored presidential candidates and their wives. I am sure there have been focus groups run which have shown that the gullible public are impressed by reports of 'noble ancestry'. This seems paradoxical in a country like ours where many people are defiantly populist and anti-royalty, but it seems there is some having-it-both-ways being done here; people worship certain royals like the late Princess Diana and now her sons, primarily William, and we also have our own ''home-grown'' pseudo-royals like the Kennedys and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, while she was alive. It seems part of us still looks up to royalty and aristocracy. And for many people, sleazy celebrities, provided they have enough ''glamor'' and media coverage, fill in as substitute royalty.
So the media lackeys work at giving candidates and politicians of their choosing some kind of cachet by linking them to illustrious ancestors.
Is it true? Well, as the blogger linked above notes, online genealogy can be notoriously unreliable, and in my experience, sometimes laughably inaccurate and error-ridden. There are some absurd things to be found in online family tree information. It can't be taken at face value; a lot of additional research is needed to discern what is accurate and what is not.
Still, the genealogist of the AP article reports this information as unimpeachable truth. And her political leanings are nakedly obvious, as she mentions some supposed ancestor of the president, a dissenting minister from England, as being very ''socially conscious'', meaning liberal. So it's all right then. I mean, if the president were (supposedly) descended from some hellfire-preaching minister, we would not hear a word about it, I am sure.
The article mentions that Stanley Ann Dunham claimed, like many Americans, to have a Cherokee ancestor (a full-blooded one, of course; that's absolutely de rigueur). I've met relatively few people who don't make this claim. I remember a New York Times article from a year or two ago, in which DNA testing was examined, and the results of some test subjects were discussed. One of those who claimed American Indian ancestry (full-blooded Cherokee, no doubt) was apparently crestfallen when the tests showed nothing indicative of that claim. Recently there was the spectacle of Jessica Alba learning on TV that she was more European than she thought. Her disappointed reaction was amusing in a sad way.
There is a lot of confusion and so much propaganda on matters of DNA and genealogy. The propaganda, of course, is meant to confuse people and to foster the idea that ''we are all one big family'' or ''we are all one race'', etc. Six degrees of separation and all that. How are we who are not scientists to separate the nonsense and lies from the facts? Most of us are not equipped to do so.
And unless we have some solid information about our family history, we begin to fall for much of this propaganda.
In the president's case, it seems that the court genealogists are trying to establish the president's legitimacy as ''one of us'': he is descended (supposedly) from colonial ancestors. He is related to many presidents and public figures. He has long roots in this country -- this is probably supposed to counter the increasing perception that the president is just not American in his experiences, his knowledge, his background, his attitudes, his behavior. So out come these stories about his ancestry and roots.
It's telling that they are trying to tie him to those who are perceived as his bitterest critics: Palin and Limbaugh.
But ultimately it will not work. Even if we had the word of a highly reputable genealogist with no discernible agenda, it would not work.
As Miri at WTPOTUS says, the biggest stumbling-block is that if the original information, the starting point, is not verified, then the rest of it is of very dubious value. Because, when you get down to it, we don't know where we are starting from, without documentation and primary sources, witnesses. It's all just supposition if not outright confabulation.
Think about that. It's pretty unsettling.
It seems to me that we saw these same claims back during the campaign of 2008 and also during the Henry Louis Gates story, and I scoffed at them then as being propagandistic. To me, these kinds of articles try, firstly, to establish distinguished ancestry for favored presidential candidates and their wives. I am sure there have been focus groups run which have shown that the gullible public are impressed by reports of 'noble ancestry'. This seems paradoxical in a country like ours where many people are defiantly populist and anti-royalty, but it seems there is some having-it-both-ways being done here; people worship certain royals like the late Princess Diana and now her sons, primarily William, and we also have our own ''home-grown'' pseudo-royals like the Kennedys and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, while she was alive. It seems part of us still looks up to royalty and aristocracy. And for many people, sleazy celebrities, provided they have enough ''glamor'' and media coverage, fill in as substitute royalty.
So the media lackeys work at giving candidates and politicians of their choosing some kind of cachet by linking them to illustrious ancestors.
Is it true? Well, as the blogger linked above notes, online genealogy can be notoriously unreliable, and in my experience, sometimes laughably inaccurate and error-ridden. There are some absurd things to be found in online family tree information. It can't be taken at face value; a lot of additional research is needed to discern what is accurate and what is not.
Still, the genealogist of the AP article reports this information as unimpeachable truth. And her political leanings are nakedly obvious, as she mentions some supposed ancestor of the president, a dissenting minister from England, as being very ''socially conscious'', meaning liberal. So it's all right then. I mean, if the president were (supposedly) descended from some hellfire-preaching minister, we would not hear a word about it, I am sure.
The article mentions that Stanley Ann Dunham claimed, like many Americans, to have a Cherokee ancestor (a full-blooded one, of course; that's absolutely de rigueur). I've met relatively few people who don't make this claim. I remember a New York Times article from a year or two ago, in which DNA testing was examined, and the results of some test subjects were discussed. One of those who claimed American Indian ancestry (full-blooded Cherokee, no doubt) was apparently crestfallen when the tests showed nothing indicative of that claim. Recently there was the spectacle of Jessica Alba learning on TV that she was more European than she thought. Her disappointed reaction was amusing in a sad way.
There is a lot of confusion and so much propaganda on matters of DNA and genealogy. The propaganda, of course, is meant to confuse people and to foster the idea that ''we are all one big family'' or ''we are all one race'', etc. Six degrees of separation and all that. How are we who are not scientists to separate the nonsense and lies from the facts? Most of us are not equipped to do so.
And unless we have some solid information about our family history, we begin to fall for much of this propaganda.
In the president's case, it seems that the court genealogists are trying to establish the president's legitimacy as ''one of us'': he is descended (supposedly) from colonial ancestors. He is related to many presidents and public figures. He has long roots in this country -- this is probably supposed to counter the increasing perception that the president is just not American in his experiences, his knowledge, his background, his attitudes, his behavior. So out come these stories about his ancestry and roots.
It's telling that they are trying to tie him to those who are perceived as his bitterest critics: Palin and Limbaugh.
But ultimately it will not work. Even if we had the word of a highly reputable genealogist with no discernible agenda, it would not work.
As Miri at WTPOTUS says, the biggest stumbling-block is that if the original information, the starting point, is not verified, then the rest of it is of very dubious value. Because, when you get down to it, we don't know where we are starting from, without documentation and primary sources, witnesses. It's all just supposition if not outright confabulation.
Think about that. It's pretty unsettling.
Labels: Ancestry, Controlled Media, Dna, Genealogy, Political Correctness, Politics, Propaganda
0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
A few words from Daniel Webster on Pride of Ancestry:
"It is a noble faculty of nature which enables us to connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness with what is distant in place or time; and looking before and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors and our posterity. Human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. Neither the point of time, nor the spot of earth in which we physically live, bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments.
We live in the past by a knowledge of its history, and in the future by hope and anticipation. By ascending to an association with our ancestors; by contemplating their example and studying their character; by partaking their sentiments, and imbibing their spirit; by accompanying them in their toils; by sympathizing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs -- we mingle our own existence with theirs, and seem to belong to their age. We become their contemporaries, live the lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. And in like manner, by running along the line of future time; by contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are coming after us; by attempting something which may promote their happiness, and leave some not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard when we shall sleep with the fathers -- we protract our own earthly being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly existence.
As it is not a vain and false, but an exalted and religious imagination which leads us to raise our thoughts from the orb which, amidst this universe of worlds, the Creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be proper among children of the same Eternal Parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of fellow-beings with which his goodness has peopled the infinite of space; so neither is it false or vain to consider ourselves as interested or connected with our whole race through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last with the consummation of all things earthly at the throne of God.
There may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for ancestry which nourishes only a weak pride; as there is also a care for posterity, which only disguises an habitual avarice, or hides the workings of a low and groveling vanity. But there is also a moral and philosophical respect for our ancestors, which elevates the character and improves the heart. Next to the sense of religious duty and moral feeling, I hardly know what should bear with stronger obligation on a liberal and enlightened mind, than a consciousness of alliance with excellence which is departed; and a consciousness, too, that in its acts and conduct, and even in its sentiments, it may be actively operating on the happiness of those that come after it.
Poetry is found to have few stronger conceptions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind, than those in which it presents the moving and speaking image of the departed dead to the senses of the living. This belongs to poetry only because it is congenial to our nature. Poetry is, in this respect, but the handmaid of true philosophy and morality. It deals with us as human beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connection with this state of being is severed, and who may yet exercise we know not what sympathy with ourselves; and when it carries us forward, also, and shows us the long-continued result of all the good we do in the prosperity of those who follow us, till it bears us from ourselves, and absorbs us in an intense interest for what shall happen to the generations after us, it speaks only in the language of our nature, and affects us with sentiments which belong to us as human beings."
Labels: American History, Ancestry, Filial Piety, Founding Fathers, Traditionalism
0 comment Sunday, July 27, 2014 | admin
Above is an interesting map. I would like to cite the source of it, but it's uncertain; I found it some time ago on another forum, and I believe it was credited to Valparaiso University in Indiana.
In any case, it shows a rather different picture of ethnic origins in North America, compared to the U.S. Census map I posted here in the past. The U.S. Census map showed virtually all of the South as being majority African descent.
I think this map, however, is fairly accurate based on what I know.
Notice that South Louisiana has a French-dominant area, and notice the yellow areas in South Central Texas, which does have a very visible German influence there; there are still some in those areas who speak a Texas German dialect, although it's apparently in danger of dying out.
I wonder if the numbers of Scandinavians are underrepresented on this map, however; some parts of the Northwest have large numbers of Scandinavian-descended people, though they don't show up on the map.
The map is not dated, and if it were up-to-date, I am sure there would be a great deal more lavender-tinted areas all over the country. The colors on a similar map a decade from now would look very different, unless things turn around soon.
Labels: Ancestry, Demographics, Ethnic Origins, Ethnicity, Immigration
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I'm worried about some among our people.
It seems as though all this 'race as social construct' talk has had an effect on many people, to the point where they no longer seem to be able to think about race in a common-sense way. And this is true even of the people who post on race-realist sites. For example, this comment from a discussion about DNA testing for people seeking their African roots:
15 � Anonymous wrote at 11:31 PM on June 29:
Like obama all of these "african americans" have huge quantities of White blood flowing through their veins�''
I've seen this idea repeated many times on such sites. Now, it's true that on the Internet we don't know who is saying what; I am assuming the commenter is White, but it could be anyone posting that comment.
But let's assume he is White.
Where is this idea coming from, that all blacks have 'huge quantities of White blood'? First of all, do our eyes provide us with evidence of this? I don't see it.
I suppose on average, American blacks are lighter in complexion than their cousins in Africa, but they don't appear to have ''huge quantities'' of White blood. Are people unconsciously buying the propaganda that there was a great deal of miscegenation in the slavery days? That idea is very important to the Left, because it further confuses racial categorization; they can repeat their triumphant line about how ''we're all mixed together anyway, there are no pure races!" And then they can start their litany of accusations, with lurid tales of slavemasters cruelly having their way with female slaves. I've read so many stories of people seeking their African roots, finding they have some modicum of European blood, which is explained as a result of 'rape' by a slaveowner. How do people jump to the automatic conclusion of rape in such cases? And must the White admixture, if any, date back to slavery days? Could it not have happened in later generations? I object to this automatic assumption that rape by White men is involved in any case of European DNA appearing in blacks.
But why this belief that American blacks have a great deal of White ancestry?
The always-ignorant 'Yahoo Answers' people echo the nonsense.
The 'best answer' as voted by readers says:
To know for sure they would all have to be tested. In addition many "white" Americans have black ancestry, because their ancestors were light skinned descendants of slaves and usually their owners and they married people of European ancestry until their past was forgotten or completely hidden even from themselves.
"One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,� he said."
Ultimately all our ancestors originated in Africa, since we are all descended from "mitochondrial Eve," an African woman.''
Well, she gets maximum points for regurgitating the PC propaganda, anyway.
So we are almost all mixed, according to the official story.
I can fully understand why the good little leftists, like the person who posted that 'best answer', believe as they do, but I fail to understand why people who are supposed to be realists want to believe similar things.
Is there any reliable information on how much White admixture there is among black Americans, or vice-versa? It seems difficult to find on the Internet, and it would seem likely that without widespread (and reliable) DNA testing any information would be unreliable. Most people don't know their genealogy beyond their grandparents, or in rare cases, great-grandparents.
Until such solid information is widely available, which I don't foresee happening soon, all we can do is go by the evidence of our eyes as well as by what is actually known about our ancestries.
As far as our current president, for some reason this bizarre theory has caught on (propagated, for some strange reason, by Rush Limbaugh and others) that the president is less than 1/8 African or ''12 percent.'' Why, I wonder do people believe that, or why do they want to believe it?
Another often-heard idea from some on the 'realist' side is that ''the president chose to identify as black; he could have chosen White.'' I honestly think that remark, if made, say, 50 years ago, would have met with incredulity.
Maybe this man could have 'chosen', being somewhat ambiguous in appearance, but for most who have more than a little minority ancestry, there is no question of 'choosing' a White identity.
But for the ultimate illustration of racial confusion, this story is being discussed in various places, and on some of the comments sections, people are claiming that the children in question ''look just like Michael''. This, to me, is beyond bizarre. Have people lost all common sense? Is the multicult, colorblind propaganda rendering us just, well, blind? It seems so.
As far as I know, it's still a fact that a black parent cannot father a White child.
A generation or more ago, I think you would not have found many people who could believe such silliness. It's simply counter to common sense, and to the evidence of our eyes. Are more White people on the verge of becoming truly blind to race, or are they convinced of the liberal idea that we can 'choose' who we are, regardless of our genetics? It looks that way.
What's the opposite of a race-realist? A race-fantasist? A race-denier? A race agnostic?
Whatever we call it, it gives me the feeling that I've gone through the looking-glass.
It seems as though all this 'race as social construct' talk has had an effect on many people, to the point where they no longer seem to be able to think about race in a common-sense way. And this is true even of the people who post on race-realist sites. For example, this comment from a discussion about DNA testing for people seeking their African roots:
15 � Anonymous wrote at 11:31 PM on June 29:
Like obama all of these "african americans" have huge quantities of White blood flowing through their veins�''
I've seen this idea repeated many times on such sites. Now, it's true that on the Internet we don't know who is saying what; I am assuming the commenter is White, but it could be anyone posting that comment.
But let's assume he is White.
Where is this idea coming from, that all blacks have 'huge quantities of White blood'? First of all, do our eyes provide us with evidence of this? I don't see it.
I suppose on average, American blacks are lighter in complexion than their cousins in Africa, but they don't appear to have ''huge quantities'' of White blood. Are people unconsciously buying the propaganda that there was a great deal of miscegenation in the slavery days? That idea is very important to the Left, because it further confuses racial categorization; they can repeat their triumphant line about how ''we're all mixed together anyway, there are no pure races!" And then they can start their litany of accusations, with lurid tales of slavemasters cruelly having their way with female slaves. I've read so many stories of people seeking their African roots, finding they have some modicum of European blood, which is explained as a result of 'rape' by a slaveowner. How do people jump to the automatic conclusion of rape in such cases? And must the White admixture, if any, date back to slavery days? Could it not have happened in later generations? I object to this automatic assumption that rape by White men is involved in any case of European DNA appearing in blacks.
But why this belief that American blacks have a great deal of White ancestry?
The always-ignorant 'Yahoo Answers' people echo the nonsense.
The 'best answer' as voted by readers says:
To know for sure they would all have to be tested. In addition many "white" Americans have black ancestry, because their ancestors were light skinned descendants of slaves and usually their owners and they married people of European ancestry until their past was forgotten or completely hidden even from themselves.
"One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,� he said."
Ultimately all our ancestors originated in Africa, since we are all descended from "mitochondrial Eve," an African woman.''
Well, she gets maximum points for regurgitating the PC propaganda, anyway.
So we are almost all mixed, according to the official story.
I can fully understand why the good little leftists, like the person who posted that 'best answer', believe as they do, but I fail to understand why people who are supposed to be realists want to believe similar things.
Is there any reliable information on how much White admixture there is among black Americans, or vice-versa? It seems difficult to find on the Internet, and it would seem likely that without widespread (and reliable) DNA testing any information would be unreliable. Most people don't know their genealogy beyond their grandparents, or in rare cases, great-grandparents.
Until such solid information is widely available, which I don't foresee happening soon, all we can do is go by the evidence of our eyes as well as by what is actually known about our ancestries.
As far as our current president, for some reason this bizarre theory has caught on (propagated, for some strange reason, by Rush Limbaugh and others) that the president is less than 1/8 African or ''12 percent.'' Why, I wonder do people believe that, or why do they want to believe it?
Another often-heard idea from some on the 'realist' side is that ''the president chose to identify as black; he could have chosen White.'' I honestly think that remark, if made, say, 50 years ago, would have met with incredulity.
Maybe this man could have 'chosen', being somewhat ambiguous in appearance, but for most who have more than a little minority ancestry, there is no question of 'choosing' a White identity.
But for the ultimate illustration of racial confusion, this story is being discussed in various places, and on some of the comments sections, people are claiming that the children in question ''look just like Michael''. This, to me, is beyond bizarre. Have people lost all common sense? Is the multicult, colorblind propaganda rendering us just, well, blind? It seems so.
As far as I know, it's still a fact that a black parent cannot father a White child.
A generation or more ago, I think you would not have found many people who could believe such silliness. It's simply counter to common sense, and to the evidence of our eyes. Are more White people on the verge of becoming truly blind to race, or are they convinced of the liberal idea that we can 'choose' who we are, regardless of our genetics? It looks that way.
What's the opposite of a race-realist? A race-fantasist? A race-denier? A race agnostic?
Whatever we call it, it gives me the feeling that I've gone through the looking-glass.
Labels: American History, Ancestry, Can History, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial, Racial Guilt
0 comment Sunday, April 27, 2014 | admin
When I saw this news story, my attention was caught by the fact that the surname, Osgood, is one of my ancestral names, and secondarily, I was struck by the incongruity of the first name which was paired with the English surname.
I am not a football fan, so I wouldn't know the Osgood in the news story from Adam's housecat, but I did think of this piece which appeared on the Occidental Observer blog a while back.
It's titled The Decline of Old American Names. The writer also had the experience of seeing, in a news story, a similarly unlikely name, an Anglo-Saxon surname with an 'exotic' first name, borne by a young murder suspect.
It's a no-brainer these days that if you have an English or British Isles surname paired with an Arabic or faux-Arabic first name, the person so named is likely to be black.
Blogger Thomas Stewart says
"...every time in America someone in the news pops up named Robinson, Smith, Clark, Davis, Williams, Johnson or Randolph I automatically assume that the person is black. But these were apparently the names of the wealthiest slave-holding families of WASP descent. Where are their white descendants? They haven�t completely disappeared, as a Jackson or Johnson of clearly North European ancestry isn�t unheard of, but they are a minority among their namesakes.
The most common surname in the NBA is Williams, shared by twelve players. Of them, only one is white and he appears to be a blond tattooed freak who�s known for having drug problems. The league also claims three Wallaces, seven Johnsons, four Joneses, and three Youngs, all of whom are black. Obviously the NBA isn�t a representative sample of the population but from my experience I would bet the results would be around the same if one looked at the country as a whole, with a 7- or 8-1 or higher ratio of per capita old wealthy white names among American blacks compared to whites.''
I've thought the same thing. When was the last time you heard of someone surnamed Washington or Jefferson who was not black? Many other names, like those mentioned in the quote, are also primarily associated with blacks nowadays. I suppose that simply indicates that blacks have been much more prolific at reproducing than the descendants of the original bearers of those surnames.
My family surname is one that nowadays is borne by more blacks than whites, especially where I now reside. When I am in certain Southern states, notably Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and the Carolinas, the ratio tilts more towards the White bearers of the name. Still it's somewhat unfortunate to open up a newspaper or turn on the news and see one's own surname associated with criminal activities. I wonder what my ancestors would think about that?
I know exactly what the liberal type thinks about it: first of all, it's ''racist'' to even notice that black criminals share my surname or my ancestors' surnames, much less, feel discomfort about it. And the liberal would likewise say it's my ''karma,'' because of my ancestors' evil ways. that our name has to be shamed by association with crime -- after all, weren't those old Virginia families (Randolph, Jefferson, Bland, et al) ''criminals'' too by virtue of having held slaves?
Actually though it is not just criminals who share those surnames, but also a few black celebrities and household names have the surnames of some of my ancestors, to such an extent in certain cases that the name is forever associated with those bearers of the family name.
One more factor that the blogger did not mention, but which I've noticed, is that some names which originated in the British Isles are now associated with immigrant Jewish families, by virtue of their having adopted those names when they arrived. This misleads some people into thinking the names are in fact Jewish -- names like Ross, Irving, Robinson, Stone, Lee, and many others.
The cliche has it that immigrants who changed their names were often forced by some heartless immigration official to change their foreign-sounding names to something Anglo-Saxon. I think that story is rather over-used. It appears that many immigrants chose an Anglo-sounding surname so as to better blend in, at least on paper. But rarely do the descendants of those ''forced'' to adopt an English surname ever change it back to the original old-country name. Why not? Ethnic names have become quite trendy now. Why not discard the English or Scottish name and take back the original?
Back during the Civil Rights revolution, militant blacks, usually black Moslems, adopted names that were faux-Arabic or real Arabic names, or adopted names like 'X' because their original African names had been lost, or ''stolen'' from them.
I think that is a move in the right direction; I would not want to retain a name which belongs to an utterly different ancestry or race, especially if I thought the original owners of the name were evil racists who oppressed my ancestors. I am all for the casting off of 'slave names' or imposed English surnames.
A name should tell us something about the ancestry of the person bearing it -- as should a first name, for that matter -- in my opinion. We live in a Babelesque society in which even our names have become confused and muddled, and which obfuscate our origins and our ties of kinship. But maybe that is all part of the overall plan. Names are divisive, aren't they? Just as nationality, race, and religion are divisive, and we can't have that.
I am not a football fan, so I wouldn't know the Osgood in the news story from Adam's housecat, but I did think of this piece which appeared on the Occidental Observer blog a while back.
It's titled The Decline of Old American Names. The writer also had the experience of seeing, in a news story, a similarly unlikely name, an Anglo-Saxon surname with an 'exotic' first name, borne by a young murder suspect.
It's a no-brainer these days that if you have an English or British Isles surname paired with an Arabic or faux-Arabic first name, the person so named is likely to be black.
Blogger Thomas Stewart says
"...every time in America someone in the news pops up named Robinson, Smith, Clark, Davis, Williams, Johnson or Randolph I automatically assume that the person is black. But these were apparently the names of the wealthiest slave-holding families of WASP descent. Where are their white descendants? They haven�t completely disappeared, as a Jackson or Johnson of clearly North European ancestry isn�t unheard of, but they are a minority among their namesakes.
The most common surname in the NBA is Williams, shared by twelve players. Of them, only one is white and he appears to be a blond tattooed freak who�s known for having drug problems. The league also claims three Wallaces, seven Johnsons, four Joneses, and three Youngs, all of whom are black. Obviously the NBA isn�t a representative sample of the population but from my experience I would bet the results would be around the same if one looked at the country as a whole, with a 7- or 8-1 or higher ratio of per capita old wealthy white names among American blacks compared to whites.''
I've thought the same thing. When was the last time you heard of someone surnamed Washington or Jefferson who was not black? Many other names, like those mentioned in the quote, are also primarily associated with blacks nowadays. I suppose that simply indicates that blacks have been much more prolific at reproducing than the descendants of the original bearers of those surnames.
My family surname is one that nowadays is borne by more blacks than whites, especially where I now reside. When I am in certain Southern states, notably Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and the Carolinas, the ratio tilts more towards the White bearers of the name. Still it's somewhat unfortunate to open up a newspaper or turn on the news and see one's own surname associated with criminal activities. I wonder what my ancestors would think about that?
I know exactly what the liberal type thinks about it: first of all, it's ''racist'' to even notice that black criminals share my surname or my ancestors' surnames, much less, feel discomfort about it. And the liberal would likewise say it's my ''karma,'' because of my ancestors' evil ways. that our name has to be shamed by association with crime -- after all, weren't those old Virginia families (Randolph, Jefferson, Bland, et al) ''criminals'' too by virtue of having held slaves?
Actually though it is not just criminals who share those surnames, but also a few black celebrities and household names have the surnames of some of my ancestors, to such an extent in certain cases that the name is forever associated with those bearers of the family name.
One more factor that the blogger did not mention, but which I've noticed, is that some names which originated in the British Isles are now associated with immigrant Jewish families, by virtue of their having adopted those names when they arrived. This misleads some people into thinking the names are in fact Jewish -- names like Ross, Irving, Robinson, Stone, Lee, and many others.
The cliche has it that immigrants who changed their names were often forced by some heartless immigration official to change their foreign-sounding names to something Anglo-Saxon. I think that story is rather over-used. It appears that many immigrants chose an Anglo-sounding surname so as to better blend in, at least on paper. But rarely do the descendants of those ''forced'' to adopt an English surname ever change it back to the original old-country name. Why not? Ethnic names have become quite trendy now. Why not discard the English or Scottish name and take back the original?
Back during the Civil Rights revolution, militant blacks, usually black Moslems, adopted names that were faux-Arabic or real Arabic names, or adopted names like 'X' because their original African names had been lost, or ''stolen'' from them.
I think that is a move in the right direction; I would not want to retain a name which belongs to an utterly different ancestry or race, especially if I thought the original owners of the name were evil racists who oppressed my ancestors. I am all for the casting off of 'slave names' or imposed English surnames.
A name should tell us something about the ancestry of the person bearing it -- as should a first name, for that matter -- in my opinion. We live in a Babelesque society in which even our names have become confused and muddled, and which obfuscate our origins and our ties of kinship. But maybe that is all part of the overall plan. Names are divisive, aren't they? Just as nationality, race, and religion are divisive, and we can't have that.
Labels: Ancestry, Genealogy, Names, Surnames