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 Thursday, October 30, 2014 | admin
Another episode in the 'just one big family' series.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.
Labels: Dna, Genealogy, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism, Nationality, One World, Political Correctness