First Transracial Senator?

[sculptor]

while reading/watching Žižek jokes and lectures:
He had one about "Native Americans" vs Indians
wherein an Indian said that he found "native anerican" insulting and preferred "indian" because, then, his name would be a monument to white man's stupidity-----------
("oops, wrong continent")

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Who is seriously asking? Are you saying the overwhelming certainty of Trump’s identity as a human being is comparable to Warren’s more questionable identity as an American Indian? The issue of Trumps status as a billionaire is more comparable to Warren’s identity as Indian.

i like your idea about forced medical procedures with publicly published Results for all government employees and elected officials.
what a great idea !
whos publicly backing that currently ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

while reading/watching Žižek jokes and lectures:
He had one about "Native Americans" vs Indians
wherein an Indian said that he found "native anerican" insulting and preferred "indian" because, then, his name would be a monument to white man's stupidity-----------
("oops, wrong continent")

it has crossed my mind many times,
surely the native "peoples" have not named themselves native americans ?
its the white genocidal maniac calling kunta kinte, Toby from a spectators position.
i thought they all had names already.

 

[billvon]

Recording first hand experiences? As in kept a record of what various family members said about their ancestry?

Yes, as a result of interviewing them, asking them about family pictures, keepsakes etc. That's where all our family history has come from. For example, going back four generations I'm half Irish, a quarter Austrian, 3/16 Italian and 1/16 French. That's backed up by a few pictures, stories, old letters and things like newspaper clippings. I am happy with that.

If you demand genetic proof, and want me to post it, you can go pound sand.

Michelle Obama was called an ape in heels, and she has the DNA evidence to the contrary. Should she take the offending woman seriously and sue for libel?

Nope. And if your position is "well, she might be an ape; if she isn't she would get herself genetically tested and post the result" then you're as much a racist as the person who called her that to begin with.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

but as potentially in Warren’s case, her intended reality being shown to be fantasy.

do you not find yourself bluring the line to buying into personality/ego-politics ?
the whole reality-TV "your fired" Ego pyramid of power public attention seeking hysteria ... ?

while i would see it as being fraudulent to lay claim to take credit for something you have, had and intend to not credit ...
were she only fostered and not born would be equal to any other mixed white race claiming persona non grata by lack of ability to defend to a media expose' level of click value ?

 

[iceaura]

wherein an Indian said that he found "native anerican" insulting and preferred "indian"

The Reds I worked with in Minnesota took offense at "native American", also "native" by itself, and "indigenous" was suspect. They used the tribal membership when they knew it - and they always knew it for members of local tribes, famous people on TV, etc - and usually the Reservation name as a more specific tribal designation, since they all knew which tribes lived on which reservations.

If they didn't know the tribe they used "indian" (doesn't sound capitalized when spoken) for an individual. When talking about the race in general (all Indians between the Rio Grande and the tundra zone) they used "Red", which is where I picked that up first.

So you would have an Anashinaabe*-American, or a Lakota-American, if the construction were parallel with Irish-American.

*Ojibwa too specific to parallel Irish.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The Reds I worked with in Minnesota took offense at "native American", also "native" by itself, and "indigenous" was suspect. They used the tribal membership when they knew it - and they always knew it for members of local tribes, famous people on TV, etc - and usually the Reservation name as a more specific tribal designation, since they all knew which tribes lived on which reservations.

If they didn't know the tribe they used "indian" (doesn't sound capitalized when spoken) for an individual. When talking about the race in general (all Indians between the Rio Grande and the tundra zone) they used "Red", which is where I picked that up first.

So you would have an Anashinabe-American, or a Lakota-American, if the construction were parallel with Irish-American.

all USA ninth graders should know(basic compulsory schooling) how many majour indian tribes there are(and name most of them like naming most of the usa states and knowing how many there are).
it should be common knowledge
however, ... one doubts the veracity of the claims made to secure culture as equally as facism

 

[Tiassa]

all USA ninth graders should know(basic compulsory schooling) how many majour indian tribes there are(and name most of them like naming most of the usa states and knowing how many there are).

A couple points on this:

• No, doesn't happen. Five hundred sixty-two recognized tribes, and then there are the unrecognized. Hell, we all love the Animaniacs songs about the states and capitals, or the presidents, but eff-all if we ever get around to learning them. Most Americans can't do the states and capitals or the presidents. It'll be another generation before we expect students to know all the nations of the world. The tribes? Org charts describing lineage and associations between the tribes are really, really complicated; the Tulalip people, for instance, include seven tribes, most of which will not survive on their own. Not far south, a handful of people called Nisqually will carry on, but the Nisqually tribe itself will likely disappear, as there are less than seven hundred of them left. By the time Americans get around to learning all the tribes' names, maybe it will be easier for consolidation into a half-dozen or so groups. The slow genocide never stops.

• There is a particular complication that arises when traditionalist sentiment bristles at ... ah ... well, you say "common knowledge", but some more traditionalistic Americans would say you're making a big deal out of tribes and suggest you're a racist who hates white people, or something. There is only so much attention American society is allowed to give the indigenous before the people who make a lot of noise about how whites are the victims of history start doing their thing. It's similar to the English-only crowd who demand immigrants assimilate but also specifically reject the most effective ways of doing so. More broadly, there comes a threshold at which empowerment majorities need decrepit or stunted minorities in a self-justifying sentimental trap. When I was in my twenties, there was an outburst about "revisionism", and even then the whole rubber-glue thing was clear, that this literally was white supremacists bawling about the "revisionism" of including Columbus' own writings in telling the tale of Christopher Columbus, and it really was because they were tired of people rejecting Holocaust revisionism, and wanted to accuse other people of revisionism. A little over twenty years later and we couldn't possibly imagine such juvenilistic barbarism. Or ... well, yeah. Something.​

 

[RainbowSingularity]

A couple points on this:

• No, doesn't happen. Five hundred sixty-two recognized tribes, and then there are the unrecognized. Hell, we all love the Animaniacs songs about the states and capitals, or the presidents, but eff-all if we ever get around to learning them. Most Americans can't do the states and capitals or the presidents. It'll be another generation before we expect students to know all the nations of the world. The tribes? Org charts describing lineage and associations between the tribes are really, really complicated; the Tulalip people, for instance, include seven tribes, most of which will not survive on their own. Not far south, a handful of people called Nisqually will carry on, but the Nisqually tribe itself will likely disappear, as there are less than seven hundred of them left. By the time American gets around to learning all the tribes' names, maybe it will be easier for consolidation into a half-dozen or so groups. The slow genocide never stops.

• There is a particular complication that arises when traditionalist sentiment bristles at ... ah ... well, you say "common knowledge", but some more traditionalistic Americans would say you're making a big deal out of tribes and suggest you're a racist who hates white people, or something. There is only so much attention American society is allowed to give the indigenous before the people who make a lot of noise about how whites are the victims of history start doing their thing. It's similar to the English-only crowd who demand immigrants assimilate but also specifically reject the most effective ways of doing so. More broadly, there comes a threshold at which empowerment majorities need decrepit or stunted minorities in a self-justifying sentimental trap. When I was in my twenties, there was an outburst about "revisionism", and even then the whole rubber-glue thing was clear, that this literally was white supremacists bawling about the "revisionism" of including Columbus' own writings in telling the tale of Christopher Columbus, and it really was because they were tired of people rejecting Holocaust revisionism, and wanted to accuse other people of revisionism. A little over twenty years later and we couldn't possibly imagine such juvenilistic barbarism. Or ... well, yeah. Something.​

i think the age of the narcissist has taken hold in the leadership domain.
The insular inward looking narrow straight focussed perspective is being touted as a normative liniar model of achievement.
almost ADHD revivalist 1800's dogma intellectualism
"you just have to believe & stop asking questions" seems to be somewhat more prominent.
The spiritual chasim left between the materialist narcississt & the idealist new age spiritualist pyramid self development type is quite a thing.
The upper middle management luxury self development escape customers are pulling up the ladders behind themselves a little faster.

 

[Capracus]

And you still haven't explained why she needs to do a DNA test to prove her ancestry...

Put another way..

Why don't you believe that she has Cherokee ancestry to the point where you and your ilk demand a DNA test? And why is it important that she proves just her Cherokee ancestry, exactly? Why is no one demanding DNA evidence of her European ancestry?

Did you demand the same thing of Bill Clinton who claimed his grandmother was 1/4 Cherokee?

How about Johnny Depp?

My great grandmother was quite a bit of Native American, she grew up Cherokee or maybe Creek Indian. Makes sense in terms of coming from Kentucky, which is rife with Cherokee and Creek.
Who uses his family stories to get roles as a Native American.

Do you doubt Winston Churchill's claim that he was part Native American from his American mother's side?

I mean, the list could go on and on..

I’m not demanding that anyone research their ancestry or take advantage of any technology to assist them to that end, but I do argue ultimately it’s in their best interest to do so if practicably possible.

I don’t necessarily doubt the assertions of any above mentioned personalities in regards to their ancestry, but I do understand the human capacity for error and think it prudent to minimize that potential when possible with improved analysis. They do themselves a favor by increasing their understanding, and they do the rest of society a favor by sharing it.

She recounted a story passed down through her family. That's it.

For some bizarre reason, people chose to disbelieve her and blew it completely out of proportion for the sake of politics. Put simply, you all seem more concerned about her ancestry than she is. Why is that?

I’m not concerned about her ancestry other than from the standpoint of a better understanding of history in general through an examination of hers. I want her account of her ancestry to be as complete as that of any other historical examination, but I understand that’s not usually practical at an individual level.

More to the point, she doesn't actually owe you or anyone any explanation about her ancestry. You do get that, right? The only thing that matters is that she is a citizen for the purpose of the being a Senator. That's it. Her 'racial' history has no bearing on her job or role in politics and it is certainly not anyone's business.

Is it better for members of an ideal society to share or withhold personal information? In the field of genealogy for example, the more people who contribute their data into the process, the greater the confidence is in the resulting accuracy for all. Same goes for any field of social study. So an argument can be made that voluntary sharing of such information be considered an act of responsible citizenship, and who better than a US Senator to demonstrate such an example of citizenship.

So why don't you demand one now from their offspring? You know, since we are now delving into the realm of expecting people to have DNA tests with a form of re-implementation of the 1 drop rule.

I would recommend that the entire population research their ancestry to the best of their ability, strictly for the sake of its contribution to social and historical understanding.

You seem more invested into her family tree than she is.

Why is that?

Yes, isn’t it strange that a person like Warren who espouses a reverence for her heritage would seem to have less of an interest in the documentation of that heritage than a complete stranger. Why is that?

Is that what I said? No. It is not. Why are you twisting what I said to be something else entirely?

And you whine about reading comprehension....

That’s exactly what you and your other defenders of ignorance are implying. That if she gets tested she’s doing so to placate her ideological opponents. She needs to get beyond that and do it for the betterment of herself and her society.

It was actually her political opponent who focused on her ancestry and she was forced to respond by stating that this was what was handed down in her family by way of stories and left it there. But people such as yourself seem to be focused entirely on her "racial" ancestry. Why? Is it because you want to know if she's 100% European or something?

To me her ancestry matters only as a piece of a a historical puzzle. Her reluctance to be more rational about the issue is what puzzles me.

You compared having a DNA test to determine if one has Native American ancestry with HIV and public interest for health reasons and you are asking me what is wrong with me?

And I haven't said anything about people who are HIV positive. Why are you suggesting that I did?

DNA tests and HIV tests are two examples of clinical tests to determine biological characteristics in an individual. Understand so far? In each case an individual would take these tests to confirm a suspicion of said characteristics, because the test is a more reliable predictor of the characteristics than the initial supposition. That you feel a need focus on the label of the specific test rather than the goal of the test, suggest a lack of proper focus on your part. And that you would imply an association of terms used in the example as offensive, suggests a negativity you personally associate with the terms. Is it American Indians, HIV carriers, or both that offend you?

If people want to do DNA tests to check for their ancestry, great! They, like Warren, are under no obligation to do so. They chose to do so because they are possibly unsure or want to learn more. Warren is obviously happy with what she knows of her family. You are the one wringing your hands over her ancestry. Not her.

Should people be under any obligation to be educated in an ideal society? Why would you encourage people to perpetuate ignorance of their own history, and that of their greater society?Ignorance is Bliss?

 

[Capracus]

So what's Trump's problem? Why the reluctance? C'mon - let's see a chorus of demands for his DNA analysis to be revealed in public. From you.

If you seriously question Trump’s status as a human being, you should probably have yourself tested first.

Nobody's "seriously" asking about any of this stupid shit. It's not a serious matter.
Serious would be tax returns.

The demands directed at Trump are more "significant" than those directed at Warren, because the question bears directly on his qualifications for office. The fact that the entire matter is slapstick idiocy good for nothing but comedy routines on late night TV is apparently no barrier for you guys, and the rest of the world has to deal with you guys, so

People seriously ask about their genetic identity in relation to each other all the time, why do suppose there are occupations and fields of study devoted to the practice? Why someone like yourself goes out of their way to minimize this fact amazes me.

We noticed.
And that identifies you as a frog in the swamp of fools who keep electing people like Trump. In this case, the specifically scientific area of ignorance featured is your incomprehension of the role of DNA testing - how it works, what you can learn thereby, etc. Your knowledge is - as you put it - "limited". Your obsessions are highlighted. You actually believe that Warren can determine the tribal identity of her fifth generation biological grandparent in this fashion, and should tell you about her findings when she has done so.

Warren can learn more about her ancestry by doing more investigation of it, including DNA testing, than she presently knows. Advising her not to do so exemplifies the perpetuation of ignorance that guarantees elections of the likes of Trump.

Warren's ignorance is not the issue. Yours is. It's you and your imbecile racist buddies who want to be informed about Warren's DNA, which is none of your business.

So Warren’s knowledge of her ancestry must suffer, other who could benefit from that knowledge in their own genealogical searches must suffer, and students of history in general must suffer, just to spite your imbecile racist buddies.

You mean "Yes". Exactly as I described. Like this:

They don't regard it as an obligation to release stuff because racist imbeciles badger them over it for political advantage. They control what they release, and when, and why, for their own reasons.

How do you know they don’t regard it as a personal obligation? They obviously recognize the value to themselves and others in this material being made publicly available. It’s like donating blood, the more people who donate, the more people it helps. As far as any perceived political advantage, unless Warren is just pulling this stuff out of her ass, which doesn’t appear to be the case, then she has a lot more to gain than to loose by a more thorough investigation.

Warren's personal interest in her own ancestry has nothing to do with the imbecile, racist obsessions of the wingnut Republican core.

Then you advocate she should do further research on her ancestry to benefit herself, even if others will try to use it against her.

Hold that thought.
Realize what, exactly, is the "element of concern" on "the other side" - the reason the entire rest of the population is worried about you guys.
When it has sunk in, repent of this wickedness.

My side is concerned with acquiring genealogical information for the benefit of individuals and society. Your side is concerned with discouraging such pursuits. Best go search your own soul.

 

[spidergoat]

Advising her not to do so exemplifies the perpetuation of ignorance that guarantees elections of the likes of Trump.

This is all about undermining her credibility in order to elect more Trumkins.

 

[Tiassa]

Advising her not to do so exemplifies the perpetuation of ignorance that guarantees elections of the likes of Trump.

This kind of societal condemnation is pretty striking. We should probably take a moment to consider the implications of the argument that failing to pander to racists "guarantees elections of the likes of Trump".

When I was young, the rebel or punk might condemn American racism, and the answer was to scold that one cannot characterize "America" as racist just because of a few bad seeds, and this retort would range into denouncing hatred of "America".

That is to say, once upon a time it was considered wrong to even merely be perceived as implying racism was an American societal characteristic. Now we encounter an implication that a majority of Americans will back white supremacism, and it really does stand out that we should encounter this notion as a defense and promotion of racist tropes.

There is also a larger pattern within American conservatism in general, and it probably does have to do with traditionalism, but the Republican loathing of law enforcement evident in recent months is nothing new; conservatives have been antagonizing law enforcement for years, which is why it is so important to them that the opposition be depicted as hating police. We regard the military similarly.

That is to say, the rest of society is obliged to bear the neurotic failures of empowerment majorities.

And, meanwhile, once upon a time the conservative argument ran, approximately, how dare anyone suggest ours is a racist society; now the conservative argument tells us to pander to racism because we are apparently a racist society.

And that is actually slightly tailored: "Now", can be argued problematic because, let's face it, conservatives have been at this for a while. It is worth noting how American conservative arguments tend to demonize American society; but it does seem more superficially apparent in recent years, and now especially in the time of Trump and the most blatant White House endorsement of white supremacism in my lifetime.

 

[billvon]

I’m not demanding that anyone research their ancestry or take advantage of any technology to assist them to that end, but I do argue ultimately it’s in their best interest to do so if practicably possible.

So it's in Michelle Obama's best interest to get tested to prove she is human, because racists question it?

Yes, isn’t it strange that a person like Warren who espouses a reverence for her heritage would seem to have less of an interest in the documentation of that heritage than a complete stranger. Why is that?

You may be confusing "documenting her heritage" and "posting private genetic information."

She needs to get beyond that and do it for the betterment of herself and her society.

OK.

In that case, put your money where your mouth is. Get a genetic test done, and post all the results here. (If you really care about the betterment of yourself and society, that is.)

Should people be under any obligation to be educated in an ideal society? Why would you encourage people to perpetuate ignorance of their own history, and that of their greater society?Ignorance is Bliss?

You now have an opportunity to answer that question. Will you perpetuate ignorance of your own history and medical status, and that of their greater society? Do you believe ignorance is Bliss? Or will you get yourself tested and post all the results here? 23 and Me has a quite affordable "Health and Ancestry Service" you can avail yourself of (if you do not support ignorance, that is.)

 

[iceaura]

If you seriously question Trump’s status as a human being, you should probably have yourself tested first.

Of course I take none of this seriously. Do I sound like a Trump voter?

People seriously ask about their genetic identity in relation to each other all the time,

That doesn't make the racist imbeciles dogging Warren serious people. They're dangerous and ugly, but they aren't serious at all.

Warren can learn more about her ancestry by doing more investigation of it, including DNA testing, than she presently knows.

She could do a lot of stuff that's none of your business. Maybe she has.

Advising her not to do so exemplifies the perpetuation of ignorance that guarantees elections of the likes of Trump.

So nobody should do that. I certainly did not.

How do you know they don’t regard it as a personal obligation?

That's not what I said. Read the entire sentence.

It’s like donating blood, the more people who donate, the more people it helps

Are you guys planning to badger people about when, why, and how often, they donate blood or fail to do so? Demand that they post their blood type and donation records?

Then you advocate she should do further research on her ancestry to benefit herself, even if others will try to use it against her.

I don't give her any advice at all in the matter. It's none of my business, and she is far better capable of allocating her time and efforts than I am.

My side is concerned with acquiring genealogical information for the benefit of individuals and society

Your side is concerned with harming Warren.
If you were interested in geneological information for benefit you would join Warren in supporting the research funding that the Republicans are cutting, the educational initiatives she favors, the policies she espouses that abet such endeavors. You would praise her efforts and vote for her and send her money.

 

[Capracus]

So it's in Michelle Obama's best interest to get tested to prove she is human, because racists question it?

Michelle Obama has already determined it’s in her best interest to get tested, she has no need to be concerned with racists and promoters of ignorance.

You may be confusing "documenting her heritage" and "posting private genetic information."

The information she chooses to release can be as specific as she’s comfortable with, but it would still need to be documented by a reputable authority.

In that case, put your money where your mouth is. Get a genetic test done, and post all the results here. (If you really care about the betterment of yourself and society, that is.)

I do plan on getting tested, and when I get the results I will post them.

You now have an opportunity to answer that question. Will you perpetuate ignorance of your own history and medical status, and that of their greater society? Do you believe ignorance is Bliss? Or will you get yourself tested and post all the results here? 23 and Me has a quite affordable "Health and Ancestry Service" you can avail yourself of (if you do not support ignorance, that is.)

I’m all for it. How about yourself?

That doesn't make the racist imbeciles dogging Warren serious people. They're dangerous and ugly, but they aren't serious at all.

I’ve read some of their comments on the issue and they seem genuinely confident that Warren is not being truthful about her claims. Take this liberal for example.

She could do a lot of stuff that's none of your business. Maybe she has.

Why share anything about her personal life? Why share her family stories. Isn’t that what most public personalities do, in particular politicians, share personal details so they are more relatable to their public?

Are you guys planning to badger people about when, why, and how often, they donate blood or fail to do so? Demand that they post their blood type and donation records?

No need for private citizens to badger people about donating blood, the blood banks already have a corner on that market.

I don't give her any advice at all in the matter. It's none of my business, and she is far better capable of allocating her time and efforts than I am.

You don’t think its appropriate to ask a politician to advocate for reasonable causes? Like donating blood, giving to charity, and continuing one’s education?

Your side is concerned with harming Warren.
If you were interested in geneological information for benefit you would join Warren in supporting the research funding that the Republicans are cutting, the educational initiatives she favors, the policies she espouses that abet such endeavors. You would praise her efforts and vote for her and send her money.

I believe I already stated my support for Warren’s positions.

Politically Warren isn’t my opposition. But if she continues to prefer willful ignorance regarding her ancestry, over a solution to provide a clearer understanding of her heritage, then I would have wonder if this same reasoning would be applied to other issues as well.

If she ever aspires to run for president, she needs to demonstrate a more rational approach to this issue to inspire followers and silence critics.

I don’t dislike Warren, and I admire her political positions, but I don’t agree or respect her course on this ancestry issue. While not a registered Democrat, I’ve voted Democrat my entire life with the exception of a hand full of local Green votes. So her being a Democrat is a plus in my book.

Warren is not my senator, so unless she runs for president I can’t vote for her. If she pledges to professionally research her ancestry and get a DNA test I will send her $100.

 

[billvon]

Michelle Obama has already determined it’s in her best interest to get tested, she has no need to be concerned with racists and promoters of ignorance.

According to you, she should be both very concerned with racists and bigots - and should post the results of her genetic testing proving she has no ape DNA. She hasn't done so. Why aren't you attacking her?

(That's a rhetorical question, of course. If she was running you would be attacking her along with Warren.)

The information she chooses to release can be as specific as she’s comfortable with, but it would still need to be documented by a reputable authority.

Nope. It doesn't need to be anything at all. Just as Michelle Obama should pay no attention to racists, Warren should pay no attention to bigots.

I’m all for it. How about yourself?

I have gotten tested, yes. It was interesting.

I’ve read some of their comments on the issue and they seem genuinely confident that Warren is not being truthful about her claims. Take this liberal for example.

That's great; they can believe whatever they choose.

 

[iceaura]

Michelle Obama has already determined it’s in her best interest to get tested, she has no need to be concerned with racists and promoters of ignorance.

For her own reasons, and in her own interests.
And there isn't a human being on this planet more concerned with racists and their ignorance.

The information she chooses to release can be as specific as she’s comfortable with, but it would still need to be documented by a reputable authority.

No, it would not. It doesn't "need" any documentation whatsoever.

I’ve read some of their comments on the issue and they seem genuinely confident that Warren is not being truthful about her claims

That doesn't make them serious. One doesn't become serious by taking oneself seriously, when acting as a racist imbecile.

Why share anything about her personal life? Why share her family stories. Isn’t that what most public personalities do, in particular politicians, share personal details so they are more relatable to their public?

It seems that her DNA profile has never been part of Warren's personal life.

You don’t think its appropriate to ask a politician to advocate for reasonable causes?

Sure. And against unreasonable ones.

No need for private citizens to badger people about donating blood, the blood banks already have a corner on that market

And so do the DNA testing outfits, in DNA testing - with rather more media presence, one notices.
So there's no need, as you so rightly notice, to badger anyone about it.

I believe I already stated my support for Warren’s positions.

You have also made very clear your support for wingnut racist garbage and Republican vandalism of Warren's career.

Look at the Fox question that titles this thread, and the OP, for shiny examples.

 

[Xelor]

There's no way in hell Warren is the first transracial U.S. Senator. Ed Brooke comes to mind, and I'm sure he wasn't the first transracial U.S. Senator. Hell, Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate before Warren.

 

[Xelor]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Won’t Take DNA Test to Prove Her American Indian Heritage
https://nativenewsonline.net/curren...ake-dna-test-prover-american-indian-heritage/

I wonder why the reluctance.

Well, I guess that means she won't appear as a guest on Finding Your Roots. LOL


Off-topic:

That program is incredibly interesting...not so much for the specific genealogical details pertaining to the guests, but rather for the details of history it shares as part of the telling of the guests' ancestors' stories.

That said, the ancestral stories are at times quite surprising. The farthest back that my family has been able to trace our ancestry is to a "random" colonist who arrived in the 1600s, and I thought that was a monumental accomplishment (one a relative, not I, performed). One Finding Your Roots' guest turned out to be a direct descendant of Charlemagne, another of Abraham of the Bible, and another turned out to be the 40-something'th great grandchild of a Chinese emperor from "sometime or other B.C!" It's quite amazing, at least in my mind, that Dr. Gates' research team was able to walk back person-by-person to individuals that far back in history.​