DNA helps tell story of first lady's forebears

[MnExpat]

Research into Michelle Obama's roots reveals white relatives across the South who had no inkling of their connection to her.

REX, GA. - Joan Tribble held tightly to her cane as she ventured into the overgrown cemetery where her people were buried. There lay the pioneers who once populated north Georgia's frontier, where white men planted corn and cotton, fought for the Confederacy and owned slaves.

The settlers interred here were mostly forgotten over the decades as their progeny scattered across the South, embracing unassuming lives. But one line of her family took another path, heading north on a winding journey that ultimately led to the White House.

The white men and women buried here are the forebears of Tribble, a retired bookkeeper who delights in her two grandchildren and her Sunday church mornings. They are also ancestors of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Many of them, like Tribble, 69, are still grappling with their wrenching connection to the White House. "You really don't like to face this kind of thing," said Tribble, whose ancestors owned the first lady's great-great-great-grandmother.

Some of Tribble's relatives have declined to discuss the matter beyond the closed doors of their homes, fearful that they might be vilified as racists or forced to publicly atone for their forebears.

Tribble has decided to openly accept her history and her new extended family.

http://m.startribune.com/nation/?id=159317435&c=y

[Demeter]

1. Well, that was mighty white of her

I swan. It's another country, not just another state of mind.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. ...

you funny!

[XemaSab]

3. What an interesting article!

A few years ago I read "Slaves in the Family" about a white man who sought out his black relatives.

Hopefully someday the racial history of this country can be fully discussed without shame and with an eager view towards learning more about what unites us all.

[MADem]

14. The Balls of Charleston SC and elsewhere. Fascinating read. nt

[FarCenter]

4. On average, American blacks have about 20% European DNA

[Zalatix]

6. Mostly because of slave owners raping black women.

[XemaSab]

8. Did you read the whole article?

The black woman may have had additional children by the white man after the war.

[Zalatix]

9. Yes, I did. It's called Stockholm Syndrome.

[XemaSab]

10. That's why a white man would choose to stay with his black "girlfriend" after the war?

Motives between men and women and black people and white people back in the day are sometimes more subtle than we give them credit for. Unless you think it's out of the question that a white slaveowner could genuinely grow to care for his slave and the mother of his children?

[Zalatix]

11. Absolutely out of the question.

[XemaSab]

12. And this isn't racist why....?

'Cause I'm hearing that A) all white men who fathered children with black women are rapists and B) no black woman before the Civil War had the looks, intelligence, or character to make a white man fall in love with her.

(Note well that I am in no way denying that there was a lot of coercive sex and rape happening, just that it wasn't always that simple. These people lived with each other and had interactions with each other that we know nothing about.)

[Zalatix]

13. Because if blacks owned white slaves I wouldn't say any differently.

Especially not during the period (or shortly thereafter) when slavery was happening.

[danadevin85]

16. Really?

It didn't matter how intelligent a black woman was before the civil war or how good looking she was still a slave.
And if that slave master was really in love he would have given that woman her freedom and let her choose to sleep with him.
It's really sick and twisted how people today Romantisize slavery.
When you own someone and that person doesn't have a right to refuse you thats not falling in love.
And if you were a slave on a plantation And so-called master fell in love with you because they owned you would you really say "These people lived with each other and had interactions with each other that we know nothing about"
Of course not you would be horrified and thats what slavery was it was horror.

[Number23]

67. ???

B) no black woman before the Civil War had the looks, intelligence, or character to make a white man fall in love with her.

Where did you come up with that? Your entire post is bizarre.

[danadevin85]

18. That's why a white man would choose to stay with his black "girlfriend" after the war?

Yes lots of rapists feel they Genuinely love and care for their victims
it's not care or love when the other person can't say no
where else was this woman supposed to go?
Black girlfriend surely you can't be that dense

[obamanut2012]

23. White women had the same legal rights as black women at that time

None. Even during slavery, a white woman was just a notch above a black woman held in slavery, and that isn't hyperbole.

[danadevin85]

26. not really

And that notch meant they weren't slaves

[obamanut2012]

27. Yes, really

They couldn't even own property in most states. The only difference, before slavery ended, was that they couldn't be bought or sold. They could suffer every other degradation a black female slave did. After the war, legally there was no difference. All women were legally chattel before and after slavery.

[danadevin85]

30. still weren't slaves

But white women still were treated better
they still werent slaves

[NYC Liberal]

71. "only difference, before slavery ended, was that they couldn't be bought or sold"

That's a pretty big fucking difference.

[Number23]

73. No shit.

Boggles the mind, don't it? I swear, there aren't enough in the world for some of the stuff that I read here...

[Number23]

68. Wow.

a white woman was just a notch above a black woman held in slavery, and that isn't hyperbole.

You are as wrong as can be on that. If it's not hyperbole, it is symptomatic of a profound ignorance.

Were white women and their children taken from them and sold? The child of a white woman could become a Senator, even a president. White women were allowed to read, as were their children regardless of gender. And here's the kicker -- white women HELD SLAVES, many of whom were women themselves. Do you still wish to cling to the belief that "white women were just a notch above a black woman" during slavery?

[NYC Liberal]

72. The only difference apparently was that white women couldn't be bought or sold.

You know, just a MINOR difference.

[HiPointDem]

70. i think it's hyperbole.

[treestar]

31. Possibly in some cases

There might have been some real affection. Then in others there was definite exploitation. And always some question of it where the social relationship is slave/owner of slave. And a black man and a white women didn't have that option if they had true affection.

[lynne]

47. The 1870 Census is full of surprises -

- after the war with slavery gone, I found that my g-g-grandfather had left my g-g-grandmother and their children. The 1870 census showed Grandma and children living with her mother and no mention of my Grandfather. He didn't own any property but was a blacksmith and had slaves working in his blacksmith shop prior to the war. He fought for the Confederacy until he was wounded, his whereabouts after being wounded are difficult to trace.

I started looking in neighboring counties and found him in 1870. He was living a rather secluded lifestyle, in a spot that was mostly mountains. And he was living with the same people that had been his slaves prior to the war. The 1870 census indicated they were working for him.

Not sure what the relationship was between them. Friends? Co-workers? Had he fallen in love with one of the females and wanted to be with her? Whatever it was, it was enough to make him leave his wife and family. They certainly didn't have to be living together but it was obvious that they had all moved to another location and were living as a family-type unit.

The aftermath of the Civil War is not as easily explained or understood as one would think.

[waddirum]

63. very cool story

nt

[eShirl]

21. and/or doing what you have to do to survive

[MADem]

15. The white daddy was born in 1860. He would have been terribly precocious to have

raped any slaves before emancipation, certainly!

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. No, Dolphus, the son of the slave, was born around 1860

One of their common ancestors was Henry Wells Shields, Tribble's great-great-grandfather. He was a farmer and a family man who grew cotton, Indian corn and sweet potatoes. He owned Obama's maternal great-great-great-grandmother, Melvinia Shields, who was about 8 years old when she arrived on his farm sometime around 1852.

The DNA tests and research indicate that one of his sons, Charles Marion Shields, was the father of Melvinia's son Dolphus, who was born around 1860. Dolphus T. Shields was the first lady's maternal great-great-grandfather. Melvinia was a teenager, perhaps around 15, when she gave birth to her biracial son. Charles was about 20.

[MADem]

40. Well, let that be a lesson to ME then!!!!

No trying to read and comprehend anything right before retiring for the night!! I very much misread that entirely!

I saw the "grandfather" bit and missed a "great!" Thanks for setting me straight.

[Odin2005]

7. And most white Southerners have some African DNA.

According to geneticist Brian Sykes in his new book DNA USA, most White Southerners would not pass the "one drop" rule.

[MADem]

41. That mendacious Bob Barr comes to mind!

I know plenty of folks who said he only passed because he was bold about it! And more than one have called him Jeremiah Wright's brother by another mother!

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2008/07/bob-barr-negro/4945/

The first time I saw Bob Barr, during his Bill Clinton-pursuing heyday, I thought to myself, "I didn't know there were was another black Republican in the House besides J.C. Watts." I have of course since been corrected, but I have to say, there really is some Anatole Broyard/Nella Larsen/Jessie Fauset business going on with this cat.

[Odin2005]

54. Oh, that's funny!

[MADem]

65. He's got kin who are ashamed to say he's a relative!

Can't say as I blame them...

I guess every familial unit has to acknowledge that they probably have a white...or white-ish...sheep in the family!

[SoCalDem]

60. I've always loved this pic of Barr

(photoshopped of course, but funny as hell)

[waddirum]

64. A great novel about "passing"

is Philip Roth's "The Human Stain". It's also a movie with Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman.

[4th law of robotics]

61. Technically wouldn't all people have African DNA?

Not that many generations removed.

[XemaSab]

5. Oh, and welcome to DU!

[Quantess]

17. WHY ON EARTH would it be difficult to accept?

Why would this be something that is hard to face?

To that I say-- If you are not going to like the answers you find in a genealogical search, don't go looking for them!

[treestar]

32. I wondered that too - why would they fear being called racists?

Unless they knew that what they thought about it, if expressed, would lead to that label. It would make more sense fearing being the target of racists.

[Quantess]

37. One's genealogical origins are interesting, but we can't take them personally.

It is not really anything to be especially proud of nor ashamed of. And also, when you figure that things were different way back when, and people have been subjected to influences of the times, all one can really say is that it is interesting to find out history.

Resting on the achievements of ancestors is kind of lazy, and being forever ashamed of the misdeeds of ancestors is unnecessary guilt. IMHO.

[treestar]

38. True. And the farther back, the relationship is really quite slight

One is more closely related to one's current second cousins than to one's great great great great grandparent. Still many find it interesting to put a name to a face as to who their ancestors are. Makes them feel more connected to that period of history, I suppose.

[Quantess]

46. Absolutely, I think it is interesting to find out family history.

But you need to take a step back, and not take it too personally. A couple of my ancestors back in the middle ages did a lot of seafaring raping and pillaging, I'm sure... Just as likely, most of them grew turnips and sat around a campfire talking about mundane things, and trying to survive.

I have a friend who acknowledges that her last name is common among black americans, due to the fact that some of her ancestors were slave owners. She can't do anything to change the fact. It doesn't make me judge her badly for it. She can't help it. Who she is as a person, in her own lifetime, is much more important than what her ancestors did.

[treestar]

48. Yes, I don't think these people have anything to be proud of or ashamed of

I have an ancestor who came illegally in steerage on a boat - my genealogy obsessed relative who is a conservative first thought that was a brave and scrappy thing to do - until I told him his right wing opinion that illegal aliens' children should not be citizens would mean he shouldn't be one if that were true - then he shut up about it!

[Nikia]

57. I do take it personally but maybe a little differently than you think

There were people who did things that were rather awful that were acceptable and common in their time. Some of them were my ancestors. I find it interesting and uplifting when one of my later ancestors broke with their parents or grandparents ways. It shows that we can do better than our ancestors misdeeds and in fact have that responsibility. When I see ancestors, especially more recent ones that were accomplished, it gives me greater confidence that I can be accomplished too because I am part of them.
For the white descendents of the First Lady's ancestor, they should ask themselves if their family has moved past racism and sexual exploitation. If they have moved past that, they don't need to feel like racists. If they haven't moved past that, now is the opportunity. It can start with them.

[Quantess]

58. You see it not much differently, or not at all differently, than how I see it.

The actions have to be taken in context to the historical period.

But, you don't "see ancestors" in person. You see elderly relatives. Please don't call them that to their faces.

Other than that, I agree with you completely.

[MADem]

43. Some people think that personal characteristics are inexorably inherited.

If your daddy was a drunk and a thief, you'll be a drunk and a thief. If your granny was spiteful and mean, well, you will be spiteful and mean. And you, in essence, have no say in the matter!

They're afraid they'll be regarded as apologists for slave-owners, and excusers of rape (even though the mores were different then and the age difference between the two was relatively slight).

Of course that's just a theory, but it is plausible...

[Quantess]

49. But nobody is completely innocent, then, if we judge them by their genetic connections.

I bet that every single one of us on earth had some ancestor way back hundreds or thousands of years ago who was the product of rape. Not pretty to think about. Somebody in our lineage murdered somebody else, I'll bet. You may have to go back several hundred years, or a thousand, but you have one. Who knows, it could have been a real sicko serial killer back in the 1400s who never got caught.

It's who we are in this lifetime that matters.

[MADem]

50. That's only if you believe that "sins of the fathers" rap!

There are some folks who carry that weight--I personally find it a waste of time. I don't think people deserve much extra credit, either, for being lucky to have a "good" name. That's about like winning a lottery ticket--pure random good fortune.

Good, bad or indifferent, you are what you make yourself. You certainly can be influenced, for good or ill, by parents and other relatives, but it's all on you at the end of the day. That's how I see it.

[Quantess]

53. I have an older relative whose own father was a total shithead (by her account)

and she went on to marry a super nice man and have 4 responsible children, plus one they adopted (who is also responsible and kind).
I had a grandfather who by all accounts was very harsh and mean, who died fairly young after drinking & driving.

But just because these people share DNA with me doesn't carry all that much weight. This goes back to the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Is it nature or is it nurture? The studies have shown that both are influential, but Nurture tends to win in terms of human development.

[MADem]

69. Yep--I don't see a need to cart around ancestral baggage.

If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, it's because, at some stage of the apple's life, the apple didn't start rolling its own ass down the hill away from the tree!

There comes a point in time when you grow up, look in the mirror, and make a few decisions about how you intend to conduct yourself. It certainly is easier to make those decisions when you've had some good nurturing, but even people coming out of hellholes can decide that they don't want any more of that for themselves or their children.

[Odin2005]

55. A year ago, I had my autosomal DNA tested by the company 23andMe...

And it said that my DNA was entirely European except for a tiny sliver of Sub-Saharan African DNA on Chromosome 11. I suspect that sliver came from a North African enslaved by the Vikings in a raid. Of perhaps it came from the same small bit of African DNA native to Britain as a result of black Roman soldiers we know settled in Britain after they retired (Brian Sykes talks about it because he also has a sliver of African DNA). That sliver then got to Norway via Viking slavers in Britain.

[Quantess]

56. Six degrees of separation, isn't it?

Fairly sure it is 6 degrees of separation.

That is the maximum extent of unrelatedness any one of us are, to any other human being. Black, asian, white, doesn't matter. We are all related to each other, somewhere, way back when.

[danadevin85]

19. I don't think FLOTUS should really gives a damn

I don't think FLOTUS should pay this any attention
Im sure she knows her family were slaves most black people know this about their own families
Why do white people think African Americans wan't to listen to them about how their family owned their family during slavery?

[obamanut2012]

24. I do -- I think she should invite Ms. Tribble to the White House

A descendant of a slave and the descendant of the slave owner, meeting as equals and relatives, the former now First Lady. I think that would be a very powerful moment for this country.

[danadevin85]

25. Oh Please

This woman wouldn't even make a big deal if Michelle Obama wasn't the first lady
So she should get an invite to the White House just because her family were slave masters
Kinda reminds me of the College roommate who didn't want to share a dorm room with FLOTUS because she was black
But her and her mother only felt sorry after Michelle became first lady
And the first lady is doing the right thing by ignoring them

[obamanut2012]

29. True racists wouldn't give a damn if their relative was the First Lady or not

Your post is... interesting.

[danadevin85]

35. Im quite sure they weren't the only family they owned

a person can still be racist and wan't some type of fame or publicity
Would she be giving interviews if the person she was related to wasn't Michele Obama

What about the other enslaved black people her family owned i don't think you will be hearing about them
So the first lady is doing the right thing by ignoring her

[treestar]

33. How do you know that is so?

the lady was tracing her genealogy, and might have been just as interested had her black relatives not included the First Lady. How do you know she is not contacting the others? People tracing their family trees do that. It wouldn't be as prominent in the media if she hadn't found she was related to the First Lady.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I think it was genealogists who were tracing Michelle Obama's ancestors

"The link was established through more than two years of research into Obama's roots, which included DNA tests of white and black relatives. The first lady knew she had white forebears, but she did not know who they were.

Now, for the first time, Obama, 48, can identify white ancestors who have remained hidden for generations in her family tree."

The connection could be made up to Melvinia, mother of Dolphus, through records. But it wasn't recorded who Dolphus's father was; a likely candidate is a member of the family of Melvinia's owner. So they then trace descendants of the owner, through records, until you find one (or more) willing to give a DNA sample for this.

If the tracing were starting from this woman, it would have to go like this: we've got back to an ancestor who owned slaves. I wonder if a male member of the family had any children that weren't recorded? OK, we'll have to find all his female slaves, and then trace their descendants and ask them if they'll give a DNA sample on the chance that one or more had a child by an unknown member of the slave-owning family. It's far more unlikely, involves a lot more guess work, and the chances of people giving DNA samples to strangers for a guess to fill in collateral branches of a family tree is far lower than someone agreeing to do it to work out the First Lady's direct ancestors.

[treestar]

39. DNA tests are expensive, too, I believe

So that average people might not bother. It is neat how it adds to the certainty though. Records from the past are not always so good.

[Nikia]

59. They have gotten much less expensive

For $299, you can find your ancestoral line and know if you have genes that put you at risk for various diseases and conditions. Although it isn't exactly cheap, it is less than non necessities that many people spend money on.
I think that the average person might not bother, but I am not sure that those who know about it and know that it is now more affordable than it was several years ago, are reluctant to do it because they don't think that it is that important to them or because they are nervous about what they might find.

[treestar]

62. I thought they were more like $800

So yeah, a middle class person of the kind who is really into the subject of their family history - I know some of those - probably would pay $299 if it would answer a burning question of family history.

[jwirr]

42. There are a some families who have family reunions based on their interacial histories. One of my

family has been going to these reunions for years. If nothing else it says that different races can make peace over the past - something that is dearly needed if this country is ever going to pull itself together.

[MADem]

44. I would want to know that line if I were her.

Hey, it's your blood, it's your heritage. Why should she have to start her story in 1860? Particularly when there's written information available about her heritage.

I say find it all out! You should watch Who Do You Think You Are? and Skip Gates' shows on PBS some time. You'd be surprised at how many people want to know.

[eShirl]

20. the trouble with Tribbles

[MADem]

45. OK--that wins the thread!!!!!

The family business was farming, apparently???



...and Kirk said "Mmmmmmmm, that's good eatin'!"

[obamanut2012]

22. So interesting! I hope she gets to meet MObama

[YellowRubberDuckie]

28. I'd be excited.

But I never knew it was weird to have people of different races as family members. Until my mom told me we weren't close to "that" side of the family and not to get too close. Seriously?! OK. So it's her oldest sister's daughter. She married a black man and they had a couple of children. I have my cousins on my Facebook page. She has the sweetest kids and I enjoy getting to know what's going on with them. They're a fun family and crack me up. I mentioned that we had gotten together for dinner and she was like, "What? I thought I told you a long time ago we don't get to close to that side of the family." I told her that I was an adult and if she wanted to be a racist idiot that was fine, but they're family and I personally like that I have a family that is this diverse and awesome. I'm proud that they're my family. She went nuts. It was hilarious. This about the time they put up the MLK Jr Statue in DC and I quoted a few things he said to her. She seethed. She hated that man and everything he stood for. She's the most racist person, and of course she denies it. "But I have friends who are Black!" And then my retort, "Well, Hitler had a Jewish grandmother, but that didn't stop him from killing 6 Million Jews." And she hasn't brought it back up again.
God I hate racism.

[kskiska]

51. And then there's Strom Thurmond. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

52. Michelle should tell them that if they vote for Obama, they'll call it even.

[felix_numinous]

66. We're all related

-how can we not be?

[renate]

74. I *love* that!

That sums the facts up so succinctly and perfectly. Somehow the scientifically accurate and intuitively obvious concept of "we are all one family--how could it possibly be otherwise" had never totally clicked for me before... and it's so lovely.



Thanks!