This TV show has been around for several years. Like many of these
types of reality/documentary shows, it started in the UK where it has now run
for 14 seasons, then spread to both the US and Australia where is has run for 8
seasons in each of these countries. While many things are similar in each
version, there are also unique aspects to each. Since I have some major
interest in genealogy, I have watched nearly all the episodes from each version
(thanks to YouTube). I’d like to point out some of these similarities and
differences as well as what I have learned.
Similarities
The overall format of each of the versions is identical – a known
public figure (movie star, TV personality, singer, etc.) gets to explore their
ancestry. They may not know much about their grandparents/great-grandparents,
perhaps there is a “family story” that they’ve been told and they want to know
if it’s true or not, perhaps they want to see where their passion (acting/singing/cooking/etc.)
has come from. They then go on a “journey” of one-to-two weeks, traveling to
different places where they “discover” the answers and learn about their
ancestors – in the process learning much about themselves as well.
Likewise, the overall “formula” for each show is pretty similar. Like
most “reality” shows, once you’ve seen a few of them, it’s obvious that much of
the “discover” is pretty scripted. No matter where they go, the “expert” that
they meet with will have exactly what they need for the next step of the “journey”.
If the documents they need are in a different language, then a translated copy
is already available. Everyone is always at home; there is a parking spot right
at the front door (in fact the parking lot is usually empty); no one they
encounter seems startled by the presence of the TV cameras; if they are in a
library or some such public place, it’s nearly empty; if they ask the librarian
a question or want a particular document, then just the right volume is quickly
located, etc., etc.
All the research has been done long before their “journey” starts – in fact
what appear to be their initial questions are exactly the ones that they are
able to get answers to. There are no “accidents” – everything goes exactly as
planned and they are back home with their answers by the end of the rather
short “journey” and can pass information on to their families.
As anyone who has done real genealogical investigation knows, the above
scenario is far from the truth. Finding the information you are looking for is
a tedious process. There are lots of dead ends or mis-starts before one can
pull everything together. “Reality TV” is actually far from reality. But it
makes for good entertainment and may encourage people to investigate their own
ancestry, so that’s okay.
Differences
Although each of the versions follow the same general format, there are
some distinct differences between the types of research that the participants
get involved in – and ones that are most affected by the history of each
country.
Australia (AU)
Ignoring the native inhabitants (aboriginals), Australian history does not
begin until the arrival of a few ships from England in the late 1700s. For the
next 80 years, the country was used as a penal colony, with “transportation”
being the punishment for many crimes instead of a death sentence. Over 160,000
individuals were sent to Australia during that time period. Thus, the ancestral
research done for each of the people on the AU version is mostly confined to
the last 200 years, i.e. the person’s grandparents/great-grandparents. Travel
is also pretty much only to places in Australia. If an ancestor came from
another place, say Scotland, then there is no investigation beyond the ancestor
coming to Australia except to find out what type of offense they committed that
required “transportation”.
Thus, there are really only a few different reasons that end up being
the reason for the star’s ancestors having come to the country –
transportation, ships of women who were gathered to add females to the country,
those who came seeking gold in the 1850s, or those who were “recruited” by
misleading advertisements to leave the UK to get a new start in a new land and
be able to become property owners. There are, of course, a few exceptions to
this general rule, including a few individuals who had aboriginal origins, and
a few individuals who came from other locations in SE Asia. But each show tends
to investigate just two specific ancestors (usually one on the person’s father’s
side and one on their mother’s side), and these individuals are from just a few
generations ago.
United States (US)
The history of the US, again excluding indigenous people, goes back nearly
twice as far as Australia – with English settlers coming in the early 1600s.
Thus, the genealogical investigation in the US version of the show tends to be
much deeper. Also, there is often a bias toward finding individuals who played
a part in significant events in US history – such as the Revolutionary War or
the Civil war. Finally, investigation often goes to other countries, looking at
things like Polish ancestors during periods of Jewish oppression such as, but
not limited to, WWII.
For those with African-American roots, their investigation is often
focused on finding ancestors who were slaves, with more than one show also
discovering ancestors who might have been slave owners as well. Finally, there
is a bias toward finding connections to known figures in US history, such as
ancestors who accompanied Daniel Boone in KY, or owning a plantation where
George Washington spent the night.
The US version is only 42 minutes (the other two versions are about 58
minutes) because of the number of commercials in US television. But in order to
keep US viewers interested, there is a short trailer right before each
commercial break that gives you an emotional hint of what’s coming next and a
short rehash after each commercial break that reminds you where the actor was
and what he/she was doing immediately before the break (in case the viewer
forgot). Removing those, the US version is less than 40 minutes, or a full 20
minutes shorter than the UK/AU versions.
For a detailed example, see my learnings below.
United Kingdom (UK)
Because the UK has been around for as long as it has, there is not as
much reliance on this limitation as in the AU or US versions. However, the
British Empire not only has a long history, but it extended to many other parts
of the world. At various times it controlled large swaths of North America (US
and Canada), many of the islands in the Caribbean, portions of Africa
stretching from the Mediterranean to South Africa, all of South Asia (India,
Pakistan, etc.), as well as portions of China. Even within the confines of the
British Isles, there have been various conflicts between England, Wales,
Scotland, and Ireland. This gives the UK version a lot of different events in
their history to incorporate in the ancestry of the various participants. Also,
the UK involvement in various wars such as WWI, WWII, etc. can be a part of
this rich tapestry.
My ancestors, although many of them are of English heritage, have been
in America since the 1630s. Thus, I have not had any reason to investigate many
of the above events in English history. So it’s been interesting to learn about
the impact of many of these things through this program. It also means that the
UK version has a certain “richness” that neither the US nor the AU version has.
What I’ve Learned
US Example
One show I watched recently was for Valerie Bertinelli, an actress. Her
questions were (1) about her paternal grandmother who came from Italy, (2)
whether the English ancestors on her mother’s side had a family crest, and (3)
if she was related to anyone important. After interviewing her parents, she
went to the following locations:
1. Online
at ancestry.com where she found that her Italian grandparents had been in
Lackawanna County, PA.
2. To
Scranton, PA, where her Italian grandparents came from. The “expert” here had a
few newspaper clippings (via newspapers.com) and where she learned that her
ancestors were from Torino, Italy
3. To
Torino, Italy, where she learned a little more about her Italian ancestors and
got to meet a distant previously unknown cousin.
4. To
London where the first expert showed her ancestral line on her mother’s side
back to an individual who came to America in the late 1600s (about 10
generations ago).
5. To
another location in London where she met a Quaker expert who showed her a few
more generations including a connection to William Penn, and then a few more
generations back to a “gentleman” in the upper class.
6. To
another location in London where she found her family crest and then a connection
back to King Edward II.
Note that in the process all her initial questions were directly answered.
But the amount of “coincidence” was altogether too obvious:
1. Ancestry.com
is a sponsor of the show.
2. Newspapers.com
is a subsidiary of ancestry.com. This research could have been done at Valerie’s
home in LA, she didn’t need to go to Scranton at all. Also, the “expert” just
happened to know that when searching the ship’s manifest for her grandmother
that she would be traveling under her maiden name, not the name of her first
husband who had died recently.
3. This
was actually one of the better locations for Valerie to visit.
4. The
expert in London was actually from the US and was presenting results that were
entirely based on US census records. Again, this could have been done back in
LA before she left.
5. This
expert again was from the US and had merely traveled here to present his
results in an “interesting” location.
6. While
finding a connection to a historical, royal figure is interesting, as a Fox
News article from 2006 notes, "experts say the odds are virtually 100
percent that every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or
another” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/05/genealogist-almost-everyone-on-earth-descended-from-royalty.html).
While viewers of the show were probably interested, I’ve gotten to know
all these “tricks” and have less interest in the US version that the UK/AU
versions.
UK Learnings
Like most people in the US in my generation, I not only had a course in
US history in high school, but it was an essential part of our curriculum in
elementary school. However, there was not much emphasis on the history of the
United Kingdom, i.e. the British Empire. Thus, while enjoying the genealogical
research in this show, I also took the opportunity to think about all the history
that was being recounted.
In particular, I have a fairly negative impression of how the British
Empire treated other around the world. There was a definite “caste” system where
those from the UK took all the top positions and relegated anyone else to a subservient
position. This was true in such different environments such as (1) the
treatment of slaves in places like Trinidad and Jamaica, (2) ousting all the
Irish farmers off of the land in Ireland so that only the Brits, often as
absentee landlords, were allowed to own land and the natives either were relegated
to the role of tenant farmer (with heavy duties paid to the land owners), or
were forced into the coastal cities where they had to become fisherman, or (3)
ruling over the natives in India. It is no wonder that the rest of the world had
such a negative view of colonialism (and not just the English, but the French,
Dutch, and others as well. While the US has definitely not been a perfect
society – with our treatment of Native Americans or African Slaves being quite
shameful – we have not had the same history of conquering other countries
around the world and economically exploiting the natives of those countries.
In many ways, the negative attitudes that many have toward the Germans
and how they conquered other European countries (Poland, etc.) and tried to
eliminate anyone of non-Aryan heritage, the British were not a whole lot better
in their attitudes toward Jews (initially killing them or forcing them to leave
for a period of several hundred years) or toward the Irish as mentioned above.
There are always new things for us to learn, and this has been an
eye-opening experience for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment