Affleck wanted slave-owning ancestor censored from PBS program

[ND-Dem]

Emails related to last year's Sony hacking reveal that Ben Affleck asked the PBS program "Finding Your Roots" to remove references to an ancestor who owned slaves from his family tree.

After asking for advice from Sony chief Michael Lynton, host Henry Louis Gates, Jr. complied with the request, a decision he defended, releasing a statement saying "In the case of Mr. Affleck we focused on what we felt were the most interesting aspects of his ancestry."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/trending/tt-AAbgfh6?q=Ben%20Affleck%20slave%20owning%20ancestor&form=PTTWNE&ocid=iehp

[GeorgeGist]

1. Surprisingly fragile ego, Mr. Affleck.

[ND-Dem]

3. Apparently interfered with his preferred narrative...

These guests’ families have long been engaged in the battle for freedom and civil rights, but didn’t know those principles were passed down through generations. Ben Affleck’s mother was a Freedom Rider in 1964...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/roots-freedom-full-episode/11903/


I can't find anything about the mysterious slave owning ancestor but I'm thinking he might have been a fairly large holder...

[CANDO]

70. People need to realize.....

You have four grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great, 32 great-great-great.....etc and so on. Your ancestors DOUBLE with each generation going back in time. The people you inherited your DNA from are legion just a few generations back into history. You must realize you're a needle in a haystack on the DNA generational map.

[Octafish]

2. A professional.

Perception Management is muy importante.

[gordianot]

4. Go back far enough am sure there are cannibals in ancestory.

[malthaussen]

6. Go back far enough, and there are probably at least one of everything in there.

Kings, slaves, murderers, thieves, liars, whatever. One of the reasons I'm not really impressed with people who talk about bloodlines as though they matter.

-- Mal

[hobbit709]

9. Had some bozo at a party once go on about his ancestors.

I shut him up when I stated that I come from a long line of surly peasants.

[malthaussen]

10. Moi aussi!

Hell, two of my ancestors that I know of were executed for being religious fanatics. Surly bastards indeed!

-- Mal

[mwrguy]

5. Sweep it under the rug, Ben

[KamaAina]

85. ROFL!

[Enrique]

7. here's what he and Gates found more interesting

a more comfortable image of American history. I think this is going to be difficult for Gates to defend. If he thinks it's ok to censor this, then why doesn't he agree with conservatives that want to downplay slavery when teaching American History?

[Bjorn Against]

8. I am having a hard time understanding why we need a documentary on Ben Affleck's ancestors

I have no problem with them "censoring" information about a part of a person's personal life that they have no control over, we don't need to know every last detail about the ancestry of celebrities.

[ND-Dem]

14. I don't mind if celebrities don't want to go on shows like this; but if they do & pretend

to open up their family tree while censoring anything scandalous, it's just myth-making.

Afflect chose to publicize his freedom rider ancestor and disappear his slave-owner ancestor = bullshit.

[Bjorn Against]

18. If he does not identify with that part of his ancestry then who cares?

When you speak about your family do you share all their flaws with people you never met? Ben Affleck never even met the family members in question, they died long before he was born and he has no obligation to go on national television and talk about them.

[ND-Dem]

20. that *is* part of his ancestry, very close ancestry, whether he "identifies" or not.

and his is not an ancestry of unbroken support for civil rights as he wants to paint it.

[Bjorn Against]

21. Most American families don't have unbroken support for civil rights

If you are a white person in America then you almost certainly have racist ancestors, our country has a long history of racism and you won't find many families that have unbroken support for civil rights going back generations.

I hope your family tree is filled with saints because if it is not then you should probably stop throwing stones at other people because of their ancestors.

[whathehell]

28. He's the one who clearly feels some sort of guilt about his ancestors, which is dumb

since obviously no one is responsible for them.

[whathehell]

27. He agreed to be part of the show. At least one other famous guest had a slave owning ancestor

They didn't censor it, and please, who "relates" to all of their ancestors?..That wasn't the issue;

The issue, I suspect, is that he was ashamed..He sounds like a prima Donna.

[Bjorn Against]

32. He did not agree to a show on his slave owning ancestors

If he chooses to focus on the part of the family he admires rather than the part of the family he is ashamed of that is fine with me. Sharing one part of your family history in no way obligates a person to share the entire story. A person can talk about their daughter's success in school without being obligated to talk about their son's drinking problem. People have the right to decide what they want to share about their family, speaking about the good things one family member did does not mean they have to speak about the warts of another.

[whathehell]

41. In for a pound, in for a penny..

You sound like an adoring "fan" of Ben's, by the way.

[Bjorn Against]

56. I am not a fan of his

I respect him, but I would not call myself a fan.

The idea of in for a penny in for a pound is ridiculous when it comes to a person's family. People should be able to talk about the family members they are proud of without having to adress the wrong doing of distant ancestors.

[whathehell]

75. You might want to actually WATCH the show in question "Finding your roots"

as your comments make it clear you have not.

To say that "The idea of 'in for a penny, in for a pound' is 'ridiculous' when

it comes to a person's family", is in itself ridiculous when the show

show in question is all ABOUT family and distant ancestors. What is not only

silly, but self-important is demanding that you, unlike every other guest, get

to cherry pick only those family members you are "proud of".

What makes it worse, of course, is that the "censored" information -- and your attempts

to hide it -- eventually come out and make the person look even worse -- silly and

deceptive -- than he would have if he'd done what all the other guests did and refrained

from hiding it.

Your claim of guests being in the position of "having to address the wrong doing of distant ancestors",

is just one more clue you've never watched the show -- As mentioned before, Afleck

isn't the only guest who had a slave owner ancestor, and neither he, nor anyone

else is made to "address the actions of wrong doers". Only someone with an out-sized ego

would try, even by omission, to make his entire family tree look squeaky clean.

As Steve Kornacki, host of MSNBC's "UP' said today of the incident, "I think Ben's taking

himself a little too seriously". I agree and would add that I think you are as well.

[Bjorn Against]

76. I think you are taking this celebrity news way too seriously

Contrary to your suggestion, I never have made any attempts to hide anything about Ben Affleck in fact I find that claim pretty ridiculous. I just personally think this is just about the stupidist outrage I have seen in a while. Ben Affleck's ancestors have no effect on our lives but people are complaining about censorship because not every detail of a celebrity's ancestry was covered.

There is real news that actually effects our lives that is being censored but instead of worrying about that Americans are upset that they don't get all the dirt on a famous actor's family. It is pathetic.

[whathehell]

78. Project much?

Or are you just in need of remedial reading?

I ask because, if you'd actually read my post, you'd know I NEVER said that YOU "made any attempts

to hide anything about Ben Affleck", and yes, I think it's "pretty ridiculous" too, since I never

even "suggested" anything of the kind -- Please Re-read the post!...The accusation is that Ben himself

is trying to hide things about his life, not you.

You are the one who appears, "outraged" and yes, I think that is pathetic.

[Bjorn Against]

79. I did read your post, maybe you should re-read what you wrote

Here are your exact words...

What makes it worse, of course, is that the "censored" information -- and your attempts to hide it -- eventually come out and make the person look even worse

When you are talking to me and you use the word "your" then it sure reads like you are telling me that I am trying to hide things about Ben Affleck. If that is not what you meant then maybe it is not me that needs remedial reading, maybe it is you that needs remedial writing.

[whathehell]

80. But how would you have intimate information about Afleck?..It's called a "typo"

My bad.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

11. My father's family was Murder Inc.

I don't have to answer for that. I was born in California in the 70's. There might be an issue here with the spirit of the endeavour, but I sure wouldn't fault anyone for not wanting to set themselves up to be smeared.

[ND-Dem]

15. a smear is a lie. afflect had slave owning ancestors = not a lie.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. The smear is that that fact represents some sort of genetic character flaw

Benedict Cumberbatch was "called to account" for this. His privileged upbringing being directly linked to slave ownership in the process.

Nobody is going to call me to account because members of my father's family, all long since deceased were hitmen forty years before I was born.

[ND-Dem]

31. please show me where the cumberbatch family's slave-owning ancestry is labeled as a

"genetic character flaw," please.

link to that post.

that one's ancestors accumulated capital in now-dubious ways, and that that capital was often passed down the generations has nothing to do with "genetic character flaws".

it has to do with the inheritance of money & privilege.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. That's my phrase

There is no such thing as original sin, whatever you wish to dub this "legacy" it comes with no responsibility for disclosure or atonement.

[ND-Dem]

36. You claimed I said it or implied it & thus "smeared" Cumberbatch.

"The smear is that that fact represents some sort of genetic character flaw. Benedict Cumberbatch was "called to account" for this."

And now that you've implied I called on Cumberbatch to "atone," please link to that post as well.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

43. I said nothing of the sort, I don't think you ever mentioned Cumberbatch

I just raised him, a man born in 1976, as another example of this ridiculous mentality.

[ND-Dem]

47. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6528959

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

62. Unless you hold yourself as the final court of all ancestral sins that doesn't refer to you

If Affleck doesn't want the same public telling of family secrets that Cumberbatch has received, I won't fault him for that. I wouldn't want one either for reasons I have explained.

[ND-Dem]

64. Let's all pretend money is birthed from puppies and rainbows

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

67. As opposed to pretending Gen X'ers are deriving any direct benefit from slavery?

I'm sure you could find some homeless people who's ancestors we're slave owners. Where did their privilege get lost?

[ND-Dem]

68. I probably *could* find some homeless person whose ancestors we're (sic) slave owners.

as to where their privilege got lost: maybe they were the masters' slaves, and also coincidentally his children, and never had any privilege in the first place.

maybe the family was ruined in the civil war, since in addition to losing the war, most slave owners were in debt to eastern banks up to their eyeballs (the real slave wealth was made in the north, or in England -- but still made on sweated slave labor).

Lehman Brothers...recently admitted their part in the business of slavery...JPMorgan Chase recently admitted their company’s links to slavery... New York Life Insurance Company... also took part in slavery...N M Rothschild & Sons Bank in London was linked to slavery...Norfolk Southern also has a history in the slave trade....USA Today has found that their own parent company, E.W. Scripps and Gannett, has had links to the slave trade....Wachovia Corporation (now owned by Wells Fargo) has apologized for its ties to slavery...FleetBoston evolved from an earlier financial institution, Providence Bank, founded by John Brown who was a slave trader and owned ships used to transport enslaved Africans....CSX used slave labor to construct portions of some U.S. rail lines...The New York merchant bank of James and William Brown, currently known as Brown Bros. Harriman, owned hundreds of enslaved Africans and financed the cotton economy by lending millions to southern planters, merchants and cotton brokers...Brooks Brothers...got their start selling slave clothing...

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/08/26/17-major-companies-never-knew-benefited-slavery/

but some slave owners did just fine, and passed on wealth down the generations to the present time. For example, Teddy Roosevelt's family.



"Bulloch Hall w TR ". Licensed under PD-US via Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bulloch_Hall_w_TR_.jpg#/media/File:Bulloch_Hall_w_TR_.jpg

and it's pretty easy to trace teddy's family's privilege down to the present day.

and some of it was built on slavery -- not just once, but several times over.

[cwydro]

39. So the Kennedys

who made money off smuggling booze are bad folks too?

[ND-Dem]

45. Please point out where I say the kennedys are "bad folks". I don't know anything about

kennedys "smuggling booze".

If indeed the family made part of their fortune "smuggling booze" that's a simple fact: their fortune was partly built on that illegal activity.

Do you deny that? Do you have a problem with it being mentioned?

Are we supposed to ignore history?

Should we not mention where money comes from?

In the early days of the American Civil War Morgan financed a scheme, known as the "Hall Carbine Affair", that purchased 5,000 dangerously defective Hall's Carbines being liquidated by the U.S. Government at a cost of $3.50 each. The rifles were later resold to the government as new carbines lacking the safety flaw at a cost of $22. The audacity of the scheme included not only the $92,426 loss by the government and the selling of weapons known to maim their operators to an army in need of firearms, but the guns were also sold prior to ownership, thus the guns were paid for with money from their sale back to the government. Some authors have suggested that Morgan was somehow unaware that the guns were being resold, however scholarly opinion regards this as "implausible".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan

[cwydro]

49. I'm sorry that you don't know

about the bootlegging activities of Joseph Kennedy.

I have no problem with it, or with the many who made millions smuggling drugs into the country.

I just get annoyed by those who cherry pick history.

Americans usually can't think back past 200 years.

History is much longer than that.

[ND-Dem]

52. I'm sorry you think describing where the money came from = "cherry picking".

[cwydro]

54. Perhaps we're misunderstanding

one another.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to have a non bootlegged drink.

[whathehell]

77. I'm sorry too, but about something else..

I'm usually a fan of your posts, Cwydro, but today not so much.

You claim that "Americans usually can't think back past 200 years".

I know these kinds of knee-jerk, lazy put downs of Americans usually slide easily on DU,

but I think you should speak for yourself on this. It's possible that you and your family

are bereft of that kind of education, but how about NOT slandering the rest of us?

[LanternWaste]

84. Except for the person who says "Americans usually can't..." who oddly enough, always seems

"Americans usually can't think back past 200 years...."

Except for the person who says "Americans usually can't..." who oddly enough, always seems to pretend to be more clever-- but only by alleging the ignorance of others rather than demonstrating his own intelligence.

[Drahthaardogs]

81. Joe was pretty much a sleazebag.

Nazi sympathizer.

[cwydro]

37. But Louis Gates is all cool

about hiding all this.

Right?

Maybe there is something I'm missing.

But I don't think so.

[ND-Dem]

40. I have no idea what you're talking about. Affleck had slave-owning ancestors = true.

Affleck wanted to keep that fact off TV = true.

PBS went along with that = true.


What is it you take issue with?

[cwydro]

44. Louis Gates had no problem with that?

That was my question.

Just curious.

[ND-Dem]

46. why do you think I know louis gates' secret thoughts? the slave owner never made it

to TV, so somebody acceded to Affleck's wishes.

Maybe the leaked documents say who it was. I haven't read them.

[cwydro]

50. Ah.

Well, ok then.

[woolldog]

12. Gates has lost all credibility with this revelation.

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

What a sell out.

[bluedigger]

13. They can edit their show however they want.

They are using history to tell the story they want to, not making a definitive documentary of the Affleck family history.

[ND-Dem]

16. and the audience is free to understand that it's just a fairy tale without much relation to

reality, so why watch?

like most of PBS's "educational" corporate & plutocrat-sponsored programming these days.

[bluedigger]

17. Well, that's the bottom line, isn't it?

If people watch and find it entertaining, their ratings will be good. Or not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Now this is how you're meant to handle that:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. I'm glad I got to see that before it is hidden

My family will love it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. it'd be a sad day if it did get hidden

It's not a joke against anyone except self-promoting celebs who find their ancestors embarrassing; and brothel-keepers and paedophiles.

Armstrong did "Who Do You Think You Are?" for real a few years later. He's very posh.

http://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/uk/AlexanderArmstrong

[Jesus Malverde]

72. Funny...nt

[Egnever]

25. So?

[Beaverhausen]

30. I agree. What difference does it make?

Anyone who would blame Ben for what his ancestors did is ridiculous.

[ND-Dem]

34. Do you see someone blaming Ben for what his ancestors did? I just see Ben wanting

to hide what his ancestors did.

If it matters so little, why hide?

[Beaverhausen]

38. See post #31

[ND-Dem]

42. Post 31 has nothing to do with Affleck and never mentions Affleck. Try again.

[FSogol]

51. Post #31 doesn't ring a Bell?

[ND-Dem]

53. You two seem to be having your own conversation about something I'm not privy to.

[msanthrope]

86. Oh, it rings a bell, all right....nt

[FSogol]

92. And the bell just got rung. Kudos, admins. n/t

[Mike Nelson]

26. Mr. Affleck, don't be ashamed of your past...

...be ashamed of your present.

[whathehell]

29. LOL..

Gotcha.

[SidDithers]

33. ...

[FSogol]

48. This outrage again? Did you let Benedict Cumberbatch off the hook?

x 10

[tammywammy]

55. They were the one going on and on about Benedict Cumberbatch

New deal_dem and ND_Dem are the same person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026032858

[ND-Dem]

61. With permission from Skinner.

[SidDithers]

73. You were completely open and transparent, right?...nt

Sid

[ND-Dem]

74. not that it's any of your business, but yes, i was. brain damage from recent illness =

I couldn't remember my email password.

thanks for your concern.

[SidDithers]

82. Thank you Skinner...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=320128&sub=trans

Sid

[greatauntoftriplets]

87. I've been expecting that.

[msanthrope]

88. I missed Hannah Bell getting banned, again???? Was there a gravedancing thead? nt

[SidDithers]

90. Not yet...

Sid

[msanthrope]

91. I think any gravedancing thread should link to this memorable thread--where ND-Dem showed

their racist ass....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026195280#post1



It deserved its banning.....

[zappaman]

94. What a fucking train wreck that thread is.

And look at him putting his bullshit right into it.
He'll be back...

[msanthrope]

95. A confederacy of the white tears faction of DU...I count 3 banned trolls....

3 banned racists/homophobes on just one pass through.

[zappaman]

83. Whoops!

Guess his "permission" got revoked.

[tammywammy]

96. It's about time. n/t

[JDPriestly]

57. What I want to know is how many of those who are classified as

African-American just because of their appearance also have slaveholders among their ancestors.

I bet it is a lot of African-Americans.

I think this is fascinating because we think of ourselves as them and us based on the color of our skin, but that is not always the reality. Sometimes some of them is in us, and that is what makes us such a fascinating people when it comes to race. We really are not white/European v. African-American. We are much more mixed than we realize. And that is probably especially true for those who are least willing to admit that they may have a common ancestor with someone they think of as the "other."

[ND-Dem]

58. Very likely. The more relevant question to me is how many inherited from the slave owners.

Probably few of the black descendants did -- though there were some.

[JDPriestly]

59. Very rare.

We were able to verify our relationship to an ancestor that would go back maybe 200 years through DNA testing. But that may be unusual. There was a rather strange strand of DNA or whatever it is. I don't know the language that is appropriate to describe what was found.

Might be worthwhile to try it and find out who is related to whom. Certainly interesting.

[Chathamization]

65. Very true. Especially since being mixed was something that would be kept hidden for generations.

I've stumbled across situations where older relatives seem to be both prejudiced against and mixed with a particular race a couple of times (different race each time, no less). The perception/understanding of race is pretty crazy.

[JDPriestly]

71. And yet so many people have suffered because of our understanding of

race and our attitudes toward race. It's really crazy and the effects of the craziness are inexcusably cruel.

[wheniwasincongress]

60. Streisand effect!

If he had allowed this interesting information onto the program, only people who watched the show would know. Now EVERYONE knows he's related to slaveholders. Great job Mr. Affleck!

[Beaverhausen]

63. Wrong. We know this because Sony was hacked

And now some idiots think it's important to post all the content that should be private.

[YOHABLO]

66. Why is it so important to know your genealogy in the first place? Who cares?

I know enough that goes back a couple of generations, and for the most part, they were just simple folks doing what they had to do to survive. That's it. If my great great great grandfather held slaves, that's no reflection on me. So what is the big deal? Accept the things you can not change.

[ND-Dem]

69. if that's how you feel, ignore the thread. affleck chose to vaunt his freedom-riding ancestor

and hide his slave-owning ancestor. so he obviously cared.

[Ken Burch]

89. Jesus, Ben...how could you?

Nobody would have held it against you that your ancestor was a slaver.

You should have just owned it and used it as a public explanation for your commitment to progressive social change.

It was a chance to find meaning in something horrible, and you totally blew it, dude.

"Jay" and "Silent Bob" should have a talk with you about this.

[MellowDem]

93. Affleck is a bit of a dunderhead...

After seeing him on Bill Maher calling criticism of Islam racism I don't think he's all that smart. This just shows that he's not all that consistent either. He comes across as an apologist/accommodationist for comfortable positions.