Recently discovered some of my family came on the Mayflower; anyone else?

[Anonymous]

My ancestors arrived here on the Amistad after being kidnapped and enslaved to build this countries infastructure.

[Anonymous]

I think people here don't understand how little relevance an ancestor coming over on the Mayflower has. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

....

This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty—even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist.

...

The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people here don't understand how little relevance an ancestor coming over on the Mayflower has. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

....

This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty—even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist.

...

The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century.

I'm the OP and this is so cool. This was my point in saying that we are all related, and we all come from both good and bad people. Not to deny all the terrible things white European people did at the start of our country...but to try and suggest that to skewer someone for simply mentioning they thought it was interesting an ancestor came on the Mayflower is sort of ridiculous. It's a given we all have plenty of bad people in our history...or people who were products of their bad times etc....

I'm sure that by the standards of today not only were my ancestors on the Mayflower racists (allowing for your occasional more enlightened person...a Thaddeus Stevens type in most groups) but they were misogynists, most likely felt non Christians were damned, etc, etc.... But let me ask you this, and not to in any way excuse the horrible crime of slavery but...were the people of West Africa all enlightened peaceful people? Did they have any stains in their history? Because the suggestion seems to be that a white person descended from someone on the Mayflower should feel ashamed to even be interested in that...but I say we all have people who were shameful in our past. And by saying I'm interested in learning about them I'm not saying I admire everything about them. I know they did very very bad things to black people from Africa and I know that is a legacy we still struggle with in the US. But I love history and I'm still interested in where my family came from. And by the way someone said this wasn't possible, but I am nine generations removed from that time. I am in my 30's but my grandfather (not great, my dad's father) was born in 1887.

[Anonymous]

To whoever was slamming DAR - I think it's kinda cool. I have a bunch of relatives we can trace back to the revolutionary war & before. One of them marched w & guarded general washington. I think that's pretty neat to know.

[Anonymous]

You might think "cool, I am descended from someone who came over on the Mayflower", and that gives you some kind of meaningful connection to them, some shared genetic material, for example. But go back 15 generations and you would have 32,000 ancestors. So in fact you would have close to zero genetic input from anyone alive then.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of genetics - my four most immediate "Mayflower" ancestors were all heavy. Photos of great-great grandfather - the only chubby one in the bunch. All of that extra Thanksgiving weight passed on through the generations, starting with the very first Thanksgiving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people here don't understand how little relevance an ancestor coming over on the Mayflower has. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

....

This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty—even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist.

...

The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century.

I'm the OP and this is so cool. This was my point in saying that we are all related, and we all come from both good and bad people. Not to deny all the terrible things white European people did at the start of our country...but to try and suggest that to skewer someone for simply mentioning they thought it was interesting an ancestor came on the Mayflower is sort of ridiculous. It's a given we all have plenty of bad people in our history...or people who were products of their bad times etc....

I'm sure that by the standards of today not only were my ancestors on the Mayflower racists (allowing for your occasional more enlightened person...a Thaddeus Stevens type in most groups) but they were misogynists, most likely felt non Christians were damned, etc, etc.... But let me ask you this, and not to in any way excuse the horrible crime of slavery but...were the people of West Africa all enlightened peaceful people? Did they have any stains in their history? Because the suggestion seems to be that a white person descended from someone on the Mayflower should feel ashamed to even be interested in that...but I say we all have people who were shameful in our past. And by saying I'm interested in learning about them I'm not saying I admire everything about them. I know they did very very bad things to black people from Africa and I know that is a legacy we still struggle with in the US. But I love history and I'm still interested in where my family came from. And by the way someone said this wasn't possible, but I am nine generations removed from that time. I am in my 30's but my grandfather (not great, my dad's father) was born in 1887.

To go a bit further back, the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all the other groups, including some African lineage. Every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago.

Geneticists found that when you compare the mitochondrial DNA of two humans, th­e samples are much more similar than when the mitochondrial DNA of two other primates ( like apes or chimpanzees) is compared. This means that humans share a much more recent common ancestor than other primates do.

This seems more "cool" to me than the whole Mayflower business. It also seems silly to be either proud or shameful of your distant ancestors. You had nothing to do with anything-good or bad- that they did. I am interested in history, but I think we should just all realize that we are all related. The DAR and these Mayflower groups are really silly of you ask me.

[Anonymous]

That is so interesting op! I would love if I could trace my lineage like you did!! Very cool indeed and congratulations on finding out

[Anonymous]

My family was here before the Mayflower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You might think "cool, I am descended from someone who came over on the Mayflower", and that gives you some kind of meaningful connection to them, some shared genetic material, for example. But go back 15 generations and you would have 32,000 ancestors. So in fact you would have close to zero genetic input from anyone alive then.

So dumb question, but where is my genetic input from then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people here don't understand how little relevance an ancestor coming over on the Mayflower has. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

....

This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty—even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist.

...

The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century.

Ridiculous -- that is like saying the sun is near to the earth compared to the distance from Saturn. meaningless. We all descended from Adam and Eve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family was here before the Mayflower.

+1. Mine too. So the "illegal aliens" blah blah is quite funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My have friend from New Mexico. She is Hispano (not Hispanic). Her family arrived in what is now the United States with the Spanish Conquistadors. That was is 1607. I bet there are Americans who came even earlier with the founding of St. Augustine, FL. And how do we count San Juan, PR? The Spanish settlements in the United States are older than the English.

Exactamente!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might think "cool, I am descended from someone who came over on the Mayflower", and that gives you some kind of meaningful connection to them, some shared genetic material, for example. But go back 15 generations and you would have 32,000 ancestors. So in fact you would have close to zero genetic input from anyone alive then.

So dumb question, but where is my genetic input from then?

Completely diluted among the genetic input from those other 32,000 ancestors. A bit more real than homeopathy...but not that much. The exception would have been if those Mayflower travelers and their descendants had decided to marry and procreate exclusively between themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ridiculous -- that is like saying the sun is near to the earth compared to the distance from Saturn. meaningless. We all descended from Adam and Eve.

Let me guess - you are not very bright, are you?