Your dismissive attitude is entirely inappropriate. I think it is commendable to be interested in learning about the parts of your family history that may have been suppressed out of racism or fear or racist retaliation.
There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
I think my great grandmother lived until I was somewhere in my teens. I inherited her TV when she died. I've still forgotten her name. Does it really matter? In the end we'll all be forgotten, and that is fine, because once you're dead you're gone. I wouldn't want my descendants to keep looking back, they should be looking forward.
> There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
In your opinion, what would be the cut-off for "important" family history? How many dead and gone generations should we expect younger generations to remember?
I'm not saying Doreen is lying, I'm just saying that history naturally fades (unless you're Jesus or Hitler or something. Even then truth and myth will blur over time) and there usually isn't anything nefarious about that. Perhaps she's reading too much in it. With every generation you go back your number of new ancestors doubles (up to some point). Some of those people will be boring. Others maybe weren't interested in their family history (such as myself) and will effectively be a dead end.
> There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I think very few would object to people being interested in their family history (although some might find it a frivolous pursuit). It's the word "heritage" that makes me roll my eyes. If something wasn't part of your upbringing, then to me it's not part of your heritage.
> I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
Saving myself a lot of time now at the cost of potentially disappointing a curious member of a future generation seems like a good trade-off. Doubly so when it possibly prevents them from claiming a "heritage".
At something like the 1/16th level, it doesn't mean anything anyway (not even to white supremacists, but much less so as a real heritage). A heritage is the shared experiences, raising, and cultural connection, not about some miniscule bloodline/dna.
Unless we're talking about isolated inter-breeding populations, almost all people several 1/16ths of one or another ethnicity, that they have absolutely no connection with in any way (or ever cared about).