Inconvenient Facts
As genealogists, we strive to gather any and all information we can that might have a bearing on the research question at hand. Sometimes that information includes conflicting data that must then be resolved. And sometimes that information includes evidence that, frankly, we’d rather not see or be aware of. While it may be tempting to overlook and omit that evidence, genealogists (at our best) do not do that. We analyze it as objectively as we can and incorporate it into the larger picture that is developing in front of us.
I was put in mind of this core competency when I came across a fact I wasn’t really prepared to discover. Earlier this month, NGS posted “A Message for Change from NGS” on its Facebook page. In comments to that post, one commenter included an image of a newspaper article from 1960.
Genealogical Group Gets Racial Issue
by Rasa Gustaitus, Staff Reporter
Is a Negro to join the searchers for the Nation’s family trees? The National Genealogical Society is in a tizzy.
Last March, a staff member of the National Archives who has helped many genealogists locate ancestors in musty old census and pension records, applied for membership in the Society. He is a Negro.
Only NGS members have access to full articles of NGS Monthly. Please log in or click here to learn more about joining the National Genealogical Society.If you have trouble logging on or accessing the articles, please contact [email protected]
About Author
Aaron Goodwin
Aaron is a genealogist and house historian specializing in New York City research across all time periods, from the Dutch colonial era to the 20th century. His book, New York City Municipal Archives: An Authorized Guide for Family Historians, won the National Genealogical Society’s 2017 Award for Excellence: Genealogical Methods and Sources. He is also editor of NGS Monthly, former contributing editor of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, and former editor of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine. In 2011, he received the American Society of Genealogists’ Scholar Award.
I’m sure other people will say this better than I can, but this stance in 1960 by supposedly intelligent, well-educated members of the NGS appalls me. I was raised in the 60s and my lily-white, middle class family did not believe in segregation even back then. To try to brush this off as “it was a different time” is nonsense. What a sorry bunch of individuals and shame on them.
Fabulous article, Aaron. This is all not-very-welcome news to me, and I served on the NGS board! Thank you for bringing this to light.
Claire Bettag
Agreed, Claire. In my board service, I never heard of any of this history. Perhaps the current crew could get an orientation on these matters to keep them at the forefront, headed onward.
I also was hoping for a different outcome, so I looked up your Alabama newspaper item on Newspapers.com. It looks like there should be a jump at the bottom of the column, but there isn’t one. Apparently the predicate of the last sentence was simply cut off. The abbreviation in the dateline (ANP) appears in other datelines on the same page, and suggests that the stories all came from the same wire service.
I also tried searching for other stories related to the same event in Newspapers.com and Findmypast.com (the latter largely replicates Newspaperarchive.com), hoping to see the same wire service item reprinted elsewhere. I found nothing helpful, which might mean that the sites are just not fully indexed. The only related item I could find was this anonymous but strongly opinionated item that might have come from a letter to the editor, rather than a journalist.
“Members of the National Genealogical Society, who concern themselves with research into family trees, took a step back toward their pre-Neanderthal ancestors when they voted against admitting Negroes to the society. In a nation-wide poll of members a majority of the 57 per cent who voted felt that they should keep their ancestor worship pristinely white. It is to be hoped that among the 43 per cent who did not vote there are some persons whose familiar investigations have led them to a recognition of their kinship with the family of man. —Washington Post.” (“Let Us Hope Some Recognize Kinship,” _The Vancouver Sun_, Vancouver, B. C., 20 Dec. 1960, p. 5, cols. 7-8, Newspapers.com)
The _Post_ was, of course, also the original source for the article posted to Facebook by Nicka Smith. It was already plain from that story’s placement in the local section of the newspaper—page B7, not A1—that it was originally a story of mere local concern from the editorial standpoint of the _Post_. In 1960, it still was very much possible to look upon NGS as a local, D.C.-based group with parochial concerns, rather than a national association with broad nationwide membership and a professional headquarters staff, and the _Post_ seems to have covered the story exactly in keeping with that perception. (Remember that the applicant in question was also the employee of a locally based institution.) Unfortunately, I have no immediate access to the ProQuest database that she used, and it may be necessary to refer back there to find other related stories.
I’m am absolutely dumbfounded!! I have been a member of NGS for years and I had no idea that we were a discriminating organization! —especially against our black brothers and sisters!! Our family tree must be some site with all those broken off branches!! Anybody whose family were among the early settlers in this country is very likely to have a colorful family tree. One doesn’t choose his ancestors and I can’t believe what NGS was ever thinking!! or NOT thinking!
Thank you very much for bringing this history to light and, by extension, affirming NGS’s current position on racial equality. I have only been involved in researching my family history for 2 years, but in that time I have found several instructive instances of race relations. Some have made me exceptionally proud, and others I wish weren’t associated with my family story. Regardless, it is incumbent on each of us to look at our history unflinchingly, and then to look at our present to see if there are any lessons that should be applied. My limited personal experience with the genealogical community has been overwhelmingly positive — an inclusive group of individuals that looks for opportunities to help others, and whose attitudes and assistance have encouraged and helped me immensely. I have also encountered a very small number who seem preoccupied with using genealogy to underscore their supposed superiority and to exclude others. It is my fervent hope that this community will shine a spotlight on any residual exclusive and prejudiced attitudes in order to make our community and this society a completely open and welcoming one.
Mr. Lipsey, I’d like to point out a small clarification to give credit where it’s due. Nicka Smith brought this history to light. Aaron Goodwin then shared it to the wider NGS audience.
As genealogists, professional or not (I am not), we all discover things about our own families we wish were not true. For example, some of my ancestors owned slaves. I am sure I have distant cousins out there who are identified as black, because that is what happened in a slave culture. I am always relieved when I learn via DNA testing that a DNA cousin shares my paper tree, because than I can be reasonably sure that we are both on the same track. But if, as has happened, the person whose DNA shows a relationship to me does not know his/her ancestry because those that are known were slaves, then I am glad I can at least point to that part of my own ancestry from which the relationship may stem, and help them find resources to search. Back in the 50s and 60s I was quite aware that some of the elders in my family felt very differently from my parents and me, not only about race issues, but about many things. No, their having grown up differently is not an excuse, but it is an explanation. I don’t fault them, but I hope that I can perhaps see the world, and my place in it, a bit more clearly, and hope that my children will have an even clearer view. Rather than castigating those members in 1960, we can make sure we are doing whatever we can to educate ourselves and become better people, as well as better genealogists.
While reading this timely article, I kept thinking of my pure New England-New York yankee descendant grandmother from high social class Toledo, Ohio (b. 1874), responding to my asking in about 1955 whether she ever belonged to the DAR, said proudly that she refused to join because of their refusing to allow Marian Anderson to sing in their “Constitution Hall” in 1939. She had been the one who spurred my interest (obsession) in our family history.
I am guessing that it was Jimmy Walker who applied for membership. Interesting that he was later named a Fellow of NGS. Would he be the only African-American FNGS?
Would love to have that presumption corroborated, if anyone can.
Hi, Dave. I mention in the article that the applicant is probably Walker. I’m not sure if he’s the only FNGS. The Society’s list of Fellows (https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/awards/fngs/) doesn’t include that level of detail. He does, however, appear to be the only African American in the NGS Hall of Fame (https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/hall-of-fame-members/).
Thanks for providing even more information about this. It might be possible to find out if the applicant was James Walker by reaching out to his wife and daughter. Perhaps they’d know. I’m also thinking it should be as simple as having the current NGS officials look into their archives. I’m sure the name would be mentioned in the organization’s minutes. My guess is that, at minimum, they (or we, since I’m a new member) likely have a record of all applicants and the outcomes of the requests; they might even still have the original application(s)!
As I understand it, NGS officials are looking forward to going through their archives to uncover more details after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted and the archives are once again accessible.
I was born in Detroit, MI and have vague recollection of the 1967 and 1969 “race riots,” which defined the City and its population to this day. Thus, I am not surprised that a 1960 vote resulted in 38% of the membership defining who could/could not belong and excluding those they saw as beneath them. 19% of others voted to do the right thing, but could not stand alone. Where were the votes of the missing 43%? The more things change the more they stay the same?? While pondering the thought, how about looking forward to what today’s membership could volunteer to do to help those who descend from the enslaved by establishing a program to match a volunteer to a descendant looking for that bigger sense of identity we all enjoy?
Great article. I am very happy to see NGS starting to talk about these issues. We all need to take steps to make sure we are an inclusive organization, and that we as genealogists are ready to serve any aspect of our communities, as well as helping members of various sub groups in our communities to reach their own genealogical goals.
Thank you, Aaron, for airing these inconvenient facts. We need to know this history, painful as it is. Wow–“nothing in common genealogically.” With all we know today, it’s an absurd statement, but even in 1960, it’s an astounding statement for genealogists to make.
Really appreciate you AARON!!!
Thank you, Nicka Smith, for bringing this to light, and thank you, Aaron, for shining more light on it. It is time for NGS leadership, and all of us as members, to understand the past we inherited in this organization and make amends going forward. What initiatives is NGS proposing to make us a better organization inclusive of all voices? For one, it’s time to bring on more diverse leadership.
My husband was appalled when I applied to DAR because of the fact that Marian Anderson was not allowed to sing in Constitution Hall in 1939. He lightened up a bit when I explained that things had changed in the 70 plus intervening years. We do have people of color our local chapter,
I wasn’t aware of this fact, but based upon what I know, this fact doesn’t surprise me. It was just a manifestation of the discrimination occurring all over America during the timeframe referenced and which to extend still happens today (clubs, golf courses, community groups, etc). Discrimination today is more latent in nature and it exist in genealogical groups in one form or fashion — whether it be based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, ancestor country of origin, etc. I often have pondered whether the term “society” itself isn’t a throwback and shouldn’t be considered by genealogical groups. It’s such an old fashioned term and suggests — in my mind — something different than I think what groups of genealogical researchers mostly stand for today. I have noted the genealogical group in Oregon calls itself the Genealogical Forum of Oregon. That brand name feels like a more modern way to identify a genealogical group.