Ancestry’s Changes Affect Those with Enslaved Ancestors: A Guest Post
In response to Ancestry’s announcement of DNA changes – including the removal of our matches who share less than 8 cM – Roberta Estes wrote a post titled “Plea to Ancestry – Rethink Match Purge Due to Deleterious Effect on African American Genealogists.”
Elizabeth Shown Mills shared this post on Facebook stating that “Culling Ancestry’s gargantuan DNA database certainly will increase its efficiency—but the cost is one our field cannot afford.” She went on to say, “The stance that ‘small’ segments are too ancient and too problematic is a short-sighted stance in a field that is rapidly developing new methodology, new strategies, and new tools.”
In response, my friend and colleague, Franklin Smith, who is an African American, shared a heartfelt response about how the changes Ancestry is enacting will negatively affect those researching their enslaved ancestors. I asked him if he would write a guest post on my blog, and he graciously agreed.
Researching Enslaved Ancestors
My name is Franklin Carter Smith. I’m African American and have been researching my African American ancestry for nearly forty years. I specialize in slavery-era research and am the co-author with Emily Croom of A Genealogists Guide to Discovering Your African American Ancestors.
My mission from the day I identified my first enslaved ancestor was to tell the stories of their lives while enslaved. The first thirty years were spent trying to break through slavery’s 1865 brick wall. Persistence and diligence led to the identity of most of my ancestors’ enslavers, an accomplishment of which I’m very proud. They were no longer invisible. However, like other descendants of the Deep South Mississippi enslaved people, my oldest post-Civil War ancestors were born in the upper south, from Virginia to Georgia, and sold or moved south. The chance of tracking them back to their upper south origins was extremely unlikely if sold south as I believe mine were. After exhausting all the available paper resources I needed a new approach.
Using DNA
Reluctantly, I turned to DNA. I don’t have a strong science background and was admittedly intimidated. Surprisingly, it was a turning point. I saw the potential of DNA in expanding my slavery era research. After getting up to pace on a basic understanding of genetic genealogy, I immediately recognized that African Americans face a genetic brick wall in addition to their genealogical brick wall. I joined the right DNA Facebook groups hoping I could get guidance but quickly learned few understood nor was there much discussion of my unique challenges.
When I tested, Ancestry was the company of choice because most African Americans were testing there and more testers had test-connected trees. I reviewed my closer matches and realized many of my 4th cousins and closer descended from my known post-Civil War ancestors. The farther down the list I moved, it became apparent they were not matching any of my known DNA cousins. This is where slavery’s genetic brick wall began for me. Few, if any, surnames and locations in their trees matched my known ancestors. Most were from the Upper South or other states where I had no known family. Identifying the connections between those matches was my only recourse, I hoped, that might lead to a connection to my family. Rarely did that happen.
DNA Third-Party Tools
I hoped Ancestry would step up and introduce new DNA tools that would help me dig deeper into my DNA matches. Unfortunately, they did not. Instead, third parties stepped up and filled the gap by creating some amazing tools. I was extremely excited when Dana Leeds introduced her color code clustering concept. I saw the immediate benefits for African Americans and told her it would be extremely beneficial for the African American community. When Dana’s color clustering concept was automated it was a game-changer. I could finally see how the lower to lowest 7cM matches were clustering to known ancestors and to each other. This not only created a new avenue for research but also extended my ancestral lines and locations back several generations although I would unlikely ever know exactly how. Although I may never be able to identify a most recent common ancestor, I could not only hypothesize they were sold or removed from a state but from a specific county in that State or had family sold or moved to that state and county as well as the families they were related to. I reached out to many of my new cousins and felt I had brought my family together though I wasn’t sure how we were connected. I know only that our ancestors’ separation was not by choice but by force. It’s a welcomed narrative I did not have adding to the history surrounding their enslavement.
Ancestry’s Cease and Desist Letters
I was highly frustrated when Ancestry issued cease and desist letters to the clustering tool agents and DNAGedcom. Their subsequent announcement to delete and no longer post matches of less than 8 cM turned frustration into some anger. Because fewer African Americans have taken DNA tests, more at Ancestry than at any other provider, each morning I’d go “DNA diving” into my newest DNA matches looking for any match that might provide some additional clues. Not only do we have fewer matches but up to a fourth of those matches are white. Though most were not useful there were some significant finds. Ancestry’s limit on shared matching to 20 cM and higher never identified these potential gems. The loss of both has been extremely devastating to my research. Loss of the clustering tools will cause significant challenges in moving forward. I relied on these tools to bring in the lower matches that I missed.
I always reluctantly suggested other African Americans test with Ancestry because of the numbers advantage. I never felt Ancestry would create truly useful tools on their site. However, I assured folks there were good 3rd party tools useable with Ancestry that would fill the void. I followed up with presentations on how to use those tools. Now that these tools are no longer an option, I don’t know how to guide other African Americans through this maze when I don’t see a way out myself.
The African American Minority
I didn’t know how to channel my frustration or if it would make a difference. I’m in the minority and fully understand that the majority might not need these tools as badly as I did. When I saw Roberta Estes’s post on how Ancestry’s changes impact African American researchers, I knew it was time to speak out. She hit all the salient points on how Ancestry has failed to recognize the unique challenges African Americans encounter or have any useful tools that assist them in their genetic research. Consider ThruLines, for example, which cannot include enslaved ancestors whom most African American researchers have not and cannot identify. The ethnic communities suggest that I’m matching other African Americans with connections from mostly the Upper South. Something that I expected since most post Civil War Freedmen show upper south birthplaces for themselves or their parents.
I’m very appreciative to Dana for listening to and understanding my concerns and frustrations. I am aware that Ancestry’s changes have adversely impacted all researchers, but as is true with any adverse change that takes place in our society on whatever level, African Americans are likely to be more negatively impacted. Ancestry issued a statement in support of Black Lives Matter. I hope they appreciate this not only applies to what happens today but to the history that led us to where we are today.
I truly appreciate Mr Carter’s poignant dilemma and support his plea to Ancestry to reconsider its position. Ancestry must be made aware of how correct and important his criticism of their plan is. I imagine that families who were decimated by The Holocaust genocide have a similar need to use those less than 8 cM matches. My Irish Ancestors left Ireland in the mid-nineteenth century to escape the ravages of the Great Hunger. What do we all have in common? We all lack records that were either destroyed or not created in the first place because our ancestors were considered non-persons. Thus, we must use our DNA matches’ common, small segments to break through “brick walls” of negative space created by absence of records.
Therese, Those are great points! Thank you for sharing. And, I do want to point out that many of these very small segments are “false” segments. But, there are also real segments. I think it’s sad to lose so many good pieces of evidence along with the bad.
That on cousin with 7cm’s found a connection to an Cameroon cousin who I have contacted via FB it also correlates with the percentage of Cameroon ethnicity within DNA matches. Valuable to me for this black researchers trying to trace origin of country.
Daphine, Thank you for sharing!
A Change.org petition by a renowned genetic genealogist may have an impact. I’ll sign and share!
I am not familiar with change.org. It looks like we are making some difference as it appears – though it hasn’t been confirmed – that Ancestry has pushed back their timetable to the beginning of September instead of the beginning of August.
I’m very happy to hear that! I’ve created a Change.org petition asking Ancestry to stop the planned purge. Your blog is cited. Would you be amenable to share? https://www.change.org/p/ancestry-com-ancestry-stop-the-upcoming-changes-that-negatively-impact-those-with-enslaved-ancestors
I’ve been accused in other venues (not Ancestry) of being “a trouble maker” when I have spoken out, asking organizations to consider communities of color when making significant organizational change, so my disclaimer her is that trouble making is not my intent.
I think that it is reasonable to assume that since Ancestry began with a base that is LDS, most of the people who work at the level where decisions are made, are white. In that most are not in the practice of looking outside their cultural, religious or ethnic base, what we are seeing is a case of unconscious bias. Policies and practices are developed around the core and not the exceptions. In a cost benefit analysis, we people people of color add little financial benefit to the whole. I’ve had some success with finding my Latinx ancestors but none with American Indian/Indigenous. I was hoping that the lower Cms might provide some links I’ve not yet been able to find. The changes Ancestry is making will have impact beyond the community of African American genealogists.
So thank you Dana Franklin for publishing this piece. Maybe someone is Ancestry will read and understand.
I also am searching for my Mexican/Indigenous line and with very few people from that region testing, and little classical genealogy available, low cm matches with Mexican-Americans is my best hope.
I wish you the best!
You are making what my hero calls “good trouble”. I am white, tracing my grandmother ancestor, Margaret Cornish, first black woman in Jamestown. Cage was not a slave but had been kidnapped in Kenya by pirates. A British ship stopped the pirates along the shores of Florida and took her to Jamestown. There were no slaves in Jamestown but she became an indentured servant. I would not know this without DNA.
Sandra, Thank you for your kind words. And, what a fascinating story! Best wishes as you pursue it!
This so true. The blacks hit the slavery wall. Whites hit the immigrant wall. Any clue no matter how small everybody needs those tiny matches!
Thank you!
You’re very welcome!
My cousin texted me about this change that i was not aware of, after my first time on this site i was hooked, to lose it would be sad. I agree this was not thought out with all in mind. Hopefully it can and will be re-examined and a satisfactory solution can be offered.
Hi, Phillip. I, too, hope they do offer a satisfactory solution!
Ancestry has been a great way to find many ancestors and family. However, I keep getting offers to join at different times to be able to research further. Most of the epiphanies they have come up with so far are the same ones I submitted to Ancestry. I am not willing to keep spending for things I already know about my family. Plus at what point is it worth it to spend money to get info on one or less generations.?
Pingback: This week’s crème de la crème — July 25, 2020 | Genealogy à la carte
I have so many DNA matches with less than 8 cms with shared ancestors…please dont delete them.The others could still be related and help break through my brick walls. Thanks
Oddly, through the lower matches, I have found my closest cousins with whom I visit and have weekly
interaction about family.
Please don’t take the lower matches, Ancestry. Your lowest matches where you put them turned out to be my closest cousins!
Even a 2nd cousin twice removed (2C 2R) or 3rd cousin can share this low amount of DNA. So, it definitely can remove some of our closest matches! Thanks for sharing! And, I hope you’ll share on Facebook or Twitter or somewhere else.
Thanks for the blog and all of the comments. First let me be redundant and report that I would never have found my four times great Simpson grandparents if not for a 5th cousin with whom I share 7cm. Both of us had pieces of the puzzle that matched up when we found each other. Second, there is also the issue of NPEs. I have a 3rd cousin with whom I should share at least 80-120cm of DNA, but we only share 7cm. His double great grandparents were 1st cousins and both were also related to me. It appears that we only share DNA from one of these folks and it is most likely the mother who was my 3 times great aunt. Once Ancestry eliminates the 7cm cousins he will not even show up as my cousin. Further relevance is that his double great grandfather was probably sterile from high fevers related to typhoid fever that killed both of his parents. That likely sterility is proof that many of the children were as sick as their parents and the parents were worn down by nursing multiple children. None of this would be known if Ancestry had never posted him as my DNA cousin. (his ancestors only had one child)
Thanks for sharing your story, William. It’s frustrating and sad that we will lose some real treasures!
Thank you for sharing this article. The thought of losing access to my yet-to-be-discovered small-amount-of-shared-DNA cousins is horrific to me. I am African American and I found and confirmed two 3rd cousins once removed. Both shared DNA between 6-8 cMs with me. I have 53 yet-to-be-confirmed matches in that DNA range whom I discovered through ThruLines. Their ancestry trees match the paper trail that I’ve been building to identify the Caucasian father of my enslaved 2nd great-grandfather. The access to those matches has narrowed my research down to 2 men, one of whom is my 3rd great-grandfather. Without access to those <8 cMs matches I would not have made this progress. I already know from DNA research and family history that I have at least 2 other 3rd great-grandparents who are not African American. Like the experience that Franklin Smith chronicled in this blog I learned that the identification of the enslaving families is helpful to break through the 1870 "Brick Wall". I signed Dawn D.'s Change.org petition in hopes that Ancestry will live up to its #BLM support pledge and use their $BILLIONS to preserve this data for Black family researchers and those other researchers who depend on these "small match" clues to connect to their "hidden" ancestors.
Chloe, Thank you for sharing your experience. It makes me very sad that Ancestry is preparing to delete all of these matches. Just today, I was given access to a relative’s DNA matches on my husband’s native American side. About 1/3 of the matches that were on ThruLines were in the 6-8 cM range. I was able to save them, but in just a couple of weeks I would have lost them. And who knows what other matches we will lose!