FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309  
310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   >>   >|  
not less than sixteen million ancestors. Of course, there was no such number of people in all England and Normandy, at that time, hence it is obvious that the theoretical number has been greatly reduced in every generation by consanguineous marriages, even though they were between persons so remotely related that they did not know they were related. C. B. Davenport, indeed, has calculated that most persons of the old American stock in the United States are related to each other not more remotely than thirtieth cousins, and a very large proportion as closely as fifteenth cousins. [Illustration: THE SMALL VALUE OF A FAMOUS, BUT REMOTE, ANCESTOR FIG. 41.--A living individual who was a lineal descendant of George Washington might well take pride in the fact, but genetically that fact might be of very little significance. The above chart shows graphically how small a part any single ancestor plays, a few generations back. A general high average of ability in an ancestry is much more important, eugenically, than the appearance of one or two distinguished individuals.] At any rate, it must be obvious that the ancestors of any person of old American stock living to-day must have included practically all the inhabitants of England and Normandy, in the eleventh century. Looking at the pedigree from the other end, William the Conqueror must have living to-day at least 16,000,000 descendants. Most of them can not trace back their pedigrees, but that does not alter the fact. Such considerations give one a vivid realization of the brotherhood of man; but they can hardly be said to justify any great pride in descent from a family of crusaders for instance, except on purely sentimental grounds. Descent from a famous man or woman should not be disparaged. It is a matter of legitimate pride and congratulation. But claims for respect made on that ground alone are, from a biological point of view, negligible, if the hero is several generations removed. What Sir Francis Galton wrote of the peers of England may, with slight alterations, be given general application to the descendants of famous people: "An old peerage is a valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as it may have been furbished up by a succession of wise intermarriages.... I cannot think of any claim to respect, put forward in modern days, that is so entirely an imposture as that made by a peer on the ground of descent, who has neither been nobly educated, no
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309  
310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

related

 

living

 

England

 

American

 
descent
 

famous

 

generations

 

general

 
respect
 

ground


cousins
 
Normandy
 

ancestors

 

number

 

obvious

 

descendants

 

persons

 

remotely

 

people

 

grounds


Descent
 

matter

 

disparaged

 

sentimental

 

instance

 

family

 
realization
 
crusaders
 

brotherhood

 
pedigrees

justify

 

considerations

 
purely
 

Galton

 

succession

 
intermarriages
 
furbished
 

valueless

 

natural

 

imposture


educated

 

forward

 

modern

 
peerage
 

negligible

 
biological
 

congratulation

 

claims

 

removed

 
slight