A family secret that should come to light
With the possible exception of the exhibitionists who populate reality TV, most people are inclined to hold the secrets of their immediate family fairly close. Unless we’ve set an appointment with Dr. Phil, few of us are willing to divulge details of marriages gone wrong, children gone rogue, sibling rivalries that persist into middle age or any of the other common blemishes on domestic life.
But when the conversation turns to our ancestors, it tends to be a little more no-holds-barred. We might want to sweep contemporary family feuds under the rug, but when it comes to folks several generations removed, most of us are willing to open the closet doors wide and gleefully let the skeletons rattle out.
Want to hear about the drunken great-great-great-uncle who got trampled by a horse when he got too liquored up? Well, sit right down. How about the great-grandad who is said to have broken bread with Klansmen in his younger days? Let me tell you all about it. And what about the other great-grandad who fought for the Kaiser in World War I?
It’s easy to understand why most people are willing to gab so readily about ancestors whose antics were, to say the least, colorful. They’re so far removed from the present day – chances are we never met any of these people – that they don’t really reflect on us in any meaningful way. And, let’s face it, having a few scalawags, scoundrels, rascals and reprobates in the family tree makes us seem a little more intriguing. How exciting would our bloodline be if it consisted entirely of sturdy yeoman farmers who rose with the sun and peacefully went to their reward after a lifetime of quiet toil?
Ben Affleck, the movie actor and director, is apparently the only person in America who doesn’t feel this way.
The latest embarrassing revelation to emerge from the hacking of Sony Pictures’ email accounts last year is that Affleck asked the producers of a PBS-TV series that looks at ancestry to omit the fact that he had a relative, many generations removed, who owned slaves. Unfortunately, the producers of “Finding Your Roots,” on which Affleck appeared for one episode, agreed, even though it violated PBS policy. Affleck since issued a contrite statement, saying the thought of a slave-holding forebear “left a bad taste in my mouth,” and the ombudsman of PBS is launching an investigation, noting “any serious program about genealogy, especially dealing with celebrities, cannot leave out a slave-owning ancestor. It also seems clear from the emails that (host Henry Louis Gates) knew the stakes involved in terms of PBS credibility, yet went with the advice from the Sony executive to squelch the factoid about a slave-owning ancestor and try to keep it quiet.”
This kerfuffle doesn’t make PBS look good, and it makes Affleck look even less so. Sure, celebrities are tirelessly interested in promulgating a favorable public image, and hire platoons of publicists, stylists, nutritionists, physical trainers and other handlers to position themselves in the best light.
Did Affleck believe that something a forefather did a couple of centuries ago would tarnish his golden glow? Honestly, why would anyone outside the Affleck family care all that much? Chances are, had it stayed in the program, it would have passed unremarked, and certainly would have generated vastly less mortification than the current mess.
As Mary Beth Williams pointed out on the Salon website last week, Affleck has more reason to be embarrassed by some of the movies he has appeared in than any slave owners dotting his lineage.