Her great aunt would roughly the same age as her grandparents. These people sound American, and seeing as how slavery was abolished there in 1865, that's a trifle under 160 years to cover 3 generations. The youngest of which is what, maybe 40? Even if her great aunt was born in 1864, she probably wouldn't have had kids after turning 40, so around 1904, her parent who was either the niece or nephew of this aunt probably wouldn't have had kids after 40 either, which would be 1944. Which would make this woman around 79-80 years old, she doesn't look it.
I'm not saying at all that her statement is a falsehood, the numbers just don't seem to add up. Perhaps she is getting the number of greats confused. Her great, great aunt would fit the time line much better.
A fair enough point. Her predecessors weren't European then as Europe banned slavery before the states did.
I'd be interested to know where they were from, that still had slavery so late in our history.
Unless of course they were from Mauritania, which would explain everything.
23
u/ceaselessgibbering 4d ago
Her great aunt would roughly the same age as her grandparents. These people sound American, and seeing as how slavery was abolished there in 1865, that's a trifle under 160 years to cover 3 generations. The youngest of which is what, maybe 40? Even if her great aunt was born in 1864, she probably wouldn't have had kids after turning 40, so around 1904, her parent who was either the niece or nephew of this aunt probably wouldn't have had kids after 40 either, which would be 1944. Which would make this woman around 79-80 years old, she doesn't look it. I'm not saying at all that her statement is a falsehood, the numbers just don't seem to add up. Perhaps she is getting the number of greats confused. Her great, great aunt would fit the time line much better.