Abusive family history should be shared
Q: Many family stories were told about my dad’s poor aunt, his mother’s sister, who was married to an abusive man. The fact that this uncle by marriage was a wife-beater and a "violent man" is well documented both orally and in written recollections by my side of the family. My grandmother was distraught about her sister and even said he caused my great aunt’s death. Recently I took a DNA test and the results have connected me to the great-grandson of this unhappy couple. This new cousin never knew his great-grandparents, but he is interested in learning what I know about our shared family history. They have all been dead for many years, although my 95-year-old aunt is still around to corroborate.
When we talk, should I mention these terrible stores about his great-grandfather?
A: Absolutely. History is history. I don’t see the need to whitewash it.
Plus, owning what is in our own ancestry is an important way to improve on it. That includes the good as well as the bad: You find out your great-grands were unusually generous, for example, and that gives you a chance to see yourself through that lens and maybe cultivate your own way of giving. You find out your great-grand was a violent abuser, and you pay extra mind to your own tendencies — maybe even take on domestic-violence prevention as a cause. Sort of an "It stops here" frame of mind.
One caveat: In my personal life and through this column, I have run across people who disagree about this, who prefer to shield others and to be shielded themselves from bad news.
I don’t think it’s important to do so in this case — since we’re talking about long-gone relatives the great-grandson never knew — but it can be a kindness in general to consider a person’s bad-news preferences before you make a delivery.
If possible, of course; otherwise all you can do is follow your conscience.