Unexpected 'nationalist' Norwegian man's Scandinavian roots - Viking families and other historical ...

We should not ever censor who can be recorded on Geni. If we have Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler we can live with having Breivik.

I agree with Justin, thou the actions were extremely cruel, I actually were thinking of writing something similar with the example of Hitler, but decided to just let it be. History are often written by the winners, in a future retro-perspective we actually do not know how people will be judge historically, action that not yet have seen the light will maybe alter some views, a criminal scumbag today will perhaps be seen as a hero or vice versa in the future, or be placed in between like Che Guevara, a villain for some, a hero for others.

There is evil in the world. We have to live with it. Every time I see a picture of the New York skyline without the World Trade Center it is like a knife in the gut for me. I sometimes say it should be illegal to post such a thing without hiding it behind a warning that the image might be upsetting, but people mourn in different ways. It's not up to me to decide for the whole world what is the right way to grieve.

Changing pictures, no problem. If you want to use a picture of Satan himself, I'd be on board ;)

Seriously -- I have a friend here in Colorado whose dad was shot down in the Columbine shootings. She runs the NoNotoriety group on Facebook and elsewhere. The point is to pressure the media to stop making these people famous. They've had great luck with the Aurora Theater Shooter.

Breivik should be in the same category. We don't want him to be famous, but in genealogy we do need to confront the fact that he is human, his evil is real, and many of us are related to him.

https://www.facebook.com/NoNotoriety?fref=ts

I think youhave posted the wrong family A.S, maybe remove them?
The right names on the Romanian dictators family.

Nicolae Ceaușescu his wife Elena Ceaușescu and kids: Valentin (1947), Zoia (1949–2006) and Nicu (1951–1996).

Anette, I was objecting to Bjørn's comment that "we had an agreement that [Breivik's] profile should be deleted and never appear on Geni."

Kong Erik I Ejegod av Danmark is my 29th great uncle; Margarita Pedersdotter Bonde is my 8th cousin 16 times removed; and, as I just discovered through Geni, Anders Behring Breivik is my 24th cousin once removed.

Since these 3 profiles are just as much related to me, an American, as they are to my Scandinavian cousins on Geni, I'm going to add my 2 cents to the discussion, then bow out, since I'm not looking to debate this issue, but simply add a perspective from someone who feels more distance, and is less emotionally attached.

In general, I agree with Justin and Ulf on this one.

Though I've found numerous ancestors and relatives I am proud to be related to, there are also many whose ugly deeds and crimes against humanity I find disdainful. My list of relatives run the gamut, and the title under which I could list and describe them is: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. They are who they are, and those I dislike because they espoused evil, and committed horrendous acts, are forever on my tree, like it or not, and can't be obliterated, because they do/did exist.

I look at Breivik under a similar harsh and unforgiving light, as I do these other blood kin: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Oswald Ernald Mosley, Paul Kruger (oppressor of black South Africans), Balthazar Johannes Vorster (staunch proponent of apartheid), Isabella I "la Católica", Ferdinand II Augusto Pinochet, Generalissimo Franco, Lee Harvey Oswald, George Lincoln Rockwell, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Strom Thurmond, the Dulles brothers, Allen and John Foster, the Koch brothers, and Dick Cheney.

All of the above are on Geni, and I don't see any label across their photos, nor should there be. I'm for simply entering all the cold hard facts as known, and leaving it up to the people who read these profiles to judge for themselves.

As for Breivik, I didn't recognize the name at first, but as soon as I saw his photograph--smiling, and what have you--I made the connection to his monstrous act of the past--and I didn't need "Face Of A Monster" plastered across the bottom to tell me who and what this man is. In my opinion, a better way to inform the Geni community with the facts of this case, would be to translate what is there on his profile, into English.

With all the heinous acts committed, why just single Breivik out with the label "Face Of A Monster" making him more special, and greater than the other monsters throughout history?

Well spoken, Loretta Alexandra, M268111

Loretta, I want to make clear that I'm the one who put up the Face of a Monster photo for Breivik. It was my response to Anette's objections to the old photo. She found the old photo very painful. I have 3rd and 4th cousins who were there the day of the shooting, so I share her biases even if my reaction isn't quite so immediate.

There is no particular reason this or any other photo has to stay. I expect that in the way these things develop someone will put up a different photo and then someone else will put up another. In the end we'll all compromise on something. That's the way it always works, it seems ;)

Bjørn, I see your point about the creator deleting the profile. No one should be forced to be associated with a profile.

He can remove himself as a manager, which he has not done. If he objects, the best course might be to create a new profile and delete this one. There are other managers, though, so if someone creates a new profile they should invite those managers to share management.

I see that the curator changed the profile picture back, but without explanation or discussion. That's a pretty high-handed thing to do, considering there is an ongoing debate.

He also unlinked the photos I uploaded. Over the line, I think.

On this site we have to follow this site's rules, meaning not posting anything that could be viewed as offending, discriminating etc, but as a public genealogy site there will of course be some posted problematic profiles and in regarding living people we have to balance the information carefully, normally people are private unless they chose not to be or are deceased, some people are public because of position in the society and or because of famous or infamous acts, it is in this later category it often collides with others, but we do not choose our relatives, but we can still try to show some respect for the living relatives.

This is not a news magazine, therefore it's enough with only a brief notice and a link to Wikipedia, any picture is up to the profiles managers to decide whether to put up or not etc, if they can not agree they should discuss between themselves what to do, thereby no other will have anything to say, the act that he committed are undoable, the sufferings for the affected are very real regardless what we do, but we should never add pain in any way if we can choose not to do so, and this is a matter of ethics that we should follow no matter what. Remember that his closest family are also victims, they didn't choose to have a near relative to do this, and this affects them negatively what ever we think.

If we put up picture declaring him as a monster, then his father and mother automatically must have been the parents of a monster according to how a lot of average people do function, thus branding them as well, and this is close to persecution, and even if we never can stop the mass from being accusing or naturally drawn to act in a mob way, we still would do best to not lay out the track for them, it's bad enough when they find it themselves.

Good thoughts, Ulf. I hope we can have a civil discussion about what form this profile should take and what picture should be used -- without a lot of drama.

This is clearly a discussion about ethics, with a serious subject as a topic.

I remember a discussion not so long ago about using imagery for victims of the holocaust. As far as I can judge the outcome of this discussion, if you can speak of such in this probably never ending debate, has left us with two camps.

These camps came together and shared their points of view. That's the best outcome you will ever get on these hot topics. Let both sides speak and be aware of eachothers opinions.

Let us respect that above all. Do not commit censorship and be sensible instead.

To summerize my thoughts here, I fully support Anette Guldager Boye and others who are more or less sharing here point of view.

History gets rewritten throughout time, over and over again, as historians among us know far better than I do lol
History differs in a horizontal time perspective as well. We explain our history completely different of how it is taught in non Western countries.

So we end up with an ethical discussion. Ethics always changes when time passes, changes when me cross borders geographically.

(No Name), if you believe you are being censored you need to lodge a complaint with Customer Service. It is not appropriate to make vague, unsubstantiated allegations individually and collectively against people who have expressed an opinion with which you disagree.

If we are thinking about editing history, I suggest we start by removing the profile of Æthelred the Unready, who ordered the murder of the Danes in England on on the 13 of November 1002.

No? Then think carefully about the precedent you may be setting.

Regards,

Mike King

If Geni is supposed to be The World Tree of everyone who has ever lived - which is certainly what I thought was the definitio -- then I cannot understand any rationale for not listing someone who lived in the past just because he was despicable. For not listing cartoon characters, myths, etc - yes, that I can understand. But for omitting based on how bad someone's deeds were - no.

I myself is norwegian. And distantly related to this guy. And I have deep respect and understanding for those views expressed here, from all sides of the issue.
Perhaps a good way for Geni to alleviate the "notoriety" issue could be to establish "forced" (in lack of a better term) "private" profiles, controlled by one or more curators/geni. These type of "forced private" profiles would be set as private as long as the "infamous person" was alive, and let's say t.ex 10 years after the persons death. To avoid the person in question to gain more notoriety based on his/her activity via a geni profile, as well as "shielding" the realtives. We would also then need some set criteria for "qualifying" as a candidate for this..

I definitely have no problem with the living being private. No problem with the recently deceased being private as well.

Since if living, the only way for them to be Public is if made an MP - perhaps rules there should be modified - Curators making somebody still living an MP by virtue of the horrible things they have done does seem wrong/unfair to their living relatives. Would agree with you there.

Anette Guldager Boye I agree.. I have realtives that both fought for and against a.h and some who died in his name and for my country in europe andi feel the same way about talking publicly about it. even though it's been 50+ years and many of the said people have passed away it doesn't heal the wounds... “It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone.”
― Rose Kennedy

Michael, you said: Justin How about making charles manson private?

It's not up to me. I argued that profiles like these should be on Geni and that they should be public. Geni overruled me. As far as I'm concerned the debate is over.

I know.. I was being sarcastic.. I knew that wan't up to you.

"I disagree with treating people without regard to their persona and individual accomplishments, and looking instead at their genetic relatives, that would be nationalistic. And i will show to everybody just how much i dislike nationalism, by attempting to purify my family tree by disallowing any rotten apples from it!"

Wow. Just wow.

If you truly are against nationalism, you would be the first one to say that it doesn't matter who you are related it, since it influences you to such a small degree, that it should not matter either way.

I said my piece already, guys, but this morning I came across this piece of music which I felt the need of sharing this with you all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1WWsGv4vO4