Category: Lifestyle

  • This writer just traced his enslaved ancestors all the way to Africa. Here’s how.

    This writer just traced his enslaved ancestors all the way to Africa. Here’s how.

    The connection

    I was born in Baltimore in 1953, the fourth of five children, to William Francis Brooks and Mattie Bell (Crosson). My parents left Baltimore for New Jersey when I was five. We lived in Newark and then Linden, where I went to junior high and high school.

    I left Linden to go to college in Ithaca, New York. I worked at the Ithaca Journal for nearly four years before I moved to Asheville, North Carolina and then to Philadelphia. I ended up in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, where I’ve lived for more than two decades.

    Little did I know when I moved to Maryland that my family’s history was just hours away. Both Matthew and Bessie (my paternal grandparents) were born in Leonardtown close to the plantation where their relatives had been enslaved. St. Mary’s County, founded in 1637, was home to the first Maryland colony and was named for Mary, mother of Jesus.

    I had always wanted to do an ancestorial search but had never got around to it. A cousin had researched my mother’s side of the family, but I knew nothing about the Brooks side. Until that phone call from Helen Bowe, vice president for public affairs at Wells Fargo. She said the financial services company was looking for a candidate to do an ancestry search with records from the Freedman’s Bureau.

    I ultimately learned things about my post-Civil War relatives that I’m sure even my father and grandfather didn’t know. And I received news clippings of stories from the Baltimore Afro-American on my grandfather and father, which I had never seen before.

    A black and white image of the News Paper

    Photocopy of an advertisement of Schmidt ‘s Bakery published on January 27, 1914 in the Evening Sun newspaper in Baltimore. The bakery is where Brooks’ grandfather worked for decades. 

    Image Via Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, HABS

    Breaking through the ‘1870s wall’

    The research yielded a trove of information from the 1870 Census—the first conducted after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment that listed African Americans by name. But is considered a genealogical brick wall for many Black Americans searching for their heritage because so little information was available for those who were enslaved.

    Prior to 1870, records rarely noted names of enslaved and formerly-enslaved people in what is referred to as the “1870’s wall.” They were included in the count of household property of slaveowners, their gender and approximate age being the only labels they were granted. But another database, Enslaved.org, has helped researchers and descendants of Africans unlock the depths of the slavery since its launch nearly three years ago.

    Using the Freedman’s bureau, my research team yielded a legal contract signed in November 1870 between David Washington Brooks (my great-great grandfather) and his older brother James Brooks with former slaveholders A.W. and Martha Turner for 35 acres of land. David and James paid $100 in cash and pledged to pay the remainder in an installment plan: $124 in the first year, $118 in the second, $112 in the third, and $106 in the fourth. They paid off that contract and bought another 40 acres in the spring of 1878 for $400.

    There were three generations in the Brooks family home near Charlotte Hall in Northern St. Mary’s County, according to that 1870 U.S. Census: David, 31, his wife, Mahalay, 25, their two children, and his widowed mother, Nellie, who lived with the family for two decades and was 73 at the time.

    James Brooks, 34, and his wife, Margaret, 33, lived next door with their four children aged 1, 8, 11, and 13.

  • FCC Examines Migration Of Sports Rights From Free Broadcast To Subscription Streaming

    FCC Examines Migration Of Sports Rights From Free Broadcast To Subscription Streaming

    The FCC is launching a public inquiry into the migration of sports rights from free, over-the-air broadcast outlets to subscription streaming, something that has been increasing source of concern among lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    The agency is seeking public comment on the trend, with the FCC Media Bureau noting that while “streamers have helped expand access to professional and collegiate sports, they also appear to have contributed to the fragmentation of the sports media marketplace.”

    The bureau noted that in 2025, NFL games aired on 10 different services, “which, according to some estimates, could cost a consumer over $1,500 to watch all games.

    “In addition, 20 NFL regular season games and one playoff game were nationally distributed,
    exclusively, on four different streaming services — Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, Peacock, and
    Netflix.”

    The bureau is asking a series of questions, including, “To what extent do current sports media rights contracts conflict with or impede TV broadcasters from meeting their public interest obligations? How should these arrangements be considered in the context of broadcasters’ public interest obligations and the FCC’s duty to ensure licensees meet their statutory requirements?” The query also asks what steps the FCC could take to “ensure any broadcast licensee responsibilities are fulfilled.”

    Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, wrote in a post on X, “For decades, Americans enjoyed turning on their TV & quickly finding the game they wanted to see. Yet watching your favorite team play isn’t as easy these day. Many games are still on broadcast, but an increasing number are on a range of different online platforms.”

    Last year, the Republican leaders of the House Judiciary Committee raised the issue of streaming as they raised questions of whether major sports leagues should still get an antitrust exemption for coordinating TV broadcast rights.

    The FCC’s comment period runs through March 27, with reply comments due April 13.

  • Judge Prohibits Justice Department From Searching Through Washington Post Reporter’s Phone And Other Devices

    Judge Prohibits Justice Department From Searching Through Washington Post Reporter’s Phone And Other Devices

    The Justice Department has been prohibited from examining the contents of a phone and other devices seized at the home of a Washington Post reporter as part of an investigation into a leak of national security information.

    U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the court will review the devices itself, after attorneys for the Post argued that the DOJ had obtained reporter Hannah Natanson‘s sources and materials unrelated to the leak investigation.

    “The Court finds that seizing the totality of a reporter’s electronic work product, including tools essential to ongoing newsgathering, constitutes a restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights,” Porter wrote in his ruling.

    Natanson’s materials were seized as part of a government investigation of Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator who has a security clearance and is accused of retaining classified intelligence reports. The reporter was told that she is not the subject of the investigation, according to the Post.

    On Jan. 14, agents searched the reporter’s home and her devices and seized a phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch, according to the Post. One of the computers was issued to the reporter by the Post, the other was her personal laptop, the Post said.

    Natanson has done extensive reporting on federal workers who have been targeted for firings and resignations by the Trump administration. She has chronicled how she had become the “federal government whisperer,” amassing hundreds of sources as workers inundated her with tips.

    The Post is seeking the return of all of Natanson’s devices, but Porter wrote that he “finds it reasonable for the government to retain only the limited information responsive to the search warrant—and nothing
    more.”

    But Porter has been critical of the government’s handling of the case, including the way that it obtained a search warrant for Natanson’s home. He noted that the DOJ failed to analyze the Privacy Protection Act in its search warrant application, writing that it “seriously undermined” the court’s confidence “in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding.”

    “Given the documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well chronicled efforts to stop them, allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product—most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources—is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” the judge wrote.

    The Post said in a statement that they “applaud the court’s recognition of core First Amendment protections and its rejection of the government’s arguments for searching Hannah Natanson’s devices and work materials in their entirety and placing itself in charge of determining their relevance.”

    Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that the judge “had a choice between carefully protecting a reporter’s confidential sources and simply letting the government riffle through Natanson’s devices. It made the right call — and the constitutionally appropriate one — by taking it upon itself to review the material and in ordering that information unrelated to the underlying investigation will be returned to Natanson.”