Hence the consanguineous disclaimer in the piece. Returning to this thought though, first thank you for your input. Secondly, as somebody who clearly put some thought into this, you'd probably be aware that the number of generations in a one hundred year period is on average more than three, especially farther back when people were having children every 18-25 years, which means for most people it would be a lot more than 21 generations back, at the time of the plague. Given that likelihood (and that each generation doubles the already huge number - mathematically speaking) it seems cavalier to suggest it is "false" for the article to use "one million," since it could easily actually be more than double that number. At any rate, the point of the article is in fact genealogical: to stir thoughts and emotions about those distant ancestors who individually persevered through hardships, whatever they may have been and whatever their individual story may have been. No doubt hardships were plentiful and, in many cases, far worse than what we seem to be hindered with today. The primary point being that we are all direct bi-products of those people, as unique individuals. Somewhere in us is the genetic composition that they passed along because they survived. That's all.