Every family has its own story about how they've ended up in the present. Some are well documented and some are collection of remembrances that turn into a myth. Myths make for good family history because they give the existence of a family importance, depth, and cultural relevancy.
Groubert takes on the myth about his ancestors' name and their journey from Konin to America. In doing so, he embarks on a journey of his own to establish ties with this roots, without knowing if there'd be any to compliment his family's myth. The piece establishes early on that the myth could be just that. But the piece engages us because we, as does Groubert, it seems, want to find out, not what's there, but what never has been.
The piece, on another level, if you think about it, is perhaps not about how those myths about the family bear relevancy to Groubert, but an excuse to find his way back to Konin, as a Groubert. Being there, leaving his imprint, and therefore not letting the family traces fade away from Konin soil allows relevancy to rise and displace the existing family myth to pass on to the next generation of Grouberts.