Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:03 GMT, Haines Brown
<brownh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>> <dogqruomlrsa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime.
>>
>> The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an
>> excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in
>> genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion.
>>
>> Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs
>> are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far.
>
>Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an im****tant tool used
>in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is
>referred to as an "auxiliary science".
>
>Your comment about the im****tance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines
>struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people
>(improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood
>relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test?
>Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters.
>
>In the culture in which I happen to live, the term "family" is sometimes
>not restricted to blood lines, but can also include god-children,
>ex-wives, step-children, spiritual brothers, etc. That is, the word
>"family" can refer to any close social affinity and is not limited to
>blood relation****ps. For example, a mature neighboring woman was
>expected to be in loco parentis for your children (to monitor, assist,
>advise, punish, etc.). Such a relation was apparently common when my
>acquaintances were children living in an urban environment. It
>suggests that a narrow definition of family might deprive the family of
>some of its social significance. 
>
>Another example. In early Medieval Europe, poor children would be
>transferred to the household of a better-off family, where they would be
>raised and cared for until they reached maturity, and a close
>relation****p even after that would persist. The term "uncle" could be
>used to refer to a non-blood-related older male. To some extent this has
>carried over into modern times. I know of a person (19th century U.S.)
>whose mother died, and because his father lacked work and had to travel
>to find it, the child was dumped upon a farming household for a period
>of indenture until his maturity. The lad was part of the farmer's 
>household/family. When he did reach maturity and acquired his own
>household, the census listed two non-related members in it.
>
>Another example. Early African "slavery" is distinguished from the
>proper anthropological definition of slavery in that the war captive was
>incor****ated into the victor's household and became a real, albeit
>lower-status, member of that household. Properly a slave is in principle
>not a member of any social community such as a household. As in the
>early Medieval Europe example, the more powerful are able to increase
>their economic power by artificially enlarging their households (not to
>mention doing it through the multiplication of wives). 
>
>In other words, the bloodline restriction for the notion of family seems
>more prescriptive than descriptive. What is there about bloodline that
>privileges it as a kind of social relation?
>
>I can think of some reasons why, which have to do with social class. The
>early Medieval elite family had charisma that passed along though the
>bloodline and was attached to their name, so lineage was im****tant. The
>Germanic naming system combined the charismatic names of the two
>families in marriage, so that it consisted of two elements. On the other
>hand, non-elite had a much looser sense of family, only acquiring a
>family name, say, in the 16th century. Even up to quite modern times
>there were individuals without family identity (no last name). In
>societies in which ruling class power (title or property) had to be kept
>concentrated rather than diffused, rules of inheritance were imposed,
>such as primogeniture or blood-line succession. So I wonder if a
>bloodline prescription may not have a certain social class implication
>to it.

Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes,
ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines".
 If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use
something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken.

-- 
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/