Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

Haines Brown 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.

Blood lines are the litmus test because non-blood lines such 
as foster parents and godparents aren't generally 
responsible for the genetic makeup (or defects) of you or 
your siblings.

Even before DNA, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" 
and it was called "in the blood".  Genealogy, IOW.

Family History is a term that was in the 
not-yet-forgotten-past used to mean one included tidbits of 
the "She won 27 blue ribbons at the county fair in 1978" or 
"he won the greased-pig-catching contest at the Sunday 
School picnic in 1954" sort.  Color tidbits, in other words, 
which are nice to have but unim****tant in providing 
provenance for one's existance.

And, in a broader sense, we're all the "family of man."

Cheryl