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".

KB1GRM de WA4QZU...

I'll accept that.
>
>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.

I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is
limited to "genes", hence the name. Family History, as I see it, has
become the collective term for people who depart from genetic links to
include any person they wish to include for any reason.

I think the terms should remain separate and distinct without me
praising one and dissing the other. Let genealogy keep the
restrictions and others do as they wish - but note departure from
genealogy so as not to confuse people.

Of course events are also family history to anyone - but, hopefully I
have given a clear explanation of the difference

Hugh