Re: Genealogy and family history

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:09:56 GMT, Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I'm not sure what you are getting at there -- it seems contradictory. 

That was not the intent.

>You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines
-- but
>wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. 

I think genealogy, as I use the term, traces bloodlines and can
include all sorts of family history as you outlined. I'm sorry we get
tied up in semantics when the distinction should be so easy.

One example: If a man and woman adopted a child that neither parented,
showing them as the apparent birth parents would be family history,
not "genealogy". All sorts of social engineers want to blur the
distinction between "birth family" and "legal family" and "family".
That's sweet but it doesn't change the bloodlines.

My problem is not with what a person wishes to show, it's about being
honest enough to admit and make a distinction between the categories.

DNA changes the game plan. Lots of "genealogists" whose line now
descends from Charlemagne or William the Conquerer will have to
restart their line about 1790 as a result of DNA tests. Speking of
weeping, wailing and gna****ng of teeth.....

Hugh