Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:16:41 -0600, Lars Eighner
<usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>In our last episode, <47b4aabd.29643845@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, the
>lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on
soc.genealogy.computing:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>><lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>>>That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most
authorities (at least
>>>>in the US) to be his genealogy.
>>>
>>>What kind of authorities?  
>
>> Those who make the rules for genealogy.
>
>And that would be who?

The National Genealogical Society is one in the US.
>
>>>To the legal authorities, my adopted kids
>>>are mine.  They even have a birth certificate issue by our government,
>>>and another one issued by the Soviet government saying they were born
>>>to my wife in Russia, even though they were born before our marriage,
>>>and my wife has never been in Russia.  The fiction is legal reality,
>>>and 300 years from now, no one will know it is baloney unless they
>>>find my genealogical noted.
>
>> And that is the crux of the matter. No one will know it is baloney (to
>> use a kind word).
>
>> Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of
>> being transmitted down family bloodlines.
>
>But of course any knowledge of heritable diseases came centuries after
>people were doing genealogy and calling it that.

You're back to semantics. I'm looking at 3 or 4 generations. Adopted
kids may have no medical info on ancestors and it will get worse for
their grandchildren if they look to falsified ancestors for data.
>
>> As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your
>> Bob's Fables?
>
>> I was a math major - I'm not used to sloppy work where mommy and daddy
>> are not really momma and daddy except by an act of Congress. 
>
>But that is exactly how it was until the late 20th century.  That mommy
and
>daddy's marriage had any relation****p strong than "possibly" to
biological
>paternity has always been a myth.

70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are
considerably more certain than that.

>>>Just like there is no unique term to distinguish each of your 32
>>>great-great grandparents, why does there need to be one for this
>>>peculiar distinction?
>
>> Because they are NOT my great grandparents unless I accept the lie.
>
>You'd have to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of social
>institutions to call them lies.  

No, I expect people to be honest. I understand there are a number of
liars around. That does not change the definition of a lie.

>Social and economic relation****ps are just
>as "real" as genetic ones, and argueably, more im****tant for the
>survivability of mankind.

Then track them and lie all you wish. 

>>>
>>>It is a specialty field within "family history" aka "genealogy" to
>>>research provable bloodlines.  That specialty field is called
>>>"genealogy" by a minority of "genealogists" who want to look down
>>>their noses at everyone else who misusing a word that they
>>>appropriated from those who originally used it for the broader sense
>>>(any 14th century use of the word genealogy, would almost certainly
>>>have been referencing the legal ancestry of inheritance rather than
>>>solely the bloodlines).
>>>
>>>>Calling both Family History without distingui****ng nomenclature. is
>>>>totally unacceptable.
>>>
>>>That is an assumption, not a conclusion.
>
>> And your's is an opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.
>
>Nobody needs a genetic history going back to Adam.  Yeah, if your genetic
>ancestors were immune to the Black Death, you are immune to AIDS --- but
>that goes back much less than a millenium.  The reason for insisting on
>genectics covering thousands of years is racism, pure and simple.

My genealogy goes back to 1790. Millenium is not a term I use. I
suspect most Americans can't provably go back more than several
hundred years. I can get all the way back to Adam and Eve if I am
willing to lie as several here are suggesting. I've done the genealogy
of the Bible and Irish mythology. 

With just a little bit of inventiveness as you suggest we could be the
descendants of anyone we choose - never bother about who our ancestors
really were. All we have to do is cheat a little.

Hugh