Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>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.

There are no rules.  It is a hobby.  Those who pur****t to make rules
are small-fry rulers of small ponds.  The fact that you have to limit
the claim to the US already shows this - you've said that the rules
used by 5% of the world's population takes precedence over that of 95%
of the world, in a domain where there is no particular reason to
consider any group to have inherent dominance over any other.

>>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).

There is nothing I can do about it; I didn't create the do***ents or
the laws that caused others to create the do***ents in that way.  Just
as there is nothing anyone in the past could do about similar
situations.   (or sometimes, when they could affect things, they chose
the fictional history).

What we usually trace in the "purist" version of genealogy is
do***entary history, and I know from personal experience that
do***entary history is "baloney (to use a kind word)".  So why should
I sup****t that version?

(That being said, I personally focus on the do***entary history, but
with the realization of the historian as to the limits of that
practice.  But I wouldn't call someone else's practices necessarily
wrong or inferior when they choose to do otherwise, as long as they
make it clear what they ARE doing).

>Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of
>being transmitted down family bloodlines.

So?

Legal authorities haven't necessarily cared about such things.  Thus
one must recognize that sometimes we can't have what we prefer.

>As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your
>Bob's Fables?

It is part of history that a chunk of people believed that story, and
to some extent it motivated their actions that affected history.  It
is arguable that the effect of the myth - even if false - was far
greater than the effect of any sort of genetic information about
Romulus and Remus's mother might provide.  

>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. 

Human beings are not mathematical objects, and stubbornly refuse to
follow rigorous laws.

>>You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that
>>is im****tant enough to have distinct terminology.
>>
>>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.

They aren't to you, but they might be to everyone else.  

I don't have enough ego to think that my opinion is privileged over
that of other except with respect to my own personal choices.

>>>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.

Of course.  As is yours.

lojbab