Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:34:01 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>> Those who make the rules for genealogy.
>>>
>>>And that would be who?
>>
>>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US.
>
>Who elected them, or gave them any authority over anyone who is not a
>member of their organization (which so far as I know is pretty small)?

Who said they had any authority over anyone? They have recommended a
set of standards. 

>The National Geographic Society doesn't get to make rules for
>geography in this country either, despite the high sounding name.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Of course it is semantics.  The argument is about what the word
>"genealogy" means.  That cannot be anything OTHER than a semantics
>argument.

Catch up with the thread. I gave up on the literal term several posts
back. I don' care what you call it.
>
>>>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.
>
>Which is why we've seen statistics recently that a third of all
>"white" Americans have an African-American ancestor, and if you
>eliminate those of us whose presumed ancestors all came over on the
>boats after the civil war, the percentage is probably a bit higher.
>In the South, probably a lot higher - but I doubt if many white
>Southern families will reflect this genetic reality in their
>"certainty".
>
>>>> 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.
>
>They aren't (at least by your standards).  Live with it.

I do. Lots of people are neither honest nor competent.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>I spend quite a lot of time bothering about who other people's
>ancestors are, not just my own.  The history is at least as
>interesting.  It doesn't really matter to me whether they are my
>ancestors or someone else's.  Genealogy serves as a motivation and as
>a focus on which to study anyone's story, regardless of what the
>answers are, or even if there are any answers at all.

That's a different tune from the one you hav been singing.

John Doe and Mary Roe had a son, William. William was adopted by Jack
and Jill Hill. The ideal, and openly honest, way to show this is to
show ALL the facts. To show Jack and Jill as the parents of William,
without indicating the real parents, if known, is a lie. That
characterization does not change if we didn't know William was
adopted. But, there is a difference between deliberate dishonesty and
not knowing better. Ignorance is okay - a lie is not.

Hugh