Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:27:58 -0600, Lars Eighner
<usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>In our last episode, <47b851c4.5237220@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, the
lovely
>and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing:
>
>> My problem, and that of so many, is: (1) fire, flood and war destroyed
>> many essential records (2) poor dirt farmers didn't leave much of a
>> trail.
>
>> I have every Sullivan in the 1790 census in NC. I have eliminated all
>> but 5 as possibly being the father of my gg grand. In theory I should
>> be able to choose one of the 5. But what if his father was not even
>> included in the 1790 census - and I know several Sullivans that were
>> not.
>
>> From this thread I gather several people would have no problem
>> selecting the father that looked best - whether he was right or wrong
>> does not matter. That's certainly one way to do it.
>
>I do not believe I have read a post in which anyone suggested any such
>thing.

Based on the wording and apparent philosophy, that is the impression I
got. I gather some posters consider social fatherhood the same, or a
replacement, of actual fatherhood. 

I find social "facts" to be about the least reliable of facts. They
are often hearsay, passed from generation to generation. Align 20
people in chairs and whisper a fact from one to the next all down the
line and discover how little resemblance there is at the end to the
original statement. Social facts are why 99% of all white USAers have
Indian blood but don't have black blood.

I'll delete to the last paragraph for purposes of my reply.

>You may call it a fraud all you want, but it
>is a truth that long served humanity well:  there is more of being a
father
>in hearts and minds than there is in testicles.

I agree with your statement. But the point is whether we are tracing
bloodlines or what is in our heart.

Adoptive parents love the adopted child as much, or perhaps even more,
than one of their own. There is no question.

But to deliberately say adoptive parents are the birth parents,
without noting the facts when known, is deception - nothing more and
nothing less. That is placing more im****tance on dishonesty than
honesty.

I am not saying which way a person should record his family history.
I'm saying that knowingly misleading others needs to be explained to
be honest. Why has openness and honesty suddenly become so reviled?

We don't have to lie because things are not the way we want them to
be. It appears that some disagree with me. C'est la vie.

Hugh