I just returned from a trip to Georgia to do some geneological work on my husband's family STEPHENS and MCCULLERS. Only having a day to spare we thought with all the information we had that we could find cemeteries, plots, birth records, etc. easy. We met some of the nicest people at the courthouses and libraries in Early and Miller. As my husband would say, "Their mamas raised them right ... with lots of southern hospitality." In reality, we got a lot of information but were disillusioned because we still could not find where my husband's family was buried. And to add to the situation was the worst rain I have ever seen (but I am from New Mexico so I am not use to Georgia sprinkles). We did make several observations. In his family's case, no one was buried together in a family church or plot. It seems that gggfather was here and his wife over there,etc..... The whole experience brought to mind the following article. I hope you enjoy it. >SATIRICAL LINKS: NEW, IMPROVED GENEALOGY! >by Beth Maltbie Uyehara > >I have only been doing genealogy for a little while -- barely more than two >years -- but already I can see that there's lots of room for improvement. >If economics is called The Dismal Science, then genealogy has got to be >considered The Downright Morbid Science, (All those dead ancestors, for >starters. Give me a break!) Although the end results of our genealogical >efforts are gratifying, and produce cute little charts suitable for framing, >the methodology is tedious, annoying, hard on the eyes and time-consuming. > >The main problem with genealogy is that most of us are saddled with >uncooperative and generally poor-caliber ancestors. If we're going to >improve genealogy, then we need to improve our ancestors. > >Ancestral Upgrades > >I'm not suggesting that we trade in dear old g-g-g-g-whosiewhat for Marie >Antoinette or Napoleon. That's silly. What I am suggesting is that we >modestly upgrade those inconsiderate ancestors who hid in the coal cellar >when the census taker arrived, no doubt thinking he was the tax man; the >thoughtless ones who never bought land or left a forwarding address; who >"forgot" ( very funny, grandpa!) to post banns and have the kids christened. > >Surely there are "leftover ancestors" somewhere who have been neglected >despite having been compulsive record-keepers -- who left reams of diaries, >Bibles, deeds, wills, etc.. These poor neglected chaps would be delighted, >I'm sure, to be incorporated into some nice modern-day pedigree. Why >struggle with lackadaisical ancestors who obviously didn't care a fig about >us, when perfectly respectable, highly annotated ancestors are being totally >wasted! > >We see evidence of these well-behaved, but under-utilized ancestors all over >the place. They show up as the legible name on the census record, right >above the faded smudge we suspect might be great-great-grandpa. The sibling >whose every life achievement was recorded in minute detail in still-vivid >black ink --while his younger brother (the "birth ancestor" nature >unfortunately assigned us) barely made it into the margin of the family >Bible in No. 3 pencil! > >Ancestral Clip Art > >All of us have some old photos that we can't identify. Why are these always >the good-looking ones? I have a picture of my great-grandmother that must >have shattered the lens of that old wooden camera they used to photograph >her. I'm surprised the State of Ohio didn't ban photography for good when >that thing was printed. You look at it and wonder just how desperate >great-grandpa was to get married. How did our family find the will to >reproduce again after she came along? If ever there was a reason for a >family to pack it in genetically, this was it. The best explanation I can >come up with is that she must have had one heck of a good personality. And >of course, house lighting was pretty poor in those days...... and women wore >veils a lot. > >On the other hand, I've got old photos of beauties who would have wowed the >crowned heads of Europe, and not a clue as to who any of them might have >been. You see where this is leading? Let's establish a central photo >database of unclaimed good-lookin ancestors that we can all dip into. Who'd >know the difference? If someday, your own descendants should -- quite by >accident, of course -- get your photo mixed up with Marilyn Monroe's or >Clark Gable's, would you really object? Aren't you secretly hoping they >will? > >New Math > >For those sticklers who don't care to upgrade their ancestors, let's >establish some ground rules to handle ill-kept and/or offensive records. If >you can't read your ancestor's census entry, go three lines above it and see >if you can read that one. If not, continue back three lines at a time until >you come to a legible entry. When you finally find something you can read, >copy it out and footnote it thusly: "1870 Ohio census/Microfilm #whatever: >Rule of Three Back". And when you encounter, as I have, ancestors so poor in >basic arithmetic that they actually claimed a marriage date two years AFTER >the birth of their first child, you should correct the date of the marriage >to nine months prior to the birth. Don't you think they would have done the >same for you? > >Of course, if what you like is the challenge of genealogy, then feel free to >continue under the old rules. And, what the heck -- why not up the challenge >for your own descendants? For instance, take a lesson from George Foreman >and give all your kids the same first name. Take a lesson from my family, >and give the kids first/last-name-combinations that been used already -- at >random -- in three consecutive generations. Absolutely insist on soft marble >headstones, especially if you live in an area of rainy climate. Give it >some thought and I'm sure we can drive future generations crazy. > > > >==== WICLARK Mailing List ==== >Mail list for those searching their roots in Clark Co., WI > > > >