On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. I would have personally some problem with associating a society and knowledge. While the society (whatever it is and whatever the purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of publishing data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not a monopoly. A federation of societies is usually a better group to define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies or federations equivalent, they work better when they are independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy software authors in our case). So, even if the NGS can set some standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal "authority", even at a national level. >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. >From genetics studies I have seen and my own feeling from what the records show, a typical rate for babies born out of weblock in Quebec before the 1960s would be 1 to 2%, i.e. 1 out of 10 people making a male line 10 generations back will get the wrong male ancestor. The rate in New England and Virginia should be similar when records exist, i.e. in small societies where the marriage is compulsory, there is a small rate of biologically illegitimate babies. And in larger societies, when people can't be checked and where there are much more foreigners, the rate is higher. This is why genealogy is not genetics. You have to believe in the documents. If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke the line. >70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >considerably more certain than that. Actually, it could be around 99%. But even with 99%, you must accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes. Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard - /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ |\ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier > <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: > >> Eagle@bellsouth.net (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. > Who are they? And who appointed them? -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

In article <-7adnfVFJNGbWynanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@rcn.net>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: > Robert Melson wrote: >> In article <47b2f854.4787453@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, >> Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: >> >>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >>><dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >>>>one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >>>>information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >>>>The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >>>>allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >>>>information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >>>>will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >>>>family history that may help you find your ancestors. >>>>What is genealogy? >>>>Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >>>>history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >>>>tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >>>>includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >>>>children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >>>>Why is genealogy important? >>>>We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >>>>order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >>>>where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >>>>relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >>>>ancestor.... >>>> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs >>> >>>Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >>> >>>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >>>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >>>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >>> >>>Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >>>are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. >>> >>>Hugh >>> >> >> Y'all can call it whatever-the-hell you want; really makes no >> nevermind, nohow. What I do, and call genealogy because it's >> a commonly understood term, combines elements of both history >> and bloodlines, but has room for the rare adoptee. That I >> choose to call it genealogy changes nothing about what it is >> that I do, it merely applies a useful label to the activity. >> As Alfred Korzybski famously said, "the name is not the thing; >> the map is not the territory." We could as easily call >> whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are >> agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what "fribbling" >> consists of, we're able to discuss it and exchange ideas >> and information about it, even though the details of MY >> definition differ from yours - it's that area where the >> definitions intersect that's important and that makes it >> possible for us to exchange our views regarding "fribbling", >> "fribblers" and "fribblology". >> >> So, let's not get ourselves wrapped around the axle here. >> >> Semantic Ol' Bob >> > > > Fine, so long as what _you_ call a fribble isn't what _I_ > call a flippit. > > (g) > > Cheryl > > "... so long as we are agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what 'fribbling' consists of ..." No two individuals' definitions of _anything_ are in complete agreement - we're able to communicate because those definitions intersect to some greater or lesser degree as a result of shared culture or experience or any of a host of things. I suppose what I object to in this discussion is the attempt to narrowly define an activity that probably has as many definitions as there are people engaged in it. What I do and choose to call genealogy for convenience is not the same thing YOU do and call by the same name, although there are certainly common elements to both - the area where our definitions intersect. Who, then, is right? Or are we both right? I think the latter. Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

"Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > My attempts at representing information from an 18th century estate > map on modern satellite images from Google Earth is shown at > http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/godolphinmanor.htm. The area represented > is in the parish of Crowan in Cornwall, UK. > > Regards: Roger Donne Thanks for your example, Roger. Static jpeg images, customized with overlays, is pretty much the way that I've been going up to now also. It works well but I've become interested in moving beyond that and using KML to integrate my data with a geographic browser like Google Earth. I think that doing so will help provide people with a better sense of location and scale. Being able to zoom in and out and 'fly around' the area of interest seems to give a better feel for the geography.

Mike Williams <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote: > The Maps API tutorial got so popular that it broke the bandwidth limits > and had to be moved to a different ISP: > > http://econym.googlepages.com/index.htm > > The XML file is here: > > http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/familymap.xml > > I found that the hard part was actually finding the locations. Since > much of the data was collected from hand written documents, some of > which are over 200 years old, there are transcription errors. Some of > the original information was obtained from illiterate individuals and > uses strange spelling. Many of the streets no longer exist. Some of the > towns have changed their names, e.g. "Layton with Warbreck" is now > "Blackpool". Some of the county boundaries have changed, e.g. modern > geocoders can't find "Bowness, Westmorland" because it's now > in Cumbria. Thank you, Mike. I'll study those references. I have most of my locations, so that's not a problem for me. I agree that getting them is not easy but I've make it part of my work routine to get location information whenever I do family history research. I agree that one has to always be on the lookout for changing names and boundaries. One of the worst cases of confusion I've ever come across is in Canton, OH, USA. The city of Canton has always had numbered streets, like 3rd Street NE, etc. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the City changed the street that separated the North streets from the south Streets. This created a situation where one of my family landmarks that was located on E. 2nd ST. is now on 5th St. NE. The building didn't move of course. What happened is that all the numbered street names changed. I'm sure there must be people working with Canton locations even now that don't know this and think that an address from the 19th century still matches the same current address. It doesn't. Always expect the unexpected with family history is my motto. :)

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Another neat trick is if you happen to have an old map of an area. If > you scan it, you can use it as an overlay in Google Earth (you have to > fiddle about a bit in Google Earth to locate, rotate and stretch the > map to the right scale and orientation). It can be helpful when you > are trying to show how different it was "back then" (e.g. a farm in > what is now a housing estate). When you are displaying an overlay, > then a slider bar appears at the bottom of the Places menu to control > whether you see the normal Google Earth image, the overlay or (the > best part) a blending of both which is useful for comparing the > differences. > > Here's an overlay I experimented with, showing part of Brisbane in > 1943: > > http://www.chapelhill.homeip.net/FamilyHistory/Photos/test/Brisbane-194 > 3.kmz > > Kerry That overlay idea is really cool too. You're giving me some great ideas. Many thanks! Mardon

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >Eagle@bellsouth.net (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. >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. 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. > >Augustus Caesar was adopted by his great uncle Julius in to the gens >(note the term) Julia. His dynasty was called the Julian dynasty. >Though adopted, he was legally a member of that gens. A genealogy >that doesn't recognize that, in favor of "bloodlines" runs counter to >the etymology of the word "genealogy". > >>Should that person change families by >>any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the >>apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do >>you call the original status if not genealogy? > >You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that >is important 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. > >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 distinguishing nomenclature. is >>totally unacceptable. > >That is an assumption, not a conclusion. And your's is an opinion worth exactly what I paid for it. Hugh

In our last episode, <47b4aabd.29643845@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier ><lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >>Eagle@bellsouth.net (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? >>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. > 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 relationship strong than "possibly" to biological paternity has always been a myth. >>Augustus Caesar was adopted by his great uncle Julius in to the gens >>(note the term) Julia. His dynasty was called the Julian dynasty. >>Though adopted, he was legally a member of that gens. A genealogy >>that doesn't recognize that, in favor of "bloodlines" runs counter to >>the etymology of the word "genealogy". >> >>>Should that person change families by >>>any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the >>>apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do >>>you call the original status if not genealogy? >> >>You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that >>is important 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. You'd have to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of social institutions to call them lies. Social and economic relationships are just as "real" as genetic ones, and argueably, more important for the survivability of mankind. >> >>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 distinguishing 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. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 340 days to go.

My attempts at representing information from an 18th century estate map on modern satellite images from Google Earth is shown at http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/godolphinmanor.htm. The area represented is in the parish of Crowan in Cornwall, UK. Regards: Roger Donne "Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A43B2D0161AEmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > I'm in the process of creating a KML file to identify all of my important > family history locations. For people not familiar with KML, it's Keyhole > Markup Language, something akin to HTML or XML but it's used in > conjunction > with geographic browsers like Google Earth. > > My plan is to start with only Placemarks but add images later on. Has > anyone done this? I'm especially interested in hearing from anyone who > has > shared their KML file(s) publicly as I plan to do. A URL for such a file > would be great. I'd love to take a look at what others have already done > along these lines. > > Thanks, Mardon

Robert Melson wrote: > In article <47b2f854.4787453@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > >>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >><dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >>>one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >>>information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >>>The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >>>allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >>>information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >>>will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >>>family history that may help you find your ancestors. >>>What is genealogy? >>>Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >>>history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >>>tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >>>includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >>>children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >>>Why is genealogy important? >>>We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >>>order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >>>where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >>>relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >>>ancestor.... >>> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs >> >>Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >> >>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >> >>Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >>are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. >> >>Hugh >> > > Y'all can call it whatever-the-hell you want; really makes no > nevermind, nohow. What I do, and call genealogy because it's > a commonly understood term, combines elements of both history > and bloodlines, but has room for the rare adoptee. That I > choose to call it genealogy changes nothing about what it is > that I do, it merely applies a useful label to the activity. > As Alfred Korzybski famously said, "the name is not the thing; > the map is not the territory." We could as easily call > whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are > agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what "fribbling" > consists of, we're able to discuss it and exchange ideas > and information about it, even though the details of MY > definition differ from yours - it's that area where the > definitions intersect that's important and that makes it > possible for us to exchange our views regarding "fribbling", > "fribblers" and "fribblology". > > So, let's not get ourselves wrapped around the axle here. > > Semantic Ol' Bob > Fine, so long as what _you_ call a fribble isn't what _I_ call a flippit. (g) Cheryl

In article <47b2f854.4787453@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" > <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >>one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >>information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >>The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >>allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >>information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >>will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >>family history that may help you find your ancestors. >>What is genealogy? >>Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >>history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >>tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >>includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >>children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >>Why is genealogy important? >>We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >>order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >>where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >>relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >>ancestor.... >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs > > Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. > > The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an > excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in > genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. > > Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs > are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > > Hugh > Y'all can call it whatever-the-hell you want; really makes no nevermind, nohow. What I do, and call genealogy because it's a commonly understood term, combines elements of both history and bloodlines, but has room for the rare adoptee. That I choose to call it genealogy changes nothing about what it is that I do, it merely applies a useful label to the activity. As Alfred Korzybski famously said, "the name is not the thing; the map is not the territory." We could as easily call whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what "fribbling" consists of, we're able to discuss it and exchange ideas and information about it, even though the details of MY definition differ from yours - it's that area where the definitions intersect that's important and that makes it possible for us to exchange our views regarding "fribbling", "fribblers" and "fribblology". So, let's not get ourselves wrapped around the axle here. Semantic Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > In message of 14 Feb, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: > > >>Peter J Seymour wrote: >> >>>I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an >>>unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It >>>typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't >>>figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. >>>The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. >> >>At the beginning of the GEDCOM there should be an identification >>of the program that created it. That program's documentation >>is the place to look. If it was hand-edited, the person who >>created it is the one to ask. >> >>If both of those are unavailable, post a few representative samples. > > > I am getting more and more uncomfortable about this use of GEDCOM files. > > If you are taking in information, in a GEDCOM file for instance, from > another person, you may consider that their research methods are well > known and their word on something is almost as good as a lookup from > some primary documents. > > But for the bulk of GEDCOMs you do not know this. Does the originator > even say where he (or she) found the information? Are sources includes > in the GEDCOM? Are they good sources? In any case you should endeavour > to check their sources by some means to satisfy yourself that the > information was valid. > > So either you have well researched information from someone you know to > be a good researcher and you can ask them what they mean. Or you have > checked it out yourself. In either case you must be able to find very > easily what 'FREE' referred to. If you can't find any source for FREE > or anything else like that, just leave it out. > > But adding someone's GEDCOM without some verification of the data is > genealogical suicide. (Perhaps all this copying of GEDCOMs around the > internet will be a means to the over-population problem? :-) ) > Quite. The original question was a simple technical one relating to the meaning of a gedcom tag. I wasn't meaning to imply anything about genealogical practice. Peter

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:50 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:09:56 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) >wrote: > >>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. > >I'm not sure what you are getting at there -- it seems contradictory. That was not the intent. >You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines -- but >wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. I think genealogy, as I use the term, traces bloodlines and can include all sorts of family history as you outlined. I'm sorry we get tied up in semantics when the distinction should be so easy. One example: If a man and woman adopted a child that neither parented, showing them as the apparent birth parents would be family history, not "genealogy". All sorts of social engineers want to blur the distinction between "birth family" and "legal family" and "family". That's sweet but it doesn't change the bloodlines. My problem is not with what a person wishes to show, it's about being honest enough to admit and make a distinction between the categories. DNA changes the game plan. Lots of "genealogists" whose line now descends from Charlemagne or William the Conquerer will have to restart their line about 1790 as a result of DNA tests. Speking of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth..... Hugh

In article <W9idnfZPVtVAzy7anZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@rcn.net>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Haines Brown wrote: > >> Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: >> >> >>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >>><dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >>> >>>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >>>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >>>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >>> >>>Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >>>are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. >> >> >> Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an important tool used >> in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is >> referred to as an "auxiliary science". >> >> Your comment about the importance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines >> struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people >> (improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood >> relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test? >> Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters. > >Blood lines are the litmus test because non-blood lines such >as foster parents and godparents aren't generally >responsible for the genetic makeup (or defects) of you or >your siblings. > >Even before DNA, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" >and it was called "in the blood". Genealogy, IOW. > >Family History is a term that was in the >not-yet-forgotten-past used to mean one included tidbits of >the "She won 27 blue ribbons at the county fair in 1978" or >"he won the greased-pig-catching contest at the Sunday >School picnic in 1954" sort. Color tidbits, in other words, >which are nice to have but unimportant in providing >provenance for one's existance. > >And, in a broader sense, we're all the "family of man." Hi cuz! The provenance question ... we may disagree. Now, if you mean that a document describing my ancestor Moses (no, not _that_ one :-) doesn't provide proof of my own existence, then agreed. Whether he was indeed in a grain business in Bureau County, IL, in the 1870s and 1880s, has little to do with whether I exist, much less am related to him. But whether _he_ existed, I think, is greatly improved by finding a source which gives a biography of him and his wife. A birth certificate alone only shows that someone with that name was born. We don't know that they lived to reproduce, or that the Moses Grumbine I find a birth certificate for in PA 1843 is the same guy who got married (according to a marriage certificate) in IL 1868. With the family history information about him, however, the two are connected. Granted my chances are better with rare names like Grumbine, and I'm blessed with a bunch of rare names in my tree. Still, I'm always happier to find historical documents and history of the family information than to have only a string of birth and marriage certificates. Plus, my interest is not simply the begats, nor even the stories about what my direct ancestors did. I'm coming from the side of having an interest in world history and my ancestors are an excuse to learn more detail of what was going on in their times and places. Further, some thought about why they might have left where the were for where they went. And so on. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:32:26 -0600, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: >In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the >lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > >> I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is >> limited to "genes", hence the name. > >Of course not. Genealogy *historically* antedated any knowledge of genes by >about six centuries. Let's not get our shorts bunched up over semantics - let's cut to the chase (sorta). What terms would you use to distinguish bloodlines from wannabes - perhaps Assumed (to allow for the 30%) Biological Descendatns and Fairy Tales (no pun intended)? A person descends from the union of a man and woman. That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most authorities (at least in the US) to be his genealogy. Should that person change families by any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do you call the original status if not genealogy? Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is totally unacceptable. Hugh

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Well, I haven't been doing it for my own family history, but we > publish KMZ files (the compressed form of KML) to show the locations > of cemeteries we've photographed. This is a small cemetery at > Fassifern near Boonah, Queensland. > > http://www.chapelhill.homeip.net/FamilyHistory/Photos/Fassifern-Boonah/ > GoogleEarth.kmz > > In our case we don't embed photos into the KML itself (because we have > many photos for each cemetery) but simply provide a bit of text > commentary and a URL to the photos themselves. > > Kerry This is a really neat way of doing it too. I had't thought about creating a unique KMZ file for each location. This would allow me to link location references within my html files to the KMZ file for that location. A user click on the link would show the spot on Google Earth (providing of course the user has associated the file extension KMZ/KML with Google Earth or another geographic browser.) Thanks, Kerry.

Wasn't it Mardon who wrote: > >Thank you, Mike. Your approach is very nice. I like it a lot. I would >like to build something similar, so I looked through the source >statements of the imap.htm file and found the following references: > > // This Javascript is based on code provided by the > // Blackpool Community Church Javascript Team > // http://www.commchurch.freeserve.co.uk/ > // http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/googlemaps/ > >Unfortunately, neither of these URLs seem to be working. Would it be >possible to get a sample of the "familymap.xml" file? Is there anything >else I'd need to know in order to get a similar thing working on my >website? (www.ErblandBrown.org) The Maps API tutorial got so popular that it broke the bandwidth limits and had to be moved to a different ISP: http://econym.googlepages.com/index.htm The XML file is here: http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/familymap.xml I found that the hard part was actually finding the locations. Since much of the data was collected from hand written documents, some of which are over 200 years old, there are transcription errors. Some of the original information was obtained from illiterate individuals and uses strange spelling. Many of the streets no longer exist. Some of the towns have changed their names, e.g. "Layton with Warbreck" is now "Blackpool". Some of the county boundaries have changed, e.g. modern geocoders can't find "Bowness, Westmorland" because it's now in Cumbria. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

Mike Williams <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Wasn't it Mardon who wrote: >>I'm in the process of creating a KML file to identify all of my >>important family history locations. For people not familiar with KML, >>it's Keyhole Markup Language, something akin to HTML or XML but it's >>used in conjunction with geographic browsers like Google Earth. > > I use XML rather than KML so that I can filter the information as > required, for example to just display the locations where one > individual lived. Like this: > > http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/imap.htm?indi=121 > > The location information for all individuals is in a single XML file. > imap.htm reads the corresponding entries in that file, displays the > information, and centres and zooms the map so that all the locations > for that individual are in view. > > My main family tree website calls that map in an <iframe>, like this: > > http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/ind121.html Thank you, Mike. Your approach is very nice. I like it a lot. I would like to build something similar, so I looked through the source statements of the imap.htm file and found the following references: // This Javascript is based on code provided by the // Blackpool Community Church Javascript Team // http://www.commchurch.freeserve.co.uk/ // http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/googlemaps/ Unfortunately, neither of these URLs seem to be working. Would it be possible to get a sample of the "familymap.xml" file? Is there anything else I'd need to know in order to get a similar thing working on my website? (www.ErblandBrown.org) Thanks, Mardon

Interesting discussion. It shows that we all find it difficult to become aware of our basic assumptions and to view them at all critically. That is, in this thread there are disagreements that seem to arise from our employing different axioms, and to the extent that is so, it makes progress in the debate or its eventual resolution very unlikely. Let me try to illustrate what I mean by pointing to some contentious axioms here (I'm not questioning the need for axioms, but only insist that we be aware of them and know when they require justification). For example, there is the the issue of the etymology of the word "genealogy". It ultimately goes back to the Latin genus, which meant family or race (social classification based on physical characteristics, I suppose, such as a race or breed of dogs). The issue is not, in my opinion, whether DNA defines lineage, for that view obviously post-dates the subject of genealogy, but two other issues: a) the extent to which genetic inheritance is significant in defining who we are, b) the nature of the "family" and its importance for defining the character of the children raised within it (note that these two issues might be contradictory). Both are fundamental and not easily dealt with. Just for example, a person inherits the probability of certain physical characteristics (blue eyes, etc.) as a result of genetic inheritance, but I assume these physical characteristics do not say much of anything significant about us. Views to the contrary we tend to dismiss as racist. We are unique individuals and at the same time we are a function of the circumstances and culture into which we happen to be born and in which we live. This duality (personality/socialization) is often conveyed by suggesting that we are unique social beings (the term "social being" arguably means that the duality of freedom and determination is not contradictory if the individual is seen as a constrained emergent process rather than as an empirically defined "entity"). If genealogy (let me assume) has fundamentally to do with significant social relations, then a very important relation seems to be the society and culture into which a person is born and lives. Not only does socialization now entail much more than the family, but even the "family" may not happen to share genes or be defined in biological terms (a mating couple and their offspring). The family can also be defined as a unit of cohabitation in which there is a mutuality and caring relations. Given the high percentage of single mothers and with the growing importance of same-gender marriages, the family is no longer primarily an institution for social reproduction, but instead, I suggest, offers a framework in which there can be immediate caring relationships. But even this function may be in jeopardy. China's booming economy depends very much on migrant labor, and what this means is that a husband and wife have very little physical contact (the official discouragement of having more than one child must surely contribute). For a significant percentage of people in China and at the core of her economy, the family has really ceased to exist (interesting, given the importance of Confucian cultural traditions with their fixation on the family). This is made possible in part because schools there do very well in primary socialization. The disconnected individual who floats freely about in society without any long-term relationships of fundamental importance seems to be where the world as a whole is headed. I see (fundamentalist) churches trying to step in to offer an alternative unit of primary socialization (I just confirmed this point with a fundamentalist minister who just happened into the room, and incidentally she would redefine "family" in non-biological terms). Approaching this issue in another way, we often are interested in our "roots" or nationality (natio - place of birth), because we believe this somehow lends us an identity and distinguishes us. This assumption is seldom looked at critically, even by more introspective historians. How can the accident of birth or family heritage serve to identity us? Surely we are unique and freely self-determined individuals, not a mere artifact of circumstance. This gets into some very challenging issues, but my own take is that empirical circumstance constrains the probability distribution of the possible outcomes of our development. That is, what we are is not unequivocally determined, but only constrained, by our surroundings, for we are an emergent process. As such, while our "roots" may represent some influence, they don't define what we are. I mention this only to illustrate the issue, not to propose or defend an obviously problematic hypothesis. However, it does have some implication for genealogy. If my identity (surely as a person rather than simply physiological traits which I hope we agree are rather unimportant) is constrained by my parents, and theirs by their own parents, the fact that this generational relationship is not one of an unequivocal ("mechanical") determinism, but a constrained probability distribution of possible outcomes, means that it quickly (2-3 generations?) forgets its past. That is, family descent is an emergent process that quickly frees itself of its own past. This is why the meteorologist can't predict the weather much beyond five days, for weather is also an emergent process. If there is any truth in all of this, it offers an answer to issue (b). What are the constraints of circumstance that define the probability distribution of what we can become? Today we are much more socialized outside a hypothetical stable family than in the past: we typically have serial polygamy (divorces); our children experience a significant part of their development in school or in front of the TV; and with both parents working and neither responsible for practical training, their contribution to socialization shrinks in relation to other institutions. When it comes to adults, they often live in "bedroom communities" where the household has a negligible relation with the community in which it happens to be located and with their place of employment. In other words, while family still has some importance for primary socialization, it has limited influence over the kind of person we ultimately become; the significance of the family has shrunk. And, of course, I am here speaking of family as a unit of cohabitation (regular intercourse), mutuality (interdependence) and caring (loving relations), and not necessarily as a biological unit. Not only has a family been significantly displaced in its socialization function by other and larger social units (which importantly have greater potential than the family), but whether the family happens also to be a reproductive (biological) unit seems incidental. In U.S. society it is generally the only social unit in which there can be a caring (loving) relation. That such a caring relation is found primarily in an (arguably) marginal and underdeveloped social institution should be a source of worry for us. I'm presenting a case here not so much to persuade you of its truth, but merely to illustrate that a commitment to genealogy may rest on shaky philosophical grounds. Of course it can be a fascinating hobby in which one plays the role of detective and historian. Of course it is a useful auxiliary science in historiography, for real and fictive family relations do play a role in shaping the course of history. However, the suggestion that lineage is meaningful for the individual today does raise the question: just how? And the answer is elusive. In my last message I hinted that it may be significant only for a ruling class, but for those of us not in the ruling class (and in empirical terms, even for them these days), the tracing of one's lineage may have lost any significance. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:32:26 -0600, Lars Eighner ><usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: > >>In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the >>lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: >> >>> I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is >>> limited to "genes", hence the name. >> >>Of course not. Genealogy *historically* antedated any knowledge of genes by >>about six centuries. > >Let's not get our shorts bunched up over semantics - let's cut to the >chase (sorta). > >What terms would you use to distinguish bloodlines from wannabes - How about "bloodlines"? Of course part of the issue is why one should care to distinguish same >A person descends from the union of a man and woman. Usually, though that likely soon will not always be the case. Then your idealized paradigm is destroyed no matter how much you prefer otherwise. >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? 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. Augustus Caesar was adopted by his great uncle Julius in to the gens (note the term) Julia. His dynasty was called the Julian dynasty. Though adopted, he was legally a member of that gens. A genealogy that doesn't recognize that, in favor of "bloodlines" runs counter to the etymology of the word "genealogy". >Should that person change families by >any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the >apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do >you call the original status if not genealogy? You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that is important 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? 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 distinguishing nomenclature. is >totally unacceptable. That is an assumption, not a conclusion. lojbab