In our last episode, <47b851c4.5237220@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, 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. The issue was whether genealogy should proceed as if pedigreeing a prize sow. There was, of course, no ability to do such a thing with any degree of confidence until late in the 20th century, while genealogy --- by that name --- has proceeded in other ways in at least the six centuries that went before. You pose a false choice: it is not genetics or fraud. Historic, social, and legal facts are facts, so much as DNA is. Lands, title, surname, caste and class, trades and tools, and much else has passed for centuries without anyone doing a cheek swab or knowing what to do with one if they had. That was not fraud or whim. We know the presumption of Western common law, that the husband of the mother is the father of the child does not, in many cases, coincide with genetics --- now that genetic facts can be tried. Rarely is maternity an issue, but --- so it is written --- even Solomon tried such a case. For most common folk, for most of human history, the facts were never tried in courts --- and it is hard to say what evidence courts might have admitted, since many times even the mother was not sure of the biologic truth, even if she alone did know whether there were any grounds for doubt. Yet children were born. They took the names of the men they called father. They learned his trade or rejected it. They took their place in order of inheritance for his lands, titles, tools, and chattels. That is history, and it is the history with which genealogy has been concerned from the time the word genealogy entered the English language until just the last couple of decades. Now it is true that genetic information has some medical application. But for most of human history there was neither remedy or prophylaxis for genetic diseases. Information on genetic parentage would have been medically useless to our ancestors if they had it. The questions they could answer were such as "Who shall have Jack's bellows and anvil now that he is dead?" And they did not need DNA to find those answers. Is it really up to us to determine whether they decided rightly or wrongly because our DNA test now shows that Jack's boy was not Jack's? Of course when you are entertaining picking one of five men with a given surname to celebrate as your ancestor, just because they are the ones that show up on the census, you are not doing pedigree. But you are not doing historical genealogy either. You don't get pick your history any more than you get to pick your pedigree. Social facts and legal facts are facts as much a genetic facts. From now forward, we have a chance to make them all coincide if we desire to do so. But we cannot work that choice, if we make it, in reverse: we cannot change the award of Jack's legacy no matter how well DNA proves that the boy who got his hammer was not his biological son. We can also choose to ignore the biological facts, except in the very few cases and limited circumstances in which they are relevant to some medical issue. That is we can choose to proceed as people did when they had no choice: to make place for bastards and orphans and yard children. 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. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 337 days to go.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:27:58 -0600, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: >In our last episode, <47b851c4.5237220@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, 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 importance 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