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.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:16:41 -0600, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: >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? The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. > >>>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. 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. > >> 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. 70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are considerably more certain than that. >>>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. No, I expect people to be honest. I understand there are a number of liars around. That does not change the definition of a lie. >Social and economic relationships are just >as "real" as genetic ones, and argueably, more important for the >survivability of mankind. Then track them and lie all you wish. >>> >>>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. 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. Hugh

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

Eagle@bellsouth.net (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. There are no rules. It is a hobby. Those who purport to make rules are small-fry rulers of small ponds. The fact that you have to limit the claim to the US already shows this - you've said that the rules used by 5% of the world's population takes precedence over that of 95% of the world, in a domain where there is no particular reason to consider any group to have inherent dominance over any other. >>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). There is nothing I can do about it; I didn't create the documents or the laws that caused others to create the documents in that way. Just as there is nothing anyone in the past could do about similar situations. (or sometimes, when they could affect things, they chose the fictional history). What we usually trace in the "purist" version of genealogy is documentary history, and I know from personal experience that documentary history is "baloney (to use a kind word)". So why should I support that version? (That being said, I personally focus on the documentary history, but with the realization of the historian as to the limits of that practice. But I wouldn't call someone else's practices necessarily wrong or inferior when they choose to do otherwise, as long as they make it clear what they ARE doing). >Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of >being transmitted down family bloodlines. So? Legal authorities haven't necessarily cared about such things. Thus one must recognize that sometimes we can't have what we prefer. >As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your >Bob's Fables? It is part of history that a chunk of people believed that story, and to some extent it motivated their actions that affected history. It is arguable that the effect of the myth - even if false - was far greater than the effect of any sort of genetic information about Romulus and Remus's mother might provide. >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. Human beings are not mathematical objects, and stubbornly refuse to follow rigorous laws. >>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. They aren't to you, but they might be to everyone else. I don't have enough ego to think that my opinion is privileged over that of other except with respect to my own personal choices. >>>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. Of course. As is yours. lojbab