On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:03 GMT, Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> 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. > >In the culture in which I happen to live, the term "family" is sometimes >not restricted to blood lines, but can also include god-children, >ex-wives, step-children, spiritual brothers, etc. That is, the word >"family" can refer to any close social affinity and is not limited to >blood relationships. For example, a mature neighboring woman was >expected to be in loco parentis for your children (to monitor, assist, >advise, punish, etc.). Such a relation was apparently common when my >acquaintances were children living in an urban environment. It >suggests that a narrow definition of family might deprive the family of >some of its social significance. > >Another example. In early Medieval Europe, poor children would be >transferred to the household of a better-off family, where they would be >raised and cared for until they reached maturity, and a close >relationship even after that would persist. The term "uncle" could be >used to refer to a non-blood-related older male. To some extent this has >carried over into modern times. I know of a person (19th century U.S.) >whose mother died, and because his father lacked work and had to travel >to find it, the child was dumped upon a farming household for a period >of indenture until his maturity. The lad was part of the farmer's >household/family. When he did reach maturity and acquired his own >household, the census listed two non-related members in it. > >Another example. Early African "slavery" is distinguished from the >proper anthropological definition of slavery in that the war captive was >incorporated into the victor's household and became a real, albeit >lower-status, member of that household. Properly a slave is in principle >not a member of any social community such as a household. As in the >early Medieval Europe example, the more powerful are able to increase >their economic power by artificially enlarging their households (not to >mention doing it through the multiplication of wives). > >In other words, the bloodline restriction for the notion of family seems >more prescriptive than descriptive. What is there about bloodline that >privileges it as a kind of social relation? > >I can think of some reasons why, which have to do with social class. The >early Medieval elite family had charisma that passed along though the >bloodline and was attached to their name, so lineage was important. The >Germanic naming system combined the charismatic names of the two >families in marriage, so that it consisted of two elements. On the other >hand, non-elite had a much looser sense of family, only acquiring a >family name, say, in the 16th century. Even up to quite modern times >there were individuals without family identity (no last name). In >societies in which ruling class power (title or property) had to be kept >concentrated rather than diffused, rules of inheritance were imposed, >such as primogeniture or blood-line succession. So I wonder if a >bloodline prescription may not have a certain social class implication >to it. Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes, ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines". If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

In our last episode, <1eb6r313l78pk1r4n8l2b7bhq6r1m3l99p@4ax.com>, the lovely and talented Charlie Hoffpauir broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes, > ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines". This is completely false. "Genealogy" has been an English word since the 14th century. "Genes" and "genetics" are words that first occurred in the 20th century. All three words have related roots, meaning things such as "family," "tribe," and "nation," but but reckoning kinship by biology was clearly impossible in the 14th century, so "genealogy" could not have meant that. We know that reckoning paternity by marriage to the mother is biologically incorrect about 30% of the time, so if "genealogy" meant tracing bloodlines, clearly no one was doing genealogy until late in the 20th century. There are no DNA samples in old obituaries or on headstones or in birth or marriage records retrieved from dusty tomes in old courthouses. It is high time to reject the racist notions that genealogy is somehow genetic history. It is not. It never was. > If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use > something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 341 days to go.