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. You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines -- but wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. If two unrelated families from the same village in one country emigrate to another, settle in the same town and go into a business partnership that lasts for several generations, that is surely part of the family history, even if it departs from bloodlines and has nothing to do with genealogy. The business partnership is part of the family history even though it is not part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is not. > >Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > >Hugh -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:50 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > The business partnership is part of the family history even though it is not > part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with > bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is not. Not often we agree but we do here. There is a big distinction between the family history and genealogy. Family history is about the history of a family which inevitably touches on the entire picture, social conditions, the lot. Genealogy is the outline of the picture only: names, dates and places but nothing about what made the members of the family who and what they were. Most researchers start off as genealogists and some remain as such while others broaden their research and become family historians which can, for some broaden further and they become social historians.

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