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. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

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." Cheryl

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". KB1GRM de WA4QZU... I'll accept that. > >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. I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is limited to "genes", hence the name. Family History, as I see it, has become the collective term for people who depart from genetic links to include any person they wish to include for any reason. I think the terms should remain separate and distinct without me praising one and dissing the other. Let genealogy keep the restrictions and others do as they wish - but note departure from genealogy so as not to confuse people. Of course events are also family history to anyone - but, hopefully I have given a clear explanation of the difference Hugh