On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >family history that may help you find your ancestors. >What is genealogy? >Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >Why is genealogy important? >We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >ancestor.... > >http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs 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

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. > Without a historical context genealogy is little more than a meaningless list of names and dates. Who were these people being named? To keep the names and lose the history is rather like getting a package from Amazon and, being a philatelist, keeping the stamp and throwing away the book. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Interesting discussion. It shows that we all find it difficult to become aware of our basic assumptions and to view them at all critically. That is, in this thread there are disagreements that seem to arise from our employing different axioms, and to the extent that is so, it makes progress in the debate or its eventual resolution very unlikely. Let me try to illustrate what I mean by pointing to some contentious axioms here (I'm not questioning the need for axioms, but only insist that we be aware of them and know when they require justification). For example, there is the the issue of the etymology of the word "genealogy". It ultimately goes back to the Latin genus, which meant family or race (social classification based on physical characteristics, I suppose, such as a race or breed of dogs). The issue is not, in my opinion, whether DNA defines lineage, for that view obviously post-dates the subject of genealogy, but two other issues: a) the extent to which genetic inheritance is significant in defining who we are, b) the nature of the "family" and its importance for defining the character of the children raised within it (note that these two issues might be contradictory). Both are fundamental and not easily dealt with. Just for example, a person inherits the probability of certain physical characteristics (blue eyes, etc.) as a result of genetic inheritance, but I assume these physical characteristics do not say much of anything significant about us. Views to the contrary we tend to dismiss as racist. We are unique individuals and at the same time we are a function of the circumstances and culture into which we happen to be born and in which we live. This duality (personality/socialization) is often conveyed by suggesting that we are unique social beings (the term "social being" arguably means that the duality of freedom and determination is not contradictory if the individual is seen as a constrained emergent process rather than as an empirically defined "entity"). If genealogy (let me assume) has fundamentally to do with significant social relations, then a very important relation seems to be the society and culture into which a person is born and lives. Not only does socialization now entail much more than the family, but even the "family" may not happen to share genes or be defined in biological terms (a mating couple and their offspring). The family can also be defined as a unit of cohabitation in which there is a mutuality and caring relations. Given the high percentage of single mothers and with the growing importance of same-gender marriages, the family is no longer primarily an institution for social reproduction, but instead, I suggest, offers a framework in which there can be immediate caring relationships. But even this function may be in jeopardy. China's booming economy depends very much on migrant labor, and what this means is that a husband and wife have very little physical contact (the official discouragement of having more than one child must surely contribute). For a significant percentage of people in China and at the core of her economy, the family has really ceased to exist (interesting, given the importance of Confucian cultural traditions with their fixation on the family). This is made possible in part because schools there do very well in primary socialization. The disconnected individual who floats freely about in society without any long-term relationships of fundamental importance seems to be where the world as a whole is headed. I see (fundamentalist) churches trying to step in to offer an alternative unit of primary socialization (I just confirmed this point with a fundamentalist minister who just happened into the room, and incidentally she would redefine "family" in non-biological terms). Approaching this issue in another way, we often are interested in our "roots" or nationality (natio - place of birth), because we believe this somehow lends us an identity and distinguishes us. This assumption is seldom looked at critically, even by more introspective historians. How can the accident of birth or family heritage serve to identity us? Surely we are unique and freely self-determined individuals, not a mere artifact of circumstance. This gets into some very challenging issues, but my own take is that empirical circumstance constrains the probability distribution of the possible outcomes of our development. That is, what we are is not unequivocally determined, but only constrained, by our surroundings, for we are an emergent process. As such, while our "roots" may represent some influence, they don't define what we are. I mention this only to illustrate the issue, not to propose or defend an obviously problematic hypothesis. However, it does have some implication for genealogy. If my identity (surely as a person rather than simply physiological traits which I hope we agree are rather unimportant) is constrained by my parents, and theirs by their own parents, the fact that this generational relationship is not one of an unequivocal ("mechanical") determinism, but a constrained probability distribution of possible outcomes, means that it quickly (2-3 generations?) forgets its past. That is, family descent is an emergent process that quickly frees itself of its own past. This is why the meteorologist can't predict the weather much beyond five days, for weather is also an emergent process. If there is any truth in all of this, it offers an answer to issue (b). What are the constraints of circumstance that define the probability distribution of what we can become? Today we are much more socialized outside a hypothetical stable family than in the past: we typically have serial polygamy (divorces); our children experience a significant part of their development in school or in front of the TV; and with both parents working and neither responsible for practical training, their contribution to socialization shrinks in relation to other institutions. When it comes to adults, they often live in "bedroom communities" where the household has a negligible relation with the community in which it happens to be located and with their place of employment. In other words, while family still has some importance for primary socialization, it has limited influence over the kind of person we ultimately become; the significance of the family has shrunk. And, of course, I am here speaking of family as a unit of cohabitation (regular intercourse), mutuality (interdependence) and caring (loving relations), and not necessarily as a biological unit. Not only has a family been significantly displaced in its socialization function by other and larger social units (which importantly have greater potential than the family), but whether the family happens also to be a reproductive (biological) unit seems incidental. In U.S. society it is generally the only social unit in which there can be a caring (loving) relation. That such a caring relation is found primarily in an (arguably) marginal and underdeveloped social institution should be a source of worry for us. I'm presenting a case here not so much to persuade you of its truth, but merely to illustrate that a commitment to genealogy may rest on shaky philosophical grounds. Of course it can be a fascinating hobby in which one plays the role of detective and historian. Of course it is a useful auxiliary science in historiography, for real and fictive family relations do play a role in shaping the course of history. However, the suggestion that lineage is meaningful for the individual today does raise the question: just how? And the answer is elusive. In my last message I hinted that it may be significant only for a ruling class, but for those of us not in the ruling class (and in empirical terms, even for them these days), the tracing of one's lineage may have lost any significance. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

In article <47b2f854.4787453@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, 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 is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >>one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >>information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >>The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >>allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >>information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >>will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >>family history that may help you find your ancestors. >>What is genealogy? >>Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >>history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >>tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >>includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >>children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >>Why is genealogy important? >>We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >>order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >>where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >>relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >>ancestor.... >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs > > 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 > Y'all can call it whatever-the-hell you want; really makes no nevermind, nohow. What I do, and call genealogy because it's a commonly understood term, combines elements of both history and bloodlines, but has room for the rare adoptee. That I choose to call it genealogy changes nothing about what it is that I do, it merely applies a useful label to the activity. As Alfred Korzybski famously said, "the name is not the thing; the map is not the territory." We could as easily call whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what "fribbling" consists of, we're able to discuss it and exchange ideas and information about it, even though the details of MY definition differ from yours - it's that area where the definitions intersect that's important and that makes it possible for us to exchange our views regarding "fribbling", "fribblers" and "fribblology". So, let's not get ourselves wrapped around the axle here. Semantic Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford