to Pete Apple, There were two items that you mentioned in your post on the Itawamba County list that caught my attention. Please don't take this the wrong way...but... in doing research in genealogy I personally have run across many published family trees and lineages that are really amazing...they stretch a particular family back to Adam or at least Noah before the Ark. Upon closer inspection, it appears that the "genealogist" was pulling wishes and dreams together, rather than facts in the hopes of getting his or her line back as far as possible. Why do people feel that this is the only goal of family research? It baffles me. I personally do not put much faith or trust in these "family histories" and really feel they do more harm than good. The harm is when, in a rush to prove these fantastical theories..others are led down a long and winding path of lies. Research should not be a bunch of internet short cuts. The best approach is to start with oneself, work backwards, carefully, and write down only facts. I've been on a Scottish genealogy list for a while now, and squirm every time I see a new researcher, eager to find a lost Scottish king, with requisite clan kilt, coat of armor and the like. In truth, most from the area being researched were the poorest of the poor coal miners and the like and would laugh in their graves to see their ancestors "constructing" such regal histories for them. Anyway, I hope I don't sound too cynical. It really is best to determine the truth, be proud of it, and forget the fantasies, unless they too are really the truth. Please don't "construct" family histories...research them. -Beryl Reid

Beryl - I must say that I understand what you are saying - Let me simply point out that in my experience, theories constructed from secondary sources have been a tremendous help to me in locating documentation. I have, in fact documented a significant portion of my research by using this method. If the theory turns out to be someone's dream, then I will be able to document that it is only a dream and not worthy to include in a family genealogy! Pete Apple. ----- Original Message ----- From: Beryl <breid@billerica.mec.edu> To: <MSITAWAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:10 PM Subject: [MSITAWAM-L] On Constructing Theories > to Pete Apple, > > There were two items that you mentioned in your post on the Itawamba County > list that caught my attention. > > Please don't take this the wrong way...but... > > in doing research in genealogy I personally have run across many published > family trees and lineages that are really amazing...they stretch a > particular family back to Adam or at least Noah before the Ark. Upon closer > inspection, it appears that the "genealogist" was pulling wishes and dreams > together, rather than facts in the hopes of getting his or her line back as > far as possible. Why do people feel that this is the only goal of family > research? It baffles me. I personally do not put much faith or trust in > these "family histories" and really feel they do more harm than good. > > The harm is when, in a rush to prove these fantastical theories..others are > led down a long and winding path of lies. Research should not be a bunch of > internet short cuts. The best approach is to start with oneself, work > backwards, carefully, and write down only facts. > > I've been on a Scottish genealogy list for a while now, and squirm every > time I see a new researcher, eager to find a lost Scottish king, with > requisite clan kilt, coat of armor and the like. In truth, most from the > area being researched were the poorest of the poor coal miners and the like > and would laugh in their graves to see their ancestors "constructing" such > regal histories for them. > > Anyway, I hope I don't sound too cynical. It really is best to determine the > truth, be proud of it, and forget the fantasies, unless they too are really > the truth. > > Please don't "construct" family histories...research them. > > -Beryl Reid >