Madam; you asked, "...how do we stand in the blame department...."? Perhaps you, not atall, but many others are not so blame free. Your word "reflection" is well chosen and reveals exactly what we should do and how we should think; only through such mental exercises does an understanding of our family history move ahead, albeit but in little spurts and jumps. What we, as dedicated researchers, MUST NOT do, however, is render judgements as to ancestors' conduct through the use of our own views, mores, beliefs, "science" and even our moral standards. We have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual privilege of smiling upon or speaking of the actions of our predecessors as just or unjust, silly or sensible, prejudiced or without prejudice, fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, proper or improper, laughable or to be frowned upon, conscionable or unconscionable, indecent or decent, proper or improper, patriotic or not so, scientific or not so, rational or irrational, and on, and on, and on, and on. The fact that Cotton Mather stated unequivocally that the American Indian "...was known to consort with demons...." and that Mrs. Sherwood was "ducked" in Lynnhaven Bay to determine whether or not she was a witch, or that burning oak leaves on a cold axe was an efficacious way to treat an ear ache are not funny, silly, unreasonable, nonsense or any of those other nouns/adjectives. They were what the folks before us sincerely believed, and you know what?? They got along very well without our criticism, suggestions, "modern" ideas and methods. Let them rest where they now are. Reflect - as you do and surely SHOULD - yet always understand that many of our own ways will be so described in the year 2200 AD (the same number of years in the future as have passed since the Presidency of John Adams). So, it is fair for us to say, "THROUGH OUR SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, we NOW know that settin' fire to oak leaves ain't gonna' help an ear ache," and "We NOW are convinced that taking old Elizabeth down Witch Duck Rd. in Norfolk didn't prove anything," it is pedestrian and very poor genealogy to say, "Those folks were silly in so believing." Paul "....Yes we "reflect." But since we can't change what happened in the past, how do > we stand in the "blame" department? Just curious." >

Well said, Paul! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: VA-SOUTHSIDE-D Digest V01 #251 Madam; you asked, "...how do we stand in the blame department...."? Perhaps you, not atall, but many others are not so blame free. Your word "reflection" is well chosen and reveals exactly what we should do and how we should think; only through such mental exercises does an understanding of our family history move ahead, albeit but in little spurts and jumps. What we, as dedicated researchers, MUST NOT do, however, is render judgements as to ancestors' conduct through the use of our own views, mores, beliefs, "science" and even our moral standards. We have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual privilege of smiling upon or speaking of the actions of our predecessors as just or unjust, silly or sensible, prejudiced or without prejudice, fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, proper or improper, laughable or to be frowned upon, conscionable or unconscionable, indecent or decent, proper or improper, patriotic or not so, scientific or not so, rational or irrational, and on, and on, and on, and on. The fact that Cotton Mather stated unequivocally that the American Indian "...was known to consort with demons...." and that Mrs. Sherwood was "ducked" in Lynnhaven Bay to determine whether or not she was a witch, or that burning oak leaves on a cold axe was an efficacious way to treat an ear ache are not funny, silly, unreasonable, nonsense or any of those other nouns/adjectives. They were what the folks before us sincerely believed, and you know what?? They got along very well without our criticism, suggestions, "modern" ideas and methods. Let them rest where they now are. Reflect - as you do and surely SHOULD - yet always understand that many of our own ways will be so described in the year 2200 AD (the same number of years in the future as have passed since the Presidency of John Adams). So, it is fair for us to say, "THROUGH OUR SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, we NOW know that settin' fire to oak leaves ain't gonna' help an ear ache," and "We NOW are convinced that taking old Elizabeth down Witch Duck Rd. in Norfolk didn't prove anything," it is pedestrian and very poor genealogy to say, "Those folks were silly in so believing." Paul "....Yes we "reflect." But since we can't change what happened in the past, how do > we stand in the "blame" department? Just curious." > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp