Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:03 GMT, Haines Brown
<brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Eagle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@xxxxxxxxx"
<dogqruomlrsa@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes,
ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines".
If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use
something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken.

--
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Genealogy For The Beginner
    ... 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 ... transferred to the household of a better-off family, ... the bloodline restriction for the notion of family seems ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Jewish Dynasty: Bush, Churchill, Roosevelt, royal families of europe all from same bloodline
    ... The Windsor-Bush Bloodline ... and King Ferdinand of Spain and Queen Isabella ... James, according to genealogy sources listed below, can be traced back ... have shown that 33 of the 42 presidents to Clinton are ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: FRC BMD records
    ... I am afraid I do not have the time to correct the multitude, nay, magnitude of errors there are on Ancestry. ... I am very happy to work through the quirks of FreeBMD's for the few, understandable errors that occur on there. ... I add alternate names to all subjects of my own research which are badly indexed usually surnames for the whole household ... For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Re: Magazine article
    ... certificate for a living person who is not part of one's own household? ... If one is not engaged in family history/genealogy (or in writing an ... So you now recognize that people involved in genealogy DOES have ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Occupation puzzle
    ... Goods and household furniture and implements of household stuff" ... The time period would also make a difference as well as the ... Genealogy: is it a thing of the past?? ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)