APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-04 > 0986657754


From: "Richard A. Pence" <>
Subject: [APG] Genealogy - Family Hisoty - Adoption
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:35:54 -0400
References: <F1373094C975D211A56100805FE6ED440873253A@hqmsgsrf01.autodesk.com> <005801c0beb6$14ad4940$3bdb55d8@computer> <v04210100b6f3aafe81b3@[159.121.16.174]>


This seems to be as good a place as any to insert my thanks
to all who so ably and thoroughly discussed the issues
involved in the definitions of "genealogy" and "family
history" in today's world.

I suppose it is a sign of advancing age, but it always is a
bit upsetting to discover that you have a "perfectly good
understanding" of the meaning of something - and then you
discover that while you have been applying your definition,
others have been changing the definition and you no longer
are "playing by the rules." (I discovered the other day that
I have overpaid my income taxes by a few dollars each of the
last three years because they changed the rules and allowed
a deduction where they didn't used to - and I foolishly
played by the old rule! <g>)

At any rate, your comments and thoughts were greatly
appreciated. Perhaps there is enough involved here that it
is worth a try at an article; perhaps not.

The current thread on "Adoption" has discussed one of the
issues that caused me to post my "midterm exam" on FH and G.
In discussing this issue elsewhere, it came through rather
clearly from some who are "practicing" either "family
history" or "genealogy" that the former "discipline" allows
one much greater license in dealing not with "bloodlines"
but with family relationships.

I here quote from Connie Lenzen's <>
recent post:

> Adoption is an emotional issue - on all sides of the
adoption
> triad.

> I agree with Brian that we should report facts. I'd add
that we
> should report them accurately.

This to me seems so obvious that the point shouldn't even
have to be raised. I do raise it again merely to express
concern that it seems to me that the "new definition" of
"family history" (at least for a growing number) is that the
history of their own relationships is far more important to
them than - if you will pardon my suggesting it - "the
truth." There are those who are so emotionally wrapped in
the adoption issue that there will be some "fudging of the
facts" along the way.

Again, thanks for responding. All who took the test will
receive an "A" in the course. Those who didn't will receive
an "incomplete." <g>

Regards,
Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030
Voice 703-591-4243
Pence Family History
<http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>;

P.S.: For those of you in the Washington area, get ready.
This morning's front page story in the Post on American
Indian ancestry is going to generate a large new crop of
"Wannabees" and "Pretendians." Probably a good time to
raise your fees. <g>


This thread: