APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2005-08 > 1123025303


From: Claire Keenan Agthe <>
Subject: Re: [APG] CG Certification and Re-certification Q
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:28:23 -0400
References: <200508021831.j72IVQhZ016054@mail2.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200508021831.j72IVQhZ016054@mail2.rootsweb.com>


Mills wrote:

> <>Claire writes
>
>>Using my own family as a yardstick,
>>that would mean going back to the mid-1700s, which is nearly
>>impossible for [certain kinds of] research. . . .
>>
>
>
>Claire, you raise a valid point. That is precisely one of the factors that
>has prompted the Board's reevaluation of the CG credential and requirements.
>
>

Thank you! I'm glad to hear the issue is recognized by some and is a
factor under consideration..

>Three decades ago, ...genealogy ...
>focused on a small handful of ethnic groups (English, Germans,
>Scandinavians, French, etc.) for whom good-to-middling records
>existed--typically sacramental registers and New England's vital records.
>Sometime when you are at a library, pull the major journals for that period
>and look at their offerings; they were quite limited in ethnic coverage. ...
>

I don't need to look at period literature to see this bias/limitation.
It's still quite common in many of the societies to which I belong, and
in the major publishers' offerings (e.g., Genealogical Publishing Co.,
which specializes in colonial-era publications). I lived in New England
for 8 years, where the general culture (not just among genealogists) is
still that descendants of the early settlers are "superior" in some way
to later arrivals -- there is a big emphasis on Mayflower, DAR, etc.
membership It's not so intense in the Mid-Atlantic states, but there is
still some of it, especially among genealogists.

>>would prevent anyone descended from a slave in the
>>
>>
>American South from using their own family as their basis . . .
>
>Or a slave in the American North--a type of ancestry that genealogists are
>now pursuing also.
>
>

Sorry, I didn't mean to reveal a Northern bias! ;-) Of course, there
were slaves in the American North and Mid-West, as well as the South. I
mentioned slaves in the South because I know ancestral records for them
are hard to come by prior to the Civil War; I don't know if the same
records-limitations exist for other parts of the country (I assume it
does, but I don't think I've ever heard it addressed -- but I don't
claim to know anything about slave research other than by hearsay). I
was also trying to avoid equating "Afircan-American" with "descendant of
slaves," which would be inaccurate.

>
>
>>the *standard* would prevent anyone descended from a slave in the
>>
>>
>American South from using their own family as their basis . . .
>
>
>>Is there something in the current *standard* that could
>>
>>
>not be satisfied with a non-generational *standard *
>
>
>>A generational *standard* disadvantages anyone from an
>>
>>
>ethnic/religious culture
>
>Claire, just to clarify a point, the issue you are discussing above is a
>"requirement" rather than a *standard.* In genealogical terms, "standards"
>refers to the quality of work that is done. Certifying and accrediting
>bodies, lineage societies, and other groups worldwide have "requirements"
>for submitting materials that are essentially arbitrary. BCG, for example,
>could throw that compiled genealogy requirement out the window, but it would
>never throw its *standards* how the window.
>
>

To me, this is a distinction without a difference. What you (or the
genealogical community at large) call a "requirement" is an admissions
standard ("requirement" being a synonym for the noun form of "standard"
in normal English). What you (etc.) call a "standard" is a quality
standard. In normal English, when the BCG (or any other accrediting
body, inside or outside the world of genealogy -- which are,
incidentally, generally known as "standards-setting bodies") establishes
requirements ("an applicant must submit A, B, and C"), they are
reflecting the underlying standard that A is the best (standard) way of
determining/showcasing X quality or ability. I have tried, in my
subsequent posts, to reflect the requriement/standard distinction you
mention, but in some cases, I just could not do it in light of English
grammatical standards. (Jeez, I can't seem to get away from that
word!) Fear not, I have the same problem with many lawyer-isms that
offend the rules of American English grammar. Now that you've pointed
it out, I will try to do better in future, but I can't make any
promises! The rules of grammar and vocabulary are too ingrained in me
to be easily supplanted. ;-)

Regards,

Claire Keenan Agthe
Bloodlines Genealogical Research Services



This thread: