APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2007-02 > 1171319367


From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Cruel world
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:30:02 -0600
In-Reply-To: <9868DAB2CD3E5744877F626B73D92CEC030E3256@pr-ex1.corp.myfamilyinc.com>


Chad wrote:
>I think everyone on the board should read this:
http://www.geneaholic.com/2007/02/11/good-bye-cruel-world/. Maybe once
the APG launches its members-only discussion board, we should take our
inwardly focused debates about standards, degrees, and licenses there,
so that those who are newer in the field do not get the wrong impression
-- the impression that we are focused more on form than substance.

Chad, it's a rare day when I disagree with you, but this is one.

I share your antipathy for the idea of licensing genealogists. In areas
where it has been tried, legislators or bureaucrats have had little
understanding of what our practice entails. As for mandatory advanced
degrees for the profession: that's not about to happen in a field where it's
hard to get even an undergraduate degree. Like Carolyn, though, I'd argue
the value of education for the sake of what we learn from it; and she is
totally right-on-the-money that without certain degrees we are denied access
to archived records we critically need.

Where our ideas part company, Chad, is the value and purpose of this list.
IMO, a professional list should not muzzle discussions of how to grow as
professionals, lest it discourage those who love crawling through the
underbrush in search of gravestones and think it would be fun to do that
full time and get paid for it.

As an open forum, APG-L is immensely valuable---not just to the professional
but also to those who, like "good-bye-cruel-world," discover genealogy and
mull the idea of making it their profession. This list candidly debates
whether it is possible to make a viable livelihood from genealogy. We know
it's possible, when soundly approached. We do no one a service to censor
their exposure to realities and ideas that might disillusion them.

The issue in this "Strawman" discussion has not been one of form over
substance. (Yesterday's discussion of which words to capitalize when a
citing a book title and where to put punctuation marks was a nitpicking
debate over *form*.) What the "Strawman" discussion has done is to challenge
each of us to think about what our profession stands for and how we, as
individuals, can enhance our own *substance.*

Whatever our experience, however short or lengthy our resume, this list
offers ideas of value almost every day. As individuals, we may or may not
agree with them, but the floating of those ideas helps each of us
crystallize our own thoughts on these issues. Some postings even change our
perspectives, as they expose us to thoughts we had not come up with on our
own.

As an APG member (since Year 1 of the organization), I do not mind if "those
who are newer in the field" get the impression that standards exist, that
well-targeted education helps us be better researchers, and that
bureaucratic licensing is best averted by credentialing processes that we
regulate within our own field. I only wish that this list had existed "back
then" as well.

Elizabeth

------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Tuscaloosa, Alabama

This thread: