APG-L Archives

From:
Subject: [APG] form vs. substance re:Chad's posting
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:19:36 +0000

Chad,

Anytime the debate turns to what we "should" be talking about, I get wary. I read the blog posted by Lee and all I can say is that if an online mailing list deterred her from anything, that has nothing to do with any of us. We were not impolite or demanding. I don't appreciate this being brought to our attention, as if it were our fault. You, and I mean the collective you, are not responsible for how anybody takes anything. Even if you are ruder than rude, if another person takes your rudeness personally. It becomes their problem, meaning it is no longer your problem. It is called a projection. Does that mean we can behave badly? No. We still must be accommodating and I have to say this list is the nicest list to which I subscribe.

Lee is projecting her inner turmoil outward onto this list instead of admitting to herself that she feels inadequate, unprepared, or stupid (these are all guesses, by the way).

The "genealogy strawman" has been a real and lively discussion. I think that we as a group have learned a great deal about the desire for more educational opportunities. I have read messages from several people that I have never seen post anything before.

To say that any one of us is focused more on form than substance or that we are making postnominals more important than the education itself, as Carolyn wrote, is a gross oversimplification of what was probably meant. The substance of genealogy and the ethereal value of education could not stand up without the backbone of form/degree. You cannot have one without the other, not for long anyway. Perhaps that is why we are ten steps behind the field of history academically. Who needs a degree? We do.

I don't know many people who could afford to pursue all of the education necessary to master anything if there were not a prestigious degree attached to the end of the pursuit. However, I agree the process is just as important as reaching the goal.

I spent ten plus years figuring out how to be a genealogist without any intention of ever becoming a professional. I think most of us enter the field that way. We spend thousands of hours in the bowels of some building hunched over a microfilm reader, without a business plan in place, without licensing, and without worrying about how it will look on our resume. We don't ask, "What's in this for me?" We are 100% focused on the substance. Once we start to realize that we are adept at genealogical research, only then do most of us consider genealogy as a career. Then it becomes necessary to focus many more hours on the form or you will fail. Because, after all, this is a business. That doesn't mean the substance is no longer important. This is a professional list, so in a way the form, on this list, should take precedence over the substance.

I think there has been a longstanding view in genealogy that the substance is all that matters, with little regard for the form (future). We largely work individually on our own projects and worry about our own little businesses. Without meaning to oversimplify, I have noticed that those resisting the advanced education discussion are writing things about maintaining the status quo, because it works for them individually. What I am hearing is, "I am doing fine, don't rock the boat." What about the health and longevity of the field as a whole? Only in the last thirty years have wise elders eradicated the "old boys club" in which the editors of the quarterly dared not edit the work of their "friends." Or in which book reviews were all favorable, meaning that there was no substance to anything because everything written and submitted, regardless of quality, was lauded.

Perhaps we are a little too inclined to cater to the Lee's of the world. The notion of never upsetting anybody is ridiculous. I am the president of my society and I cannot afford to be friends with the board of directors. I learned that lesson when I spent a few sleepless nights wondering how I was going to confront my friend, the treasurer, over possible malfeasance. That does not mean that I don't have friends in genealogy, just that I wear a different hat when dealing with a friend professionally. I view this list and this field the same way. The health of the association and the field is more important than any individual. That is why I have no problem chastising Chad for heaping collective, but unwarranted guilt upon us.

For Lee to leave behind something she is ostensibly passionate about, because she doesn't like a couple of messages posted on the internet is awe inspiring. Oh, the power we possess.

Kathy Cortez



-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Chad Milliner" <>
> 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 Milliner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

This thread:

• [APG] form vs. substance re:Chad's posting by