AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS > 2005-06 > 1118226840


From: "Ron Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Family Histories: Researching and Writing: Dealing with "Secret Information
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:34:00 +1000
References: 222726382 <42A5ADD2.7020000@iinet.net.au> <003501c56c14$7f91bb50$0100a8c0@DADSTUTA>


SORRY!! THAT SHOULD READ - DEAR TREVOR not Tom!!
My apologies Tom - no offence intended!


Cheers
Ron Phillips
Melbourne Vic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Phillips" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Family Histories: Researching and Writing: Dealing with "Secret
Information


> Dear Tom
>
> I do fully understand your desire to record the facts "warts and all" and
> indeed I do agree! Its part of our family history like it or not!
>
> BUT having said that I also endorse and entirely agree with your point
> that we not should do so in apparent disregard for the sensibilities - be
> they deemed old fashion or otherwise - of others. Perhaps out of
> consideration of our relatives we should perhaps be more circumspect in
> disclosing to the living what some might see as distressing or downright
> offensive particularly if they involve the old touchy subjects or Religion
> and Politics!!
>
> Truth might set you free but it might also cause unnecessary heartbreak
> and distress to those less 'worldly" than the recorder and indeed cause
> far more harm that good.
>
> A case in point is the current controversy over the recent death of the TV
> personality Graham Kennedy and the gutter journalism that has surfaced
> over allegations he died of AIDS.
>
> I say so what? If he did die of HIV/AIDS does that in any way diminish his
> undisputed talent as an entertainer - no - so why bother? He is no longer
> here to defend himself so the only reason to bring it up is for self
> serving muck raking and that only diminishes the purveyor of these
> entirely and unnecessary comments.
>
> Doing our Trees and fleshing the bones I cannot but fully endorse. It
> gives one a connection and a sense of belonging which is all too absent in
> today's modern hi tech world but we do need to be mindful of our relatives
> who also have a vested interest.
>
> I say write it down! But I also agree to bury it until you are sure that
> it cannot cause distress or heartbreak to the living.
>
> Cheers
> Ron Phillips
> Melbourne Vic
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trevor" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Family Histories: Researching and Writing: Dealing with
> "Secret Information
>
>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Tom and all:
>>>
>>>As the Family Historian, I am privy to many pieces of information. Some I
>>>know for a fact, and some has been told to me. When I am writing to share
>>>my stories with others, I am careful of what might be hurtful to other
>>>cousins. The deeds of the fathers should not carry over to the children.
>>>And so, I leave out that which would be injurious to my kin. However, I
>>>still am half tempted to write it all down and bury that document
>>>somewhere for future generation.
>>>
>>
>> I hope that you will write it down somewhere.
>>
>> Here is an example from my own research:
>>
>> I have the daughter of a strict Methodist family, born 1871, one month
>> after the marriage of her parents. The putative father was totally blind.
>>
>> I was always puzzled by this *fact* (established by the various
>> certificates). How could devout Methodists be engaged in hanky panky
>> back in 1870? Surely a shot gun marriage was out of the question for
>> strict Methodists back then???
>>
>> It just *had* to be a clerical error, right? WRONG!
>>
>> I was 'enlightened' by the recollections of a WA member of the family who
>> informed me that the said birth was, indeed, one month after the marriage
>> of the parents.
>>
>> His explanation was simple. The WA branch of the family (descended from
>> the blind progenitor) always knew that the first child was the result of
>> an adulterous liaison of its mother with the married brother of the blind
>> man.
>> The solution was for the mother to marry the single blind brother. QED.
>>
>> One hundred and thirty years after the event - repeat, one hundred and
>> thirty years - my notes about this birth, and the WA explanation, were
>> read by an elderly uncle who expressed extreme anger that I should have
>> recorded the WA explanation for the birth of the child. He regarded it
>> as a completely disgraceful thing for me to have noted this information.
>>
>> While it was not my intention to cause offence, or to distress an elderly
>> uncle, I take it to be self evident that the facts should be recorded.
>> It is not always the case that facts need to be presented publicly, but
>> presented they should be, IMHO.
>> Elderly uncles really need to get over their objections in cases such as
>> this one.
>>
>> On the whole, they deserve respect and consideration, but I take the view
>> that they have no right to exercise censorship-by-sensitivities,
>> especially about something that happened 130 years ago and which, pretty
>> reliably, can be established as factual.
>>
>> On the other hand, I have exercised some discretion re an adoption. The
>> adopted child, now in her 60s, was never told by her parents that she was
>> adopted. I have no idea if she now knows but, since she is still living,
>> I have decided that it is not my place to inform her with information
>> that her parents, IMO, should have given her.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the fact that she is adopted is a *fact*, and I have
>> recorded it in the family history which she may or may not read some day.
>> I have used the "suppress living" option of my software to hide this
>> information until the death of the person concerned is entered into my
>> database.
>>
>> So, I believe that the sensitivities of people must not govern what is
>> included in the family history I record, provided that:
>>
>> 1. the information is factual and not hearsay or speculation/conjecture;
>>
>> 2. where it concerns the living, the information is suppressed until
>> their death.
>>
>> Trevor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ====
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send the word 'unsubscribe' in the
>> body of a message to
>>
>
>
> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send the word 'unsubscribe' in the
> body of a message to
>

This thread: