Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1112165074

Subject: Re: [DNA] Same mother, different brothers?
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:44:34 +0000

I agree with Ruy and must take exception to this discussion of "incest", and comments by the sanctimonious set. My in laws were second cousins. For generation after generation along the Grand River, Ontario my grandmother's ancestors married their first cousins. Some of their brothers and sisters married nieces, nephews, aunts and uncles. This behavior was common at this location and at this time. If it makes others uncomfortable there is not much I can do about it. The way I view it is that I have a special connection to the Duncans and the Youngs who make up a disproportionate contribution to my family genome. As a result I have done a disproportionate amount of DNA and genealogical studies reflecting this reality. I well recall a "joke" by Leno discussing West Virginia, "land of 1 million people and 12 surnames". I still find it humorous, but mildly insulting

David F.

-------------- Original message --------------

> > From:
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Same mother, different brothers?
> >
> > Here again, I want to emphasize that in my personal
> > view "incest" covers any sexual congress among
> > people who know they are related within the circle
> of
> > third cousins.
> It has to be said: This really won't do. While
> there's often room to quibble in lots of definitions,
> you are not talking about some subtle distinction
> here. I mean no offense, but your definition is so
> broad as to be close to useless. If it were adopted,
> I would bet serious money that the great majority of
> list members are the product of *many* "incestuous"
> relationships. I'm sure I can list of half a dozen on
> my father's side alone, though of course I have no way
> of knowing if the couples involved were aware of their
> precise relationships.
> That's not to say that some other word can't be used
> for the situation you're mentioning, but "incest"
> isn't it. I'd suggest you find a term that doesn't
> already have a definition far narrower than yours, and
> one that evokes a certain amount of disgust or horror
> among many people besides.
> Ruy Cardoso

This thread: