Unlike Snowbrush, I include everybody I can find, not just direct ancestors. Not only do I have siblings of direct ancestors, I have spouses, step-relatives, in-laws, relatives of in-laws and step-relatives who are not really my relatives, lots of people you might not expect. I don't copy from other genealogies except when I receive very reliable information from sources that I trust. I have 3669 people in my file (which I thought was a lot until I learned that Jane C., a woman in our former church, has more than 8000 people in her file), but only about two dozen are direct ancestors and descendants:
- I have 3 children and 6 grandchildren. That's 9 right there.
- On my mother's side I know her of course, plus both grandparents, all four great-grandparents, and two of my eight great-great-grandparents. That is 9 more.
- On my non-bio-dad's side (I don't really know if he adopted me officially, but his name appears on a birth certificate issued when I was six, the only birth certificate I have ever had, even though he didn't meet my mother until I was 5), I know him, his parents (I suppose they are my pseudo-grandparents), and all four great-grandparents. That's 7 more, but I also suppose they don't count at all. It is on this non-bio Brague side, thanks to a treasure trove of information that a distant relative sent me, that I am supposed to be President Grover Cleveland's third cousin, 11 times removed, through Dad's maternal grandmother, Bloomy Jane Cleveland. But it is a fiction since my dad is "non-bio".
- On the bio-dad front, the one that really counts in genealogy (but in no other way), I know his name, both grandparents, two of the four great-grandparents, and even two of the eight great-great-grandparents.. That's 7 more.
So out of the 3669 names, there are 9 direct descendants and 16 direct ancestors. All the rest of the 3669 stem from the fact that one of my grandmothers was the sixth of nine children and the other one (but she was the non-bio one) was the eighth of ten children, and my stepmother (again, a non-bio person) was second oldest of ten children. I have included their extended families in my tree since we are, after all, somehow related. It may not be, how you say, kosher, but the names have to be somewhere so I included them in my family tree.
The moral of this post is: (vote for as many as apply)
A. RWP is a liar, a cheat, and a charlatan of the worst kind.
B. RWP tries to be thorough.
C. RWP is an extremely needy person.
D. RWP is kidding himself.
E. RWP is pathetic.
E. RWP is a brilliant researcher with an unusual background.
G. RWP is to be pitied.
H. RWP is a pilgrim in search of a city.
I. RWP is _________ (fill in the blank yourself).
I close this post with an assignment for you. Watch and listen to Sister Sledge sing 'We Are Family' (3:26) from 1979 and then try to get that earworm of a chorus out of your head.
RWP is mistaken. Non-biological family members are family members. Being loved and loving back is what makes a family. That being said I understand the genealogical point of view biology makes a difference. The non-bio;logical members of my family are every bit as important as the biological members. I read Snowbrush's post and it is interesting. I too have been doing research into my family tree. It is a lot of work and sometimes very confusing.
ReplyDelete"RWP is mistaken."
DeleteDid you not take in what he wrote? "On the bio-dad front, the one that really counts in genealogy (but in no other way)..."
You wrote: "Being loved and loving back is what makes a family."
In regard to what constitutes a family, one might even have friends who, in terms of love and trust, are more like family than are blood relatives, but I doubt that this would inspire anyone to study their lineage unless he or she did so on their behalf. Genealogy isn't about emotional bonds but about studying those people whose genetic material made one's existence possible. Obviously, the genealogist's job will be easier if he/she loves and respects the objects of his or her study, but in terms of genealogy, blood relatives are every bit as genetically related if the genealogist loathes them as they would be if he adores them.
Another point that I consider significant in regard to your criticism is that it's not always the case that a person's adopted parents relatives accept the adopted person as a bonafide member of their family. I know that my mother never regarded my half-sister's adopted children as her grandchildren, a fact that certainly hurt my half-sister terribly and that caused me to lose an enormous amount of respect for my mother. As I see it, all that being adopted means is that the people who adopted you will regard you as their child. Hopefully, other relatives will too, but there's no guarantee. Not everyone has a good heart in this way, and I've even heard people (in a newsgroup) reject their adopted parents, not because their adopted parents didn't love them, but because the adopted child took the position that, "blood is thicker than water." Such people somehow convince themselves that their blood relatives were forced to give them up, and that if they had only be raised by their blood relatives, their lives would have been ever so much better.
One of the saddest things I know of in regard to an adopted child was the case of a couple (who I knew) who only adopted because they didn't think they could have children. When the woman later gave birth to a biological child, her husband emotionally rejected their adopted son. What a very mean spirit that man had!
Emma, thank you for your welcome perspective. Non-biological family members ARE family members. I need to keep reminding myself of that fact. It's so easy to forget.
DeleteSnowbrush, my stepmother always referred to me as her "adopted son" even though I wasn't. Life could be, and can be, so confusing at times. It's a wonder I am sane at all. I am sane, you know.
DeleteI like the logic you go through here. It can be a topic that gets out of control. We started a family tree that started with all those who came here from Europe. We include all family...adoptees, steps, inlaws all of them. We were over 900 in 1980. Not bad when the first of the family arrived in 1905.
ReplyDeleteRed, I didn't consciously apply logic, I just told my story as best I could. I'm glad if it seems logical.
DeleteYour warn me that the chorus might get stuck in my head, yet you expect me to listen to the song--I don't think so. Why not just go for broke and write a post about the most depressing songs of all time. Strange Fruit (which is about a Southern lynching) would be one; Gloomy Sunday (aka "the Hungarian suicide song") another. A publisher who refused the second explained, "It is not that the song is sad, there is a sort of terrible compelling despair about it. I don't think it would do anyone any good to hear a song like that."
ReplyDeleteSnowbrush, Mama always said "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" so I think you should listed to Sister Sledge sing that song. You might even like it. I am familiar with "Strange Fruit" (as sung by Billie Holiday) but "Gloomy Sunday" is one I'll have to investigate.
DeleteMy maiden name is Jurd. There is a Jesuit priest whose name is not Jurd (I forget what it is) who has spent decades researching the Jurds. It seems an odd pastime for someone who won't have children and isn't not in the "Jurd line" whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, thanks to Peter's efforts (is that Father Peter?) my family history, including anyone even vaguely connected to the Jurds in Australia, has been documented.
My parents have even been to a service of thanksgiving for God's blessing on the Jurd clan
Kylie, you said some thing that greatly interested me. For starters, I don't have children either, and I wouldn't assume that my research would interest them if I did. I mean, really, most people aren't even interested enough in their family trees to keep old Bibles that contain records that generations worked to create and that a lot of us would die for (I know someone whose mother threw out a 300 year old Bible because it was "dirty").
DeleteAs for the priest you referred to, did he say he isn't related to the Jurds?
"My parents have even been to a service of thanksgiving for God's blessing on the Jurd clan."
I haven't heard of such a thing, but wouldn't such a service imply that all those non-Jurds in the tree (your mother's parents for starters) were of lesser importance, although the Jurd lineage would have been halved yet again in every preceding generation? In other words, half your parents were Jurds, 1/4 of your grandparents, 1/8 of your great grandparents, etc.