 |
| The Owen McDonnell Family |
Hmmm. . . . that caused me to question and examine my own stand on this issue. My answer is that. . . I don't know. I guess it might depend on which day and what hour you ask me. I have used the words interchangeably in past blog posts, but Susan is right, there is a difference. Like Susan, I am passionate about "the stories" as are many others. I also search endlessly for documentation to disprove or validate a family legend. Do I own a copy of "Evidence Explained"? - No. Would I like to? - Yes. Would I use it? - That's a tough one to answer. Does being a professional (as in being paid to research, give presentations, or opinions) mean you are a Genealogist with a capital G? Does restricting your research to your personal family history make you a family historian? Not always. Does being a family historian mean you don't document/verify your findings? . . . of course not!
I find it all fascinating. And the documentation, birth certificates, land records, muster out rolls, wills, marriage bonds, and obituaries are the skeleton for the photos, newspaper articles, letters, and local histories which put flesh on the bones. I don't see how I could have one without the other . . . wasn't there a song like that? I have known people who proudly tell you how many ancestors they have in their tree and the earliest date of their lineage. Rattling off a list of dates and famous ancestors seems to be what makes them happy. Others will tell you of the latest scandal they discovered in their family, the story of how their family immigrated to the United States, settled the West or lost loved ones in a war. They speak about long dead ancestors as if they just had Sunday dinner with them last week and expect a letter any day now. Guess who I want to sit by at the next genealogy convention?
I can't tell you how many ancestors are in my tree because I don't count, and I would have to be organized to know. I haven't seriously traced back much farther than the mid 1850's unless you count that jaunt I made to Chipping Warden last summer. I adore newspaper articles and photos because they make a name into a person. But I build my family on the documentation even if the commas are not all in the right place or even completely missing. Does this mean I am not a genealogist? I hope not. Philosophically I line up with Susan, but maybe we differ in how we view the terms.
How do you define the difference between a family historian and a genealogist? Do you perceive a difference?
Do I have to choose? Can't I be both?
This is a topic I've pondered before, too. I think I'm both. I'm interested in the people, the stories, the events of history that intersected with their lives and may have affected them. But I'm also interested in finding documents and documentation to "prove" the life of a person, when she was born and died; when he bought land and sold it; where the family lived; etc. The most intriguing part for me is putting flesh on the bare bones of dates and places.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Nancy that I'm both - I like the story and the proving of it; both are fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Nancy and Greta. I am proud of the "proof" I have collected over the years, but with that in hand, I want to KNOW them. What's their story? Who were they? What motivated them? What got them down and made life seem difficult? One thing for sure -- life was difficult.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Margel. Like you, I find it all fascinating. And to be honest, I don't try to draw a distinction between genealogist and family historian. I like to think of them as complimentary sides to the same coin (maybe I should write a post about that, huh?). The documentation is like a framework for the stories. I do have Evidence Explained and I use it--not because I feel bound to but because once the citation is done, it frees me to think about other things, like the questions Kathy raised. I'd hate to have to choose between one or the other!
ReplyDeleteShelley-
DeleteIsn't it interesting how our language can divide us? That's why I want to be both - even if my definitions don't line up with what other believe.
Lovely post, Margel! And thanks for the mention. I suppose I draw a distinction now (though I used not to) after the various squabbles/discussions online. Part of the difference for me is my clearly amateur status; part is my focus on researching only certain personal lines or groups. The documentation is key (and I must admit those days I've spent in archives looking through original documents are some of the clearest memories of my life). I do own EE and use it constantly. One of its beauties is that Mills' expansive citations stretch my mind in where and what to search! But my chief joy is the context of the lives I research - connections with the larger history of the area and nation. When I think of the Civil War I now have a broad understanding of the events, but also a very narrow one through the lens of our kin who were involved. I have a picture of a teamster struggling with a wagon outside Vicksburg, a young husband and father laying ill in Nashville, a young widow struggling to move ahead, a doctor in Maryland working as the army lines move back and forth across the state. Enough. I need to write a post about this! You have, as you often do, sparked all kinds of thoughts.
ReplyDeleteSusan-
DeleteThat is exactly why I like to sit next to you at a genealogy conference or have lunch together!