No subject


Thu Mar 10 12:02:21 MST 2011


This notion of discrimination bothers me, because these groups are meant
 to be targeted at specific lineages or connections. They are private 
organizations that are inherently interested in a specific part of 
history. It wouldn't do anyone any good to open a DAR lineage book up to
 find members who had a non-blood lineage. At a time when genealogy is 
trying to gain much more credibility among academics, some people are 
saying that we should cast aside the nets by which we define ourselves. 
After all, further defining ourselves is part of what many of these 
groups are about. People join the groups to find a connection to their 
ancestors and to feel closer to their ancestors, or
at least that's my opinion. 

Like
 many on this list, I could join any multitude of societies and lineage 
groups because of my genetic history. The SAR, National Society of 
Descendents of Early Quakers, and many others could be where I submit my
 packet of information and join others in a dusty book in a library, 
touting my bloodline. I choose not to in part because of finances, but 
I'm not interested in genealogy and being worried about the who's who in
 my genetic code, i.e. namedropping ancestors. Oftentimes, the working 
class stories are just as interesting as those of the Mayflower 
passengers or icons of the American Revolution.

The merits of 
these groups is based quite a bit on the filters they have in place. I 
have seen so many discussions on this list and a couple of others about 
how technical we must be in our research--these groups assist in 
forwarding that cause. Some of them are recovering from decades of bad 
submissions themselves and are determined to reverse the tide by being 
diligent in their screening of membership applications. If someone wants
 to come up with a Society for People Who Were Adopted by Members of the
 Sons of the American Revolution, but please don't trivialize the 
institutions that are doing a great deal of good for historians and 
genealogists.

That's my 2 cents.

If I stirred up the ant pile, I apologize.

~Kim Ostermyer
--0-297348714-1310308586=:51633
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div>Hi everyone,<br>I've read much of the discussion on the Time's article 
and the various societies and biases or discriminatory screens that so 
many of them use. I've thought a lot about the passions that people have
 put forth in this discussion and I can understand. There's been the 
splitting of the definitions of discrimination and bias and other 
technical details.<br><br>In regards to lineage groups and other such 
societies, my opinion is that the filters they use are necessary to 
represent the particular subsection of history of which they are tied in
 with. It wouldn't be prudent to allow adoptees who do not know their 
biological parents' lineages into say the Sons of the American 
Revolution without the proper documentation. Do we allow women to 
celebrate themselves on Father's Day? Is that discrimination? Or can you
 say that fathers were discriminated for generations for not having a 
holiday of equal merit as mothers? Sorry for the tangent, but one can 
really pick at things when you pull the moral microscope out the closet.<br><br>The
 biases are part of the groups' charter, to cherish, to disseminate the 
history of whatever past they represent. I have a former teacher whose 
mother just joined the DAR after laboring for years on the research. 


More information about the APGPublicList mailing list