Is genealogy now politically incorrect?

I am old enough to remember when my legal secretary became my legal assistant. I can also remember clearly when waiters and waitresses became "servers." Now, it seems that the venerable old term "genealogy" is undergoing the same politically correct make-over in favor of "family history."

When my secretary became a legal assistant, nothing about her job changed, not even her salary. I have no idea if she was happier or felt more important when she went to her job everyday thinking she was now a "legal assistant" and not a mere secretary. This shift in terms is more than just a fashion or trend, it goes much deeper than that. We may joke about how garbage collectors became sanitary engineers, but this whole process is part of larger changes in our society, some of which are neither good nor desirable. One of the more visible socially and politically charged associations with some of these changes has to do with gender roles and perception. The change from waiter and waitress to server is a prime example. But the term "secretary" did not historically infer that the person was either male or female. There is a perception here that changing the label will somehow change the job.

I read a statement recently that clearly stated that family history was important because we learned the stories of our ancestors and not "just genealogy" finding names and dates. I have been doing genealogy for a really long time and that is exactly what I thought I was doing: learning the stories of my ancestors. But apparently, all of the history I have found doesn't count anymore because the term "genealogy" is now going the way of secretary and waiter and I am a genealogist.

But there is a much larger issue here. Genealogy has never been accepted as a valid part of the discipline of history. After all, history is important and genealogy is merely names and dates. Excuse me, but I thought all history was merely genealogy. I always thought those people who were only interested in the elite; presidents, rulers, kings etc. were the ones missing the boat. I thought learning about my family was important not just because they participated in some event considered important or were rich, famous or called themselves nobility.

I had the same thing happen to me when I was finishing my Masters Degree in Linguistics. One of the things I had focused on was the issue of "language universals" or those parts of language that are common to all humans. In other words, what makes language human? I wrote several papers pointing out the similarities between different language structures in unrelated languages. One day, one of my professors sat down with me and explained that at that time, referring to language universals was "politically incorrect," that wasn't the term he used, but that is what he meant. He told me that if I persisted in my interest in "language universals" I would never be able to get a job in the field of linguistics. In the end, that discussion was a major factor in why I ended up being a lawyer rather than a university professor. On that day, the world lost a linguist and gained another trial lawyer. In some cases, perception is more important than reality.

So should I just fold up my interest in genealogy and put it away in a drawer somewhere and quietly go about becoming a "family historian?" Maybe I should take up the politically acceptable pursuit of golf or shuffleboard? After all, aren't I entitled to an "active retirement?" Does that mean I have to change all my business cards and my email address? What I see as the danger here is not merely a change in terminology. There is something more important going on. It is the denigration of the basic function of genealogy; the verification of names, dates and locations, that is at issue. There is a not-too-subtle implication that you can do family history without worrying about such mundane things as names, dates and places. So let's abandon the term "genealogy" so people will be more willing to relate to and discover their ancestors.

Let me clarify, so there is no misunderstanding. I do not mind the term "family history" at all. What I do mind is the implication that somehow genealogists are not part of the "family history" community and that family history can be accomplished without resort to all that "genealogy stuff." There is a further implication that family history somehow magically appears; that stories and photos will continue to be available without the activity of doing all that stuffy, undesirable, old-people associated research. Rather than celebrating all the older participants in genealogy, it is as if the whole idea of "genealogy" is invalidated because its adherents are mostly older.

After all, young people have all those computer skills that automatically qualifies them to do complex historical research. No, I am not "down on the youth." Neither do I feel that I am insulting their intelligence when I point out that genealogy requires certain skills that are generally lacking in the younger population as a whole. But I do think it is time that genealogists push back some and help those who are not so inclined to accept the fact that historical research, no matter what you call it, is a complicated and challenging pursuit. There are those who do it well and those who do not. There are those whose only interest is names and dates, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't make genealogy a bad and politically unacceptable term in your zeal to promote family history. You might just lose the very thing you are seeking. What is the activity you are trying promote by abandoning the term "genealogy?"

Another Fine Mess -- Online Images

With the abundance of photo editing software and the ability to put photos online attached to a person in any number of online photos, we are inheriting another fine mess. You don't have to go far to see photographs that have been significantly altered from the original, assuming the original still exists in some format or another. This may not seem to be a real issue, but if you have any interest in the original photo and it provenance, you cannot help be be appalled at the way things are going.  Since I have the originals of many old photos, I am acutely aware of the problem editing is causing.

Here are a few examples.  The following are taken from the same photo:

Here are two more examples that come from the same original:

Even though they are from the same photo the top image is reversed (or is it the bottom one?). Here are three more images from the same photograph:

We can only guess at how many iterations of the photo will continue to appear. Here are four different copies of another photograph. Which is the original, if you care?

Is this simply a matter of esthetics? Does anyone really care if the original is changed so dramatically? It appears that none of these is the complete original, as a matter of fact. Why do we think we can change a photograph to suit our whim and not change the facts about their lives? Oh, well maybe changing the facts isn't a bad idea either? I think it is unethical to change the original photo without providing an unaltered copy of the original, if it is available.

The Real Old West

The Overson Collection of Photographs gives a rare glimpse into the real old west of the United States. Since the photos date back to the 1850s and 1860s, there are views that show how the people really lived on the frontier. Here are a few selections in no particular order:

GenVines - a new genealogical news aggregator about online collections

I received an email today from my friend, Janell Vasquez, about her new news aggregator program targeted at the Online Record Collection News called GenVines.com. More about the program a little later in this post, but first I need to explain news aggregators.

News aggregators or readers, as they are commonly called, have been in the news lately with the move by Google to discontinue it Reader program. This move has already opened up new possibilities for other programs to step up and take over the job of aggregating the news. Additionally, there is a need for specialized aggregators to provide content to those with specialized needs. Technically, a news aggregator can do its job without becoming a reader program. Although the two are almost identical in their function, a reader is designed to allow the user the option of selecting the sources or feeds they wish to aggregate.

Simply, a news aggregator is an online program that searches the web for specific content and provides the user with a stream of updated headlines about a certain topic or from a particular source, that can can be expanded into connections with the original content. The reason behind this type of program is obvious, it can be extremely time consuming to individually review websites for updated content. Let's say you want to read a particular blog or want to keep informed about a particular topic. Searching the web or clicking on links to all the sites you want to follow could become impossible. But by using a news aggregator or reader program, that type of activity not only become possible, it keeps all of that news from becoming overwhelming.

This whole process is enabled by a feed reader. The most commonly used program is referred to as an RSS Feed. RSS is an acronym with several different interpretations, usually it is said to signify "Really Simple Syndication." Syndication is an old news term that implies the aggregation of news stories into one consolidated outlet. There are a host of news aggregation programs and there was flurry of activity in rearranging the use of these programs due to Google's announcement of the demise of Reader. The process of connecting to the RSS feed is called subscribing to the feed. Once you subscribe in the reader, any additions or changes show up in your stream or list of changes.

When Google made its announcement, I had already moved to another program. I presently use the most popular feed reader alternative, Feedly.com. I presently follow over 200 separate blogs and websites using Feedly. But if you are a news hog like me, you never seem to get enough. I am always missing something. This is where a program such as GenVines.com comes in. I can subscribe to GenVines.com and add that to my reader and then I get the benefit of all of the syndication from GenVines.com's sources. Voila! More concentrated news on a specific subject I am totally interested in learning about, that is, new genealogical collections. Fortunately, unlike some websites and blogs, GenVines.com makes the process of adding their site to your RSS feed obvious and simple.

Many websites also give you the option of adding notifications to your email stream. Unfortunately, this is the case with sites such as Facebook.com, Google+ and Pinterest.com. With just those two sites, my email traffic has gone out of sight. I am getting dozens of emails a day. I will have to look into an alternative to getting so much email or start cutting off contact from those websites.

I immediately found useful news from GenVines.com that I had missed in all my feeds. This will undoubtedly become a useful way to watch the huge amount of data going online every day. Take a look at GenVines.com.

What is the future of genealogy conferences?

There is an apparent proliferation of genealogy conferences. For example, if you live on the Wasatch Front in Utah (Salt Lake City, Provo, Bountiful etc.) you could attend a genealogy "conference" almost any weekend. About.com Genealogy lists a total of 20 of the "largest and best-known conferences" for 2013. The Geni blog lists Genealogy Conferences 2013 and has 21 listed through September. Another Geni.com list includes international conferences and lists 32 conferences. In going through the lists on the Web, I know about another six or so conferences that didn't make anyone's list. I am personally scheduled, presently, for 11 upcoming conferences, seminars, genealogy fairs, and other events.

Some of the larger conferences seem to be getting even larger. RootsTech 2013 was reported to have over 6,700 people in attendance. Now, this is not large as conferences go, but it is large for genealogy conferences in the United States. Next year, RootsTech 2014 may be broadcast to hundreds of additional locations throughout the world. At the same time, there is an increase in webinars and webcasts available online, not to mention YouTube.com videos. The question is whether or not the additional exposure of the larger conferences, such as RootsTech, will erode the interest in local conferences or will the local conferences merely incorporate content and presentations from the larger conferences?

Last year, I presented at a webinar sponsored by the Mesa FamilySearch Library. There were over 200 people in attendance for the live presentation. By this year, when I gave a similar presentation, the number of live attendees had dropped to six but the online attendance was about the same and just as many, or more have seen the presentation online. It seems that during the past year, the number of people figuring out that they could stay home and see the same presentation, has increased dramatically.

Will online webcasts and webinars erode conference attendance? I think the answer to that question lies in whether or not the conference attendees feel that the social atmosphere and the verdor areas are worth the time and expense of attendance. This issue is part of a greater issue of the growth of online courses in higher education. There are articles with the title, "College Professors Fearful of Online Education Growth." Perhaps there should also be headlines about how local conferences are being replaced by mega-conferences with distributed content?

My opinions about education come from, not only from my many years spent in school, but also from my years of teaching at high school and college level. But as a rule, conference attendees are far above the average public school student. It is a real pleasure teaching interested adults and not having to worry about discipline issues, like the time one of my "students" in high school, crawled up the row between the desks, where I couldn't see him and lit another student's pants on fire with a lighter. But will there be a motivation on the part of these high class attendees, when they figure out they can get the same instruction, for free, on their own computers sitting in their own home?

When that time comes, I suggest that those holding conferences will have to figure out and communicate other reasons to ensure attendance at their events.

Why do we blog about genealogy?

I got asked the question in the title to this blog yesterday. The person asking the question was sincere. She was wondering if she should start a blog. Her intent was to try and identify some mystery photos. I spent some time and helped her get a new blog open and ready to publish and it will be interesting to see what she reports back to me about her experience. I also started talking about having a blogging presentation and workshop at the Mesa FamilySearch Library.

I guess one of the real questions is who are we talking to as bloggers? Each other? Do we really attract new genealogists? Or do we just plow the same ground over and over? My reality check is working with patrons and volunteers (missionaries) at the Mesa FamilySearch Library. As far as I can tell, with over 150 regular volunteers at the Library, I can think of about a half a dozen of them that have ever mentioned my blog or anything about reading blogs. These are people that do genealogy every day, week after week. In classes for the missionaries, I still have people regularly say that they have no idea what a blog is or does.

If this is the case, then why do we blog? From my standpoint, I would probably blog even if I didn't have an audience. It is comforting to find out someone reads the stuff I write, but I would write or teach regardless of the numbers. I had someone show up early to a class yesterday; one person. She asked if the class would be cancelled if she was the only one there. I have never cancelled a class because there were "too few" attendees. My ultimate goal is changing the world one person at a time. So I think it is a privilege to teach and the numbers are not a criteria for how or what I teach.

On the other hand, because we have genealogical content to our blogs, we have had huge successes in contacting relatives and obtaining vast quantities of original records and photographs. In short, the genealogy blogs have proved to be immeasurably valuable to the expansion of our genealogical information and collaboration with relatives.  The benefits are enormous. For that reason alone, I would have a genealogical blog. That is also the reason why I started writing for my daughter's blog, TheAncestorFiles.blogspot.com, to increase the genealogical content of my writing.

I could go on with reasons why I blog, but most of them are very personal. I also enjoy meeting and corresponding in some fashion, with other bloggers. It has been an amazing experience and absent being sent off to the care center, I will probably keep writing. Constantly as usual.

2,000,000,000th Holding Record goes into WorldCat.org

On May 4, the University of Alberta Libraries created the 2,000,000,000th holding record in WorldCat, marking a major milestone for this unique library resource. WorldCat.org is part of the OCLC or Online Computer Library Center, a nonprofit, membership, computer library service and research organization dedicated to the public purposes of furthering access to the world’s information and reducing information costs. See Wikipedia: OCLC. 

OK, now if I had to list the top five websites I use the most frequently, WorldCat.org would always be on the list. There is nothing else close. Over 74,000 libraries in 170 countries have used OCLC services to locate, acquire, catalog, lend, preserve and manage library materials. 

If you haven't used WorldCat.org, you haven't done your homework for any type of research. Click on the link and start looking in WorldCat.org.