|Created via iPhone App - Keep Calm|
Casting my mind back to a few weeks ago, when Thomas at Geneabloggers raised a similar issue and I responded that post, which you can read HERE, so this discussion has been "out there" in the genealogical Internet arena for several week although in different guises. I am not implying it is old news, but I believe that there is a consistent theme of discontent within genealogy community, and that is important.
Genealogy and Family History are for me entwined. Recently I had cause to think about what they meant, not just to me, but to other genealogists and I came to the conclusion that whilst they are entwined for me, they perhaps mean different things to different people in different countries; and that the individual definitions are neither right or wrong, just different.
Whilst I was gathering my thoughts to write a response in a hopeful coherent manner, Jen Baldwin shared Jenny Lancelot's post via Google+ and I made a comment on that thread, as did Tessa Keough.
The crux of the debate is the Internet has revolutionised the way in which genealogy and family history is undertaken by the masses. We are, from a young age encouraged to be competitive, thus, we strive to always do better and therefore in a response to that competitiveness professional qualifications have started to appear on the education horizon. The moment that happened the bar was raised.
In the G+ thread it was commented that people attempt to compare genealogy to medicine and law, and probably other disciplines too, and there is no comparison. I believe people do this to try and apply the thought processes they know to genealogy. I have spent over two decades in pharmacy management. There is no comparison to genealogy apart from the level of detail and accuracy that is involved. As part of that thread Tessa made the following comment -
"Genealogy, in my opinion, is a mixture of social science (history, geography, economics, sociology and psychology) and natural science (biology, and probably some others here as well)."
I completely agree with Tessa and I then I went a stage further. Firstly, in response to the accuracy debate. Should we even be debating accuracy? If we do not research carefully and accurately, seeking answers and clarity to those facts, it does seem pointless to pursue such a interest. Who wants to own a genealogical tree with data that can not be proved? Surely no one simply adds data that is not confirmed to their genealogy? - actually, yes they do. There are some that add material from the internet with the belief that if it is online then it must be true. No, there does need to be evidence and we head back to the statement cite your sources.
Genealogy is in someways almost flexible. As we research our ancestry, not just collecting the names and dates, but fleshing out the detail we can expand our interest into other disciplines thereby researching in an almost holistic approach. I have a particular interest in the fact that a very close relative to me had Polio when they were a child, by pursuing this section of their life I have a better understanding not just of those earlier events but also the current. As medical advancement has developed, so has the diagnosis of post Polio activity become more widely known and treatment managed. There is no cure for post polio syndrome.
Genealogy is in part all about the detail, and wider context of our ancestors.
So, back to the initial point. Is genealogy inclusive or exclusive? There is no easy way to say this, to some, genealogy and profile is about massaging their ego. It is as simple as that. I base my opinion on the evidence that I have seen within the genealogical arena from some members of the community, and thankfully they are in the minority.
To research your own ancestry you do not need a degree in history, nor a professional qualification in genealogy. I have a history degree that I undertook as a mature student and by the time I completed my degree I had already been working in the pharmacy profession for over 13 years. When I took my degree it was for me, rather than part of a personal development plan to professionally migrate from pharmacy to history, although in part; another 13 years on I have done so.
There is room in genealogy and family history for everyone. There is no room, in my opinion for those who need to be stroked like a Labrador and made to feel important, because that sends out a very different message.
Just recently there was the rock star genealogy awards. I shake my head in horror. That said, there were some very well deserving names on the list and I was, in the spirit of friendship and respect for some of those individuals delighted that they were nominated and that so many others agreed. In the case of several that were publicly acknowledged it did nothing more than massage those egos I mentioned earlier. It is those awards, that send out the message of exclusivity and elitist behavior.
The genealogy community is, in effect a buffet in a restaurant. It is made up of some really wonderful people who bring an enormous amount of knowledge to the very large table. As a collective we should be feel proud to belong to such a wonderful and informative group and be mindful that we should not wish to be heading back to the popularity of the "in crowd" akin to the school playground.
I should point out, that I have never been part of that "in crowd", either at school, in my pharmacy career or now. The reason being, that I value being an individual and being treated as such. I challenge and have no issue with stating how I feel or presenting an opposing argument, whilst believing that if we stand together and share our knowledge and resources we become a strong and more educated group.
My final comments are therefore this.
- We should acknowledge the contributions of many people within the genealogy community, not just the ones that shout the loudest or who appear to be high profile.
- There is room in genealogy and family history for everyone.
The opinions I have expressed here are mine and therefore if you do not agree, play nicely!