Fading Families

 Don't remember what I've written here about genealogical research.  My sister did a lot during a year when she was no longer teaching school.  That was back in 1978, long before the internet and the extensive digitization of sources.

A digression: genealogical research appeals to the sort of mind who reads detective stories.  Back in the day there was great satisfaction in figuring out connections, assessing what the probabilities were when faced with incomplete evidence, etc. Unless you participated in a group devoted to genealogy, you didn't know whether you were the first to find your great great grandmother, or had some cousins preceded you.  All that is, I think, rapidly vanishing.  With ancestry.com and family search, once a connection is made it's visible to anyone in the world who wants to look. And with digitized sources, rapidly expanding to all the printed matter which still exists, and searching, no longer do you have to hit the libraries and local historical societies as did my sister; just click the mouse and pay the subscription fees.

Back tot he title.  One set of clues to ancestry was generational naming patterns. These days the Social Security administration releases statistics on naming patterns, tracing the popularity of names.  (I suspect there's been a recent drop in babies named Karen.) In the old days when family was more important, babies were often named according to a pattern.  For example, my great grandfather named his first son Andrew after his father, and his daughter Sarah after his mother.  In Scots Irish families the next set of children would likely be named after their mother's parents, and so on. The pattern was strong enough  you could use it to deduce genealogy, at least in the 19th century   (By the end of the century it was fading; while my father was named after his mother's father, and my uncle had his paternal grandmother's maiden name for his middle name, my uncle's first name and my aunt's name have no identifiable history in the family

We don't have such large families these days, and the pattern of naming has gone. Does that mean that family feeling is less, or just that a custom has faded away?  

Productivity Gains in Genealogy

 My cousin and I were remembering the old days of genealogic research.  I never did any before the internet, but my sister devoted much of a year in 1978 or so to researching, particularly my paternal grandmother's ancestry--the Rippeys.  My cousin started seriously in the late 1980's.  

If you could measure the productivity of research you'd probably count facts--names, relationship, and dates.  In the days of visiting archives and viewing microfilm you might spend days to establish the bare facts for one ancestor.  Now in the days of the internet, of digitized records, and of genealogical databases like Ancestry.com it's possible to trace the ancestry of one person going back to 1850 or before over a weekend, which might include 32 people with lots of details.. 

The increase in productivity is amazing. 

The downside is this: because a genealogy once researched is more likely than not to be valid for recent centuries, there's a diminishing field to explore--at least for white Europeans.  Means new researchers won't know the satisfactions experienced by their elders. 

New Terms: Adult Orphans and Family Tree Completists

Learned two new terms today from reading Post and Times:

"Adult orphans".  This refers to those of us, including me and my wife, who are getting old with no children, no parents, and essentially no support network.  Applying a label makes the problem seem more concrete.  Personally, on the one hand I'm tempted to say: "you made your bed, now lie in it." On the other hand, which I almost always have available, it's a real problem for us, and we need to figure out how to deal with it, most likely by moving to an assisted living complex which includes nursing care.  BTW, googling the term results in 45,000  hits, so it's not that new.

"Family tree completists" is unique to the Times article on the ability of a site called "GEDmatch" to help identify suspects in a crime from their DNA by analyzing DNA matches from a database of relationships created by genealogical enthusiasts.  For a while I was one of these--deriving great pleasure from adding another set of (remote) cousins to my genealogy.  I still maintain an ancestry.com account, with a number of trees which someday I may return to

Tracing the Thread: Connections Via the Internet

There seems to be much debate over the impact of the Internet and the web on society.  Some say we're absorbed in our cellphones and shrinking from face to face interactions.  Some disagree.

A story:

My extended family was small; I had six living first cousins, all of whom were several years older than me.  They lived in distant places, and we didn't have family reunions.   The closest we came in recent years was when two cousins came to my mother's funeral.

Then came the internet and PC's.  A cousin, Marjorie Harshaw Robie, got a hand-me-down PC from her son, and started to get into genealogy, becoming very interested in and familiar with the Harshaw and the Robies.  Through connections she made there, a remote cousin got in touch with her, offering a set of original diaries written by James Harshaw in County Down in the middle of the 19th century.  My cousin got them microfilmed and took them back to Ireland to the Public Records (archives) Office.   Her work with the diaries attracted enough attention that PBS, which was doing a TV series on the Irish in America, did an interview, excerpts of which actually got aired.  My sister, who had been into genealogy before the advent of PC's, noticed and mentioned to me. 

Another few years passed and I looked my cousin up on the Internet and got her email address (this was before Facebook).  We made connections, first through email, then through AOL instant messaging (and now Facebook).   She's now putting the finishing touches on her second book, Dueling Dragons (expect to see more on it here).

Meanwhile, as a retiree I got involved in blogging and in following bloggers.  One of the bloggers I began to follow, probably about 2008, was TaNehisi Coates.  At that time he had one of the best sets of people commenting on his posts, including a number of regulars.   One of the regulars was Andy Hall, who had his own blog: Dead Confederates, a blog which I added to my RSS feed.

On the occasion of Memorial Day, Andy posted about three Civil War veterans, one of whom was George Frank Robie, a Union Medal of Honor winner who's buried in Galveston, Andy's hometown.

Naturally, when I saw the post, I passed the url to my cousin in case he was new to her.  This is real life, not fiction, so George Frank did not turn out to be an ancestor of her husband, but only a relative.

What lessons do I take from this?  I think the Internet does enable, though not force, new connections following existing paths of relationship and interests. 

Tabarrok's Great Post re: Facebook

Alex Tabarrok is the less prominent blogger at Marginal Revolution, but I think his post yesterday is great. 

He makes the point that much of the data Facebook stores is created by Facebook, or more accurately in my mind by the combination of our activities which are enabled by and only possible through Facebook.  As he says, speaking of a cousin in Dubai who he's never called or written a letter in over 20 years: "The relationship with my cousin, therefore, isn’t simply mine, it’s a joint creation of myself, my cousin and Facebook."

I tweeted about the post yesterday, not something I do everyday.  I got a response from one person, and we've gone back and forth a bit.  Let me summarize my position:

Like Tabarrok, I've a current relationship with a cousin which has been made possible through the Internet, email in the first instance, then shifting to AIM and finally to Facebook Messenger: a sequence of communication tools of better and better capability and more ease of use.  I understand that the data stored in the cloud has changed with each tool: now Facebook keeps the full text of our messages.  But the capability of the tool is an essential part of the relationship.  Given our personalities and ages we didn't and couldn't establish it based on snail mail. 


I (and my cousin) are interested in genealogy; she's writing a book (at 87) covering events in 19th century Ireland partly involving two collateral ancestors. For us, all bits of data are precious if they concern the lives of our ancestors, or the lives my cousin investigates.  Of course the data is almost all on paper with just a little bit on film.  What does the future hold for genealogists; how will they handle all the data which is now being stored and which presumably will be available?