In her recent book Hey, America, Your Roots Are Showing, Megan Smolenyak-Smolenyak writes about a young African-American man in Texas who was killed during the Civil Rights movement. He was shot in the head three times and his death was determined to be accidental.
Ms. Smolenyak writes of being shocked at these conclusions. “How could firing several rounds into a local hangout be accidental?” she asks.
All of this reminds me of a story during my graduate studies in Georgia. I was attending class with a fellow student, a justice of the Georgia courts. At the time there were multiple news reports about a young man who had been shot several times and his death ruled a suicide. At the beginning of class one evening I wondered, aloud, how could anyone be shot several times and still be ruled a suicide. The justice, my colleague, simply commented, “You obviously haven’t lived in the South very long.”
In addition to racism, these stories indicate significant regionalism. Police in the South are, to this day, more inclined to draw a mental line between two points and come up with the most straight forward conclusion. If someone is shot and there are no witnesses, it must be suicide. Any incongruities that might hinder this conclusion are best ignored. And life goes on.
I guess I have lived in the South long enough because a man shot through a window, several times, ruled an accident in really not shocking, nor surprising.
I suppose I am way too cynical.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
An Idle Thought
Some of you may have noticed that I am writing a weekly column for the Sherburne County Citizen and the West Sherburne Tribune. The column doesn’t always appear, but that is the chance you take when writing for a newspaper. The point of all of this is that because I am writing more, it is becoming a bit more difficult to write exclusively for this blog. I will try to put together some interesting writing, but it may be a bit less often.
Anyway, while surfing the columns of historic newspapers in Sherburne County I came across an interesting, brief comment that says a great deal about life and family duties in Sherburne County around 1900. Published in the Sherburne County Times, 21 April 1898, it reads: “Mrs. J. H. Sherpardson’s nurse has gone to the city, and J. H. has to do the household work now.”
This is interesting that the fact the newspaper takes note of J.H Shepardson having to “do the household work” implies he hasn’t done it for some time. The poor man has to suddenly take care of himself while his wife recovers from some unknown illness.
Am I reading too much “between the lines” of this report? I don’t think so.
Finally, sympathy for J. H. Shepardson is 114 years too late, but I think we should all express some (sarcastic) pity for this man. And recognize the hard work of his wife and all women of that time.
This is all just idle thinking while I have a moment.
Anyway, while surfing the columns of historic newspapers in Sherburne County I came across an interesting, brief comment that says a great deal about life and family duties in Sherburne County around 1900. Published in the Sherburne County Times, 21 April 1898, it reads: “Mrs. J. H. Sherpardson’s nurse has gone to the city, and J. H. has to do the household work now.”
This is interesting that the fact the newspaper takes note of J.H Shepardson having to “do the household work” implies he hasn’t done it for some time. The poor man has to suddenly take care of himself while his wife recovers from some unknown illness.
Am I reading too much “between the lines” of this report? I don’t think so.
Finally, sympathy for J. H. Shepardson is 114 years too late, but I think we should all express some (sarcastic) pity for this man. And recognize the hard work of his wife and all women of that time.
This is all just idle thinking while I have a moment.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Yet Another Challenge for Family History
Recently working with a family historian, we opened up the discussion of birth dates and using them to identify specific ancestors. I tried to make the point that in the middle 1800s the precise birth date was not a significant detail in one’s life. A survey I had conducted seemed to bear this out. I had indexed a collection of records from a Civil War veterans’ hospital and found that many veterans listed their birth date as Christmas Day or New Year’s Day. So many were born on these two holidays I suspect they simply chose a date out of their brain because they didn’t know precisely when they were born.
Now, I am reading a book review that seems to bear this out. In the on-line version of the New York Times, Linda Shapiro reviewed the book In Our Prime. It is a historic study of “middle age.” Written by Patricia Cohen, it makes the point that age was not all that important before 1900. To quote the review, that is quoting the book: before 1900 “age was not an essential ingredient of one’s identity.” This is high brow language to say that no one cared how old you were. No one was terribly concerned about their birth date.
According to the review, only with mass industrialization did age become a factor in life. With the rise of large cities, segmenting the population became important and age then became a consideration of life.
This is an interesting concept for genealogists and family historians. What this all means is that before 1900, the ages and birth dates of our ancestors all become suspect. Whenever we read cemetery markers that list date of death and then age, breaking it down to year, month and number of days all become potentially incorrect. This is yet another detail we must closely explore in our research.
Another popular piece of mass culture reinforces this idea. In the movie Crocodile Dundee, the lead character is talking about his birth date. I apologize that I get the quote wrong but it went something like: “I asked my uncle, once, when I was born? He told me the summertime.”
We may have to look very closely at our pre-1900 research and challenge birth dates with even greater scrutiny.
Now, I am reading a book review that seems to bear this out. In the on-line version of the New York Times, Linda Shapiro reviewed the book In Our Prime. It is a historic study of “middle age.” Written by Patricia Cohen, it makes the point that age was not all that important before 1900. To quote the review, that is quoting the book: before 1900 “age was not an essential ingredient of one’s identity.” This is high brow language to say that no one cared how old you were. No one was terribly concerned about their birth date.
According to the review, only with mass industrialization did age become a factor in life. With the rise of large cities, segmenting the population became important and age then became a consideration of life.
This is an interesting concept for genealogists and family historians. What this all means is that before 1900, the ages and birth dates of our ancestors all become suspect. Whenever we read cemetery markers that list date of death and then age, breaking it down to year, month and number of days all become potentially incorrect. This is yet another detail we must closely explore in our research.
Another popular piece of mass culture reinforces this idea. In the movie Crocodile Dundee, the lead character is talking about his birth date. I apologize that I get the quote wrong but it went something like: “I asked my uncle, once, when I was born? He told me the summertime.”
We may have to look very closely at our pre-1900 research and challenge birth dates with even greater scrutiny.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Unknown-Unknowns in Family History
“There are known knowns, there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know”—Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.
Donald Rumsfeld made this interesting statement when he was the Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration. This is a great quote, not only because it is a great example of bureaucratic double speak, but it also is an entertaining summary of the first rule of Family History research. That is: start with what you know and work backwards in time to what you don’t know.
In the beginning of family history research, whenever someone asks for my advice, I tell them to write down what you know. When you know what you know, it becomes easy to identify the information that you don’t know. And this opens up the path to decide the next steps in researching your family tree.
The “known unknowns” and the “unknown unknowns” help us to set goals for future research. If you don’t know grandma’s birthday, maybe you should set aside time and the resources to find out when grandma was born.
Slowly the information begins to flow and the “unknown unknowns” become “known unknowns” which eventually, through rigorous research, become “known knowns.”
Who would ever guess that Donald Rumsfeld was such a great family historian!
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know”—Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.
Donald Rumsfeld made this interesting statement when he was the Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration. This is a great quote, not only because it is a great example of bureaucratic double speak, but it also is an entertaining summary of the first rule of Family History research. That is: start with what you know and work backwards in time to what you don’t know.
In the beginning of family history research, whenever someone asks for my advice, I tell them to write down what you know. When you know what you know, it becomes easy to identify the information that you don’t know. And this opens up the path to decide the next steps in researching your family tree.
The “known unknowns” and the “unknown unknowns” help us to set goals for future research. If you don’t know grandma’s birthday, maybe you should set aside time and the resources to find out when grandma was born.
Slowly the information begins to flow and the “unknown unknowns” become “known unknowns” which eventually, through rigorous research, become “known knowns.”
Who would ever guess that Donald Rumsfeld was such a great family historian!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Switched At Birth
Once again, the following story reinforces the question for family historians: Is it truly important to know your biological parents? Isn't it just as vital to document the people who raised? Reference back to my "It takes a Village" essay.
This was posted by ABC News yesterday.
..Switched at Birth Girls Want to Stay With Wrong Moms
By LAMA HASAN Good Morning America – 21 hours ago
....A pair of 12-year-old girls who discovered they were accidentally switched at birth want to stay with the mothers who have been raising them rather than go to their real parents.
The girls have grown up just a few miles away from each other in the town of Kopeisk in the Ural Mountains of eastern Russia.
Their mothers gave birth in the same maternity ward just 15 minutes apart in 1999, and their infant daughters were inadvertently given the wrong name tags.
Their true identities were revealed after the ex-husband of Yuliya Belyaeva, one of the mothers, refused to pay for child care because his daughter, Irina, looked nothing like him. After conducting several DNA tests it emerged that neither adult was Irina's biological parent.
"The judge couldn't believe it," Belyaeva told the BBC. "She said she'd only seen cases like this on TV and didn't know what to advise us."
The DNA tests sent Belyaeva on a search for her own daughter. She remembered that when she was giving birth, another woman was also in labor in the same ward. She suspected that the maternity ward had mixed up their daughters.
"I made a photocopy of the DNA test results and went straight to the prosecutor's office. There I lodged an official complaint about being given the wrong baby in the maternity hospital," Yuliya said.
Yuliya finally took her search to the local police who managed to trace her biological daughter living just a few miles away with Irina's natural parents.
"It was true," Yuliya remembered. "Their daughter, Anya, was blond and looked just like me and my ex-husband. And our daughter was dark-skinned and had dark hair and looked like the other father. He's a Tajik, and she looked just like him."
"Suddenly my whole world turned upside down and inside out,'' she recalled.
While the girls admit that they were happy to have found each other, neither one wants to leave the family they grew up with even though they are not their biological parents.
"It's terrible for both of them," Yuliya told the BBC. "They've grown up with one set of parents, now they've found out they have a different mother and father. Neither child wants to leave their home. Irina keeps saying to me: 'Mum, please don't give me away!' I comfort her by saying: 'I would never do anything against your wishes. Nothing has changed. I'm still your mother.''
While both families are getting to know each other and are becoming closer, they're suing the hospital and demanding almost $160,000 in damages.
Stories of babies being switched at birth are rare. In 1953, a mix up occurred at Pioneer Memorial Hospital in Heppner, Ore. It was only years later, in May 2009, that the now 56-year- old women discovered they were switched as babies.
DeeAnn Angell of Fossil and Kay Rene Reed of Condon learned about the mistake from an 86-year-old woman who was a former neighbor.
The former neighbor said that one of the girls' mothers, Marjorie Angell, insisted back in 1953 that she had been given the wrong baby after nurses returned from bathing them. Her concerns were ignored. With both sets of parents dead, the Reed and Angell siblings compared notes and family stories, learning that rumors of a mix-up had been around for years. Kay Rene Reed decided to get their DNA tested, and that confirmed the mistake.
They both say they just have to move forward with their lives now, and they celebrated their latest birthday together
This was posted by ABC News yesterday.
..Switched at Birth Girls Want to Stay With Wrong Moms
By LAMA HASAN Good Morning America – 21 hours ago
....A pair of 12-year-old girls who discovered they were accidentally switched at birth want to stay with the mothers who have been raising them rather than go to their real parents.
The girls have grown up just a few miles away from each other in the town of Kopeisk in the Ural Mountains of eastern Russia.
Their mothers gave birth in the same maternity ward just 15 minutes apart in 1999, and their infant daughters were inadvertently given the wrong name tags.
Their true identities were revealed after the ex-husband of Yuliya Belyaeva, one of the mothers, refused to pay for child care because his daughter, Irina, looked nothing like him. After conducting several DNA tests it emerged that neither adult was Irina's biological parent.
"The judge couldn't believe it," Belyaeva told the BBC. "She said she'd only seen cases like this on TV and didn't know what to advise us."
The DNA tests sent Belyaeva on a search for her own daughter. She remembered that when she was giving birth, another woman was also in labor in the same ward. She suspected that the maternity ward had mixed up their daughters.
"I made a photocopy of the DNA test results and went straight to the prosecutor's office. There I lodged an official complaint about being given the wrong baby in the maternity hospital," Yuliya said.
Yuliya finally took her search to the local police who managed to trace her biological daughter living just a few miles away with Irina's natural parents.
"It was true," Yuliya remembered. "Their daughter, Anya, was blond and looked just like me and my ex-husband. And our daughter was dark-skinned and had dark hair and looked like the other father. He's a Tajik, and she looked just like him."
"Suddenly my whole world turned upside down and inside out,'' she recalled.
While the girls admit that they were happy to have found each other, neither one wants to leave the family they grew up with even though they are not their biological parents.
"It's terrible for both of them," Yuliya told the BBC. "They've grown up with one set of parents, now they've found out they have a different mother and father. Neither child wants to leave their home. Irina keeps saying to me: 'Mum, please don't give me away!' I comfort her by saying: 'I would never do anything against your wishes. Nothing has changed. I'm still your mother.''
While both families are getting to know each other and are becoming closer, they're suing the hospital and demanding almost $160,000 in damages.
Stories of babies being switched at birth are rare. In 1953, a mix up occurred at Pioneer Memorial Hospital in Heppner, Ore. It was only years later, in May 2009, that the now 56-year- old women discovered they were switched as babies.
DeeAnn Angell of Fossil and Kay Rene Reed of Condon learned about the mistake from an 86-year-old woman who was a former neighbor.
The former neighbor said that one of the girls' mothers, Marjorie Angell, insisted back in 1953 that she had been given the wrong baby after nurses returned from bathing them. Her concerns were ignored. With both sets of parents dead, the Reed and Angell siblings compared notes and family stories, learning that rumors of a mix-up had been around for years. Kay Rene Reed decided to get their DNA tested, and that confirmed the mistake.
They both say they just have to move forward with their lives now, and they celebrated their latest birthday together
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Hi, It's Been Awhile
I'm back. After an absolutely overwhelming September, I am once again finding the energy and enthusiasm to write.
So, I am back. I am refreshed and ready once again to explore family history, research, and anything else that might generate interest.
To paraphrase the cliche, hold on because the bumpy ride is once about to begin!
So, I am back. I am refreshed and ready once again to explore family history, research, and anything else that might generate interest.
To paraphrase the cliche, hold on because the bumpy ride is once about to begin!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Improving The Economy
I realize that this is just frustration taking over, but the Minnesota Historical Society announced budget cuts and layoffs today. It caused me to think:
Many years ago Jesse Jackson was running for President during a time when the economy was bad. I think it was 1980. Anyway, during the debates Jackson suggested that if the government stopped making so many bombs and devoted the money to items people actually use, the economy might improve.
I still wonder: if we make fewer bombs and manufacture more televisions, cars, tractors, refrigerators, or other household items, would the economy improve? Maybe we should try.
Many years ago Jesse Jackson was running for President during a time when the economy was bad. I think it was 1980. Anyway, during the debates Jackson suggested that if the government stopped making so many bombs and devoted the money to items people actually use, the economy might improve.
I still wonder: if we make fewer bombs and manufacture more televisions, cars, tractors, refrigerators, or other household items, would the economy improve? Maybe we should try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
