NORCAL-L Archives

Archiver > NORCAL > 1998-02 > 0886355780


From: Kendall Hudson <>
Subject: Re: Just the Facts!!
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 09:56:20 -0800


Roland,

I agree. Especialy when you take into consideration the quality of the civil or
governmental employee who is doing the recording of the dob or dod. If the old
workers were no better educated than the present group then dod and dob become
whatever the clerk hears, sees, interprets and writes down and not necessarily
the fact. I think this applies more to larger cities than to small towns. I
would trust the records of the smaller towns more so than a city like Los
Angeles or San Francisco. Small town employees tend to be known by the
townspeople and I think they take the responsibility more seriously.

Regards,

Ken Hudson
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA

roland elliott wrote:

> The truth is rarely the accumulation of the facts,but rather ones
> interpretation of the facts-Roland Elliott.Who is to say that the dod,dob is
> correct? I had rather use Marriages and Baptisms,and most of all what I can
> learn of the customs,history,weather,crops etc of the era being research.I
> agree with Walt.R
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Herbert Crookston <>
> To: <>
> Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 8 59
> Subject: Re: Just the Facts!!
>
> >This may come as somewhat of a disillusion to you Walt, and all.
> >
> >But Alex Haley's book has a goodly sum of fiction throughout its whole
> story.
> >There are too many assumptions and conclusions made by Haley that cannot be
> >documented. Much as any of our genealogies.
> >
> >The fault, if one looks at it carefully, and as such, with most Historians,
> or
> >otherwise, and Biographers is that they too often expand, color, glorify
> the few
> >good and true facts that they know, the facts of a whole live or period of
> time,
> >in order to mold them into a good story or read. This is many times their
> >publishers fault. They wish to sell books and make money.
> >
> >That is not the purpose of a Genealogy!
> >
> >A Genealogy is not meant to be entertainment, though it maybe and sometimes
> is, if
> >the people written about were interesting, and led interesting lives.
> >Unfortunately most of our ancestor led pretty average, normal,
> everyday-mundane
> >lives, much as we do.. Important, sure is, but hardly the stuff fiction,
> or
> >exhilarating history.
> >
> >When working with my own family lines I read as many Social and Political
> >Histories of the times of the people I am researching as I can. From this
> one can
> >get a fair sense of how they lived and what they were thinking and talking
> about
> >and how they may have amused themselves in the little leisure time they
> they
> >seemingly had. Where I have interesting factual history, or personal
> anecdote
> >about an ancestor, I use it. But I to hold to a strict rule to specify
> which is
> >fact from what is anecdote, and what is assumption or conjecture.
> >
> >Charles
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have two books on my Kennedy side of the family One is the Reading
> Howell
> >> book and it has many stories about each main character and lots of
> interesting
> >> reading giving one an idea of how they lived and what they did for a
> >> livelyhood.
> >> The book is on the Quick family it has only names dates and places.
> As
> >> aunt Charlotte said about Mrs. Whitmans diary " I could hardley get
> through
> >> the whole boring boring book"
> >>
> >> There is a lot more to genealogy than just the facts. If you don't
> believe me
> >> then read Roots by Alex Halley.
> >>
> >> Walt Davies
> >> Monmouth, OR
> >
> >
> >
> >

This thread: