The 800 - Pound Gorilla In The Room: Our Genealogies Are Bogus

This is an expanded version of an older blog.

With the proliferation of DNA research being used in genealogy, this particular "gorilla" (what everyone knows is there but ignores) is the confirmation (not just speculation) that many of our male ancestors are not our biological ancestors. Estimates of the numbers vary, but the best research puts that at about 5% in modern Western societies. One person in 20.

Do the math. We have 1 father, 2 grandfathers, 4 great grandfathers, 8 great great grandfathers, and 16 great great great grandfathers. That adds up to 31 male ancestors in just five generations. Chances are excellent that one or more of those men is biologically unrelated to us. Just that many generations take me back to only the year 1800. My family file, with excellent sources, goes back to the year 400 CE. That is with the best of the best in the way of sources - excellent, careful, reputable professional genealogists.

But the best of the best can tell us only who the fathers of record were, not who the biological fathers might have been. They are lost to history for all time.

This is what I am adding - the results of a little further thought and some simple calculations:

I picked at random just one 3rd great grandfather, to see what happens to my family history if I remove him as an ancestor.

I would lose 155 additional ancestors, as well as all the descendants of them that I have incorporated into my file. I couldn't even begin to calculate how many there are, without spending days in the process.

155 ancestors plus ??????? aunts, uncles, and cousins would make a hole in my data large enough to fly an Airbus A340 through it.

Unnerving? Most assuredly so, but it would be the result of only one incidence of false paternity in my carefully constructed family history. The finding of 5% of such occurrences virtually guarantees that there are many more imbedded in our genealogy.

Implication? I see that as implying our family history, for the most part, is bogus. And we'll never know where it goes wrong, how often, or how to "fix" it.

"Death Penalty"

I am opposed to my government venturing into the area of killing its own citizens. Killing is a brutal act. The body resists its own murder and it dies hard.

Extinguishing life can be done without physical pain; veterinarians do it all the time. Our pets don't understand what is happening, so psychic pain is less than it would be for a fully aware human being.

The government, sanctioned by the people, kill for reasons that seem sufficient to many. The victim has been convicted of doing something extraordinarily bad.

Conviction isn't proof that he did it, and mistakes are made. That is justice gone bad in the worst possible way.

Can we speak of the pain and suffering of his family, friends? Should we speak of that? Doesn't that open a door onto our own guilt - knowingly and willfully causing agony to people who have been convicted of nothing?

"Capital punishment" is cruel, can't be undone, and causes misery to many innocent individuals, often for their whole lives.

Can we extend our compassion even to the "unworthy"? We, not they, own our emotions, and compassion is the best of them.

Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.
~Dalai Lama

We Lost!

The exclamation point in the title stands for all the disappointment - amounting to a lot of psychic pain for many - in Syracuse University's defeat in the NCAA tournament last night. So many hopes dashed and much grief ahead today for some. Why do we get so wound up over a game that we ourselves are not playing?

Are sports nothing more than a twisted outlet for inborn aggression and competitive instincts? If so, they serve a good purpose. I am less likely to bludgeon my neighbor into insensibility for parking on my lawn, and New York State is less likely to declare war on New Jersey.

If basketball is winding down, can baseball be far behind?

Batter up!

Genealogy is for the living

Family history published on the internet or elsewhere may be about the dead, but it is for the living. It is irresponsible and disrespectful when details are included that would hurt, embarrass, or otherwise cause pain to the living. This can happen when family tragedies are discussed too close to the time of their occurrence, when there are living relatives and friends still grieving for the lost person/people. A rule I follow: when I have to choose between the welfare of the living and "historical" information about the deceased, the living trumps the dead every time.

There's something about Twitter

Twitter is either a huge waste of time or a very profound opportunity to view the world through different eyes. Whichever, I am finding it very entertaining. It's tempting to Twitter too much twaddle, but that's the internet. We can't reform it.

William Tecumseh wrote in a letter, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it." There are many things we can't refine - the inevitability of disease, disability, and death; the coming of winter to northern regions; the ultimate loss of our loved ones; the arrival of Monday mornings. And the internet.

Love it, hate it, live with it, or..........



Find another hobby.