I Want to See THIS Family Reunion!

Here's a great quote from an article by Eilis O'Hanlon, writing in the Independent (a newspaper and web site in Dublin, Ireland):

Trace a line back 600 years and what you have is 16 million ancestors. Go back 80 generations and the figure rises to a trillion trillion (which is actually greater than the total number of people who've ever lived, but that's maths for you).

The US National Centre for Biotechnology Information puts it as bluntly as it gets by pointing out that, if you trace the line back far enough, every single human on the planet would eventually be shown to be related.

You can read more at http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/no-one-will-find-themselves-in-dusty-old-birth-records-1479283.html.

Comments

[Mike More]

Just another supposedly knowledgeable pundit writing about something he doesn't understand. Brings to question the rest of his pronouncements.

[Barb Way]

I'm afraid from reading the article by Eilis O'Hanlon, that he doesn't understand why I believe most genealogists work on a family tree. For me, it's curiosity and the satisfaction of finding the pieces of a puzzle without boundaries. And it makes it even more interesting because I am a part of that puzzle. I do not care if these people were famous although it is interesting and I would probably mention it to someone in describing my genealogy work. I care because I want to know who my ancesters were. I want to know what they did, where they lived, where they came from, why they moved, etc. Obviously Eilis O'Hanlon is not curious.

[Joyce]

Thank goodness he wrote that article so that all the rest of us can give up our passion and go take up...knitting. Or something.

It's rare that an article gets my dander up, but that one did just enough that I want to go write back to him. I completely disagree that filling in your family tree is meaningless. Can it be taken to extremes? Maybe. But it's also been a source of joy to me personally to have a better understanding of where my (never-met) grandparents came from, meet long-lost cousins I never knew I had, share stories and oral history with folks all over the world. I know other people feel similiarly...I talk to them every day.

I'm not sure what axe he has to grind, but I can say full-on that I don't agree with his conclusions at all.

[Kathleen]

Looks like he got up on the wrong side of the bed!

[Marilyn]

Wow! What vitriol for a harmless hobby that brings happiness to millions of us who actually care about our families and where we came from!

I must admit, until the 'bug' bit me, I didn't understand why my friends got so excited when they 'found' a new uncle. But I didn't denigrate their happiness or the time spent on their search. Now I'm digging away in my own blizzard of family group sheets, yellow stickies, and scribbled notes. Whee!

[Ned Smith]

Well he certainly went too far in his criticism of genealogy, but I think some of the criticism directed at him also goes a little too far. His main point is valid- genealogy does not tell you "who you are", no matter how often that claim is made. To pretend it does is commiting the fallacy of determinism. To learn who you are you need a mirror, not a pedigree chart.

But if genealogy doesn't tell us who we are, it does tell us how we got here, and learning that is a thrilling, and valuable, process in its own right, which Mr. O'Hanlon doesn't seem to comprehend. It combines the intellectual pleasures of discovery, the chance to learn a great deal of social history in a relatively painless manner, and the opportunity to enjoy many human sagas far more interesting most works of fiction.

It doesn't even have to involve our own families- I've researched many families in addition to my own, and that has been just as rewarding as researching my own ancestors.

Ned Smith

[Tonya Cate]

Eh... to each his own. As for me, I'd prefer playing in "dusty old birth records" any day. I love a good mystery or puzzle, and my family history is just that. Every time I solve one aspect, I get new puzzle pieces. One of my sons once asked me, "Aren't you finished yet?" Nope. Probably never will be... and that's the beauty of it!

[Phil Cheevers]

My oh my! What passions have been stirred up by relating a curious mathematical oddity! Come-on people, lighten-up and enjoy life and, at least from a genalogical point of view, death. Let the mathematicians have their fun too.

[Katherine]

I don't have to go too far back in my ancestry to find cousins marrying cousins or sets of siblings marrying sets of siblings, thus consolidating my sets of grand and great-grandparents. And not a Irish man (or woman) among them! I am my own cousin several times over.

[BWyatt]

It's probable that many of us are more concerned with, as previously identified "how we got here"; not how many famous/infamous people were our ancestors. Many people can find their heritage in the "dusty, old faded ink records". For some, no records exist. Although the writer identifies briefly the male line concept, success can be achieved in tracking female lines also. Sometimes it's just the thrill of finding relative information that is rewarding. I hope that in the "near life", I am not closely related to the author.

[Anne R W]

To me, who has been always interested in history, genealogy is another window into that subject. For example, as I thought about the relative who moved to Canada from Massachusetts in the latter half of the 18th century, I wondered about his political stance just before and during the American Revolution. Was he a Tory? Did he leave as part of the emigration of Loyalists, or was that move a coincidence? When I learned that he fought in the French and Indian (Seven Years) War and was awarded land in Canada for that service (so that the English could quickly settle the lands to discourage the French from further interests there, I started to see how my family played a role in the historic events. Their thoughts and actions were influenced by and influenced the development of history.

Most of our ancestors went through the flow of history making little impact, but they were certainly influenced by it. How they reacted to the English or American Civil Wars, the music of Beethoven or Strauss, or the Industrial Revolution takes on a personal interest. And the thinking processes which I have to go through to try to figure it all out is a worthwhile mental exercise.

The further back I can go (yes, another Charlemagne descendant) the more relevant and interesting the ancient history can be. We might know that we must have had ancestors alive "way back when", but to know of a specific name and, hopefully, occupation or station in life, makes it MY family story, not just a vague collection of facts. History becomes personally relevant.

As I look over my ahnentafel I am amazed to think about how, if any of those pairs of ancestors hadn't come together (right place, right time, right circumstances) I wouldn't be here. The same is true for each of us. How much we owe them. We can certainly try to learn their names, at least.

As for the article, I think it's a bit insulting for him to make the assumption that we genealogists are all out to "find ourselves" in our ancestors. In my own family I'm fascinated to see how many teachers, ministers, and civil engineers happen to crop up (being a retired teacher myself), but I know that anyone is likely to find the famous, the infamous, and mostly, the average scattered throughout their family trees.

Beyond the first couple of generations back---ancestors who I knew as I was developing---further generations didn't influence me and who I became. Still it's good to know who they were.

Perhaps if Mr. O'Hanlon had the ah-ha! moment of discovering one of his own ancestors on one of those "dusty old birth records" he would change his tune. Has anyone thought of putting him on the show next season?

[Linda]

I am who I am because of who my ancestors were and what they went through to make my life easier today. I am paying homage to them by remembering them and the stories of their lives. Poor Mr. O'Hanlon, if only he had a clue. . .

[Dick Eastman]

Comment from a reader who needs to remain anonymous:

Just a point of interest, I'd like to point out that Eilis O'Hanlon is a woman. Eilis is the Irish for Alice or Elizabeth (they both translate to Eilis, which is pronounced eyelish). The TV programme she talks about "Who Do You Think You Are?" is in Irish TV version of the well known BBC programme of the same name, having well-known personalities trace the "interesting" parts of their family tree for the cameras and viewers. Charlie Bird (the subject of the first episode) is one of the best known news reporters on the TV channel, RTE.

[Sandra]

I agree with the comments above - Eilis O'Hanlon really hasn't understood how intriguing, interesting and enjoyable we find this hobby. Discovering who our ancestors were and how they lived their lives, and what made some of them move halfway around the world, gives great satisfaction. Some were brave and courageous and we hope we inherit this trait, some struggled and failed in their efforts and we trust we can take strength and honour their endeavours. Above all we feel the love of family coming down through the ages. Not something to shun at all.
And by the way - what is 'ommadawns' in her last paragraph? I've never heard of the word and my Concise Oxford doesn't list it.