Of Rodney King and Aussie Hats...

I've been oddly disturbed the last few days about the discussion going on (again) regarding perceived elitism toward newbies in the genealogical community. I hate conflict, and in the words of the late Rodney King, my first response is "can we all get along?"

The conversation has been wide-ranging, with many ideas expressed, and I won't re-hash it here, except to direct you to the Transitional Genealogists Forum and Harold Henderson's excellent post at his Midwestern Microhistory blog. One point I don't recall being mentioned is that all genealogists, young or old, certified/accredited or beginner, would be well-served to more frequently separate fact from opinion:

• It is a fact that there is a lot of bad genealogical data on the Internet.
• It is a fact that some people are of the opinion that some experienced genealogists are snobs and treat beginning genealogists poorly.
• It is my opinion that these two facts are not necessarily related, and should be addressed separately if we are to progress in improving either issue.

I agree that the metaphors the original author used were poorly chosen, but I think it requires a huge leap of logic to conclude that the article is indicative of a snobbish or elitist attitude that is dismissive of the needs of beginning genealogists, or that this attitude is widespread. On the other hand, I agree with those who seek first to encourage newbie enthusiasm, and believe that discussing the details of the Genealogical Proof Standard with beginners can be an exercise in futility.

I don't think it's asking too much, however, to encourage beginners to "cite your sources," while explaining that "my grandmother told me" is a perfectly acceptable source. That's certainly what I was told when I was an "out-of-place amongst my elders 20-something" more than three decades ago. (How to format those sources can come later.) And I don't think it's asking too much to suggest that they begin to think about the differences between information and the assumptions we make (or opinions we form) about that information.

This brings me to the subject of Australian-style hats. Earlier this week, I scanned a photograph of my father's B-24 Liberator bomber crew serving in Australia and New Guinea in 1942-43 and sent it to the son of his buddy on the crew:

Gun Moll Inc Crew - Pilot Everett A. Eisenberg

319th Squadron "Asterperious"

5th Air Force, 90th Bomb Group "The Jolly Rogers"

I had plenty of reliable information (including his signature with address on the back of the photo) to know that one man on the crew was Australian and served with the RAAF, but I could only identify my father and the pilot. I assumed that the man on the right in the front row was the Australian.

Boy, was I wrong! He is not from Australia, but my father's best buddy from New Jersey, according to his son.

See how that works? We take information and develop assumptions or opinions about the information that may or may not be accurate. I suggest that, with examples like this, it is not difficult to start the process of teaching beginners about sources, information, and evidence.

I also suggest that in this recurring discussion of elitism, it would be helpful if we all step-back, carefully separate fact from opinion, and ponder whether expressing opinions in a manner that can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as characterizing either hobbyists or professionals with a negative broad brush does anyone any good.

Are we "sucking the fun" out of genealogy?

I don't want this blog to become a set of opinion pieces, and have avoided writing such posts in the past, but several somewhat overlapping discussions over the last few weeks on the APG members mailing list and several blogs have me wondering about that decision.  The discussions may be occurring elsewhere too:  I don't use Facebook, Google+ or Twitter much, if at all, for genealogy, although I've tried.  While this blog isn't designed to be opinion oriented, I reserve the right to state my opinion in the occasional post, and this is one of them.

Differences of opinion and differences of perspective on certain topics do not mean people are angry or mad or upset at each other, or that there is "high drama," "frothing at the mouth," "hostility," "turmoil," or "ruffled feathers."  It is normal and natural for people to have differences of opinion.  It would be a horribly boring, backward, and stagnant world if we did not.   Even firmly held and firmly stated opinions aren't a bad thing.  Heck, some of us with firmly held opinions have been known to change our minds, or at least come to understand (after considerable discussion) why others see the issue differently.  Once people understand the different perspectives, they can work together to cooperate on solving problems and reaching mutually agreed upon goals (well, except in the current United States Congress, but I digress).

Some of us even enjoy listening to, learning from, and discussing opposing opinions. It is from such discussions that new ideas, eventual consensus (or at least majority opinion), change and progress comes, although it can be tedious and difficult at times.  Almost nobody actually likes change. 

Clearly (and perhaps even repeatedly) stating an opinion does not mean the person stating that opinion is a snob, trying to dominate the discussion, putting down people who have a different opinion, or trying to force someone else to change.

I think the issues I've seen discussed lately are important, if not critical, topics, at least indirectly, for everyone involved in genealogy, whether a newbie hobbyist, an oldbie hobbyist, a society volunteer, or a professional genealogist.  Among them, in no particular order are: 

*the mission, goals, objectives, and membership policies of the Association of Professional Genealogists

*the continued existence of genealogy societies in general

*the responsibility, if any, for genealogy bloggers who report research results to cite their sources

*the responsibility of all of us to contribute to the field, not just "take"

*how best to communicate with each other in a rapidly changing techno-world

*how to improve the status of genealogy in the academic world

*how best to engage those who do not speak up on blogs, listservs, or other online media

and one that I've not seen specifically discussed, but that I think may be an elephant in the room: 

*generational and cultural differences in how we perceive and approach everything from technology to communication to differences of opinion.

If you don't have an interest in one or more of these topics, fine.  That's your right.  But please don't assume that those of us who are interested, or who enjoy a good debate, are somehow taking the fun out of genealogy. As my friend Harold Henderson commented, please just "avert your eyes." 

This post was not inspired by any particular person, post, comment, topic, or event.  For a variety of opinions on these and related subjects, I would point readers to the following recent blog posts (and the accompanying comments), all by people I admire and consider to be representatives of the future of genealogy.  While I do not always agree with them, and they do not always agree with each other, I'm confident the future of genealogy is bright because of (not in spite of) their firmly held and firmly stated opinions:

Christy Fillerup, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" Living Ancestors blog, posted 29 Dec 2011 (http://livingancestors.blogspot.com ).

Michael Hait, CG, “My last word on GeneaBlogging and the Paradigm Shift,” Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 6 January 2012 (http://michaelhait.wordpress.com ).

Marian Pierre-Louis, "All This Nonsense About Blogging," Marian's Roots and Rambles blog, posted 5 January 2012 (http://rootsandrambles.blogspot.com ).

Kerry Scott, "In Which I Sentence A Whole Bunch of Genealogists to a Game of Angry Birds," Clue Wagon blog, posted 4 January 2012 (http://www.cluewagon.com ).