Genealogy is as popular as what?

Time

Earlier this summer Time Magazine republished an article by Gregory Rodridgez entitled "How Genealogy Became as Popular as Porn." This breezy piece recounts the history of genealogy from would-be DAR applicants, to Roots, to modern DNA testing, to his own family history.

What I like about this piece is that it engages with some of the unsavory origins of genealogy in America - using it to confirm one's "whiteness." I haven't seen this addressed in any introduction to genealogy books I've read.

The article also points out that during and after the Civil Rights Movement all minority groups felt encouraged "to embrace their previously marginalized identities." This led them to begin researching their own family histories. At the same time historians began to investigate the historic experience of the marginalized in America and around the world. Now side by side with studies of Popes, Presidents, and Pilgrims you will find works like The Madonna of 115th Street: Faith and Community in Italian Harlem, 1880-1950, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller and Pioneer Women: The Lives of Women on the Frontier. (none of which I've read yet...)

Thanks to the social changes of the past half-century historians have chosen to document the lives of non-elites and those same non-elites have been empowered to learn about their own histories. However, until recently genealogical research has meant travelling to distant archives and courthouses, combing through indexes and transcribed records. Now, thanks to the increasing number of digitized sources and entities like FamilySearch and Ancestry that index these records, genealogy research is now much more accessible. It's still not cheap, but it is accessible.

Near the Bookshelf: Ancestors and Relatives

In 2013,  Eviatar Zerubavel's book Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity, and Community was released in paperback. This interview is from Rutgers University, where Zerubavel is a professor of sociology. 

I remember the book caused a bit a stir on genealogy lists when it was first published in 2011. I quickly added the book to my "to read" list. I was intrigued by his premise that "[r]ather than simply find out who our ancestors were and identify our relatives, we actually construct the genealogical narratives that make them our ancestors and relatives." As an immigration historian I am all about constructing identity. I was equally fascinated by the complaints that genealogists had about it. One that sticks in my mind was that he hadn't spoken to any actual genealogists. This seemed odd to me because, in my experience, sociologists are all about talking to people. Sociology and history, particularly in migration studies, have many similarities and reach many of the same conclusions with one big exception. Sociologists study the living and historians study the dead.

I still haven't managed to read Ancestors and Relatives, but after reading this interview, it has moved up the list considerably.  

Stories of 21st Century Immigrants

The July 4th episode of NPR's Alt.Latino features a discussion with Achy Obejas, co-editor of Immigrant Voices. 21st Century Stories and readings from several of the stories. I like that Obejas points out that the immigrant experience actually begins in the home county, something we tend to forget about in America. She makes a further point that immigranting in the 21st century is much different than in previous times: much more is known about America now, it is easier to keep in touch with the home country, and it is easier to return.

The stories evoke the experiences of immigrants from a range of countries including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Iran. Maybe listening to these modern stories will inspire you to learn about one of your immigrant ancestors, how their immigration story began, and how they adjusted (or not) to America.

Thoughts on Nicholas Kristof and Professors

@NickKristof

On my long list of life goals is to "bridge the gap between the armchair and academic historians." I haven't pursued this goal as ardently as perhaps I might, but I hope that my two blogs and public speaking engagements go a small way across the bridge. So, it was with great interest that I read Nicholas Kristof's recent op-ed "Professors, We Need You!" published in the New York Times on 15 February 2014.

In this piece, Kristof calls for greater public engagement on the part of academics, particularly those in political science. He decries the lack of activity of academics in social media and laments the "turgid prose" of their journal articles. The reason for this inactivity, he argues, is the publish or perish system. Being popular and understandable is death to promotion.

One of the fields which is an exception, according to Kristof, is history. Since this is my field, I agree. There are excellent writers among the followers of Clio (of course, there are others that just aren't). In my experience, however, those that are most successful address issues that the public is already interested in, namely topics like Civil Rights, Presidents, the American Revolution and World War II. Additionally, their research topics have or lend themselves to a strong narrative say a famous individual or significant battle. Historians that write elegant and engaging accounts of lesser known topics, Tang Dynasty China for example, may find that their books languish on the shelves unread.

Visit Nick Kristoff's Twitter and Facebook pages to find rejoinders, ripostes, and replies to his column. To find historians on Twitter search for #twitterstorians or visit Historians Who Tweet from History News Network or Historians on Twitter from Active History. Also visit the National History Center whose aim is to make history an essential component of public discussions of current events.

In the meantime, remember that "historians are great." Nick Kristof said so and he's a smart man.

Monuments Men: Opening Day Roundup

Two years ago I learned about the Monuments Men when it was announced that George Clooney had optioned Robert Edsel's book. In the ensuing months, I read all I could about the Monuments Men and art looting by the Nazis and blogged about it here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

In November of last year, I heard Robert Edsel speak about the Monuments Men at the Cleveland Museum of Art where I purchased an autographed copy of his newest book, Saving Italy. Edsel will be speaking at the National Archives on 19 February, details here.  If you can't make it to DC, you can watch him discuss his book on BookTV. He will appear live on BookTV on 22 February at 11 am ET. There is a profile of him in the Washington Post here and an interview with the Holocaust Memorial Museum here.

With the opening of the movie today, there is news about the Monuments Men (and women) everywhere. 

Reviews: Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Los Angeles Times, Forbes, and Variety. The general consensus of the reviews is probably not what Mr. Clooney hoped for. 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Getty, and the Huntington Library have posted articles about their connections to the Monuments Men.

There have been countless articles related to the history and mission of the Monuments Men: NBC Nightly News, the National Archives Prologue, the BBC, the Smithsonian, National Archives The Text Message, New York Times, the Huffington Post, the U.S. Army, Artlog, the Des Moines Register, and the National WWII Museum. 

Behind-the-Scenes/Making of articles are here, here, and here.

Read about the larger message of the film, the problem of looted art and heritage, in the Jewish Daily Forward. 

Robert Edsel and George Clooney were both scheduled to appear on the Charles Rose show this week.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for a genealogy blog, Ancestry.com reports that Clooney is distantly related to George Stout, the leader of the Monuments Men.

A Square Peg in a Family Tree Shaped Hole

On 11 January 2014 my mother virtually attended the APG-PMC conference. She had a quiet day listening to a variety of speakers and then a less quiet evening sharing some of her favorite bits and pieces with me. I listened with half an ear until she mentioned mission statements. Jean Wilcox Hibben, the final speaker of the day, said that mission statement for her genealogy business was to help people connect generations. Connecting people, families, and generations is a common reason heard for why people do genealogy, either as a hobby or professionally.

As my mother was speaking a sudden realization hit me like a ton of bricks. While I'm as keen to find the parents of my mysterious 2nd great-grandfather as anyone in my family, my interest in genealogy isn't about connecting family members across generations. I think genealogy is a fantastic way to get people interested in their past and in history.

The past can be defined by nostalgia and is almost always used to reinforce ideas already held about ourselves and the present. If someone connects themselves to a particular community in George, Oregon, or Italy, they might be more willing to support an endeavor to preserve a building in the town or visit a house museum on their way to somewhere else.

History on the other hand while firmly rooted in the present, does not look to the past to justify what we think, but examines the past to explain why things are the way they are. Thus it is argumentative and can challenge our understanding of world in which we live. For example, if a student in an American Immigration class learns the name and story of their own immigrant ancestors it will make not only the course more personal and relevant, but the entire immigrant experience. If they can do that, they may find it easier to connect or understand immigrants of other backgrounds and even be willing to support a nuanced view of the current immigration debate.

Likewise, if someone discovers an impoverished ancestor in New York City or the rural south, I want that person to read about and understand what it was like to be poor in times gone by. This study of the ancestor's life would then, ideally, lead to a greater sympathy of the poor in the modern world.  The same holds true for wealthy ancestors. Reading about elites from the past would reveal what their lives were actually like. Materially comfortable yes, but there were arranged marriages, mysterious deaths, extensive social and community obligations, and difficult encounters with the law.

Jean Wilcox Hibben, according to my mother, also said that a professional genealogist must find what makes them unique. I believe I have found my uniqueness: I want you to discover your ancestors, but even more I want you to learn about the people of history because by doing that you will gain a greater appreciation of the human condition and knowledge of the experiences and beliefs of all peoples past and present. Acceptance of the differences of people in the past can lead to acceptance of difference of people in the modern world.

In Our Time Moment: History and Understanding the Past

The jumping off point for this March 2000 episode of In Our Time was The New Century by historian Eric J. Hobsbwam. The US edition of this book was published as On the Edge of the New Century in May 2001. Melvyn Bragg was joined by Dr. Hobsbwam and Richard J. Evans.

The panel discussed whether history is useful for understanding the present and future and whether or not the lessons learnt are applied appropriately. I particularly liked Dr. Evans' point that studying societies of the past can give a greater understanding of what it means to be human. Dr. Hobsbwam uses the national and global aspecs of football (soccer) to explain globalization.

The conclusion, I think of the discussion, is that history cannot predict the future, in part because conditions have changed so dramatically. For almost all of human history the vast majority of people have worked the land, now only about 2-3% do, and as Dr. Hobsbwam points out this fact, along with the increases in literacy and education, make the world a fundamentally different place. But what history can do is help explain why things are the way they are and suggest possibilities for the future.

Find this episode at the IOT History archive here or search iTunes.

In Our Time Moment: History of History

I was quite excited to listen to History of History, first aired in January 2009. Many people who haven’t studied history are quite unaware of how much the discipline has changed since the first Historian, Herodotus, wrote about the Persian Wars in the 5^th century BCE.  Since this podcast was billed as examining “how the writing of history has changed over the years” I thought it would be a quick and painless way for you, the reader, to learn about the subject. The panelists were John Burrow, Paul Cartledge and Miri Rubin.

I must admit that I was so frustrated with the podcast I really couldn’t enjoy it. It starts off well, but almost the entire time is spent in the Ancient World, then in the last 10 minutes skips several hundred years to the Renaissance Humanists and then another huge leap to the Enlightenment. Paul Cartledge takes on the inhuman task of summing up the past 50 years of historiography in about two sentences in the last minute of the show.

I suppose that to discuss 2500 years of historiography in 45 minutes was an ambitious task for Melvyn Bragg to set. On the other hand, the panelists didn’t help Bragg out much with all their ‘oh let me add to that comment’ and ‘before we move on, I need to footnote that.’ However, many of these comments and footnotes, to my mind, weren’t really relevant to the task at hand.

While, the podcast might not be what I hoped for, it is an interesting discussion of historiography in the Classical and Post-Classical World. The best bits, I think, are at the very beginning and at the very end.

Find this episode at the IOT History archive here or search iTunes.

History and Art

The Getty Center, Los Angeles

With degrees in art history and history, I have my feet firmly planted in both disciplines. I used to teach in a Humanities program which had several lectures and discussions on several periods of Western Art. Because of my background, I was always dismayed by the approach taken by the lectures for this course, either focusing on the story of the image or the movement to and from the Classical Ideal, essentially does it look like Greek art. Many historians do not seem to understand (or at least the one who prepared the lectures for this course) is that the art is a document of its time just like the texts they assigned and can be analyzed in much the same way. When I had a chance to do the lectures for this course, I totally re-wrote the art ones with this in mind. For example, I pointed out that the neoplatonic philosophy of the Renaissance (they read a bit of Marsilio Ficino) influenced the work of Sandro Botticelli and Michelangelo. I don't know if the students appreciated these new lectures, but I learned that I was a better art historian than I realized.

All this is a long introduction to two recent guest posts by Jaquelyn Whiting on "Art and History" at Free Technology for Teachers. This two part blog post (here and here) details ways to use art in the high school classroom. There are plenty of ideas and links. Her curriculum ideas would be useful in college courses as well, and I hope, help historians bring art into their lectures and discussions. Even if you don't teach, here posts provide a friendly  entree into the world of art.

In Our Time Moment: History as Science

One of my all-time favorite podcasts is In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg from BBC Radio 4. This series is an exploration of the History of Ideas and has been running since 1998. Last summer the BBC made every episode available to download. 

History as Science, aired in 1999,  features a discussion between Bragg, Jared Diamond and Richard Evans about Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize Winning book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.

I purchased this book in 1998, but did not read until several years ago when I read it for a department workshop. I really enjoyed the book, as did most of the rest of faculty, and found the overall thesis interesting. The scope of the book is vast, about 8,000 years, and tries to explain why Europeans conquered the Americas and not the other way round.  Diamond’s answer is rooted in geography, people who are more connected to each other can exchange ideas better. Ultimately connections were easier in Eurasia than the Americas. It would have been a great discussion but for three of the instructors in the department (all non-Western, post-1500) absolutely hated it, said they’d never assign it to their students, and generally didn’t have one good thing to say about it. Seriously. I almost walked out.

What these three historians did, in a similar way that Richard Evans does, is to pick on the one thing they knew about and then criticize that particular aspect of the work. Of course this is qualified by words along the lines of “well, he might be right about those parts of history or places that I don’t know about.”  I think Evans was more sympathetic to Diamond’s work than my former colleagues, but his comments and tone made me think of the long ago workshop and it set my teeth on edge.

Diamond is a professor of Geography and Evans a professor of Modern History, so they approach the study of the past differently.  Some academics are much more willing to work in and with other disciplines. Diamond seems to be one of these academics, while Evans (based solely on this interview) does not.  With degrees in history and art history I definitely fall into the interdisciplinary camp.

One aspect of the interview I did find interesting is that comparison of history to science, particularly like geology. I mentioned in an earlier post that John Lewis Gaddis had made this same observation: History is like a Science where experiments can not be repeated. 

Find this episode at the IOT History archive here or search iTunes.

Art on a Train, Nazis, and Hollywood

In early February as I reading The Monuments Men, I mentioned the plot to my dad and that the book was to be made into a movie. He said, "they've already done that." He was referring to the 1965 film The Train directed by John Frankenheimer and staring Burt Lancaster and Paul Scofield. I realized I needed to see this film and requested it through interlibrary loan. A couple of weeks later, as I was walking out the door to pick it up, my dad said, The Train is on TCM tonight at eight o'clock. How weird is that?

The inspiration for this film is the effort of the French Resistance to stop a train full of artwork from leaving Paris in August 1944. My extensive knowledge of this event is drawn from Chapter 21, "The Train," in The Monuments Men. Rose Valland who worked at a museum in Paris controlled by the Germans was actually a spy. She learned that the artworks from this museum would be taken by truck, then loaded onto railroad cars, then transported to Germany. She suggested to Jacques Jaujard, the director of French National Museums, that it might be a good idea if the train were delayed. He agreed and alerted his contacts in the French Resistance. The train was delayed by strikes, mechanical problems, and low-priority as trains carrying possessions of Germans leaving Paris took precedence. Ultimately, the train never left Paris, but several items were stolen before the Free French army reached the train at the end of August. Some crates of art were recovered immediately, others would remain on the train until December 1944.

The Train is an excellent film - full of suspense and drama expertly executed by an incredible cast. On the other hand, it is a Hollywood film and bears little resemblance to actual events. In an early stage-setting scene, Rose Valland goes directly to the French Resistance about stopping the train. They are reluctant to act, not really understanding the importance of the art, "the patrimony of France." This scene condenses events well and relates the importance of the train's cargo to the audience.

While the men were risking their lives to save the art, it is actually mentioned very little after the first moments of the film. It's all about the train: stopping it, moving it, painting it, hating it, and dying for it. Another component of the film is the contest of wills between the German officer Von Waldheim (Scofield) who desperately wants the art, because he understands it and Labiche (Lancaster) the reluctant member of the French Resistance who has never scene any of the paintings but gives his all to stop the train.

History films, like history books, always say as much about the time they were made or written in as the time they were about. For the life of me, I can't quite put my finger on what it would be for The Train. Perhaps it raises questions about the destruction or stealing of cultural heritage. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was passed as a direct result of the rampant destruction of historic buildings and city districts to construct the Eisenhower Highway system. Or maybe it really is all about World War II and putting one over on the Nazis, but I don't think so.

Monuments Men by Hollywood

Robert Edsel and Brett Witter have crafted an excellent narrative for the events of the Monuments Men, a corps of men from the art world who rescued and protected the cultural treasures of Europe during the last year of WWII. I could hardly put it down. Seriously. I was totally fascinated and have since checked out every book I can find about looting during the war. Additionally, as I knew the book was to be a movie and knew a bit about the process (see this post) I couldn’t stop imagining how the story would be translated to film.  

Edsel had already applied story telling techniques to the “event” of Nazi looting during World War II. He focuses on the creation of the Monuments Men, their actions in the field, the search for the Ghent Altar Piece and the Bruges Madonna, and finally, the rush to reach the art repository in mines of Altaussee before they were blown up. Enough background is provided to give the reader insight to the scope and extent of the Nazi looting campaign and the efforts of US Armed forces to preserve cultural resources after the Normandy Invasion.

In Monuments Men, Edsel highlights 10 individuals acting in Northern Europe in addition to dozens of other individuals mentioned. Clearly, several of the characters will have to be combined or left out. A movie audience would totally lose track of seven or eight different men traipsing across worn-torn Europe searching for different repositories and pieces of art. The three most indispensable characters to the story, in my opinion, are George Stout (the role, I think, most suited to Mr. Clooney), James Rorimer, and Rose Valland (the only major female character). I would imagine Eisenhower and Patton will make an appearance, as they do in the book, but what happens with all the other historical characters is anyone’s guess.

Most of the set-up for the activity of the Monuments Men could be handled in an opening montage – the Nazi’s stealing art in Germany, Poland and Austria; museum officials in the US discussing plans to protect their collections; European museums protecting their works of art in rural houses and mines. On the other hand, the real work of the Monuments Men began in June 1944 and opening a film with the D-Day Invasion would be impressive.

Like the book, the film will probably highlight the hunt for the Bruges Madonna and the Ghent Altarpiece. The two most important repositories found by the Monuments Men were in Neuschwanstein Castle and the salt mines at Altaussee. They might even limit their story to just one of these locations. As the salt mines were the repository of these two prominent works of art and were almost blown up, I would image that will be their choice. One event in the book, while not integral to the hunt for the two aforementioned repositories, but would be absolutely fabulous on the big screen, is the discovery of the Merkers mine which, in addition to many priceless works of art, housed the bulk of the Third Reich’s gold reserves. Near this mine, the US forces discovered Ohrdruf, a Nazi work camp.

The time period of the book is already, in the main, the last 10 months of the war, a relatively short time period. The genre for the film will likely be a buddy/war movie. I’m not certain how romance will be worked in. Edsel includes letters the men wrote home to their wives, so perhaps they can work that it as off-screen romance. 

I can already see the movie in my head. If you have read or do read the book, you will probably see an entirely different movie. I wonder what kind of movie Mr. Clooney and his production team will see? I hope it's as good as mine.

You can learn more about the Monuments Men here, the Monuments Men Foundation here, and follow Robert Edsel on Twitter @RobertEdsel.

Definitions of History

It would be impossible to write a definitive definition of history, especially in a blog post. However, I thought it might be useful to share some definitions and thoughts on "what history is" from a variety of sources. The following definitions, quotes and discussions, make clear that history is connected to the past, but also that the concept of history is complicated and the practice of history even more so.

Dictionary definitions of history are here (Merriam-Webster) and here (Dictionary.com). Note that these entries have at least four definitions for the word history. The least I've ever seen is three. The uses of the word run from a tale or story to the academic pursuit of history.

Quotes from the great and the good about history are here and here. I particularly like the ones by Malcolm X, Frederick Jackson Turner, and Cicero.

The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill has a good introduction to academic history here. Another good analysis of history is here at the blog Understanding Society. I particularly like the list of types of questions historians ask and their methods for finding answers.

Issues of historical methodology are discussed here, from UMass Amherst. I think this page does a good job of describing history as "science" and history as "propaganda."

My favorite discussion of what history is, is the book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past by John Lewis Gaddis. He argues is that history is like a map. To make a map of Los Angeles exactly like Los Angeles would be crazy. Instead we make maps to represent certain aspects of a city - like hiking trails, public transportation routes, or highways. Historians do the roughly the same thing with the past; they represent certain aspects of it. There is, of course, more to the book than this argument and I recommend it. It's not "academic" in tone and is aimed at the beginner as well as the professional historian.

My Epiphany at the Tom Jones Genealogy Extravaganza

This weekend I went to Pittsburgh to attend the North Hills Genealogists Fall Conference with Tom Jones and an additional talk by Dr. Jones the previous evening sponsored by the Great Lakes Chapter of the APG.

In two days I heard at least five hours of genealogy lectures:

• Bringing Law to Bear on Complex Genealogical Problems
• Solving the Mystery of the Disappearing Ancestor
• Inferential Genealogy: Deducing Ancestor's Identities Indirectly
• Five Proven Techniques for Finding Your Ancestor's European Origins
• Organizing Evidence to Overcome Record Shortages

Each talk was well organized and I learned something from each one. If you get a chance to hear any of them, you should. My mother found the tips in Organizing Evidence useful. My favorite was Inferential Genealogy (a PDF handout is here) and it was the one that produced the epiphany. I have posted elsewhere about the attitude that some genealogists have towards historians and have been told that "historians don't know what they are doing" regarding genealogy. And while I don't talk about it much, this has given me a bit of a complex about the genealogical research that I do - that somehow I am not doing it right, that my analytical skills somehow don't produce the same results that genealogists do.  

What I learned is that not only am I doing it right, I'm actually really good at it. Historians, like genealogists, never work from a complete data set, no matter what our topic. So we are taught to analyze and evaluate what evidence is available, read how others have interpreted the same or similar evidence, reach and then argue in support of our conclusions. In theory we can take these transferable skills (as opposed our specific regional and time period knowledge) and apply them to other historical problems. Therefore, if I wanted to turn my attention to from Scottish emigration to Song Dynasty China, I know already the steps I would have to take to be successful and the first one would be to learn to read and write Chinese. Regarding family history research, I do have an advantage over historians in other disciplines as I specialize in researching families who migrated during the 18th and 19th centuries; a past career as an architectural historian who did house histories doesn't hurt either. 

So, thanks to Tom Jones, I shall sally forth confident in my skills as a finder of ancestors.

What Historians Worry About from Demography and the Imperial Public Sphere before Victoria

Many of you are aware of what genealogists get riled up about - citations, websites that change their policies, and the word "professional" come to mind. This post, Names and Numbers, or, Do all historians secretly want to be biographers? provides a brief  glimpse of some things that irritate Historians (the professional, academic kind).

An Immigrant's Tale from Patheos

Little Italy, Manhattan. 2006.

I occasionally read the Historical Society, a blog "devoted to history for the academy and beyond."  A few days ago it led me to the blog of Professor John Fea, The Way of Improvement Leads Home, which then led me to post Fea had written for Patheos. In An Immigrant's Tale, Fea, who teaches a course called "Immigrant America", relates his experiences conducting an oral history interview with his 100-year-old grandfather, who came to America from Italy in 1913.

I don't know if Professor Fea would admit to being interested in "genealogy," but that is essentially what he did when he interviewed his grandfather. It's nice to know I'm not the only historian who has a foot in both camps. 


image credit: Alextrevelian 006

Thoughts on History from Leonard Pitts, Jr. of the Miami Herald

Don’t blame Sarah Palin for lack of U.S. history - Leonard Pitts Jr. - MiamiHerald.com

In this column Mr. Pitts laments that Americans just don't know enough about history. But I think he is being a bit hard on his fellow countrymen. You might think that people would know what the import of the Gettysburg Address, Valley Forge and Paul Revere were; but they probably remember facts about subjects more meaningful to them like chemistry, physics, literature or business administration. Details of historic events are hard to remember if you don't use them every day, day in and day out for years. I still use lecture notes for my US since 1877 course which I teach once or twice a year, but not so much for my World History course, which I teach at least three times a semester.

Pitts rightly points that those with a weak grip on history rely on myth and suggests that this is a bad thing. However, myth is often more important than history because myth is can be true without being factual. Myths and epics, like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Arthurian legends, relate what is important to the cultures from which they come. Where history becomes increasingly helpful is when myths prevent us from living with each other in the present.

In the last segment of the article, Pitt, himself, falls prey to stereotype and myth when he states that Europeans left Europe in order to be free. Well, that is not entirely accurate and actually says more about the discourse of freedom in America than it does about the actual migrants who came here.

Many Europeans did come here to seek religious freedom or to escape oppressive governments. But some British immigrants came here as convicts to serve out terms of indentured servitude; this sentence was often offered as alternative to execution. Other European emigrants simply came here for a job or to join family who were already here; their migration had nothing to do with "freedom." It is estimated that about one-third of immigrants to these shores returned to Europe. Many did so earning enough money to buy land in their countries of origin. If they were so unfree in their homelands, why did they go back?

That's the trouble with history - it is complex, complicated and it is never black-and-white. Would Pitts' column have had the same punch if had to detail the entirety of American immigration history? Myths are easier to remember and more meaningful. Furthermore, it takes quite some time (if ever) for the work of historians to reach the public and help shape newer versions of the the nation's historical memory.

The take away for genealogists and family historians? The next time you hear a family myth, don't discount it right away. Think about why that particular myth would have meaning for your family. Then do your job as a historian and debunk the myth if required; but don't feel bad if nobody believes your evidence or if they ignore it and continue telling the old tales. The old tale, in a sense, is part of who they are and to change the tale would be to change that. Perhaps, if you are lucky, the next generation will incorporate your research into a new and improved family myth.

(Pitts' column appeared in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sunday, 12 June and was originally published by the Miami Herald on Tuesday, 7 June.)

image credit: www.photl.com

A Meditation on Research Questions

The University - Land of Research Questions

In December, when I was so overwhelmed by life and organizational tactics, my brain said "You need to know your research plan before you can have an organizing plan."  I thought this was excellent advice.

But it only brought on another question, which I tucked away into the depths of my little grey cells - what is my research plan? This is tricky for me because it leaves me teetering on a ledge between the worlds of "history" and "genealogy."

I have mentioned a lottery wish - to research my ancestors and to visit all their places of origin. But then I wondered, then what would I do? I mean what would I do with all that research; how would I share it with the world?  A book was the obvious answer, but what would the book be about? My search for my roots or the lives of my ancestors. The former is a memoir of me; the later would have such a vast scope that it would likely out-Michener Michener. 

Research questions are necessary because they frame the direction of your work. An historian is always seeking to understand why things change, to place events in their greater context. For example, while I did extensive family history research to reconstruct the Scotch Settlement of the early 19th century, I didn't really care about the individual immigrants or their descendants. I used that community as a laboratory to better understand the Scottish Diaspora, which was one of the most significant of 19th century Europe. Social and cultural historians who study the mass of humanity do so to uncover evidence of larger social and cultural movements. If they focus in on one individual, it is to use them as an example of something larger. 

Historical questions come in and out of fashion, in much the same way hem lengths, and are different depending what country you are in. The Scottish Diaspora is a hugely important question in Scotland, but not so much in the United States. American historians are often much more interested in "ethnic" migrations of the late 19th and early 20th century. Russian studies used to be critical, but now studying the Islamic World is where it's at.

Family historians do have research questions, but they are generally much more limited in scope: "who was my great-grandfather." Once you've answered that question, you move on to the next, "who was his father." Many genealogists do expansive reading and research to understand the world of their ancestors and don't simply fill in the boxes. However, figuring out who your ancestor was, no matter how much fun it is to find out, isn't really answering some larger historical question. You are using historical research skills to create a genealogy or pedigree, not  a history (at least as it is understood in the academic world).

So, this is my dilemma. Part of me feels I need to answer some larger historical questions with my research.  Many of my ancestors will probably fit quite nicely into the greater story of American immigration and/or life in the upland South. Others will fit into the stories of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Scotland and other countries. However, at present they will simply "fit-in", not advance research at all.

On the other hand, I want to know who my great-great grandfather was just like every other "granny-chaser" out there.  I would like to be able to better document and verify the research we have already done or collected.  (Hence, the ever-lasting organization project.) Additionally, I secretly want to see if I can connect up various branches of my family. They say we are all related and most people in small villages are cousins to each other.  In America since our origins are so varied, the cousin thing has begun to fall apart. But, see, my dad's family is, as far we know, almost entirely British and lived in Tennessee and Virginia for over 200 years.  It seems to me that there's got to be connections on his side somewhere. Half of my mother's family is from Lowland Scotland and it is probable that many of my dad's ancestors were from Ulster, and therefore ultimately Lowland Scotland. There might even be a connection on their side as well, although it would probably be in the 17th century or earlier.

It seems likely that for the foreseeable future that I will have to live with the ambiguity of not having a "proper" research question. Perhaps if I keep my eyes open, a research question will appear and I can write a history book of some sort. In the meantime, I'll keep looking  for great-grandparents and keep notes for an outstanding memoir, An Historian Searches - very slowly - for Her Own Past.

Thoughts on Hillbilly: The Real Story

Recently, my sister rang to tell me about Hillbilly: The Real Story showing on the History Channel.  Since it mentioned their Scottish roots, she thought it might make a good blog post. That was very sweet and supportive of her, don't you think?  After watching it, I realized it only mentioned Ulster (Northern Ireland) and Scotland for about three minutes.  Most of the show was about the lives of those Ulster-Scots who settled in Appalachia after arriving in America. Since a good deal of my father's family lived in Appalachia, I thought a post about this documentary would be better suited to this blog.  Documentaries have advantage over history books - moving pictures, sound, and speed as you can watch a program way faster than you can read a book.  Like most historians, I can and do take issue with documentaries, but neither do I think they are the tool of the devil. 

Billy Ray Cyrus, the narrator/presenter, hails from Kentucky.  (No snide comments about Achy-Breaky Heart - it WAS a catchy tune.) It was a good production, with many talking heads (but no actual historians of Appalachia as far as I could tell), a fair amount of historical photographs, and contemporary footage of the region.  The purpose of the show, as it stated itself, was to tell the true history of Appalachia, not the farcical image seen in television, the movies or read about in books. That is a laudable goal.  To the best of my knowledge my ancestors were poor, but hardworking and didn't spend every  waking moment hiding their moonshine from the law.  I eagerly waited the return of the show after the commercial break.

I would not go so far as to say I should not have bothered returning after the break.  But instead of breaking down stereotypes, the program seemed to reinforce almost every single one.  The first segment of the program was on moonshine and marijuana, then came segments on snake-handling churches, the Battle of King's Mountain, NASCAR, coal mining, and the TVA.  Constant refrains in the narration were "freedom loving," "fighting," and an assortment of related adjectives.

I wouldn't tell you not to watch the program. I think if they had said their goal was to look at extra-legal activities in Appalachia it wouldn't have bothered me so much. But they said "true", not stereotypical. However, there was nothing about folklore, jack tales, arts and crafts, shape note singing , national parks, farming, architecture, or African Americans.  I did not feel that I gained any insight to my ancestors who moved into East Tennessee in the 19th century.  Perhaps, with time, as I learn more about my Appalachian roots I will feel more irritated by the disruption caused by the TVA. On the other hand, I think electricity is a good thing. Overall, I must say I was disappointed in the program.

The approach of this documentary made me think of the literary theorist, Edward Said, who in the 1970s popularized the term "orientalism" to describe the way scholars from the West discuss the Middle East.  Said believed that they can not get past their preconceived notions of the "exotic-ness" of the region to see it on its own terms.  Even for academics the only way to view the Middle East was through a veil of sensuality, barbarism or what have you.  They seemed to forgot or disregard that for people in the Middle East this exotic lifestyle and history was, well, totally normal.  There may be something to Said's theory, but I've often thought that it applies to other areas as well, like Scotland and Appalachia.  There is a defined discourse or rhetoric about these regions that are so intrinsically connected to them that it is almost impossible to not to discuss the subject in terms of them.  Scotland is clannish, Scots are cheap, the Highlands are militaristic, the Scots are victims and so on.  Appalachia is full of freedom loving moonshine swillers who only pay attention to the government when it suits them. So, one cannot discuss Scotland without referring to the "clannishness" of its people, even though humans by inclination tend to stick to their own kind, especially in an emigrant situation.  The mountains of Appalachia did nourish a unique culture, but perhaps no more so than other isolated communities.  

If you are interested in Edward Said's ideas, I do NOT recommend that you read Orientalism.  I tried to read it and couldn't get past the first 100 pages.  In my opinion he used way too many words which made it difficult to understand his argument.  Instead, see if you can track down the video Edward Said on Orientalism. I was able to stream it online though the college library. It's just 40 minutes long, and I thought it was pretty good and tells you everything you need to know speedily.