Have you ever..felt a little uncomfortable..

[majm]

Is "selective history" worth recording ??

Regards


Malky

Yes, as in fact, all recording of history is selective in a general sense.   Afterall, not everything that you or I or those others 'over there'  say or do is actually recorded, nor is it of interest to you or me or them     .... unless of course it is on facebook or other social media....     

Cheers, JM

[mike175]

I always record everything I find but I might be a bit selective about passing it on, more especially if it is within the last century or so. Once a few generations have passed there is less chance of emotional reaction.

There is a difference between academic research and the intimacy of family history where I feel we should be more sensitive toward people's feelings.

Mike.

[pharmaT]

  I'm quite happy to accept all..that's life!I do think we have to be aware of others feelings, but
it's sometimes a little difficult to judge how they will feel.

I remember doing a look-up for someone that said  their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"

Jackie

I had a transcription problem with one of my family. Except I was confused the other way.  I was looking at the address, the occupations of the others in the household and couldn't figure why they would be a lawyer.  Squinting at the original and seeing it said sawyer made a lot more sense.

As to recoding telling.  Like others I record everything but don't necessarily tell family everything unless they specifically ask.  Well I tell my husband.

[smudwhisk]

I agree with those who have said record everything but be a little selective on what is passed on, particulary if it relates to immediate relatives/ancestors of those to receive the information. 

Until the last of my grandfather's siblings died at the end of 2014, we always listed my Great Grandparent's marriage a year earlier than it actually was because nobody knew whether any of their children were aware of the fact their parents had married 5 months before my Great Aunt was born.  Obviously if those surviving at the time were aware, they would know we knew but would most likely understand why the date had been entered earlier than it was, namely not to embarass them as its something that generation may well feel.  My grandmother was aware of it prior to her marriage because one of the neighbours apparently took great delight in telling her.  My grandmother's mother, though, had sworn her daughter to secrecy over the information and apparently we were the first she had ever told because she knew we'd get a copy of the marriage certificate and find out anyway.   Since my Great Uncle's death we do list the correct year even though there are people alive who did know one of the parties concerned, but who don't feel the embarassment and stigma the earlier generation may have done about the event.  My mother's comment when my grandmother told us was "naughty Nana".

By all means record everything you find, but a little diplomacy needs to be considered when passing on such information, especially with older relatives.  Yes the others may find out themselves, but as none of us really know how they will react to certain information, its better to be cautious in my opinion.

[Flattybasher9]

And when future generations start delving, and find out "ALL", do you think that they will just think that you missed the "ALL" because you were careless and not thorough, or do you think they will ask WHY you saw fit not to include information which is relevant to their past, after all, you have passed down the selective information to them. Is genealogy just a means to tell half a story, or a bit of fun for the spare time. Who gives a damn if it's accurate or not. Oh, wait, isn't that the continuing complaint that we see on RootsChat when references are made about trees on Ancestry. Two half truths do not make a whole truth. I went through this with my family 1 generation back, with lies about 2 generations back. For me, the truth came out in the end, as it will inevitably for you.
Why were they ashamed about their past?
Are you??

Regards

Malky

[Pheno]

To me its a case of 'you choose your friends' but 'you don't choose your ancestors' so whatever they may or may not have done in the past is nothing whatsoever to do with you or of your making.  It's fact and should be recorded.

Just because they may have been charged with a serious crime in the past doesn't make you likely to commit the same crime same as if you may have had a concert pianist as an ancestor doesn't mean that you will be one!

Its the hiding of these facts that make them seem sinful - if brought out into the open they would most likely be noted and forgotten as there would be similar issues in almost everyone's ancestry but if nobody made a fuss about it then accepted and forgotten.

At least that's how I look at it.

Pheno

[pharmaT]

The all is recorded in the all the family tree files I have which will be passed onto my children.  By being selective about passing on I meant verbally to older relatives.  More for self preservation after learning the hard way the treatment I may get.  When I was in my early teens I saw my great aunt's birth certificate and asked why her parent's wedding was 3 months before her birth.  To say I was in trouble was an understatement.

I am not ashamed about my past, even if I agree that something that was done by an ancestor was bad it wasn't me who did it.  However I recognise that not everyone thinks the same way and will play it by ear how much of the truth someone is happy to hear before telling someone something.

[lizdb]

I would say keeping the details of a shotgun wedding from someone in their early teens was a very different situation from an adult researching their Family History.

My view is that if I am researching my Family History, then that is what I am doing - and that history may include all manner of things - I don't know what till I research it!  Then, having discovered different things that happened in my Family, in their history, I have achieved what I set out to do.  I don't see how I could pick and choose which bits of that history I took on board.
If  a family member is interested and wants to know what I am discovering, then I will tell them what I have discovered. If they are not interested then I wont indulge in idle gossip for the sake of it - "Hey, guess what, bet you didn't know this but great grandfather was arrested for attacking a policeman".

I cant see what the issue is! Maybe it is just me.......

[Guy Etchells]

  I'm quite happy to accept all..that's life!I do think we have to be aware of others feelings, but
it's sometimes a little difficult to judge how they will feel.

I remember doing a look-up for someone that said  their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"

Jackie

It is not our place to make judgements if we claim to be family historians we record and make available all the facts we can.
We don't censor or edit the facts as in doing so we show a bias.

If an infant was born a bastard or recoded as an imbecile on a census or was in any other way different from the general population nothing can change that if we suppress the fact we unwittingly stigmatise that person.
If we use synonyms to try to soften the blow we show we think there is a stigma to that person’s situation.

Would you hide the fact that an ancestor only had female children or was wealthy, they are simply facts so why differentiate?

That does not mean we have to shout it from the roof tops or shove it down people’s throats but if someone asks for information then we should do them the honour of supplying the information as fully as we can.

Cheers
Guy