A thoughtful piece for us all to consider
Just how far do we go, as genealogists, with information that we discover in the course of our research?
This is an issue with any kind of genealogical research. We can find out about illegitimacies in the census and vital records. We can find out about misdeeds and missteps in court and probate and police records. There are all kinds of family stories — and family secrets — that appear in the ordinary records we use day to day.
And, of course, there are stories and secrets hidden in our DNA.
So when we bring those stories and those secrets to the surface, do we always shine a light on them? Just how far do we go in forcing the issue?
That’s the focus of a terrific post by my friend and colleague Debbie Parker Wayne, Certified Genealogist® and genetic genealogy specialist, in her blog Deb’s Delvings in Genealogy. The post, from yesterday, is titled “Respect and Rights” — and it should be must reading for us all.
Take a moment, please, and read “Respect and Rights“.
And think about it.
Think long and hard.
Deb’s point is critical: “We should be willing to accept that not everyone else believes as we do. In my opinion, forcing anyone to confront an issue he or she is not ready to handle is wrong. Consider the consequences of an action on others before forcing an issue. Good philosophies to follow include the golden rule, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you;’ the silver rule, ‘do nothing to others you would not have done to you;’ and the Navajo saying about ‘walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins.’ Respect.”
In what context is this olinion given. Isn’t a genealogical search a search for the truth?
It’s a search for truth, yes, but with a human face. So we accept and respect the fact that what we find can impact real people and their lives. That’s what ethics is all about.
So very true. I had a delicate situation on a marriage/child that for decades that I gently approached. And while other researchers denied the connection, biting my lip and remaining silent out of respect was the path chosen. Then DNA came along and the “magic” match appeared. I sat on it for a year before gently approaching a group associated with the family. As gentle as I was, keeping in mind the golden rule, it was painful, not as much for me as me watching and seeing some of the researchers going through the awareness and acceptance. These are my kin and allowing space for them to digest, re-research and come to their own terms was important. Respect is key and allowing people to come to their own conclusions.
There is another aspect to this kind of issue, one in which one balances denial against someone else’s need (and right) to know. This becomes more problematic when an organization with a set of assumptions about their right to certain kinds of knowledge is involved. Bet you can tell I am tippy-toeing around this very carefully. What about the times one is not allowed to digest, re-research and come to a conclusion based on findings rooted in fact? When facts are hidden in bureaucracy and tightly held beliefs, and doors close before a light can shine in? This isn’t a brick wall; it is a kind of prison with locked doors. I have just enough facts to make the jump back several generations to the point I can openly explore these lines. It is like being able to breathe again.
I can certainly understand the frustration.
That’s a great point. I found online, in an old newspaper, that my g-grandfather had gone missing for a few days. He then returned home, safe and sound, but he surely put my g-grandmother through a rough few days! It was around the time his first child, my grandmother, was born in 1901. Maybe he needed to escape the stress of impending fatherhood? I’m sure my grandmother didn’t even know that about her father. Although the incident isn’t “shameful”, I consider it too private to repeat it in a family history.
I might not agree that something that far back (a great grandfather is several generations!) would be “too private”, particularly when it’s ambiguous at worst, but that’s a decision each of us must make individually when we choose to publish or not. The key is to stop and think.