tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post5590278701594630789..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: A.J. Jacobs Cousin Connections - Um, Not ReallyRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-79761128265654263762014-09-11T21:55:10.236-07:002014-09-11T21:55:10.236-07:00My endless respect for coming and directly address...My endless respect for coming and directly addressing this, A.J. I'm starting to feel like your defense attorney in the blogosphere. ;)<br /><br />I think of your project as worldwide mishpocha. Maybe that concept is lost on people used to insular genealogy, where research is conducted through specific surname societies and reunions involve an admission fee. <br /><br />My Old New England WASP family reunions involve handshakes, Robert's Rules, and the rigid, clinical definition of "cousin." My mixed-race West Indian family reunions involve hugging, all fun and no business, and everyone addressing each other as "cuz" regardless of relationship. I think the genealogy community needs to remember that a majority of Americans fall into that second category when it comes to thinking about family. Applying the Anglocentric concept to everyone is a losing battle. Time to accept a shift in definition and thinking.Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18086603459766397576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-52722451976315851562014-09-11T20:48:16.284-07:002014-09-11T20:48:16.284-07:00Hey Cousin Randy! Thanks for the post. And thanks ...Hey Cousin Randy! Thanks for the post. And thanks for the positivity (e.g. that the Global Family Reunion will be fun -- it will!) as well as the skepticism about whether we are truly "cousins" with these historical figures. You make a good point. <br /><br />I know we're using the word "cousin" in a pretty broad sense of the word. But if you Google the word "cousin," the second definition, right after "a child of one's uncle or aunt" is this: "A person belonging to the same extended family." In that sense, I think it's fair to say that these folks are all cousins, even the ones who don't share a bloodline that we can identify yet. As Ashley says, we want to show connections. <br /><br /> I suppose I like the expansive definition of family -- that it should include marriages as well as DNA. I consider my brother-in-law family (and he'd be quite annoyed if I didn't). <br /><br />Plus, as we all know, we DO share the same bloodline if you go back far enough -- to mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. <br /><br />Part of my hope with the Global Family Reunion (along with raising money for Alzheimer's and getting more people hooked on genealogy) is to make people realize that we are, in the broadest sense, part of the Human Family. That we share 99.9 percent of our DNA. So that's my long-winded answer as to why we use the term 'cousin' broadly. <br /><br />Your cousin (?) A.J.A.J. Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10617390678925924405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-57187358017742984822014-09-11T13:32:24.567-07:002014-09-11T13:32:24.567-07:00Geoff and E. Randol - the connection depends, of c...Geoff and E. Randol - the connection depends, of course, on how accurate the genealogical research is in my own ancestry back to Stephen and Ann (Bate) Bachiler, and how accurate the research is back through the other 80 or so geenrations to King David. I need to study this more. <br /><br />So AJ Jacobs and I may be like 92nd cousins or similar. Cool.<br /><br />Thanks for the link!Randy Seaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-19254330786111231372014-09-11T13:28:43.320-07:002014-09-11T13:28:43.320-07:00Ashley, it's funny, I wrote my post because I ...Ashley, it's funny, I wrote my post because I had not seen much of any reaction to the "cousin connection" thing not being "real" cousins. Who else has written about it in the genealogy world?<br /><br />I know that there have been several major media articles about AJ and his global family reunion, and the trees at WikiTree and Geni. Perhaps some readers made the comment there also. <br /><br />I also wasn't aware that AJ had Jewish ancestry, and that Geni had a strong Jewish component. That explains the ancestry and the "cousin" connections through siblings and spouses. I'm glad that Geni has that strength, thank you for adding to my awareness. <br /><br /> We cannot choose our ancestry - I'm always amazed at how diverse the USA is. We can only follow the threads back in time and connect to ancestral homelands and distant cousins in those places, and enjoy that. We are all related - the mystery is when and where. For AJ and me, the common ancestor is probably back in medieval Europe or even the Dark Ages.<br /><br />I admire what AJ is trying to do, and the apparent difficulty that he faces is finding "real" cousin connections.<br /><br /> The emphasis needs to be, I think, on how diverse we are genetically, how different our ancestries are, how similar our shared experiences are, the struggle to succeed in America, how we can learn from every person tracing their ancestry and enjoy their stories, and that we are all related somehow. <br /><br />Randy Seaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-58099400422733166372014-09-11T12:29:02.328-07:002014-09-11T12:29:02.328-07:00I still don't get why people are surprised tha...I still don't get why people are surprised that it's been difficult to get him directly connected to most celebrities. Jacobs is Jewish. He connects as a direct, even rather close cousin to many Ashkenazi Geni users -- users who happen to be one of the most thriving, vibrant parts of the userbase -- but of course he's not going to be very close to people tracing our Mormon and Mayflower ancestry. Were people expecting that? <br /><br />I'm not disagreeing with you at all that the crazy-long paths to in-laws of in-laws are a poor use of the word "cousin." But:<br /><br />1) I think his real point is to show connections, not cousinship, in which case he's correct;<br /><br />2) I'm starting to get really fed up with many bloggers -- certainly not you, Randy -- who almost seem to be shaming Jacobs for not being born a good Englishman like them; and, <br /><br />3) instead of blog after blog making this same post over and over, why doesn't someone take a constructive approach and propose a better way Jacobs can communicate his idea about connection in a way that doesn't irritate genealogists so much? He's still writing the book. He has an e-mail address. He replies. Make a difference if you want. Now is the time. Maybe I'll even co-sign whatever thoughtful correspondence you post here. But this argument without advisement is becoming white noise. You're a smart guy, Randy. Solve the problem.Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18086603459766397576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-74084507554613861502014-09-11T10:52:39.041-07:002014-09-11T10:52:39.041-07:00Via the ever-resourceful E. Randol Schoenberg, it ...Via the ever-resourceful E. Randol Schoenberg, it turns out that both you and A.J. are descended from King David, at least according to tradition.<br /><br />See here: <a href="http://geni.com/JvNkh" rel="nofollow">http://geni.com/JvNkh</a><br />And here: <a href="http://geni.com/JxgHD" rel="nofollow">http://geni.com/JxgHD</a><br /><br />So there is a common bloodline, albeit not one that is easily verifiable. ;-)Geoff Trowbridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778858143657446869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-67117762105508029922014-09-11T10:49:00.745-07:002014-09-11T10:49:00.745-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Geoff Trowbridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778858143657446869noreply@blogger.com