The Serbian Tribalism, the Muslim tribalism, Kosovar Albanian Tribalism an Croatian tribalism are all guilties of quite 10 year long war and of the breakdown of former yugoslavia.
I do not use the word nationalist necause I don't to give the honour of calling them a "nation". They are tribes. They act as chauvinist tribes. They are all small and all want to be great. This is the malediction of the balkans tribes because as said by Voltaire (french writor) "wanting to be a great nation is aiming bad thing against his neighbouring peoples".
This tribalist politicians and the people who follow them are all stupids and criminals and should be lead in front of the Hage International Court of Justice for being responsible of war crims and genocid.
Tudman, Milosevic, Itzebegovic and their followers are deeply reponsible of lot of deads and crims.
But, if you examine carefully this last ten years, one country have been wining a lot of this war: Croatia
For instance, in response of the serbian war, they made ethnic cleansing, they burnt serbian villages, they killed old men in front of their wiwes in the Krajina region.
They say they have their flag, their "new language", they show this "new language" as fag, they make linguistic cleansing as they did before with people.T hey are taking "foreign word" (word they think to be from "serbian" origin) from their diccionary and find neologisms and old slavic words from ancient slavics text . For example "tisuca is better than hiljada" said amateur linguistic reformer from the tribalist oriented croatian gouverment. It is ironic and funny because "hiljada" for thousand is one word which is of croatian origin...
Let's imagine to do the same in english, to clean actual english from originated french normand words and replace them from old saxon words coming from epic poems of Beowulf (7th Century). Let's imagine to do the same in french......
This is so great stupidity... this is criminal tribalism. May be tomorrow they will ask in their "radio of the thousands hills" to kill all the non pure croatian like Hutu did it before....
Why don't we bomb all of them to let them remember they are small brother tribes invited in Balkan peninsula by emperator Heraclius 1300 years ago to replace Avars ?
We will not do it because we are civilised european and not short minded balkanoïd tribs.
I propose to work hardly on their individual genealogy for example (Milosevic, Tudman, Izedbegovic, Seselj, ...) to show them and yo show to the people of this country, they have both not so far foreign ancestors and their blood are so mixed because of numerous inter ethnic cross wedding that can't claim any kind of cleanlyness in it.
For instance if you search carefully you will find Tsintsar Aroumans, Valaquians, Hungarians, Gipsies, Romanians, Tcheques, Slovaquians, croatian, serbian, sephardim or askenas jude, turk, german, bulgarian, greeks, albanian blood mixed in each of their individual ancestor and may be other things like Hun, Avars, Goths, Illyrians, Arabians...and so on.
The Tribalist politician abuse of historical and geanalogy ignorance of their people.
Please Amateur and professional historian and Genealogist, let's make the truth and who know's we will find a kind of degree of family between Tudman, Milosevic and the others liars.
They are building up tribalist mythology with lies knowing what people want to listen.
This "ethnic cleansing" has been going on in the Balkans since the early Christian era (and possibly before). The original difference was between Catholics and Orthodox (was the Pope just the Patriarch of Rome or the head of entire Christian Church? And even earlier -- does the Spirit descend equally from the Father with the Son or from the Father thru the Son?). Then after that you have Saintly brothers Cyril and Methodius "civilizing" the Slavs and teaching them to read and write (based on the Greek alphabet). Then there's the "Infidel Turk" who conquered the Balkans and some folks decided they'd rather be live Muslims than dead Christians (of either persuasion). Along comes the 20th century with Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin. Once again, people making choices that other people didn't like. Tht's what it's all about. Oh, and don't bothering introducing such other diversities as Jews/Hebrews/Israelis and Gypsies into the equation. That's only somebody else that's different! I'm sorry, Milosevic and Tudjman and the rest are only the latest iterations of their kind. --
> The Serbian Tribalism, the Muslim tribalism, Kosovar Albanian Tribalism an > Croatian tribalism are all guilties of quite 10 year long war and of the > breakdown of former yugoslavia.. . .> They are building up tribalist > mythology with lies knowing what people want to listen.
>The Serbian Tribalism, the Muslim tribalism, Kosovar Albanian Tribalism an >Croatian tribalism are all guilties of quite 10 year long war and of the >breakdown of former yugoslavia.
>I do not use the word nationalist necause I don't to give the honour of >calling them a "nation". >They are tribes. They act as chauvinist tribes. They are all small and all >want to be great. This is the malediction of the balkans tribes because as >said by Voltaire (french writor) "wanting to be a great nation is aiming bad >thing against his neighbouring peoples".
>This tribalist politicians and the people who follow them are all stupids >and criminals and should be lead in front of the Hage International Court of >Justice for being responsible of war crims and genocid.
>Tudman, Milosevic, Itzebegovic and their followers are deeply reponsible of >lot of deads and crims.
>But, if you examine carefully this last ten years, one country have been >wining a lot of this war: Croatia
>For instance, in response of the serbian war, they made ethnic cleansing, >they burnt serbian villages, they killed old men in front of their wiwes in >the Krajina region.
>They say they have their flag, their "new language", they show this "new >language" as fag, >they make linguistic cleansing as they did before with people.T >hey are taking "foreign word" (word they think to be from "serbian" origin) >from their diccionary and find >neologisms and old slavic words from ancient slavics text . >For example "tisuca is better than hiljada" said amateur linguistic reformer >from the tribalist oriented croatian gouverment. It is ironic and funny >because "hiljada" for thousand is one word which is of croatian origin...
>Let's imagine to do the same in english, to clean actual english from >originated french normand words and replace them from old saxon words coming >from epic poems of Beowulf (7th Century). >Let's imagine to do the same in french......
>This is so great stupidity... this is criminal tribalism. May be tomorrow >they will ask in their "radio of the thousands hills" to kill all the non >pure croatian like Hutu did it before....
>Why don't we bomb all of them to let them remember they are small brother >tribes invited in Balkan peninsula by emperator Heraclius 1300 years ago to >replace Avars ?
>We will not do it because we are civilised european and not short minded >balkanoïd tribs.
>I propose to work hardly on their individual genealogy for example >(Milosevic, Tudman, Izedbegovic, Seselj, ...) to show them and yo show to >the people of this country, they >have both not so far foreign ancestors and their blood are so mixed because >of numerous inter ethnic cross wedding that can't claim any kind of >cleanlyness in it.
>For instance if you search carefully you will find Tsintsar Aroumans, >Valaquians, >Hungarians, Gipsies, Romanians, Tcheques, Slovaquians, croatian, serbian, >sephardim or askenas jude, turk, german, bulgarian, greeks, albanian blood >mixed in each of their individual ancestor and may be other things like Hun, >Avars, Goths, Illyrians, Arabians...and so on.
>The Tribalist politician abuse of historical and geanalogy ignorance of >their people.
>Please Amateur and professional historian and Genealogist, let's make the >truth and who know's we will find a kind of degree of family between Tudman, >Milosevic and the others liars.
>They are building up tribalist mythology with lies knowing what people want >to listen.
>H.MARTINEZ
Why do you think the Serbs have made a point of destroying the vital records of the Kosovar Albanians? Why do you think the Bosnian National Library in Sarajevo was an early casualty of that war? The destruction of the Irish Public Record Office in their Civil War in 1922 means we can no longer discover how many Ulster Protestants actually descend from Catholics who converted for economic and social reasons in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is now in all probability too late to do the research you suggest. But it would make little difference if it were not. Extremists of any description are not interested in the truth; only in myths. -- Chris Pitt Lewis
It is intriguing. People with some experience have been posting messages and answers to say that the genealogical information on Ancestral Search (from the LDS) is, at best, fiction. Now I have submitted four trees of different complexity to Ancestral Search. I don't think they were fictional. They involved more than ten years of work, and I reckon myself a fairly good genealogist. (This could be subject to other's opinion of course)
It seems to me that, as it is so easy to ask questions, and so difficult to answer them, it is really a duty to publish all we know, somewhere. I chose Ancestral Search because it seemed to have the capacity to reach as many people as possible. While some of their stuff is, of course dodgy, the programme does allow searchers to find out who submitted what and, consequently, write to the submitter for verification etc.. Things I dismissed were the Society of Genealogists library, as they always lose things and have an irrational fear of keeping family trees in digital form - and are not accessible to most. Broederbond seemed to me to be the worst of all worlds.
So what should I have done? Do experts think I should have kept it all to myself? If not, where do they submit their information? What did I miss? This is a genuine query, and answers might be helpful to many.
My other query is - I have written, now, to four submitters of information to Ancestral Search. I've had one reply, quite helpful, even if not totally reassuring. I myself have never received a query from anyone on any of my submissions. So the query is - what experience have others had on trying to contact researchers, and, related to that, does anyone on here ever try to make contact with a submitter? Or is it really all a waste of time? Which brings it back to - what is the alternative?
> It is intriguing. People with some experience have been posting > messages and answers to say that the genealogical information on > Ancestral Search (from the LDS) is, at best, fiction. Now I have > submitted four trees of different complexity to Ancestral Search. I > don't think they were fictional. They involved more than ten years of > work, and I reckon myself a fairly good genealogist. (This could be > subject to other's opinion of course)
> It seems to me that, as it is so easy to ask questions, and so difficult > to answer them, it is really a duty to publish all we know, somewhere. > I chose Ancestral Search because it seemed to have the capacity to reach > as many people as possible. While some of their stuff is, of course > dodgy, the programme does allow searchers to find out who submitted what > and, consequently, write to the submitter for verification etc.. Things > I dismissed were the Society of Genealogists library, as they always > lose things and have an irrational fear of keeping family trees in > digital form - and are not accessible to most. Broederbond seemed to me > to be the worst of all worlds.
> So what should I have done? Do experts think I should have kept it all > to myself? If not, where do they submit their information? What did I > miss? This is a genuine query, and answers might be helpful to many.
> My other query is - I have written, now, to four submitters of > information to Ancestral Search. I've had one reply, quite helpful, > even if not totally reassuring. I myself have never received a query > from anyone on any of my submissions. So the query is - what experience > have others had on trying to contact researchers, and, related to that, > does anyone on here ever try to make contact with a submitter? Or is it > really all a waste of time? Which brings it back to - what is the > alternative?
Hans asked about others' experiences in contacting submitters to the Ancestral File. I had never seen it until it went online. Several weeks ago I found a contact researching the same family, wrote to the person in the US and had a lovely reply within the week, with lots of information on our common ancestor and descendants, most of which tallied with what I already had. First time lucky I guess! I did check the online white pages first to make sure the person was still at the same address - others I found had moved on.
<h...@hansnorton.demon.co.uk> wrote: >It is intriguing. People with some experience have been posting >messages and answers to say that the genealogical information on >Ancestral Search (from the LDS) is, at best, fiction. Now I have >submitted four trees of different complexity to Ancestral Search. I >don't think they were fictional. They involved more than ten years of >work, and I reckon myself a fairly good genealogist. (This could be >subject to other's opinion of course)
>It seems to me that, as it is so easy to ask questions, and so difficult >to answer them, it is really a duty to publish all we know, somewhere. >I chose Ancestral Search because it seemed to have the capacity to reach >as many people as possible. While some of their stuff is, of course >dodgy, the programme does allow searchers to find out who submitted what >and, consequently, write to the submitter for verification etc.. Things >I dismissed were the Society of Genealogists library, as they always >lose things and have an irrational fear of keeping family trees in >digital form - and are not accessible to most. Broederbond seemed to me >to be the worst of all worlds.
>So what should I have done? Do experts think I should have kept it all >to myself? If not, where do they submit their information? What did I >miss? This is a genuine query, and answers might be helpful to many.
>My other query is - I have written, now, to four submitters of >information to Ancestral Search. I've had one reply, quite helpful, >even if not totally reassuring. I myself have never received a query >from anyone on any of my submissions. So the query is - what experience >have others had on trying to contact researchers, and, related to that, >does anyone on here ever try to make contact with a submitter? Or is it >really all a waste of time? Which brings it back to - what is the >alternative?
>-- >Hans Norton
**************** I think that there is nothing wrong with having research put on Ancestral Search/Ancestral File, as long as the submitters make clear whether their information is backed by documentary evidence, or simply put together from a variety of sources that have not been confirmed. Many of the submissions seem to have been based on what was found in the IGI without taking that vital further step to the microfilm of the original data. In my own family database, some of the material has been given to me by others, and I have not had the time to properly confirm it. In these case I have added a note: "Data from John Smith of Idaho", or something similar. I found some of my own family line on Ancestral File, and when I looked over it I found a glaring error. I noted the submitter's name and address, and wrote (in the days before e-mail) asking the person to get back to me so that we could make the data more accurate and complete. I had no response whatever. I wrote to two other submitters over the months following, for details of other trees, and again there was a complete lack of response. Such was my experience.
Gordon Johnson: Retired public librarian; professional genealogist since 1996; specialist in pre-1700 period. specialist in pre-1750 Scottish records.
I too have found a part of my tree there. I already had the information, but it was from a cousin that I had already spoken with. I sent him my information for exchange of his information, to never receive his information. The information that he had submitted was all wrong, I just couldn't understand why he would do a thing like that. But, alas, I'm tired of writing him asking for the information. He only lives a few hours from me, so I think I'll just show up one day to request my share. Anyway, the ancestral search is good, but you should check and all information you receive anyway just to make sure. tonya
Gordon Johnson wrote in message <37374d99.16450...@news.ifb.co.uk>... >On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:35:41 +0100, Hans Norton ><h...@hansnorton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>It is intriguing. People with some experience have been posting >>messages and answers to say that the genealogical information on >>Ancestral Search (from the LDS) is, at best, fiction. Now I have >>submitted four trees of different complexity to Ancestral Search. I >>don't think they were fictional. They involved more than ten years of >>work, and I reckon myself a fairly good genealogist. (This could be >>subject to other's opinion of course)
>>It seems to me that, as it is so easy to ask questions, and so difficult >>to answer them, it is really a duty to publish all we know, somewhere. >>I chose Ancestral Search because it seemed to have the capacity to reach >>as many people as possible. While some of their stuff is, of course >>dodgy, the programme does allow searchers to find out who submitted what >>and, consequently, write to the submitter for verification etc.. Things >>I dismissed were the Society of Genealogists library, as they always >>lose things and have an irrational fear of keeping family trees in >>digital form - and are not accessible to most. Broederbond seemed to me >>to be the worst of all worlds.
>>So what should I have done? Do experts think I should have kept it all >>to myself? If not, where do they submit their information? What did I >>miss? This is a genuine query, and answers might be helpful to many.
>>My other query is - I have written, now, to four submitters of >>information to Ancestral Search. I've had one reply, quite helpful, >>even if not totally reassuring. I myself have never received a query >>from anyone on any of my submissions. So the query is - what experience >>have others had on trying to contact researchers, and, related to that, >>does anyone on here ever try to make contact with a submitter? Or is it >>really all a waste of time? Which brings it back to - what is the >>alternative?
>>-- >>Hans Norton >**************** >I think that there is nothing wrong with having research put on >Ancestral Search/Ancestral File, as long as the submitters make clear >whether their information is backed by documentary evidence, or simply >put together from a variety of sources that have not been confirmed. >Many of the submissions seem to have been based on what was found in >the IGI without taking that vital further step to the microfilm of the >original data. >In my own family database, some of the material has been given to me >by others, and I have not had the time to properly confirm it. In >these case I have added a note: "Data from John Smith of Idaho", or >something similar. >I found some of my own family line on Ancestral File, and when I >looked over it I found a glaring error. I noted the submitter's name >and address, and wrote (in the days before e-mail) asking the person >to get back to me so that we could make the data more accurate and >complete. >I had no response whatever. >I wrote to two other submitters over the months following, for details >of other trees, and again there was a complete lack of response. >Such was my experience.
>Gordon Johnson: >Retired public librarian; >professional genealogist since 1996; >specialist in pre-1700 period. >specialist in pre-1750 Scottish records.
>>Things >>I dismissed were the Society of Genealogists library, as they always >>lose things and have an irrational fear of keeping family trees in >>digital form - and are not accessible to most.
I think I have to take issue with this! While in the past the SOG was not above criticism in this respect, things have changed drastically in the last few years. We are in process of putting the library catalogue onto computer and as part of the terms of the HLF grant are obliged to make this fully publically available - which will effectively mean on line. At present the SOG website has the list of parish registers held on line with other of these indexes coming available, and we are acitvely discussing the issues of digitising many items in the library.
Information in digital form is vary welcome - indeed we have actively collected a number of submissions in the recent past (though it has to be remembered that the life of a particular media type is limited - who now has the facility to read the 8" discs that were in common use ten years ago! - even if they hadnt deteriorated to the point of unreadability anyway - paper and film are FAR more reliable right now for long term storage).
As to losing things, I can't comment, though I suspect the library staff might wish to - certainly things get buried because storage is limited, and up until relatively recently things got stolen as well - the latter has been addressed and the former will be when we move - *when* we find a suitable building and the necessary finding.
The problem I see with the Ancestral File on-line is that while it makes available the bare bones of a tree, relatioship or whatever, it is very clumsy in handling the source inforamtion, backup documentation etc etc, and as fara as I am aware, once submitted, is there for ever, regardless of whether its right, wrong, guesswork or fact. The only way to put up a correction is to submit a whole new entry, with the result that a newcomer will have no way of sorting fact from fiction - a situation that can only worsen with time and increasing entries.
You say that the submitter inforamtion is available - well yes it is - but speaking as someone who has moved home five times in twelve years, this would not actually help someone who wanted to track something I submitted 5 years ago. I have no idea of the percentage of incorrect submitter addresses (let alone ones who have died or disappeared) but i suspect its pretty high!
In principle I agree with making available one's data to all - as someone doing a one name study that hardly surprising - but I intend to publish on the web an index to my research rather than the research itself, and ensure that the complete data is lodged with an archive such as the SOG (and probably more than one archive for safety!) so that its available for genuine researchers to follow up if they need. There are already far too many examples of research published in good faith on the 'net reappearing in plagarised or mangled form under someone else's heading for me to wish to tread that path!
Hugh Ainsley - speaking for himself alone, but well aware of and informed upon SOG policy.
