Meme and Why. Sounds a bit like that old shtick about the Philosophy professor asking the question on an exam - Why? The enterprising young know it all writes Why Not? For his A+.
It looks like Thomas MacEntee’s idea of sharing knowledge and expertise in the genealogical blogging community is catching on. So far I have read three bloggers ,whom I respect, ( James Tanner, Dear Myrtle, and Randy Seaver) outlining what equipment they use to maintain their genealogical databases, and businesses.
I used to think that I was older than two of them (we won’t name which two); however, it looks like in techi-ness I am older and far more of a Ludite (look that up in your Funk&Wagnalls) than all of them. I should be utterly ashamed to put in my two cents worth. Nope - shame is one thing that I lost years ago.
Mind you the above genealogists are professionals (and packed for bear) - I merely an historian, and scribe.
* Hardware: I have two computers. One is an I.B.M. Thinkpad circa 2000. I acquired it in 2004 for $800. I see now that I can buy a much more powerful used Lenova Thinkpad for $280. Who knew?
Having learned my lesson my second computer is an I.B.M. knock off of questionable origin. Cost $80. I think that I am winning? CIV 2 works great on it.
* External storage: Nope. Use flash drives. Love them. So far not lost any. Knock on wood.
* Online storage: non
* Backup: Disks. I should organize them some day.
* Firewall: AVG
* Virus protection: AVG
* Spyware: AVG
* File cleaner: It needs cleaning?
* Printer: Not yet but I am looking. A used one of course.
* Phone: Land line.
* Mobile media: That’s something my 20 something sons are - mobile.
* Music player: What ever it is it seems to work.
* Car audio: What car?
* eBook Reader: non
* Browser: Explorer and Firefox. Explorer crashes, and Firefox losses its plugs - maybe its my 2000 vintage computer?
* Blog: 2 blogs which are both blogspot
* RSS: not yet. I’m not exciting enough
* FTP: need to look that one up?
* Text editor: Microsoft Works
* Graphics: I have Paint I think I played with it in 2005. It’s around somewhere.
* Screen capture: Another one I have to look up!
* Social media: Facebook
* Social bookmarking: none. I don’t even know what that is? Or care.
* Social profile: none. I might lose all my Facebook friends, and I am building an impressive Zoo.
* URL shortener: Really! Why?
* Office suite: Microsoft Works
* E-mail: 3 actually of which I use one, and get interesting promises on the other two.
* Calendar: Carry it in my bag.
* Accounting: Quicken
* PDF generator: Primo PDF
* Genealogy database: Legacy 7.4
* Genealogy tools: pens, paper, files, file cards. A Ludite to the end.
* Other tech stuff: I just acquired a Kodak something or other digital camera. Used of course. Run to the Kodak outlet every two or three days to find out what the buttons are for.
Well there you are. Am I ready or what?
Showing posts with label genealogy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genealogy. Show all posts
Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Metagenealogy
James Tanner in his blog Genealogy's Star has written an interesting (for me) blog post where he is trying to come up with a definition of genealogy that moves genealogy from its present unstructured state to a more focused and practical discipline. Such a debate I feel is due. Mind you historians have been arguing a definition of history for centuries now, and usually end up agreeing to disagree.
I consider myself a historian and researcher first, and a beginning genealogist second. As such I come at a definition from different angles than James.
James states that “Neither is genealogy genealogy without history and neither is history history without genealogy.” There we agree. He also states: ”the study of the basic underlying structure of all societies no matter at what scale.” Here I am inclined to nitpick a bit. Are we talking about the Gaelic speaking highland Scottish society where families were fluid but the clan structure constant? Is the clan then the family? Perhaps it is and can be called an extended family. I would suspect though than the concept of the extended family in this context would drive genealogists wild as many people would not easily fit on a family tree. The only group I am aware of so far with the concept of a “kissing cousin”. I have two “kissing cousins” myself who are considered family but not blood relations. Wait until genealogists 30 to 50 years down the road try and fit them into my family tree!
I tend to view the great events of history as influencing the family, and not the other way around. Also, a definition of family over history is fluid. It changes over time as social, economic, political, and geographic influences come to bear.
Genealogy should not be simply collecting names. These are people. They can tell you something about their times.
Genealogists and historians use much the same sources. True, but they view those sources from different perspectives.
From where I sit genealogists do seem to be moving towards making genealogy a discipline. The starting point has begun with professionalizing the discipline through education. What I am waiting for now is the first great thinker to produce a book that weaves genealogy and history together.
I consider myself a historian and researcher first, and a beginning genealogist second. As such I come at a definition from different angles than James.
James states that “Neither is genealogy genealogy without history and neither is history history without genealogy.” There we agree. He also states: ”the study of the basic underlying structure of all societies no matter at what scale.” Here I am inclined to nitpick a bit. Are we talking about the Gaelic speaking highland Scottish society where families were fluid but the clan structure constant? Is the clan then the family? Perhaps it is and can be called an extended family. I would suspect though than the concept of the extended family in this context would drive genealogists wild as many people would not easily fit on a family tree. The only group I am aware of so far with the concept of a “kissing cousin”. I have two “kissing cousins” myself who are considered family but not blood relations. Wait until genealogists 30 to 50 years down the road try and fit them into my family tree!
I tend to view the great events of history as influencing the family, and not the other way around. Also, a definition of family over history is fluid. It changes over time as social, economic, political, and geographic influences come to bear.
Genealogy should not be simply collecting names. These are people. They can tell you something about their times.
Genealogists and historians use much the same sources. True, but they view those sources from different perspectives.
From where I sit genealogists do seem to be moving towards making genealogy a discipline. The starting point has begun with professionalizing the discipline through education. What I am waiting for now is the first great thinker to produce a book that weaves genealogy and history together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)