The Internationalization of Genealogy

 

By Anonymous - Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, Handzeichnung H 35 (aus dem Wolf-Dietrich-Klebeband 15.846 III), via http://www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/graphiken/handzeichnungen.htm, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5328236

Genealogical research methodology in the United States and elsewhere is almost entirely based on a Western European and Indo-European language model. Everything from pedigree charts to the terminology used in accumulating, interpreting, and storing genealogical information has codified the Western European world view. It is more than apparent that the roots of the pedigree came from the development of livestock variations. The focus is almost entirely on biological rather than cultural or social relationships. Cultures and societies that do not fit into the model are either forced into fitting or ignored. The family tree emphasis, while useful for organizing some types of information, strips away all the cultural kinship relationships that more accurately depict how people interact. 

One illustration of the limited view of genealogy comes from a list of countries where my DNA matches occur. On MyHeritage.com there is a list of locations where my "DNS Matches live." There are 54 countries listed. Some of these countries are surprising, such as Malaysia, Turkey, Cote D'Ivoire, Vietnam, Qatar, Argentina, Morocco, Senegal, Latvia, Singapore, and Czechia. How would the current model of genealogy account for these potential relationships? When I am asked about my "race" or "ethnicity" what do I say? What if the larger numbers of DNA matches in the British Isles and Scandinavia is merely a function of the number of people who have taken DNA tests? 

Maybe what you think you know about your ancestry is based on a very limited and ethnocentric evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of your own culture.

How do we go about internationalizing genealogical methodology? Perhaps we need to broaden our view of categories. Our English-based (Indo-european based?) characterization of relationships,(i.e. father, mother, aunt, uncle, etc.) narrows our view of how families operate outside of a purely biological relationship. Perhaps we need to revise our method of recording geographical information. Perhaps we need to revise our ideas of calendar dates. Maybe there is more to internationalization than merely listing all the people you share DNA with. Maybe we need to recognize that our obligation to record all of the pertinent information about our genealogical relationships and not just pick and choose the information we keep or ignore.