TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-09 > 1125560004


From: Barbara Zanzig <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Proper Terminology (OT)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:33:24 -0700
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAA/iA3WZ0PY0iJ2nyhfkWKXwEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net><200509010324.j813Omaj003131@ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <200509010324.j813Omaj003131@ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com>


At 08:24 PM 8/31/2005, you wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious as to how other people handle the fact that in the US census
>> records (1850, 1860, 1870) so often it shows the country or birth as
>> Germany. When in fact this is incorrect.
>
>What makes you say this is incorrect. Where the folks lying back then?
...
>> But for the actual birth place, if
>> you don't actually know, I would rather not use "Germany."
>
>You would be denying the majority of European-Americans their heritage. Why
>would you want to do that?

Fred,

Because there was no "Germany" until 1871, and even then it was dominated by "Prussia", and some of the things in Germany today were not part of "Germany" in 1871. Before that, it was the Holy Roman Empire, which in 1648 had over 300 jurisdictions including bishoprics, kingdoms, duchies and archduchies, principalities, electorates, margravates, and the like, and became the German Confederation (independent states joined by treaty) in 1815 (but still the Holy Roman Empire). Do you write "German Confederation" or "Holy Roman Empire"? Of course not. Do you want to talk about the Hapsburg Empire or the Swedish Empire or the Spanish Empire, all of which existed in parts of "Germany" at various times? Shall we call it "Roman Empire"?

See http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Ewggerman/map/germanconf.htm and the Hammond/London Times _Atlas of World History_ for some historical maps. The history of Germany is probably more complex than almost any other (shall we say, common genealogical) country, and "Germany" is a modern construction.

If we're being really accurate, none of it is "Germany", it's "Deutschland". Following your logic, why not honor your ancestors by calling it what they called it?

I assure you, my 18th and 19th century Hanoverians did not call themselves German or Prussian, or even Deutsch. If you look at some of the censuses where the census taker was instructed to write Germany instead of the state, many of them wrote the state (that is, where the subject said s/he was born), which was later crossed out (by an American) and re-written as Germany (or Prussia). None of them were "Germans" until the late 19th or 20th century, which is where your argument about "denying their heritage" falls down!

Just because our Bureau of the Census was, possibly willfully, ignorant and Americentric and responding to changing political times, should we lump all of it, with varying religions, customs, geography, etc. etc. together? Don't ask what Americans thought it was, ask what Germans thought it was.

Places changed jurisdiction routinely in response to political events, *especially* in Germany. In Germany, *especially*, with its 2000 year history, you must know the history and it's important to be as specific as possible or you can't find your people, because you have to trace who owned the patch of land over time to find where the records are now. If you put "Germany" for someone born in Posen, you would never, ever find the parish records, which now reside in the Ukraine. Galacia, now part of Germany, was part of Austria-Hungary in 1873. And so on.

Things that were part of "Germany" until 1918 are now independent countries, like Poland, or provinces of other countries, like Alsace-Lorraine. In fact, Germany as we know it didn't emerge until the end of WWI -- or shall we count the expansion before WWII, or the contraction after WWII, or the expansion in 1990? I think that this is what Kevin was getting at; "Germany" is just not very satisfactory from a genealogist's viewpoint.

And so ends your German history lesson for today (steps gracefully down from soapbox.) Obviously, this post pushed some of my buttons.

To get back to the point, what I have done before 1900 for convenience is list all those subjurisdictions as the "State" and Germany as the "Country", just so I keep them together and remember they're geographically related. I acknowledge that it isn't historically accurate, but it helps me know where to begin, considering the limitations of the source. Sometimes I change that back and forth.

If I don't have anything more specific I put "Germany". I record the census as it says, Germany, because that's what the source says. If I use it for a birth, I use it but it gets a low surety, and when I have better info, that source is demoted, and that's where I differ from Kevin. If I use it for a census event, it gets a surety 3, because I'm positive that that's what the record says. If I have two census events, one with a state and one with Germany, I give the one with the state more weight. That's the beauty of TMG.

I, too, would love to have place name variants, especially if they allowed dates of effectivity.

Barbara

Barbara Zanzig Kirkland, WA, USA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/hertz/
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,



This thread: