Hunkering Down

This winter has already been a bit of a challenge to everyone in this area- more snow in three weeks than usual for December with some days reaching -15 degrees of chill... not counting the wind. The ice storm a few weeks back was stunningly pretty, but horrendously destructive as the weight of its icy beauty pulled trees into trees into deep waist-ed bows until they collapsed under their weight , acknowledging their submission to the elements and powers around them. I watched bushes literally collapse in upon themselves- imploding into their cores like a black hole had developed at their roots and was pulling them quickly and inexorably into the nothingness. I lay awake one night gazing blankly at the ceiling and just listening to the creaks, groans, whistling and popping of the many pieces of topiary and the woods in general as they fought and struggled not only for their limbs, but for their very lives. It felt a little bit like the end of the world... the sensation of the earth and all life starting to collapse and die into extinction. It was hard not to feel sad at the death and destruction that I can see from every window of my house and on my walks into the woods. It looked like a war had been fought... and that mother nature had lost, brought figuratively to her knees in surrender. Only one thing spoke of positive things: the small inlet in the woods under some trees with the clear prints and indents of at least five deer who have rested out the storm and then left, alive and ready to look for food.

The one drawback to moving into my awesome cabin at the very beginning of winter is that I had no time to locate and fix any areas or fissures in the walls, windows or doors that might need to be repaired. Most of the time I haven't really noticed – the stove keeps the place warm and cozy and I find myself quite comfortable. I have found that while the insulation is good, the windows are very thin and two of them have broken frames and so in small places, a steady stream of air flows in from the exterior. The wind and snow come in on three sides and I can't feel the cool draft in through the plugs in the wall as well. So when the weather is in negative numbers, it has actually been more of a struggle to keep the place well heated. I will say that even with this difficulty I smile – I just love living here and I feel like I have finally found my refuge... a place to regain my health and to allow the wounds of the last few years to heal. I have slowly been filling in some of the cracks and covering the openings in the windows with tape and down blankets to hold it all tightly together until better weather. That has helped a lot and has even provided more evening entertainment as some of the cats find it less challenging to run up the walls now. :)

So, we are all hunkered down and ready for three more months of snow and ice and wind. And as I drive slowly to work three days a week I look at the houses and neighborhoods as I slide past. The buildings seemed closed off too... covered with snow and ice... hunched or and oppressed, waiting for the warmth to return. How are things in your neck of the woods? Are you and your neighbors warm and comfortable? How is the winter affecting you and your plans? If you survived the ice storm, who did it affect the trees and wildlife around your home? I am very curious!

The Nun Files: Beginning Discussion and Diary

Well, I have finally finished the transcription! Between everything else going on, it took me all summer. I will admit that I am glad that it is done and I can turn it in... and be able to share it with you... and my teacher who I am sure is just dying to grade it! OK, maybe that's not true. :)

So I am going to break the interview into a few parts because the interview as transcribed is almost fifty pages long - not double spaced. For those of you who are interested in buying the book that this beautiful sister has written(which both myself and my son adore) please look at the fifth and final transcription post for details. You can also leave a comment with an email address for me and I will make sure that you get the information if you need more specific information. All the money made from the books goes to a great cause which is described near the end of the fifth post on the interview.

Interview Diary

The interview was conducted in the convent kitchen. As the convent is a small home set up for one person, it is a very cozy place. Before the official interview, we introduced ourselves to each other and had some light chat about each other. We gave some basic facts about each other and our likes and lives. The kitchen was pleasantly lived in. Not austere and empty like I might have expected. It was warm, comfortable and the perfect interview spot. The interview occurred over a period of about four hours with some breaks due to convent business- it goes without saying that a nun has very few 'days off.' All recording breaks have been marked on the transcript and the recording was paused to be sure to keep the anonymity of those who were calling for personal and private reasons. The interview was performed in the kitchen with almost no movement- any movement is marked on the transcript. Just two women having a comfortable chat with large mugs of tea. It was a great time and very enlightening! I appreciated the opportunity. :)

Oral History and Thoughts on the Individual

For this post, I really wanted to take the time to dissect how individuals and their personalities clash and mesh with both culture and society when collecting historical research from others I have broken the post into three sections: Individual/Personality, Culture, and Society.

Individual/Personality

There are many reasons that it is important to focus on the individual when looking and studying history. First, it is the 'individual' that makes history. Yes, most of history focuses on rich, royal and upper class individuals, as well as powerful religious leaders (or leaders with huge followings) and only a few of them at that. But the history of even large countries has been forced to include individuals that do not fit those classifications. A few nameable examples are: Joan of Arc of France, Rasputin of Russia, and Martin Luther King in the United States. Second, all of us as human beings are making history as we live. Yes, maybe our history will be noticed by few and cared about by even less. But if we look at our actions and our behavior, it directly effects those in its path. My tiny town of Brooklin has made national news a few times for its behavior that I know of... and both of these times- one person's behavior, belief system and ingenuity or stubbornness have been the catalyst for the large event. I have been told that the local soup kitchen would have closed a few months ago if one person had not stepped in. One person in the right position systematically denied disabled children a good education and fought and insulted parents in his attempt to save money in my area. Now he is retired and living in the same town... and seems confused that he is 'not well respected'. His handiwork can be seen by anyone dealing with the children in our town... and little pleasure is taken I assure you. I am sure that there are so many other examples, but individuals and individual's lives do clearly change the world, culture and society around them. An individual can describe a social and cultural situation that he has been involved in... and see it differently from the other twenty who experienced it... and the other individuals who were indirectly affected by the situation.

Taking the time to learn about individuals and their distinct personality bents gives you clues about how a person thinks about the world and where their biases and perceptions lie. Keeping an open mind and truly trying to understand the person that we wish to collect information from will help give our information more meaning. The information that someone gives on a topic will vary in so many ways, including their general way of looking at things, people involved and how the individual felt about them, ways it affected the individual or his loved ones/family, how society itself views the situation, how their past history colors how they view the more recent past and present, and how the individual's present situation can color their views on the past. So attempting to understand the person behind the information you seek should become as important as the information itself.

Some questions that would be useful to consider when trying to decide if someone makes a good person to interview can be easily summed up. Determining if the person is honest, able to try and deal objectively with the past, and other personal information about the interviewee is key. Does the individual have anything to lose by objectivity? Is the individual able to be objective about things that caused great pain or hardship? How does the individual view his life and those around him? Determining an individual's unique traits and how a person reacts to people, his environment, joy and hardship, etc... give us clues about how accurate the interview itself will be... and how useful.

There are a few reasons that truly understanding an interviewee's family life and social situation are important when collecting oral history. Understanding how the individual has lived, grown up, choices they have made such as marriage and children, and the social environment in which that person has had to make life changing decisions will not only help shape our questions to better fit the individual's probable experience (not useful to ask a poor individual who lived all of their life in California what the White House was like to visit during their lifetime unless you are sure they went there!) If you are asking the interviewee what the individual Jeffery Dahmer was like, you will surely get a different viewpoint based on interviewing his parents or neighbors... or the parents of one of his victims. An individual who has been raised in poverty and managed to scramble out of it to an upper class existence may think that welfare is useless because everyone else could do what he did, or may recognize that his circumstances were helped by others, etc... knowing how this individual thinks, currently lives and has lived gives us important cues when using the individual as a source to collect oral history.

Culture

Culture helps the historian to place individual facts into a greater context by looking at the different groups that individuals can belong to in order to help us understand the different cultures... and have a window of understanding into the people that we are interviewing. Culture is usually behaviors that are shared by individual groups. And as culture must be taught or learned through an individual's life experience, we as historians can truly understand culture only by learning it from other people. A book can only go so far in this regard. So, by looking at individual experience and comparing them to others in the same group, we can learn a lot about the experience itself, but the collective group experience and how culture can affect the group experience itself.

The word 'ordinary' suggests a faceless void. It is also almost demeaning and seems to suggest that anything ordinary shares the same background and story. However, this is not true. Ordinary people- as opposed to celebrities or very powerful people- tend to exist in shadow in a historical perspective, but that does not mean that these lives are even similar let alone the same. These 'shadow' individuals can tell us a great deal of what life is like for many that are not in the limelight. People who live complicated and earth changing lives that are not in the newspapers. In some instances such as studying social changes, the ordinary man will necessarily give better answers than the powerful or the celebrity- as the famous will be more untouched by grassroots changes. The ordinary man can show us the emotions and turmoil of change as it happens, one person at a time. The ordinary person can help us to see what tiny, minute emotions and behaviors and movement go into the large scale version of social change. Without these 'collages' of information from people who have lived in the very 'trenches' of history, we will not have a truly accurate picture of history... and we certainly will not have one that we can understand on a truly human level.

Inner facts are so important because they can fill in the gaps that basic knowledge can never fill. Reading that something is bad is a fact, but someone who was there telling and describing to you how bad it was adds an element that helps to cement the fact as true... and brings genuine understanding. The key to truly understanding events such as defining social moments is also in the concept 'inner facts'. Casual observation can give us the knowledge that a transportation strike is happening in France... but why? Why the strike? Why now? What brought the idea and organization into being? Who started it?

The importance of putting 'inner facts' into their historical perspective cannot be overstated. If the historian or reader is unable to understand what the facts that are presented really mean, they will not end up meaning much about the original topic. Certainly oral history not in context can tell us about humanity and emotions and the basic human dilemmas... but when placed within an appropriate historical context we can learn how the emotions were evoked, what the suffering or joy really, truly meant, and how the emotions and behavior made the changes that the individual did or helped make the changes of an individual together with a collective whole. And the information given by one individual about an experience and then added to the stories of others, can give us a rich and diverse picture of not only the event in question, but the culture that the event happened in as well.

Standardized questionnaires have a few problems, but the biggest one is that no individual is truly 'standard'. So a standardized questionnaire will not glean much information that is truly detailed and can only glean 'standard' responses. To get detailed information, we must ask someone in their own words to describe something... and not trap them into using our words which may not get us the information that we seek. Any question is also subject to an individuals interpretation of the question... and again, humans are not standard. Language and the past can color what words mean to people and so they can also change how a question is interpreted. (An example is I grew up thinking that the word 'couple' meant three or more-except when discussing human couples. So a 'couple' of sandwiches always meant three or more to me- until last year. When I finally realized the reason for past misunderstandings when using the word, I have actively worked to change the definition in my mind. But until then, I would have used the word incorrectly!)

The term 'thick description' can be defined as a very careful and detailed description. A thick description will usually help to uncover a person's reasons and motives for behavior and will also usually give cultural information and context. It can give you ideas for questions that you would never have thought to ask based upon your own cultural bias and can give insight into situations that you as the historian may never have heard of in your own culture. These descriptions can also give insight into how culture has changed over time and ways that society or local communities have changed as a result.

Society

Society is the name given to the human world of interactions and living that are important in determining some of our behavior and the behavior of the people around us. Society forces us for instance to wear clothing... but culture may help determine what type of clothing that we wear. Society includes the human community, how we interact together and our relationships with each other. Both society and culture- while distinctively different- are very interrelated and influence each other. Our culture may be shaped by society and culture itself can, in turn, help shape the society around it. However, society is what 'surrounds' us and where we live... culture is what is in us and how we live.

To really get a good grasp of social history, oral history and other qualitative sources should be used because they will provide the details that will truly make the social history developed and not just a brief outline of time. Brief pieces do not give us a picture of what it was like to be truly human during that time frame and so 'his-story' becomes dry, uninteresting, and also unable to be used to see how humanity has changed or not changed today. Social history without culture or other sources simply becomes a basic black 'outline' and the contents are not clear until they are filled in with the hues of personality, humanity, emotions, and behaviors of individual people. As Hoopes states, qualitative sources bring history to life and reveal its significance and meaning- which help to give history meaning.

Historians should use both types of sources if they truly wish to get a full picture of what they are studying. Using both types of sources makes more difficult projects probably more successful. The two source types can also help to find more information for 'smaller' projects than there would usually be if only quantitative sources are used. Using both sources not only helps make the history more clear and more interesting, but it also helps to make it more accurate as you can compare the sources to see where they agree, disagree and are different or compliment each other. Then the historian can compare the differences and look for other sources to help determine accuracy and why there are differences- something that the historian could not do if it was not recognized that there were differences.

It is important to understand how society impacts groups and individuals for a few reasons. One (and the most important personally) is the need to understand that society does affect us as individuals in our daily lives- whether we understand or pay attention to that reality or not. Another reason is that many individuals are very likely to believe that their personal history really isn't 'important' history, but the tasks of working at jobs, raising families, attending school, etc... contain the marks of the society in which the individual lives/lived. And so, no matter how isolated the individual sees themselves from society around them, they are not... and understanding the different ways that society affects groups and individuals helps to develop understanding and interpret sources.

Many people choose to interview their family members because finding another 'family' to interview that is willing to put up with your nosiness and be as honest with you can be quite difficult. Another benefit is that you will have some basic knowledge of the individuals and personalities involved and so you will better be able to quickly understand what family members would be better for interviewing, which family members might be unreliable, and where the different biases might be a problem. You might also have a better understanding of questions that you want to ask. You also have the added benefit of adding to your knowledge of your family, your heritage and the history intertwined with it all. This kind of project can give greater personal awareness and understanding to the historian about their life, their role in their family and how their family has developed and changed over time.

One problem of interviewing family members is that family members may not always see the information that they have about themselves and their history as important. You, as the historian, must try and get the details of their lives and they may be hesitant to share them with you. They might also have reasons that they prefer not to share information with family members.... maybe things that they have been hiding. Convincing these individuals that it is a good idea to share and even give some details of certain circumstances may be very hard indeed. Some ways to overcome these problems is to know the individual being interviewed really well so that you can address the individual's concerns and also determine if the individual would even make a good interviewee.

Social history defined is a way of looking at history that includes the history of 'ordinary' people, how they lived, and attempts to look at history from the point of view of social trends, movements, etc... Quantitative history is an approach to the study of history that uses physical countable evidence- numbers, tax forms, statistics, etc... as primary sources for facts. A quantitative fact can be measured and 'solidified'. Qualitative history are facts that can be debatable- there are internal facts and are facts that give us understanding of human behavior and not just the behavior itself. It gives you the why the behavior happened and other intangible facts that while harder to pin down- are facts.

Conclusion

So, the term 'society' refers to the idea that we live among other people who have some forms of power to permit us to do some things and stop us from doing others. Culture is defined as the intellectual influences that enable us to see some possible avenues of behavior and refuse to do or see other ideas... and personality is the individual response to the cultural and societal influences around us and how we individually interpret these avenues and expectations and conduct ourselves accordingly- or not, based on our own decision making, learned or innate cues, etc... These three terms (society, culture and personality) describe separate ideas that in some ways can be teased out separately from the other two terms. Yet, like triplets, while they are separate entities, each of these terms describes ideas and behavior that are interwoven together and so... they cannot totally be separated except on a vague and less informative basis. Society and culture can help define people and even how they see themselves, but personality can change and mold culture... which can change society. Or personalities can change social 'expectations' and in doing so change the larger picture of culture and society. So each of these ideas clash and mesh depending on different factors.

What do you think? Do you disagree with anything that I have written? Let's discuss! :)

Questions and Thoughts on Oral History and Tradition

This semester I am studying Oral History and will be doing an hour long interview. I thought I would post these questions. I had a lot more but I think these particular ones cover the basics of what Oral History is, oral tradition and how it is used, and how these forms of history can be beneficial. I need to decide on a topic for my class and I am thinking of interviewing a Catholic nun... After reading this post, does anyone else have any suggestions that they would be interested in? I was very fascinated with some of the differences and information I learned. Hope you find something interesting and new in this post as well. :)


1. What does the study of History teach us?: The study of history can teach us how to look through the eyes of another human being and what life and culture were like for them. History fores us to look at the world and life differently than how we live it- even when studying the history of someone who lives next door or in the same family. We can learn why people did they things that they did...sometimes through journals and letters where we can 'see' what they were thinking and what thinking went into those decisions and how they changed the life of everyone involved. This study can teach us to become more introspective about ourselves and how we make decisions and to question why we do what we do in our lives. The study of history also teaches us about basic human traits and humanity itself. We are forced to face our fears, prejudice and other ways of thinking when studying history and we are also forced to think about our role in the history that is being made today that we call our life. It can also teach us how to live in our contemporary society in an intelligent and informed matter. Being able to understand or at least show tolerance to the actions of ourselves and those around us keeps life more interesting, safer, useful... and beautiful!

2. What is oral history?: Oral History is almost the most personal of all ways to collect historical facts and research. Oral history is the research, preparation and collecting of facts, observations, recollections, etc... of knowledge from another human being. Oral history can not be gotten by reading a dusty ledger or sitting quietly in a dark library. Oral history tests you as a historian and as a human. To collect information, you must be personable, able to engage with others, able to listen and not steer the conversation in different directions or toward your own biases. You must be able to act sympathetic-even when you personally are not- and help people to share honestly what is in their memories and also be able to assess the information and the individual sharing it. Oral history is a little different than oral tradition and oral history can be more useful for the society that is generally mostly literate. One reason for this is that the people in these societies are less likely to use their memories to hold 'things' long term... as they could be written down or recorded. The focus of this class will be on the “collecting of an individuals spoken memories of his life, of people he has known, and events he has witnesses or participated in”.

3. What are the common types of historical sources?: The most common sources for historical information can be easily classified into groups. The grouping of written documents can include, but are not limited to- journals or diaries, books or other published works such as newspapers, letters, and governmental records such as census forms, applications, and tax records. Other examples can be land or property deeds, ledgers and/or records kept by groups such as churches, non profits, small informal groups, etc... Another group would be 'visual documents' and would include pictures, portraits,and prints that-while they may contain no writing- can tell us a lot about the subjects and environment/culture at the time they were created. The grouping of physical documents can encompass almost anything that hasn't already been covered...such as coins, clothing, tools, furniture, buildings, art, music, etc...

4. What is oral tradition? What role does it play in literate and illiterate societies?: Oral tradition is a story, tradition or practice that is shared orally or through speech- usually handed down from generation to generation. Oral tradition is usually eventually written down, but can tell us so much about the society and the people who originated them and allows history to be kept and shared by groups who do or did not have writing. It was a good way to keep valuable information for others in your group and would allow the literate and the illiterate alike to share the information. One downside of written documents is that they are only as useful as the person attempting to read them. If there is no one who can read the document... then the information is just as unavailable and gone as if we didn't have the documentation in the first place. (Sometimes you can get lucky and discover how to read the documents so they shouldn't be discarded- the Rosetta Stone is an example.) Oral tradition can cover such 'documents' as speeches, songs, interviews, and conversations. Oral history, especially if shared by a quite charismatic speaker, can evoke emotions, memories and actions that the written words is hard pressed to match. And again, the spoken word is available to all who know the language- whereas written documents have an added impediment. Spoken word, as shared with more people and preserved by memory is more accessible to everyone -anyone in hearing distance. Other documents can easily be destroyed- a book can be burned, etc... But to destroy a memory, you must destroy all who have the memory before they can spread it... and like destroying a trail a gossip, it is a horribly impossible thing to do! :) So societies that have no way to write it... or will be punished for writing it down.. would carefully remember these 'documents' so that they could still be shared.

5. What is the difference between oral history and personal observation?: Oral history is something that is told to a person-usually a person that has very little experience with what is being discussed. One purpose of oral history is to share something with someone who doesn't have that experience. Personal observation is experience. While people can tell you their experience, you as the historian will also be colored by your view of the experience and merging the perspectives will be more difficult if not impossible. The best way for me to understand this is by looking at the difference between the words sympathy and empathy. A person can have sympathy and some understanding of an experience, but because they have not experienced it, they cannot have the depth of knowledge of one who has personally experienced it. So a woman who has lost a child has a much better understanding of a different woman’s situation when she has lost a child and can have empathy, but a woman who has never had a child cannot not truly understand what that other person has gone through- no matter how many times it is explained. There will always be missing pieces... sort of like the concept of history in general. :)

6. Why is oral history especially important in this age of communication revolution?: People in this communication age are far less likely to keep written documents such as journals. Facebook allows you to store and save your status updates now, but that doesn't tell you what was said in conversations or really what you were thinking when you wrote that tiny jot of information. And once we forget the information... it is gone. People used to write letters and mail them- now we write emails and delete them... or we save time and talk on the phone. I think we also spend less time with people these days and so sharing with people is less of a priority. We divide ourselves off and just are not big parts of our communities as we once were. We are not as intimate with a large amount of people and our circle of trust grows ever smaller. However, this rationale may only apply to the 'common man' as the more well off and famous are very likely to have volunteers to collect and categorize the person's written documentation. These documents may be less revealing than the past and certainly may not always be the most truthful or unbiased, but these documents should help to flesh in a picture that we would not have had without them.

7. What is the relationship between written records and oral history?: I think the easiest way to discuss these two topic is to start by saying that by themselves they are useful and I do not want to suggest that alone they are not useful documents with which to discuss and research a topic- but only together does the most complete picture of that slice of history able to be discovered. Memory is a fragile substance and when someone tries very hard to be the most accurate because there will be no written record, memory appears to be the most valuable and 'solid'. But without that intense effort memory is a fluid object that can change based on perceptions of the event, passage of time, etc... Oral history can give us insight into new ways to determine written documents as well as a way of verification. When there are discrepancies, that can help open the mind to ideas of new research.

8. What is the greatest advantage of oral history over written records? What are some of the drawbacks of oral history?: The greatest advantage of oral history is that the historian gets to participate so the historian can actively ask for what information they want. Everyone wants to know if Richard III 'did it', but we can't actually ask can we? :) So if the researcher take the time to look into the desired subject, the interview can be filled with questions that potentially bring forth greater meaning and understanding into the subject matter. Sort of an efficient way of getting to the knowledge that you seek! Having questions that have been thought of and determined as useful can have some biases but can also preserve information that would otherwise have been lost... and may very well be useful to future historians. Oral history sometimes is a way to preserve stories and history that would otherwise be lost entirely as some cultures are biases against actively recording your own history. Oral history is also biased in its openness- you do not have to be rich and famous to apply and so it can provide an every-man’s perspective. It can also explain the 'why' behind a person's actions whereas sometimes written documentation is very much caught up in the 'how'. Also, oral history with several slightly different tellings of the same event can also give us clarity into the situation - some constants throughout the stories will make parts of the tale clear. However, some drawbacks are that written documentation for the 'everyman' will probably be lacking- it is important to remember that oral and written history compliment each other. Oral history is also dependent on memory which can have flaws and can be colored by perspective and bias. That said, almost all historical sources have flaws and so knowing the flaws allows us to use the source to its best advantage and your the most valuable use.

9. What is the importance of research in oral history?: Oral history is a great form of documentation, but it needs to be used if at all possible as a complimentary form of documentation. No form of history can be truly accurate if there is nothing to compare it too... what I mean is there is no way to show how accurate it is. So all history should be validated through other sources and oral history is not immune from this rule. Oral history is also very likely to have 'gaps' of information that can be filled in with written documents and other sources. Research before the oral interview is extremely important as well, because it helps you to know what you need to ask; i.e. what answers you already have, what is missing, what is not clearly understood, etc... Otherwise you can have a interview that is full of already know facts and to find to more... you have to do another interview. A little bit of a waste of everyone's time really.

10. What is meant by the phrase “historical significance”? Why is it important?: Historical significance basically means that there is an meaning or message to the information that is important to that time in history. So you need to ask yourself some questions about a topic to decide if it has historical significance... such as was this information important at the time and does it continue to be important today? How was this information used at the time and changed or not changed over the following years and generations. Did this facts/actions change things that followed in time and place. The term 'historical significance' also is a term in which what information is important depends on what the questions are that are being asked and how the questions and the answerer 'fit' into their cultural, political, local landscape,etc...!

11. What questions/issues should you consider as you decide what topic to research?: One important question (to me) is what topic would I find myself interested in pursuing... or would really find fascinating? No matter how important and needful the information is, if the historian has no real interest or enthusiasm for collecting the information it can effect the results in ways that may not easily be seen or detected. Another question I should ask is how will my interview contribute to the knowledge and information already known- or what will my work be adding to the already collected data.

Hope you enjoyed this!

For the Beginning Family Historian....

One of the classes that I am taking this semester is teaching me more in depth ways for doing family history. This post will cover several topics that I researched for class and I thought were interesting and really useful for someone just starting out.. This post will also have a lot of my 'blather' for a good grade :). Skip the blather and enjoy the information! This post contains information on the different U.S. Census forms and what they contain- including non population schedules, the difference between archival non published documents and 'unpublished documents' in general as well as the valuable nature of Collateral Kin. It contains information on places to go to start your research and the easiest ways to find some sources. So here you go!

According to the authors of the texts, there are almost unlimited types of unpublished records that can be used to research local history. The major difficulty for utilizing these forms of documents is that you actually have to know they exist... otherwise you might not even know to search for them. For example, a non-profit organization keeps certain records that they are required to by law. Knowing that pertinent piece of info will help you to know what documents that the organization may have. However, when you start to look in personal archives, it is a very different story. I am one of those really weird people that has saved all of my incoming correspondence for years and I have six or seven albums full of all that correspondence in time order. So someone who wanted to could filter though those books and find pertinent political information, information about others in my family and friends, local activities, religious functions and gossip as well as getting a really good idea of what I found important, interesting etc.....

So some of the forms of unpublished documents that you could truly find to be your 'gold' mine for knowledge are: business ledgers, correspondence files, wills, journals (my favorite), church newsletters and other documentation, customer and employee files, nursing home records, personal tax records and receipts, etc... The authors do take the time to carefully explain the difference between the two basic categories of unpublished documents- and why that matters. Archival documents may not have been published, but they are considered archival because of the reason that they are kept. Archival documents tend to be maintained and kept for legal, administrative or historical value. So when you keep your first five years of personal tax returns, they are considered archival because you probably kept them for legal reasons in case you were audited... (I suppose if you kept them because you were too lazy to throw them away they might be classified under another name, but I am not sure that I know the official name for that. :) The authors make it clear that the word 'archives' or 'archival' is used for almost all unpublished documents, but it is important to know the different because it changes your focus on what documents might be available (instead of just obvious due to legal requirements, etc...) and what the true value of the document may be. For instance court records would be considered archival and they would hold a wealth of information. Court records are generally recorded and or transcribed at the time making the most accurate document possible. It would have pertinent information such as who was the plaintiff and defendant, why the court is intervening (is someone being charged with breaking the law, being sued for personal reasons, etc...). It would have evidence and many might contain testimony from pertinent parties including disagreements with presented evidence. Being able to use these records along side of published documents such as newspaper articles, editorials, and other forms would really not only help to 'flesh out' the information that you seek but also have an additional source of potential verification. Newspapers, for example rarely list their sources and so finding out how they got the information that they reported on can be fairly tough. But using other documents along side that do have listed sources (or are from a more official source like a court) can confirm information that you have from sources that you are not sure of... or can not confirm for that matter. Another thing to remember about true archival material is that much information will be missing in the sense that only the 'important' documents will have been kept.... while the 'trivial' or 'mundane' documentation will be thrown out. So the important distinction is that archival information can truly seem to have more legitimacy than other unpublished documents, have a higher standard or what needs to be kept so they can be 'more complete' in some ways.... but only the 'important information will survive- and what is the important information will vary depending on who the archivist is, what their motivations are, etc... Some archival documents such as military registrations are really useful in that they can almost provide a 'picture' of an individual. They- in a lot of cases- recorded height, body shape, weight, and eye and hair color.

Other documents can be used that are not archival and can be very, very useful. And knowing why records are or are not kept can also give you ideas on how to find documents that you seek. One of the first things you need to do when you are considering using an unpublished document as a source is to try and figure out why it was kept... what information was considered important. For instance, if I look back at my correspondence letters that I mentioned above, I have purposely thrown away four letters that I have received in the last decade. All four of the letters were purposely rude, hurtful, angry and I didn't consider the viewpoint in them to be the most accurate (they were fairly damning and hysterical actually). I eventually threw them away because I was concerned that whoever went through my papers in the future and read those particular letters would think poorly about the individuals that wrote them... and I must admit that keeping them for that purpose had crossed my mind :) I wonder sometimes if I should have kept them even though they were so 'bad' simply because it is pertinent information (to my family's genealogy at least in the sense of how terribly we treat different parts/people in the family) but I have over time really felt it was the right thing to do. Someone who was reading my bound letters would consider them wonderfully complete, but would need to ask themselves what my motivation was in keeping them. My motivation is for the future historians in my family... but until they are sure of that my letters are suspect. Have I kept them to skew the way one side of the family looks... or have a presented truly the most accurate (ie all the letters) picture? Have I kept only the correspondence that paints me in a particular light that is positive or that I like? These questions need to be truly understood before relying on unpublished documents. So journals can be very useful as long as you understand that the journal was written for (?) and that the writer will have his/her biases. 'Manuscripts' or 'personal papers' tend to be slightly more suspect than 'archival' documents, but are also so likely to provide the 'real' bits of information that are needed to confirm very small or trivial things. It must be noted that because this category of 'unpublished documents' are not 'required' to be kept, they too are likely to be missing big pieces of information.

I have to start by saying that I love census records. You can get some really basic and useful stuff off of a census record that it may be hard to find anywhere else such as home, neighbors, total number of pregnancies and living children, etc... However, I have discovered that while using census forms, you must keep an open mind about it just as you would for other sources. Some people are listed under the census as nicknames instead of their 'official' name. Women who marry can literally disappear from the census records if you do know what their married name is (and if it is a common name such as Mary Smith... knowing her husband's name as well. And the census-especially older census forms can not explain family relationships or circumstances- so you cannot be sure who is 'who' and sometimes can be confused by individuals listed (which can get quite confusing with poor handwriting to boot!) Another reason to not stick with only the direct line- You can get stuck for ages on the women. But now I am clearly whining from experience and not from the actually text readings :)

Information that can be gleaned from most census records are: name of adult male, household members (or at least number of them) and as the census forms begin to contain more information - you can gain names of all household members, heads of households and relationships to household members, ages and sometimes birth month/year, race, some disability status such as blindness, marriage information, birthplace info for person and parents, education and ability to read or write, occupation, immigration status, military service, language, number of births vs current living children, and more. (By the way I had no idea that there was a way to gain information from the 1940-2000 census'... I thought I just had to wait... and wait... and wait! Thank you! :)

There are different forms of census schedules; they changed as a census was officially begun, as the wish for more information made them more intimate and in depth, and as collecting the information because easier due to better knowledge, better technology, and more emphasis on accurate collecting. Some census schedules only provide information about industry/manufacturing while others provide information on the population of an area. So early census schedules provide 'less' information that census schedules as they continued to develop throughout the decades (and in one case where almost all the records were destroyed by fire. Here is a basic breakdown of what you can expect to find on the different census schedules. (New information will be in bold. What I believe the term 'schedule' means is actually a dual definition- 'Schedule' means the different full census groups.... and in each census itself ... 'schedule' means the differing sections within the census forms such as individual/family sections which could include age, sex, etc.... or agriculture sections which included acreage, profitability, livestock and produce produced, etc.... or 'products of industry' which could include business name, products produced, etc... or even mortality schedules. It could also mean separate census schedules that were taken up by the states themselves and not the federal government- these census tend to be labeled differently by year. (This is pretty approximate and I could have confused some things).

1. 1790- This is the very first ever US census and took 18 months to complete. The schedules for six of the states have been lost (Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia.)

2. 1800 – This is the second census and it took about nine months. The information collected was : household name, number of males under and over 16 years of age, number of females of all ages, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves.

3. 1810 - This census took about ten months to complete. The information collected was: household name, number of males under and over 16 years of age, number of females of all ages, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves.

4. 1820 - This census took about 13 months to complete. The information collected was: household name, age of all members of household- male or female, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves. Also counted 'not naturalized' citizens. (Children of ages 16-17 years of age may have been counted twice)

5. 1830- This census took about twelve months to complete. The information collected was: household name, age of all members of household- male or female, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves. Also counted foreign nationals. First census with printed forms for names and also an age category of over '100 years old'. Before the oldest category was 'over 45 years of age'.

6. 1840 - This census took about 18 months to complete. The information collected was: household name, age of all members of household- male or female, number of individuals over 100 years of age, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves. Also counted foreign nationals. First census to document 'war pensioners and their widows'.

7. 1850 - This census took about five months to complete. The information collected was: household name, age of all members of household- male or female, number of individuals over 100 years of age, number of 'free individuals' and number of slaves. Also counted foreign nationals and 'war pensioners and their widows' and marital status if married within the last year. First census to collect the names of all household members and not just 'heads of household' as well as the place of birth of all individuals recorded. Also, separate slave schedules were begun this year which would contain only the name of the slave holder, the 'race'/age/sex and number of individual slaves. Might also contain some skills of some of the slaves as well as disability.

8. 1860 – This census took five months to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names, ages, and places of birth of family members, number of individuals over 100 years of age, number of 'free individuals', number of slaves, foreign nationals and 'war pensioners and their widows' and marital status if married within the last year. This year also had a separate slave census which would include the slave owners name as well as some pertinent individual information – number of slaves, perceived 'race', age and sex of slaves including if any were over 100 years old, disability such as blindness, and some occupations such as carpenter, etc...

9. 1885 – This census was only completed by five states/territories – Colorado, Florida, Nebraska...and the territories of New Mexico and Dakota.

10. 1870 - This census took five months to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names and places of birth of family members, age of all members of household- male or female, marital status if married in the last year, number of 'free individuals', number of slaves, foreign nationals and 'war pensioners/widows'- listed anyone who wasn't taxed as an individual. Month of birth was collected on all individuals that we born 'within the year' – or the last twelve months.

11. 1880 - The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names and places of birth of family members, age of all members of household- male or female, marital status, number of 'free individuals', number of slaves, foreign nationals and 'war pensioners/widows'- listed anyone who wasn't taxed as an individual. This census also started listing the street and address of the people whose information was collected- while that info can be found on other census forms in later years, it is not consistent throughout the years. Month of birth was collected on all individuals that we born 'within the year' – or the last twelve months. This census also started listing an individuals parent's birth places and were as specific as possible.

12. 1890 - This census took about one month to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names and places of birth of family members, age of all members of the household- male or female, each individual's parent's place of birth, marital status, foreign nationals and asked about naturalization papers, and 'war pensioners/widows' It could also have street addresses. This census started a column for all individuals of all ages so that it could also keep track of child labor. Also started to track how many children a female gave birth to and how many were still living. People were also asked if they had an acute disease or chronic disease, what it was, etc... A fire in the Commerce building in Washington DC destroyed all but approx. 1% of this census (I will admit that I have never found anyone in this census for my personal use. :) Some groups such as Ancestry.com are trying to piece together documents to help 'recreate the information' that was burned and also using others forms such as the Union and Veteran’s Widows schedule.....

13. 1900 - This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names, month and year of birth, and place of birth of family members, each individual's parent's place of birth, marital status as well as number of marriages and years married, foreign nationals and/ or person's naturalization status, and 'war pensioners/widows'. Also tracked how many children a female gave birth to and how many were still living. This census also required that immigrants give year of immigration. This census also started listing place of birth by current region name- rather than what it was called at time of person's birth.

14. 1910 – This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names, place of birth of family members, each individual's parent's place of birth, marital status as well as number of marriages and years married, foreign nationals and/or person's naturalization status, and 'war pensioners/widows', immigration year if immigrated. Also tracked how many children a female gave birth to and how many were still living. Census also listed place of birth by current region name and not necessarily what it as called when person was born.

15. 1920 - This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names, place of birth of family members, each individual's parent's place of birth, marital status as well as number of marriages and years married, foreign nationals and/ or person's naturalization status, and 'war pensioners/widows', immigration year if immigrated. Census also listed place of birth by current region name and not necessarily what it as called when person was born.

16. 1930 - This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: This census took approx one month to complete. The information collected was: 'Head of Household' name as well as the names, place of birth of family members, each individual's parent's place of birth, marital status as well as number of marriages and years married, foreign nationals and/ or person's naturalization status, and 'war pensioners/widows', immigration year if immigrated. Census also listed place of birth by current region name and not necessarily what it as called when person was born. Also asked married people for the first time how old they were at first marriage. Also asked individuals what languages they spoke prior to coming to this country.

Whew! Other census schedules can be obtained that are not population driven and they will have lots of information that you cannot glean from the above discussed census forms. Agricultural schedules can help flesh out a community- what social role farming had or didn't have in the community, financial stability in the area, or what might have been grown. Also, farm is a very generic term and could have been used for fruit orchards, and garden nurseries. Around the 1880's, records began to be kept of what was grown as long at the farm was over a certain amount of acreage or the sold more than $500 dollars worth of farm 'goods' (the amount of goods, cash or produce could be estimated and might not be the most accurate). Records also expanded to cover the value of farm equipment, the amount of livestock (and their potential value), value and number of loss animals killed by nature, etc...., owners of farm vs tenant farmers, costs of business which might include upkeep of equipment,etc... In 1810, the US government started a Manufacturer Schedule to help record what businesses were out there, what they sold, quality, and value to the goods and business. They might have recorded number of employees, annual production rates, number of machinery or technology, products made and the location and owner of the business. The 1830 and 1840 Manufacturer Schedule wasn't taken due to the confusion and inaccuracies of the years before. It was started again in 1850, but it was limited to businesses that were able to exceed $500 in production. It also started to collect the genders of employees- how many women vs men were working in an industry and average monthly wages. In 1880, the data collected centered mostly around twelve specific industries. However, it must be noted that some forms or non population schedules have been destroyed or are otherwise hard to find because as time went on... they were not considered as important or legally protected as other 'archival' forms.

Another schedule is called the 'Defective, Dependent, Delinquent classes' and is officially filled out on supplemental schedules 1-7. This schedules help the government to compile statistics on those individuals that are more likely to need institutions, hospitals, prisons, shelters, etc... I didn't know this but these forms are also used to collect statistics to aid in the study of genetic disease. However, all individuals that are listed on this form are also listed in the regular population census. The Schedules 'officially' are:

1. Insane Inhabitants – individuals who were alcoholics, had mania, depression, paralysis, dementia or epileptics

2. Idiots – extreme mental deficiency from childhood

3. Deaf- Mutes – you had to be both extremely hard of hearing and be unable to speak because of it... or a semi-mute who lost hearing after gaining some language.

4. Blind – included blind, or semi-blind

5. Homeless children – special attention given to see if children came from 'respectable homes' or 'vicious backgrounds'.

6. Inhabitants in Prison – information on inmates was gotten from the warden. (sounds like a recipe for perfection and disaster all at once :)

7. Pauper and Indigent – this form was designed to count all individuals that were living in public houses, hospitals, etc... at public expense.... so some individuals might be counted twice if they had any of the above mentioned 'conditions'.


Other schedules that were collected were:

1. Social Statistics Schedules: collected through 1850-1885.
2. Mortality Schedules: This records deaths within year of census.
3. Veteran's Schedules – started in 1890.


Polking has lots of suggestions for where you can get help with your family history. The first place the author mentions is the library- which is a wonderful place to start. Some libraries have purchased access to the Ancestry website and also have collections of 'genealogical resources' that you may go through. Each library that I have gone to that does have a genealogy collection also has a librarian that is absolutely delighted to teach you how to start as long as he/she in not swamped with other work- that is how I have learned a few of the things that I use when doing my research. Polking mentions several volumes by name that a lot of libraries have but doesn't mention that libraries can also have resources on microfiche, CD-Rom, or other programs for public usage. (Maybe the author's libraries are just not as good as mine or the author doesn't have a Mormon background where people will almost kill to help you... although he does mention family history centers later in the book. :)

Mr. Polking also mentions using Courthouse records as well as vital records by state to discover information. States can issue certificates of birth, death, marriage, and divorce depending on their archives and your pocketbook (some states are way more money and hassle than others... CT is a snap and cheap.... NJ is a six month or more waiting period and then your request can be denied due to a technicality and it costs much more than a lot of other states.). Some Federal land records are available as well in printed records. He mentions a few different immigration resources (I have also found others by 'Google-ing'), and genealogical researchers. Genealogical researchers are a great resource but I will admit... they are my source of last resort! Some cost between $75-150 an hour which doesn't include expenses and may find nothing of value for you. Now, they may also find exactly what you need and if you do not live near where the information is, it certainly can still be a bargain for you to hire someone to look for you. I guess that I am cheap and a fairly hands on girl... so I starts lists from all the different genealogies that I am working on and areas and when I get enough... I justify a trip! I tend to find even more than I went looking for in some cases and get stumped in others, but it always feels costs savings and worthwhile... so I guess you know that I have a long list when I go :) Oral histories can be helpful as well and when you are able to find them they are worth it in so many ways. You can get ideas about family that you were not around and the life they led from their own lips. Military Records can be good and can actually give you a great visual picture of your relative because they can also describe physical characteristics as well as behavior, rank, etc... The author also mentions ways to use religion and ethnicity to help find records- you can search the churches of your ancestors as well as resources concentrating specifically on their religion, church and local area. You can use immigration and ethnicity to help you with research if your relatives are Jewish, European, etc...

Another research place that the author recommends are LDS family history centers. I highly recommend them for many reasons... and I have a few disclaimers First, people who volunteer there are excited to help you -I used to be one of them) and you can be the highlight of their day! There will not sleep until they help you get what you need if they can. However, as a member of this church I must warn you that some people use their volunteer work for two purposes that may not square with your goals. Some volunteers believe that while helping you they must also be a 'missionary' and convince you to join the LDS church. Some individuals can be easily put off, but others cannot and I can see that as very frustrating for some people. Others want to help with your genealogy because their genealogy is so far back it is 'hard'... and thy have already done the 'temple work' for their relatives. If you are a non-member you bring the promise of genealogy that is easier and needs 'temple work completed. It is up to you to decide what information you are willing to leave with representatives and to make clear what they are allowed to use that information for. Last disclaimer is that the smaller centers have a lot less information and you do need to pay and wait for some information to come from the larger library. So those are my disclaimers. When you find a person who volunteers... and you feel like you both understand and trust each other, you can find that a Mormon genealogist is a great friend to have. If you are willing to wait for microfiche and other documents and use it at your little local center- it is great and you can get a lot of stuff! I got a form from there that I was able to use to write a document in German and send it in German to a church to try and get some help with a German ancestor. That was pretty cool.

And the information on adopted children is great. I am stuck on one individual who I do know her name before adoption and I can't find much else. I think that using the information in this reading will be my next step on the family history that I am doing for class. And the information on illegitimate children seems like some great information to keep track of as well. I know that tracking the ancestry of African American's in this country is supposed to be hard (I have never tried so I have no idea but slavery tried really hard to separate families so I wouldn't doubt the challenges. It appears that you can find information almost anywhere for almost anything. I have found sources for items from historical biographies 'source pages' that have had great information for other purposes. Magazines can have sources, libraries, the internet, people's personal family collections... I have even found someone's genealogy in a Bible at a yard sale which I managed to find a family member for... It seems you just need to keep your eyes pealed!

And I must admit that I thought a lot about the section 'unexpected markets for your research'. I have tended to do the genealogy of anyone who asks- its really that simple. I have never thought of publishing it or even doing anything with it except give it to the person that I was compiling it for. The idea of sharing some of it with other enthusiasts sounds very intriguing and a little scary. Definitely something that I might think about for a bit. :) And I have certainly learned this week that there are more things constantly to learn. So much was familiar, but other things certainly were not- for instance I thought the date on the top of the census forms was the 'date', not an official date.

Last, but not least is the concept of collateral kin. First I have to say that I am already a convert of making families whole and not just the 'direct line'. I have found that you can't get a whole image of the family without the whole family nor are women and young children as easily traced without them. Grandmothers move in with Aunts, orphans move in with Uncles or Grandparents and you can not have any idea of how they 'fit' without taking in to account the whole family around them. I do have a strong belief in the direct line and being able to see your exact ancestry, but to also see your ancestors in their 'context' is a real way to see them... and not just a few lines on a chart or a spare picture or story. A friend of mine who past away last April was really a product of many things but her childhood really made her into the strong woman she was. Her father died within two months of her birth and she grew up as a step child with three half siblings. In many ways she raised her siblings when her mother died several years later. To only see her as who she is now would be to ignore what made her who she is today. This is what the author appears to mean by collateral kin. Collecting information on other family members always tends to give you information on your direct relative even if it is just incidental. You can find out hereditary disease that run through the whole family, the community, economy and social structure around the family as well as occupations, dangers, traditions, etc... (You can also find out things you didn't want to know like murder, abuse, etc.... but the risk for good information is almost always worth the risk of bad- and frankly there will always be some bad... otherwise we would definitely be lying or whitewashing our family's history. Sticking with just a surname also tends to make you so focused that you can miss the info that you need which is just a page away; ex... a neighbor talks about his good neighbor Joe (who is who you are researching,.... but doesn't always mention the last name.) Those sorts of information are harder to get if you put 'on blinders' and stick only with the surnames or direct line. I have found some research that talks about someone's children and short lived marriage that was not in census forms or the 'typical suspects' but in journal, letters and documentation from a sister. One thing that the author also mentioned was the relationships. You are more likely to find the people you need when using relationships than last names – unless of course you have an extremely rare last name. Otherwise you will have huge lists of people that do not have anything to do with that you are doing.... or even your family! ;) So using the information that you can get from siblings, cousins and distant relations as well as neighbors, family friends, work relationships, etc... can give you the closest image you can really get of what it was like to 'be' your relative and to live in that place and that moment. Also when you study an entire family, you can study larger patterns in society of education, migration, economic times, etc... Those larger and broader subjects are so much harder to study one person at a time... especially if the one person as a time can be a decade or two apart. :) One of the best reasons to study collateral kin that the author mentioned is that by studying distant cousins, sometimes they have information on a common ancestor that you do not... and if you ask nicely, they tend to be willing to share.... one of the great things about family history enthusiasts.!!! They also may have records simply because they lived in a different area and their records were not destroyed or lost. I was also fascinated by the idea that wills and documents left by individuals without descendants were more useful that those who did- never heard of that idea before. I also was surprised that some of the kinship meanings didn't mean what I thought that they meant! I also appreciated finishing up with the thought that familiar terms (cousin,etc...) were much more fluid in older times. When I go back and look at some of the genealogy that I have done, maybe I will have some more tools at my disposal to figure out things in my 'gaps'.! :)

History is History... Right?

This week in my local history class I learned some new terms. Even though I have never had a class like this before, I feel like ever little of this information is new. But I thought I would share it!

Define the concepts of 'Nearby History', 'Local History', 'Family History', 'Public History', and 'Social History'.

Local history appears to be the definition of the history of a small group. It might be a neighborhood or a small town, but it is an area where a group can easily be divided off from other groups in most circumstances to be studied. I think that this definition has a lot of fluidity about it in the sense that the definition of 'local' can mean so much to so many different people. Some people who live in my area might see local as the entire peninsula- In fact, when Vicki looks for a helper for my son through a 'local' organization a few towns away, Vicki always looks for someone local to me... which means to her anyone who is qualified who lives on the Peninsula or the close island. I consider my local town to be ********, but my 'local' grocery store is in a nearby town and my 'local' post office is in the neighboring town. So the idea of what 'local' means depends on who you are, your culture and habits as well as location. Another word that could be used to describe local history could be regional history or community history according to J. Amato.

Family history -again depending on your focus- can be limited to basic dates and direct line individuals or can encompass huge amounts of information on family relationships, lifestyle/ occupation/ movement, economics, education, religion, and physical appearance, and then can be branched out to include involvement in the community, politics, or military. For some people, family history is working to find enough names and dates on their tree to 'fill in' a gap. My mother does genealogy in this fashion and rarely stops to even glance at individuals unless she finds something quickly that catches her eye (ex.. she is able to tell me about a relative that is 1/8 Cherokee on my direct line, but for the most part, anything that I want to know on my family tree I have to look at myself- she won't know). I like to help people with their family history and I will do the standard family tree sheet, but I also try and include pictures, sources, biographies if I can find them or write them myself, and other information such as occupations, religious affiliation, movements, etc... Others might go even farther and add the public history portion that is going on at the same time.... which brings us to...

Public history wasn't very well described in the book (at least I didn't think so). I wasn't sure if that is because the answer seems obvious, but in just in case I took the time to try and look it up. My definition of public history is the collection and compiling of information that is 'public' as well as collecting the bits and pieces of information to help make the other infiltration whole and well sourced. So public history could be as close as my towns small Keeping Society and the notes kept every week from Selectman's meetings, etc... and moves to the far reaching history- what our president is doing or what is happening elsewhere in the world whose consequences trickle down to us. Online, I found an organization called the National Council on Public History and in an essay on their site they have a definition of public history that goes like this: “Public history is a movement, methodology, and approach that promotes the collaborative study and practice of history; its practitioners embrace a mission to make their special insights accessible and useful to the public.” The article continued on to discuss other ways to define public history and controversies over the above definition. One thing that this definition contained that I think I took for granted until I saw it was that the information should be “accessible and useful to the public”. I have always thought that history had a great use, and has importance today. But I guess I have also assumed that it was available for the most part to anyone who wants it. However, with all the news articles talking about state secrets and other stuff that we can't 'know', I guess history is not always available and it is important to everyone that the idea of availability is part of how history is collected and intended to be used.

Social history is based on the premise that no one lives in a vacuum... that all lives are influenced by the social and cultural world around them. So to understand anyone's motives, we must understand not only them, but the world in which they lived. When trying to figure out what motivates another human being, historians sometimes take educated guesses from the documentation, sources, etc... that they have available to try and explain why someone did something. To try and make a guess on someone's motives without using social history would be to most likely make an incorrect guess, but also give motives that would more likely reflect what you (the historian) would do, not what the individual studied would do. (Boy that could have far reaching consequences on many historical narratives such as King Richard III of England! :) Social history is the stuff that is lost when we only concentrate on the 'rich and famous' for it is the small and simple things that happen in the ordinary lives of people. It is more inclusive as people and history that might never be noticed (because it is considered unimportant) can be counted while researching social history.

Nearby history is also a term that can be fairly fluid depending on how you want to look at it. You can start as close as your own head and journal and end as far away as the history of another country. Nearby history is the study of the history that is close to you and affects you whether it is your neighbor and her dirty dustbins or at our town meeting where you and others vote to become the second city in the US to ban GMO crops. It can be the study of you town or how national politics affect your every day life such as healthcare reform, extensions to unemployment insurance, term limits, changes to existing law, etc...

How do the above concepts fit together? Are all the above concepts the same? Why or why not?

Each of the concepts above are very different in some regards as to their approach to their subject. Yet, in many ways, I just took two pages to describe over and over the same concepts. Each concept listed above describes a specific way of looking at and researching history. Yet each concept is almost impossible to separate from each other. History is not and can not be discrete. So to study on part of history is to either ignore or include other parts. Local history can be used to look at a community. Family history can be used to look at a family in that same community and while the local history will be necessarily different than the family history, the local history can compliment and even explain some of the basic family history. Public history can be used to explain events in the local environment that affect the family under scrutiny.

1. Stanton, Cathy, “What is Public History” Redux”, originally printed Sept 2007, copyright 2010, National Council on Public History, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, found at http://ncph.org/cms/what-is-public-history/