APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1201718298


From: "Kerry Sandberg Scott" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] APG Digest, Vol 3, Issue 71
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:38:18 -0500


Kathy Cortez wrote:

> Quite often individuals filter themselves into that lower status of  
> their own low self-esteem or lack of education or credentials. As it  
> stands now we are all on equal footing, as far as the general public  
> is concerned. Yes, there are those with credentials behind their  
> name, but APG does not assign any specific status otherwise, which is  
> great for those who want to maintain the status quo. The field of  
> genealogy is largely non-threatening for those who don't want to be  
> measured. They can call themselves a professional with little or no  
> oversight and many don't want the boat rocked.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't believe that self-esteem is really the issue here (at least, not for the less experienced among us). It's not the label in and of itself that I'm objecting to; I've said quite clearly in previous posts that I'm not a professional genealogist, and that in fact I've been away from nearly all of my research fun for several years while I've been having babies and working full-time. What bothers me is that I've been sending money to an organization that apparently, at least in some cases, finds my presence an obstacle to acheiving its goals. I can think of no other reason someone would want to put me in a lessor category--it can only really be that you don't want to stand next to me. That's fine, that's your right...but then I don't want to send you money.

Kathy also writes:

> Short of certification or accreditation there is little measure in  
> the field of genealogy. When people post messages that in essence  
> relay, "If we cannot play the way I want to play then I am taking my  
> ball and going home," many on this list cave in sympathetically. That  
> is a ploy and a tactic to keep things the same. Obviously, there is a  
> movement afoot. Something MUST change. The organization is at a  
> crossroads and we cannot let the "poor sports" decide the direction.

The thing is, "If we cannot play the way I want to play than I am taking my ball and going home" is exactly how a free market works. If I get poor service at Wal-Mart, I go to Target. If I feel unwelcome at APG, I spend my money elsewhere. That means you don't have any money. Perhaps we ARE poor sports, or overly sensitive ninnies, or whatever. But the fact is that we have money, and you need money, or you can't do anything. This really is a business decision, and I would hope and assume that PROFESSIONAL genealogists would be good enough business people to understand that revenue is important. If you refuse money from people who want to give it to you, because you think we're being overly sensitive ninnies...well, let me know how that works out for you. If most everyone takes their ball and goes home, there's no ballgame.

I see no one here, no one, who "cannot or will not align with the level of professionalism needed to meet those goals." I only see folks asking WHAT the goals are, and whether creating classes of citizens will truly help acheive those goals.

And now I really MUST get back to work. Lunch is over and it's time for me to give a bit of time to the folks who sign my paychecks.

This thread: