Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-20-2011, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,975 posts, read 40,928,564 times
Reputation: 44899

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
[Looking at life expectancy from birth is not a good way to do it for our ancestors. Before antibiotics many children died and that is where the myth of dying at 40 comes from, since the statistics are then skewed by showing the average.

Survival from older ages in colonial times, for example, were similar to ages at death for persons who were born into the twentieth century. Look at ages of death for our early presidents- for one example- many lived into their 90s. It is only quite recently that ages at death have gone up by 5 or more years.

Actually, the statistics you are referring to are by definition averages, and you are not allowed to pick and choose which people you use to develop the numbers. The lower life expectancy is calculated from the date of birth, and it has to include all the causes of mortality, including things like infectious disease and accidents. For example, fires were much more common then.

The expectancies are averages. That does not mean that some people did not live into their 90s and beyond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2011, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,413 posts, read 12,091,477 times
Reputation: 5860
In pre-20th century times, if you survived childhood, you were likely to live just as long as you would today. Unless, of course, you were a woman. Then you'd have to survive your childbearing years. The average life expectancy was so low because so many children died, and so many women died in childbirth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 10:11 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,948,800 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
In pre-20th century times, if you survived childhood, you were likely to live just as long as you would today. Unless, of course, you were a woman. Then you'd have to survive your childbearing years. The average life expectancy was so low because so many children died, and so many women died in childbirth.
That's certainly not true. Age related diseases were completely untreatable and there were frequent outbreaks of cholera, yellow fever, influenza, etc back in that time. People were often old and frail by their 60s and susceptible to disease and injury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,042 posts, read 83,879,518 times
Reputation: 114280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I was always told that that Americans of the 18th and 19th century were smaller than we are on average. According the tour guides there, this explained the shorter beds and smaller clothes displayed in museums and at historic sites. However, in looking through my family tree all the way back to Colonial days, many of the guys in it are described as 5'11 or taller, often weighing about 200 pounds. That's bigger than I am. Perhaps the smaller people back then were more recent immigrants from underdeveloped countries who did not get the same level of nutrition? Just curious what others have noted in their research.
Interesting subject.

Both my grandmothers were 5'8" tall. I am just over 6' tall. One grandmother was born in 1892, and the other in 1907. I can't know how tall their mothers and grandmothers were, but I don't imagine they could have been that small.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 01:22 PM
 
15,631 posts, read 26,120,239 times
Reputation: 30907
Quote:
Originally Posted by gardener34 View Post
I think people were smaller then because they were not as healthy. I know they were not as obese as a lot of Americans are now. Thus the "smaller" perception?
And sizes have changed. My mother used to say that Marilyn Monroe was a size 16... and she well may have been, but at that point a size 16 was a size 10 now. Manufacturers know that a person's vanity plays a lot into the clothing purchased. So they've upped the measurements on the sizes...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2011, 08:59 PM
 
4,135 posts, read 10,772,298 times
Reputation: 2698
My g-g-grandfather's Civil War army papers describe him as "5'3", gray-eyed and light complected". I am the only person in the family that short -- I got the short genes!! Most of my cousins are 5'6" or more ( women) and 5'10" (men). On the other side of the family, everyone is over 6'2".

Height is genetic. You either get the tall genes or the short ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2011, 11:43 AM
 
356 posts, read 831,035 times
Reputation: 290
^Most of my ancestors were between 5'4" and 5'6", according to their military records. Not that we're decidely taller now. While there are some who are 6'+, most are abt 5'8". So, taller on average, yes. (men only, no clue how tall my female ancestors were).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,948,800 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloTransplant View Post
My g-g-grandfather's Civil War army papers describe him as "5'3", gray-eyed and light complected". I am the only person in the family that short -- I got the short genes!! Most of my cousins are 5'6" or more ( women) and 5'10" (men). On the other side of the family, everyone is over 6'2".

Height is genetic. You either get the tall genes or the short ones.
Height is also a function of nutrition. The best example might be Japan where the average height has increased dramatically since WWII.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:26 PM
 
11 posts, read 33,918 times
Reputation: 15
My ggg grandfather was 5'2 (according to Civil War papers).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,128,110 times
Reputation: 6920
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxopr0ud View Post
My ggg grandfather was 5'2 (according to Civil War papers).
Where was he from and which side was he on? I'll bet the confederates were on average taller than the union soldiers though I've never seen any data on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top