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.
"And yes, that was one of the things which some don't get today. The High English church, the one you see the cathedrials for, was the property of gentry. For the lower classes there was the low church, which came here as the Episcopal church, with simplified rites. But they disapproved as much or more of the other prodestent sects. If the Scotch Irish were lower church they might not have faced the restriction, but it was about central control of power. You did not have a position with 'rights' unless you were high church"
Well, that might explain some of the bitterness. My scots irish ancester, while not super wealthy, did appear to have some money. But, he was a Presbyterian. He lost half his sons in the revolution, Tarleton even burned down his house. The surviving son that was my direct line married a Swiss/German.
Now, my highlander scottish ancestor was a Methodist Episcopal. Unlike my scots irish ancestor, his name did begin with Mc. He was apparently quite poor, fiesty and difficult to understand. His son came to Texas and married a senorita. It appears that some of his family wound up in Canada.
"And yes, that was one of the things which some don't get today. The High English church, the one you see the cathedrials for, was the property of gentry. For the lower classes there was the low church, which came here as the Episcopal church, with simplified rites. But they disapproved as much or more of the other prodestent sects. If the Scotch Irish were lower church they might not have faced the restriction, but it was about central control of power. You did not have a position with 'rights' unless you were high church"
Well, that might explain some of the bitterness. My scots irish ancester, while not super wealthy, did appear to have some money. But, he was a Presbyterian. He lost half his sons in the revolution, Tarleton even burned down his house. The surviving son that was my direct line married a Swiss/German.
Now, my highlander scottish ancestor was a Methodist Episcopal. Unlike my scots irish ancestor, his name did begin with Mc. He was apparently quite poor, fiesty and difficult to understand. His son came to Texas and married a senorita. It appears that some of his family wound up in Canada.
One of the means of barring non Church of England members was education. In order to get into schools like Eton, which were part of the stairsteps of authority, you had to take certain oaths which the Dissenters, the general name for non Church of England protestants, could not. Thus it effectively barred NonConformist/Dissenters from higher positions. The town featured in The Story of England, on PBS, started its own acadamy, which taught past the lower schools into the university level. Interestinly, the Dissernters were the core of those who established rights like freedom of speech and worshipt because they also valued education and could use the legal system.
Both sides of the 'pond' owe a lot to them.
Its interesting that Methodist Episcopal in England was a version of Episcopal but here they seem to be seperate.
Then there are people that have come from not so good circumstances in other countries - and they are happy to become totally American and want to forget where they have come from.
It depends on the person. I am American but am also culturally connected to my country of descent as the first generation born here. It is not simply ancestry for me.
It depends on the person. I am American but am also culturally connected to my country of descent as the first generation born here. It is not simply ancestry for me.
I think for some people, when they start looking, the cultures and times they came from feel closer. No, it wasn't you who was on that ship, or in that field, or disposessed of land, but the time has a connection because someone who went into making you was. It's valuable to learn about the past, not the history of armies and politicans, but the rest of the population and how they lived day after day. It gives us all an appreciation of how much changes, and yet stayes the same. And it weaves us as individuals into a web of other individuals who came before us.
Some try to stamp blame or guilt on portions, but if you want to connect with the flow of history, we take some who were bad, and some who were good, and most who just lived in the world they were born in. Just like today. Maybe it helps us learn how to see things from another view at least some along the way.
Some people are interested in it, some aren't. I think curiosity about where you "came from" is normal, but my brothers don't really care much. I had an uncle who could recite our family tree back to 1630 Salem in some detail. But his brother, aka my father, was never interested in such things and told me next to nothing about his own life. He was pretty much only interested in the present moment, with little concern for the past. It's something that appeals to you, or it doesn't.
I don't think the melting pot is really a good metaphor for the US. I think we're more like a a salad bowl, or maybe a fruitcake, where a lot of dissimilar ingredients get tossed together, and there's some blending, yes, but still quite a lot of solid clumps dispersed throughout. And part of the reason for that, it seems to me, is excess attachment to the past. I'm interested in my family's history, and I am working hard to document it for my grand kids to reference if they care to, but I'm not trying to funnel their lives into a repetition of their ancestors' lives. My father's line lived on and around one farm since the late 1700s, but as of 10 years ago, there's no family left there at all. And why should there be? Life has moved on, and that lifestyle is no longer relevant in my descendants' lives.
Yet the irony is, that farm, now passed out of our family after over 200 years, is surrounded by, and now owned by, Amish farmers who are determined to keep the clock stopped for generation after generation in their own families, and do their best to preserve their culture and simple lifestyle unchanged. My family melted into the culture at large, their families did not.
Neither way is wrong, neither way is right, they're just two different ways to live life. And the study of our ancestry gives us some perspective on the personal and cultural histories which have formed our present existence.
I don't think the melting pot is really a good metaphor for the US. I think we're more like a a salad bowl, or maybe a fruitcake, where a lot of dissimilar ingredients get tossed together, and there's some blending, yes, but still quite a lot of solid clumps dispersed throughout. And part of the reason for that, it seems to me, is excess attachment to the past. I'm interested in my family's history, and I am working hard to document it for my grand kids to reference if they care to, but I'm not trying to funnel their lives into a repetition of their ancestors' lives. My father's line lived on and around one farm since the late 1700s, but as of 10 years ago, there's no family left there at all. And why should there be? Life has moved on, and that lifestyle is no longer relevant in my descendants' lives..
Mine never "clumped" in one place for more than 2 generations. The concept of people living somewhere for 200 years is unknown in my family tree. I'm now back where we started.
^
Definitely teaches you about history. What's more when others speculate about history you may find yourself mentally correcting them or realizing: they ain't no genealogist.
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.