New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] blood isn't everything... edited
in reply to a message by queenv
Blood alone doesn't bind a family. That is pretty obvious from Vigdis's stories of that particular branch of her family.
I have no idea of who my father is, and I only use the word father for lack of anything better. Sperm donor maybe. He gave me half my DNA, but so what? If he hadn't, somebody else would have, and how would I know the difference between what actually was and what might have been? Maybe I look somewhat like him. Maybe not. But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did.
I have no idea of who my father is, and I only use the word father for lack of anything better. Sperm donor maybe. He gave me half my DNA, but so what? If he hadn't, somebody else would have, and how would I know the difference between what actually was and what might have been? Maybe I look somewhat like him. Maybe not. But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 3:32 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. I'm only going to tell you that if I were in your place, I would feel differently. Blood ties are very important to me. That's all that I'll say, because the subject was discussed when I made my "Meemaw and Pop Pop" post in the Lounge. I respect that not everyone feels the way that I do. I was just giving a reason that *some* people would name a child after an ancestor they hadn't personally known.
1
"But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did"
Yes, you are. If your DNA were any different you would be someone else. I'm not saying this in defence of using deceases relatives names or to disagree that "blood isn't everything" in regard to who you identify as family, but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and had his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist
Yes, you are. If your DNA were any different you would be someone else. I'm not saying this in defence of using deceases relatives names or to disagree that "blood isn't everything" in regard to who you identify as family, but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and had his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist
1
...but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist.
This argument always puzzles me. If you were a different person, how would you know the difference? If you never existed in the first place, how would you know the difference?
It's not like a Parellel Universe version of you would be hovering around, telling you how your life would be different if your great-grandmother had been Polish instead of Irish. You wouldn't know. It wouldn't be an issue.
I can't help but think we make things sacred when they are really mundane and not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Which is totally normal and human, but no less frustrating.
This argument always puzzles me. If you were a different person, how would you know the difference? If you never existed in the first place, how would you know the difference?
It's not like a Parellel Universe version of you would be hovering around, telling you how your life would be different if your great-grandmother had been Polish instead of Irish. You wouldn't know. It wouldn't be an issue.
I can't help but think we make things sacred when they are really mundane and not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Which is totally normal and human, but no less frustrating.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:12 PM
1
As I'm reading this conversation, I'm reminded of my great grandfather, whom I never knew and whom my father barely remembers from his childhood. Grandma, daughter-in-law of said gr grandfather, had only a few nice things to say about him and several reasons why she didn't care for him, so those are the stories and opinions Dad, and then I, grew up with. My gr grandfather was a genealogist, not professionally, but he took courses in order to work on his own family history. I, having my own desire to research the history of my family, am very impressed with his research notes, documentation, letters of enquiry, etc. It's obvious he had a very fine mind, as does my father. I discovered that he always signed his name with a very distinct, fancy embellishment. So does my dad. It's a different embellishment, nothing alike, but my dad and my great grandfather are the only members of our family to do this, as far as I know. Dad developed his embellishment as a young man. He didn't know anything about gr grandfather's embellishment and was surprised by it. It could be complete coincidence, but I'm tickled every time I discover such similarities.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:51 PM
1
You wouldn't know the difference, but "you" wouldn't be living at all because your unique DNA never came to be. Like I said, it was never a defence for justifying using a long removed relative's name, I just wanted to point out that yes, your parents DNA matters in who you are right now and matters in who your kids are/will be. You can't really say, I'd be the same person no matter who my father was because that's simply not true. It's all just butterfly effect - no one really knows what "could have been" but it's always inherently different than what IS. It's a little too philosophical really for me to even truely get my head around but I'm not placing any more importance on one side or the other (reality vs. "parallel universe") I'm simply stating that our conscious exists because of very delicate factors and those factors interest me enough to look upon past relative with wonder.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:31 PM
1
I didn't say I'd be the same person. I might be- oh, I don't know- Misty Q. Horowitz if my DNA were different, but then Misty Q. Horowitz might wonder who she might be if her family tree forked in a different way, and it would go on and on and on. It would be a different "You", or the "You" might be a gaping void, but in the end, it wouldn't matter. If the "You" you are now didn't ponder these questions, another "You" would. Or something. God, I need a drink after wrapping my head around this one, LOL.
1
It's pretty simple to me. I wouldn't exist if it weren't for my parents and all of my other ancestors. I owe my existence to them. Period.
Perhaps what RoxStar was trying to say is that she believes that her biological father had no hand in creating her *personality*. Personally, I don't hold that biology has nothing to do with personality, but many do.
Perhaps what RoxStar was trying to say is that she believes that her biological father had no hand in creating her *personality*. Personally, I don't hold that biology has nothing to do with personality, but many do.
1
Yeah, but again, my point is that if I didn't exist, I wouldn't know one way or the other. I'm happy, but if I were never born it wouldn't make much difference...and I know that sounds depressing, but it really isn't. At least not to me.
1
I'm sorry I never meant that you said that, that was just the impression that I got from RoxStar's post that prompted me to respond in the first place. Yes, it's all convoluted and subjective to the "you" in each scenario but that's why it's interesting to me. Modern (19 and 20th century) history is intriguing to me already so considering my relatives as pawns in the overall game of "chance" is even more fascinating and has a certain amount of sentiment that appeals to me
1
I realized you were talking about what Rox Star said after I wrote my post. Sorry about that. :)
I love history too, but...well...my family just isn't that interesting, LOL. I'd much rather read about artists, writers, musicians, activists, etc. People who contributed something bigger than, "...and then they got married and had babies and moved to Saginaw!" ;)
Actually, that's not entirely true; there ARE some interesting people in my ancestry. Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking.
I love history too, but...well...my family just isn't that interesting, LOL. I'd much rather read about artists, writers, musicians, activists, etc. People who contributed something bigger than, "...and then they got married and had babies and moved to Saginaw!" ;)
Actually, that's not entirely true; there ARE some interesting people in my ancestry. Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 5:07 PM
1
"Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking"
Sure they did! They contributed to your coming into being :)
That's the thing though, information about famous artists, writers, musicians, etc. is generally easily accessible while there is little literature to chronicle the lives of my relatives, so there's more mystery there. Even so, I'm more interested in the everyday mundanity that is life in different decades - I relate more :)
Sure they did! They contributed to your coming into being :)
That's the thing though, information about famous artists, writers, musicians, etc. is generally easily accessible while there is little literature to chronicle the lives of my relatives, so there's more mystery there. Even so, I'm more interested in the everyday mundanity that is life in different decades - I relate more :)
1
...but I'm not remarkable. I am an average Jane who works for her money and has a good time, but that's not interesting, let alone groundbreaking. I don't care about being interesting, though. Too much work.
I relate to everyday life too, but just because I relate to something that doesn't mean it will interest me if I read about it. I would much rather read about Picasso than my great-great-great Uncle Pierre. Nothing against Pierre, but Picasso lived a life that broke the mold. Pierre...had kids and lived in Minnesota. Yup.
I relate to everyday life too, but just because I relate to something that doesn't mean it will interest me if I read about it. I would much rather read about Picasso than my great-great-great Uncle Pierre. Nothing against Pierre, but Picasso lived a life that broke the mold. Pierre...had kids and lived in Minnesota. Yup.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 5:36 PM
1
To each their own :)
Obviously I don't expect what interests me to interest everyone else. I'm just here to represent for those who'd rather learn about great-great-great uncle Pierre :)
Obviously I don't expect what interests me to interest everyone else. I'm just here to represent for those who'd rather learn about great-great-great uncle Pierre :)
1
Heh-heh...I pretty much told you all there is to him. Grandma says he was a nice guy.
Your viewpoint is just as valid as mine, so it's all good.
Your viewpoint is just as valid as mine, so it's all good.
1
This is why I wish I had a holosuite ala Star Trek. I'd have infinite fun recreating historical events with slight twists to see what would happen - but the problem would be that it would still be inaccurate because little things can change history. (I spend waaaay too much time thinking about things like that.)
In the end, you're right. My great-great-great grandmother had seven kids out of wedlock, most likely by different men. I have no idea who my great-great-great grandfather was or his life. While I carry his genes in me and I exist because of him there really isn't any other connection.
In the end, you're right. My great-great-great grandmother had seven kids out of wedlock, most likely by different men. I have no idea who my great-great-great grandfather was or his life. While I carry his genes in me and I exist because of him there really isn't any other connection.
1