You probably know what an Irish wake is.
Did you know that in Ireland they once had “American” Wakes?
It’s simple really. During the 19th century there was a veritable flood of emigration in Ireland.
Economic and political circumstances forced young people to leave family, friends, and home for the hope of a better life in America.
Before they left, they would pay their last respects to their loved ones while they were still alive.
Why hold a wake for the living?
Because, in the vast majority of cases, they would never see them again. And, in many cases they would never hear from them again either.
Still think Social Media is a waste of time?
Think about it. What would a Tweet or a Facebook picture would have been worth to the mother of an Irish emigrant in 1860.
Why 1860? That’s the year my Great-great grandparents emigrated from Ireland.
Or a 16 year old girl from Germany in 1908 (my grandmother). Makes you really think how different their lives would have been.
It is staggering sometimes to think what our ancestors went through when they emigrated.
Very nicely done, me Irish friend.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The American Wake. Rendered unnecessary by Facebook? « open Mike -- Topsy.com
I’m sorry but your logic doesn’t hold up. In 1860 people had the facebook of the day. It was called letter writing. Today, anyone who keeps in touch with loved ones via social media *alone* I would say isn’t much of a person.
You are also confusing the relationship of today’s nuclear family with a nuclear family of yesteryear. Children were meant to leave home. Daughters in particular were their father’s “possessions” and then became their husband’s “possessions.” Read The Midwife’s Diary by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Here a mother refers to her daughters by given name until they marry and then calls them Daughter Jones for the rest of her life.
This is not to say that parents and children didn’t love each other. However, that love was different than today. Many parents didn’t form strong attachments merely because they knew that a significant portion of their children wouldn’t reach adulthood.
Martin, no need to apologize for seeing it differently. I appreciate and value a variety of perspectives.
My intent was not to suggest that social media, as you put it, *alone* is the way we should keep in touch. I was attempting to point out the advantage that we have today.
I understand that the world was a different place in 1860. But I don’t think people were as different as you suggest.
Thank you for chiming in.
Martin, I’m sorry, your logic doesn’t hold up.
That phrase sounds differently when you hear it directed at yourself than when you say it to someone else, doesn’t it?
And I mean it with the same sincerity and kindness that you directed to Mike.
Human connection is made in two ways: touching or voice. Prior to the invention of the telephone, that wasn’t possible if people lived in distant places. Letter writing and facebook are interchangeable. They both rely upon the written word to substitute for an in-person meeting. So whether the people of 1860 had facebook or not, that human contact was lost. Substituting facebook for letter writing wouldn’t help. Likewise today, if you think facebook in any way, shape or form substitutes for an actual visit, you really need help. So my logic holds up.
Insofar as genealogy blogs and comments thereto are all one big group hug for the most part, I’m sorry if you find my comments off-putting.
Martin,
Your comments themselves are not off-putting. I disagree with you, but that’s OK. There is nothing off-putting about a variety of perspectives.
What is off-putting is your apparent need to be negative or derogatory. “If you think…you really need help.” Statements such as those demonstrate, quite frankly, arrogance and disrespect. I can disagree with you respectfully without such statements or tactics.
Having said that, I would suggest you consider a March, 2007 article published in The American Behavioral Scientist.
Here is a partial quote:
“In opposition to traditional studies that identified communities with particular residential units-usually urban neighborhoods or small rural villages-it was necessary to study a community as a network of relations, not as a spatially defined unit. The community was not a “place” but a network of meaningful social relations with friends, relatives, and work colleagues who did not necessarily belong to the same residential unit. Entirely in keeping with the anthropological tradition, therefore, American structural analysts conceived the community in terms of interpersonal relations and studied it with the tools of network analysis.”
The point is that there is more to the human connection than touch and voice. You see our ability to connect as limited, I do not.
I do not think you need help, I simply see it differently.
Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to this discussion. They made me examine my position more closely and that is always beneficial.
Citation:
Fortunata Piselli. (2007). Communities, Places, and Social Networks. The American Behavioral Scientist, 50(7), 867-878. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1227389531).
Pingback: Open Mike 2010 in review « open Mike