Avoiding US-centrism in Discovery Person Pages
Hi, as this is a globally used service would it be possible for the "World Events" items on the lower right of a deceased person's Discovery Person Page to avoid including default information that only affected the US? For example the page for my late Canadian father, who was born and died in Canada and lived most of his life in Canada, and who reverenced the ideas of Canadian George Grant's book "Lament for a Nation", inexplicably has a reference to the year of the adoption of a US national anthem.
"1931 ... The Star-Spangled Banner is adopted as the national anthem".
Knowing dad, if he had an opportunity to see this he might have spent a couple of hours enlarging on the theme that the country to the south was again showing that they presumed everyone's life revolved around uniquely US events.
It may have been more appropriate for his Discovery Person page to instead say:
"1965 .... The red maple leaf is adopted as the national flag" or
"1980 ... "'O Canada' became the official national anthem"
However few would assume that to refer to a uniquely Canadian item as "the" official national anthem was appropriate without also inserting the word "Canadian". Dad would ask why is it therefore okay to throw in a uniquely US item without at least qualifying that it occurred and affected only people in the US, if they were going to include it at all? Why use the word "the" alone?
Therefore perhaps it would be best to omit references to any uniquely US items at all if there was a chance that those items would appear in the page of someone who was not from the US.
Other examples of items that appear on my Canadian Nationalist dad's page and would have stuck in his craw include "1967 - The Twenty Fifth Amendment".
In contrast, other items on his page are appropriate, for example the 1929 stock market crash in the US affected the whole world, or the 1948 beginning of the cold war after the blockade of Berlin. Thank you for including the 1982 Constitution Act (only in the UK was it known as the Canada Act) and the second Sovereignty-Association defeat. He was especially aware of the second of those items.
Thank you
Comments
-
Agreed, the "World Events" I have seen on my family members' Discovery Person pages have detracted rather than added to their pages. No offense to the Old Hansen Planetarium in Utah, but I do not think it qualifies as a "World Event."
1 -
FYI
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
'Yes' ...
There are MANY of us, Users/Patrons, who are NOT even from "North America", let alone the USA.
And, the majority of our Ancestor, DID NOT, venture (ie. Migrate) to "North America".
Admitted, some did/may have; but, NOT that many.
Now ...
That Said ...
I take a different 'tack' altogether ...
The "World Events" (ie. "Historical Events"), in BOTH,
(1) the 'Time-Line', of an individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of Familysearch';
AND, ...
(2) the "Discovery Pages", for an individual/person in the more RECENT "Ancestors.FamilySearch" [ .org ] Part, of 'FamilySearch',
is BOTH, "Controversial"; and, "Divisive' ...
Although, originally well intentioned, meant to be, additional interesting facts, about "World Events" (ie. "Historical Events"), during an Ancestor's life time, the perception of ANY "World Event" (ie. "Historical Event"), is in the 'eye of the beholder' ...
In other words, a (ie. the SAME) "World Event" (ie. "Historical Event"), may well, be quite acceptable/appreciated by one particular User/Patron; but, may be totally, unacceptable/unappreciated, by another User/Patron.
Even people, in the same "Country"; and, in the same "Culture", CANNOT always agree ...
That is just 'human nature' ...
EVEREYONE has their own perception; as, to what, is; or, is not, an acceptable/appreciated "World Event" (ie. "Historical Event").
And, the OTHER problem/issue, that exists is ...
What should; and, what should NOT, be included, in "List", that appears for "World Events" (ie. "Historical Events").
That can be very subjective; and, who (in 'FamilySearch', in this case) gets to make the "Decision".
Personally, due to the 'sensitivities' (and, 'perceptions'), of BOTH,
(1) ALL the VARIOUS Users/Patrons, of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', from ALL around the World;
AND, ...
(2) EVERYONE, in the World, that can and will access, the "Discovery Pages", for an individual/person, in the more RECENT "Ancestors.FamilySearch" [ .org ] Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
There is an EASY fix ...
I would humbly suggest, that 'FamilySearch' would be, 'better off', simply, "Removing"; and, dispensing with, the "World Events" (ie. "Historical Events"), altogether, from BOTH,
(1) the 'Time-Line', of an individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of FamilySearch';
AND, ...
(2) the "Discovery Pages", for an individual/person in the more RECENT "Ancestors.FamilySearch" [ .org ] Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Doing so, would STOP all the, "Controversy"; and, "Divisiveness", regarding "World Events" (ie. "Historical Events").
And, such, would ALSO be better in keeping, with the ethos of 'FamilySearch' ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0
