St. Joseph's Day - advice for Sfince di San Giuseppe for gluten free folks and a bit of history

This my friends, is a sfinge (sfince in Italiano). Flickr user Howard Wallfish shows off the colors of it nicely here, with the ricotta, orange peel, and cherry. 

My family was not exceptionally into the Italian feast holidays. I suspect is has to do with the fact that the US was not a friendly place for Italians during the WWII era and many Italian Americans outside the major strongholds like Brooklyn decided it was better to fit in and provide a good life for their children than stick with feasts and other events. 

St. Joseph's day, however, has always been a special thing for me. I always try to wear green for my grandmother on March 17 for St. Patrick and red on March 19 for my grandfather. They were always so close to each other, it only seems fitting that their respective races have their major holidays only two days apart. Even when I was 16 hours away from my extended family, it was my little way of putting a connection back together. 

Most Italian American families have traditions that go back to the Middle Ages. When there were famines in Italy, especially in Southern Italy, the poor families relied on their faith to keep going. St. Joseph is the protector of the Holy Family (for those of you non-Christians out there that's the baby Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and himself). So the people would pray to him to end the famine, and they would celebrate when the famine ended by celebrating and making offerings with fish, with bread, and for dessert, sfingi, using the best of the foods that were preserved for use (waste not, want not). The candied orange peel would traditionally be the last bit of the oranges that were preserved over the winter to prevent scurvy, the cherries, soaked in alcohol to preserve them, and the ricotta, the last of the whey left over from making cheese from sheep, cow, goat, or Italian water buffalo milk.   

Now before we get into the advice about gluten free sfinge, a word.

Sfinge is NOT Zeppole. Those of you who don't like ricotta filling can just suck it. Even the bakers admit they only make zeppole for St. Joseph's Day because they have to for pitiful American palates. If you're going to gorge on this many calories, you should go for the real thing. There, now that is out of my system...

The question becomes after that, what do you do if you're gluten free, and like most Italian-Americans, making food for the St. Joseph's Day feast? 

Let's start with these:

Nichole from Gluten Free on a Shoestring has an amazing recipe for creme puffs that would give you the base recipe that you need in order to make the dough for real Sfinge. If you were being 100% traditional, you would want to fry them, but I think they're at least a little healthier if you bake them. 

Then, the next step would be filling. Let's go back to the traditional filling: ricotta, chocolate, sugar, grated or candied orange peel, and crème de cacao (though I think you can do w/o it). There you go! Gluten free Sfingi di San Giuseppe. 

If you want to admire some gorgeous Sfinge di San Giuseppe, you need to check out the blog at Pane, Burro e Marmellata.

Update: Osgood scarf

So an update on the Osgood scarf - I'm progressing through it, though its probably only about 10% done. It's looking very nice so far, I've been pleased with how enjoyable it is to knit the ribbing. The white/clay sections are the most annoying by far. I've come to decide that is because I enjoy knitting the colors much more.

For those of you working on a scarf of your own, StarCATs over at Ravelry has done an insanely excellent job of compiling the data we know and making the observations on the row counts, fringe, and edges of the scarf. If you're interested, I would recommend going over to Rav and checking out her project page which has a graphic with the row counts that is very useful.

I've mainly been working on it when my hands hurt too much to crochet toys at the tight gauge they need to be at, so I don't think its doing bad for working on it here and there.

Part 3: Here's the positive way of dealing with New Genealogists

I decided to move this column up a bit to explain the end of the series before the weekend, based on the amount of comments I received on Google+.

So what happened to David? Well, I decided to write a forum with my frustrations and see if someone else could see something that I could not. 

Name: David Ingerson 

Marriage to Almira Drake 1821 Evans Mills, Jefferson Co, New York, United States 

Kid 1 Eneas Ingerson, b. 1832 NY 

Census 1850 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 

Marriage to Elizabeth Graves 1852 

Mary J Ingerson, b. 1852 NY

Jay Eugene Ingerson, b. 1857 NY 

Census 1860 Macomb, St Lawrence, New York, United States 

Military 1864 Private, 92nd New York Infantry 

Census 1870 Forester, Sanilac, Michigan, United States 

Census 1880 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 

Death 23 April 1886 Gouverneur, St Lawrence, New York

I've updated "Super David" above in bold with things that have moved further along the proof line. What does this map from Wikipedia have to do with anything? It represents something that I hadn't previously considered - that it was easier than expected to get between New York and Michigan at the time because of the railroad. Am I farther along in providing David's full line? No, but I have significant progress and I've also impacted several other folks in this same area (Elizabeth Graves Ingerson's family, in particular).

As most of you are probably saying, this is a charming aside, but what does it have to do with anything? I use this as an episode in how working with others, even those who don't know the ESM standard for evidence and have scrapbooks of census info and other documents and have trees on Ancestry can be helpful in pointing out how to critically evaluate evidence. 

And that's what is missing from this treatment of new genealogists in the field. We are not using our opportunity to teach people critical thinking and evidence evaluation. We are in short, cutting off our own nose to spite our face. What's so frustrating is that social media offers so many opportunities to do better. In short:
1. We can go into depth and share our information with more people than ever before, thanks to blogs, online sources like Ancestry.com, Fold3, FindmyPast.co.uk, and many digital sources at our local libraries, like Early American Newspapers, 19th Century British Newspapers, and Heritage Quest, to name a few!
2. We can EXPLAIN in great detail the how, the when, and the why behind our decisions in making our trees. We are not limited by the length of the words that can fit on the page.
3. We can use many platforms to enhance the knowledge of folks who live even in the farthest reaches of the world.

If every genealogy blogger out there took the time to write one blog about a particular situation they faced and how they solved it, the world's knowledge base of genealogy would be greatly advanced, and for the folks that are choosing to learn about genealogy, represent a base of knowledge that could help them pick up their own critical thinking skills and be able to make the decision whether or not to add that 53,002nd person, or to walk away and work on a person in there existing tree.

In short, instead of throwing up our hands, calling them collectors and railing against what is immovable, we could give an effort to making things change, and then working on our own ability to manage what's out there. All we can control is what we do, not what THEY do.

As a result, my approach to these people has changed. Instead of sending angry rants to my genealogy buds about this, I'm trying really hard to make my approach to try and explain to people what is not correct, and then working on my own response to the issue. It is their onus whether or not they will take me up on learning why what they have is not correct. I can continue to use their research as a way to point me in a direction, but I will continue to critically evaluate every point in an ancestor's life, no matter what the source.

Part 2: The Pitfall of Vilification of New Genealogists

So in part 1 I talked about the frustration of the vilification of all new genealogists, asking folks to throw away years of work or take their work offline or follow a so-called "expert's" standard from an online forum.

I can see where that might be mystifying to many genealogists, who really don't use social media for genealogy. But I will keep going with the negative issues associated with this vilification for the moment (rest assured, tomorrow's post will conclude with some positive ways to focus) for the moment. Please bear with me.

So what's the problem with hating on the new people? #1. It teaches you to be sloppy.

Recently, I decided to write up a series of blog posts  on a couple that I've been working on for 3 years with little luck and little family interest in trying to see what happened to them, David Ingerson and Elizabeth Ann Graves.

Those blogs are still in draft mode. Why? Because I realized that I was following in this trap. I recently discovered a very small piece of information about David Ingerson online. Curious, I click on the Mundia link  given by Google and see:

See that last part? Let me zoom in for you.

Yes, that says 53,692 people in this person's tree. ::facepalm::

Now, I was about to do as most of the other online forum members would do - roll my eyes, dismiss this person's research, and assume that it was bad. What could I do? It was so frustrating! Yet I found the brain power to follow the advice in my opening pic. "Check myself before I wreck myself!" 

Here's the thing. Yes, this person's research was TERRIBLE. But it made me stop and think to evaluate MY research. So I compiled what I have affectionately dubbed "Super David" with ALL of my research put together:

“Super David” Ingerson 

Child of Jonathan Ingerson and Abigail Scofield ?
Birth 29 Apr 1801 Saratoga, Saratoga, New York, United States ?
Marriage to Almira Drake 1821 Evans Mills, Jefferson Co, New York, United States 
Kid 1 Eneas Ingerson, b. 1832 NY 
Census 1850 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 
Marriage to Elizabeth Graves 1852 
Mary J Ingerson, b. 1851 NY 
Jay Eugene Ingerson, b. 1857 NY 
Census 1860 Macomb, St Lawrence, New York, United States 
Military 1864 Private, 92nd New York Infantry 
Census 1870 Forester, Sanilac, Michigan, United States 
Death 13 May 1872 Sanilac, Sanilac, Michigan, United States ?
Census 1880 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 
Death 23 April 1886 Gouverneur, St Lawrence, New York

This compilation of facts that have been put together across multiple years of research shows the mess that Super David is in. 2 deaths, a semi-proven parentage (? standing for questionable data in this case, blogs really aren't the best place for me to pull all the sources together without writing up a full case study). 

So I dug into each fact individually, taking each piece of evidence on its face. 

And I would have probably thrown the computer out the window if I could have. Instead, I substituted my rage for knitting, and calmed right back down.

Tomorrow: the conclusion of the story, and why the world is not doomed because of all these new genealogists

Part 1: Vilifying the Work of New Genealogists

Warning: the following contains genealogy opinion and is the start of a new series for the week. This chilling image of the Fascists is from the Wolfsonian-FIU Library in Miami Beach, Florida. It's really interesting how propagandists used images like this to de-humanize the view of the enemy.

I am strongly getting that impression when it comes to the current state of genealogy. Folks are lining up to vilify the newest genealogists coming into the field (and no, you should not get an image of old people knocking young people here, it is across all ages!) and those folks who are working from sites like Ancestry.com as being stupid, illiterate, degenerate, "doing it wrong", "not real genealogists", "not real family historians", "name collectors", and too unintelligent to follow the "rules". And that these folks view anyone who even breathes the word "source" or "formatting" as "elitists".

It's disheartening to see so many folks dismissed from such an interesting hobby that can help you with so many life skills. And like the old argument that "German = Fascist" which caused so many Germans to be shunned in WWII, "Muslim = Terrorist" which causes so many folks from across the spectrum to be wrongly ostracized or accused, and "American = fat, lazy, stupid" which has caused all smart Americans to masquerade as Canadians abroad, we need to stop playing with a stereotype. And what's worse? The folks who are leading the charge are the genealogy elite - Michael J. LeClerc, for example. I won't call all of them out, because I think its pointless. I doubt they're going to listen and will just continue driving the wedge between the generations until no one dares whisper the word genealogist for fear of being called a snobby, elitist, obsessive.

What does it do to a new genealogist or family historian's self worth when experienced genealogists say they have to delete everything and start over because they made so many mistakes? Or when we say their work is worthless, their platform is awful, and that they've stolen all their work?

We end up with a lot of new folks who are frustrated, think that we're a bunch of elitists and aren't willing to give genealogy another shot and leave the hobby, because they've done their work and there's no reason to continue. When in actuality, there are SO many reasons to continue.

What is happening in the field is that I see more and more folks chillingly cut out of the very conversations that would benefit them, because of intensity of derogatory language, and the "demands" of a few people who deem that they know better than all. And I'm not talking about the educated experts like Elizabeth Shown Mills, Geoffrey Rasmussen, James Tanner, Marien Pierre-Louis, Michael Hait, Judy Russell, Thomas MacEntee, Elise Powell, or Maureen Taylor (for example). I'm talking about online forum posters and group members for the most part.

I am actively involved in genealogy on Facebook, Twitter, Ravelry, and several other informal forum groups. In recent weeks (mostly spurred on by LeClerc's article) there have been posts where people are denigrated for wanting to find further education and not knowing where to go, for having their tree published online at all, and in many answers, urged to "throw away all that crap so that you can start over" (in this case an answer to someone who had inherited their parents' 30+ years of research! And others who were made out to be villains for even thinking about putting their tree online at all, because that's just "giving it away" and "everyone will steal it" and still others told that they should just stop doing genealogy unless they were willing to following X standard.

Tomorrow: let's play what's wrong with this picture. 

Be a fan. Stop beating yourself up over it. No more dissing fangirls and fanboys.

I've been ruminating on this topic since I went to Chicago TARDIS and one of the topics was called "Moffat Fangirls". There's still a real stigma against showing enthusiasm for anything unless it fits with social norms. For guys, that's sports and for ladies, that's cooking and fashion.

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiam"
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Do you want to know who was the first fanboy?

Hello, Pope Sixtus! (Thanks Titian for the great portrait, courtesy of Wikipedia). In 1471, Pope Sixtus donated some sculptures to the Musei Capitolini in Rome with the intention of showing off their awesomeness (Okay, awesomeness might not have been a word then, but the concept is the same).

So when did we go from the Pope to this?

Clearly meant as satirical, and yet, that's the vision people have of the fan. Crazed, screaming, nuts, and other such nonsense.

Clue yourself in: fans of anything are great! It doesn't matter if your thing is a geek thing, a Japanese thing, a zombie thing, a music thing, or a movie thing. It just matters that you feel and interact with other people that feel the same way. As long as you don't retreat into that world as a substitute for your own world (which can be unhealthy), being a fan of something is fun, easy, can be as low or as high of a cost as you want, and can bring a little sunshine to your life.

I recently watched the video of the inimitable Tavi Gevinson, and what she says makes a lot of sense. Be a fan. Enjoy it. Figure out why it means so much to you. And have fun.

I'm Stuck. The Story of Nathaniel Mitchell Clark and Almedia Van Koughnet

Okay, so I'm in an interesting situation. I have a couple that disappear in Ontario after 1877 and I'm thinking there's something wrong with the research. I beg your assistance, please! There has to be something I'm not seeing here. There are four scenarios that I see: 

1. The Almedia Clark died in 1873 is my 3rd great grandmother.
2. The other majority (including myself) is right and there's an Almedia Storring out there to find. 
3. There's a huge combination of errors here leading me to completely erroneous conclusions.
4. There's such a huge lack of missing information that's what's causing the problem. 

What would you suggest to do next? I'll give you the background, and see what you think.

Let me begin at the beginning. Almedia VanKoughnet (sometimes listed as Van Coughnette) was born in Frdericksburg, Lennox & Addington Co, Ontario in 1827. She marries Nathaniel Mitchell Clark, has 7 children (Margaret, Hulda, William James, Foster, Rhoda, Mahala, and Georgiana) between 1846 and 1864. I've got her nailed down in Madoc, Hastings Co, Ontario, in 1852, and then in Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario in 1861. The two censuses I have about Nathaniel Mitchell Clark say he was born in Canada about 1823. (Note: when they were married is a big question mark. We have no evidence of the marriage.)

1852 census of Madoc, Hastings, Ontario

1861 census of Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario

Now here's where the research I have lead differs from some of the other researchers. There's an Almedia Van Koughnet recorded as having a child with Gilbert O. Storing in 1869, and they are in the 1871 census as having the Clark children and Frances Victoria Storing in Kennebec.

"1952-69 (Frontenac Co) STORING, Frances Victoria, f, b. 20 Dec. 1869, father - Gilbert O. STORING, sawyer, mother - Almeda VANCOUGHNETTE (s/b Vankoughnet), infm - father, Kennebec"

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~births/Sto_Sz_Surnames.htm

1871 census of Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario

So that would lead me to conclude that Nathaniel probably died in between 1861 and 1871. Thing is, I can't find a marriage for Almedia and Gilbert AND I can't seem to find a death for Nathaniel, either. It would be a little early for a death for Nathaniel (age 38-48), but not unheard of for the time period.

But then, there's a death record for an Almedia Clark, died 18 April 1873, age 42 in South Fredericksburg, Lennox & Addington, Ontario, and the witness was William M. Clark. But the age is off (not by a lot) and the change in the middle initial is making me suspicious that this is not correct.

Ontario Death Record for an Almedia Clark, d. 18 April 1873

So now we are split. There's about half of us that believe that we should be looking for an Almeda Storring, and another half that believes the Almedia Clark who died in 1873 is our woman, and Nathaniel's death wasn't recorded (for whatever reason).

And from there...excepting Foster, who ends up in the US, my 2nd great grandmother Mahala, and Georgiana, who has one appearance in the 1881 census, the entire family drops off the map. Just gone.

As a side note, Gilbert survives them all, living until age 92 until he passes away as a destitute widower in Dover, Kent, Ontario on 5 June 1910.

Ontario Death Record for Gilbert Storring, d. 5 June 1910.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Just as a side note, here's some additional information about the family:

Nathaniel Mitchell Clark
1823-
(Last mention: 1861)

Almedia Vankoughnet
1827-
(Last mention: 1871)

Margaret Clark
1846-
(Last mention: 1861)

Hulda Clark
1848-
(Last mention: 1867)

William James Clark
1849-
(Last mention: 1871)

Foster Clark
1852-
(Last mention: 1911)

Rhoda Clark
1855-
(Last mention: 1877)

Mahala Jane Clark
1861-1932
(Last mention: 1932)

Georgiana Clark
1864-
(Last mention: 1881)

Gilbert O. Storing
1818-1910
(disappears from 1871-1910)

Frances Victoria Storing
1869-
(Last mention: 1871)

A Year of Scarves by Susan Huxley

I don't often repost things, just because I think it's kind of like open book tests. Someone already wrote this thing, and then I put it here, and by association, I'm supposed to sound knowledgeable.

But, sometimes good content is too hard to not repost.

"Every day this year I'm giving you free instructions for a scarf. Every. Day. Knit, crochet, or a combination of both. Here, I'm going to talk about the creative process for that day's featured work. There will be a photo. And a link over to Ravelry.com to download your instructional pdf.

But act fast if you like something because the next day those instructions won't be free. Inexpensive, but not free. You can also buy an entire week or month of instructions for less than getting each one individually.

Wait 'til you see what's in store for you...The fun begins on January 1. See you then!

All the best,
Susan Huxley"

So you see, you need to go over to the Year of Scarves blog and sign up for her RSS feed or emails in order to find out about each scarf every day. And get them while you can, because they won't be free the following day!  She's a knitter AND a crocheter so there are equal opportunity freebies for all!

Screw the simple life, I'll take moderation please.

Ah, January. The time of year when everyone starts to claim an inner need to clean out their houses, work out more, work on their marriages, hug their kids more, and in general, set asinine resolutions that won't last more than a month for 99.8% of people (yes, I acknowledge there are some of you leprechauns out there, but you're very, very rare).

So if you go on Pinterest right now, its full of "Why our grandparents lived better" including "eating better" "buying better" and "living better". And then on the other side you see "yes, but they had disease" "their food selection sucked" "they starved some years" "their houses were teeny" "they didn't have any money" "they hated anything new"

but the overwhelming refrain throughout all these articles is that "You should live the simple life". Buy only a modest amount of things, don't eat too much, walk to work, and come home to dinner on the table (and depending on the age of the author, sometimes even "and a martini made" as well).

You know what? That whole idea SUCKS. Let's just say what everyone is thinking. Restricting your life down to the bare essentials is a lot of effort. You end up focusing on what you can't have, and end up bitter and angry that your life wasn't better. You end up being that person at the party who complains about what you don't have, and how you really need X but can't get it. That life is awful. That's why our grandparents wanted us to do better, have more, and live more.

Gosh, this sounds awful negative, doesn't it? Some people enjoy the martyrdom of that situation. Not me. That's why I was so pleased when I read this article.

This part is the part that really makes a lot of sense to the modern person with the knowledge of the vintage life:

"Give yourself permission to only keep the things that are currently useful, despite who gave them to you or how much they cost.   This can be really hard, especially at first.  That’s where the ruthless part comes in.  As you sort through your things, ask yourself these questions:

1. Do we use it, wear it, or play with it?  If it is clothes, does it still fit?
2. Is it in good working condition?
3. Does it enrich our lives in some way?
4. Does it have sentimental value?
5. Could someone else use it more?

It  is helpful to make 4 categories:  1.) Things to keep in this area,  2.) things to donate,  3.) things to throw away, and 4.) things to put elsewhere (keepsake box, seasonal items, or things that belong in a different room).  Once you’ve cleared an area and put away all the items that belong elsewhere, move on to the next area.  Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Read more at http://www.livingwellspendingless.com/2013/08/27/clutter-free-forever-vintage-tips-for-an-organized-home/#6QeweGjjdH2bKB9r.99"

How brilliant is that? A simple system that can help you manage the flow of objects, digital and physical in your house in the smartest way possible without all the preaching about "the simple life". She's really trying to help people here with a way to live that our grandparents DID understand and I think did almost intuitively.

I remember my grandparents kept a lot of stuff in their houses, too. In fact, I think I may have called them a hoarder on a time or two, on both sides of the family. But I also remember that anytime anyone needed anything, you were more than welcome to use what was there. Mess up your shirt? See if one in the laundry room fits. Break your bike? Grandpa's probably got a metal piece he can weld to fix it up. They had less sentimental value to the things and took value from anything in good working condition and how it could be used.

What I think we most forget is that the value in the item doesn't come from where it came from or what its supposed to do or who sold what to us. We're sold a constant bill of goods from every angle in life, including our friends and family, that we absolutely NEED the latest gadgets or latest foods or latest toys. Choosing to ignore this bill of goods is less about letting things go and more about determining what to keep and what to let into your life.

It's not an easy nor quick process, but I think that Ruth's practice of keeping the positive in the process rather than the negative is the better way to go. Her idea of moderation and controlling the flow of items into our life is a way better practice than staring restriction and negativity in the face. 

The Perils of the Digital Age

Scare Devil by Piers Nye (doesn't he just look freaky?)

I bet you're thinking "OMG, not another blog telling us you can't go online or else you're going to lose all your friends, get fat and DIE". 

LOL. No such thing here, I swear. I've been reading I am Alive by Cameron Jace (Excellent, by the way, if you liked the Hunger Games you'll like it) and one of the things they talk about is your digital trail. How much you are monitoring, what you are monitoring, and how it can be eventually used against you by a psychotic half-machine, half-human dictator. 

But it got me thinking - even if you don't have a half-machine, half-human dictator on your hands, just how much of a digital trail are you leaving that you never use? 

So I started to go through my favorites on my computer last night. This is one of the better examples. I've bookmarked the same recipes 2 and 3 times over that I use all the time. In other cases, I had bookmarked the same location over 30 times! I realized this might be because of syncing my bookmarks and never caring to figure out how to clean up after the sync was complete.

I love all my favorite sites (especially Bell Pepper soup! LOL) but I forget that even though digital items don't take up actual space, they still clutter up your life. You shouldn't delete everything (that would be silly) but taking some pains to think about how and when you need things digitally and how to organize them is just as important as thinking about physical items. 

In this case, I remember being so frustrated I couldn't find my bloody soup recipe I think I bookmarked it over and over, trying to make sure that I remembered. After restructuring (and deleting all the duplicates), its now safely in the "Food" folder of my bookmarks in an easy to manage list. And my genealogy links reappeared, making me remember several sites I had forgotten (US FOIA requests, anyone?)

Seriously. I deleted over 2000 duplicate links. My bookmarks look pretty sweet now and I can access them all under "Most Used" "Personal" "Work" "School" "Crafts" "Genealogy" "Food" and "Cookie Monster" (my favorite time suck). 

When was the last time you thought about your digital footprint?