Talk:Daughters of the American Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to the editors[edit]

Note to the editor: The Daughters of the American Revolution extends membership with discrimination today as it did in the past. The group denies membership to those who have been adopted into qualifying families, even in the case when the child is legally said to be born to said qualifying family. In other words, children raised in the system of an old fashioned, closed adoption are barred and denied not only membership, but also the benefits of said membership, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law of the United States of America said individuals are legally recognized as the blood offspring of qualifying families.

Although certainly a rare circumstance, it goes against what the Wikipedia I love so much has published. As an avid user, I believe it to be wrong for you to publish that the D.A.R. extends membership to all of those female descendants of veterans of the American Revolution.

In my case for example, my birth certificate states that I was born to the son of a D.A.R. member. This is a legal birth certificate issued in the state of IL in the USA. It is my only birth certificate. However, as I was adopted by the son of the D.A.R. member at birth, I am not allowed the benefits of membership realized by many of my female relatives.

This is important because the organization, in receipt of federal funding as well as the promotion of American values, acts against the very legal jurisprudence that this country deems vital to American society, that is the protection of the family unit, in this case in the form of the closed system of adoption. In a closed adoption, the value of the blood line is second to the needs of the state. That is, that the family unit, as a building block of society, is more important than the D.A.R.'s geneaological snobbery.

This is the law. Therfore, it is against the legal policy of the United States of America for the D.A.R. to discriminate against me. You see I am not an illegitimate member of a family of descendants of American Revolutionary War veterans--I am legitimate in said family. I deserve to be recognized in this way and it is illegal to do anything but.

This information is not very important. However, it does indeed point out that it is factually incorrect to state that D.A.R. offers membership in these ways. This practice continues the historical pejorative spririt of the D.A.R. More importantly, it bastardizes children already disadvantaged, and this is wrong.

I ask the Wikipedia to edit the D.A.R. entry and reflect their continued practice of discrimination.


Thank you for your consideration,

Colleen M. Boyle c-boyle3@northwestern.edu


Is there a source for this information? Does it appear on their website? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My grandma was refused admission because she couldn't provide enough proof.
-- Al™ 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the main article, NSDAR genealogists evaluate proofs submitted with applications based on accepted genealogical standards. The genealogists also make an effort to find an alternative ancestor for applicants who can't find acceptable proofs for the application they submitted. That may not have been the case when your grandmother applied. I'm a DAR member and I have personally helped applicants successfully find alternative ancestors. Unfortuantely, a lot of ancestors didn't leave the records we would like for them to have left behind.
  • As a SAR member, I'd like to point out that the SAR has the same restrictions. Both organizations are based on blood lines. Even illigitimate "bastard" children can become members, as long as they can prove the blood line. Adoptions which are out of the bloodline are letitimately excluded. It should also be pointed out that these are private organizations. To join the SAR, an existing member must vouch for the applicants "good character", and the applicant must also state that he believes in a Creator. I understand Ms. Boyle's frustration, but maybe she will feel a little better to know that the "benefits" of membership, as far as I can tell, are more about bragging rights than anything of substantial value. Perhaps it is different with the DAR, as they seem to be more well known, and have more policital "clout". Crockspot 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility criteria for DAR membership and information on how to join is on the DAR web site which is linked in the main article. Adopted children are welcome to become members, but they must join through a line from one of their biological parents. An applicant has to prove descent for each generation, starting with the applicant and going back to the patriot generation, just as one does for other lineage societies.. VolunteerMom 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a 48 year DAR:
These responses are enlightening. apparently there have been some modifications since I joined in 1975 and was very active for a number of years thereafter. In later years I have not followed developments as closely on the subject of adoptions. I found the original post a bit unclear, but I have a suggestion prompted by some subsequent clarifications here. I don't know if this might be a first, but if you are the actual biological daughter who was subsequently legally adopted by that same father, you might have a DNA test to prove that. Don't know if that has ever been done or if it would help. It might bolster your claim.
But I caution this one thing. If I read correctly, your father was an SAR. If that is the case and he did not go into SAR through his MOTHER or her line proven by DAR, you have a bit of a problem using his SAR papers. The SAR permits DAR papers as proofs, but the DAR does not accept SAR papers without other proofs. The problem is that the DAR keeps better records than the SAR and is always updating them. You can use the SAR papers to start looking for original records of their claims, and you may find some of those proofs in DAR records or you may have to ferret out originals. If your father used his father's SAR papers, good luck. You will have to prove every single item. 184.19.31.157 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@184.19.31.157 Oops. 48 year DAR again here.
You say your adoptive father was the son of a DAR. You will have to re-prove claims in grandmother's papers. DAR no longer uses "shortform". BUT again, your adoptive father must also be your biological father. Genealogical Socities are strictly by blood, as Crockpot pointed out. 184.19.31.157 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daughters of the American Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion[edit]

About a third of this article concerns race, much of the content over-written, some of it over-emotive, and (significantly) not represented in the lede. These sections could usefully be edited-down to a fraction of their present length, with appropriate hyperlinks to the relevant topics. Valetude (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about the topic, but having tried to gain said knowledge by reading this article, agreed. It has very detailed sections that might not be suitable in an encyclopedic entry that's supposed to briefly cover the most important parts of an organisation. This information can be kept but condensed. /Julle (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since no on had argued against this having too much focus on details since April, I went ahead and trimmed it. My ambition was to keep focus on the actions policies of the organisation. I hope this helps readers getting an understanding of racial discrimination in the DAR, instead of getting lost in details of individual cases. /Julle (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's room for this somewhere else – an individual article on the topic? – but I think it's counterproductive to have three paragraphs about individual events in the 30s – it risks pushing away readers, rather than teaching them. /Julle (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there may have been room for some trimming, the massive cut underplays the import of the DAR's long history of racism (including the involvement of two first ladies in the issues, stories worth telling.) Their exclusion of African Americans for most of the history of their organization and enforcement of segregation is now buried deep in the article, easy to miss, far away from all the other discussion of their history and mentioned not at all in the introduction. There may be a need for a separate article on the issue, but even that wouldn't excuse the deep burial in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nat Gertler: The problem is that as I genuinely wanted to read up on the subject, I found it more difficult to get an understanding of the subject than I'd expect from an enccylopedia. Individual cases could take up three paragraphs. My argument is that the old text was ineffective at explaining it, since it was easy to get lost in the details rather than the big picture; I fear we get worse, not better, at explaining it, as it was. But as always, I could be mistaken, of course. /Julle (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm very happy for someone who knows more than I do about the subject to try their hand at trimming the article, if we agree it needs to be done (do we?). I only did it since no one had reacted here since April.) /Julle (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Heart (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosmary e castetter[edit]

Daughter of American revolution 2600:1702:D70:3990:88A3:1F7:3159:FBD6 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I register?[edit]

I am a daughter of the first Revolution. 2600:4040:3041:F100:7137:8732:538E:164D (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question for Wikipedia. I would suggest taking a look at their website. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution&oldid=1195143668"