The first, by Zoe Williams, provides such "charming" quotes as:
"In all probability, it lacks context - sure, you might find a tinker uncle who went to a Putney debate or was a Chartist, but generally speaking they all just get born, marry and die."
"If therapy is for people with more money than sense, genealogy is for those with more time than either."
"By definition, it lacks high drama - if anyone in your family had ever done anything remotely interesting, nobody else in the family would have stopped talking about it."
If you read the article, make sure you also read the comments by her readers.
The rebuttal is written by Dave Waddell, author of Who Do You Think You Are?, the books accompanying the BBC-TV series of the same name.
So, researching your ancestry is an impediment to understanding the past? That's absurd. It encourages people to engage with history and immerse themselves in the events that shaped our society. The vast majority of us are descended from ordinary working-class folk. These were the people who fought and were killed in wars; who were forced by circumstance into the workhouse; who worked in the mills or were sent down the mines aged 10. And who exactly does Williams believe comprised the "radicals, grassroots movements, that sort of thing"?