Rules of engagement

[Marge Smith]

My concern has been the "hard documentation". And that all depends on the ability of the person doing the search.

If that person is unaware of sources to be searched, it is too difficult, or it is too time-consuming to come up with the hard documentation, then it is easy to fall back to "Historical Plausability".

Great discussion, I'm learning much.

Marge

[Greg Carter]

A person has to want to find the documentation in order to find it. Although, as Pete said, there are many gaps in the historical records, there are many complete records as well.

When I first became involved in this group, My friend Matt and I had spent a year doing research after being snubbed by another group (not the OLRHS). In that time we found many people who have found historical accuracy "too time consuming" and given in to costume of their liking.

While it is easy to fall back on "plausability" as anyone who has ever visited a rendezvous will tell you, that extra step to do things right makes the end result that much more rewarding. Individual research or group research pooled together, rather than just piggybacking off of others can produce excellent results that never are "too time consuming".

GMC

[pshrake]

Marge,
I share your concern about hard documentation. However, I believe the "proof is in the pudding" so to speak. A historian should be able to readily provide the necessary documentation. I am always skeptical when a book does not contain good foot notes or for that matter any citation at all. Even a good Bibliography can provide good clues as to the foundation of a scholars research. Unfortunately most local historians fail to include any foot notes or endnotes or any bibliography in thier work.

The same can be said for reenacting or museums. A reenactor should be able and really should be willing to provide the vistitor or fellor reenactors with the sources of thier information. Likewise, Museums should have research files readily available to the public.

When a historian is unwilling to share any of thier research or fail to provide any documentation, then I get suspicious.

I also agree that this is a really facinating discussion.

Pete Shrake

[Marge Smith]

Pete,
Who is responsible? - speaking mostly of local history issues.

The trolley tour in Galena has its own version of Galena history. All those people who paid their money go away with erroneous information. If the city demands a history test of all tour guides, who will judge it?

A recent house tour in Galena advertised that it was a Sears & Roebuck house. According to a person who I trust, it was not. Another house was rented, lived-in, or some type of thing by Al Capone, the Chicago gangster. Why even the bullet proof windows are still in storage in the basement.

A B&B owner is taking people on evening strolls to visit all the Galena ghosts. They have done much research, they say. Currently there alot of ghosts living in Galena. I think it has something to do with a fault line that runs thru Galena that sometimes shakes things up.

But then there are the other types. A Saturday visitor to the Galena History Room started by researching his class for their 50th high school graduation celebration. He is now researching all the cigar factories muttering "this stuff gets to you, you get hooked." He is using primary sources and working hard.

Another gal is searching all the old newspapers for clues about the history of Scales Mound. Others are researching leadmining and riverboats. One college student after climbing the charred rafters of Turner Hall started researching that building.

All the hype and publicity seems to go those who have not done their homework. Who is responsible, I don't know.
Marge

[pshrake]

I share your frustration Marge.

I agree that the irresponsible often get more credit than they deserve. I see this quite often in my job, and at reenactments here in Wisconsin. It can sometimes drive one to distraction. I think these people succeed mainly because they are better showmen than historians.

The best thing to do is simply to ignore them, to continue to do the best work one can, to meet and talk with others who are as serious as you.

It may sound silly to say but...

It is also important to work with these idiots. I have generally believed in the philosophy that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. On that line of thinking, if one works with the irresponsible idiots in a positive way, you can over time have a positive impact on the way they view the past.

Im not saying one can change the world, but the alternative is to continuously criticize, and drive them away. When that happens there is no chance of these kinds of people from effctively learning from the hard, good research that is out there.

In the end I also believe that even the irresponsible historians provide some benefit.

As you well know, a student of history often works alone, when we do our research it is by ourselves, rarely with others. I guess my point is, even the idiots can inspire someone to get more involved. By having a overdamatic, or inaccurate but catchy interpretation, it my lead someone to go out and get a book on the subject, or to visit a museum, or a historic site and begin the process of learning.

I know this sounds a bit nieve, But I have come to the conclusion that it simply is too much work to get upset over these people.

In time, the good work of historians continues to build and raise the barr of knowlege, reguardless of bablings of the irresponsible historian.

Pete Shrake

[Marge Smith]

Pete

You are quite the philosopher.

Perhaps the responsibility lies with people like me who have a passion for research but hate the writing.

My New Year's Resolution is to start writing it down.

Marge

[Greg Carter]

Pete & Marge,

you both bring up important points here. I find that people get the wrong information because they are drawn to the people telling the wrong story... for example-

At the Adams-Friendship event we attended, we were there to show historical accuracy of some kind, as opposed to the other "historians" on the premises. Unfortunately for us, the run-of-the-mill spectator is often drawn to the big and loud rather than the correct and quiet. I mean, who is louder- the solitary OLRHS member with a musket or the dingy "mountain man" doing a dance in front of his tipi, blowing a buffalo horn, screaming 'fire in the hole' and shooting off a miniature naval carronade painted with kokopellis?

It is often the same scenario in Civil War reenacting and I imagine other periods also. Most people at most mainstream Civil War events are drawn to the camp with the largest tents and all the camp junk, all the meanwhile the mess of campaigners squatting around a fire off in the distance are deemed "boring", despite their zeal for historical accuracy. (disclaimer here- at the 2002 Lincoln-Tallman event the spectators found Bob Pagel's bacon cooking very interesting ;D)

I agree with what you said about working with the people who are inaccurate. I can say without hesitation that my Civil War reenacting style changed drastically when I met Mr. Braun and saw that doing better is not really harder or painstaking activity. On the other hand, I have found that many people who are doing things incorrectly just have absolutely no desire to fix their problem items. It is much easier to ignore accuracy than to clean up one's act. This is the most disappointing thing.

GMC