Revisionism

It would seem revisionism is part and parcel of U.S. life. In the last few days, Yale has decided to change the name of one of its residential colleges because it is named for white supremacist, John C. Calhoun. It will henceforth be named for Grace M. Hopper, a Yale graduate (PhD) who rose to become a Rear Admiral in the Navy and a pioneer in software development.

 

So what did Parnelli win the 500 in now?
 

Over time I have come to the conclusion that the greatest fish stories are not told by fishermen, but by race drivers.

 

Tom

So what did Parnelli win the 500 in now?
 

 

That was a different Calhoun.  Or should I say an alternative Calhoun, given that he wasn't real.

I am sorry but made up stories are not "alternate facts". Here is my take on alternative facts: Firstly "Trump won the election to become President." The alternative fact is "Clinton lost the election to become President." Both these statements are fact (i.e. true).

I think it's important to keep the distinction between 'alternative facts' and additional facts sacrosanct. An 'alternative' is mutually exclusive from the original, it's an either/or proposition. The only thing truly 'alternative' to a fact is a falsehood. That's why the term has gained such notoriety – it was used as a euphemism for 'BS'. "Clinton lost the election" is an additional fact, not an alternative one.

 

Additional facts can lead to alternative narratives which, unlike alternative facts, are important. Example:

 

Fact: Michael Schumacher won more grands prix than any other driver in history.

 

Narrative: Therefore, Michael Schumacher is the greatest racing driver who ever lived.

 

Additional facts: He drove a dominant car, had a contractually subservient teammate, in an era of more races and increased reliability, etc.

 

Alternative narrative: The more modest statistics of other drivers represent achievements equal to, or greater than, Schumacher's.

 

This is the sort of healthy 'revisionism' that I think the OP refers to.

Edited by PCC, 21 February 2017 - 15:06.

I think that you have only successfully 'modified' the narrative there, using an already available 'explanation', rather than any 'new knowledge'. I think revisionism is only really justified where some 'new knowledge' has emerged. Something to do cheating and traction/launch control would do.

Of course, this sort of remark does tend to suggest continued support for Richard Hofstadter's ideas regarding anti-intellectualism.

 

Post states very clearly that is how historians define and use the term revisionism.

 

Fortunately for the purpose of learning hard lessons without being the victim, the father of three of my nephews and nieces was first a street hustler before he turned to armed robbery.

I learned much about life from him that you simply are not going to learn in an academic setting.

 

Why am I saying this, it is the devious twisting of what one is saying by making words mean other than they really mean, so that when challenged one can say, to a degree truthfully -- I did not say that.

That is a hustlers first line of defense when challenged but too many people are stupid enough to fall for words meaning what ever another wants them to mean till they are burned by words meaning nothing.

 

As I was told in college by a hard core English professor, words mean things, when words start meaning what ever one wants them to, words mean nothing.

If there were two words of nearly same meaning, i.e. further-farther, you had better choose the one the professor thought U.S. grammar rules said was proper, she liked to paint paper with red ink.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 21 February 2017 - 20:25.

Fortunately for the purpose of learning hard lessons without being the victim, the father of three of my nephews and nieces was first a street hustler before he turned to armed robbery.

I learned much about life from him that you simply are not going to learn in an academic setting.

 

Why am I saying this, it is the devious twisting of what one is saying by making words mean other than they really mean, so that when challenged one can say, to a degree truthfully -- I did not say that.

That is a hustlers first line of defense when challenged but too many people are stupid enough to fall for words meaning what ever another wants them to mean till they are burned by words meaning nothing.

 

As I was told in college by a hard core English professor, words mean things, when words start meaning what ever one wants them to, words mean nothing.

If there were two words of nearly same meaning, i.e. further-farther, you had better choose the one the professor thought U.S. grammar rules said was proper, she liked to paint paper with red ink.

 

Bob, it seems that you forgot to take your medications again....

Bob, it seems that you forgot to take your medications again....

Uncalled-for.

Bob, it seems that you forgot to take your medications again....

 

Out of order.  There's nothing "scholarly" about resorting to insults when people don't agree with you.

Mr. Capps is Mr. Capps.

I am glad he is here and as far as that comment goes it must be a current favorite for persons of certain age groups as there is another gent, on another forum approx. Mr. Capps age who says the same thing when he disagrees with me.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 22 February 2017 - 16:48.

Mr. Capps is Mr. Capps.

I am glad he is here and as far as that comment goes it must be a current favorite for persons of certain age groups as there is another gent, on another forum approx. Mr. Capps age who says the same thing when he disagrees with me.

 

I can write that this is red and Bob will immediately object and state that it is clearly blue and then create some convoluted conspiracy theory that it is plot to undermine The World and Language as we know it. Bob is Bob and the world would be far less interesting and certainly quite dull without Bob. Less it seem otherwise, I actually like Bob since despite his oft-fractured syntax and round-about way of making his points, Bob far more often than not makes points that bear one's consideration and being taken seriously. Bob ensures that we do not fall into the mindset of groupthink and stop thinking. Agreeing or disagreeing with Bob is not the point, it is that Bob can make for a good sparring partner, and, to his great credit, who is literally a good sport. Bob inevitably creates far more smiles than any gnashing of teeth on my part because he is the exactly sort of person who I could count on to know what to do with the other half of a can of cream of mushroom soup at a fancy, boring, uppity affair...

Yesterday's news, it's already happened. They call it "Wikipedia".

 

You can trust Wiki about as far as you could throw the person who wrote the entry - assuming you could get your hands on them. If I look up anything using Wiki I always check it against at least one other source.

I understand from a couple of distinguished attendees that it was Mr. Capps' audience that was in need of the medication when he spoke at the TNF Hertfordshire film show a little while back.

 

Keep taking the tablets, as they say.....

 

That I will not dispute, a surprise dose of jet lag and brain fog from grading seminar papers definitely getting the better of me. A less than stellar performance, to put it mildly. It was made even worse by being on the same billing with Peter & Barry & the Connew -- who were fantastic, of course -- and that always stellar performer, D.C. Nye. It was exactly like my George Gobel quote: I was the brown shoes. Maybe I should plead with Richard for another chance so as to perhaps, if possible, redeem myself.

 

As for medications, since my heart attack, I am doomed to choking down six pills a day since I had just been cleared to return for another deployment to Afghanistan after an extensive physical, including the usual endless cardiovascular work for those of a Certain Age, passed it with flying colors and then it happened scarcely a few weeks later. The cardio folks were not amused by this and took it rather personally it seems. I cannot say that I was real broken up about missing the "opportunity" to return to Afghanistan for a year or more. Plus, it did suggest that maybe it was getting about time to finally retire.

Talking of revisionism, the post before last is a classic example of how the repeating of the recollections or impressions of others, which may then be believed or passed off as fact, suddenly assumes the status of historical fact, with the inevitability that it will be repeated as just that, a fact. If you were not there you are not in a position to do other than repeat. Those views are likely to be simple opinions.
Notwithstanding Don's comments about his performance, there is another, imho, key feature which may colour views.
Don made it clear that he spoke as a trained historian, and made no apology for it, pointing out that the way he would research/assess a topic was at variance with how others may do so.
I was at Richards film show and found no need for medication. Perhaps it was because I had already enjoyed Dons company at David's funeral a year previously.
Usual disclaimers
Roger Lund

Edited by bradbury west, 26 February 2017 - 22:42.

You can trust Wiki about as far as you could throw the person who wrote the entry - assuming you could get your hands on them. If I look up anything using Wiki I always check it against at least one other source.

 

This is not only the case with Wikipedia. Driver reminiscences should be treated with caution. Compare the following accounts of the closing stages of the 1973 Teretonga Tasman race.

 

A

 

With 5 or 6 laps to go the leader, Driver A pitted for a new tyre. He felt able to catch and pass the new race leader, Driver B, but the chequered flag was put out 4 laps early. The official who put out the flag was English, Driver B was English so "all a bit shabby".

 

B

 

Driver A pitted on lap 55. He rejoined 30 seconds down on Driver B and finished the race 27 seconds behind.

 

Version A is recounted by Sam Posey in the recent and most excellent Tasman book. Version B comes from Vercoe's book "The Golden Age of New Zealand Motor Racing". The English driver was Alan Rollinson. Vercoe's version is consistent with the report in Motorsport (April 1973) and race results reported on ORC.

 

In case any of our American friends think Version B was manufactured by the UK "fake news" industry I should point out that race distances at Teretonga were

 

1968              60 laps

1969 - 1976   62 laps - 100 miles, the usual distance for Tasman races other than Levin.

 

Mr Posey suffered badly at the hands of the English. He was robbed of victory at Riverside in 1972 by a Lancastrian Chief Steward who failed to penalise Brian Redman for overtaking under yellow flags on the last lap other than a $100 fine. This story is recounted by Brian Redman in his recent book.

Edited by opplock, 26 February 2017 - 15:32.

The comprehensive Teretonga race report in the UK mag Motoring News is consistent with Version B, other than that their reporter DMA reckoned that Posey came out 38 seconds behind Rollinson after his second pit stop. It also calls into question Posey's claim that: 'At the start of the race I took off from the pack and easily pulled away. It was raining and very windy. I had just the right set-up with the right tyres and everything - as a consequence I just tore away from the pack.'

According to the MN report Posey was sixth at the end of the first lap. He moved slowly up through the field and inherited the lead when Steve Thompson made his second (!) pit stop on lap 12. When his car wasn't misfiring Thompson was far and away the quickest man on the track. Rollinson was also troubled with misfiring during the race.

Thanks for that info Tim. I read the local press coverage at the time and the MN report about 3 to 4 months after the race (the joy of surface mail) and was sure I would not have forgotten the race being stopped early. Especially for the reason given! It is a long time ago but I recall that both USA and UK were in bad odour in that part of the world at the time - Vietnam War and Common Market being contributing factors respectively. Favouritism towards a British driver - Not Bloody Likely.

Let's have a look at another concrete example.

During racing reunions of the past few years, when Jim Hall came to the speaker's podium, he had one story from his racing days that everybody in the audience lapped up with great enthusiasm.

Jim story goes that when he raced a Lister/Chevy in 1959, the belt of his Latham supercharger came off repeatedly at a race at San Marcos or Hondo [his story varies]. Both tracks were in Texas, but it was actually Hondo.

As per Jim, he removed the engine from his pick-up truck, put it in the knobbly, won the race and put the engine back in the pick-up truck after the race.

It is a great Tall Texas Tale, and of course it never happened. The incident took place at Hondo Airbase on April 5, 1959. The Lister did drop out in Sunday's preliminary, with the above mentioned supercharger belt problem. Jim was also severely understaffed, since both his regular mechanics, Red Byron and Frank Lance, were still in Florida that weekend to take care of Hap Sharp's 2-liter Maserati, entered in USAC's Daytona's 1000 KM..

Three sources told me what really happened. Bill Janowski's Monsterati Special had dropped out in the same race with rear-end problems. He offered Hall the use of his intake manifold, including three 2-barrel Holley carburetors, for the feature race, which was to start in only two hours.

Since the Chevy engines were similar, Hall accepted the idea, and in two hours the Monsterati's intake manifold was installed on the Lister's engine. The work was done, not by Hall, but by Janowski, his mechanic Bob Gast and the only Hall employee around, Bob Schroeder. Janowski and Schroeder both confirmed this to me, as well as Delmo Johnson, who specified that Gast was mostly involved in supplying the beer. It was a warm day apparently.

Well, Hall went on his merry way in the feature, which his Lister won. Unfortunately Hondo was not covered in the national media or the SCCA magazine, so apart from the San Antonio and Dallas newspapers, the manifold switch was never mentioned by the press.

Janowski got his manifold back after the race and the Hall Lister never ran with the supercharger again. But it is a shame that the bad memory of one of the leading drivers of those days has led to a very improbably story, which today is repeated as gospel on a regular basis..

The same is true about Dan Gurney's current "gravity" version on how he won the 1962 Daytona Continental 3 Hours, although there the newspaper and magazine reports describing the real story ["starter motor"] were abundant.

all research : Willem Oosthoek

I think most of us would agree, that in the Gurney matter quoted above, because of where Dan was placed on the banking near the finish line, gravity certainly did take some of the load off the starter motor. I also remember most contemporary reports remarking that the starter motor was used in the escapade. 

Whatever the voodoo physics might be that allow a car on the high bank to benefit from gravity, without first turning its wheels to the left, let's have a look at the facts...


- Dan Gurney's own column in the Match 10, 1962, issue of Competition Press, in which he credited his Prestolite battery for winning the Continental on his starter motor. Not a word on 'gravity" just a column-ending "Thank you, Mr Prestolite."

- A conversation with Gurney's mechanic Jerry Eisert a number of years after the race. Eisert was at the bottom of the start-finish line when the Lotus 19 crossed it. Jerry confirmed it was the starter motor, not gravity, that gave Gurney his victory. He also mentioned that he had to show suspicious race officials that the blown Climax engine would still churn, proof that the car had finished under its own power.

- A sequential photo series of eight, taken by Flip Schulke, from the moment that Gurney got back into his car till the moment he turned the wheels AFTER crossing the start-finish line by a full car length. All previous photos show the Lotus 19 with straight front wheels.

- Similar evidence shown by a video of the same finish scene.


All research: Willem Oosthoek

Edited by Jerry Entin, 02 March 2017 - 18:11.

Looking back, by chance, at some earlier Sports Car Digest digital editions around the time when this point was last raised, I noticed that the Jan 12 2017 download had an archive link at the bottom of the page to the 1962 Daytona 3 hr race, linking to Louis Galanos' Jan 16 2012 full article on the race. The full story is told there with the Schulke images clearly showing that DSG's 19 was parallel to the top lane white line when Dan stopped a length short of the line, got out and spoke to the starter, then got in and waited until the flag dropped, then the photos show what looks like his right arm in a constant position on what is taken to be the starter button. The car is dead straight ahead on the 18 degree banking until he is a length over the line. The video shows the same thing right down to when DSG is down on the inner apron. Just like Jerry and Willem say. Galanos even cites a local Daytona newspaper as an extra source. Check it out. The video even shows the mechanics pushing the car as soon as it rolled to a halt to clear the apron so engine power would seem to be absent.
So what is the query?
I know I am gilding the lily but it was such a coincidence that SCD had that link.
Roge Lund

Modern-day researchers patching together the missing links in the national championships and the events producing the accepted results use newspaper and periodical accounts of the period to cement their claims, and the evidence contained there is almost irrefutable. One faction claims that AAA recognized no national champion until 1916 and did not recognize another until 1920. All other champions were simply the result of popularity polls by the automotive press. They further document Gaston Chevrolet, not Tommy Milton, as the 1920 champion.

 

Technically, they are correct, but historically they are wrong. The fault can be laid at the doorstep of Contest Board William Schimpf and Richard Kennerdell, who throughout their tenures refused to reveal any information about the administrative functions of the Contest Board. In their behalf, we must recognize that the AAA and the Contest Board faced serious competition from both IMCA and WAA during those days, and they were following the accepted business principle of not giving ammunition to their rivals.

 

Russ Catlin, "Controversy Continues for AAA Contest Board," Automobile Quarterly, 20, no. 4 (Fourth Quarter, 1982), 446.

 

This excerpt is from a note referring to his article on the Triple-A Contest Board in this same issue of AQ ("54 Bittersweet Years of the AAA Contest Board -- American Motorsport Goes Big Time," 392-417).

Oh.  So there actually were champions in the 1900s and 1910s, but the AAA just kept them secret? 

 

We should try that with F1 this year.  Have a new points system but don't tell anyone what it is.  Then in 2037 say that Hamilton was the champion.

Didn't they try that in 1939?

Modern-day researchers patching together the missing links in the national championships and the events producing the accepted results use newspaper and periodical accounts of the period to cement their claims, and the evidence contained there is almost irrefutable. One faction claims that AAA recognized no national champion until 1916 and did not recognize another until 1920. All other champions were simply the result of popularity polls by the automotive press. They further document Gaston Chevrolet, not Tommy Milton, as the 1920 champion.
 
Technically, they are correct, but historically they are wrong. The fault can be laid at the doorstep of Contest Board William Schimpf and Richard Kennerdell, who throughout their tenures refused to reveal any information about the administrative functions of the Contest Board. In their behalf, we must recognize that the AAA and the Contest Board faced serious competition from both IMCA and WAA during those days, and they were following the accepted business principle of not giving ammunition to their rivals.

With all due respect, but what a load of bull! What sort of ammo would that have been?? And "serious competition from both IMCA and WAA" simply shows his lack of basic knowledge, as both clubs never existed at the same time, and the WAA was fully absorbed by the AAA after what, three months? IMCA was a very different kettle of fish, there was absolutely nothing this club could have possibly gleaned from knowing about administrative practices of the AAA. It all boils down to smoke screen and mirrors, a very poor effort to disguise his own manufactured "truth". Alternative facts is nothing new, it seems. The student of American Racing History has been truly poorly served by this self acclaimed leader in his field.

Not just the student, but the casually-interested fan.  Which is the greater harm, really, because that means the generally transmitted story is Catlin's idiocy.

 

Why the heck did he do it?  The real story is just as fascinating.  Similar attention-seeking as Holocaust deniers?

Difficult to be sure, but my belief is that he really was just a "hobbyist", and truly believed in the big "scoop" when he first laid eyes on the Means/Haresnape material. That there was, back in those days, no one with the knowledge and clout to rebuke his "findings" is the real tragedy, because effectively that "scoop" made him "The Man" in the public eye, despite his lack of depth of knowledge. With time and research, he may even have found out about the error of his ways (the paragraphs cited in Don's last post appear strangely defensive, as if he knew he was "found out"), but there was no going back - it was the very foundation of his success.

It does remind me a little of David Irving, who wanted to be acknowledged as an historian.  He was an excellent archivist but lacked the nous to put it together.  So he basically invented his own contrarian theories to gain some sort of kudos in the field of history- but adapted the facts to suit them. 

 

His first book Hitler's War (the thesis being that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust - his underlings kept it from him) got praise from historians for the research, but not for the conclusion.  So in later years he just made up the evidence... 

It does remind me a little of David Irving, who wanted to be acknowledged as an historian.  He was an excellent archivist but lacked the nous to put it together.  So he basically invented his own contrarian theories to gain some sort of kudos in the field of history- but adapted the facts to suit them. 

 

His first book Hitler's War (the thesis being that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust - his underlings kept it from him) got praise from historians for the research, but not for the conclusion.  So in later years he just made up the evidence... 

 

Actually, Irving's first book was The Destruction of Dresden which appeared in 1963 and asserted that the death toll for the bombing was somewhere between at least 100,000 and probably closer to 250,000. Soon, others began to accept Irving's numbers, with even some of the former USAAF commanders putting the total of deaths for the Dresden raid at least 135,000. Recent work seems to have placed it in the range of around +/- 20,000 for 13/14 February. That Irving always seemed to have access to material used in his books that others could never quite get access to, or made use of sources that were deliberately "fuzzy" to create books such as the travesty Hitler's War, eventually led to his downfall. Irving peddled in "alternative facts" for years before his falsehoods finally caught up with him. Long before the Lipstadt trial the vast majority actual military historians had seen that he was nothing but a fraud; only those with the same ideological bent took him seriously.

Yes, the Lipstadt libel trial showed where Irving got his figures from - there was an official report into the deaths in Dresden which concluded it was around 20,000, but Goebbels added a zero...

 

There was another chap - another amateur, non-historian - who went around concentration camps chipping bits of brick off the inside of the ovens, taking them home, and analysing them for cyanide traces.  The chap had no background of being a racist or Nazi or whatever, he seemed to do it solely so he could get applause from white supremacist groups.

 

I'm not sure how many motor racing historians were around back in the eighties, but it comes across as Catlin trying to show himself off, elevating himself into something he was not, and giving himself the status of some sort of doyen of Indycar.

Actually, Irving's first book was The Destruction of Dresden which appeared in 1963 and asserted that the death toll for the bombing was somewhere between at least 100,000 and probably closer to 250,000. Soon, others began to accept Irving's numbers, with even some of the former USAAF commanders putting the total of deaths for the Dresden raid at least 135,000. Recent work seems to have placed it in the range of around +/- 20,000 for 13/14 February. That Irving always seemed to have access to material used in his books that others could never quite get access to, or made use of sources that were deliberately "fuzzy" to create books such as the travesty Hitler's War, eventually led to his downfall. Irving peddled in "alternative facts" for years before his falsehoods finally caught up with him. Long before the Lipstadt trial the vast majority actual military historians had seen that he was nothing but a fraud; only those with the same ideological bent took him seriously.

Interesting. Irving, I think, is the kind of 'revisionist' who gives 'revisionism' a bad name. He re-assesses old, 'settled' questions using questionable sources, interprets them selectively and inaccurately, conceals some facts, fudges others and invents yet others, and thus creates specious (and incendiary) narratives that prop up his world view. The result is a 'history' that tells you little about history, but a lot about Irving. So I can see why some bristle at 'revisionism'...

 

But then, in a sense every historian has to be revisionist - in your other sense of the word. Every piece of published history has to 'revise' what we know (or think we know) about a topic, or it doesn't get published. So perhaps the distinction between 'revisionist' and 'non-revisionist' is a straw man, and the real issue is sound vs. unsound historical method.

He [Irving] re-assesses old, 'settled' questions using questionable sources, interprets them selectively and inaccurately, conceals some facts, fudges others and invents yet others, and thus creates specious (and incendiary) narratives that prop up his world view. 

I guess that might describe how the history of some "historic" racing cars is presented at auction.

---

Irving is a talented individual. He could be a good analyst of German history; he knows the language and can read spidery handwriting; and he is completely untrustworthy. If David Irving was an amateur historian with the same knowledge, he'd be a welcome contributor. David Irving decided instead to pursue politics. 

Unrelated, perhaps, but an indication if how falsehoods get spread amongst the unwary...

My wife has a multitude of pages from women's magazines with recipes. She was reading from the back of one the other day so I might become better educated:

"Rule of thumb - this expression comes from an old English law which prohibited men from beating their wives with anything wider than the width of their thumb."

"Tail lights - came from the lights Australian camel team drivers hung from the tails of their camels to warn overtaking coaches etc of their presence in the dark."

My opinion of New Idea hit a new low with these gems from their 'Odd Facts' page!

That definition of rule of thumb is still widely believed, even though it was debunked as early as 1870. Apparently we can blame the militant feminists of the early 1970s (or possibly Mick Jagger) for its revival and subsequent longevity ...

 

http://www.phrases.o...e-of-thumb.html

 

The tail lights one is obvious hokum.

 

It isn't a cutting from an issue dated April 1st, is it?

For what little it might be worth, thanks to some research work that I am puttering around regarding artifacts and the history of technology, it occurs to me to suggest that the use of the term revisionism -- and definition that I provided at the beginning of this thread -- escaped from its near-exclusive use within the realm of professional historians as a result of the brouhaha involving the Smithsonian and its plans for an exhibit using the Enola Gay in the 1994/95 timeframe. When the Air Force Association expressed it displeasure with the planned exhibit (long story, but you can get an overview here, thanks to Lehigh University: http://digital.lib.l...du/trial/enola/), combined with a change of parties in the Congress, the exhibit became another battle in the Cultural Wars waging in the USA. As a result, as Bob clearly suggested, the term revisionism, as Bob Post notes*, became a term "...which was taken to mean a deliberate departure from truth." This is, of course, to use another academic term, complete and utter hooey.

 

 

* Robert C. Post, Who Owns America's Past? The Smithsonian and the Problem of History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), 213.

From Eric Foner, Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World (Hill and Wang, 2003) :

 

"History always has been and always will be regularly rewritten, in response to new questions, new information, new methodologies, and new political, social, and cultural imperatives."

 

"Who owns history? Everyone and no one – which is why the study of the past is a constantly evolving never-ending journey of discovery."

 

Carl Becker from 1931: https://www.historia...s/carl-l-becker

Edited by DCapps, 11 January 2018 - 21:55.

Interesting article! Thanks for posting the link, Don.

In the context of our little cosmos of motor racing history, this one sentence struck me as particularly apt, and likely to come in for universal praise, even by those who don't have any designs on achieving academic heights in their study of the past:

"With the increase and refinement of knowledge the historian recognizes that his first duty is to be sure of his facts, let their meaning be what it may"

... to which I would add the important caveat that the facts we speak of are not the facts of the history that actually happened, but the facts of the traces left behind, namely its reporting or, to use a more universal word, its recording. No man can say today that he knows the, say, bore and stroke of the 1906 Grand Prix Renault, or its finishing time in said event, unless he is able to refer to a document containing such information. This adds a most relevant layer to the whole discussion, with not only the discovery but also the appraisal of such documents attaining paramount importance. Events in the past can never be relived, or even only re-examined in a first-person context, we will always have to rely on a "transmitter" to bridge the gap in time. Historical facts, the way they actually happened, are lost forever; they only survive as recorded facts (putting aside for a moment the conundrum of personal memory, which in any way is also lost unless it's properly recorded at some point, warts and all).

Michael, I think that you truly grasp the issue that historians deal with all the time. An essential point of the process that historian employ in their work is the study and analysis of what they have gathered after posing their question and then reviewing the literature and the subsequent research. It is this accumulation of things called "facts" that develops into the formation of what we think of as "knowledge" that then leads the historian to attempt to make some sense -- interpret -- what s/he has gathered together. As Becker suggests, there is "meaning" and there is "interpretation," that latter being quite different from the former to the historian. This why asking, "What does this mean?" is far better directed to a philosopher than to an historian; with few exceptions, the latter will defer on the question and then perhaps offer to provide a possible context that relates to the "what" in the question.

 

In former times, Becker and his speech was usually introduced to history majors during their undergraduate work and no later than their first courses as graduate students. From my observations, I am not so sure that many history graduate students are introduced to Becker these days. In conversations with a number of post-docs, whenever Becker came up, only a few were familiar with him. Keep in mind that one of the primary goals of the history graduate education is the development of the historiography that forms the bedrock of one's work and which should continue to grow as one labors in the vineyards.

 

I would suggest that one of the great values of TNF has been its development of at least a basic historiography relating to motor sport over the years. That has been very much a collective effort and often one that has been somewhat subtle. Those on TNF have, in my view, certainly upped the ante when it comes to the study of motor sport history thanks to a long list of contributors, alas, some not necessarily being credited for their contributions.

 

At any rate, I am now working with several parties to perhaps create some sort of consortium here in the USA to hopefully facilitate the research of motor sport history. It is something that is finally at long last beginning to move in the right direction.