From David Moriarty’s Post #10:
“Quote from: Philip Young on Yesterday at 05:47:41 AM
In researching any subject invovled in the history of golf, one of the more difficult challenges that the researcher has is placing himself into the time during which the event occurred. Or to sum it up in a single word:
Perspective!
I thought I'd give what I think is a very good example of this. What if you saw hanging on the wall of your friend's den a golf club, mounted artistically. What thoughts do you think would immediately enter your head If you saw that it had this on it?
I would strongly question my friend's judgment and would implore him to donate his item to a reputable museum or other Holocast remembrance project, so that it could not end up in the hands of some facsist freak who undoubtedly would not consider the perspective of the golf company. I'd also explain that while I understand that the golf company most likely did not mean anything sinister by using the symbol, my friend should know that it is now a symbol of hatred and genocide, and is still commonly used as that today, and that this modern conception far outweighs any minor historical novelty of this 'innocent' use of what has become a horrid symbol.
In other words, Phillip, while we certainly must consider the perspective of the speaker whenever we consider historical research, we can never forget our own perspective when we choose how to present that information. So as to the golf company's use of the symbol in 1920? Probably fine. But as to my friend's use of the symbol as a wall decoration in 2009? Horrid.
Historical analysis always has at least two speakers, the past and the present. We must always honestly present the voice of the past, but in so doing we cannot forget our own voice.”
From Phil Young’s Post #11 response:
“David,
I think that is a great suggestion and yet my point was not the idea of how we view our friend but how differently we view something as simple as a business symbol today than how it was viewed at the time. If I explained it poorly I apologize.
For example, today we view the term "bogey" as a score NOT to get while years back it was viewed as the score to attain with par being a very good score.
My point is that in doing research one has to put aside any and all pre-conceived notions of what we expect that we will find. Our own perspective has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of things that occurred many years ago, just as theirs has no bearing on our day. This is especially true when we attempt to go beyond the "What" and try to discern the "Why" that something occurred.”
Guys,
That exchange reminds me of the old days on this website. If one likes philosophical threads and subjects on this website, and I do, particularly ones like this one (perspective/historical perspective), that exchange is as good as it gets on here, in my opinion.
Not that I necessarily agree with all either of you said, but I don’t believe that’s the importance of it; it definitely makes me think----there is a lot to chew on; that is what’s important to me.
I might have a slightly different “perspective” on history or at least some different perspectives when I keep rolling some questions around in my mind, as I have been doing for years on this grand subject of golf architectural history-----what are we who research and write on golf architectural history trying to accomplish when we do it? What are we trying to say or even to prove? Or even---WHY are WE trying to say or even to prove any of it? I think I know why I do it, but probably only a little bit, at this point. I think I still have a long way to go.
Nice going; good stuff---and of course I do have questions and a few points to pick.