[Phil_the_Author]

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?



Yet when the Swastika brand golf club which, by the way, was manufactured and sold out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was being made and sold it marketted itself as having on it the "Dual symbol of good luck and the utmost in craftsmenship..." In 1922, when this advertisement was published, the Swastika symbol meant something entirely different than what it would represent to the world a decade and a half later...

PERSPECTIVE

[James Boon]

Philip "Dr Robert Langdon" Young...  Its like the Da Vinci Code all over again? 

Cheers,

James

[Jason McNamara]

Philip, please check your PMs.

[Adam Clayman]

Fwiw. The symbol also represented the wind in Navajo. Of course it wasn't tilted the way the NASsi's used it.

[Phil_the_Author]

My point in showing this add and bringing up the subject is that there are a good number of discussions that revolve around how we view what happened historically. Often the views expressed show a view of the time based upon a modern perspective. For example, how a purchase of land may have gone from the idea to closing stages and its effect on the golf course construction.

To have a true understanding and knowledge of what happened we need to see the process through their eyes and times. Appreciation of perspective can be a very difficult challenge, especially when we believe we know the "truth" already...

[TEPaul]

"My point in showing this add and bringing up the subject is that there are a good number of discussions that revolve around how we view what happened historically. Often the views expressed show a view of the time based upon a modern perspective.

To have a true understanding and knowledge of what happened we need to see the process through their eyes and times. Appreciation of perspective can be a very difficult challenge, especially when we believe we know the "truth" already..."



Phil:

Great subject and great example (the Swastika).

I know full well what your point is in starting this thread and you articulated it very well in your remarks quoted above. It sure can be a very difficult challenge to be able to see something through the eyes of those who were involved long ago and are long ago gone.

I've sometimes referred to that challenge you mentioned for us today to force ourselves to NOT just look at history through our own modern day eyes and perspectives as "Looking through the prism of time backwards."

By that I mean one has to really concentrate and just totally remove from his mind EVERYTHING that came after those people he is looking at back then that we know but they never could have known (because they didn't live to see it or even consider it or its possibility).

When one really stops to look at all the big and little things that we know that they never could've known or considered it surely does become a total challenge to some researcher or historian who really does want to get back to the feel, smell, sound, sentiments, perspectives, obstacles, realities or whatever of some former time and its people who could not possibly contemplate all those things that came after them that we know.

In this vein, one of the things that truly fascinates me when thinking, researching, writing about people and their times from history is how to deal with what we now call "political correctness" that people back then never even heard of, or at least the way we think about it or practice it today. If we don't consider that very carefully we tend to castigate and denigrate them, and probably unfairly with our modern sensibilites they never knew or understood.

To me a good example of the mistakes we can make today in perspective is this recent labelling of Hugh Wilson as a man who was such a novice in 1911 in architecture that there is NO possible way he and his committee could have routed and designed Merion East. To me that assumption, premise, contention, conclusion et al is a real failure of perspective due to the prism of time and its evolving sensibilities and outlook in our modern day world they back then obviously never knew or could consider. The fact is even if we consider him and a few others like him back then to be novices, they did it anyway and ended up creating such enduringly famous courses and the fascination for us today is to understand the whys and the hows of what they did. It is not interesting or educational or historically accurate to just dismiss people like that as "legends" and "myths" as we search around for someone else who wasn't even there who did it for them. Years ago I think Shackelford taught me a lot in that vein with the commonsensical remark: "Just look at who was there everyday working, sometimes for years and who wasn't; that will tell you a whole lot of the truth of it."

Great subject Phil----

"Looking through the prism of time backwards"

It's hard work because you probably should take EVERYTHING out that we know that they never did! I actually find the best way to do that is to just make lists of what all those things are. It's actually pretty cool and fun to do and more than a little surprising sometimes what some of those things are.

Phil, I've got something of a time machine fixation; maybe you do too. What I wouldn't give to just skip back for a day to say 1911 to be able to meet and talk to Behr, Crump, Wilson, Tilly. Just to even be able to look at them in the flesh would be amazing.

Wonderful subject, and like you I hope the participants on here treat it right. If they do it should be educational.

[Jason McNamara]

This is exactly the kind of "needless goading" I referred to in the thread about Merion and the Walker Cup.

Honestly Tom, aren't there enough threads about Merion's origin?  


EDIT:  To bring this sort of back on topic, I mentioned to Phil offline that Ontario has a town named Swastika.  The name dates from before WWII, at which time the country tried to change the name of the town to Winston.  The locals refused, saying their name pre-dated that maniac's use of said symbol.

[Ulrich Mayring]

The Swastika is an ancient symbol used in many cultures. Anyone, who is familiar with basket weaving patterns, can easily come up with this shape.

Ulrich

[Dan Herrmann]

It's all in paradigms, and today's paradigm (correctly) equates the symbol with evil.

But it can serve to teach us that paradigms change over time.  I think great golf course architecture challenges paradigms and causes us to rethink our former "truths".

Great thread!

[Kalen Braley]

I'm reminded of the word Gay when reading this thread.

50 years ago or more, it meant something completely different....obviously!!! 

[DMoriarty]

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.

Incidentally, by the time this ad appeared the swastika was already the symbol for the Nazi party, along with many other German nationalist interests.  

If anyone has any 20th century swastika laden items as a novelty or as a collectible or if you come across any, I'd strongly encourage you to donate the item to a reputable museum.   Otherwise it may someday end up in the hands of a real fanatic.

So to be clear,  I understand that the swastika has long had importance to a number of different cultures and religious groups, and am offering no opinion on the use of the symbol in those settings. That is up to them.   I am commenting on displaying items with swastikas as novelties or keeping them as collectibles.   Maybe someday the symbol can be used for whatever purpose without a second thought, but we are nowhere near that day.  

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

For example, in 1915, Tilly was getting a fee of $50 a day to design, draw plans and stake out a golf course. From there the owner would hire the contractor to build it (many times those that he suggested) and they would attempt to follow his plans. For a little extra money they could also get models of green complexes and/or entire holes to work from. Just five years later he was getting $2,000 to design an 18 hole course. What occurred to allow for such an explosive increase in his and other architects fees during those few years?

The "Why" is always more difficult to discern because the perspective isn't as easy to see...
 

[RJ_Daley]

I saw a program that explained the whole variety of cultures that used a version of the swasticka for various symbos and meanings.  I can't really remember much about it.  But, Phil's point is pretty well understood by serious historians.  The context of the times that something was said or actions were taken can't ever be ignored.  Context and perspective must be an historian's temper.

BTW, the context of anything like this happening or being made in Milwaukee must have the perspective of the overwhelming German immigrant influence there.  And, to follow on with that German influence, a very conducive atmosphere existed in Milwaukee for the election of Socialists at several levels of government over a lengthy time, including during and after WWI, II and post WWII.   Milwaukee was a very unique melting pot, yet heavily 19th century German immigrant dominated in political and social attitudes.

[David Kelly]

Anyone who collects or reads Rudyard Kipling early editions knows that for decades Kipling adorned his books with swastikas. He used both the left facing swastika that is pictured in the golf club ad above and the right facing swatiska that was later used by the Nazis.  The swastika was a Hindu symbol for luck and appeared on the end papers, spines and covers of his books. 

Kipling lived long enough to see Hitler come to power and decided that while his use of the swastika symbol for over 40 years was meant in a positive way and wholly unrelated to the Nazi use, that use as the Nazi symbol meant that the swastika was "defiled beyond redemption" in his words and he ordered it removed from any subsequent editions of his books and disassociated himself with it completely.

I don't know the history of the Morehead Co. and how long they lasted before going out of business but I would bet a lot of money that if they were still around by the winter of 1933 they would have moved to change the name and symbol of their product.

So in the case of someone prominently showcasing a golf club (that I am sure has little collectible value) with a swastika symbol I would assume that they were either ignorant, doing it to be provacative or sympathetic to what it represents. None of which would reflect well on them.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Mike Sweeney]

One of the great ironies (and fun for me!) of The Merion Saga is the frustration level from MacWood and Moriarity over their ability to penetrate what has at times been termed by them as "The Philadelphia Syndrome". It is probably the same exact feeling that CB Mac had on the train back to New York, but he was smart enough to say "come visit us in Southampton" when he was probably thinking "because I never want to visit with these Philly nuts on their turf again." I have made mention of this in a few post and have sent an article or two of historical events exhibiting "Philadelphia Syndrome" to Tom MacWood.

Unfortunately, MacWood and Moriarity are not as smart as old CB Mac!! Guys, it is not going to change in Philly !

Moriarity and MacWood make continual reference to the other great clubs outside of Philly of that era and how they brought in known architects. As a former Philadelphian (some say you never really leave!) with the perspective of living in NYC for 20+ years, I honestly believe that MCC did not care in the least what any club outside of Philadelphia was doing or how they were building their courses. Of course they want to know how to make it great, but that is different from following someone else's building model.

I offer this historical perspective of The Big 5 (basketball) as another example:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076812/index.htm

Anyone who can understand a Penn-Brown game played against an obbligato of Villanova-La Salle cheering is either a Philadelphian or a psychologist. The essence of the situation is this: when Penn plays Brown, a Philadelphia team is battling a team from somewhere or other outside of town. But when La Salle plays Villanova, Philadelphia is playing Philadelphia, and when that happens William Penn's town becomes, pro tern, a sort of City of Brotherly Hate. Philadelphia is involved in mankind, to be sure, but it is much more involved in Philadelphia than, say, New York is in New York or Chicago is in Chicago. In many ways Philadelphia is an island entire unto itself, looking inward, characterized by the contrails of the big jets passing high overhead, going from someplace else to someplace else. Denizens of this self-sufficient city even speak a different language.

Tom and David, some more perspective - Why was the GAP (Golf Association of Philadelphia) founded two years after the USGA as America's first regional golf association? Could it be the Philadelphians thought they could do it better ? Hmmmmm.

If people want to be productive, I personally would be interested in what was going at the other founding GAP clubs at this time (1910ish), especially Philly Cricket. Why did Germantown Cricket Club never build a golf course? What happened at Belmont Cricket Club where it eventually turned into Aronimink?

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You asked, "What happened at Belmont Cricket Club where it eventually turned into Aronimink?" Consider this, Both father and son Tillinghast were original members of Belmont when it was founded. Tilly held the course record in the late 1890's. He would design the original Aronimink...So with all of that background, why, just 5 years after they opened Aronimink, did they began looking for a different piece of property? Why did Donald Ross, especially considering Tilly's background with the club, get the job as architect? There must be a good story behind that...

[Mike Sweeney]

Why did Donald Ross, especially considering Tilly's background with the club, get the job as architect? There must be a good story behind that...

Now that is interesting. Tossing out an insider for a New England guy in Philly. Somebody had pictures! Get to work and find them.  

[Tom MacWood]

One of the great ironies (and fun for me!) of The Merion Saga is the frustration level from MacWood and Moriarity over their ability to penetrate what has at times been termed by them as "The Philadelphia Syndrome". It is probably the same exact feeling that CB Mac had on the train back to New York, but he was smart enough to say "come visit us in Southampton" when he was probably thinking "because I never want to visit with these Philly nuts on their turf again." I have made mention of this in a few post and have sent an article or two of historical events exhibiting "Philadelphia Syndrome" to Tom MacWood.

Unfortunately, MacWood and Moriarity are not as smart as old CB Mac!! Guys, it is not going to change in Philly !

Moriarity and MacWood make continual reference to the other great clubs outside of Philly of that era and how they brought in known architects. As a former Philadelphian (some say you never really leave!) with the perspective of living in NYC for 20+ years, I honestly believe that MCC did not care in the least what any club outside of Philadelphia was doing or how they were building their courses. Of course they want to know how to make it great, but that is different from following someone else's building model.

I offer this historical perspective of The Big 5 (basketball) as another example:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076812/index.htm

Anyone who can understand a Penn-Brown game played against an obbligato of Villanova-La Salle cheering is either a Philadelphian or a psychologist. The essence of the situation is this: when Penn plays Brown, a Philadelphia team is battling a team from somewhere or other outside of town. But when La Salle plays Villanova, Philadelphia is playing Philadelphia, and when that happens William Penn's town becomes, pro tern, a sort of City of Brotherly Hate. Philadelphia is involved in mankind, to be sure, but it is much more involved in Philadelphia than, say, New York is in New York or Chicago is in Chicago. In many ways Philadelphia is an island entire unto itself, looking inward, characterized by the contrails of the big jets passing high overhead, going from someplace else to someplace else. Denizens of this self-sufficient city even speak a different language.

Tom and David, some more perspective - Why was the GAP (Golf Association of Philadelphia) founded two years after the USGA as America's first regional golf association? Could it be the Philadelphians thought they could do it better ? Hmmmmm.

If people want to be productive, I personally would be interested in what was going at the other founding GAP clubs at this time (1910ish), especially Philly Cricket. Why did Germantown Cricket Club never build a golf course? What happened at Belmont Cricket Club where it eventually turned into Aronimink?

Mike
I'm not sure why the frustration of others would be 'fun' for you. Whatever our frustration level is or is not, and whatever our ability or inability to penetrate the so-called Philadlephia Syndrome is or is not, the net result has been two pretty good essays. I might be mistaken but I believe those two essays are the only ones on GCA dealing specifially with Phila subject matter. I'm not sure what that says, if anything.

Regarding CBM, from my study of Merion's history I don't detect any furstration with the Club or with the city of Philadelphia - HH Barker may be another story.

By the way I have been following Big Five basketball since the days of Ken Durrett, Howard Porter and the great Penn teams coached by Chuck Daley. One of my dreams is to see the Palestra.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike
I'm not sure why the frustration of others would be 'fun' for you.

Tom, I'm from Philly! 

Whatever our frustration level is or is not, and whatever our ability or inability to penetrate the so-called Philadlephia Syndrome is or is not, the net result has been two pretty good essays. I might be mistaken but I believe those two essays are the only ones on GCA dealing specifially with Phila subject matter. I'm not sure what that says, if anything.

I think it confirms my theory that Philly guys don't care all too much about what outsiders "think". Perhaps Ran got that message years ago and thus we have no course review of Merion on GCA.
 
By the way I have been following Big Five basketball since the days of Ken Durrett, Howard Porter and the great Penn teams coached by Chuck Daley.

The glory days of The Palestra are long gone with the rise of The Big East and Rollie Massimino pulling away from The Big 5. Guess what they threw Rollie out of town to Vegas. He is back in the good graces of Villanova due to Jay Wright but not so sure about the good graces of Philly.

One of my dreams is to see the Palestra.

Maybe Wayne will take you to a Penn game! 

[Tom MacWood]

Whatever our frustration level is or is not, and whatever our ability or inability to penetrate the so-called Philadlephia Syndrome is or is not, the net result has been two pretty good essays. I might be mistaken but I believe those two essays are the only ones on GCA dealing specifially with Phila subject matter. I'm not sure what that says, if anything.

I think it confirms my theory that Philly guys don't care all too much about what outsiders "think". 
 

Are you joking? The reaction before, during and after those essays were written would seem to indicate they do care.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "I might be mistaken but I believe those two essays are the only ones on GCA dealing specifially with Phila subject matter..."

You missed Gib Carpenter's "A Cry for a Golf Course" about the problem with trees at the Philadelphia Cricket Club. It is a wonderful and passionate piece of writing and an outstanding example of how to build a case on a subject in a fair and balanced manner. It is told from the perspective of one of a body of members who believe the same thing at the club. A neat "perspective" view...

Take a look...

[TEPaul]

"Why was the GAP (Golf Association of Philadelphia) founded two years after the USGA as America's first regional golf association? Could it be the Philadelphians thought they could do it better ? Hmmmmm."


MikeS:

You can find some good information on the founding of GAP and why on the GAP website. GAP is proud of that website and Exec. Director Mark Petersen and his "Boys" have done a great job with it. I just saw the pres of GAP the other day and he is tremendously interested in GAP really upgrading their historical archives.

GAP was formed basically out of the spirit and interest that generated real early in the 1890s from inter-club competitions. Today what we used to call the GAP Team Matches (now the Suburban League Matches) is an inter-club competition that I don't think has anything in America comparable to it for an organization of that size. There are only a couple of clubs that DON'T play in it. It's pretty much the primary reason most of the member clubs joined GAP in the first place. The amount and quality (venues) of annual competitions GAP offers each year is pretty amazing too. I remember Bobby Young from Atlanta (who used to come up here a lot for some reason to try to qualify for the US Amateur) say that he was not aware of a regional like GAP in that way.

Interestingly to the Merion subject is that two of the eight men from four clubs that founded GAP in 1897 were on Wilson's Merion committee later----Henry Toulmin and Rodman Griscom. For GAP's centennial celebration GAP hired the wonderful golf writer Jim Finegan to write "A Centennial Tribute to Philadelphia Golf." What a tome that is----it took him four years to do and it has everything you want to know about the history of GAP clubs (including some architecture), players, tournaments etc.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom and David, some more perspective - Why was the GAP (Golf Association of Philadelphia) founded two years after the USGA as America's first regional golf association? Could it be the Philadelphians thought they could do it better ? Hmmmmm.

Mike
The Met GA was founded in 1897 too, and the Western GA two years later. Of those organizations the one with the most independent streak, who appears to have thought they could do it better, was the Western. They often bumped heads with the USGA, and occasionally when they didn't like a ruling by the USGA, they would make their own independent ruling. Which relates back to the whole idea of historical perspective. You often see golf historians or commentators looking at a subject from their regional perspective, be it Philly or even an American perspective, and not looking at subject universally. In other words not considering what was going on in Chicago or Boston, or in the UK, Canada, Australia, S. Africa or the Continent.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You stated, "I might be mistaken but I believe those two essays are the only ones on GCA dealing specifially with Phila subject matter..."

You missed Gib Carpenter's "A Cry for a Golf Course" about the problem with trees at the Philadelphia Cricket Club. It is a wonderful and passionate piece of writing and an outstanding example of how to build a case on a subject in a fair and balanced manner. It is told from the perspective of one of a body of members who believe the same thing at the club. A neat "perspective" view...

Take a look...

You are right. This thread it about historical perspective, but I shouldn't have assumed and should have specified a historically related essay.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()