What’s in a Name?
I am stewing. Why? I just wonder how anyone can write about any subject without first thoroughly researching it; and second of all, without getting the person’s name right, who is the subject of the discourse. The whole act seems criminal, and just as “life is in the details,” the details of someone’s life are important to “get right.”
In exploring any subject, a good writer will look at multiple sources to verify the same material. I verified the person’s name in many ways, including her birth and marriage certificates. A conscientious writer will employ critical thinking skills to figure out situations.
I’ll give you an example. It does not seem logical to say that a woman was engaged in giving quilt talks, when that person had just lost her husband, was busy working on an undergraduate and a graduate degree at an out of state university, and was teaching, too. This is not to mention that the book upon which she later based much of her quilt block information and stories for lectures, had not yet been published. In addition, when there is no extant physical evidence, it is doubly illogical to claim the statement.
To come to the conclusion that the woman might not have given quilt lectures during the time in question, one would have to know when her husband died, what years she was in school, and what else she was doing during that decade. One would also have to realize that the quilt book in question weighed heavily in answering the question as to whether or not the person was actively involved in giving lectures during that decade. Without written proof, the statement that she provided quilt lectures at that time, is pure speculation. You get the point.
What does one do when one is a scholar and an historian who is serious about discovering the truth, and then, dismally, realizes that another “scholar” has published/disseminated erroneous information, covering a ten year time span?
There comes the rub. What can one do? It is a frustrating situation, particularly when people line up to take sides. As far as I know, no one has taken sides yet. Knowing human nature, it seems a likely scenario. People make light of the errors of their cronies, perhaps due to a misplaced loyalty.
I am interested in the truth. I uphold it, and I seek to spread it. I speak out when something is wrong, and in the case I mention, things are amiss.
I can’t account for the mistakes of others. Being in a hurry was the excuse given to me. All I can do is to try to retell the story, incorporating the facts, while trying to forget the lack of attention to the facts that has preceded my work.
I could just cry a river over the hurt inflicted on the family, when their relative was not even called by her given name. The error repeated itself, in yet another venue. Instead of honoring the deceased by writing about her, her memory was dishonored. And now, this misinformation has been spread to the four winds, via an article, presentations, and/or journal write-ups that will remain in libraries, forever, possibly to confuse other researchers.
Yes, I am upset when I think of misguided “work” by someone who should have tried a little harder to establish the truth. Now, the information is on record, “for what it’s worth.” I am passionate about my chosen field of quilt history and I just want people to “get it right.” When they don’t, it’s a crying shame.
Patricia Cummings
