What is Historic & Nostalgic?

[ArrowsFA1]

Just thought I'd ask the question as we're starting afresh :s mokin:

Some may consider (just as an example) this is the place to discuss Michael Schumacher's career as he's now retired. Others may reel back in horror at that thought, and retreat back to the 1990's...80's...70's...60's...or beyond.

Where's the line in the sand :?:

[Ranger]

Past events is where it is drawn (apart from the GPM series).

Past drivers can easily say things which can be noted down today, but if it doesn't have anything to do with the current series, then it'd be in the history and nostalgia section methinks.

I'd say Michael Schumacher's career discussions would now belong in this forum.

But any comments or decisions he would make concerning the current series would be in the F1 forum.

That's logical to me.

[EuroTroll]

Past events is where it is drawn (apart from the GPM series).

Past drivers can easily say things which can be noted down today, but if it doesn't have anything to do with the current series, then it'd be in the history and nostalgia section methinks.

I'd say Michael Schumacher's career discussions would now belong in this forum.

But any comments or decisions he would make concerning the current series would be in the F1 forum.

That's logical to me.

Yup. :up:

[Nem14]

Technically, the line in the sand for history is yesterday, nostalga is an individual thing.

[agwiii]

Just thought I'd ask the question as we're starting afresh :s mokin:

Some may consider (just as an example) this is the place to discuss Michael Schumacher's career as he's now retired. Others may reel back in horror at that thought, and retreat back to the 1990's...80's...70's...60's...or beyond.

Where's the line in the sand :?:

I think the waves of time washed over that line in the sand.

[D-Type]

It's difficult.

Certainly any discussion involving a driver still racing cannot be 'history'. By that reckoning Schumacher vs Hakkinen is kosher, but Schumacher vs Alonso isn't.

But I think it goes deeper than that. The word 'history' suggests to me some form of historcal perspective gained from looking at events from far enough away to be objective. For example people who condemn JV for his recent lacklustre performances are unable to be objective enough to look back to 1995-98 or so. Maybe five years is the absolute minimum, but I think it needs to be ten years or so.

'Nostalgia' is a different thing altogether. It suggests a feeling of 'It was better then' so it has to be far enough away to be somehow 'Different from today': eg when slicks were allowed; when turbo engines were; before Bernie developed GP racing as an 'entertainment'; when a Cosworth plus a Hewland gearbox plus a lot of enthusiasm and a bit of sponsorship was all you needed to go Grand Prix racing; before overt sponsorship; when engines were in the front; before they destroyed the purity of racing by introducing a championship ... etc.
But really I think 'nostalgia' is when you really enthused about racing - my definition is when you were aged 13 to 16.

Edit: I posted this before reading Nem 14's post - i think I'm saying the same, but not so succinctly.

[Don Capps]

It's difficult.

Certainly any discussion involving a driver still racing cannot be 'history'. By that reckoning Schumacher vs Hakkinen is kosher, but Schumacher vs Alonso isn't.

But I think it goes deeper than that. The word 'history' suggests to me some form of historcal perspective gained from looking at events from far enough away to be objective. For example people who condemn JV for his recent lacklustre performances are unable to be objective enough to look back to 1995-98 or so. Maybe five years is the absolute minimum, but I think it needs to be ten years or so.

'Nostalgia' is a different thing altogether. It suggests a feeling of 'It was better then' so it has to be far enough away to be somehow 'Different from today': eg when slicks were allowed; when turbo engines were; before Bernie developed GP racing as an 'entertainment'; when a Cosworth plus a Hewland gearbox plus a lot of enthusiasm and a bit of sponsorship was all you needed to go Grand Prix racing; before overt sponsorship; when engines were in the front; before they destroyed the purity of racing by introducing a championship ... etc.
But really I think 'nostalgia' is when you really enthused about racing - my definition is when you were aged 13 to 16.

Edit: I posted this before reading Nem 14's post - i think I'm saying the same, but not so succinctly.


Technically, the line in the sand for history is yesterday, nostalga is an individual thing.

Actually it is not as difficult as some seem to think. Of course, it is when this question is applied to an internet forum that it suddenly becomes difficult. I will state that while some may wish to believe that "history is yesterday," they would be well-advised to avoid majoring in history.

It is extremely difficult -- if not impossible then rather improbable -- to find an internet motor sport forum that is actually devoted first and foremost to the topic of automobile racing history. At least, that is I have yet to find one with anything remotely resembling a pulse.

I would also venture that it would be a tremendous challenge to actually create and then have such a forum function for the simple reason that the number of those who could be deemed as actually being "automobile racing historians" is minuscule to begin with and shows few signs of expanding significantly in the coming years.

These fora are traditionally the refuge for nostalgia in the various senses of the word, as well as for those who have an interest in the past, but not necessarily interested in the challenges of history itself. There are many who are chroniclers of the past, which is not the same as being a historian. This is the same as being a writer about, say, the Second World War, and yet not being a historian. We have many writers who have and continue to chronicle the past of automobile racing, but very, very few who can pass muster as being a historian.

I once thought that the forum format might be a good means to expand both the number of automobile racing historians as well as serve as a collaborative tool for aiding and assisting research efforts. Long and often bitter experience has shown that while this may look good in theory, it has fallen far, far short of any such goals in reality. There are any number of reasons that one could present for this being the case, but the simple lack of understanding as to what history is and how to approach it might be the best way to summarized the trials, tribulations, and frustrations I have observed over the past decade and a half plus looking into this.

W.G. Sebald suggests this about another relationship: “Men and animals regard each other across a gulf of mutual incomprehension.” One could just as easily apply this to the historian and the non-historian when it comes to the topic of automobile racing history.

Although I continue to waste my time, to be quite frank about it, with visiting these various fora, there is also the faint hope that continues to exist that, perhaps, someday I will stumble upon such a fora or that one will be made available to finally establish such a forum. Needless to say, the search continues and I am not holding my breath in any hope of finding one.

Simply finding a forum of the "nostalgia" sort that is not inundated with the trivial or overwhelmed with the pursuit of utterly pointless and endless thread devoted to "best" or "greatest" or "worst" this or that has proved to be as difficult as expected. Nor will I even begin to comment on the rather painful issue of those whose inability to accept that their rather juvenile thoughts as to what is "history" results in the usual forum tactic of ad hominum attacks and/or childish remarks which rather spoil the whole notion of having serious discussions about either history itself or the sharing of research finds. I have encountered several fora where historians were simply not welcomed, period.

Of course, there is always the sore point that these sort of fora are meant to be, for lack of a better way to express it, "intellectual-free" zones, where the emphasis is clearly on allowing everyone to express an opinion, facts not being relevant, since the purpose is to provide to expound on a given topic and not study it.

Oh, well, enough for now.

[D-Type]

Don,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "history"?

It obviously isn't "nostalgia" but you are saying here that you do not consider "chronicling the past" to be history.

[Don Capps]

Don,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "history"?

It obviously isn't "nostalgia" but you are saying here that you do not consider "chronicling the past" to be history.

Having just done so elsewhere and then witnessed the immediate return to the usual fanboyz chatter, really not inclined to, but I will simply cut and paste into here:

First, no, it has all to do with the expression of memory or nostalgia, the offering of opinions, not history. Simply considering anything that happened yesterday or earlier as "history" is, as they say, a "technique," but one quite at odds with what history actually is to a historian. What is more often than not passed off as "history" when applied to automobile racing is actually, as mentioned, either the expression of memory or nostalgia, or in some case the presentation of what might be considered a chronicle of an event, which while often useful, is not the same as history.

Second, while it might be amusing to exchange opinions on these sorts of fora, in the end they are simply opinions and mean little at best and more often than not, nothing of any importance for posterity. Although it may be true that everyone may have an opinion and should be able to express it, that is not the same as saying that every opinion is inherently equal.

Given that I find the rating of drivers -- as well as assigning various superlatives to them -- as more than a bit of a waste of time and effort, I tend to dismiss such things and move on to something else. However, what is almost always interesting to observe is that more often than not the opinions expressed are emotional expressions that spring from the dander being up.

What is unfortunate is that history as it is accepted in the scholarly sense is largely absent from these fora if for no other reason than it is usually pushed aside in the many exchanges of opinion and the pursuit of both trivia and the trivial. Of course the number of actual automobile racing historians could easily dance on the head of a pin with lots of room left over for, say, an aircraft carrier task force -- or two.

And...

Historians -- the scholastic sort, not those those who use the term but are actually only memorists -- examine, analyze, and interpret and then present what they find. A very simplistic way to begin what they attempt to do regardless of subject area. This, of course, leaves out the "sausage-making" aspects of the historian's craft -- reviewing the literature, gathering information, examining and analyzing that data, developing a thesis, falling down rabbit holes and wandering into blind alleys and up box canyons, the socialization and collaboration that goes on with peers, the shaping of the thesis into something that can be transformed into an article or book, the endless revisions and corrections, to say noting of the small problem that "historical truth" is a very slippery and changeable entity.

An opinion that is shaped by some level and depth of knowledge, such as say that of Brundle in this instance, could be of use to the historian because the historian can evaluate in some form or fashion the source, Brundle, issuing that opinion; that is, one can form an idea as to what basis Brundle might be basing that opinion. On the other hand, the opinion of the anonymous forum poster, say "10/10thsf1fanboy," is, to be blunt, merely an opinion in this case from an unknown -- and most likely, unknowable -- source. There is not much to go on to establish the credibility of the opinion being expressed much less what it might be based upon. If "10/10thsf1fanboy" is a 17-year old school boy whose exposure to the topic is solely through television or magazines or internet news, as precocious as he may be, there would be a great reluctance, a distinct disinclination, to take his (or her) opinions very seriously, particularly when it presented without any rationale as to why he agrees or disagrees.

Terribly elitist and perhaps quite snobbish to almost everyone here, yes, but just any about anyone may write a book about a topic, say the activities on the Juno Beachhead on D-Day, that does not necessarily mean that what has been written is actually a history of what may have occurred. It may simply be a chronicle of what happened given that it merely packaged what had been written earlier into a different form. This is not to say that it would without value, probably not very much to an actual military historian as opposed to someone who writes about the military past, but it could be of value if it leads someone to begin to do further research and raise questions both about what was read, the book itself, as well as the events covered in the book.

The history of something so minor and relatively insignificant as automobile racing is fraught with shoals and reefs to run aground upon at every turn. Only very recently has there much in the way of what could be serious scholarly interest in the field. However, despite there now being a special interest group within the Society of Automotive Historians (SAH), it has been slow going and really not much in the way of progress has been made. It is clear that there will be progress in the years to come, but it will be gradual and incremental, much as was the case with the Society for Military History several decades ago. [Note: I belong to both organizations, my membership in the SMH going back a number of decades now, my membership in SAH being much more recent.]

For the most part, automobile racing history has long been in the hands of writers of various sorts, very few who had much in the way of any training in the historian's craft. However, many of those writers were very good chroniclers, but not necessarily all that interested in writing much about the seamy, behind the curtain stuff, which often holds the key to unlocking the "why" of various events in the past. It is good to give credit where credit is due and it should be noted that some writers evolved into either being historians, which has been quite rare, or writing with an a greater appreciation as to how to present the topic in such a way as to allow others to follow the path to explore the subject more fully.

I will only mention them in passing, but a big problem that exists in any examination of automobile racing history is that those only interested -- indeed, "obsessed" might be a better word -- with the technical aspects of the machines, the technology, and the literal nuts and bolts of the cars tend to dominate the discussion, usually elbowing -- or even bullying their way in more than a few cases -- other discussion aside so as to dominate the discussion. One should also see it as a sign of trouble when there are those who simply post tons and tons of photographs for no other apparent purpose other than to post photographs since there is rarely much in the way of reason or rationale as to why or even what is being posted. The plague of the "micro-trivialists" is another problem that makes it difficult for even the best-intentioned forum to keep on its intended azimuth.

It might be too obvious to state that one certain sign of the lack of historical thinking in this area of history is the almost complete lack of footnotes or references in the writing that is done. The major, crucial difference between the scholar and the writer is that the former provides the means for others to follow his path and either confirm or question his findings, while the latter often leaves one without even the faintest trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

One should also have a healthy skepticism for what is known as "oral history." Although it has great value in many areas, particularly in establishing context or capturing the zeitgeist, one should never lose sight of the fact that memory is not only fallible, but malleable. Used appropriately, this sort of record can be very, very helpful to the historian, but only when the interview is structured and examined against other sources for both accuracy and credibility. More than once this form of information gathering has provided valuable insight into events that might never have otherwise been possible. Of course, there have also been instances when what was recorded was pure tripe.

So, there you go, a quick, down and dirty look at why most of what transpires here and elsewhere is not history. I have come to the conclusion that exists tremendous difficulties for any internet forum that wishes to be concerned with automobile racing history. While there might be a few short spans where there is constructive activity which enriches those exploring the history of a topic or subject, this usually turns out to be the exception and not the norm for any number of reasons. Despite several excellent and exceptional efforts at the AtlasF1 site for a short period, it was, as it turned out, a doomed effort given that the editorial direction desired was quite at odds with the path that the historian wished to push the effort.

Of course, very few here or elsewhere participate in a forum for the purpose of conducting serious, scholarly research. It is, I can sense, rather impolite to suggest that "history" be thought of in a manner not consistent with the idea that it is simply another word for the "past" or "memory" or -- groan! - "nostalgia." There is good reason, I should note, for my pariah status, wandering about here and yonder leaving jeremiads in my wake.

[Mark]

Blimey. Does it matter?!

[airshifter]

Of course, very few here or elsewhere participate in a forum for the purpose of conducting serious, scholarly research. It is, I can sense, rather impolite to suggest that "history" be thought of in a manner not consistent with the idea that it is simply another word for the "past" or "memory" or -- groan! - "nostalgia." There is good reason, I should note, for my pariah status, wandering about here and yonder leaving jeremiads in my wake.

Don,

No offense intended, but it appears that in your view only a scholar is even aware of, much less capable of stating, what "history" is. Though I can respect that any person researches the actual total truth of an event, even most historians and scholars are dealing with the often subjective opinions of those that actually witnessed the event(s) first hand. Even beyond that being witness to an event often does not reveal the entire history of what took place.

To think that only a scholar has the capability of being a historian I can somewhat agree on, as only when presented with all of the facts can a true historical record be made. However to suggest that a scholar or historian is always without fail has been shown many times to be incorrect. Just as often the source the historian did not find is the one that holds the key to the true history of the event.

[SGWilko]

Of course, very few here or elsewhere participate in a forum for the purpose of conducting serious, scholarly research.

Man, you need to get out a bit more. I participate on this forum because it brings me together with others with similar interest. The differing opinions, when sensible debate abounds, serves only to make this forum richer for the member......

If I want to participate in conducting 'serious, scholarly research' on the subject of motorsport, I rather suspect a library is much more suitable, than a forum full of individual opinion.....

Nostalgia is very much how an event(s) in the past evoke emotions within an individual.

History, for me at least, is the factual recording of significant events that occured in the past.

[ShiftingGears]

There is good reason, I should note, for my pariah status, wandering about here and yonder leaving jeremiads in my wake.

Mmmm, cannot imagine why.

[Don Capps]

Blimey. Does it matter?!

That you even ask the question suggests that the word "history" should be removed from this sub-forum.

[Don Capps]

Don,

No offense intended, but it appears that in your view only a scholar is even aware of, much less capable of stating, what "history" is. Though I can respect that any person researches the actual total truth of an event, even most historians and scholars are dealing with the often subjective opinions of those that actually witnessed the event(s) first hand. Even beyond that being witness to an event often does not reveal the entire history of what took place.

To think that only a scholar has the capability of being a historian I can somewhat agree on, as only when presented with all of the facts can a true historical record be made. However to suggest that a scholar or historian is always without fail has been shown many times to be incorrect. Just as often the source the historian did not find is the one that holds the key to the true history of the event.

I would never suggest that scholars or historians are infallible, given that they are just as subject to human foibles as anyone else and errors of many sorts and for many reason do happen.

"Historical truth" is a goal, one that is rarely attained and one that is often beyond one's reach to begin with, the objective scholars and historian generally being to dig as deep as they can into a subject, topic or issue as is possible with the materials at hand. This inevitably leads to one coming up far short of perfection. As Oscar Wilde put it, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Historians soon learn to be rather pragmatic and understand that there is always something more that could be done, another rock that should have been kicked over, perhaps another way a datum could have been considered and so on.

In the fringe areas of history, which is where automobile racing history definitely resides, the lack of interest in the past as anything other than being that of proprietary gain, the protection of self-interests on the part of many within the racing community, combined with the lack of knowledge by many as to even go about studying the past without some difficulty, as well as other problems, have made this topic area something of a wasteland.

Fortunately, there are a few oasis of hope, the major one being the International Motor Racing Research Center which is located at Watkins Glen. There are a few others, but very few and very far in-between, unfortunately.

At any rate, the point is that until at least some begin to take the "history" part of automobile racing history seriously, it will continue to be the same old cesspool of fanboyz and dueling opinions mixed in with the Gordon Gekko-type entrepreneurs cashing on the past having no regard for it outside the ability to make money off of it.

[Don Capps]

Mmmm, cannot imagine why.

It is a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

[BDunnell]

I must say I find the definition being presented to us here of the word 'history' so narrow as to be almost laughable.

[Bagwan]

Sometimes I get all nostalgic about history .

Sometimes I find nostalgia absolutely hysterical .

Historical accounts show very different views , depending on pre-ordained bias , and thus are corrupt almost by design in that sense .

Most here have as thier knowledge base , a collection of up to date news sites , and the opinions of thier colleagues on this site .
Some of these folks have been inside the walls of the paddock , and most have been glued to the sport for many years .

If you take the time to read through the threads , there are distinct differences in style , and knowledge , but there are posters here who have proven they are well worth the time spent .

[Don Capps]

I must say I find the definition being presented to us here of the word 'history' so narrow as to be almost laughable.

Okay, then, so stop laughing and provide a definition, if you can, as to how "history" should be defined?

[batigol_2@hotmail.com]

Nostalgia in F1 should be anything you have seen in real time with your own eyes, not off an old DVD :-)

[Mark]

What including anything you've seen on TV live? That counts out pretty much everything then.

[BDunnell]

Okay, then, so stop laughing and provide a definition, if you can, as to how "history" should be defined?

'Almost laughable', I said. As for a definition, whatever is stated in the Oxford English Dictionary is fine by me.

[Don Capps]

In which case, much of what gets passed as "history" in these sorts of fora would be difficult to accept as history. Of course, the real issue is whether there is a place for history in the sense of how a historian views history and the view of the non-historian which tends to quite at odds with the former. The consensus appears to be that the views of latter group regarding "history" tend to overwhelm that of the former. One need only consider the legends, myths, lies, and half-truths that permeate this area of history to realize this.

[Rollo]

Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth.
But trust me on the sunscreen...

The OED (definition 3) says that History is past events; those events connected with a person or a thing. F1 is a thing; therefore has a history.

A more useful definition would be all seasons excluding this one. Perhaps 2010 is still a little fresh in the memory, but discussing Brawn GP for instance despite being only two seasons ago probably counts for this section.

Though for me discussing the 2015 season which Menasheh Idafar won for Red Bull would be history, because that was a few years ago considering that I'm a time traveller :D

[Mark]

Good luck on your quest, but I think there is enough problem with people agreeing on what is happening now, nevermind what happened in the past.

[Don Capps]

To back up for a moment, perhaps a way to understand the one of the fundamental problems or issues relating to these sorts of fora is that when you think of them as being essentially one-room schoolhouses which include students from the Kindergarten to even the post-graduate level, with most of the "pupils" being at the elementary level, the problem with the ability to conduct any coherent discourse then becomes apparent.


The OED (definition 3) says that History is past events; those events connected with a person or a thing. F1 is a thing; therefore has a history.

A more useful definition would be all seasons excluding this one. Perhaps 2010 is still a little fresh in the memory, but discussing Brawn GP for instance despite being only two seasons ago probably counts for this section.

It is obvious that you are missing the point. This issue is not whether automobile racing -- which is much more than the myopic F1 fans seems to realize -- has a history, but rather how that history is approached and studied. While the season two years ago might be history to the casual fan, it is not to the historian.

Below is a link to a short comment that might help lay out the issue of why mixing -- lumping -- history and nostalgia together indiscriminately within a forum such as this one or others is not necessarily very productive.

Casey (and Case History) at the Battlements: Rear View Mirror Volume 7 No. 6 (http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rvm-vol7-no6.html)

There have been a few brief periods when the forum format may have actually "worked" when it comes to the history of automobile racing, but those were clearly anomolies and as much a matter of luck then anything else.

[BDunnell]

Below is a link to a short comment that might help lay out the issue of why mixing -- lumping -- history and nostalgia together indiscriminately within a forum such as this one or others is not necessarily very productive.

Why does it matter as to whether or not a forum such as this is 'productive'? When I go to the National Archives to research a subject about which I'm writing, as I do often, I hope and expect my time there to be productive in research terms. When I log on to this forum, I do not. I see it as a free-time means of escapism, and am surprised that anyone would expect anything more of it.

[Don Capps]

Why does it matter as to whether or not a forum such as this is 'productive'? When I go to the National Archives to research a subject about which I'm writing, as I do often, I hope and expect my time there to be productive in research terms. When I log on to this forum, I do not. I see it as a free-time means of escapism, and am surprised that anyone would expect anything more of it.

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings rather than the usual infantile prattle and empty-headed escapism? But, then again, as your response indicates, the internet has become such a brain-use-free zone that perhaps it is, indeed, folly to expect much when no one wishes to be bothered with having to actually think. Point noted and acknowledged.

[BDunnell]

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings rather than the usual infantile prattle and empty-headed escapism? But, then again, as your response indicates, the internet has become such a brain-use-free zone that perhaps it is, indeed, folly to expect much when no one wishes to be bothered with having to actually think. Point noted and acknowledged.

As someone who has himself undertaken what I, and maybe even you, would consider serious historical research on a regular basis in my day job, I find your attitude more than a little insulting. Different websites have different purposes, just as different books have different purposes — some to entertain, some to inform. Why should every forum be a tool for research? I wouldn't expect this to be the case at all. Indeed, researching historical matters relating to the subject in which I specialise, not once have I ever made use of information read on an internet forum. In no way does this upset or concern me, in much the same way as it neither upsets nor concerns me that some moments of my life may have been devoted to escapism rather than the enhancement of my knowledge, no matter how brain-use-free these pursuits may have been.

I would also say, with respect, that you are slightly ignorant of what goes on in every part of these forums. The 'Rally History' thread, for example, has certainly enhanced the knowledge that's out there with regard to rallying results, and furthered the development of authoritative results sources such as forum member kabouter's Rallybase website. It has certainly added to my knowledge no end.

[SGWilko]

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings.

Surprise to whom? I'm intrigued.

[Don Capps]

Surprise to whom? I'm intrigued.

I would say "BDunnell" for starters....

[SGWilko]

I would say "BDunnell" for starters....

Oh dear, I am sorry that has got you so hot under the collar.

[BDunnell]

Oh dear, I am sorry that has got you so hot under the collar.

Apparently to the extent that all points made against that view are ignored.

[Dave B]

It seems to me that Mr Capps might be best served by starting his own forum where he can set the rules, rather than complaining that existing ones prove so disappointing.

[Tazio]

It seems to me that Mr Capps might be best served by starting his own forum where he can set the rules, rather than complaining that existing ones prove so disappointing.
That's not a good idea.
He would end up having to bitch at himself!

[Don Capps]

Oh dear, I am sorry that has got you so hot under the collar.

Hot under the collar? Scarcely the case on my part, indeed, quite the contrary, but I think that this "hot under the collar" remark certainly applies to others, however, who seem quite eager to be rid of me.

[Mark]

Nobody is trying to get rid of you. But it seems difficult to understand your objectives.

[BDunnell]

Hot under the collar? Scarcely the case on my part, indeed, quite the contrary, but I think that this "hot under the collar" remark certainly applies to others, however, who seem quite eager to be rid of me.

Well, I can honestly say that this is not my motive in questioning your viewpoint. But it might be nice if you had the courtesy to respond to some of the points made in opposition to your criticisms.

[Don Capps]

Well, I can honestly say that this is not my motive in questioning your viewpoint. But it might be nice if you had the courtesy to respond to some of the points made in opposition to your criticisms.


As someone who has himself undertaken what I, and maybe even you, would consider serious historical research on a regular basis in my day job, I find your attitude more than a little insulting. Different websites have different purposes, just as different books have different purposes — some to entertain, some to inform. Why should every forum be a tool for research? I wouldn't expect this to be the case at all. Indeed, researching historical matters relating to the subject in which I specialise, not once have I ever made use of information read on an internet forum. In no way does this upset or concern me, in much the same way as it neither upsets nor concerns me that some moments of my life may have been devoted to escapism rather than the enhancement of my knowledge, no matter how brain-use-free these pursuits may have been.

I would also say, with respect, that you are slightly ignorant of what goes on in every part of these forums. The 'Rally History' thread, for example, has certainly enhanced the knowledge that's out there with regard to rallying results, and furthered the development of authoritative results sources such as forum member kabouter's Rallybase website. It has certainly added to my knowledge no end.

Having only been a historian and analyst for about four or so decades now, as well as someone quite involved in the development of the concept for the US Army's Digital Library and a few other things such commanding one of the Army's Battle Labs, I probably take a slightly different view of the internet -- I was an ARPAnet user "back in the day" -- and the Web than most of those here and elsewhere. I still vividly remember the problems of conducting research three and four plus decades ago through written correspondence, interlibrary loan, and telephone calls -- with the fax later being added to the mix.

History in its various forms and niches has long been both my vocation and my avocation, the analyst training being added during my last year of undergraduate work and during my postgraduate studies. Most of my work was in military history, but my specialty outside that niche is the United States during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. My vocation has long been the use of models and simulations for military training and operations, with the misfortune of having extensive experience in the budgetary process at the Pentagon.

The history of automobile racing was something was long an interest of mine, but only in an informal way, not really doing much more than gathering information on various events and adding to my magazine and book collection. At some point in the latter part of the Seventies, by happenstance, I became involved in researching the provenance of various automobiles. The utter shambles that the available information was in, the rather questionable dealings that were going on with the blind being led by the greedy, and the general lack of knowledge regarding automobile racing history at level beyond that of folklore, legend, and myth kicked in my historian's instincts and I began to study the subject as simply another niche within the realm of Clio.

Skipping ahead a bit, I am not one that really has much enthusiasm for trawling the internet for entertainment for no other reason than I spend an enormous amount of time staring at computer screens as it is. That, for the most part, the internet and the Web is pretty much, to borrow Newton Minnow's term he used regarding television in 1962, a "vast wasteland," applies to the internet is a sad truth. However, not all of the Web is simply porn and other such garbage that rots one's mind. Here and there are a few oases of information and even knowledge that can be useful.

Having used the bulletin board/forum concept as a collaborative tool in my "day job," I thought that it had the potential to be useful in my avocation as well. Of course, that was a faith quite misplaced. However, given the opportunity to create a forum for like-minded people, I did so. Unfortunately, the conflicts between the Web site editor and myself escalated over time as to the direction and purpose of the forum, essentially my leaving before being fired because to me it was a history site and to her it was a nostalgia site. Although I was allowed to remain on that site fore a number of years, the current regime has seen fit to ensure its slide into mediocrity will not be endangered by my efforts to nudge it in the direction of once more being a place where the results of original research can be discussed and collaboration take place to examine and discussion issues and events on a level that the fanboyz and fangirlz are incapable of participating in.

So, having seen that a mere forum could actually be a useful, well, forum for those with a genuine interest in automobile racing history and possessing genuine knowledge of the subject, a means of disseminating information which could be used to increase knowledge and scholarship, as well as spark other research efforts. That this actually happened, of course, now appears to be more a matter of luck than anything else, I must admit. However, I continue to maintain this naive notion that it is still possible for serious discussion on automobile racing history on a forum, although I must say that my faith in that notion has dwindled quite a bit over the years. Indeed, it seems that abandoning any such idea would be a wise thing to do. Besides, a minute on a forum is a minute that could be spent elsewhere writing or conducting research.

Not sure if that constitutes a response to your points, but if not, my apologies.

Look, if you don't want to be bothered by my presence here, fine. At this point in my life, my thinking is that life is too short to waste your time being somewhere when you could be elsewhere enjoying yourself. And, no, I do not view fora as an excuse to waste time or turn off my mind, especially the latter.

[ArrowsFA1]

Don, a forum like this may not be the best vehicle for historical research, but if it draws attention to (for example) the FISA/FOCA war period and widens knowledge as a shop window entices shoppers in isn't that a good thing?

[Mark]

I think asking a website open to the public such as this to be a forum for serious historical research is asking far too much. There simply isn't enough people with the required skills here, in fact I'd probably say Don is likely the only one who is qualified as such. It's merely a convenient place to talk about times gone by, yes it's more Nostalgia than serious history, but that's what the forum is for!

I'd suggest what you're looking for would more likely to be covered by specialist mailing lists or academic conferences than a general motorsports forum. That being said, if you were to stick around and post your thoughts this particular forum would be a better place for it.

[Dave B]

The way I look at it, a forum lives or dies by its posts. So rather than telling us what you would and wouldn't like to discuss, start a thread and if people find it interesting they'll join in, if not they won't. Don, you clearly have knowledge and experience to share, it's a shame that your posts thus far have instead concentrated on your perceptions of this forum.

[BDunnell]

Not sure if that constitutes a response to your points, but if not, my apologies.

Not at all. A very interesting post, for which thanks.

[Don Capps]

I think asking a website open to the public such as this to be a forum for serious historical research is asking far too much. There simply isn't enough people with the required skills here, in fact I'd probably say Don is likely the only one who is qualified as such. It's merely a convenient place to talk about times gone by, yes it's more Nostalgia than serious history, but that's what the forum is for!

I'd suggest what you're looking for would more likely to be covered by specialist mailing lists or academic conferences than a general motorsports forum. That being said, if you were to stick around and post your thoughts this particular forum would be a better place for it.

Mark, you are correct. This is a general motor sports forum and it is very unfair to expect it to change course after many years of happily cruising along with those participating enjoying themselves. At the moment, I am not sure as to whether I will continue to monitor this forum much less participate in it, in no small part due to the time necessary to conduct research and write as well as the demands of my "day job."

It might be of at least some minor interest that even the Society of Automotive Historians (SAH), the scholarly organization that is devoted to the academic study of automotive history, is struggling to cope with the issue of automobile racing history. We have a special interest group within the SAH devoted to racing history, but after several years it has gotten pretty much nowhere for a variety of reasons, although there is a significant level of interest in the topic. However, it will eventually move forward and begin to make an impact. When dealing with the academic world, one needs to be patient and understand that it takes time to organize the scholastic equivalent of cat-herding, much less attempt to carry it out.

As a footnote, Daimler organized a symposium several years ago to discuss an aspect of its history and invited several automotive historians such as my friends Karl Ludvigsen and Doug Nye to attend, along with several others such as myself. It was interesting that a number of us came to a conclusion, using Daimler's own research, that they were perpetuating what was clearly a myth. For some reason, there has not been a follow-up symposium....