Reworking History
Often people imagine history as being written in stone. That history simply is, and that it doesn’t change. In part they are right, history doesn’t change, but our understanding of history does.
This change in our understanding can occur in a variety of different ways. Often it is the discovery of new information that helps shed light on the past. Many times, it’s not as if this information really is hidden; it has always been right out there in the open for anyone to find. The issue is that no one has taken the time and effort to simply go looking.
Which is perfectly understandable. Most people aren’t historians. They aren’t actively researching history. When they want to learn the history of an idea or subject, they look to easily accessible articles that are written for the lay reader. They don’t dig through archives. Because why would they; they aren’t historians.
Even among historians, a lot of history is passed by because it’s not the focus of that particular individual. So while certain areas are very well covered, other portions of history receive much less attention.
This can be complicated by the division between academia and the general public. In many fields, including history, there is often a lack of bridging the gap. There is a lack of presenting historical research to the public in a way that is meaningful and can easily be understood.
A good example of this is the Bering Strait theory, the idea that humans first settled in the Americas after traveling over the Bering Strait. This is the view that many of us were taught in school. However, it’s not uncommon today to see posts that claim scientists were wrong about this idea, and they are trying to hide the real facts from people because new research shows that humans were here longer than what the Bering Strait theory allow for.
The issue is that since the 1960s and 70s, historians and those working in relevant theories have known that the Bering Strait theory wasn’t the whole picture. That previous migrations had happened were well accepted throughout academia. It’s just that that information hadn’t made its way to the general public. So when a non-historian “discovered” this information, they were able to spin it as some sort of conspiracy about how “they” don’t want you to know the truth. When in reality, it’s because many historians suck at engaging the public. It’s just not something they do.
And then, to further complicate all of this, there is the issue of non-historians presenting flawed versions of the past. Now, let’s be clear. You don’t need to be formally trained to be able to do history. You don’t need a degree, or to have studied it at a university. There are many amateur historians who have put out great work. The issue is knowing what the historical method is, and how to accurately conduct historical research.
When looking at Sturgis specifically, we can see this problem first hand. Looking at Poker Alice, a proper historical study had never been conducted. The first at length stories about her were interviews at the end of her life, which often were contradictory, didn’t line up with the past, and where she was able to create the narrative. A narrative that was more legend than fact. This was at a time when sensationalism ran the news, and a time where nostalgia for a romanticized version of the old west was at its height.
This sensationalism was then mixed with rumors and suggestions that became exaggerated. All of this just added to the mythos of Poker Alice. When a couple of books were finally written about Alice, it was this mythos they relied on. This lead to romanticized retellings of her life, which again, furthered the legend.
When a proper historical study then begins on Alice, what is found is that most of that mythos simply isn’t supported by facts, and in many cases, is contradicted by what can be verified. Did Alice have 7 kids with Warren Tubbs? Not at all. According to his obituary, he only had two stepchildren. Was Alice born in England? No, the evidence points to Virgina, which is what is recorded on census records.
However, when presenting this information, it poses a challenge to the generally accepted history of Alice. Because of that, it can be seen as if the goal is to change history. The history never changed, it’s just the manner in which her history is approached.
That doesn’t mean that Alice’s story won’t change again though. While diving into her life, the one thing that remains consistent is that it’s a historical mess. Sorting though it all can at times make it appear as if one path is correct, only to later have that impression debunked by additional information. And then there is always the possibility something else will turn up, and again, change our understanding of her history.
At times, this may make one want to throw their hands up and say who cares, why even bother. I’ve been there. At times it may make it appear as if the actual history can never be known. Been there as well. But often, that’s just part of the historical process. As we continue to work through this mess, a better picture does appear. At times, that picture may change slightly, but we just have to accept that.
So if you see corrections or changes in some of the history in the history I present, that’s something that should be expected. And I’ll be upfront with it, because understanding the process is also important. None of this means that the history is changing, it just means that our understanding is changing based as we get closer to the truth.