Whether they say it in person, send an us an e-mail, or write something in the web site guest book, the kind words and helpful advice of our visitors are often the motive power which help us get through a long, busy day.

Sometimes it's hard living up to the praise. And now, the results of a survey commissioned by the American Association of Museums may cause us to take extra care to make sure we continue to deserve the kind words.

According to the survey, museums are "far and away the most trusted source of objective information. No other institution has a similar level of trust."

Well, that makes my day while adding a some more baggage to carry as well.

Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

I think that may be because of all the sources of information, museums may not have as much of an agenda to promote as other sources.

We all know about the liberal bias of the mainstream media, and the revisionist rewriting of history being undertaken by school textbooks. Museums for the most part have nothing to be gained by shaping the facts to support some theory or ideal. We present what we know in a straightforward manner, and our archives have the primary source material to back it up.



rickrailrd@aol.com

THE FOOLS! (demonic cackling).

FWIW I have seldom visited a railroad (or any other) museum that didn't have an agenda. In all fairness, the agendas (agendae? agendi?) were primarily local and political in nature, such as what should our priority be (mine is better than yours), or competition with other entities for limited resources.

Worst examples are fights over equipment between emotionally charged individual members of otherwise professional organizations.

As we preach to other than the choir, there are probably agendas we can and should pursue to public and private benefit apart from a recitation of academic facts. One obvious one is the public safety issue as relates to railroads, operation lifesaver comes immediately to mind.

Another is the "trains are fun and interesting" message. Anybody apart from Thomas the Tank Engine doing a good job of pursuing that one? We need to continue to push for greater public interest in a shrinking and inaccessable industry that prefers to deal with the public by removing them.

Programming that uses a basis of real facts to provide stories and experiences that interest and engage visitors accomplishes both education and base building with integrity.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Is anyone else bothered by this vein of thought? People trust museums because they don't have the same agendas as the "liberal media" and don't revise history? Leaving aside the fact that most media publishers have long been seen as conservative, the work of historians is constantly one of "revisionism." New material comes to light all the time, and scholarship is the analysis and interpretation of facts. It is not some constant truth the source material reveals. Also remember that all is not in documents, and the experiences of working people in particular is not often recorded. Every generation finds new meanings in history and the generally accepted story of one generation often is different when that story is told again years later. History written in the 1920s is quite different from what is written now, and often very odd to read today. Just think of the demise of the streetcar in America. You will find all kinds of emphasis given to the "conspiracy" theory involving the auto, oil, and rubber companies. Some think this is "the answer," while others only make it part of the story. Which is practicing "revisionism?" It depends on your point of view, agenda, passions, or opinion. Openness to new thought and ideas and the debate between these views is also part of the process of history. Perhaps the openness to this debate is why people trust museums. Are we willing to listen to new or "revised" views or not?

Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

> We all know about the liberal bias of the
> mainstream media, and the revisionist
> rewriting of history being undertaken by
> school textbooks. Museums for the most part
> have nothing to be gained by shaping the
> facts to support some theory or ideal.

Actually I'd argue that all railway museums are profoundly revisionsist almost by definition. Until as late as the 1950s or 1960s the lives of working men and women, as opposed to the elite, and the workplace experience of the laboring man was not regarded as the stuff history was made of. A railroad museum claims by its very exsitance that that blue-collar world of steam and steel is as much a part of America's cultural heritage as a collection of fine paintings--and equally deserving of the term "museum." What could be more revisionist? And is it a revision that you really want to roll back?

eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

> Actually I'd argue that all railway museums
> are profoundly revisionsist almost by
> definition. Until as late as the 1950s or
> 1960s the lives of working men and women, as
> opposed to the elite, and the workplace
> experience of the laboring man was not
> regarded as the stuff history was made of.

I doubt that disinterest in the common man's history was the driving source as much as the poor availability of written or recorded documentation by the working men. Until people recognized "Uncle Waldo's" old dusty diary in the attic contained a link to history, they left it undisturbed among the other family heirlooms.

If you read Ambrose's book on the transcon, you find it rife with excerpts from the correspondence of the major players the big money and power guys and just a few references from the working man and almost nothing from the Chinese.

In reconstructing a new view of history we must be careful not to tell a story that we want heard (and should be heard), unless we have the reasonable documentation to substatiate it.

Ambrose acknowledges the lack of accurate numbers of Chinese or other workers lost in the endeavor. Does the lack of records infer that those in charge considered Asian life a cheap commodity? Perhaps, but today there is quite a bit of politically correct dogma arising from circumstatial evidence like this. It could have meant instead that it was economically unfeasible to document such occurences when so little personal information was known about these workers by their bosses and that the goal, the transcon would never become a reality if proper documentation were recorded for every accident that occurred over the life of the project. Let's not superimpose our biases upon those from a different era. Who can say what we would have done differently had we been them. We strive to make the world a better place by learning from our horrid past. That is quite an arrogant thought considering history DOES repeat itself.

I am just fine with opposing a revisionism that brings with it the social gospel of we'll all be better people if we just don't repeat stupid mistakes. In the short term we can improve our lot, hence railroad work is continually getting safer. But over the long haul, people with be driven by what they think is best for them. History has shown that we're not very good judges of that.

Let's stick with telling our visitors about the topics we know most about: rail's contributions to advances in technology, hands-on manufacturing technologies old and new, railroad manufacturing and operation and the history of industries allied with us. THere are a myria of other topics that match our mission statements, but until we do the others well, let's leave the revisionist topics and social gospel for the horses, perhaps they can think better with their bigger heads.

wyld@oc-net.com

> I doubt that disinterest in the common man's
> history was the driving source as much as
> the poor availability of written or recorded
> documentation by the working men. Until
> people recognized "Uncle Waldo's"
> old dusty diary in the attic contained a
> link to history, they left it undisturbed
> among the other family heirlooms.

I respectfully disagree. There has never been a nbotable lack of source material for industrial history-- railroads, companies, labor unions and fraternal organizations generated the stuff in reams. The hypothetical anecdote about Uncle Wlado's diary proves the point: the sources were always out there in abundance, they were simply never considered important until we changed our definitions of important.

> If you read Ambrose's book on the transcon,
> you find it rife with excerpts from the
> correspondence of the major players the big
> money and power guys and just a few
> references from the working man and almost
> nothing from the Chinese.

It is indeed a major flaw of Ambrose's book, which makes it a poor second to Empire Express.

> In reconstructing a new view of history we
> must be careful not to tell a story that we
> want heard (and should be heard), unless we
> have the reasonable documentation to
> substatiate it.

Indeed, no argument there.

> Ambrose acknowledges the lack of accurate
> numbers of Chinese or other workers lost in
> the endeavor. Does the lack of records infer
> that those in charge considered Asian life a
> cheap commodity? Perhaps, but today there is
> quite a bit of politically correct dogma
> arising from circumstatial evidence like
> this. It could have meant instead that it
> was economically unfeasible to document such
> occurences when so little personal
> information was known about these workers by
> their bosses and that the goal, the transcon
> would never become a reality if proper
> documentation were recorded for every
> accident that occurred over the life of the
> project. Let's not superimpose our biases
> upon those from a different era. Who can say
> what we would have done differently had we
> been them. We strive to make the world a
> better place by learning from our horrid
> past. That is quite an arrogant thought
> considering history DOES repeat itself.

I'm not sure I understand all the points here. I would certainly agree that we don't want to tell undocumented stories or leap to anachronisitic conclusions on flimsy evidence. However, I think it would be perfectly fair for an exhibit on the transcon, to continue the hypothetical, to make the point that compared to today's standards all worker's lives were cheap (not Asian lives especially, but all lives). That's a true observation, and not to my mind an especially PC one--it's just the dark reverse side of the happier, more positive story we tell about the Westinghouse air brake or the automatic coupler--that it took both technological innovation and a lot of advocacy to improve the working conditions.

> Let's stick with telling our visitors about
> the topics we know most about: rail's
> contributions to advances in technology,
> hands-on manufacturing technologies old and
> new, railroad manufacturing and operation
> and the history of industries allied with
> us. THere are a myria of other topics that
> match our mission statements, but until we
> do the others well, let's leave the
> revisionist topics and social gospel for the
> horses, perhaps they can think better with
> their bigger heads.

Well, here we may have a real difference of persepctive. As time wears on I feel that our long-term growth and survival depends on telling better stories about people in addition to telling stories about technology. I don't know whether telling stories that focus on workers and train or streetcar riders is "social gospel" or not, but I do feel it's the only way we are going to get peopel to connect with the technology. The sense of "natural connection" people used to feel is fading fast, and we're gonna need something to replace it or refresh it.


eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

An unearned trust is a tremendous responsibility. Most of our patrons come to our museums and railroads looking for history. Many have little or no experience with any type of railroading and we as experts need to help fill this void. What we give them will be reflected in what they will come away with. A child terrified by the whistle will calm down if he knows that that is the way the engine talks, and if the engineer has taken the time to tell him this personally, the parents learn too.

I personally feel that the only dumb question is the one you have in the car going home and try to answer as honestly and concisely as I can. Interacting with people will do more to educate folks than all the displays in the world.

ironbartom@aol.com

I am sort of lost in the discussion here and a bit shaky on what points exactly are being made, but it seems to me the only way we are going to reach people about our technology or its place in history is by relating it to the genuine needs it fulfilled and the impact it had on the people that interacted with it in its time. Railroads wouldn't have existed in a world without people to require them, invent them, and build them.

The small subset of humanity that relates to technology as an end in itself ( myself included) of course doesn't need that context - yet as I get older and my interests broaden, i find myself wanting to relate it to its human context as well.

Case in point: main current project a restoration of Central Railroad and Banking Co. inspection car #2. We chose (actually I imposed) a date of 1918 as the datum for the restoration - specifically Nov. 1918 when the armistice was signed - as a result of an oral history told me by a gentleman who was aboard that car that day.

The car was in official service from 1904 until sometime in the '20's but having a human story to use as an interpretive tool made that particular part of that time frame of interest. It will also help us explain the purpose of the car to visitors.

Can't strongly enough make the point that todays public is extremely ignorant and disconnected about railroading compared to us old farts and our predecessors. They truly don't know what trains do in other than very broad concepts. Stories that relate railroading from a historical human perspective will better influence and intrigue more of them than technical spepcifications in a vacuum.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> I think that may be because of all the
> sources of information, museums may not have
> as much of an agenda to promote as other
> sources.

As most of us do our jobs day to day, we may not think we have an agenda, other than to promote rail and the proper understanding of its current and historic role in the development of this country.

But you see, even what I have just said is not value free. Should it be? One has to be careful.

The AAM survey states that the public trusts museums because "they present history, are research-oriented, and deal in facts. All Americans, regardless of their level of trust in museums, cite history and facts as the top factors which make museums trustworthy."

We do what we can. . .

--Malcolm

Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

> Is anyone else bothered by this vein of
> thought? People trust museums because they
> don't have the same agendas as the
> "liberal media" and don't revise
> history? Leaving aside the fact that most
> media publishers have long been seen as
> conservative, the work of historians is
> constantly one of "revisionism."
> New material comes to light all the time,
> and scholarship is the analysis and
> interpretation of facts. It is not some
> constant truth the source material reveals.

I have always seen the word "revisionist" as the placing of themes and values onto past events that either do not belong there (because they are modern views) or which interpret history in a manner which subverts the truth so that the interpretation suits the needs of a particular group.

Within the context of your view of the word, I do agree that our job often revises our knowledge and sense of history by bringing to light facts and concepts which have not heretofore been known.

--Malcolm


Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

> Let's stick with telling our visitors about
> the topics we know most about: rail's
> contributions to advances in technology,
> hands-on manufacturing technologies old and
> new, railroad manufacturing and operation
> and the history of industries allied with
> us. THere are a myria of other topics that
> match our mission statements, but until we
> do the others well, let's leave the
> revisionist topics and social gospel for the
> horses, perhaps they can think better with
> their bigger heads.

Even if we stick to what we know, we can still run into trouble, trouble of a much deeper order than garden variety "debates" about whether F units are better than E units (which they are ).

For example, if I create a railroad workers exhibit, how can I fairly describe the job of the Pullman porter without inadvertently including a message of some kind?

For example, do I describe the Pullman strike of 1894 with or without mentioning Debs? If I mention him, some people will say, "aw, he was a damned socialist" and will dismiss the strike as some misguided commie-type uprising. If I mention the use of Federal troops, a number amounting to about half the US Army at the time, perhaps the visitors filing past the exhibit will see Frederick Remington's drawings depicting the confrontations between the troops and the mob, and they might see it as "a good strike gone bad" or they might think the use of troops was overkill and take pity on the workers who had been forced to take a paycut during the long depression.

Or, should I state that the Pullman porter position paid more money than many other jobs available to black workers then (and was good) or should I use the quote of one writer on the subject to the effect that George Pullman moved the pre-civil war plantation system onto the rails (meaning that it was bad)?

Whatever I say, I may accidentally tarnish the truth for one visitor while showing it accurately to another. Both versions of the truth may be true, but presenting that notion on a short span of Mila Wall is fairly difficult.

--Malcolm


Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

> I am sort of lost in the discussion here and
> a bit shaky on what points exactly are being
> made, but it seems to me the only way we are
> going to reach people about our technology
> or its place in history is by relating it to
> the genuine needs it fulfilled and the
> impact it had on the people that interacted
> with it in its time.

This is often the hardest thing we must do as well as the most necessary.

Our visitors don't give a tinker's damn about roster lists or the exact moment that some massive renumbering system changed the 1000-2000 series into the 4200-5200 series.

Well, some of them do, but they are crazy.

Those who are less crazy want to know who rode in the damn things and where they were going as well as what happened when cinders caught their hats on fire, or what some lightning slinger told the people in the station when the wires brought him the news that the overdue train was strewn all over a corn field five miles out of town.

People make it real.

--Malcolm

Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

> An unearned trust is a tremendous
> responsibility. Most of our patrons come to
> our museums and railroads looking for
> history. Many have little or no experience
> with any type of railroading and we as
> experts need to help fill this void.

What bothers me is the fact that people's baseline knowledge is so low that it's hard to know where to start.

When a reporter comes into the museum, for example, and refers to all of the freight and passenger cars as locomotives, I am somewhat torn between telling him he is too damn stupid to be covering the story and telling him that while TRAINS Magazine thinks everything is, or should be, a locomotive, that the rest of us actually have more than one word for describing all of the stuff in our museums.

The responsibility for doing the right thing here is often hard to live up to.

--Malcolm

Southeastern Railway Museum
grinnellglacier@yahoo.com

> What bothers me is the fact that people's
> baseline knowledge is so low that it's hard
> to know where to start.

In this era of mass communication, people tend to be divorced from the realities of life. Few of our visitors truly understand what even powers our trains, steam or diesel. Most think in terms of automobiles, the most familiar large machine people have to deal with normally. With anyone other than the guy with the railroad tee shirt I always assume that their knowledge of railroading is minimal. Some times I am happily surprised.

Tom

ironbartom@aol.com