Big Woolwich: am I mad?

[alan_fincher]

But did any working boatmen actually wear horned helmets ?

 

Can we be truly sure they didn't ?

 

Is this why at least one current day Josher owner seems to think a pair of buffalo horns on top of the cratch is a traditional adornment ?

 

Can we expect to see Josher horns being offered along with Josher bows on new build boats ?

 

The questions just go on, and on.

[FadeToScarlet]

No not deliberatelty misleading, historically inaccurate would be a better analysis.

 

Under the sub heading "Clothes" within a section entitled "People on the Canals" the Trust states "During the first two, or so, decades of the century, the boatmen's flat cap gave way to other styles, including the bowler and the trilby." If that is not saying that boatemen started to wear either a Trilby or Bowler instead of a Flat cap, I clearly need to re-sit my English Examinations. A further example of how muddled and misleading this statement is that the Photographic evidence would suggest that one of the "other styles" Boatmen started to wear instead of the flat cap, was clearly the Flat Cap!!

 

In order to make accurate statement about events in the past, it is necessary to demonstrate that the statement can be supported by evidence. What the Trust appear to have done is publish a popularised myth without researching it's accuracy. They are not alone in this, indeed much of the (so called) history that I have read in books, repeats mistakes that have been copied from other poorly researched works. I spend a great deal of my time in Records Offices and Libraries pouring over old documents, and would never publish any statement unless I could support it with documentary evidence. If I do (with permission) use someone elses work, I first satisfy myself of the integrity of their research before using it.

 

We need to remember that this document is aimed at children, who will accept the statements as true. It is particularly unimpressive that a Trust purporting to represent a section of Industrial history should publish material which misinforms children. I recognise that it is a small and unimportant point, but as someone who takes a great deal of time to ensure that any research that I publish is accurate, it irritates me.

 

Sorry. I really must not say any more. Rant over.

 

Oh no, please do. Part of my worries concerned about going into teaching- and teaching history in particular- is that I will, doubtlessly, find it hard to reconcile my degree training- of being cynical, of watching every single word I say (having had my arguments ripped apart by supervisors just because of careless phrasing, such as saying "All" when I meant "most", or "to a large extent" when I meant "to some extent"...) and of having a very post-structuralist view of the past. It's extremely hard to know anything about the past with any degree of accuracy; it's completely impossible to know for certain.

 

To take as an example, you've said that your reading of the Trust's material is that working boatmen started to wear either trilby or bowler hats; but the actual literature just gives these examples amongst other styles that were adopted, and doesn't say that they were the most common, or the most widely adopted; just that these, and other styles, became more popular over the flat cap. There's an example of academic, pedantic nit-picking!

 

And, yet, I'm going to have to stand up in front of the class and give them "facts" when I'm completely happy to write a 3,000 word essay arguing closely and strongly that there's no such thing. Luckily enough, I should be able to engage my cynicism and try and make the pupils THINK- that's my over-riding aim. To try and couple their natural, teenage "really?" with an academic realisation that you can, and should, question things and not take them for granted. But I don't want to teach "facts"; I want them to try and realise how those "facts" are derived, and what you ought to do with them, rather than enshrining them and saying they are completely, and utterly, the truth.

 

Which is why I have a very big problem with "Heritage", but that's another story...

Edited May 21, 2009 by FadeToScarlet

[David Schweizer]

Oh no, please do. Part of my worries concerned about going into teaching- and teaching history in particular- is that I will, doubtlessly, find it hard to reconcile my degree training- of being cynical, of watching every single word I say (having had my arguments ripped apart by supervisors just because of careless phrasing, such as saying "All" when I meant "most", or "to a large extent" when I meant "to some extent"...) and of having a very post-structuralist view of the past. It's extremely hard to know anything about the past with any degree of accuracy; it's completely impossible to know for certain.

 

To take as an example, you've said that your reading of the Trust's material is that working boatmen started to wear either trilby or bowler hats; but the actual literature just gives these examples amongst other styles that were adopted, and doesn't say that they were the most common, or the most widely adopted; just that these, and other styles, became more popular over the flat cap. There's an example of academic, pedantic nit-picking!

 

And, yet, I'm going to have to stand up in front of the class and give them "facts" when I'm completely happy to write a 3,000 word essay arguing closely and strongly that there's no such thing. Luckily enough, I should be able to engage my cynicism and try and make the pupils THINK- that's my over-riding aim. To try and couple their natural, teenage "really?" with an academic realisation that you can, and should, question things and not take them for granted. But I don't want to teach "facts"; I want them to try and realise how those "facts" are derived, and what you ought to do with them, rather than enshrining them and saying they are completely, and utterly, the truth.

 

Which is why I have a very big problem with "Heritage", but that's another story...

 

 

You have just proved my point about misrepresentation. I have nothing more to add.

[PaddingtonBear]

Surely you can't misrepresent what may or may not have existed. At a very simple level, the old chestnut "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' makes the point well (?)

[Derek R.]

Sounds like a teacher seeking tuition.

[carlt]

the old chestnut "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' makes the point well (?)

Yes, it was so much simpler, when good guys wore white hats and bad guys wore black (or did they??).

[PaddingtonBear]

Do you mean James or James? If it is me, horny handed son of toil that I am, I am flattered.

[Chertsey]

I have just discovered another reason why a Woolwich is better than a Northwich. When you put your keys down on the cabin top for a minute, and then accidentally knock them while putting the chimney on, they won't slip under the handrail and fall in the canal.

 

I have just been out on Tarporley.

[PaddingtonBear]

Where is Magnetman when you need him?

[furnessvale]

I have just discovered another reason why a Woolwich is better than a Northwich. When you put your keys down on the cabin top for a minute, and then accidentally knock them while putting the chimney on, they won't slip under the handrail and fall in the canal.

 

I have just been out on Tarporley.

 

Been there once only, two potential cures for this.

 

First, test the number of keys on the float in the cut. The number of bunches of keys you see on a single cork float that will sink like a stone if they go in is amazing.

 

Second. if you must have a big bunch on one float, fasten the bunch to the cork with 18" or so of strong cord. When the bunch goes in, the cork will float free to be recovered by the sweep of a boat hook.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Chertsey]

Been there once only, two potential cures for this.

 

First, test the number of keys on the float in the cut. The number of bunches of keys you see on a single cork float that will sink like a stone if they go in is amazing.

 

Second. if you must have a big bunch on one float, fasten the bunch to the cork with 18" or so of strong cord. When the bunch goes in, the cork will float free to be recovered by the sweep of a boat hook.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Of course, if I had had them on a float, it would have stopped them going under the handrail in the first place....