The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.2004, Blaðsíða 8

102
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
Vol. 58 #3
can only be termed “sloppy research”.
Getting acquainted with historical fact and
assessing the reliability of sources, after all,
require some level of skill and commit-
ment, and as often as not, writers for com-
mercially driven cultural projects are
engaged without any prior knowledge of a
specialized subject area. Unfortunately,
this approach to history is invariably cou-
pled with a conspicuous absence of consul-
tation. In this way, for example, a recent
popular history of Lake Winnipeg rolled
off the press with scores of glaring errors in
the few pages on Icelandic settlement.
Apologists for historical pulp of this
kind go so far as to claim that “the facts”
don’t really matter, as “no-one knows the
difference” (or presumably cares). Some
even voice the opinion that real history is
boring. History is simply “whatever you
make it”. Hence quasi historical works
using the names of real people and direct
reference to actual events - prefaced with
disclaimers that “this is not history”, as if
to absolve the writers of responsibility!
What, then, of the real people whose
words, motives, and reputations are mis-
construed and misrepresented for posteri-
ty?
There is also a growing trend among
academics and writers of popular history
toward “historical revisionism”. While
revision in history is often both good and
necessary, in the “publish or perish” world
this approach, sometimes assumes charac-
teristics of the same witch-hunt mentality
and tunnel vision that plagues media jour-
nalism. In climbing onto the “revisionist”
bandwagon, many writers unfortunately
lose their objectivity and become caught up
in attempts to make history “sexy” by cre-
ating a “hook” or exploiting an “angle”.
Historical revisionism is fraught with
perils that challenge even the serious
researcher. Too often this approach relies
on huge assumptions made about complex
situations long after the fact, frequently
with only shreds of inconclusive informa-
tion and usually in the absence of anything
approaching real perspective or under-
standing. Without the intimate and exten-
sive knowledge necessary for real insight,
and in the interest of promoting a particu-
lar agenda, “revisionists” tend to be highly
selective in their treatment of sources and
their reconstruction of “the truth”. As a
result, both premise and conclusion are
often flawed or altogether specious, reflect-
ing to a greater degree the writer’s own
inexperience, mindset, and personal/acade-
mic agenda than those of the historical fig-
ures and events in question. Individuals of
long ago, it must be remembered, were
shaped by circumstances and beliefs virtu-
ally unknown to most people raised in con-
temporary urban society.
Is history worth getting right? In the
context of our own small “community”,
our long-standing penchant for history,
education, and scholarship places a high
priority on historical accuracy - notwith-
standing our equally well-known love of
folklore and storytelling. “Mythology” and
other theoretical musings notwithstanding,
it is the responsibility of anyone presuming
to present, interpret, or revise our history
to make the utmost effort to get the facts -
and to get them right.
Conversely, sweeping and unsubstan-
tiated presumptions about highly individ-
ual and complex aspects of the human psy-
che - such as values, attitudes, and collec-
tive conscience - should be avoided as
potentially untrustworthy, prejudicial, and
unjust. Readers of this issue would do well
to bear this in mind.
In a perfect world, writers of history
would steer clear of the pitfalls and tempta-
tions that contribute to the proliferation of
historical “lies” in our midst - whether
under the guise of “mythology”, “miscon-
ception”, “popular history”, or “academic
treatise”. After all, the historical legacy of
the Icelandic people in Canada - while not
without its dark aspects - is sufficiently rich
and blameless that it requires neither
embellishment nor apology.