RECAPS LETTERS
IN ANSWER TO AN OPINION BY a Mr. Ennis from Spokane, Washington, in HCC #180:
What a ridiculous comment to make about Chrysler styling. “The 1955-’56 Plymouths were the last good looking cars that Chrysler has made.” You are hilarious...I am still laughing…as are probably many other readers. I almost thought you were serious; you’re not, are you?
Bill Shega
North Royalton, Ohio
TO RESPOND TO PRESIDENT OF THE Society of Automotive Historians Louis Fourie’s comment in HCC #181 Recaps, and Chris Bullington’s in HCC #182: I have encountered notable examples of misinformation innumerable times throughout my studies as an emerging historian, which comprise subjects as esoteric as the evolution of the medieval heavy plow, while in college, to my present independent study of the Ford Motor Company. The spread of published misinformation can be pinned on a writer’s knowledge (or ignorance) of historiography, a tool used by historians to rout out unsubstantiated, biased accounts for trustworthy sources. This method requires further explanation to those not familiar it.
Historiography is the critical history of a body of historical writing; that is, historiographers perform a chronological critical analysis of published sources on a specific subject, to determine what sources should be avoided and embraced by writers. Thus, a pool of reliable, objective sources is created that guides historians in crafting an accurate narrative of that subject. Of course, a historiographer’s job is never consummated, since there are subjects that they have not analyzed, and the ones they have witness a constant influx of new publications, which must be analyzed to ensure they are in line with the present historiography that is accepted by experts of that subject. If the author did not consult with experts or a published historiography of the
