Why is it????????????????!!!!!!!

[lostone1413]

Why is it that when you read about the people of the old West no book seems to agree with the other book you read?? If you really think about it you should be able to read alot of first hand accounts word for word interviews with say Earp or Holiday It really wasn't that many years ago when you think about it. I'm in my mid 50's my grandfather who I remember very well was born before the OK Corral Wyatt lived to 1929 was it?? Up to a few years ago their were still people livin who knew these people first hand. Sems most of the books at the store are closes to fiction. That is like whhen I think of indian raids I never knew tell I read in a few books that near the mexican border on very rare cases their were indian raids to like 1940. I love to read about the old West but it is hard to find the truth

[Holiday]

Ain't that the truth! All I can guess is tha that many of the folks of the old west were privet individuals that didn't tell much about themselves. As a result, many "legends" and stories evolved around them. If ya think about it, the ones we know the most about were the flamboyant ones,  the ones who loved to talk of themselves and see their names in the headlines.

[williamlayton]

could it be that history is written by those who are not objective ? i believe this is the case--it takes a long time for history to be accounted for in an objective mode, and then only maybe. history, truth--well maybe the two are not alway the same.
as for individual accounts-they are mostly saga and saga is never objective. it is not susposed to be. mostly told by the winner, with a lot of spin. writers write what they are told and then they add a lot of adjetives. i personally prefer to read a lot of different accounts from as many pespectives as possible--well documented reading--then i come to a conclusion, but even then it is my own conclusion, reinforced by my culture, background and social mores.
the lord knows the truth of history.
blessings

[Capt Hamp Cox]

Gotta realize that many of the eyewitness accounts of events that make up "Old West" history were never written down until many years after the event.  By then, the eyewitness most likely had forgotten certain details, or had embellished his story so many times he actually believed that was the way it happened.  Many  newspaper accounts of "Old West" events were written more with the intent to sell newspapers than to report the news, and may or may not reflect what actually happened.  Also must consider that not all people who witnessed the same event necessarily saw and/or remembered the same details.  If you look at many of the "first hand" accounts of Custer's last stand, you will find similarities, but you will also find significant differences, depending on where on the battlefield the witness was.  Realizing these are inherent problems associated with researching material for a book based on a real event or real person where verifiable documentation is scarce, it isn't surprising that two writers researching the same real event or real person may publish books that are contradictory or contain entirely different aspects of the same subject, depending on what or who their information sources were.  Although I hate to admit it, I"m like old williamlayton in that I like to read as many accounts as possible and draw my own conclusions.  That's one of the really fun aspects of reading about historical events.

[williamlayton]

i got to stand in defence of hamp---ya'll got to overlook his last post--there must be somthin horrible goin on with him if'n he's gonna agree with me. ya'll jest forgive and try to fergit--he'll come to his senses pretty soon and repent--i jest know it.
as i sit here this morning-just pondering-i'm thinking about the lord. the bible is an awsome book---2500 years from the beginning of writing to the end of  revelation. 40 somthing authors. from beginning too end the same revelation--christ jesus-the messiah-god. that is the central story, the revealing of christ--what god's plan for the redemption of fallen man was/is. all first hand accounts of revealed truth from god. yet man in all of his pride can take this revelation and find flaw or take a passage and create dissention--create his own religion, leaving christ from it, majoring on minors, put in his own plan of salvation, make god a servant to man, taking promises out of contex, creating a new law of salvation by the creating of law, creating a social gospel--going his own way too his own glory.  then you wonder why history is so screwd up---man wants to re-create history to his own glory or for his own personal reward.
the lord knows we are flawed--thats kind of a nice way of saying we are pretty screwed up, sinners if you must.
do not take history too seriously, certainly do not take it for the saga. learn from history, lessons- moral and spiritual--because history is the account of fallen man doing the same things over and over-never getting it right-and we never will.
but there is coming a day when the lord will set it all in place, by destruction, and creating a place man can not even dream of.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Well look at the current headlines in today's paper.

From the stories in many "liberal" prints you'd think this deal in Iraq is a dismal failure.  But from other accounts it's going quite well.  

So a hundred years from now people are gonna dig out copies of these papers and magazines and find conflicting views.

[MOGorilla]

Well, one of the main problems is that History is written by the victors.  The Clanton clan may have been genuinely nice people, but the Earps had better PR and told the story first.  Also, as stated when first hand accounts are put down, everyone sees things differently and are tainted by their own opinions.  This means the Historian must compile it all and make a judgement call.  Everyone's judgement is different and affected by their surroundings.  I am a Chemist by training, but a few years ago I went back to work on a History degree.  I am interested in many aspects of history, mostly focused on post roman europe.  I was still finishing off the bachelors requirements, but talking to advisors about possible masters topics.  My topics were all shot down as too focused on dead white men and war/weapons.  Not popular topics in todays history curriculum.  Suggested topics were women's issues, justice systems, and with my background, science.  I have no problems with these topics, just not my cup of tea.  I finally discovered that school/work and marriage were hard to juggle and stopped after 36 hours of history courses.  Today's history focuses on the political climate of the world.  The USA is not popular, so we find attrocities done by the governemnt, people and ancestors and focus on them.  This country has done some terrible things, and probably will again, but if you put them on the scale of justice vs what we have done for the good of the world, I am pretty sure we end up on the plus side.  You talley the evils of most European countries and this include our friend Britain, and you would be hard pressed to find one that doesn't sink so hard on the negative that it breaks the scale.  They will be the first to tell you that is not who they are now, sins of the father, etc.   That just does not apply to the good old USA.  Oh well, that is my rant for the day.

[williamlayton]

how will history judge us--hmmmm-interesting thought. just my thoughts and oppeeeenions--not to bring up debate, yea-right--i got a lot of chance on this one, right.
not kindly i'm almost certain. labels for this century--not just the u.s. of a.--the me generation, spin specialist, idiots, politicians(in the worst way you can say it), egomaniacs, without conscience, witout a brain, oh well ya can go on and on.
the problem is we don't get a vote, and tha folks votin may very well look back and say "what in the blazes were they thinkin"--problem is they are gonna judge that we were not thinkin-at least not beyond our nose. i think they will say all we were trying to do was satisfy our next desire. we were beyond the pale--caught up in a haze.
now this really is "just a personal thought"--how does the lord judge us.
soapbox is empty
blessings