When not substantiated by reliable provenance-- a basic criteria of historical proof.
The recent debate concerning a newly-transitioned entity and it's perceived woes in Bonnie & Clyde Land-- just goes to highlight an ongoing problem concerning all history including Bonnie & Clyde History-- where artifacts are sometimes sold as authentic without adequate proof of such. Years ago, it seemed harder to justify bogus articles of history marketed as real. This was because legitimate auction houses, especially of the major-league variety-- insisted on solid provenance, before offering people's articles for sale under the good name and auspices of the auction house.
However, the proliferation of "quick-sale" services such as ebay and Craigslist, have seemingly altered the landscape of historical sales.. in that they allow for provenance to be assumed and not proven, prior to sale upon sale of fee derived offerings. So apparently as long as everyone benefits (except in some cases, those buying suspect items)-- all is good.. and the term "buyer beware" takes on an air of importance, beyond the words which occupy that now quite necessary phrase.
However, the proliferation of "quick-sale" services such as ebay and Craigslist, have seemingly altered the landscape of historical sales.. in that they allow for provenance to be assumed and not proven, prior to sale upon sale of fee derived offerings. So apparently as long as everyone benefits (except in some cases, those buying suspect items)-- all is good.. and the term "buyer beware" takes on an air of importance, beyond the words which occupy that now quite necessary phrase.
And why is it important truth reign, concerning the authenticity of historical artifacts-- regardless of which history they come from?? Because without truth-- everything touted as real could be judged "suspect" or false, and thus meaningless from an historical viewpoint. Then instead of tracing history and it's realities-- we would spend needless time.. just trying to determine "what's what" and ask fairly, why people would cheapen history for a buck-- with perhaps the added perception of their own self-importance as peddlers of historical magic??
So no matter the history or sales outlet-- why do some shamelessly cheapen history?? Could it be greed?? Or ignorance?? Or a lack of character.. or all of the above?? I vote for all of the above. For those within historical circles who could easily "do the right thing" and insist on truth within history, but instead-- support human failings, or aid in the raping of historical worth, by contributing "suspect" items for sale within any historical marketplace-- do history in general and for our purposes, Bonnie & Clyde History a disservice.
And then, for some to lend their misplaced energies behind the scenes-- in lambasting those who have the will to speak out concerning historical shenanigans-- well, how dare those people-- and what little character (historical or otherwise) they too seem to possess. I surely do not understand, those who support wrong over right-- while claiming to love the history they demean. For history is not about the adulation or mindless following of "group leaders".. it is about the good of honest history for all-- who wish to learn of and contribute to it's cause.
And then, for some to lend their misplaced energies behind the scenes-- in lambasting those who have the will to speak out concerning historical shenanigans-- well, how dare those people-- and what little character (historical or otherwise) they too seem to possess. I surely do not understand, those who support wrong over right-- while claiming to love the history they demean. For history is not about the adulation or mindless following of "group leaders".. it is about the good of honest history for all-- who wish to learn of and contribute to it's cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment