colgaffneyis is a “Living History” group that claims to present an accurate picture of 17th century Scottish life. Scholarship advances, and what was thought to be an accurate picture a decade ago may not agree with the evidence now available. On more than one occasion I have challenged the conventional wisdom of the organization, carefully marshalling evidence from period sources. I had hoped that this would be noticed and that some changes would occur in our presentations accordingly. Even it someone disagreed, I would hope that they would argue the issue and present evidence for the opposing view. It would at least show they were interested and cared about historical accuracy.

Today at the Minnesota Scottish Ramble a prominent member twice, in front of the public, repeated one of those points that I had shown was wrong. I had presented extensive evidence demonstrating it was wrong in colgaffneyis Newsletter more than year ago. Nobody presented any evidence in reply, at the time or since then, to dispute my point. Yet on Saturday I heard the old “urban legend” repeated by someone I knew had seen my article and had not disputed it. Someone who claims to be devoted to historical accuracy. What is going on?

1. They consider the older ways of the organization to be holy writ, not to be changed in the face of evidence.
2. There are some designated experts on these issues, and nobody else’s opinion matters, even to discuss the issue.
3. They are stuck in their ways, and cannot be bothered to change a canned presentation.
4. They have it on some authority that I am wrong, but will not show me what that authority is.

I am particularly disturbed that this particular member has loudly said that research should be encouraged. Frankly, what I saw today is that research will be ignored, so I don’t see why the members should bother. If this continues I will certainly be looking for other places to discuss my scholarly interests, where I can hope to be taken seriously. I would like to believe that colgaffneyis is interested in serious discussion of historical evidence. Unfortunately, this is often not the case, even where our public presentations are concerned.