In
the last few years research into the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses has
resulted in books and journal articles of mixed character, but often better
than the few academic works previously printed. But coverage of the Russell era
has not materially improved. Judging by content and limited contact with some
of the authors, the fault seems to be lack of thorough research.
Some
of those who visit this blog have notable research and writing skills. A few of
us are aging. And we won’t be here forever. It’s past time for you to turn your
talent into writing based on fresh research. Anyone can repeat the nonsense
written by those who preceded them. A convention of academic writing is to
reference and repeat what others have written. This nonsense takes the place of
solid, fresh research. Where are the newer writers? Why haven’t you done your
best to add to quality research?
6 comments:
You are right, despite recent improvements there remains a dearth of original and accurate material about Russell. But then the same could be said of the Rutherford era, which is crucial to the foundation of the modern organisation. Writers on Russell often speak well of him (or is it just that I haven't read those obviously critical?), but few among the most even handed scholars seem to have much positive to say about Rutherford, even though his legacy is immense. This becomes especially apparent when one studies other religious groups facing similar difficulties to the Bible Students in First World War America and how they have thereafter adapted their approach to fit the wishes of society and state.
If this system survives longer than we expect, hopefully others will build on the work of Rachael and yourself. If not, then it will hardly seem to matter anyway, will it? Meanwhile, many much welcome your valuable contribution.
I agree with the sentiments of this post and Gary's response. If one is to be brutally honest there has not always been a positive response to one's efforts.
I'm also a little confused by what you are asking for here. Early WT history has been 'nailed' by Separate Identity Vols 1&2. What are your plans for continuation? If you are going to move forward with your research (which I hope is the case), there's little point to others covering the period of WT history you are covering - so from what date would you encourage further research and articles? And with such a huge range of time and places after, say, 1919, research subjects could be random and scatter-gun - unless it was organised by someone.
In a nutshell, where would one start to provide 'fresh research'?
As I see Separate Identity, and Nelson Barbour the book that preceded it, our research is all preliminary. There is much more to the story than I can tell or even uncover. Fresh research can cover any era. A fresh eye uncovers things others miss. I have books outline up to 1942. Given my age and health, most of them will not be written.
There are unexplored archives, access to which require a trip to the sources that I cannot make. I have trouble driving to the hospital which is less than a mile from my house. But both the Canadian and United States National archives have material I can only see by visiting. An Episcopalian archive has material relevant to Liberia as does the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress also has American Colonial Society material I can only see by paying a researcher [more money than my year's income] and they have Jones' Day Star. There're more things like that.
As detailed as Separate Identity is, it's an abbreviated history that already needs some revision. I do not write 'the last word.'
I agree with much of what has been said.
I would love to see your outline for the 1920s to 1930s era of the Watchtower movement and it's splinter groups. This is an era ripe for research because so much of the documentation for this period has been newly reproduced digitally over the last decade or so and new documentation from this time period keeps popping up all the time. The material out there for the reseachers who would like to spend the time.
@BW Schultz. I appreciate your last comments.
Seems to me that rather than lose your outlines for the period to 1942, you might consider assigning specific periods to writers you trust to research and write-up their conclusions and have them sent the draft mss to you, to be edited, posted and even published after your approval.
That way your work survives and the body of work is quickly increased.
Just a thought...
I would read over whatever any of you write, making suggestions. But I'm not comfortable outlining someone else's work. Besides, I never end up following the outlines I first make. Research always takes me elsewhere, to other ideas, and to hidden corners.
As I told one of my students, "You must plow your own field."
Post a Comment