History Lesson...

As a fledgling aerospace engineer at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, I was eventually sent to “charm schools” where they taught you how to not act like an engineer giving presentations. Since nobody else could explain flutter stuff to the customer, they had no choice but to unleash the engineer who did the work to speak before various meetings, conferences, technical summits and the like. Despite the threat to get fired in one session (another story) I managed over the years to matriculate. Besides basics like removing loose change from your pockets so you don’t “fiddle” and “jingle” in front of everybody, one of the tenants that was drilled into everybody was “Don’t Read Your Viewgraphs!” (starting out with those plastic transparencies and nowadays PowerPoint slides). In other words, if your first line said: “there is plenty of flutter margin with this design”, don’t stand there, turn around to face the screen and say: “there is plenty of flutter margin with this design”. They bore this into you like a carpenter bee into a post.

So naturally over the years whenever I am in a situation where a presentation is being made, I cannot help but critique it from my background as a technical presenter. So this tendency carried over to our attendance of “The Early Chesapeake: Reflections and Projections”, that was held Thursday through yesterday in the Holiday Inn on the Solomons.

The purpose of the conference was to take a look at the state of the history of the region and speculate on what areas still need to be expanded. The giants of Chesapeake Historians and Archeologists from all over the country were present, along with some aspiring graduate students. Topics dealing with “what is a region”; the rise of Slavery, women’s roles, interaction with the native population, the western movement, etc., were all considered. I didn’t go verify this but the closing speaker said there were 63 papers and numerous panel discussions made. Papers ranged from didactic to whimsical (that’s not the proper word, but all I can come up with), with titles like “Keeping the Faith: The Catholic Context and Content of Justus Engelhardt Kühn’s Portraits of Eleanor and Henry Darnall III, ca. 1710” to “”At the Instigation of the Divell”: Witchcraft and Early Maryland Women”, and “Where Did All of the Taverns Go? Exploring the English Adaptation of the Chesapeake through Drinking Establishments”. The latter was presented by Rod Cofield, Jr., who some might remember as an interpreter here at St. Mary’s City, now located at Historic London Town and Gardens, up in Edgewater.

Although tempting, I won’t go through what I learned, although it certainly was (at times) most informative. By far the best presentation for me was Doug Owsley’s “New Perspectives on the Early Chesapeake from the Analysis of Human Skeletons”. Doug is with the Smithsonian and was very involved in the Lead Coffin Project here in St. Mary’s City, and is internationally known for his work in Forensic Anthropology. From analyses of the bones, he can determine nationality, race, age and (most of the time) cause of death, diet, disease, a whole picture of an individual who otherwise has nothing known.

But what was most disappointing to me besides hearing the terms “historiographic” and “historiography” too many times was (you might refer back to the first paragraph now) that almost to a person (Mr. Owsley a notable exception) the presentation(s) consisted of the author standing behind the podium, head down, reading their paper! Due to time constraints it might not have been the complete paper, but it was word for word what was on the paper. I can read the paper for heaven’s sake, if you made the effort to travel here in person, can’t you at least give more insight as to what went into the paper? The sparse viewgraphs that were sometimes included were in such a small font that they were impossible to comprehend. With some discreet inquiries to some of the (local) historians I find that reading a paper word for word is exactly the norm, and is what is expected. Not by me, but that’s just me. The papers were also full of references to other works such as: “As shown by (jones, smith and Wesson) in their seminal treatise of 1956….”; or, “not as (smucker, strawberry and marmalade) postulated in their paper of 1976> and stuff like that.

Of course there were time for questions included at the end of each session. Again from my background, a question would be: “what did you mean by….”; or “how did you decide that…..”, simple, short, and a real question. With the Academics present however, it took on a whole different form. Speakers arose, announced themselves and proceeded to give their views on whatever subject (even remotely related) the speaker actually spoke to. After a 5 minute discourse, there might be a lame “I wondered what you thought about that”.

One might conclude from the above that I didn’t enjoy the conference. Far from it, it was sort of like my recent experience with the concerts. I stand in awe of anybody who knows so much about history and things that occurred in the development of the colonies and America, that my little niche knowledge of history around the brick chapel seems superficial and inconsequential. I gained a whole new perspective on the history around here, and it wants me learn more. Once again, what are you gonna do in Southern Maryland?

Oh, as far as any food hook, there was an “English High Tea” served on the first day between the opening sessions and plenary roundtable. I am sad to report there was not one dainty cucumber sandwich, no delicate watercress sandwiches, nor petit fours. Instead the only sandwiches served were chicken salad in what was obviously crust removed wonder bread maybe half an inch think (I would add the salad was very good, almost “straub’s” like). There were also those little cheese trays of cubed up cheddar, white, and spicy jack. Tea was achieved by putting hot water from an urn into your cup and select a bag to use. Well, with over a hundred folks what are you gonna do…

Not much chance to
DFD