Aaron Severson (2022) has just posted a new story at his automotive history website, Ate Up With Motor. This is a noteworthy event because he has been relatively quiet over the last few years.
Meanwhile, Curbside Classic recently reran a story that included almost two-dozen comments from Severson, who posted under his nom de plume Ate Up With Motor (2016). Some of these comments were lengthy enough that they effectively added up to an article in their own right.
Severson’s string of comments is a good example of how he elevated the caliber of Curbside Classic’s historical analysis during the years when he made regular contributions.
Also see ‘What would happen to auto history media if they outlawed clickbait?’
A few days before Severson posted new material at Ate Up With Motor, he added a handful of additional comments to the above-mentioned Curbside Classic story (Ate Up With Motor, 2022). It’s terrific to see him back in both venues. However, I would like to bring up a deeper question: Why do so few professional automotive historians venture onto the Internet and engage in real-time discussions about substantive topics?
The back and forth displayed in the above-linked Curbside Classic story illustrates the value of talking through a complex topic. We could potentially resolve a handful of long-festering historical controversies if professional historians could be brought together regularly to participate in virtual discussions.
Society of Automotive Historians’ forum still sputters
I had high hopes that an electronic forum launched by the Society of Automotive Historians would help bring together the finest minds of the field. Instead, the forum — which has been online for more than two years — has generated relatively few posts.
This is surprising for a number of reasons. The forum is accessible to people who are not SAH members; in contrast, the group’s main website is mostly behind a paywall. The forum could draw upon a potentially large readership, e.g., more than 3,000 people follow the organization’s Facebook page. In addition, SAH sends out an e-newsletter that regularly reminds its members about the forum.
Also see ‘Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers‘
I have wondered whether most professional historians are not drawn to electronic methods of discourse (go here). However, perhaps the problem is much simpler: That the forum just needs more pump priming by an energetic convener. In other words, someone who regularly posts interesting topics and prods his or her colleagues to join in the discussion. Frequent marketing posts on SAH’s Facebook page could also help.
Whatever they do, I hope that the SAH doesn’t give up on the forum. With a little TLC it could become an important way to work through lingering automotive history debates.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Ate Up With Motor; 2016. Commentator in “Automotive History: Studebaker’s Automatic Drive (Borg Warner DG150/200/250) – Advanced, Efficient, But Too Expensive In The End.” Curbside Classic. Multiple posts beginning at 5:13 p.m., Aug. 26.
- ——; 2022. Commentator in “Automotive History: Studebaker’s Automatic Drive (Borg Warner DG150/200/250) – Advanced, Efficient, But Too Expensive In The End.” Curbside Classic. Multiple posts beginning at 11:41 p.m., Aug. 26.
- Severson, Aaron; 2022. “Don’t Call It Hydra-Matic: The Rolls-Royce and Bentley Automatic Gearbox.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted Sept. 4.
I cannot say why the Society of Automotive Historians public forum lacks your desired activity but can share a comment that may apply. In the Ferrari world there is a very active forum on which several of the most noted Ferrari historical experts have not and will not participate on. One of the most deeply respected of that group told me that his disdain for that forum was that he and the others that actually knew what they were talking about had put up with the active keyboard jockeys that were clueless.
Jeff, that’s a quite reasonable consideration. It can be hard to have a more advanced discussion when pretty much anyone can interject a comment that can be distracting in some way. One method of getting around that problem is to have a “fishbowl” discussion, which only includes selected experts. Readers can interject questions or comments, but those are filtered by a moderator.
Like most everything today, division and segmentation exists even in the “world” of automotive history. Everyone has a specific interest that must be protected and sharing common concerns or issues simply is not part of the discussion in many organizations.
When was the last time an organization like AACA made an effort to do some cooperative projects with SAH or any of the other “major” interest organizations to discuss not only the importance of automotive history, but what part each organization has in preserving that history in a form that will allow future enthusiasts or researchers to gather information about any and all aspects of what makes up the automotive community.
Preserving automotive history should be a priority for every one of these enthusiast organizations that know the time is coming when their membership rolls will completely disappear because no effort was made to insure that auto history will not be buried and forgotten simply because there is no cooperative effort to make that history easily accessible.
Ease of access will be a key element of preserving “our” history, making certain common platforms and protocols are put in place so 10 to 20 years from now that information can be found, using the digital technology we have at our finger tips.
The SAH forum has posted some of the questions related to cooperative efforts, but unfortunately our fellow enthusiasts, for the most part, want nothing to do with planning the future but are satisfied with keeping the same schedule of events, the same library or archive access, the same programs that address only their specific interests.
When brass era people begin talking with post war people and hot rodders begin talking to sports car racing buffs, and we all realize we do have a responsibility to keep ALL automotive history alive, then we might begin to see some active discussion.
I’m not holding my breath.
Jim, I suspect that part of the problem is that the field of automotive history is so heavily commoditized. In other words, the for-profit media dominates the field to a much greater degree than, say, American history.
My doctorate is in public administration. This field is big enough that there are multiple organizations which hold various types of conferences where scholars can present papers. The feedback received at those conferences can result in papers being approved for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Adding to your list of published articles is generally crucial to gaining tenure, so there is a built-in motivation to present papers. That leads to much more robust discussions — and rapid “knowledge production.”
In contrast, there really isn’t a cohesive scholarly field of automotive history. As far as I can tell (and someone correct me if I’m wrong), but the Society of Automotive Historians may be one of the few organizations that holds events where papers are presented and discussed (e.g., just last week the SAH participated in a panel on the Australian auto industry).
My sense is that the lack of venues for historians to get together is the main reason why the field moves at such a glacial pace. Fact errors and weak analysis can linger for decades beyond their “sell date.” This is understandable in a way because updating one’s analysis does not make that cash register ring. For example, what motivation does the auto editors of Consumer Guide have to update their reference books when your average car buff isn’t going to notice their problematic aspects?
Now, I have been talking about face-to-face dialogue. My sense is that scholars are more acculturated to that kind of venue than the electronic kind. That may partly reflect habit but also remember the underlying professional motivation — getting papers published. Informal virtual discussions don’t help a whole lot, particularly if the forums are accessible to those who don’t have advanced knowledge of automotive history. That can undercut the quality of the conversation to the point where it isn’t useful to participate (at least for professional reasons).
Why do so few professional automotive historians venture onto the Internet and engage in real-time discussions about substantive topics?
Okay. I’m holding…..
Still holding my breath. Still holding. Holding. Nope. It’s no use. Nobody cares. Proves my point.
I’m surprised/not surprised by this seeming lack of indifference. Surprised because the internet is the perfect forum for sharing, not surprised because like many “clubs”, they are a closed circle and don’t welcome input from “outsiders”
I’m certain this question will disappear into the ether, but does anyone have any idea what the median age is of members in any of the “big” clubs?
I go back to my original answer where there are way too many that are clueless confusing their voice with those that actually have a real understanding of the item under discussion/relevant information to add.
Look at so many of these forums to see completely irrelevant comments about “my third cousin’s friend had a Belchfire 8 that I once got a ride in” followed by more of similar ilk. Added nothing to the understanding of the actual topic.
The other version is someone that stinking up the place by demanding a signed note from God to prove what is already, and has been, patently obvious to everyone with a functioning brain.
I’ve never been to the SAH site, but if the good stuff is behind a paywall, a forum isn’t going to work.
A forum where the lesser members are moderated doesn’t work, either, in my opinion. People want to see their post immediately, not when some moderator gets around to it.
I think the solution is to have a strong, fair moderator who can check the forums several times a day. He or she can immediately delete the irrelevant and insipid posts.
Yep, that would be a tough assignment.
IA’s comment section is very good.
John, the SAH’s forum is on a separate website (here) from their main website, which is behind a paywall (here).
Nevertheless, participation has been decidedly sporadic. I find that unfortunate because the SAH has a relatively large membership and is arguably the most neutral venue to debate controversial historical issues.
As case in point, I sense that there are some people who dislike my point of view enough that they either won’t comment at Indie Auto or have stopped doing so. That’s entirely fine. I’m not trying to play a convening role, but rather am giving visibility a perspective that I don’t think has gotten the attention it has deserved.
Thank you for your kind words. Of course, some will disagree. Editorial decisions aren’t always popular, but my goal isn’t to maximize comments — it’s to cultivate a more analytical conversation.
I’ve been described, among other things, as a historian. I’m not. I have no formal training, though I do believe I am a fairly good researcher. I can also coherently string words together, probably thanks to my junior high English teacher who encouraged me to join the writers club. Thirteen years old, kinda geeky and a room full of giggling girls. So began my romance with the English language.
Then I looked under the hood of my grandfather’s ’57 Oldsmobile. That Super 88 bit me big time. But a degree in English and Journalism, a successful business career and a penchant for getting my hands and other extremities as greasy as possible and seeing how fast I could go on a 90cc Honda did not make me a historian.
I’m an enthusiast, like most people that participate in this hobby. We all are infatuated with different aspects of the automotive universe. But few of us are historians. Historians are people dedicated to preserving history. Automotive history. We all have a shared interest, but not all of us are willing to share.
Which is why the effort to create cooperation when it comes to preserving automotive history is impossible. There are too many self interested and self serving organizations that have no interest in sharing. They have their interests to preserve. This is business. It’s not personal. Or maybe it is.
Share that library of information? No way. How about that collection that could shed light on years of automotive history? Nope. Talk about a corroboration that might benefit future generations? Why?
As much as I love the hobby and all its attributes, I’m deeply disappointed how hard it is to bring organizations together to discuss something we should all be able to embrace.
In the past 10 years I’ve made a point of joining all sorts of vintage vehicle enthusiast groups. I wanted to learn what priorities they had and what importance they embraced as they looked toward the future. I’m afraid cooperation isn’t high on anyone’s list. Increasing memberships and income? Yes. Appeal to youth, in some fashion? Sure. Why not. Maintain that archive of information behind that wall of security and paid researchers? Of course. After all, it’s ours and if you want to access it, write your check or fly to a far flung location to leaf through files of paper based materials.
SAH membership is made up of good people and much like me few of them are actually historians. Yes, publishing writings on academia.com and maybe creating a book or two is important. But finding cooperation among the automotive faithful is near impossible. And that means our history will eventually be relegated to truckloads of cardboard boxes that will simply hold no importance for historians in the future.
Let the criticism begin.
You may be right. However, I don’t think it hurts to talk about these issues.