I'm sorry that you choose to see "an underlying vitriol in the tone of writing"
And I'm sorry that you choose to feel that I'm "scornful" of your work.
My ONLY criticism (and this is a point I made to the organisation a year ago) is with the
repeated claim to be THE FIRST to bring such histories to light.
In making such a claim you do an injustice to those who, for decades, have been bringing this history to light. Evidence of their work can be found in the archives of local history collections, in published works, and on the internet.
I do NOT feel "sour grapes" as you state, after all I've not produced any work in this field, but I do appreciate accuracy.
Over the last 20 years I have read most of the material produced on the early black presence and I have attended many events related to this field - including - as you know - events and material produced by Scawdi - and so I know what exists and how far back it goes.
To repeatedly claim to be THE FIRST to bring such histories to light is an inaccurate assertion.
I do feel that 'History Detectives' do themselves a disservice by promoting such an inaccuracy.
If you are serious about wanting to "push back the barriers that continue to exclude groups like ours", surely a good starting point would be to NOT exclude the groups of the past that have been involved in the SAME goal - bringing to light what had been hidden/overlooked.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm trying to "shoot you down".
But when you say, "Why does this keep happening? What's wrong in being supportive and saying well done?" I ask myself the same thing in relation to the work of the past which is ignored when each new group comes along and claims to be "the first" to be doing this kind of work.
The result is that each new group repeats what has already been done and the move forward that could have occured, if the past work had been acknowledged, fails to take place.
But I remain hopeful.
Angela
|