Results 31 to 37 of 37
-
19th April 2011, 05:28 #31
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 3,224
- Like
- 0
- Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
It seems to me that the Stockbridge oval story may be attributable to Tim Flock, whose interviews feature prominently in both the Chapin and Wilkinson books. I just pulled Chapin's book off the shelf and Flock was adamant that that was the way it started, ....."I don't care what anyone else tells you," .... he is quoted as saying in reference to stock car racing starting in a cow pasture outside of Atlanta.
I have no doubt that there was an impromptu race or two in a cow pasture, but somehow he built it up in his mind that that was the origin of stock car racing until he believed it. Memory is funny. Things that happened once gradually become what you did all of the time and ordinary events become embellished to the extraordinary.¿Quién es el que anda aquí?
-
19th April 2011, 15:02 #32
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
You are correct regarding Tim Flock and the Stockbridge mythology. All the research in recent years points to Flock as the probable -- or at least most vocal -- proponent of the Stockbridge story. Pierce went to considerable effort to examine and research the possibility of the Stockbridge track story being true. In both Chapin and then in Wilkinson, Flock is quite adamant about the tale. However, there is more than sufficient reason to cast considerable doubt on the veracity of the story. Historians are more than aware of the foibles of memory, any historian dealing with oral history has found this out, more often than not the hard way. However, whatever the problems there might be with oral history collections, they definitely serve a purpose and can be invaluable.
Pierce contends, correctly I believe, that Flock confused the date and location of the "Stockbridge" track with a post-war effort. During that period there were tracks literally carved from the red clay of the Southeastern Piedmont almost overnight. That Flock and others were never challenged or closely questioned -- at least openly -- regarding this and other similar claims, allowed the legend become folklore which then morphed into mythology.
It is interesting to note how some "old-timers" and writers turned the "Stockbridge" story into a venue that would have easily rivaled Lakewood Speedway, with Bill France promoting the events and also setting up the infrastructure for the "track." Truly amazing stuff to read. So, how it could have escaped notice is a mystery in and of itself, of course.
The history of the development of stock car racing in the United States is a far more complex and nuanced story than most care to read or even think about. It is certainly not simple. Plus, NASCAR is not above changing the story and its role in it to suit its purposes, as the moonshiner still in the NASCAR museum in Charlotte clearly indicates. For years and years, NASCAR consistently ignored any talk of the role of the "trippers" in its development, its raison d'etre being as a counter to the unscrupulous promoters skipping out with the purse leaving the drivers and others high and dry -- a practice which France and NASCAR presented as commonplace, but for which there has been scant documentation, even Ray Parks having trouble recalling any cases of promoters stiffing the drivers.
In additon, few today seem to understand source of the enmity that Bruton Smith continues to harbor against NASCAR and the France family, which has it origins during his time with one of the biggest rivals to NASCAR, the National Stock Car Racing Association (NSCRA), for which Smith worked and then led. The unusual combination of France managing to get NASCAR involved in the inaugural Southern 500 and Smith being drafted during the Korean War allowed France to outflank NSCRA.
At any rate, one must tread with much caution and skepticism though most of the literature relating to stock car racing history and NASCAR and their development.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
19th April 2011, 17:04 #33
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 3,224
- Like
- 0
- Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Capps
"......the people that owned the racetracks. They was [sic] just as bad as the race drivers. They had made lots of money during the war sellin' whiskey and different things, and they come in and build a nice race track where other people didn't have the money. And some of the promoters that's promoting today, that's how they got their money to get started into this thing. If you found a man that was in that kind of business, he was a gambler anyhow. He didn't mind taking a chance on his money. ......."
There it is right there, in the midst of all the tall tales about haulin' whiskey down to Atlanta from Dawsonville on Highways 9 and 19.¿Quién es el que anda aquí?
-
19th April 2011, 18:37 #34
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Those in the background of the development of stock car racing in the pre-war years and then the post-war years and the emergence of NASCAR have, with few exceptions, been largely left out of the narrative; this has not been necessarily by accident it would seem. Some have been mentioned and even gained a bit of recognition, but generally ignored given the intense focus on the drivers and, of course, Big Bill France. As the scholarship continues to emerge and then develop, I would suggest that more attention to those with business interests, such as track ownship and so forth, will come under closer examination by those kicking over and looking under different rocks than those the non-historians repeatedly looked under time and again without really looking very closely.
It will be interesting to see where all this leads. NASCAR's belated embracing the Moonshine mythology may turn out to have unintended consequences should it become known just how many business arrangements may have had with those in the illegal liquor business -- in addition to those alread known or strongly suspected, of course.
As one of my professor once pointed out, at times it is easy to forget which is the revisionist history, something that certainly seems to be the case with stock car racing and especially NASCAR. The ability of NASCAR to control the narrative, restrict access to information, and generally ensure the party line is strictly adhered to, just might be showing signs of finally meeting its match.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
20th April 2011, 18:08 #35
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Counterfactual
A term that has recently come into vogue in the history field is "counterfactual." The automobile racing history of the United States continues to experience problems with "counterfactual history" in certain areas, stock car racing and that of NASCAR -- along with that of the "early years" of the AAA National Championship -- being the major issues in this regard.
Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
20th April 2011, 21:15 #36
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- Coulsdon, Surrey, UK
- Posts
- 3,553
- Like
- 1
- Liked 78 Times in 73 Posts
Don,
Please elaborate or explain.
Does "counterfactual" mean falsifying history? Or does it mean inventing history? Does it have to be a deliberate act?Duncan Rollo
The more you learn, the more you realise how little you know.
-
20th April 2011, 21:58 #37
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by D-Type
Consider this: A writer (usually a jounalist) using only secondary sources written by other writers (journalists for the most part, enthusiasts for the other part) and who does no research as such aside from that -- just as those whose works he is using did, and does not question any of the assertions he reads, but provides eloquent prose on the role of "trippers" in the origins of stock car racing as it developed and evolved from a rude, red clay oval cut from a farmer's field on the outskirts of Stockbridge, Georgia in the early Thirties; prose that is both readable and, therefore, believeable. Is this "counterfactual" or "revisionist" if those who have done the research find no evidence for it?
Does believing in something, even if not necessarily true, but fervently believing in it hard enough and long enough make something true? Does believing in something because you wish it to be true, make it true? By truth, I mean, of course, the historians' "truth," which as Wilde succiently reminds us, "....is rarely pure and never simple."
Does the belief in something not necessarily "true" and yet could be true if things had been just a bit different, really make it a "falsehood?" Does ignorance of the truth make it a deliberate falsehood?
All this could make for a good panel discussion at a conference or at least for an interesting classroom discussion.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
These cars were going nowhere,fast. Getting rid of them was crucial for the survival of the championship. Group Bs were amazing cars, too. But, having fatal or life threatening accidents at every...
WRC main class in 2025