Now we come to it! Suppose Doctor Dixon's inquiry evolves into an almost universal, nearly irrefutable agreement 
that the plaque in Williamsburg is historically incorrect. What do we do about it; or have done about it?

This is, of course, for rhetorical and fun purposes. Do we try to convince the Williamsburg Foundation to instruct 
its "docents" to convey "accurate" history? Would one argue for the "draconian" action to chisel the "offending" 
statement from the plaque?

Why would one ask such of this insignificant expose now?

Well, as persons interested in history, we are, de facto, the guardians of our current events for its portrayal for 
tomorrow in all of its unvarnished truth and accuracy.

Modern technology has made it most difficult to "color" perspective. Prodigiously and almost instantly preserved in 
analog, digital, film, audio, and print: "he said what he said"; and, what really counts, "he did what he did" is 
what it is -- despite Rhodes scholars to the contrary.

Point: regardless, the really good scholars amongst us still remain challenged to write their historical findings 
like Caesar's wife -- above reproach -- irrespective of their own agenda, bias, or personal ambition and that of 
our modern "public". Press on!

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html