I have been informed some SHQ pages will go offline intermittently
as some pages need to be altered from htm to html and some
programming will allow for addresses to still be forwarded properly.
Shinsengumi benefactors are mentioned on
http://www.shinsengumihq.com thank you again everyone.
If you would like to give any amount please paypal
shinsengumihq@...
**************************************************
If someone is skimming these messages they may wonder what nlf7 and
kitsuno are speaking of in regards to
*primary sources
And
*secondary sources
Generally sources can be defined in this way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
If we speak of the Shinsengumi here are just some primary sources
which we know exist:
- Shimada Kai's record
- Numerous letters from Kondou and Hijikata and Okita to various
friends and relatives
- Yamazaki Susumu's record book
- Nakajima Nobori's basic record
- Nagakura's account
recorded a bit later
and we know there were
actually (2) versions, one more accurate than the other
and ofcourse
what the newspaper printed over time from his account is an edited
version
- Numerous correspondences from the aforementioned three to Aizu
officials (these must exist if they have not been destroyed by
time). Ofcourse there should be the "reverse" that is Aizu official
records on the Shinsengumi as well.
- Aizu accounts by Yamakawa Hiroshi and Yamakawa Kenjiro (whose book
does mention the shinsengumi---no shock there both brothers knew
Saitou)---yet both books would have a MULTITUDE of informants,
endless voices but edited and compiled into one book with no clear
label who told them what and when
In all the items listed above there will be first hand accounts and
also second hand accounts actually mixed in.
Here is an example: Kondou in a letter said that it seems that
homosexual activities are being practiced amongst his men. Did he
hear or see this first hand? Or did someone tell him?
For example Yamazaki may have heard of something and noted it in his
book---but what did he SEE WITH HIS OWN EYES? But it is still a
*primary resource if you follow the definition that it is a "source
of information that was created at or near the time being
studied"[wiki article].
Thus what is important is evaluating sources. Off the bat it is
difficult at times to even to ***categorize sources---we just know
to exercise caution. We don't know who is more correct than the
other we should however track who is saying what, to whom and when
and if they have a personal interest in saying certain things.
As Nlf7 and Kitsuno found
there will be conflicting info.
However a book with a few errors may not be *entirely* innaccurate.
For instance if you open any book on the Meiji era...it will likely
say that it was during the Meiji era when paper money was issued.
That is absolutely wrong. However the book may have other pertinant
facts.
Don't toss the incorrect information yet
just note it all.
For example you can say
Samurai Z was born this year (in resource A)
However (resource B) says otherwise and (resource C) gives even more
different information.
I have found in my own studies that over time you will figure out
*why there are errors.
At the bottom of this page are some words of wisdom from a really
stellar resaercher who has "seen it all" in regards to Meiji Era
revisionism which has negatively affected the study of the Bakumatsu
http://www.shinsengumihq.com/shinsenresearch.html