"Money talks and bullshit walks!"

     My grandpa Luecke has a wise saying: “Money talks and bullshit walks.” This phrase applies to various situations, including Robert R. Weyenth’s experiences writing and defending his interpretive history of Kapli’olani Park in Honolulu, Hawaii. Weyeth’s monograph revealed some uncomfortable aspects of the park’s history, including revelations that Kapli’olani Park’s supposed benefactors sold large portions of Kapli’olani to wealthy friends in the 1890s, thereby decreasing its overall size. As a result, the shit hit the proverbial fan when influential community members became displeased with Weyeth’s portrayal of their ancestors and sued Weyeth for libel. Although these legal maneuvers ultimately failed, the case illustrated that interpretive history has the potential to threaten narratives that many in the community “sacred.” The majority of Americans remain ignorant about what historians actually do; many continue to operate under the misguided assumption that historians primarily collect and disseminate facts. However, this only partially explains the backlash against interpretive history. In most cases, economics play an overriding factor. Traditional narratives usually form the economic backbone of a community, attracting attention from tourists with extra cash to piss away during the summer. When it comes to a choice between fresh, dynamic narratives, or “sacred” narratives guaranteed to attract tourists, bullshit will usually walk.