This archives work certainly has helped to temper some of my more grandiose visions of history. A lot of it has been slogging through pages and pages of business related correspondence that all says pretty much the same thing. Not really historically important, but we're keeping it anyway. Actually, the information we've gained would further flesh out the historical narrative of Progressive Era newspaper business. But, as you can guess, that's sort of a niche market.
For example, EW Scripps, of newspaper fame, went into business with his brother James. EW also had a son named James, and James the Younger had a son, named EW. All of them, at one time or another, were involved with the Scripps newspaper business and Dana Sleeth.
However, we were quite unaware that, instead of just the two Scripps brothers, we were dealing with four men from three generations. It was until I was idly looking up James Scripps that I realized that I had letters signed by 'Jim' from years after he died. But no book or website notes this complicated series of events, despite the fact that the James the Elder's widow (still unnamed) founded a newspaper partnership with one of Dana Sleeth's editors shortly after James' death. This Scripps-Canfield newspaper association was important in the history of Northwestern newspapers, but it remains pretty much unknown. In the meantime, historians like me are left scratching their heads as to how on earth James could be writing letters from beyond the grave and why EW goes from being a total hard ass to being friendly enough with Dana to visit him on the farm.
But then you have to step back and realize that it's not actually *that* important. Yeah it took me a week to sort this all out, but I don't think that this new understanding will dramatically change anything or better the world.
That's the key issue with history. It's often easy to get wrapped up in your research, turning molehills into mountains and deciding that your interpretation will change the whole understanding of history. In reality, it may complicate the narrative (as one of my professors is very fond of saying), but ultimately, it won't change anything. Sometimes I feel like studying history is futile at best. What's the point? How can my knowledge of the past change anything? It seems a vocation fit for professors and not much else.
I suppose that's why I'm drawn to things like historic preservation-- in preserving houses, buildings, and documents, I'll be making a physical impact on the world. I'll be able to step back from a project and have something to show for it. Many people are drawn to the past because they like to trace where we've come from, finding similarities and differences with our ancestors, seeing where we've progressed and where we've regressed (not that many people view history as anything but progress--but that's a post for another day). I'm like that, too. I like knowing why we think the way we do, how societal norms are shaped, how they change, and how they stay the same. Sure it's not going to change the world, but it does offer some insight into the hows and whys of society, and I like knowing those answers.