Grand Canyon Historical Society (formerly Grand Canyon Pioneers Society)

The Grand Canyon Historical Society, in partnership with Grand Canyon Association, Xanterra South Rim, Xanterra Grand Canyon Railway, Grand Canyon National Park and Northern Arizona University Cline Library Special Collections, presented the 2012 Grand Canyon History Symposium. a gathering of professional and avocational historians who discussed historical topics specific to Grand Canyon National Park.

GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK...tell us your story...

...and return here to read what others had to say about the 3rd Grand Canyon History Symposium.

Feedback received...

1. name =
2. liked =
3. disliked = I have to say I found the practice of yelling "Stop!" at presenters who went over their allotted time a little brutal, if not outright rude. It would have been much better if the moderator had stepped in and asked the person to wrap up their talk rather than encourage the crowd to shout at them. After all, these are people you have invited to speak. You should treat them with respect. This is the first time I've encountered this kind of behavior at a conference.
I also found the mix of scholarly and non-scholarly presentations a little odd. You should decide what you want to focus on--whether you want professional or non-professional presentations--and go with that decision rather than mix the two.
4. next = No, not based on this year's experience.

1. name = J
2. liked = I think it was one of the best orchestrated programs I've attended in a long time. I generally enjoyed the mix of presentations, ranging from more scholarly to presentations from people who have lived through some of the history. The range of subjects was also a highlight. Most of the speakers knew their subject very well and was apparent in their presentations. Special kudos to Roy Webb who barely flinced when his visuals were not available at the last minute. Also appreciate the fact that the program stayed on schedule! That way, none of the speakers (or the audience) suffered from having to make up for overage by others. GREAT JOB!
3. disliked = The seleciton of programs seemed well done in general. The only suggestion I would make is to make certain that the focus of all presentations is history, with a strong suggestion against programs designed more for political discourse. Political discourse has its place, but not so much at a history symposium where political neutrality is more appropriate. This problem was only notable in one presentation.
4. next = Definitely!

1. name = Fern Stringham
2. liked = I loved all the variety! That was a big plus--I loved the debate on the Monte Video inscription. Loved the symposium!
3. disliked = The only critisism was "The Other Spectacle" She read the paper & it started out with the Grand Canyon but then she just read her paper without any touch of the Grand Canyon. The other was they should have combined the plane crash presentations.
4. next = Yes

1. name = Pam Mortenson
2. liked = I enjoyed listening to the family histories - Human experiences fascinate me. They helped to bring the history of the canyon alive and make it even more real. On the other hand many of the more "research based" presentations introduced ideas that I had not thought about and triggered my interest. There are so many factors that have influenced the canyon as we now know it - And we must look at those as we go forward. Having the presentations grouped into subject areas worked well. I liked that you stayed on schedule so the preseentors at the end had their full time and we finished when we were scheduled to.
3. disliked = I do not know if there is any way to pre determine those who plan to read a research abstract.... But I found those much more difficult to get interested in. Perhaps therre is a better way to keep the presenters on schedule. Maybe a countdown clock on the podium IN ADDITION to the warning cards that were used this time. Maybe a shepherds crook or something to put some humor into the final STOP. I agree that they must be held to their limit. Also, if the speaker is given 20 minutes for the presentation and 5 for questions... if they go over their time is into their own question period. When the time is up announce that any further questions can be addressed directly to the presentor in the intermission time between presentation sections. And move on so you can stay on schedule.
4. next = Yes!

1. name = Long-time GCA Member
2. liked = 1. I thought the presentations were excellent. I especially enjoyed the talks by people who have lived in the park or who are descendants of GC pioneers. 2. I was really glad that there were not concurrent sessions. Having to choose between speakers is always difficult. I attended and enjoyed the previous two history symposia, but I feel this one was the best of the three. 3. My thanks to Xanterra for opening up Yavapai Lodge for our use. 4. My vote is that "MONTE VIDEO" dates from the Bass Camp era. I don't see how the inscription could possibly have survived 450 years of weathering.
3. disliked = 1. Having the audience yell "stop" does seem a bit rude. I felt bad for Carrie Cannon. Since she was the very first speaker, stopping her didn't seem like a good start to the symposium. On the other hand, it's the speaker's responsbility to stay within his/her allotted time limit. I have presented numerous papers at professional scientific conferences. Speakers should rehearse their presentations and know exactly how long they are going to take. 2. A few speakers' slides had much, too much information on them. For oral presentations, speakers should be encouraged not to let their slides be too cluttered. The details can go into the publication. 3. There seemed to be some confusion at the GCA stores about the 25% discount. At the first bookstore I went to, the cashier kept my coupon and said I was only allowed to use it once. At the next bookstore, I showed my GCA membership card expecting to just get the usual 15% discount. The cashier asked if I was attending the symposium. When I said "yes," she gave me the 25% without even asking for the coupon. I really appreciated the discount (between the two stores, I purchased $110 worth of merchandise), but the use of the discount should be stated clearly on the coupon. 4. At the book sale table at the Shrine of Ages, how about offering some of the children's books? Looking at the average age of the audience, I'm sure there were a lot of grandparents there who would have bought presents for their grandchildren. 5. The lack of younger people in the audience was raised as a concern about the future of the Grand Canyon Historical Society. What about the lack of people of color? I would like to see both GCHS and GCA become more ethnically diverse.
4. next = YES!!!!! I even have an idea for a talk I would like to give.

1. name = Jennifer Jenkins
2. liked = The diversity of topics and backgrounds of presenters! It's great to get archivists, history buffs, academics, geologists, boatmen, hiker/guides and Village people together and mix it up! SOA is an exquisite space for presentations: what a privilege to speak and listen there. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make it happen! A special shout-out to Jack Pennington for making the AV function beautifully. Without him, my presentation would have been a dud.
3. disliked = Archive tour? I don't know how to find material up there at the Park, at the library or the archive. Public acknowledgement of the tech team. Really--without them, nothing happens!
4. next = You bet! Can we do it sooner? Every 3 years? Some of the treasures are getting on a bit.

1. name = JM
2. liked = I really liked the breadth and depth of the presentations. It made me feel like I had joined the Canyon’s history family. It was great that the organizers made the presenters stay on time. As a member of the audience, I support the approach where we the audience participated in the time control; great idea. I found the back to back presentation on the monte video inscription fascinating.
3. disliked = I had friends that could not get tickets who really wanted to go. Could the event be moved to Flagstaff so that more people could attend? Overall, great job.
4. next = YES

1. name =
2. liked = What an event! The last two symposiums were good, but this was so much better. Thank you to the organizers and all the presenters who made the weekend so enjoyable.
3. disliked = Why wait for 5 years before having the next one?
4. next = Sure, but how about sooner?

1. name = Helen Ranney
2. liked = I loved the great audience!Their energy and excitement really gave the planning team a great boost of support. It was fun to watch your smiles as you heard the presentations, saw old friends and as you made new ones. With just a few exceptions, the presentations were well prepared, thougtht out and really gave us a well-rounded historical experience. I felt honored to be a part of this experience and look forward to being there again in 2017... Thank you to all of you who traveled from afar to keep the Grand Canyon's history alive for future generations!
3. disliked = We'll take everyone's comments and use those for the next symposium. Good, bad and fun...we take them all!
4. next = ABSOLUTELY!

1. name = John S. Azar
2. liked = I loved the feeling of membership, the group was close-knit, generous with information; exchanges, conversations, get-togethers, walking tours, dinner shows, movies, etc., it was the best symposium so far.
3. disliked = The time cards made me nervous and at least one complaint has been filed about the harshness of the procedure. Fortunately, almost everyone adhered to the time limit. If we have another symposium in 2017 we should allow a twenty-five minute limit with a five-minute grace period. If we have to add another day to the symposium then so be it!
4. next = hell yes

1. name = Gary Ladd
2. liked = Well, it was just staggering. Diverse subjects, well managed. Everyone involved deserves credit for their part. I'm especially impressed that there were almost no technical glitches--a nearly impossible achievement. And, between sessions and at the banquets I really enjoyed visiting with those that I rarely get to see these days. It was quite an assembly.
3. disliked = About the "Stop!" technique: The threat certainly kept me from running too long. Yes, I think it is rude and brutal. But the threat is effective and when it needs to be used it should be accepted as kind of humorous exit. Or maybe a more appropriate word should be employed: "Whoa!" Not quite so harsh. I think it should be kept in place for the next symposium, a tradition with the GCHS...and adopted by the political parties for the next 10 months. I could go on b "STOP!"
4. next = yes

1. name =
2. liked = To answer the question of a mixture of scholarly and non-scholarly presentations: We should most definitely allow both. To exclude one or the other would allow Grand Canyon's history to slip away over time. It would be a travesty to let these historical events, people and places disappear.
3. disliked =
4. next =

1. name = Don Lago
2. liked = Thanks to all the board members and volunteers for all their work in making this symposium such a success!
3. disliked =
4. next =

1. name = Regina Marie Miskewitz
2. liked = The variety of topics presented and being exposed to new-to-me history about the Canyon. So many experts gathered in ONE place was also a treat! Being a chemist and loving science and math throughout my education years, I now really enjoy learning about history, especially about people and places I adore, like the Grand Canyon.
3. disliked = It was rude and frankly, very annoying, with those time cards and the idea that audience members were being encouraged to yell STOP once a speaker reached the point of being out-of-time which never happened because I think each speaker was so nervous in going over. Asking people to clap IF a speaker reached 'the end,' would have been preferred and polite. Also, sitting near the time-keeper as I did throughout the symposium was interesting as one 'time-keeper' in particular was about to raise the Stop Card despite the speaker obviously wrapping-up. I have attended many professional meetings over the years (like the American Academy of Dental Research) and they control time without being rude. I think it was totally uncalled for to have a politically-directed talk as Dr. Hingson did Sunday morning. It gets old hearing more person-bashing at a meeting such as you just held. This country was build on business!!
4. next = Absolutely!

1. name = J. Donald Hughes
2. liked = I have attended all three symposiums, and I think this one was the best in quality of presentations and organization. It was great to have every speaker talk to the whole audience; that way you don't have to choose between, and each speaker gets to have a good audience. I liked the mix of professional and fine amateur historians. Getting to know and talk to people who are interested in GC history was wonderful. The chairs, timers, and tech folks all did a great job! The wine was excellent. Winter is less crowded and the Grand Canyon herself is always unsurpassed!
3. disliked = Timing is crucial, but the method adopted was too intrusive. I thank the timer, though, for being kind to me at the end of my talk. The food at Yavapai left a lot to be desired; it was almost all tasteless institutional fare. Some of us ended up sneaking out to the Bright Angel, or of course the grand old El Tovar.
4. next = If it is at the Grand Canyon!

1. name = Dick Brown
2. liked = The variety of topics, the surprise visit by John Hance, the passion of the presenters, the thoroughness of the planning, the many opportunities to meet fellow "historians", the two dinner speakers (absolutely outstanding), and the weather (we lucked out again) -- these are all noteworthy - we done good! I think the Monte Video inscription is Bass-era graffiti but the two viewpoints were presented very well. The program was very well organized. Kudos to the Program and Planning committees. 2007 was great but 2012 was super - already looking forward to 2017.
3. disliked = I think the time cards worked well but the audience shouting "Stop" was rude and annoying. I suggest that the speaker announce "This is my last slide" and be allowed to finish his last slide. I had practiced and honed my timing to 20 minutes but I needed just 10 seconds more. My last slide was cut off when I was midway through it. When the proceedings are published, you'll see how I was trying to pay tribute to Arizona's Statehood Centennial. I am concerned that we have reached the physical capacity of the Park's indoor facilities. We will surely grow in membership during the next five years and I'd hate to be turning away prospective attendees which will surely number over 300. Perhaps we should consider a Flagstaff venue. Our SOA venue has served us well but maybe NAU has facilities with larger capacities. I for one would still run up to the Canyon for a visit, before or after the symposium. Fortunately, we have plenty of time to address venue capacities and availabilities.
4. next = Most definitely

1. name = Rick Kempa
2. liked = This was my first Symposium, and I thought it was fantastic in ALL RESPECTS--the quality and range of the presentations, the perfect venue, the chance to mingle with a horde of people with a shared passion for the Canyon! I was grateful I did not have to choose amongst presentations; it was wonderful to be able to attend them all. I liked the enforced "stop," although I suppose the technique could be gentled. A sincere thanks to all who worked so hard to make this happen!
3. disliked = Just a couple of modest suggestions:
Given that presentors had a wide range of experience in the art of the presentation, it would be good to provide a short list of suggestions to help them prepare (such as: "Don't try to say everything about your subject; less is more!" and "Create and practice a presentation of exactly the required length." Less-experienced presentors tend to over-prepare, and then talk too fast or stop short.) Perhaps this was already done, in which case it could be done more earnestly!
As for content, it would have been nice to have a strand reporting on the latest archeological research.
What I personally would have done differently was rearrange my schedule, so as not to miss the Sunday sessions!
4. next = I'm there!

1. name =
2. liked = This being our third Symposium, we were happy that we were able to attend ALL the presentations and not have to make the choice between excellent subjects.
3. disliked = The yelling of "STOP" was a bit harsh. I think the same thing could have been accomplished with much more courtesy. The food was the worst: at breakfast everything was cold; at dinner everything was dry and tasteless.
4. next = In a heartbeat!

1. name = JEAN E KINDIG
2. liked = Well organized symposium Well prepared speakers Splendid, interesting topics Great acoustics and visuals operated by the reliable Jack Pennington and others
Thankyou Committees - Planning, Steering, Presenter Selection, Program, Speakers, Publication, Tour guides, and the Tech support. Well done.
3. disliked = The venue was excellent. I suggest that two days is adequate time since the Shrine of Ages is not available on Sunday morning.. The Community Room was crowded - not enough seats for all who attended. What does the fire department have to say???
4. next = Absolutely. I am looking forward to another symposium.

1. name = Constance Robinson
2. liked = It was a great symposium. I really can not imagine the time and energy that it took to pull off such a well orchestrated event. Thanks to all the speakers for sharing all their knowledge.
3. disliked = It would have been nice to attend all the tours.
4. next = ABSOLUTELY!

1. name = Dennis Foster
2. liked = I thought that the 2012 Grand Canyon History Symposium was excellent. I met a lot of interesting people and only wish we could have had more time to interact. The symposium was well-run and there were a minimum of glitches. The PowerPoint presentations were done effectively although I had some misgivings about relying on others to have my presentation set up. The follow-up Q&A was a bit awkward and I think the approach used at the Community Building session was better, with just a couple of questions after each presenter (even with 3, or 4 people being themed together).
I hadn’t been to the previous symposiums, but I did like the fact that we could go to all of the presentations (and, I did). Please keep it that way, even if the conditions are a little chaotic.
I do have one suggestion to help people communicate. There were a couple of presenters that I would have liked to have talked to, but wasn’t able to right after their presentations. So, if presenter’s e-mail addresses were included with the bio, that would be a big help. In fact, it isn’t too late to do a web posting where this information is available so we can communicate with presenters. [Or, in my case, other presenters.]
I think that the strict enforcement of the time limit on presenters worked very well. I could have listened to almost any one of them for a longer time, but the logistics just don’t allow for that. So, forcing presenters to stop at 20 minutes was fine with me. I took the exhortations of the committee seriously and practiced my presentation until I got it into the allotted amount of time. If others didn’t take the time to do this, a little public chastisement is in order. [It could have been worse; I think Tom wanted to hand out tomatoes!]
The stories from the "Family" group were absolutely fantastic. The keynote speakers were great! The fact that we had the Yavapai to ourselves was rather cool.
3. disliked = There were only two presentations that I found ill-suited to this venue and those were the ones by Professors McLerran and Hingson. The former was not crafted for this audience (and wasn't within the time allotted) and the political overtones with regard to the “museumization” of Navajos and attacks on capitalism were totally out of place here, even if the topic title did not convey that. The latter was so biased that I think it only served as a disservice to the the speaker's views and opinions; it could have been presented in a less hostile fashion, even if many in the audience agreed with him. See Gary Ladd's excellent presentation for a template on how to do this professionally.
4. next = Yes!

Quick Links

• Symposium Schedule (PDF)

Key Dates:

January 26, 2012 (Thursday): Doors open to 3rd GC History Symposium

Previous Symposiums:
• 2002 Symposium
• 2007 Symposium

Steering Committee
Erik Berg, GCHS; Helen Ranney, GCA; Jon Streit, Xanterra; Judy Hellmich-Bryan, GCNPS; and Richard Quartaroli, NAU

Planning Committee
Lee Albertson, Mike Anderson, John Azar, Erik Berg, Diane Cassidy, Renee Cisneros, Keith Green, Nancy Green, Karen Greig, Kirstin Heins, Tom Martin, Mona McCroskey, Diane Murdock, Tom Myers, Richard Quartaroli, Helen Ranney, Al Richmond, Carole Voss, Traci Wyrick and Judy Hellmich-Bryan.

Presenters Selection Committee
Mike Anderson, Erik Berg (Chairman), Nancy Green, Tom Martin, Mona McCroskey, and Richard Quartaroli (and Diane Cassidy, Technical Support).

Speakers Committee
Lee Albertson (Chairman), Mike Anderson, Erik Berg, Nancy Green, Tom Martin, Mona McCroskey, Richard Quartaroli and Carole Voss.

Promotion Committee
Erik Berg, Diane Cassidy, Karen Greig, Amy Horn, Tom Martin, and Helen Ranney.

Finance Committee
Keith Green and Carole Voss.

Program Committee
Chairman Erik Berg, Diane Cassidy, Karen Greig, Amy Horn, Tom Martin, Richard Quartaroli and Helen Ranney.

Publication Committee
Nancy Green, Tom Martin, Mona McCroskey, and Carole Voss.

VISITORS: