___

On the surface, writing a biography for this site seems rather simple. As a corporate archive, the easiest approach would be to create a short linked article with the need-to-know basics. You've seen it before, birth/death date, spouse, children, and position held.

That doesn't sit right with me.

It isn't that it is a wholly incorrect thing to do, but I reason it to be poor practice in certain contexts. There are definitely situations where brevity is needed, but if a writer is not careful enough they may only research on a surface level, as they only need generalities.

Take for example the original Shwayder family. Jesse Shwayder, credited with founding Samsonite, is written about fairly well, and rightfully so. But his brothers and sisters... that is where information gets sparse. Sol, for example, commonly only gets a few credits. He was the company attorney, and later became a vice president.

Sol's example demonstrates the issue very well, as in reality, there are only a few documented instances wherein he represented the company in a legal sense. He held many roles in the company and also advocated for the Jewish faith before his sudden retirement and tragic death in 1931, virtually none of which are documented.

So deep coverage forces deep research in a way. You seek to understand this person's entire life, you seek to represent it accurately and to do more justice than the person before you.

That's another thing.

You as a biographer should seek to be objective, most instructional resources will relay that. However, in my personal opinion, there's a level of respect that can be paid, breaking away from the strict objectivity.

You are writing about a person. They lived a vivid life, had dreams, relationships, secrets, the same as we do. Things were meaningful to them, they carried a purpose through life. But that can led you into trouble, especially because you don't know the person personally, so very important discretion is advised so as not to be an advocate for that person's beliefs or actions.

There's a quote about Jesse Shwayder that has stood out to me. It was posted in the paper in the 2000s, when it was announced in Denver that Samsonite would close their Montbello plant. One of the former workers said something along the lines of "Jesse cared about his employees like they were family" and went on to compliment how charitable the company was under his direction and the sheer impact on Denver as a whole. I think that's important, as those anecdotes speak well to Jesse's impact not only on the people that worked under him, but in the city that Samsonite was born from.

And as we all have our successes and strengths, weaknesses are also an element of a person. It's just another element of a person's life. In the above cited article, it was admitted that King Shwayder, Jesse's only son who became the president of Samsonite in 1961, was not very much of a businessman and had other interests.

It's equally important to not speak out of turn, so to say. That is, if there's something you can't show from your sources, you don't know it. While many historians will quietly omit things that are irreconcilable or cannot be corroborated, I sometimes find it useful to report them as they are. Something that is as of yet unclear or odd.

Though again, discretion is advised. You should not report every little thing i.e. a newspaper article reports. While they can be good sources, there's a reason a phrase existed warning don't believe everything you read in the paper. Instead, you should seek to corroborate information before reporting it. Again, if you don't know something, admit it.

'Sources' can mean a variety of things, but one should prioritize two things:

One, contemporaneous sources. They are much less prone to practiced or warped retellings. Memory is considered not wholly reliable, and sometimes a story just sounds better when told a certain way. A good example of this is the 1960 corporate history "Jesse Shwayder and The Golden Rule" by Walter B. and Walter S. Lovelace. Without delving too far into it, the book oversimplifies and rewrites the founding of Samsonite. The book turns the origin story into an impossible challenge with almost immediate success, almost deifying Jesse in a way, when the reality was a much slower boil. There's still a very impressive story to be told, just not what was reported.

Two, authority. One should always consider where the source is coming from, and the reliability of the information being reported. Some information, such as a newspaper report of someone leaving town or a party someone held, are things we can take on faith as being trustworthy unless we have contradictory evidence.

However, just because a source is close at hand, does not make it indisputable. Families or primary peoples, without getting too specific, can be reasoned to have motivations to distort or omit things. That's not a malicious thing, it just depends on the context of the source.

For this site, I have several sources at my disposal to construct biographies of important figures in Samsonite's history. From newspapers, to federal documents, to family histories (Hannah Shwayder Berry wrote several over the years), all can potentially contribute to untangle the confusing web of what is currently compiled.

I suppose that's a third thing one should prioritize regarding sources: not allowing modern retellings to sway you. They can have useful information, but you are much better off checking all elements for yourself wherever possible rather than trusting their work. People don't write biographies or overviews to mislead, it is only a consequence of not being able to corroborate. We live in the age of information, and your access to original materials is unparalleled. You may not have everything, but I find it much more useful to cite original literature and diverse sources rather than a single source of truth.

Above all else, regardless of how great of sources may exist for your chosen topic, the best thing you can seek is corroboration. Not corroborating your first idea only, but being able to back up your final draft with loads and loads of evidence. That's also why we admit what we don't know, as again in my opinion it builds the analysis stronger.