Naturally, such scholarly facts are of little concern to the man trying to make money or fan patriotism by means of folklore. That much of what he calls folklore is the result of beliefs carefully sown among the people with the conscious aim of producing a desired mass emotional reaction to a particular situation or set of situations is irrelevant. As long as his material is Americana, can in some way be ascribed to the masses and appears ``democratic'' to his audience, he remains satisfied.
From all this we can now see that two streams of development run through the history of twentieth century American folklore. On the one side we have the university professors and their students, trained in Teutonic methods of research, who have sought out, collected and studied the true products of the oral traditions of the ethnic, regional and occupational groups that make up this nation. On the other we have the flag wavers and the national sentimentalists who have been willing to use any patriotic, ``frontier western'' or colonial material willy-nilly. Unfortunately, few of the artists (writers, movie producers, dramatists and musicians) who have used American folklore since 1900 have known enough to distinguish between the two streams even in the most general of ways. After all, the field is large, difficult to define and seldom taught properly to American undergraduates. In addition, this country has been settled by many peoples of many heritages and their lore has become acculturated slowly, in an age of print and easy communication, within an ever expanding and changing society. The problems confuse even the experts.