I could not agree more.
First-hand accounts are ALWAYS absolutely true . . . free of any
bias . . . never written for self-serving or agenda-driven
purposes . . . and completely free of any other sources of error,
such as faulty or induced memories.
Context? Ha!
Historians . . . and all " critics" who insist on "interpretation"
and "context" should simply back off and let the documents speak for
themselves . . . wie es eigentlich gewesen war . . . or some
variation on that theme.
Failure to do so means that the deeds of great men and women . . .
such as those who fought in the two black Confederate regiments at
First Manassas . . . would simply be . . . alas . . . forgotten!
All hail the lost cause.
Dan
On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:18 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I love the way historians like to take such first hand accounts
> and discount
> the veracity of the interviewee to meet their intellectual and
> academic
> point of view.