Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:09:31 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A distinction needs to be made between the way academics use the specific
term oral history (a recorded interview with someone who participated in or
witnessed something in his or her past) and more general terms like oral
tradition, family history, or folklore (information passed verbally from
generation to generation). Oral history is first hand information, oral
tradition is second hand information. Someone being interviewed for an oral
history might include oral tradition in what he or she says, but that does
nothing to elevate the second hand information to eye-witness evidence.
Peter Lysy
Senior Archivist
University of Notre Dame
-----------------
At 12:00 AM 10/5/2008, you wrote:
>Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:54:38 -0400
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: oral history
>
>=3E Oral history ain=27t worth the paper it is written on=2E
>=3E =A0
>=3E J=2E South
>
>
>List members interested in seeing some of the ways oral history has been=
> and can continue to be helpful should examine some of the 100+ websites=
> with substantial oral history components recommended by the =22History =
>Matters=22 crew at George Mason University=2E No historian would endorse=
> the blanket dismissal of oral history by J=2E South (above)=2E =
>
>
>We all know that oral testimony and histories sometimes contain errors=2E=
> Like all other forms of evidence=2C they need to be scrutinized careful=
>ly and=2C wherever possible=2C confirmed by other sources of information=
>=2EThe fact that oral accounts can be mistaken hardly warrants the concl=
>usion that all of them are worthless=2C or nearly so=2E
>
>See=3A http=3A//historymatters=2Egmu=2Eedu/search=2Ephp=3Ffunction=3Dfin=
>d
>
>Doug Deal
>History/SUNY Oswego
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|