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