I don't think it's so much about political correctness as it is about thoughtful historical analysis of source material. In an oral interview, the relationship between the two parties is always important in determining what sort of information is to be gained. Just to suggest a mundane example: the answer you give your boss to a question isn't necessarily the same one you give your spouse or your golfing buddy. So it would be with an elderly ex-slave: is the interviewer white? male or female? do you kow them at all? -- by the 1930s the way that African-Americans related to whites was bounded by the realities of Jim Crow segregation and the dynamics of power. This doesn't mean that we dismiss everything as fabrication, it just means we need to recognize the potential was there. Good history seldom takes things at face value. David Kiracofe David Kiracofe History Tidewater Community College Chesapeake Campus 1428 Cedar Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 757-822-5136 >>> Basil Forest <[log in to unmask]> 03/02/07 9:34 AM >>> What's the basis for the belief that the WPA former slave interviewees were dishonest in their views on slavery over fear of the "white man"? Is this the PC way to dismiss the evidence to the contrary on the treatment of some slaves by their owners and the apparent benevolent feelings of the slaves toward their previous lifestyle post-war and freedom? To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html