Let’s Do Oral… History

Oral history, if recorded and carried out properly, can give insight into history in ways written history cannot, giving the public a more up-close, personal take on different matters. However, we are only humans living in a non-perfect world; we make mistakes, therefore there are errors in our documentation throughout time.

Oral history has the potential to be accurate, but it is only possible in a perfect world, which we do not live in. An oral resource has the potential to be reliable, if the information is handled properly. Facts from sources can be passed from source to source if remembered and recorded word-for-word. If left untampered, the information from this source can provide useful information for years to come.

Oral history may be less accurate then closely studied written history, but it adds a different element and perspective to history, somewhat like blogging. The information is passed straight from the source to the public, with little-to-none editing inbetween. This adds a more personal perspective on matters, because it comes straight from the source studying the material. With information straight from a researcher, one gets a summation of all information, with a clear understanding of the difference between facts found and opinions created. Oral history may not transfer formerly, but the information is found through formal studies typically; if one wants solid information and opinions on a matter, they typically interview serious and level headed researchers. By passing their knowledge orally and word-for-word, there is no possible way of twisting words and information into something it is not. 

  
Oral history, as inaccurate as it can be in comparison to written history, has potential to be accurate while providing a different dynamic on information and news that, at the time, were current events. By transferring the information from a researcher orally from source-to-source, in a word-for-word fashion, one can provide knowledge with a new interesting dynamic. Future researchers can look at past researcher for insight with little bias and a personal perspective and take on the matter. 

Advertisements
Let’s Do Oral… History

3 thoughts on “Let’s Do Oral… History

  1. Your concerns about the accuracy of Oral History that we know now aren’t something that had originally crossed my mind when I read the article, but definitely poses a legitimate point to think about. I was thinking more along the lines of primary sources which is probably less of what the author was trying to refer to now that i think about it. Even so,this is something I touched upon in my post.
    While oral histories of the past left concerns of legitimacy, oral histories recorded using today’s technology lack that issue. When people record themselves talking about events, like on vlogs or podcasts, they are creating an oral history that can not be twisted by future generations. It is a direct, primary source telling the story of an event that can be saved or looked up in the future. It’s interesting to see the ways the way oral history can evolve and improve so that we don’t run the risk of receiving misinformation.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. msicherer says:

    I really like how you compared oral history to blogging. I really would not have made that connection, but your statement in regards to how both are primarily unedited and a source of direct communication makes it make a lot of sense. As well, aside from just oral history being similar to blogs in just the purity of the word, I do not know if you noticed the other connection of “cooperation.” A lot of what the article was speaking about was how oral history is so significant because it is cooperative, the teacher and the learners are all learning together. This, as well, is so similar to blogging. Unlike printed articles, blogging is highly based on cooperation (as is being exhibited even as I post this comment). Through blogs, much like through oral history, we learn from one another and a degree of cooperation is necessary.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. izzymirmerced says:

    First of all i loved your blog title (lol). Second I think you made a great point. Oral history has aspects that written history does not. Even though oral history might not be as reliable as concrete facts it still calls to people. People can relate or are even more interested when a story is being told by another human. Oral history gives you the chance to be free and imagine yourself in another persons shoes. While written history in a text book for example may already have pictures making you think of it in a certain way and not really expand on it or question it. I had a history teacher in High School, she taught the untraditional way. she would use the text book for dates and specifics, however what she really liked to do was bring in guest speakers to give some oral history. She mostly brought in veterans from Vietnam and Iraq to tell there war stories. The veterans were always very intense with there stories, but that is what got the class interested. When they came into the class everyone would stop talking and pay attention because they did not want to miss anything. But when it was time to read from the text book the people in my class could care less. This just showed how much important it is to pass down stories and even if they are a bit off its ok because people will listen to voice and a story more then they will want to read a book.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s