How much faith should we put in oral history?

Question

Pub regular, Old Sid wants to record his life for the archives. This is the bloke who is sure he remembers that Engels sold his half of the business to Spencer.

Answer 1

it is always one sided and embellished a bit but it has a core of truth and makes lovely reading get him to do it and anybody else of the same age to do one too .

Answer 2

The Irish were banned from education for almost 200 years 1650-1850ish by the oppressor. If it was not for an oral tradition we would be have been lost. Don't knock the oral tradition. it's often closer to the truth than anything written.

Get in there and record Sid's every vowel for posterity. As well as a massive vernacular, you will be recording his accent, his mannerisms, his life. The fact that he KNOWS that Engels etc. might just mean he is actually RIGHT?

Do it NOW

Answer 3

"Oral tradition" was a primary source before other more reliable methods were introduced - our modern form of this is more reliable, and we need to distinguish between the two by calling the latter, "oral history."
"Before the development of written language in a given society, oral history is the primary means of conveying information from one generation to the next." The type of oral history refered to here, ia really oral tradition, whereby tales and other elements are passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth.It is obvious that errors could be made and things could become distorted by this method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history

However, "Oral history records the living memories and feelings of all kinds of people, many otherwise hidden from history, and creates a more vivid picture of our past." So without it, we would be less knowledgeable about the past and things would have been lost.
http://www.ohs.org.uk/

"Oral history is considered by some historians to be an unreliable source for the study of history. However, other historians consider it to be a valid means for preserving and transmitting history. Experience within literate cultures indicates that each time anyone reconstructs a memory, there are changes in the memory, but the core of the story is usually retained. Over time, however, minor changes can accumulate until the story becomes unrecognizable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history
"Contemporary oral history involves recording or transcribing eyewitness accounts of historical events." - and so is a bit more reliable.

"Modern Usage
It is important to note that two distinct uses of the term Oral history exist. It has become a common distinction, as shown in some of the works cited here, that to use the term Oral history refers to the modern method of historical documentation, using interviews with living survivors of the time being investigated. The separate term Oral tradition is used to imply the information has been passed down through generations. These have become two important but uniquely separate fields of historical data collection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history

I have quoted from two sources, here - please see below. There is a wealth of further information on these two sites.

Hope this helps:>)

Answer 4

I think such things can be put down as memoirs. A kind of history, I suppose, but it would not stand up to the rigours of academic scrutiny.

On the other hand, a lot of stories, memories and history would be lost if every utterance had to be tested for factual accuracy before it could be put to paper.

Answer 5

You should only put as much faith in oral history as you do in written history. Remember, all recorded history is subjective, relative.

Answer 6

oral history is dying out in the west but here in the middle east it has endured for hundreds of years and theres still a strong tradition of actually taking the time to TALK to someone properly...

Answer 7

I don't know. I do know that, more than a hundred years after it happened, my old aunty told me about the Tay Bridge disaster and claimed that her mother's school teacher had been on the train when it fell in the sea. I checked. He was. Stories survive.

Answer 8

Just remember - oral history is only one side of a story.

Answer 9

believe it, and if its a load of old cobblers so what who is likely to argue, i believe most of the things we were taught at school in our history classes never even happened they were just exaggerated as the years passed by.

Answer 10

personally i dont put much faith in it because it can be easily distorted to fit one's own personal poin of view or opinion, but depending on who you are getting the data from, there are exceptions