Do you think oral history useful as a historical source?

Answer 1

No, oral traditions can be corrupted way too easily.

If you compare the writig of the Mayans vs the oral traditions of tribal groups, the writing is more reliable, because it is harder to alter it without noticing it.

In oral tradition, over time, people can make up things (like in modern times where many people claim to know "Native American traditions").

We all have oral traditions, even today, but writing is a more reliable source of old information.

Answer 2

It's a source like any other, subject to the same limitations and problems as written documentation. There is always bias, which (despite what some cynics say) can be taken into account; that's why we train researchers rather than just turning them loose. There is always the problem of perspective and transamission; we all know the game of passing a message around a table, and comparing what results with the original.

What makes it necessary to take "oral history" into account is that in many cases it's all there is. In South Africa, for example, the Bantu tribes had no written records, so oral accounts were what there was. They could occasionally be checked against the Dutch and Portuguese explorers' records, which indicated that accuracy dropped off rapidly when an account of an event went through more than a very few steps of transmission; hence an account collected in the 1820s of events in the 1690s was often recognizable but rather distorted. Basically, what A hears from B who heard it from C (e. g. family stories one's grandmother heard from her grandmother) is often fairly usable, but beyond that things get difficult, especially when the details of the setting of the stories changes significantly.

Answer 3

Having participated in many oral history projects, yes, they are extremely useful as a source. You have to take a few things into consideration. First of all, memory can play tricks, so you have to understand that not all facts, or even all interviews will mesh well. Second, there will always be a bias involved (this is true of books as well, but usually, when speaking to someone who lived through the event, the bias is more clearly evident). Third, because the person lived through the event being talked about, they can tend to go off on side-stories, etc, because something reminds them or something else, etc.
That being said, however, oral history provides us with great insights into a person's life, and an event that person was involved with. It can be a wonderful resource, so long as it is approached with the same level of criticism as any historical source.

Answer 4

Oral historic past isn't the main sturdy and precise historic source. the reason being that Oral historic past is handed on from guy or woman to guy or woman, some human beings could upload issues to a real tale that's no longer as precise, some human beings could go away out precise info. If accuracy is what we are aiming for Oral historic past isn't the main functional source. even with the undeniable fact that that's extremely beautiful.

Answer 5

Micheal W,
Exactly the same problem you just mentioned regarding oral history can firmly be applied to written history too.
It's not the medium that's the potential problem of inaccurate historical representation, it's the source that is producing it.

Answer 6

Most definitely. As humans we have this annoying tendancy to believe something and even fear something just because it is written down on paper. Oral histories and written histories are of about equal value - you can't trust either of them 100% (or even 99%) but you can still learn a lot if you cross reference and keep a critical eye (or ear) going.

Answer 7

I put as much stock in oral history as I do in written or otherwise documented history, which is very little. Both are biased.

Answer 8

Of course! Are you serious?

Many of the most important "historical" documents began as oral history and were later transcribed (bible...)

Answer 9

No I do not think so....the oral history may be biased and enticeses you you to think in his her own way about a certain thing, I much prefer writing

Answer 10

It is fine at passing on beliefs and state-of-minds, but not accuracy.