Question

What challenges do historians face when interpreting oral histories? Do they face the same challenges when interpreting written documents or images?

Answer 1

Here ya go

Oral history is the collection and study of historical information about individuals, ... 5 Methods; 6 Legal interpretation and relationship to historical truth ... and can even serve as a fail-safe resource when written documents have ... They can help to explore broader issues regarding the evolution of a major federal agency.Historians have long revered and relied upon written documents to construct a ... Objects, landscapes, orally transmitted stories and songs can complement ... The puzzles and challenges of cultural history have been particularly evident to .... to interpret the landscape of Green Hill plantation in Virginia through the photos ...

Answer 2

Hey Micaiah! Nice to see you again. ;)

Let me just give you what i put. Nerd will brb. (-O-O)

Answer 3

And @Warriorz13 ...cite your sources. ;)

Answer 4

OK

Answer 5

Well hello Darry, greetings from space ;)

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

This is what I put:

"I personally think that oral traditions are only partially helpful. Um…I think that if you have to do oral traditions then you obviously have to do it, but it should be with many, many, many people. And after interviewing these hundreds of people, you should try to connect what’s similar and what’s different. And what I mean by different is not that this person talks about one event and the other about the other. What I mean is that two people are talking about the same event but opposite things that happen in the event. For example, I am going to give a horrible example by the way, these two people are talking about the same event, but one is saying that slavery was extinct in the event and the other is saying that slavery was encouraged around the world in the event. Totally opposite things. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You probably think that we should choose the one event thingie that has the most people talking about that. But what if 60% is talking about slavery extinction and 40% is saying that slavery was encouraged. But another thing that I do not like about oral traditions is that they lie. Now, I am not saying to put a lie meter, but back to my horrible example, what if that 40% is telling the truth? And the 60% says that because they want Africa to look better. Not to look like “cruel people”. You know what I mean? People represent their country and want to say , “Hey, I live in fantasy city!” and be proud. They don’t want to say “Hey! I live in Fantasy City” when Fantasy City is the highest in pollution, encourages slavery, has a horrible school system (like florida (I hate common core)), or steals, etc… I am not saying that Africa was a horrible country. I am very sure that they had many accomplishments and more accomplishments than fails. But there are little things you want to hide because they might make you look even the tiniest bit bad. For example, a kid is cleaning the house, and he made the house spotless, but while he was wiping off the dust, he accidentally breaks mom’s favorite vase. Sure, he did awesome with the house, but do you think he would want to tell his mom? What about if he thinks his mom will make a fuss about a little tweensy thing? This might be what the Oral Tradition speakers might think. Those historians might make a little fuss about a little fail that they had. I also think, like the lesson said, that the oral tradition speakers might say what they think is important and what they don’t think is important, they will. Ooh, I said it wrong. I mean that for example, the grandfather says this and that, but the father, when he heard this as a kid, said that this was important but that wasn’t. Then, the kid says that this was partially important and passes the story partially and it is a chain. I think that when trying to find history, you should try looking for artifacts that represent famous people and their style of art, documents that provide proof for events, and also oral tradition to see other people’s story and compare. That is why I said that I partially believe in oral tradition. More specifically, I believe in oral tradition along with the discovery of artifacts and documents, but not oral tradition by itself, unless needed, in this case."

Answer 8

Holy crap o-o

Answer 9

Basically, oral histories are told from the point of view of the person telling the story. You've seen that all the time in daily life where you want to know about something, but sometimes get one person's view of the story in question. That's an oral history and it can be incomplete.

Written history can also suffer from the same thing. The nice thing about a written history is that it's "written" -- you don't have to worry about someone trying to remember a specific event if it's already written down. But it can also be subject to the same biases, especially if the person writing the history wants to write it so that their point of view is the only one that survives the ages.

Answer 10

Sorry...I...I...well, I think it is obvious that I like essay questions. (/)v(\)

Answer 11

lol i guees you were right when you said you are a nerd lmfao

Answer 12

Thank you lovelies c;

Answer 13

Whats the Bible?

Answer 14

Really again?

Answer 15

the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Answer 16

Good Job