Oral history has come a long way to debunking the 'truth' of history.
Liz
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Jeanes <yahoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2012-03-03, at 1:56 PM, Steve Lucas wrote:
I have learnt over the years to be careful when citing "facts". They become
"truth" if repeated often enough.
Here's a fun contradiction: anyone with a bit of specialized knowledge on a
given subject (railways, say) inevitably notices how often contemporary
newspaper reports on that subject get the facts atrociously wrong.
And yet...historians, looking for primary source material from earlier
periods often rely on newspaper accounts from the day to provide basic
details about a historical event that would be difficult or impossible to
obtain otherwise.
Are newspaper reports from the past more reliable than newspaper reports from
today, or should historians who cite old newspaper articles in their writing
make sure to include a huge disclaimer about potential inaccuracies. How many
histories—popular or academic—actually do that?
What about first-person interviews? Do the memories of retired railroaders
about how things were when they were starting their careers out forty years
ago really serve as reliable historical accounts. Can you put 100% trust in
your memories about events in your own life that happened ten years ago, let
alone four times that long?
Regards,
Andrew
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
