Oral History...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
(I got a history of oral haha)


Now that we got the jokes out of the way... :p

What do you guys think of this in relation to Native Americans? I have a professor who is teaching Contact course revolving around Europeans meeting Native Americans. He is very slanted in his views (very anti-European) which is fine since he does a good job of teaching the Native American perspective. He told us a few days ago that the "oral history" of Native Americans is just as credible as European written history. I disagreed, saying that the history can change depending on each persons views, influences, agenda who repeats it, not to mention the textbook gave examples of such oral history stories changing with the addition of Jesus to stories.

So he flipped :confused: and stated that the book was wrong and that Oral history stories never change :confused:

So maybe I'm just being an European douche, so figured I would see ATOT's opinion before I finish writing this essay he assigned out where we discuss how history is real.
 
Born2bwire

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Wait a second... I've heard this rant before... No no no, this doesn't make any sense at all.
 
S

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
The same happened quite often with copying and translating written texts, not to mention with the interpretation of texts. Only if you have the original texts available or multiple people copied it from different sources (so you can verify it) you know for sure that you have the correct version.

Without a written source there is no way of telling how old stories are, or what the origin is. And even with a written source it depends on when a story was put to paper, and who had access to the story after that. See also how the Bible was formed, and how the stories were picked and modified to reflect the will of the church leaders at that time.
 
R

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
The same happened quite often with copying and translating written texts, not to mention with the interpretation of texts. Only if you have the original texts available or multiple people copied it from different sources (so you can verify it) you know for sure that you have the correct version.

Without a written source there is no way of telling how old stories are, or what the origin is. And even with a written source it depends on when a story was put to paper, and who had access to the story after that. See also how the Bible was formed, and how the stories were picked and modified to reflect the will of the church leaders at that time.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you know I thought of that in regards to written texts but until you wrote it down I didn't combine the two in thought to relate to each other. Was too set on how wrong he was :p That makes a lot of sense though that both can be just as iffy depending on how original the copy is.
 
olds

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
You are both wrong. Oral stories always change and it's possible that the written history was written after a story had changed 50 times.
 
R

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
You are both wrong. Oral stories always change and it's possible that the written history was written after a story had changed 50 times.
Click to expand...

hmm, thats a good point too. So in the end history is for the most not very reliable unless we have physical evidence.
 
T

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Zach Taylor was an ass.

Gen Harrison was a monster.

Kentuckians walked a lot in the war of 1812. The New Englanders sat it out.



 
olds

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
You are both wrong. Oral stories always change and it's possible that the written history was written after a story had changed 50 times.
Click to expand...

hmm, thats a good point too. So in the end history is for the most not very reliable unless we have physical evidence.
Click to expand...
You could always PM Harvey or BoomerD. They were both around back then.




:laugh:

 
Linflas

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
All I need to do is recall that classic game we all went through at some point in k-12 where they had the class sit in a circle and the teacher whispers a story to the first student and they in turn whisper it to the second student and so on until you get to the last student in the circle at which time everyone is amused at how different it is from the original. Personally I'll take written history over oral history but if a society has no writing then you are pretty much stuck with trusting the oral history I guess.
 
sdifox

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
101,207
18,220
126
History is generally written by the victor and whomever is paying for the printing. So it always gets slanted. Verbal teles a la native american tend to be more accurate in that they do not really concern themselves with the actual facts, rather the circumstances of why and how it happened. So yea, I have to agree with your prof.

I would not have gone ape shit though.
 
sao123

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,656
207
106
Originally posted by: RichardE
(I got a history of oral haha)


Now that we got the jokes out of the way... :p

What do you guys think of this in relation to Native Americans? I have a professor who is teaching Contact course revolving around Europeans meeting Native Americans. He is very slanted in his views (very anti-European) which is fine since he does a good job of teaching the Native American perspective. He told us a few days ago that the "oral history" of Native Americans is just as credible as European written history. I disagreed, saying that the history can change depending on each persons views, influences, agenda who repeats it, not to mention the textbook gave examples of such oral history stories changing with the addition of Jesus to stories.

So he flipped :confused: and stated that the book was wrong and that Oral history stories never change :confused:

So maybe I'm just being an European douche, so figured I would see ATOT's opinion before I finish writing this essay he assigned out where we discuss how history is real.
Click to expand...


when the Pentateuch history was only passed down in the oral sense, it was memorized word for word by every last individual. It was not modified in any way, nor open to interpretation.
 
T

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
All I need to do is recall that classic game we all went through at some point in k-12 where they had the class sit in a circle and the teacher whispers a story to the first student and they in turn whisper it to the second student and so on until you get to the last student in the circle at which time everyone is amused at how different it is from the original. Personally I'll take written history over oral history but if a society has no writing then you are pretty much stuck with trusting the oral history I guess.
Click to expand...

game = Telephone.

Long live the Illiad!

 
S

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
You are both wrong. Oral stories always change and it's possible that the written history was written after a story had changed 50 times.
Click to expand...

hmm, thats a good point too. So in the end history is for the most not very reliable unless we have physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Indeed. For a very good example you can simply look at the Old Testament. God creates humans, then kills off most with a flood, then magically (unless there was a lot of incest) suddenly a lot of different humans appear again, and God decides to abandon all of them apart from one small group calling themselves Jews.

It's a story forged by Jewish storytellers (borrowing from old stories they heard from others), and made for other Jews. Told over thousands of years before being put to paper.

With the NT the same, it was written hundreds of years after his death, and no one was around to verify the stories. So they were written to suit the needs and desires of those in charge of the group, logically saying that they are right and others are wrong.

In certain cases you could even state that oral stories can be quite trustworthy, for example when looking at the stories told by the Aboriginals to describe events or myths in their territories, and meant to teach people how to move though and survive the area. If major changes had been made people could not have found their way anymore, so only when the area changed the stories had to be changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom