"The basic problem with oral testimony about the past, is that its truth (when it is true) is not primarily about what happened or how things were, but about how the past has been recollected. That being said — hardly a startling revelation — at once all the claims made for oral history — accuracy, immediacy, reality — come under the most serious suspicion, and we move straight away into the world of image, selective memory, later overlays and utter subjectivity."
I'm supposed to respond to this quote and either agree or disagree with it. How I 'interpret' it is that it's saying oral history and our recollections of what happened are clouded by years gone by, and our memory cannot be trusted, because it changes.
I'm just having a bit of trouble finding enough to write. It's a six page paper, and I'm stuck after writing just over two pages. Any suggestions, opinions, etc. would help me greatly.
I'm supposed to respond to this quote and either agree or disagree with it. How I 'interpret' it is that it's saying oral history and our recollections of what happened are clouded by years gone by, and our memory cannot be trusted, because it changes.
I'm just having a bit of trouble finding enough to write. It's a six page paper, and I'm stuck after writing just over two pages. Any suggestions, opinions, etc. would help me greatly.