Oral History and Historiography Oral

Oral History And Historiography

Oral history has often been discounted by the academic community as hearsay because it is often not based on provable fact. Therefore, oral history has been omitted from many traditional accounts of events. When one considers recent history, we have many records that can tells us exactly what happened and when. However, as we travel back through time, pieces of "hard evidence" become more difficult to find. If we go back far enough, oral history is all that we have. Before our collection of oral history begins, we have nothing but scant archeological evidence to try to piece together societies and events. Correlating archeological evidence with ancient oral history can provide a perspective that can aid in the deciphering of ancient information.

Oral history falls into two categories. The first is collective oral history, such as myths and legends. Myths and legends have been used to compliment archeological finds and to draw pieced of information from many sources together into a collective work. The argument has always been whether to take the myth literally, symbolically, or as a loosely translated oral history. One example of this debate is the Arthurian legends. It is easy to consider the battles in the legends as an accurate historical account. However, Merlin and the Lady of the Lake are a little difficult to swallow from a historical perspective. This legend demonstrates how historical elements can be intertwined with fictional or symbolic elements to create a myth.

Gilgamesh is another similar example of the combination of historical account with obvious symbolic or fictional elements. There are many theories as to why oral history contains these mixed element stories. It may be that in order to preserve the historical part of the context, the ancients knew that it had to be interesting enough to be retold. If we think about our own lives, we can place this in greater perspective. When we talk to someone, we often only recount the most interesting points of the day. If we read a book that was interesting, we will tell someone about the book. We do not waste our time telling about books that were not so interesting. This may have been true for the ancients as well.

The second type of oral history is the personal account of a known historical event or time period. Personal stories have been discounted as inaccurate because they express emotions and reflect the personal viewpoints of the individual. The account may be swayed by personal opinion and preferences. Certain information may be omitted because the person was not aware of it, or because they intentionally left it out. This characteristic of oral history is a major point of contention among those purists in the academic world.

There are many aspects of both of these types of information that must be considered. There has been much controversy surround the use of myths in academic works. The most obvious reason for this omission stems from the world of empirical science. Myths simply cannot be proven in a way that meets strict scientific method. The same can be said for personal oral history. Before the advent of the video camera, oral history and its evolution into print media, was the only method for preserving accounts of the most important historical events.

History is more than simply an account of events. Just as we are influenced by our emotions, politics and the world around us, so it was with our collective ancestors. Oral history provides an element that is often missing from straight historical content. To know how a general felt as he looked over the battlefield provides us a perspective that helps us to gain a deeper understanding of the events and actions of the individuals. Sometimes diaries and personal accounts can help to fill in the missing pieces of an event that are missing in official accounts. The purpose of this research will be to explore the use of oral history in relation to interpretation of an event using a recent occurrence that is in everyone's current memory, the September 11, 2001 bombings and the current war on terrorism.

Thesis

Academic perspectives on how we view oral history changed drastically after the advent of recording devices, the television, and movie cameras. It is much easier to reconstruct history accurately using pictures, rather than line drawings or descriptions. This research will explore the hypothesis that oral history needs to be given greater historical credibility than it currently receives. It will stress the value of oral history as a key to getting the "big picture" surrounding an event.

Literature Review

The importance of oral history as an important method for preserving the emotional inheritance of a particular time period has received increasing academic attention. The literature review for this study will examine journal articles that relate the events of September 11, 2001 from a number of political and social perspectives. The purpose will not be to draw a consensus of the events, but rather to examine the effects of attitude and perspective on what will become the eventual "oral history" of this period in time.

Schools are now beginning to include oral history as a part of history lessons. This type of teach allows students to get in touch with the thoughts and feelings that drove people to their actions. Traditional sources for classroom lectures include textbooks, videos, and other secondary materials. Oral history allows students to makes connections between people, places, and events. Other secondary sources only allow them to get a generalized view of the events. Oral history is becoming an important tool for the teaching of history in many schools.

During an oral interview, respondents often gloss over or tend to forget painful subjects.

It was also found that people might not express attitudes that were considered acceptable at the time, but that are not considered socially acceptable now. Dillon learned many points through having her students engage in historical interviews. It was also found that people tended to glorify or exaggerate their involvement or importance in a historical event.

Oral history is considered to be an important part of the military record that he U.S. Army has published a guide for the collection and use of oral history. The U.S. military considers oral history to be an important element of the official record. The military guide divides types of oral information and interviews into biographical (sometimes known as career interviews), subject, exit, end-of-tour and after-action. biographical (sometimes known as career interviews), subject, exit, end-of-tour and after-action. This guide contains specific guidelines as to the use and storage of the information as well.

The purpose of this study is to examine accounts in the oral history of the events of September 11, 2001. This date is burned into the memories of recent civilization. One does not even have to refer to the entire date in order to bring an understanding of the subject matter. One can say "9/11," "The World Trade Tower Bombings," "September 11," "The Day the World Changed Forever," and many other euphemisms. The event was so important and memorable that one does not even have to put the year on the date and everyone knows what one it talking about. The next group of literature has appeared in a history journal as accounts of the September 11, 2001 bombings. This group of text will be used to analyze oral history in reference to a recent event, with hopes of gaining a better understanding of how oral history relates to other historical time periods.

The difference between 9/11 and other historical events is the mass number of people that were able to witness it virtually fist hand via television. Historical battles were witnessed by a handful of people and then recounted to others. September 11, 2001 was different due to the mass number of people that were able to view the events as they happened. The World Trade Tower bombings required quick action by the American people. Leaders of the United States were being pressed to "do something." According to some analysts, this caused the administration to act without considering the conflict and cultures that surrounded it from a historical perspective. This would have given the leaders prior knowledge as to how the Muslim world would react.

The War on Terrorism differs from major wars, such as World War II. The War on Terrorism is a conflict within states, cultures, and within the global community. This contrasts with World War II that was a conflict between factions of global superpowers. The enemy in the War on Terrorism is not a specific race or group of people, but rather a concept. No one is against another group of people, but everyone can agree that "terrorism" must end. Terrorism is an elusive enemy because one cannot have a reasonable conversation with the enemy. It would be politically incorrect to attack humans, so the term "terrorism" has been substituted as the object of the war rather than a group of human beings.

Shortly after the towers fell, Americans witnessed the horror and tragedy of those that had lost loved ones first hand. News spread quickly and within days, the event had reached the folkloric status of the assassination of JFK (McAlister, par. 3). As one recalls these horrific tales, the "War on Terror" appears to be a logical step. This is the perspective of one category of "oral account" of the events of September 11, 2001.

Shortly after the announcement of the U.S. response to the events of September 11, 2001, Vice President Richard Cheney stated, "It [the war] is different than the Gulf War was, in the sense that it may never end. At least, not in our lifetime. This statement could be interpreted in a number of ways. Interpretation of this statement has changed over the years, especially considering that the war continues to drag on without an end in sight. According to some accounts the current war in an extension of CIA missions in Afghanistan that began in the late 1979s.

The events of September 11, 2001 have been dubbed "Black Tuesday" by one analyst. This term conjures images of the death and destruction of that day, much as the term "black plague" or "great depression" conjure an emotional feeling as well. One must remember that it was not "Black Tuesday" for the faction of Muslims that claimed a "victory" over the "capitalist American pigs." This demonstrates the power of suggestion and the differentiation of an oral historical account.

Various ideals and philosophies serve as s lens through which to view a particular historical event. Fundamentalist Christians in the United States argue that militants manipulate sacred texts in a way the serves their own ideals. Fundamentalist viewpoints see the events of 9/11 as a wake up call from God to abandon sinful ways. Undoubtedly, there will be texts to this effect in the future that historians will have to decipher, just as we must take the writings of religious zealots into an account of past events such as the Spanish Inquisition or the Jacobite Revolution.

In 1949, Harry S. Truman announced a brand new program to help underdeveloped areas of the world. This triggered a round of emotional support from around the globe. This plan results in the intrusion of American culture, by way of several planned subdivisions to be dropped against the backdrop of ancient mosques and temples. Now, these American subdivisions have become icons for all that is bad about America.

One of the great debates among oral historians is whether memory or history dominates the interpretation of major events in history. An oral history project over the recent events of September 11, 2001 explored this topic. This event gave oral historians the opportunity to document the even close to the actual event. This study found that due to a need for rapid response, official public interpretation of the event was generated soon after the events occurred. Within hours, the public image was that of a nation filled with grief. This opinion was largely that this event would have clear implications for national and foreign policy. Clark notes that this opinion was not that of those that lived through the event, or who lost relatives in the event, but that of those that viewed it from a distance and that had a political interest in the events. However, the oral histories of those that lived through the event told a different story, particularly those that were discriminated against after the attacks for their outward religious beliefs.

Analysis

Tendencies such as those presented in Dillon's observations of her classroom interviews present the greatest argument against the use of oral history as part of a historical narrative. First person historical accounts are subject to biases from the interviewer and from the interviewee. The use of oral history and the development of guidelines for conducting various types of interviews highlight the importance of oral history to our understanding of events.

The events of September 11, 2001 provided the stage for sociologists to witness the development of the oral history of an event as it happened. One of the key concepts that arose from the literature that was examined as part of this study was that there is a difference between the account as told by a third party who did not directly witness the events and a spectator on the scene. These differences in interpretation give us a better perspective when considering sources from historical accounts in the distant past.

The literature that was examined as part of this research gave us a perspective that changed with the various lenses through which it was viewed. The most prominent example of the account was the fundamentalist Christian perspective that included the wrath of God theory on the events. In every major historical event, it is easy to find various interpretations of the events depending on the political, religious and social standing of the person that is telling the story.

This study of the oral accounts and perspectives presented regarding the September 11, 2001 bombings gives us a better perspective from which to evaluate oral history sources that are not of our own lifetime. For instance, when one reads an account of testimony, it becomes necessary to examine the source more closely. One must delve into the personal history of the writer in order to understand how their "lens" might have affected their interpretation of an event.

The inclusion or omission of personal accounts into the historical record depends on the type of work that one wishes to produce. It is certainly easy to argue against their inclusion if one if looking for indisputable accuracy. However, this level of certainty of events is a fallacy from an academic perspective. Secondary historical accounts are often the "average" of the information that is available regarding a certain event. However, this does not necessarily make it accurate. History is influenced by many sociological, political and psychological forces surrounding it. Every account, even if generally accepted today, is merely someone's observation of the event.

It is easier to accept an "average" account of an event when it was witnessed by many people who reported the event from different angles. One example might be the history of the Battle of Gettysburg where thousands witnessed it and most accounts agree as to the major events. For events such as this, oral history can add to our understanding of the event. We can relive the event without fear of distorting historical fact.