Oral History: Defective Or Effective?

Oral History: Effective or Defective?
Oral history is a method used to attain historical knowledge through interviews and recordings of people’s memories of past events. Paul Thompson, the founder of the journal of Oral History, proclaimed, “Oral history is not necessarily an instrument for change; it depends upon the spirt in which it is used.” Most historians have mixed views on oral history. There are historians who question whether oral history is effective in the field of history, while other historians believe it is the best thing to happen to the historical field. Firstly, oral histories give voices to people and their stories, which are normally not heard of. Secondly, the interviewee may have a difficult time trusting the interviewer. …show more content…
In this case, democracy is applied in the sense that everyone’s stories equally have the right to be heard and taken into account. For example, the story of Emma Tenayuca, she was a Mexican-American activist for labor rights. Emma was born in 1916, which meant she was of age to remember the Great Depression and the effects it had on her, her family, and other people in her community. Tenayuca mentions her grandfather lost all his money in the bank during the stock market crash and she felt horrible about it. One can hear in the tone of her voice that she was upset and angry about the stock market crash and nobody helped people get food or get people’s money back. The reason she became so involved with labor activism was the great need for food and jobs. One can hear in her voice the passion to aid the hungry people and to establish a minimum wage. Reading an account of Emma’s life during the Great Depression and her labor activities do not result in the same emotion one would receive from listening to Emma’s oral interview. Emma’s stories are not in any history books I read in high school, which means a lot of people may not have heard of her and her story. Oral histories allow stories like Emma’s to be heard and offer a different view of historical events, which normally are not taken into account in textbooks. Oral histories offer great opportunities to voice hidden histories, but …show more content…
The interviewees trust in the interviewer can determine what the interviewee says and how they relay information. Perhaps, the interviewee may feel they will be judged on what they are saying. Additionally, they may also feel as though they will find themselves in some type of trouble. For example, Ann Stoler and Karen Strassler interviewed a man named Pak Purwo who thought he was going to get sent to tried and sent to court. The interviewer had to clarify that the interview was only for a school project. The interviewee wants to trust their interviewers, but if they are unaware of what will happen to the recordings or are wary of the interviewer they limit their stories, and refrain from discussing their struggles. Would you tell your whole life story to a complete stranger? Oral historians have to put themselves in the interviewee’s shoes one must build a sense of trust with them and make them feel comfortable. Stud’s Terkel pretended he did not know how to use a tape recorder as a ploy to get the interviewee to feel more comfortable around him. This a way to settle the nerves, to create a comfort level, and to create trust between the interviewer and interviewee. Although in some cases no matter what ones does the interviewee may not trust someone at all just because of their background and their