We often think of the word History as an objective thing; in History, we encounter names and dates–“facts”–about past events. But oral history is often said to be quite the opposite of history, because the process of collecting oral history involves the act of remembering, which is a very personal, subjective action.

Based on the oral histories that you read this week, how do you see oral history presenting a subjective view of past events? In other words, what passages from this week’s readings help you better understand the subjective nature of the oral history genre?

Part Two
What new perspectives of organized labor (and union participation) did you gain from the two IWW oral histories?

Studs Terkels’ Oral Histories
What kind of insights do the oral histories from the Studs Terkel give you about the personal, subjective lives of Dolores Dante and Mike Lefevre?

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Powered by WordPress | Designed by: buy backlinks | Thanks to webdesign berlin, House Plans and voucher codes