In defense of oral tradition

Deleted member 42

I'm curious. Do they also tend follow the three things you described earlier?

Yes. Those qualities are so universal, across times, languages, and geographies, that folklorists watch for them, and why modern oral history takers and folklorists are exceedingly careful about how tradition is recorded.

There are for instance, archives at UCLA that only particular classes of people may access, and that was part of the agreement when the tales/histories/songs/rituals were recorded.

Where I'm having trouble is: I'm sure there are oral traditions that originate from earlier cultures of origin, but did a specific oral tradition unique to the American South (across ethnic backgrounds) arise?

Humans form groups. In isolation (geographic, or caused by war, etc.) disparate groups may form new groups, hence the descendants of Scots, Irish, and Germans in rural Appalachia regard themselves as Appalachian first and their ethnicity second.

One might look, in terms of First Nations peoples, at the Comanche, and how their language has evolved from its original shared Shoshone roots to its own not mutually intelligible language.

Or Yiddish, which has been its own language, with written texts that go back to the twelfth century. Or Ladino, which may have an even older written history, I'm not sure.

Or to look at it another way, a Child Ballad called Matty Groves, among other names, migrated from the English and Scottish borders to St. Croix in the Virgin islands, probably via the rum/slave triangle.

I strongly suspect that the average person is not going to recognize the Matty Grue song that has been incorporated into local feasts for several generations as a descendent of Matty Groves, one that has been transformed to fit local traditions associated with the cultural indigenous festival and scratch bands.

The songs are kin. But Matty Grue is their song; it's not a Child Ballad.

Another musical instance are all the "who's gonna shoe" songs.

Farther back, there are songs where no longer living languages are preserved in songs—the ballad version of Sir Orfeo is one; there's a medieval text in several versions, as well as the ballad, but the ballad has a chorus in Norn.

People kept right on singing the ballad, in multiple versions, and eventually about 15 years ago someone found an authentic medieval fragment of it in ms., recognizably the same song.

So cultures adapt, they spread, they exchange, and they evolve.

This is why cultures with religious imperatives—Jews, for instance, or Hutterites in the U.S. West, deliberately maintain their own languages—languages preserve cultures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Humans form groups. In isolation (geographic, or caused by war, etc.) disparate groups may form new groups, hence the descendants of Scots, Irish, and Germans in rural Appalachia regard themselves as Appalachian first and their ethnicity second.

[...]

All of those examples make sense to me.

I was asking more specifically about this...

Look at the wrong information we see about the Civil War, its causes and aftermath. In this particular case the "wisdom" of the Civil War experience is toxic to our current society. Yet some insist we should honor the misguided notions as valid in some way because misguided people believe it to be so.

...which is what I was hesitant to classify as oral tradition.

But would you say Neo-Confederacy has a valid and unique oral tradition?
 
Last edited:

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
...which is what I was hesitant to classify as oral tradition.

But would you say Neo-Confederacy has a valid and unique oral tradition?

When you refer to written history, do you mean things written about something that happened long after the actual occurrence, such as a history of the Civil War written in 1910? Or do you mean only things written down as events were happening or immediately afterwards, such as a letter written in 1862?

If the goal is to figure out what actually happened, I think the weakness of oral tradition is that it's open to alteration due to agendas and influence of a future time period, in the same way that history written long after the fact also is. Any history of the Civil War written in 1910, for example, will be influenced consciously or subconsciously by the Lost Cause, just as the memories of an old man in 1910 telling about the war will also be, and one has to take that into consideration.

Things written at the time will have their own biases of course, but those biases won't be doubly affected by unrelated future social pressure.

Sometimes oral history or history written long after the fact is all the evidence available, but when both written records from the time and written/spoken histories from long afterwards are available for comparison, the later histories often turn out to be full of errors. It's like the old saying: someone with one clock always knows what time it is; someone with two clocks is never sure.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Sometimes oral history or history written long after the fact is all the evidence available, but when both written records from the time and written/spoken histories from long afterwards are available for comparison, the later histories often turn out to be full of errors. It's like the old saying: someone with one clock always knows what time it is; someone with two clocks is never sure.

Why I question the validity of Neo-Confederacy as an oral tradition is because I think true oral tradition tends to preserve historical truth as well or better than written history.

For an example of oral history being more reliable than written history (even considering accounts written at the time), consider events like the Massacre at Wounded Knee.
 

Deleted member 42

But would you say Neo-Confederacy has a valid and unique oral tradition?

Now, see, here is where I get uncomfortable as someone engaged in preserving oral history—I don't care if it's valid, or true.

I want to preserve is as a potential useful piece of data. It's no my job to pick and choose—it's my job to try to preserve. I do think that the tales we tell, mythological or derived from lived experience, carry data about us. I don't want to pick and choose.

So, for instance, at UCLA we preserved, documented and transcribed audio recordings of Civil rights leaders, and their opponents. We don't label one "true" and one "not-true."

And in terms of stories—here's a thing from written tradition, but the same thing happens in oral tradition and in attempting to transcribe an oral tradition.

The primary Irish national hero, at least in the Middle Ages, was Cú Chulainn. His birth name was Sétanta.

I'm truncating the story (and its various versions) brutally, but he travels with his hurley-stick and ball to a gathering at the hostel of the Smith Culann.

Culann's dog was a supernatural protector and patrolled the bounds of the Smith's hostel. He attacked Sétanta, who killed him. In reparation, Sétanta offered to be the hound (Cú) of the Smith (Chulainn). Cathbad the druid proclaims that henceforth Cú Chulainn will be his name.

There are two versions of the tale; the earliest manuscript gives one version—Sétanta smashed the dog agains a pillar stone (a boundary marker) and then notes, roughly, that there's another version, in which Sétanta kills the dog by hurling his ball down the dog's throat.

Neither version is privileged or prioritized. Both are presented. I've heard many many tale-tellers in several languages do this kind of thing.
 

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
Why I question the validity of Neo-Confederacy as an oral tradition is because I think true oral tradition tends to preserve historical truth as well or better than written history.

The problem is that that leads to a "no true Scottsman" definition. If it's more accurate, it's true oral tradition. If it's not, it's something other than oral tradition.

Imagine, though, if we had no other evidence of the Civil War other than neo-Confederate stories passed down in families--no writing, no archaelogy, no photographs or drawings made at the time. How would we know those stories weren't accurately preserving what happened?

For an example of oral history being more reliable than written history (even considering accounts written at the time), consider events like the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

I haven't done any research on such events, so can't comment specifically. Today, we have no way of knowing what actually happened during any historic event except by examining a totality of the surviving evidence, so if two pieces of evidence contradict, we need some way to decide between them if we declare one to be more accurate.

I'm guessing that one can tell which account of a massacre is more accurate through archaelogical or physical evidence?

Or perhaps by showing that independent accounts written at the time don't match the way they should? That's one way to falsify contemporary written sources which is difficult with later oral tradition, because it's hard to find several separate oral traditions that could not possibly have influenced each other.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
The problem is that that leads to a "no true Scottsman" definition. If it's more accurate, it's true oral tradition. If it's not, it's something other than oral tradition.

I'm not saying it's infallible. That's silly. But I am differentiating between oral tradition and an oral account.

Or perhaps by showing that independent accounts written at the time don't match the way they should? That's one way to falsify contemporary written sources which is difficult with later oral tradition, because it's hard to find several separate oral traditions that could not possibly have influenced each other.

The point of an oral tradition is that it is a living history, so why would an earlier written account be more valid than the oral story that's been passed down? Simply because one is written and the other isn't?
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
the oral tradition of slaves must have originated from African roots, or am I wrong?

A major reason for the "oral tradition" of American slaves must surely be that they were forbidden, by law, to learn to read and write. They developed distinct American cultural roots over two centuries or so, and Joel Chandler Harris, in particular, drew on that story-telling heritage for his "Uncle Remus" tales. Later African-American writers such as Charles Chesnutt, Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston certainly were influenced by that oral tradition.

caw
 

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
The point of an oral tradition is that it is a living history, so why would an earlier written account be more valid than the oral story that's been passed down? Simply because one is written and the other isn't?

You seem to be talking about something different than using evidence to try to figure out what actually happened at a certain place and time. That's what I mean by history.

I don't know what you mean by "living history" or "valid" in that context. My initial reaction, based most likely on misunderstanding what you mean, is that living means changing. Like the game of telephone, the more something is retold, the more that slight changes are introduced, and the less valid it will be as evidence, because the future people adding or subtracting details weren't at the event and therefore aren't basing their changes on any knowledge of what happened.

I get what Medievalist was saying above, that the oral stories themselves are raw data. If the history question is about 1950: "How were people remembering this 1850 event in 1950?" then a recording of someone telling a story in 1950 would be ironclad evidence to support an answer.

If the history question is about 1850: "What actually happened at this 1850 event?" the recording would be only one piece of evidence that could easily be overturned if something more reliable--archaelogical evidence, for example--turned up.

If the same oral tradition was transcribed in 1920 and contained differences from the 1950 version, each would be indisputable evidence for how the story was being told in those eras (barring transcription errors, influence caused by the interviewer, etc.), but both would be weaker evidence for what actually happened in 1850 because both couldn't be literally true if some details contradicted each other.

When people are skeptical of oral tradition and want to corroborate it with other primary sources, I'm assuming they're referring to the second question (what happened in 1850) and not the first (how was the event remembered in 1950).
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I'm not saying it's infallible. That's silly. But I am differentiating between oral tradition and an oral account.



The point of an oral tradition is that it is a living history, so why would an earlier written account be more valid than the oral story that's been passed down? Simply because one is written and the other isn't?

I don't want to get too far into the Neo-Confederate stuff because of my blood pressure, but if you have any two cultures with a history of warring with each other both are likely to have strongly biased oral traditions about the others and about their battles.

Those traditions will most likely be biased, selective, and combine self-glorification with contempt for the other culture. From a historical perspective both of these oral are useful oral histories without either being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Every culture biases its histories, usually in a manner that makes them look good. Some of those biases are so far out of reality that they amount to self-aggrandizing propaganda, but I doubt any of them are golden-rule honest about themselves and other peoples around them.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I don't know what you mean by "living history" or "valid" in that context. My initial reaction, based most likely on misunderstanding what you mean, is that living means changing. Like the game of telephone, the more something is retold, the more that slight changes are introduced, and the less valid it will be as evidence, because the future people adding or subtracting details weren't at the event and therefore aren't basing their changes on any knowledge of what happened.

The comparison to the "game of telephone" is inaccurate bias about what oral tradition actually is.

That is one of the differences between oral tradition and what might merely be an oral account.

Rhetorical devices and ritual practices are used to preserve the original meaning and original truth. It's not like a "game of telephone" at all.

That's what makes it "living".

I get what Medievalist was saying above, that the oral stories themselves are raw data. If the history question is about 1950: "How were people remembering this 1850 event in 1950?" then a recording of someone telling a story in 1950 would be ironclad evidence to support an answer.

As I've pointed out above though, oral tradition does not answer the question "how are people remembering this 1850 event in 1950". We are talking not about personal memory, but about cultural memory, which is something shared by those who originally experienced the event. In your example, oral tradition answers the question "how was the event experienced by those who lived it".
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Those traditions will most likely be biased, selective, and combine self-glorification with contempt for the other culture. From a historical perspective both of these oral are useful oral histories without either being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Every culture biases its histories, usually in a manner that makes them look good. Some of those biases are so far out of reality that they amount to self-aggrandizing propaganda, but I doubt any of them are golden-rule honest about themselves and other peoples around them.

Yes, but those biases are no less true of written history and written accounts, yet one is often treated as more accurate and more objective.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Yes, but those biases are no less true of written history and written accounts, yet one is often treated as more accurate and more objective.

I'm not disputing that. I was inquiring after the distinction you were making about oral history needing to be true.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I'm not disputing that. I was inquiring after the distinction you were making about oral history needing to be true.

Sorry, I was trying to make a distinction between oral tradition and an informal oral account, where the former employs formal rhetorical and ritual methods that allow it to retain its original accuracy far better than a haphazard game of telephone. I was doing a poor job of it.
 

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
Sorry, I was trying to make a distinction between oral tradition and an informal oral account, where the former employs formal rhetorical and ritual methods that allow it to retain its original accuracy far better than a haphazard game of telephone.

How does one know what degree of accuracy is retained? The usual way of judging the accuracy of something is to compare it to other corroborating evidence and if it matches that other corroborating evidence, then one can have more confidence that the parts which cannot be corroborated are also true.

I have a feeling, though, that this thread is about the problem of doing just that, because if one has faith in oral tradition, one must assume it trumps even strong "other evidence" such as in the discussion of pre-Columbian horses here.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
How does one know what degree of accuracy is retained? The usual way of judging the accuracy of something is to compare it to other corroborating evidence and if it matches that other corroborating evidence, then one can have more confidence that the parts which cannot be corroborated are also true.

I have a feeling, though, that this thread is about the problem of doing just that, because if one has faith in oral tradition, one must assume it trumps even strong "other evidence" such as in the discussion of pre-Columbian horses here.

I'm not saying it trumps other kinds of evidence. I'm saying written evidence does not trump it.

Basically, I'm arguing for equality between the literary and oral traditions.

The historical record versus the scientific record is a completely different matter.

(Written history and oral history are both history; neither are scientific.)
 
Last edited:

Russell Secord

nearly perfect
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
517
Reaction score
53
Location
a secure undisclosed location
The thing about writing stuff down is, once it's written, it doesn't change. People have to adapt. Books that don't hold up tend to disappear.

A recent study found that, when you take a picture of something, you tend to remember less about it. I would guess the same is true of words. When most people in a culture can't write, they have to depend on their own memories.

A book I read recently mentioned that people used to take manuscripts from the Library at Alexandria and burn them for fuel. The point was about the loss of ancient knowledge. Writing isn't a guarantee that wisdom will survive.
 
Last edited:

milkweed

Abuses commas at will.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
151
Location
Somewhere between here and there
Are we including mythology in this discussion as well? Myths seem to be overlook when it comes to history particularly in cultures that value the written word over oral history. Which in turn means myths and other things that don't make up "true" history by western standards are dying out as the elders who are the main source of this information die out.

I don't think imparting wisdom by oral tradition in for example the form of old negro spirituals that lot's of older black people were taught as kids is invalid. Likewise I feel myths,fables, and legends from other cultures have great valueand wisdom. All those things are a form of history to me.

Because someone decides to write a book on the history of such a plant by such peoples doesn't mean said history didn't exist before it was written down. It did, even if "just" in the oral sense which is why it was worth writting about in the first place.

there also lies the fallacy of written language. What defines a written language, and who does the defining???

Many indigenous peoples did in fact have a written language, it just wasn't written the way western europeans were accustomed to seeing. I'm mi'kmaq and we have/had a written language before the euro's landed in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Other cultures use story sticks, story stones, etc., the keeping of these stories, and their accuracy, was considered an honor and a priviledge in many cultures. And like kuwisdelu the wisdom that was handed down with said priviledges.
 
Last edited:

C.bronco

I have plans...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
3,137
Location
Junior Nation
Website
cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
Beowulf was passed down orally long before it was written. We have to look at oral tradition for what it is, like a testimony of one person's perspectuve. If we view it in context, discerningly, it does not mean we can't learn something from it. Historic matters would be the same. Typing with a wii remote is hard.
 

milkweed

Abuses commas at will.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
151
Location
Somewhere between here and there
Beowulf was passed down orally long before it was written. We have to look at oral tradition for what it is, like a testimony of one person's perspectuve. If we view it in context, discerningly, it does not mean we can't learn something from it. Historic matters would be the same. Typing with a wii remote is hard.

AND likewise the written word is one persons perspective! See what I did there???:evil Just because it's written down does NOT make it truth!
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
We have to look at oral tradition for what it is, like a testimony of one person's perspectuve.

That is a fallacy, though. (To be clear again, I am not saying it is infallible.) Oral tradition is not the same as oral testimony. It is not the same as expressing one's perspective. Oral tradition relies on ritual and rhetoric methods to ensure the integrity of what is passed on. Within a tradition, there may be ways to experiment and introduce new elements, but continuance and an unbroken connection between past, present, and future are still very much central to any such tradition.
 

C.bronco

I have plans...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
3,137
Location
Junior Nation
Website
cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
What? You don't believe everything you read?

Anywho, I think that when anything is written, more people have the opportunity to contest it because the audience is larger.