To my knowledge, oral historians do not make an extravagant claim that oral histories are unfailingly accurate recollections of what actually happened. Far from it, the best oral historians, most notably Alessandro Portelli, have taken great pains to investigate how, when, and why people make errors in remembering events, for factual errors, especially recurring factual errors, often tell us more about people's subjectivities -- especially what they desire -- than accurate remembrances.
<blockquote>When Alessandro Portelli was doing an oral history of a small working-class Italian city in the 1970's, he became puzzled when his subjects repeatedly made factual errors or even related events that had never happened. For instance, when talking about the death of a worker named Luigi Trastulli, who had been killed in a clash with the police in 1949, the people Mr. Portelli interviewed all insisted that the event had occurred during demonstrations in 1953.
At first it seemed like the kind of mistake that aging memories are prone to and the reason that many historians are wary of oral history. But Mr. Portelli, perhaps because of his background teaching American literature at the University of Rome, began to see the errors of oral histories, like Freudian slips, as a central part of their meaning and their narrative strategy.
Trastulli died during a demonstration over Italy's decision to join NATO a controversy that had lost much of its meaning by the time Mr. Portelli did his interviews and the 1953 demonstrations were prompted by mass firings from local factories, which had permanently changed life in the area.
"I realized that memory was itself an event on which we needed to reflect," he said in a recent interview at the University of Rome. "Memory is not just a mirror of what has happened, it is one of the things that happens, which merits study." (Alexander Stille, "Prospecting for Truth Amid the Distortions of Oral History," New York Times, 10 March 2001, <http://www.racematters.org/distortionsoforalhistory.htm>)</blockquote>
On 10/22/06, JBrown72073 at cs.com <JBrown72073 at cs.com> wrote:
> But the hidden default here is that men don't do this, women must be lying.
No. The default that I'd recommend is that, whether accusers are male or female, whether the accused are male or female, we take "recovered memory" with a big grain of salt and do not assume that accusation equals guilt. As I have said time and again, the accused in "recovered memory" cases have included both men and women, so have accusers. That's the default I'd recommend, in the interest of not only civil liberties but also feminism, for it is not a good idea to closely associate feminism with an often discredited notion that ruined many people's lives like "recovered memory" and to make it look as if feminism depended on it, when it really doesn't.
> In order to say that Bettina is having 'false memory syndrome'
> you'd also have to claim that she's lying that as an adult
> she spoke to her father about the abuse, and he apologized--
> was sick with shame, actually, is the feeling you get from her
> account.
It must be noted that Bettina Aptheker offered her account of her father's confession in an op-ed only after her memoir became increasingly questioned by those who do not have faith in "recovered memory."
The accuser's report of the accused's confession, in the absence of the accused or another witness who can testify that, yes, indeed the accused admitted guilt, does not strengthen the accuser's case, imho.
Lastly, when a person makes a statement, how might others take it? The choice is not either she is telling the truth or she is consciously lying -- there is a third alternative: she sincerely believes that what didn't happen actually happened. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>