I have many history books. There's no such thing as an official history. Historians write about what interests them, through the lens of their own opinions and experiences.
I have many history books. There's no such thing as an official history. Historians write about what interests them, through the lens of their own opinions and experiences.
I interpret calibas to mean that oral history is not generally considered to really be history ("official" history), while written books sometimes are. I believe that this is correct, and that there are excellent reasons for it, related to verifiability of provenance and mutability. I do not think that calibas was referring to some kind of official imprimatur.
> oral history is not generally considered to really be history
Probably because it is not considered to be reliable. For example, "hearsay" is inadmissible as evidence in court.
I believe that hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in court even when it's written.
Yeah. Hearsay is an out of court statement provided to show the proof a matter. It has little to do with oral vs non oral. There are also exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions and so on.
Contemporaneous notes are used in courts a lot though, aren't they?
Yes, so is oral testimony. That doesn’t make them hearsay.
Not sure why this was downvoted. Written notes can be hearsay. Contrary to the GPs opinion, the medium of transmission is not what distinguishes a statement as hearsay.