What can we learn?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"One thing that we must learn is that oral traditions are generally based upon a true fact or story. "

Balanced off by the experience of that old party game where you whisper a statement around a table and by the time it gets back to the originator, its so far off base that its a great laugh......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

How can you balance Oral tradition with a “Stupid part games”. Clearly you do not understand or see the importance of oral traditions.

History and Oral traditions still has a lot to tell us about out past.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvin,

I think I understand oral traditions completely.  No need to tell me what or what I don't understand. Its a matter of opinion as to just how accurate they are and what a more scientific approach might tell us.

So, forget my party game example and recall that here in Texas, just recently we have had several men released from prison based on DNA.  They were originally convicted via "eyewitness account" but DNA later proved that they couldn't have possible raped or killed their victims.

Those eyewitness obviously were wrong from the very get go, perhaps because of some bias or another, not too unlike (or worse) than the bias shown here by DM to not believe the MCC history, or TePaul, et al biased to believe it. Both are human nature, which we all know if fallible and basically unchanged through history.

Short version: While I appreciate oral histories, I think its wise to use other avenues when they become available to corroborate.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jeff, I agree that oral tradition can be suspect.  I have been in my present parish since 1981.  We tried to write a brief history a few years ago.  We interviewed a great many people and you wouldn't believe the differences in the recollections of folks.  I know I can't remember it all accurately.  When it comes to building of a golf course and the few people involved oral tradition is very suspect.