The following text is about historical methodology.
Oral history captures testimonies from people who experienced historical events. Pioneered by scholars seeking to document marginalized communities overlooked by written records, the method has expanded to preserve diverse voices: Holocaust survivors, civil rights participants, immigrant communities. Critics note that memory is fallible and shaped by present concerns, making oral accounts unreliable compared to contemporary documents. Practitioners counter that oral history reveals subjective experiences, community memories, and interpretations that official documents never captured—different evidence for different questions.
How do oral history practitioners respond to reliability concerns?
They claim oral testimonies are more accurate than all written records
They argue oral history provides unique evidence about experience and interpretation that documents miss
They have abandoned the method due to criticism
They only interview officials who created written documents
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Practitioners argue oral history "reveals subjective experiences, community memories, and interpretations that official documents never captured—different evidence for different questions."
- Evidence: Unique evidence about experience and interpretation.
- Reasoning: Value lies in what documents can't capture, not replacing them.
- Conclusion: Different purpose, not competing claims to accuracy.
Choice A is incorrect because they claim difference, not superiority. Choice C is incorrect because they actively defend and use the method. Choice D is incorrect because they focus on "marginalized communities" and "diverse voices."