The reading for this week, Oral History and Public Memories, discusses how oral histories can capture different viewpoints of a nations or groups history. The authors, Paula Hamilton and Linda Shopes, break the book into three parts: the first discusses how governments or groups can use oral histories to create a national identity, the second shows how oral histories from groups cause a sense of identity, and the third focuses on oral history projects that hope to create change in the local community. The first two chapters of the book about the Aboriginal people of Canada and the creation of the national identity of Singapore go against what I usually think of as an oral history project. I usually find oral histories capturing voices that historians or governments have left out of texts, but in the chapter over Singapore the author discusses how the new government only sought the voice of public officials and important people that helped create the new Singapore. It was not till much later that the government started allowing the oral historians to officially seek interviews with the masses. The government only allows interviews with certain people in order to secure one story about the independence of Singapore from colonialism.
Thankfully the chapter over South Africa in post-apartheid Cape Town told a different story. The author presents two different communities oral history projects that discuss life and memory during the apartheid regime in their community. The author found that the two communities held very different memories during the regime because of the ethnicity of the community and their location. This chapter not only shows the benefits of oral histories among populations that experience discrimination, but also shows that people’s memory differs and is multi-dimensional in countries depending on areas, ethnicities and other things.
The third part of the book shows interesting stories of how people use oral histories to try and make change in communities. I thought the chapter over the Cleveland Homeless Oral History Project by Daniel Kerr is unique and innovative because the author hopes to allow for homeless people of Cleveland to tell their story and give them a voice. The project allows for the homeless people to confront issue of Cleveland’s urban policies of wiping out poor neighborhoods and creating buildings designed to promote tourism that leaves a lot of people homeless. After the conclusion of the interview, I found that the people grew confident that the public heard their voice and some homeless people were willing to confront city officials about the conditions of shelters.
This issue with the homeless in Cleveland was particularly heart rending. How can these people contribute to public identity or make their marginality known when they can't survive. The political nature of oral history or any history as a source of national authority is reflective of the greater culture as a whole. The stories that don't get told matter, and the homeless will never get that opportunity until those of us telling the stories make a concerted effort to use our trade to raise public awareness.
ReplyDeleteWe learned both at the Riley house and in class about urban renewal projects and how they typically were done through minority housing areas. I agree that the Kerr article was both heartbreaking and important. I really like the idea of oral history being used for social change, and I think that the Kerr article, like the others in this volume, can inspire further scholarship.
ReplyDelete