Guest guest Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Hi All; A quick note on that oral tradition thread we had a few weeks ago: Shackleton, 1916, south pole expedition, made some interesting and indirect comments on why a written tradition can cause history to seem so materialistic as well as flaky: When I look back on those days, I have no doubt that providence guided us, not only across snowfields, but also across the stormwhite sea [...] I know that during that long and racking [sic] march [...] it seemed to me often that we were four, not three. I said nothing to my companions on the point, but afterwards Worsely said to me, " Boss, I had a curious feeling on the march that there was another person with us " . Cream confessed to the same idea. One feels the " dearth of human words, the roughness of mortal speech " in trying to describe things intangible, but a record of our journey would be incomplete without a reference to a subject very near to our hearts. (Shackleton 1947, pg 211) It is easy to fall for the trap that written transmission is accurate and superior in every way to oral transmission. We all know how omission can severely distort a perspective. My teacher's oral instruction? " Don't think, don't say, don't do " . Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.