can oral tradition give an accurate history of a family,lineage,clan,tribe or ethnicity?. we all know that oral tradition is a common trait that cuts across all the african tribes. the problem is that when trying to give a history of a large group of people especially those that have been for a long time, there tends to be some missing links. so do u think that oral tradition is efficient enough?. your comments!

Oral tradition is actually never enough in tracing or reconstructing history. Like u said earlier, its loses some of its contents over the time and likely be embellished. Also, one relating the oral tradition can choose to be bias by keeping some negative things to himself.

abishowzonyine: Oral tradition is actually never enough in tracing or reconstructing history. Like u said earlier, its loses some of its contents over the time and likely be embellished. Also, one relating the oral tradition can choose to be bias by keeping some negative things to himself.

but why do most people cling to oral tradition as the accurate history of their town or community?

Antivirus92: but why do most people cling to oral tradition as the accurate history of their town or community?

That's mostly all they have as a community. Remember writing started in Africa late. I think Archaeological findings too should help cod written records are mostly a collection of oraj traditions written down. Archaeological records have been helpful in the reconstruction of history alot.

Firstly, what qualifies an account of history as "accurate"?
Because it is written?
Oral tradition is as "accurate" as any written account of history because each account will always be coloured by the idiosyncrasies of the narrator(s) or writer(s).

kwangi: Firstly, what qualifies an account of history as "accurate"?
Because it is written?
Oral tradition is as "accurate" as any written account of history because each account will always be coloured by the idiosyncrasies of the narrator(s) or writer(s).

no,writting an account of history does not make it "accurate". What we mean by "accurate" is when the account is free of controversy or contain a little controversy. When it is generally accepted.

abishowzonyine:
That's mostly all they have as a community. Remember writing started in Africa late. I think Archaeological findings too should help cod written records are mostly a collection of oraj traditions written down. Archaeological records have been helpful in the reconstruction of history alot.

i agree with you 100%. Archeological evidence is more accurate than most oral tradition. Two tribes may have different account of history where as similar archeological findings were found in their respective lands.

Antivirus92: no,writting an account of history does not make it "accurate". What we mean by "accurate" is when the account is free of controversy or contain a little controversy. When it is generally accepted.

If that is ur defination of accurate,then archaeological records is almost the most accurate,especially if the materials are found in their natural state and when it has to do with objects that have inscriptions on them e.g coins,art work and even rock paintings.
Most historians who write the written records get some of their facts from archaeologists.
Unfortunately, archaeology is nt valued in Nigeria.

Antivirus92: i agree with you 100%. Archeological evidence is more accurate than most oral tradition. Two tribes may have different account of history where as similar archeological findings were found in their respective lands.

True, I agree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LkpJdll9A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wKaIEzxGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5f0JxwR-0k

anonymous6:

True, I agree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LkpJdll9A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wKaIEzxGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5f0JxwR-0k

long time my south--western friend. where have u been?

.

Antivirus92: long time my south--western friend. where have u been?

Just busy with life in general, you thread looks interesting, this is what the culture section should be talking about more

tpia@:
in most instances, oral history is more reliable but only if you know how to interpret it.

not everywhere has egyptians pyramids and roman mausoleums which are easily visible and traceable.

True, but it is difficult, for example for the most part that is how native americans and native Indians in south america transferred their history but I feel in today's age in order to avoid any doubt from people who want facts or people discrediting the history all together. It is best to make it confirmed and Legit, so nobody will oppose it as the truth. For example Thomas Jefferson the third president of the United states had four mixed race kids with his slave mistress, it was only his black descendants that passed this story orally down the generations. His white descendants didn't know until it was brought to the light from the media, his white descendants rejected it until a DNA test proved the black descendants were proven to be related to Thomas Jefferson. It shut the mouths of the racists, white descendants of Thomas Jefferson, white historians that refused to believe this story of Thomas Jefferson secret life while owning slaves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhc1xr3CEM4

,

tpia@:


back in those days it was common for white men to have children with their black female slaves, so the findings arent that surprising per se. Also, its not really possible the white side didnt know of his mixed descendants- they probably just didnt want to discuss the matter moreso as doing so would entail other, weighty issues.

besides, his brother is also posited as being the father of the mixed race kids. Their mother was 3/4 white and probably also related to jefferson as well, btw.


in any case, oral tradition is supported, not replaced by, archeology. And the descendants had their own oral tradition. Btw, the descendants in question are white, not black.

for africa, doing away with oral tradition is doing away with your history and inviting others to erase it completely.

*@tpia, no we can never do away with oral tradition. oral tradition as we all know contain some elements of truth. just like this former american president, if his white children want to write the history of the family,they will indeed omitt the black side. not that they don't know about it but they don't want anything black to appear in their history. so you see what i mean, sometimes people can deliberately alter the oral tradition to suit them.

another thing is,what about tribes that has lasted for hundreds of years. do you think that the oral tradition after 500yrs will still be the same as it was 10 to 20yrs of their existence.

tpia@:


back in those days it was common for white men to have children with their black female slaves, so the findings arent that surprising per se. Also, its not really possible the white side didnt know of his mixed descendants- they probably just didnt want to discuss the matter moreso as doing so would entail other, weighty issues.

besides, his brother is also posited as being the father of the mixed race kids. Their mother was 3/4 white and probably also related to jefferson as well, btw.


in any case, oral tradition is supported, not replaced by, archeology. And the descendants had their own oral tradition. Btw, the descendants in question are white, not black.

for africa, doing away with oral tradition is doing away with your history and inviting others to erase it completely.

It is true it wasn't un-common at all in those days in America but if the DNA results were not released, people would still label it a lie, so I do agree oral tradition is valid and I am not against it but in today's age we need more to back it up.

Antivirus92: another thing is,what about tribes that has lasted for hundreds of years. do you think that the oral tradition after 500yrs will still be the same as it was 10 to 20yrs of their existence.

I think it depends on how much the tribes haven't been diluted by outside influence's or let go of some of their practices due to modernization, which at times is inevitable but overall at least 80% of oral tradition can still be held on to, to a extent, Nigerian tribes are a good example.

.

.

All we need to do is write down and record the oral history, and it becomes written history. The stories are there. Bloody write them down and stop yacking!!! I honestly don't know what our historians and anthropologists are doing with their time. They could actually make good money searching out the best and most gripping stories from the past, and publishing them as historical works or epics.

Do you know the new testament was written nearly a century after the purported events in it happened?

There is no law that says history must be written down the very moment the events are occurring.

What we should be doing now in earnest is compiling all those ancient stories now, and documenting them in volumes, so that future generations can go into a library and access them.

.

Rossikk: All we need to do is write down and record the oral history, and it becomes written history. The stories are there. Bloody write them down and stop yacking!!! I honestly don't know what our historians and anthropologists are doing with their time. They could actually make good money searching out the best and most gripping stories from the past, and publishing them as historical works or epics.

Do you know the new testament was written nearly a century after the purported events in it happened?

There is no law that says history must be written down the very moment the events are occurring.

What we should be doing now in earnest is compiling all those ancient stories now, and documenting them in volumes, so that future generations can go into a library and access them.

To a extent it has already been done to a extent(also depending on the tribe), there are books about many tribes of Africa that people can buy in the store or order online

How about we put it like this: oral tradition is no less credible than other types of accounts. Oral tradition and written accounts are both told by man. The only difference between the two is that while written accounts are static, oral traditions are malleable. That malleability isn't necessarily something to frown upon. In fact, it actually makes oral tradition uniquely suitable for appropriation, which could prove rather useful in that it works as a reflection of the different changes a community has experienced over time.

As for archeology; though it provides meaningful insight into the past, I am hesitant to consider it as being a kind of account on its own, in the same way that we may think of oral tradition or written history. If anything, archeological evidence is mostly supplemental, particularly because it requires heavy interpretation. Archeological insight typically has to exist in context, and that context is usually provided by either written accounts or oral tradition.

abishowzonyine: Unfortunately, archaeology is nt valued in Nigeria.

That's the truth. A chert hand axe was uncovered in an Abia state community not too long ago, supposedly dating a little over 50,000 years old. Not a single archeological excavation has yet to occur in the area. Archeology truly isn't valued.

oral tradition is a back up to archeology. but when less importance is attached to archeology then oral tradition seems to be flexible and can be altered.

Antivirus92: oral tradition is a back up to archeology. but when less importance is attached to archeology then oral tradition seems to be flexible and can be altered.

Bro, it's the other way round.

Nice thread... from what I see you are trying to attain objectivity which by the way is a mirage. weda you use oral tradition or written form in reconstructing the past; both has limitation(s) and thus you can not say one is more relevant than the other in reconstructing the past. and note; an historian can not no matter how much he tries get a total information of an event this is because he is faced with the limitation of scope