Talk:African historiography#Historians general view of oral traditions.

Most Important Accounts 196.191.61.187 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the claim that "It used to be thought that oral traditions had a core of truth, however this has changed and the core is now considered a cliché..." when you have a 2018 [https://trp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ARSS-Vol.7-No.3-October-December-2018-pp.140-142.pdf article] whose abstract begins with: "Oral traditions are considered as a reliable source of historical writing.". Perhaps the reference for this paragraph is outdated or more exposition of the different viewpoints is needed. Zoocat56 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry, I didn’t consider the age of the source. The source discusses truth and myth, saying it used to be thought they had a core of truth and a penumbra of myth. [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=oral+tradition+reliable+source&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1733645836229&u=%23p%3Dvx2Ccfvx3N0J This source] also says the same as the one you provided. I’ll try to find a more recent source that discusses the literature, and delete the contested stuff for now Kowal2701 (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:I can't find a tertiary source on this, however there are still [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gq00DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT24&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false books from 2017] arguing for respect of oral tradition as historical sources, implying this is still debated Kowal2701 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::The 2017 book is actually a reprint of the English translation of Jan Vansina's original 1961 book De la tradition orale—for some reason Google Books lists the wrong author. For methods and sources used by historians of Africa this [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Writing_African_History/Pq5wGaae5qkC?hl=en&gbpv=0 2005 book] supplanted with this [https://www.african.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/spear.pdf book review] might be useful. Zoocat56 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Ah that's embarrassing. That book looks great, and it can be accessed [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/writing-african-history/FB32EABC860F3200AE367888F9205353 through the Wikipedia Library]! Thanks so much, that'll be so useful Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zoocat56 Hi, sorry it's not that clear but the source for those sentences is [https://oxfordre-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-303?rskey=0IIRTU&result=1 the ORE] which is used later in the paragraph.

{{tq2|From the start of the colonial period, colonizers wrote a history of their colonization, showcasing primarily the exploits of soldiers, colonial administrators, and key “colonial figures.” It is a political, event-oriented, and very traditional history—one that, all in all, conforms to the historiography prevalent during the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century.4 The sources for it are limited, mainly written, and archives produced by the colonizers predominate. It is thus a very Eurocentric history, exemplifying the era’s belief in the superiority of white people and largely ignoring the colonized viewpoint. Africa—particularly Sub-Saharan Africa—was deemed to be without a history, supposedly because it had not been written down. Historic works were less developed than those of other social science disciplines, such as ethnology or anthropology, which at the time seemed more suited for this territory’s specificities and were supported by dedicated institutions.}}

The sentence {{tq|Colonisers considered Africans racially inferior, supporting their "civilising mission"}} does need a source though Kowal2701 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)