Oral history is a recipe for complete misrepresentation because almost no one tells the truth, even when they intend to.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.
History is a set of lies agreed upon.
History is prone to mistakes in identity, and facts are not always solid things.
There are people who are bound journalistically to a code of ethics that means they can't quote something that isn't sourced, whereas what I do is entirely unsourced. I effectively fictionalise history and yet somehow aim at a greater truth.
History is imperfect and biased, and it always, always has omissions. The most common omissions are the bits that the writer of that history took for granted that his readers would know.
I think we fool ourselves and really negate a great deal of history if we think that the oral history of poetry is shorter than the written history of poetry. It's not true. Poetry has a longer oral tradition than it does written.
It is fitting that a liar should be a man of good memory.
I would never lie to anyone about history.
I am not a fan of historical fiction that is sloppy in its research or is dishonest about the real history.
Whenever one pulls the trigger in order to rectify history's mistake, one lies. For history makes no mistakes, since it has no purpose.