Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 9 Devastating Quotes That Show Hillary Clinton Still Won't Take Responsibility for Her Loss [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)112. Actually, yes, there are ways to judge the factual validity of a memoir for historical purposes.
So, yes, the memoir can be considered a valuable historical resource, so historians don't assume that "any claims made would be weak"
Evaluating the veracity (truthfulness) of texts:
For the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the soldier's possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of his account.
The credible vs. the reliable text:
Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author's account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as evidenced by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.
Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is inconsistently truthful -- such as the soldier in the example above -- loses credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility. Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility, regardless of his reliability.
An author who seems quite credible may be utterly unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us with complete fiction. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have portions that are more reliable and credible than others.
The neutral text:
We often wonder if the author of a text has an "ax to grind" which might render her or his words unreliable.
Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was to expunge his own guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document.
No texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future publication as a memoir.) Sometimes the stake the author has is the most interesting part of a document.
If you take these factors into account, you should be able to read and understand the historical implications of your primary source.
For the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the soldier's possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of his account.
The credible vs. the reliable text:
Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author's account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as evidenced by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.
Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is inconsistently truthful -- such as the soldier in the example above -- loses credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility. Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility, regardless of his reliability.
An author who seems quite credible may be utterly unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us with complete fiction. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have portions that are more reliable and credible than others.
The neutral text:
We often wonder if the author of a text has an "ax to grind" which might render her or his words unreliable.
Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was to expunge his own guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document.
No texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future publication as a memoir.) Sometimes the stake the author has is the most interesting part of a document.
If you take these factors into account, you should be able to read and understand the historical implications of your primary source.
https://clas.uiowa.edu/history/teaching-and-writing-center/guides/source-identification/primary-source
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
172 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
9 Devastating Quotes That Show Hillary Clinton Still Won't Take Responsibility for Her Loss [View all]
ehrnst
Sep 2017
OP
She has more honesty, honor and humanity than ALL OF HER CHALLENGERS combined.
NurseJackie
Sep 2017
#1
Just another shining example of how and why Democrats can't get together to win elections.
democratisphere
Sep 2017
#2
"After hearing repeatedly that some people didnt like my voice". This makes me feel sick. nt
LexVegas
Sep 2017
#4
++++++++++ agree. Have the Morning Joe folks learned nothing from the monstrosity in the WH
iluvtennis
Sep 2017
#66
I've had people wack me several times for it.. even got a hide or 2 over the last 6-8 months.
pangaia
Sep 2017
#60
Some people are very upset that the title didn't indicate that it wasn't a screed on HRC.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#99
I think you might need to buy and read her book to fully understand this thread.
UCmeNdc
Sep 2017
#41
So if a book doesn't "advance ideas" that are based on timelines and news articles
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#107
Actually, yes, there are ways to judge the factual validity of a memoir for historical purposes.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#112
Jesus Christ thank you for pointing out the obvious, Its almost embarrassing at this point.
Old Vet
Sep 2017
#135
The "crooked Hillary" trope is applied to anything. I believe it would be applied
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#77
66,000,000 voters? 3,000,000 MORE than her challenger, anyway. I'm still with HER.
Hekate
Sep 2017
#57
We are totally immersed in FACTS that PROVE that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election
Mr. Ected
Sep 2017
#61
I don't think there is any doubt that many men are threatened by competent women
Egnever
Sep 2017
#95
There are things you can do to level the playing field for sure. Change happens slowly.
bettyellen
Sep 2017
#102
I got to tell you, I have an uncle that I thought to be a bit more progressive...
Raster
Sep 2017
#116
I was shocked people would admit the same to me - a woman! Many led with criticism of her husband in
bettyellen
Sep 2017
#124
The ironic thing is that if Hillary herself came to DU and said "Hillary had any fault in the loss",
JoeStuckInOH
Sep 2017
#75
Total Misleading Headline.....exact opposite of what the story is about., should read something else
Stuart G
Sep 2017
#93
It's the title of the article, and it's ironic. I hope you don't read Borowitz....(nt)
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#94
so...I'm sure there are passages in the book that do what you say she is doing here, but these
JCanete
Sep 2017
#114
So... even when she takes responsibility, it's still not "specific enough" or "platitudes"
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#119
I have none of those things, and I said that in every case she may actually take responsibility in
JCanete
Sep 2017
#122
sooooo? First, what he said is the political reality of the fight. I agree with it. You could
JCanete
Sep 2017
#131
You misread me. I said it was justified for clinton to point out that the dislike was irrational. I
JCanete
Sep 2017
#159
Thank you! And it's not your fault if some are so dense they didn't get the irony in
lunamagica
Sep 2017
#144