- Nov 25, 2010
- Reaction score
- Kraut Corner
There is truth in this. Memory is something that can alter and change over the course of the years despite those who relate it will swear it is what they experienced and are convinced of it.Agreed. I would add one other limitation: plenty of studies have show that eye witnesses are unreliable. While we must accept them because it is hard to find a better source, we have to also accept the story they tell has limitations and is likely to run afoul of your "other type" revisionism on some level. -- jim
The best source of reports of what actually happened - with regard to personal experience - are often those noted down immediately after the event or very soon thereafter.
That said, the limitations of what the person in question could actually oversee and interpret correctly need to be taken into consideration. The same is true for the viewpoints taken back then. As Jim said: They have to be evaluated within the historical context back then.
So the best sources would be well informed individuals that recorded their experiences just after they happened which are then later collected and analyzed with scientific methods by people who have no personal interest in a personal rather than neutral and detached interpretation.