!: Memory cannot be housed in a body — oral storytelling is not a practice of telling history (101).
I disagree with this pretty drastically as for thousands of years history was passed down through generations without any writing. While I agree with Schneider that oral performance can be altered each time it is performed, which can make it an unreliable source, how do we inherently know that just because something is written down that is it the truth?
?: What is the difference between memory and history? (102)
Often I feel like much of history is just how one person or a group of people remember and recount an event. I feel like the two are pretty interconnected, so I’m confused about why the author decides to make the distinction between them.
!: Performance, especially dance is more up to the interpretation of the viewer than more traditional forms of media.
When there are words, people come to an agreement about the meaning whereas, with non-textual items and performance, there can be a wide range in the interpreted meaning.
?: Birns talks about trying to find a balance and points to giving a name to the woman Emmett Till was supposedly looking at, but why is this change in focus important?
I think this is unnecessary and takes the focus away from the black man who was killed unjustly and turns the narrative to be a white woman who felt uncomfortable around a black man, which resulted in his death. I don’t think this is a balance, but rather a change in the historical narrative.