How do you think oral history might be different from written history?

Probably because there's more opportunity for things to get changed when it's passed down orally as opposed to written. Of course someone could always write something down differently, but sometimes things get changed unintentionally. Like maybe a person re-telling it may have been remembering a bit differently or interpreted it a certain way & you're hearing it from that point of view. Where as if it was written down, people can read it exactly, & also in some cases may tell you a bit more being that it is a record. For example, someone may find something written from a certain time & it can tell you alot as an artifact in and of itself. But I think all in all, there are probably less changes when things are written down-a good example of this is the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I know that there are some biases, specifically with how historical past is taught in school. Historical past will not be precisely function however written from the factor of view of the victors. So yes some matters probably disregarded in order to make a nation appear higher than a further in relation to struggle, and assigning blame for it. To be real purpose one desires to listen to either side of the story.

in oral there are more myths then written.