HUDC Handbook: Difference between revisions

The HUDC Handbook of 1947 is a good example of occasionally "innaccurate" historical writing. It contains some statements which the HH&HS have realised are errors, bases history on hearsay and in one place relies on a witness who was known at the time to be a forger. Is there any malice in this? - almost certainly not, but it does illustrate the difference between historical documentation that could be taken at face-value, and that where the methodology of the writer and/or publisher can be questioned. Just because it is on the internet or published by (or "issued with the authority of") the local Council, does not mean it is true, but it does show that back in 1947 the people of Hoole were interested in their history. At a more detatched level, the document can be examined as a record of how the people of Hoole viewed their history and hence, how they viewed themselves.