> I'm aware, but it seems silly to me to say oral traditions aren't durable and that writing is the only way to get at history.

no one said that

but there is a definitional issue here - to reiterate the previous poster's point:

> Historians use “history” as a technical term for events recorded in written and other durable records.

That's how the word is defined by historians. It's not a value judgement on oral traditions.

Your post is using the word "history" in a different way. You have some good points to make, but as long as you're using "history" in a different way to everyone else you're not going to get very far in conversation.