Don't reinvent the wheel. If we don't know our history, we're condemned to repeat it. History is a weapon of the oppressed. Part of the promise of oral history for organizers, activists and movement leaders is to help us learn from the success and mistakes of our movement elders.  But how does that happen?

The notion of ongoing consent: allyship is meant to be a process without a specific endpoint.  Just as our “ally” card expires at the end of the day, so, too, does that informed consent form expire at the end of that phase or segment of the oral history project...

In what ways has the Belfast case made you examine your own work? Are there certain things we should not be recording at all? There are terrible political implications of not recording… then there is the option of telling people the risks, how it could be used, how we don’t have control

Basic premise: narrators who come from and share stories of communities who have been historically oppressed and marginalized have the right to decide how, with whom, and towards what ends their stories are shared and retold.

Oral history is most often seen as a practice that takes place between one interviewer and one narrator, in an exchange that prioritizes an individual's personal story and experiences. What impact does this highly individual nature of oral history have in doing social movement and community-oriented oral history projects? Might it reinforce an overly-individualistic view of history and movements? When should we let go of the one-on-one interview?