Famine Eyewitness Account Analysis, Essay Example

What was the subject’s direct involvement with the Famine?

During the time of the famine the subject was living in a village in Horby. When his father’s land was ceased by government officials, he went to Donbas in 1926. While in Donbas, the subject worked as a Morse Code operator and bookkeeper from 1926-1933. After receiving a passport, the subject then was able to travel to another city, where he worked until 1937. After some people discovered that the subject was a kulak, he was released from his job. He wandered around for months doing odd jobs to take care of himself.. The subject didn’t actually experience the famine until he returned to his village for a short period of time. He seems to have worked several jobs that actually took him away from the areas where famine hit the hardest.
Is information about the period before or after the time of the Famine relevant? Why?
The information that the researchers ask that pertains to the time before and after the famine is relevant to understand the perspective of the person. Had the subject been living in dire situations prior to the famine, it might have made it difficult for him to notice the economic changes around him. Having been living fairly well prior to the famine makes the subject a reliable source to show a comparison and contrast of the time before the famine, during the famine, and after the famine.
 Are there aspects of the testimony that do not ring true? If so, how does that affect your overall assessment of this source?
On page 241, when the subject is discussing how people were deported and sentenced to work on collective farms is a bit unbelievable to me because he is giving percentile numbers. He discusses how the people in the village were called upon every day to compel membership. The first thought that I had when I was reading the information was that percentile numbers had to something that the subject had read. On page 242, the questioner asks the subject did he know all of this information at the time or was it something that he learned later. The subject confessed that he read the information at a later date and was unaware of it during the time of the famine.

Does the source present contradictory evidence?
It does not present contradictory evidence, but it makes me wonder how much of the information is first-hand account and how much of the information was gathered after the fact. Due to the subject’s age at the time of the interview, he may be having a difficult time relaying what he witnessed first-hand versus what he has read. So, I believe the information he is providing is somewhat a combination of the two.

Has the source introduced information that was learned in the 50 years that passed between the time of the events and the time of the interview? 

A great deal of the information that the subject discussed was not first-hand information. He jumped around from date to date. This made reading and understanding the information a bit difficult. He discussed information that went on in his village when he returned, but later stated that he was in his own village a few months. He even stated that he only returned to his village once after leaving to work. So, obviously all the information he discussed was learned from someone else or information he read at a later date.

Do graphic descriptions of suffering prompt you to accept or suspect the overall accuracy of the account?

The subject does not really give any graphic accounts of suffering. He said that he did not actually witness people dying of starvation. He does discuss how members of the village would flee to neighboring villages to get bread and bring it back. This detail conveys that people were indeed starving because if they were willing to risk their lives for bread, the situation was very dire. They had back markets for bread. His mentions that his mother died and one of his younger siblings was sent to work on a collective farm. He stated that no one from his family died of starvation. He also discussed how his younger brother, who was about 10 years old at the time , was taken out of school and sent to a collective camp. He had to feed the pigs and do other chores around the camp. He also discussed how he would send his father clothes and etc. to wear while in the camp. He stated that the people governing the camp did not provide the captive any clothing items or shoes. They only cared  if the person was able to work and working naked was a possibility.

Are the questions directed toward eliciting facts or are they slanted toward a particular perspective, i.e., are they “leading?”

The questioner did a great job of just asking the questions. He did not lead the subject to any answers. Although towards the end when the subject started giving percentile numbers, the questioner does seem to ask the same questions several times. In one incident, the subject told him he did not remember, but it was in his book and he could locate it and read the information to him again. I believe the questioner was beginning to question the subject’s authenticity. I believe the subject witnessed very little of the effect of the famine and is merely going by what he has been  told and what he read after the fact.