Before watching the first two episodes of the British Chef Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution I was in the dark about much of what goes on in school cafeterias across America. It was Jamie's goal to get into schools across the US and try to change the food that we are feeding our children. Huntington, West Virginia is the town that he focused on being that it is known to be the unhealthiest town in the entire world. His goal was to show the town healthy options instead of eating processed, broken down food. 
    Throughout the first two episodes Jamie came encountered with many struggles trying to achieve this goal. He had many people against what he was trying to do and achieve for this town. When he went into the towns elementary school he was baffled by what he saw being served to the children. Everything that was being put out for them was process or had loads of unhealthy preservatives in it. He decided to conduct a test and make a fresh cooked meal from healthy non processed foods and give the children a choice to choose which meal they would like. The turnout was shocking to Jamie, almost every child chose the processed food over the home cooked meal. This disappointment just gave him more incentive to make a change in this school and was determined to get these children to enjoy healthy food. 
    After watching this just a few episodes it has made me really question what these schools are feeding to our children. Are the people in charge really looking out for our children’s health or are they just looking for cheap options to feed our kids. This has really given me the encouragement to look into this issue that is within schools nation and worldwide. I would highly recommend this short series to anyone who is looking to see what is truly going on behind the closed doors of the cafeterias of our schools in America; your eyes will be opened after only a few short minutes.

"Oral history . . . refers to what the source and the historian do together at the moment of their encounter in the interview." - Alessandro Portelli

    Oral history has played a very important role in the translation of important events and specific moments throughout society and life. When we read articles that talk about the past, I find I most relate to and enjoy the piece of writing when it comes from first hand accounts of an individual. When you are construting and interview on a subject, you recieve the real facts and find out what really happened in that percice moment through that individuals eyes. You are able to see, smell, and feel what exactly that individual saw, instead of writing from written accounts of what happened from different documents. 
    Referring to the quote at the top of the blog, an interview determines how the subject being discussed is going to be viewed by the audience. It is up to the "historian" to pick out questions to ask the "source" to find out the specific details of the event. They must decided what questions and use and not to use because they will ulitmately determine how the subject is going to be read by everyone who reads about it.  Interviews are the most personal and I believe accurate way finding out details out about specific events or occurances in our lives or history.