Evaluation of Primary Sources
We should approach primary sources differently than secondary ones by remembering that all written primary sources contain bias. It’s a view of the author’s perspective and how they might emphasize certain details and possibly leave out others. It helps us see different views of the same thing.
The most important questions to ask about primary source materials would be:
What is the purpose of the author in preparing the document? You need to find out what the purpose that led to writing this document. What were the events? The build up? What was their position and status? Did this document lead to other events?
What is the argument and strategy they use to achieve those goals?
What is the end result supposed to be? What are they wanting to achieve and why? Is there a strategy? Is there a specific audience for the text?
What are the presuppositions and values in the text and also our own?
We need to see if there is a difference in time frames from then to now about the values and ideas. Evaluating the text to see if there is anything that is found objectionable and if we find anything in the contemporaries that we might find acceptable. Is there anything that can be misinterpreted about the text due to difference in values?
What is the evaluating truth content (epistemology)?
Finding if text supports any of the arguments that were read. Did it reveal any information that it seemed to be concerned about revealing? Was there any signs of the author’s interpretation of the subject?
Lastly, how does it all relate?
What are the patterns and ideas? Is there any major differences? Do you find one more credible or reliable than the other?
It is important to ask what a source doesn’t or cant tell us because it helps you dig in more to investigate. To evaluate what you are reading and to see if its actually credible. To also see if they have a specific point of view that might alter the results. Does this source come from someone directly involved in the events?
Understanding Trouillot’s distinction between the two connotations of history (“what happened” and “that which was said to have happened”) helps me think critically about primary sources by showing me the emphasis on the sociohistorical process and on our knowledge of that process or on a story about the process.
I find myself putting myself in scenarios of what I have experienced though history in my short years and realizing things I have seen that our future generation either were to young to remember or not born. For instance, I was 10 years old when 9/11 happened. I can tell you about that day as if it was yesterday but it doesn’t mean ill have all my facts about what happens, just simply what I saw. As I got older and I was able to comprehend what had happened and why, it explained what I had seen. This is what came to mind when I read “primary sources don’t necessarily tell us “what happened” but begins a dialogue about “that which was said to happened”
