History was never like that!: primary source material

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Beware of the Primaries: Not Primary Elections, But Historical Sources

In the world of history there are two types of sources: primary and secondary. Primary sources are written or created during the period of study, while secondary sources interpret primary sources. Throughout my college and library career, I was taught that primary sources were superior to secondary sources. After all, it is better to read the "Declaration of Independence," or the "Constitution" yourself, not read an interpretation of them.

While I agree that primary sources are far superior than secondary ones, we can't go on auto pilot and trust everything the author is telling us. Everyone is biased. It's what makes us human and the reason teachers and librarians cringe when a student turns in a paper citing only books, encyclopedia entries and journal articles. While these are good sources, the author's biases and prejudices shape their interpretation of the event or person. Making it more difficult to learn about a particular event of person.

Primary sources are viewed as bias free, just begging to be read, studied and analyzed. The problem with primary documents, however, is the human beings who created them. Two people can witness the same event, yet have two different interpretations.

The Boston Massacre is a famous example of a group of people interpreting the event differently. Captain Thomas Preston, an officer in the British army and on duty the night of the massacre, states that the Bostonians were out of control, mocking the British soldiers, making violent gestures and daring them to shoot. Another eyewitness, however, stated that the British soldiers pushed some of the local citizens, which caused them to throw snowballs. After the "snowball" fight began, Captain Preston ordered the British soldiers to shoot. Of course, Captain Preston claimed he never ordered them to shoot and was later acquitted of these charges by a colonial jury.

Primary sources are invaluable to historians, teachers and students, but caution needs to be used. Humans aren't infallible and their biases appear in everything they write and create. Next time you use one ask the following questions:

Who wrote it and why?
What is the author/s background?
What is the context of the event, or the author's relationship with the person?
What could have influenced their account?

The colonial interpretations of the Boston Massacre had a profound influence throughout the colonies and were used as propaganda for the American Revolution. While I believe the American Revolution was as "just" as a war could be, not thinking critically about eyewitness accounts in newspapers, the television, etc, can lead us into darkness.