Unit 4 — Historical Thinking: Evaluation of secondary sources
“In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
— Bertrand Russell
“When we ask students to ‘read,’ we often have something more specific in mind, and we need to communicate that to them.”
— Monique Dufour
Now that we’ve worked on the skill of analytical reading, let’s take a minute to reflect on what we’ve learned and how it applies to the process of Historical Thinking. Although we’ve talked about the fact that Andrews and Burke’s “5Cs” model is just that — a model, it can be a valuable tool for helping us to think about the ways in which we apply Historial Thinking skills and principles in the work that we do as historians.
For the first activity of this Unit, create a Medium post in which you reflect on the work we did last week. What are one or two analytical reading strategies that you recognize as crucial for reading historical work? Why do those stand out to you, in particular? How do those strategies support your ability to evaluate the 5Cs of Historical Thinking (you don’t have to address all five — just the one or two that seem most relevant)? More generally, why is close, analytical reading important to Historical Thinking?
In your post, also write about what struggles you faced as you attempted to apply close reading skills to the article you chose (either Nash or Lovell)? What other resources, activities, conversations, etc. might help you to become more proficient at reading critically?
That last set of questions is most important, I think, for helping us to become stronger readers for History. When I designed the activities for Unit 3, I thought that Hypothesis would create a space where we could talk to each other about the ways that we’re trying to apply close reading strategies. But, now that I’ve run this activity a couple of times with different groups of students, it seems that not much conversation actually takes place on Hypothesis. What did you think of Hypothesis? How can we use it more effectively together as a class? (You’ll have a chance to apply your ideas during the second half of this Unit).
Remember that Medium posts don’t have to focus on the written word — you can use other, multimodal forms of communication to complete your reflection, including images and video. Your Medium post is due by the first Sunday of this Unit (October 3) by 11:59 pm.
During this Unit, we’ll continue our focus on *secondary sources* for historical study. You may have noticed that the articles we read last week to learn about and apply analytical reading skills are secondary sources on different aspects of New Mexico Borderlands and Guatemalan history, respectively.
What are Secondary Sources?
As we read in Unit 2, “secondary sources present historians’ or other authors’ interpretations of a set of primary sources” and other secondary sources. Primary sources are the raw evidence that historians use to understand past events, imperfect as they are, and secondary sources are created as historians show their work.
Although it may seem that some books or articles simply present “the facts,” secondary sources are always based on an argument. This is because historical evidence cannot speak for itself — interpretation is always required to make meaning from the historical record. As historian Kevin Gannon reminds us, objective history is impossible.
As we’ll study in more depth during the next Unit, primary sources are imperfect. As the accounts and recollections of human beings who experienced certain past events, they contain unique biases, omissions, and focuses. People tend to have a specific purpose for writing publicly about what’s going on around them, and even in their private journals, diaries, or correspondence with others, their worldview, beliefs, and personal backgrounds shape their understanding of events they witness.
Despite those imperfections, historians don’t have any other recourse than to rely on primary sources to make sense of the past. In the articles, books, documentaries, museum exhibits, etc that they create, historians show their work — present their interpretations of historical evidence to support an argument. As historians, we should critically examine the ways that researchers interpret evidence to support their arguments and assumptions about the past.
Why focus on secondary sources first?
I just spent some time outlining the role that primary sources (raw historical evidence) play in the construction of secondary historical arguments and narratives, so you may be thinking “why aren’t we studying primary sources before secondary ones?” Or, if you’re not asking that question, it’s one that’s been on my mind as I’ve structured our class.
I thought about placing the Unit on primary sources before this one but ultimately decided that it might be helpful for us to first deconstruct and evaluate the ways that historians employ primary sources to devise and support arguments about past events.
Historians don’t simply gather all of the source material on a historical topic to create a narrative about it. The historical record is so massive that it would often be impossible to consult *all* of the evidence about a given topic. To focus their work and ensure that their efforts will add to the always-shifting body of knowledge about their topic, historians read existing secondary sources to understand which questions have not yet been (fully) addressed, which existing interpretations and assumptions may need revision, and/or which perspectives have and have not already been included.
In other words, they get to know the historiography in order to formulate research questions that will allow them to add to the body of knowledge on their topic.
Because historical secondary sources place themselves within the growing historiography, typically those that have been published most recently will be the strongest because they will have taken into account the most recent thinking about the events they analyze and narrate. As with all historical sources, we should approach secondary sources from a critical perspective to evaluate how the author has constructed their arguments, what evidence they’ve used to do so, and whether or not their interpretations and conclusions are sound.
View the short videos from The Medieval Historian and The Open University for different perspectives and examples that demonstrate the distinction between primary and secondary sources and how secondary sources are constructed:
For more ideas about how to approach secondary sources, read Patrick Rael’s “How to Read a Secondary Source.” Although he specifically discusses methods for reading books, the ideas also apply to article-length historical works and even non-written secondary source presentations (with some modifications), including podcasts, exhibits, or photo essays.
After you’ve read to this point, post a series of tweets that use this Unit Narrative, the two videos, and Rael’s article to address these questions: What are secondary sources, and what are some examples? What methods should we use to ensure that we read secondary sources critically? Locate an online secondary source for any historical topic that interests you and share it with us via Twitter. Briefly explain why you find the source you’ve shared to be credible and reliable, using Rael’s ideas and the 5Cs. All tweets for this first part of Unit 4 are due by the First Sunday of the Unit (October 3) at 11:59 pm.
Remember that our class Twitter hashtag is #CNM1103.
As an aside, have you thought about our course as a *source*? Is it primary or secondary (or something else)? What types of choices have I made in the readings I’ve assigned, the models and examples I’ve used, and the directions we’ve taken? What other ways might we approach historical study?
Applying what we’ve learned:
During the second week of this Unit, we’ll work on deconstructing a few different secondary sources to consider the elements that go into historical work and to help us to get into the habit of applying Historical Thinking skills to everything that we read (at least everything that has to do with history in one way or another 🙂).
As you complete the readings indicated below, be sure to employ analytical reading techniques and the insights you’ve gained about the nature of secondary sources. Also, here’s a post I created in which I discuss how I apply close reading methods as I read historical secondary sources. I hope it’s helpful!
Please choose to complete EITHER #1 OR #2. You aren’t required to do both, but I do recommend skimming the Hypothes.is conversation for the other if you get the chance. Everyone is required to complete #3.
#1: Read Van Hastings Garner’s essay, “Seventeenth-Century New Mexico, the Pueblo Revolt, and its Interpreters” (1974, included in a 1999 anthology). Admittedly, this essay is a bit dated. New perspectives on the Pueblo Revolt have come about through the work of archeologists like Michael Wilcox and Pueblo historians, including the late Joe Sando of Jemez Pueblo. I chose Garner’s work, however, because it is a good example of the ways that historians respond to the existing historiography when creating their own narratives and arguments.
As you read Garner, use Hypothes.is to add annotations that address the following:
- How does Garner characterize the existing (as of 1974) historiography of the Pueblo Revolt? In other words, what was the “history of the history of the Pueblo Revolt” as of the time he wrote this essay?
- What is his main thesis (argument)? How does his argument respond to the existing historiography and attempt to push the existing body of knowledge about the Pueblo Revolt in a new direction?
#2: Read my essay, “Columbus, New Mexico: The Creation of a Border Place Myth, 1888–1916” (New Mexico Historical Review, 2014). As is the case with virtually every historical article, this one also places its main arguments and interpretations in the context of a larger historiography. I wanted you to evaluate this essay in particular, even though it’s one that I wrote, because it uses a constructed conceptual framework (that of the “place myth”) as a means of interpreting the sources on the history of the small town of Columbus, New Mexico. [I’m particularly embarrassed by a certain error that I didn’t catch in all of the rounds of editing and revision — see if you can find it 😬.]
As you read my essay, use Hypothes.is to add annotations that address the following:
- What is the concept of a “place myth”? Where did that notion come from? How well does it fit the story of Columbus?
- What types of sources and evidence did I draw on to present this interpretation of Columbus’ history? (Review the endnotes) What makes these particular sources appropriate and valid for this article?
#3: Read the episode notes and listen to “Reframing History: Bananas,” a recent episode of NPR’s Throughline podcast. Because I keep emphasizing that historical sources come in formats other than the written word, I wanted us to evaluate a secondary source that was created to be listened to. The audio format presents opportunities and limitations that written essays do not share. For help thinking about how to approach a podcast, review Abby Mullen’s blog post: “How to Listen to a Podcast for Class.”
As you listen to the episode, tweet your ideas about the following (or take notes as you listen so that you can tweet later):
- Identify some of the elements of secondary sources that we’ve been studying: argument, interpretation, evidence, structure, etc. How are those signposted in the podcast episode?
- What is the thesis (argument) of this episode? How does that thesis fit within the purpose of the Throughline podcast? How does the show’s purpose influence the ways that the story of Central American bananas is interpreted?
Your Hypothes.is annotations and Tweets on Throughline are all due by the second Sunday of this Unit (October 10) by 11:59 pm MDT.
As we finish up this unit, think about the different ways that historians interpret their sources depending on the questions they ask, the conceptual models they use, the state of the fields they work in, and the medium that they use to create their work.
