Unit 5 Part 1 (Primary Source)

I believe that building primary source is such a solid foundation as it continues to build. When it comes to secondary sources, it tends to fill in the missing pieces if it tends to be studies & analyzed correctly. I think that secondary sources gives us a better perspective of information that is more of a cause and effect. Historians gives many different interpretations which will give people an perspective that is more clear even if people agree or disagree with their perspective. The questions are most important to ask about primary source materials is do we think the author is credible and reliable, What arguments or concerns does the author of the historical text respond to that are not clearly stated, and What presumptions and preconceptions do we as readers bring to bear on any historical text. The reason why is because I think it shows that we are trying to evaluate the accuracy that is behind any primary source we look at for any historical text we analyze. We are looking into the root of the information that inside primary sources of any historical text. We are trying to look for more questions then answers. So the real reason why is it important to ask what a source does not tell us because I believe the information of the source may not clear for anyone. What I meant by that people may not understand that we may not get the right answers by the information off of any source. So, I think that people are looking more into the certain pieces of the source that might be more questions. There are questions, then answers in my opinion. People would ask what a source does not tell them. When it comes to interpretations that are firsthand, I believe that it is more essential of trying to come up with a conclusion that is more logic in order to understand the past for historically. The understanding Trouillot’s distinction between the two connotations of history help us think critically about primary sources by understanding the difference between them. When it comes to “what happened”, I think that it would have to had the author experienced the incident at first and the evidence that would back up the author’s claim. When it comes to “that which was said to might have happened”, I think that it would have to had the author heard the information by ear. It also had to do with may overreact of what had actually happened at the event without even being at the incident.