Unit 5

We should approach primary sources as just that, sources. And with that comes the possibility that our understanding of these sources may be flawed or misdirected. However, when we are able to be mindful of this fact it allows us to take an even deeper look at the source in the sense of questioning what it is, we know. For example, written primary sources are transferred through the lens of the author. This means that regardless of what it is said this person’s interpretation was undoubtedly influenced by the world around them and this will be evident based off of the way they speak about events, surroundings, and people.

The most important thing to ask about primary source materials would be bias. As we’ve learned in this unit it is unavoidable and should be embraced and used to our advantage and practiced. As stated in our unit by John H. Arnold “without bias (were ever such a thing possible), there would be no need for historians. So, ‘bias’ is not something to find and eradicate, but rather something to hunt and embrace.”

Understanding Trouillot’s distinction between the two connotations “what happened” and “that which was said to have happened.” Is pivotal in thinking critically about a source as it allows for a deeper connection to the source. When you ask yourself, what happened and what was said to have happened you begin altering the way you look at history as a whole and this in turn, leads to a much more creative and efficient experience as you attempt to broaden your understanding.