Respond to the following:
- What can this type of exercise teach about about history? The study of history?
- How is researching a period solely through primary documents different than relying on secondary source material? Have you looked at history differently differently through this exercise?
- What questions were left unanswered?
- Any additional thoughts?
39 comments:
Reviewing primary documents from the industrial revolution helped me learn a lot about this time period. I noticed that there were definite benefits to looking at primary material as opposed to secondary sources. While secondary sources are biased information told through someone else’s point of view, primary documents leave the judgment up to the reader. The documents in my group related mostly to transportation, urbanization, and working conditions, which were all major aspects of the industrial revolution. They provided various reflections of the industrial revolution. While some documents seemed to depict the development of mass transportation and rapid urbanization as positive aspects, other documents seemed to show a darker side to the story, depicting terrible working and living conditions. The documents helped me to look at this part of history from many viewpoints, such as a factory worker, a commissioner, a child laborer, etc.
Perhaps a downside to looking at primary documents alone is that they did leave me with some unanswered questions. Particularly the photographs had a lot of information left unknown to the reader. I wondered in what city they were taken, what time of day, what year, etc. Other unanswered questions I had related to a document that was a petition on child labor laws, because it remained unclear to me whether or not that particular petition had any significant effect. Nevertheless, the primary documents increased my understanding and knowledge of the industrial revolution.
I think that this exercise can help us learn about history in a new way. It is easy to read a book and be told the facts in a history book, but by reading documents and studying pictures it becomes more of a first hand learning experience. The pictures capture history in a way that can not be depicted in writing. The exercise also teaches us that history is always biased. Different documents reflect the authors bias about the event or situation taking place at that time. In my group we had many documents that related to eachother which showed us that they were important aspects during the Industrial Revolution. Many had to do with transportation and working conditions. While the transportation portrayed a positive side of the revolution the working conditions showed us a more negative aspect.
Researching this period soley through primary documents is very different from using secondary sources. Primary sources present things in a very different light. They are written by people during that time and have less of a commentary feel than secondary sources do. Sometimes secondary sources seem to comment on what they present to you and therefore have more of a bias. With the primary sources it was up to us to make our own judgements of the doucuments and decide if it was showing something positive or negative of the time.
Most of the main questions I had left when we were done with the exercise had to do with the photos. For a lot of them I just wanted to know where and when they were taken. If you knew where they were taken you could see if conditions were bad everywhere or if they were only bad in certain places or at certain times. I also still want to figure out the message of the poem that was talking about what seemed to be pollution. I wanted to know if I understood the poem correctly or if I was totally off the mark on what the poem was trying to get across to the reader. Also many of the documents were petitions or declarations written to law makers but we were not able to tell if they had any effect on the revolution or if they were just pushed aside.
I have looked at history somewhat differently due to this exercise. I think that the pictures really show hardships and the negative aspects of the industrial revolution. When you see kids and workers all dirty and with unhappy looks on their faces I think it touches you more emotionally than only reading about the deplorable conditions or how hard it was back then. The pictures bring about more of an emotion when you think of hisotry then just reading the text book. That is the main thing that changes for me when looking at history through these primary source documents.
This type of exercise teaches that the study of history can be gone about in varying ways, but you must be careful of the sources you rely on, for nothing except a primary source document can be guaranteed to be fully true. The study of history as examined with this exercise shows that it is a precise science between what people say and what actually happened. Speculation and history often go hand in hand, but this exercise taught us that as long as you rely on information from the time period, you can be sure that you are studying the correct information as opposed to information that could be downright false.
Researching via the method of primary source documents can teach one a lot about history. It gives a first hand look at what was current at that time, without chance of it being biased or inaccurate. As opposed to secondary source information, there is no chance that any of the facts have been altered, tweaked, or simply "left out." In this way, primary source documentation gives a more complete look at the time period.
Some questions left unanswered were those that pertained to how the working class felt about their situations, as not many of those documents are readily available. The photographs left questions regarding their location, time of day, city, and reason for being taken. This information may have helped the class analyze them more effectively and may have given more insight into the Industrial Revolution.
Overall I believe that a mixture of primary source documents and secondary source documents would lead to a better overall understanding of a time period. Just primary source or just secondary source leaves questions unanswered, so a mixture of both seems a reasonable way to get as much information as possible. However, this exercise still helped to largely increase my knowledge of the Industrial Revolution.
The examination of primary documents exemplifies a different part of history. It teaches the examiners how to use all aspects of a time period to piece together what was going on at the time. The combination of the pictures, graphs, and documents are like puzzle pieces that present the Industrial Revolution as a period where children and the lower class were exploited and factory work boomed. Though this information could be attained by reading a book on the revolution, it was an interesting way to learn about an unfamiliar topic. This type of exercise also presents an interesting side to the study of history. It shows that there is more than one way to examine the past. Again, the graphs, pictures, and documents all highlight some of the more controversial and interesting issues facing those in the Industrial Revolution.
Researching a period solely through primary sources prevents informational errors, a source of bias, which could be attained when using secondary source materials. Using primary documents alone gives the examiner a chance to interpret and understand the time period on their own terms. This in turn leads to more thought on the issue and the ability to develop her opinions towards the period.
I have not looked at history differently through this exercise. However, I am now able to understand Charles Dickens’s work better because I now understand the context that they were written under.
A major question left unanswered is why parents were okay with letting their young children go to work in the unsafe conditions presented in the documents. I understand that many were poor and the children provided income, but that is not enough of reason to place their children in that much danger. I am also curious as to what other technological advances were made during the time. The documents showed us gas lamps and power lines which indicate electricity, but I would like to know what else they did with the harvested electricity.
Ultimately, the Industrial Revolution was an interesting time period. The situations and ideas presented to the class through the documents indicate that most of what is prohibited in the workplace today came about due to those same situations and ideas. It is unique that our set of work codes (including child labor laws, unions, work environment) came about from this one period instead of over time as most things tend to do.
Such an exercise helps the researcher learn in a new way. Although primary sources may contain bias, such a bias only aids a researcher in extricating data from the source, whereas bias in a secondary source (which occurs quite frequently to some degree) is much harder to pick up because the reader is simply attempting to memorize the thoughts and ideas of the author.
Learning how to interpret primary sources is also crucial to the science of developing vivid pictures of the time-frame being researched. A student who learns history can simply read a book and memorize what is inside; however, a researcher does not have such a luxury, and must rely on primary source analysis to understand the events and ideas taking place during the time of reference.
As mentioned above, researching a period solely through primary sources gives one a large advantage in that he or she is much less susceptible to misinformation due to bias because a researcher will be able to recognize such bias through deep source analysis and use it to extract more information about the time period in question. In addition, relying on secondary sources limits the researcher to material that has already been discovered. The most one can do from that point is draw new conclusions based on the facts and conclusions drawn up by others. With primary sources, the researcher has no such limitations. He or she is free to examine the actual sources for the exact piece of data that seems to be missing from others’ work. In doing so, the researcher is able to draw new conclusions while adding important knowledge to the field in question, developing the study of history as a whole.
The main downside to primary sources, however, is the narrow scope of each source, leaving many questions unanswered. For instance, an unlabeled photograph will give a large amount of information about scene within, such as working conditions, work force, or city life. What such a photograph will not tell is when, where, or why the picture had taken place. In documents such as parliamentary debates, the document will give the reader a vivid image of the topic discussed, yet will give a very rough description of the events leading up to the debate and hardly any indication as to what actually happened after the debate. Such a disadvantage leads to questions that only multiple other primary sources can answer, giving rise to new questions in the process.
Overall, I enjoy such research and prefer it over simply analyzing secondary sources for information that has already been torn apart in search of drastic conclusions to topics that historians do not truly understand. However, background knowledge from secondary sources still is a very valuable resource when attempting to decipher the hidden ideas locked away in intricate sources.
Andras
This exercise served to impart a number of valuable articles of knowledge regarding both history and the manner in which it is studied. With direct respect to the actual events investigated, the exercise provides an excellent source of direct knowledge and understanding. Primary sources provision the student of a history with direct windows into the relevant era, providing direct, raw, and concrete material off of which to base one's comprehension of history. This exercise served to provide us with a much more visceral and immediate conception of the Industrial Revolution, supplying the raw materials from which we could construct our own understandings of the period and thereby greatly enhancing our knowledge of the era by forcing use to independently and thoughtfully employ our reason and insight. For without the previously prepared and developed conclusions and assessments of secondary source materials, our understanding of the period is dependent purely upon thoroughly dissecting the source material and structuring, conjecturing, and weaving it all together into a cohesive construct. A much more analytical and thorough thought process and approach is therefore required, for little is delivered to us predigested, and most of our work is dependent upon our original interpretations. In doing so, it also provisioned us with an excellent picture of how historians and researches actually go about compiling their data and producing those complex historical narratives with which we are so familiar. The confusion and debate that arose in the discussion of many items of a more ambiguous point or nature (i.e., when discussing the identity and function of the building subsequently identified as a Poorhouse, whether the wires present on a certain picture of a residential area were power lines, etc.) aptly demonstrates the degree to which historical evidence is often open for interpretation and consequently the room for conflict, deviance, and disagreement in the analysis and communication of history among professionals, even when discussing an era as relatively recent as the Industrial Revolution (although, of course, the subjects of contention in our case would be fairly simplistic or trivial, and to a great degree functions of a lack of general period knowledge, compared to the issues that more learned and experienced professionals would tend to consider and clash over, I would imagine- although, of course, it becomes more valid when contemplating the study of previously neglected or highly obscure fields). It also provides an impression of how chaotic or dubious the process can be at times, and how misconceptions and improper definitions may be arrived at through misinterpretation. In comparing the raw data initially presented, the process engaged in analyzing, and the many finished historical narratives we have previously encountered, a much more cohesive understanding of and respect for the long and complicated process of fully compiling a thorough and developed picture of an era, in a form appropriate for presentation, is attained, which can in turn be applied to both the assessment of pre-existing works and the procedure/outlook with which we approach our own current and future projects. The incomplete nature of several analyses, such as that of the wages/inflation graph, provides an excellent illustration of the immediate limitations or ambiguity of a given primary source evaluation, and I would certainly be curious as to how historians go about evaluating more obscure, distant, and culturally alien topics with much less associated secondary source material, primary source documentation, or data at all. Ultimately, I found the experience to be one of great utility and benefit with respect to the study of history and the composition of associated analyses, and to be an excellent source of insight into history as a whole.
After reading certain primary documents from the period of the first industrial revolution, several things have become more apparent. By comparing and contrasting primary documents, I was able to see differences among the upper, middle, and lower classes. Some documents created a more vivid picture of life in the period, for people who recorded their innermost thoughts in a diary or were recorded while speaking often showed bias in their opinions towards certain subjects. Thus, one can learn that the study of history is often very difficult; historians are faced with the nearly daunting task of trying to reconcile facts from opinions and exaggerations from understatements. Historians are also faced with the challenge of trying to decipher how strong certain correlations are. An instance when I encountered this was during the discussion of the chart labeled “Prices/Wages UK 1600-1900.” During the analysis of the causes of certain fluctuations, members of the class offered possibilities ranging from increases in population to lack of industrial manufacturing in other countries. This specific instance made it very clear that drawing inferences from primary documents was very challenging.
When doing this exercise, I realized that the analyzing of primary documents was very different from being dependent on secondary sources. Among the many things that I noticed, it became evident to me that I was relying on my own deductions rather than quoting a source written by a judicious historian. I also noticed that when drawing one’s own inferences from primary sources, it was more common to use pictures. By viewing images, I had gotten a better glimpse of how citizens lived during the industrial revolution. It was as if I was viewing a movie; the pictures greatly helped to bring the people who lived during the industrial revolution to life.
There were many questions that were left unanswered, but for the sake of brevity I shall only mention two. I wished to know more about the quality of life in poorhouses, and I also desired to know how strictly labor laws were enforced. It is my belief that corruption was fairly common during the industrial revolutions. Factory owners of dubious morality could have bribed officials, this would have been prevented them from being charged with illegal activities. Although it may sound cliche, life during the industrial revolution must have been difficult.
This type of document-based exercise exemplifies the idea that history is significantly more than simply a collection of thoughts and opinions made by historical experts, years after an event or period. It teaches one that history is in fact deeply rooted in objective, primary source material and not in the highly dissected information regurgitated to one in a text book. This exercise also allows us to experience the thought processes that any historian would go through when painting a picture of a time period or event in history. Though criticized by many for it, historians have to make inferences and “educated guesses” when analyzing primary source documents in the same ways that we were forced into during the exercise. Even if some of our inferences were not technically correct, the experience as a whole still allowed us to make our own decisions in examining the Industrial Revolution and these wrong assumptions probably taught us the most in my opinion. They taught us that history can never be looked at in a completely subjective view, and that when we compare our findings with an array of others it allows us to come to the “most accurate” conclusions. Researching a period solely though primary materials is quite different than looking at one through secondary sources because again, you are not putting your understanding completely in the hands of another person. Instead you are forced to establish the time period by using your own opinions and making connections between the sources presented to you. I personally have definitely looked at history differently through this exercise because before I would heavily rely on what other people decided history to be, but now I know that I can in a sense decide history on my own terms.
After completing the activity, some questions that were left unanswered to me regarded the social aspect of the era. During the activity I was rewarded the task of reading an article written by a woman who was unhappy with the traditional role that women were expected to follow during the Industrial Revolution. It was evident that she had a strong desire to break free from the mold that women were held back by during the period, however our class did not really address whether or not the majority of women felt this way during the time, or if any changes were brought about during the revolution to give women more equality. I also wondered about the treatment of other minority groups during the time, and if they were forced to work the most menial and unwanted jobs similar to the children workers. Despite the few gaps in my overall understanding of the Industrial Revolution, this activity was definitely effective and I am confident that after reading the chapter in my textbook the gaps will be quickly filled.
Having only primary sources to review when looking at the Industrial Revolution taught me not only a great deal about the time period but about history in general. One truth about history is that it is all about interpretation. The events of history have to be interpreted by someone to show why or how certain things happen. This shows the obvious advantage of analyzing primary source documents. When looking at the documents about the Industrial Revolution, you are able to judge the document yourself because they are documents directly from the time period. One still must determine the point of view of the document or who it was intended for, but it leaves out bias or interpretation through another person and gives the reader the freedom to make his own evaluations. In the case of the Industrial Revolution these primary documents helped me look at the period through many viewpoints that showed the growth of industry and urbanization, and also showed less glamorous part of the revolution including the poor working and living conditions and the hardships of child labor. However, looking at primary documents there are some disadvantages. Because the evaluation and interpretation of the documents is entirely up to the reader because it’s a primary source, there may be unanswered questions about the documents. For example, the pictures of places or events during the Industrial Revolution don’t reveal the exact time or place of the photograph and knowing that might help one make more accurate assumptions about the document. This being said I believe that these primary sources were very helpful in improve my understanding of the Industrial Revolution.
After reviewing primary documents on the Industrial Revolution in social studies class, I feel as though I came out of the experience having learned something about how professional historians study history. Much of my historical research that I have done in my life has been using secondary sources, so this was a different experience for me. Instead of simply reading information that is the result of someone else's research, and which often carries with it an unavoidable bias, I was able to look at the original sources and form my own conclusions. This gave me a better idea of how historians study history. They can't just get history books out of the library and do research--they are the ones who have to come up with that stuff in the first place--so they have to look at the primary sources to discover new things. This is how history is fundamentally studied--by analyzing the original primary sources. This exercise was effective because it gave me a sense of how to research history the way that historians do, by analyzing primary sources as opposed to looking in textbooks. I feel that this exercise helped me learn about many different facets of the Industrial Revolution and the many viewpoints about it. if I had merely looked in a secondary source, I would most likely not have gotten all of the picture. Looking at a variety of primary sources, in a variety of different formats and a variety of facets of the Industrial Revolution, helped me see different elements of the big picture. The only problem I have is that each document only gives a small part of the picture, and while looking at all the documents gives a good idea of the broad scheme of things, the fact is that there are many gaps in this picture. Pictures are a big culprit here, as they offer less obvious information than the written documents. However, all the documents contain gaps to a degree. Thus, it is necessary to do a lot of inferring and make more than a few educated guesses, which carries with it the undeniable risk of interpreting an event or process completely wrong. But that is how the study of history works. You may get some guesses wrong, but in the long run, it is a process of trial and error that ultimately comes out right more than wrong. Overall, I thought this was a good exercise in learning more about the study of history. Although not the most interesting thing to do, it was educational.
This type of exercise teaches us that history is more than studying out of a textbook. The process of analyzing primary documents gives us the benefit of seeing the time period of the industrial revolution for ourselves. Primary sources allow us to make our own judgments and observations, not an opinion taken from a textbook. Primary sources may be intended for certain audiences, but they eliminate bias because it is the student’s interpretation of the documents.
While using primary sources is ideal for studying history, it leaves unanswered questions. Photographs do not always have dates, and sometimes documents leave out information that a textbook may have. However, primary sources allow us to experience history for ourselves.
The documents in my group were mostly about working conditions, urbanization, and transportation. These topics are major aspects of the industrial revolution. The documents that had to do with transportation seemed to show the industrial revolution in a good light, while the documents about the working conditions showed the darker side of the time period. Using primary sources have given me a better understanding of the industrial revolution and these aspects of it. I have learned about how ships were more available to ship cargo across seas, about how train stations and boat docks multiplied, and about the working hours and conditions of workers. Overall, primary sources are necessary in studying history and improve our knowledge of the past.
Reading Primary Resources about the Industrial Revolution was interesting and intriguing. They gave me a better understanding about that time period and its surroundings. The only problem with secondary resources is that you are only hearing one side of the story, the writer is only putting in their thoughts and their point of views. The documents my group analyzed dealt with social, political cultural and technological aspects during that time period. The two documents I had were written about the technology and its effects on the workers and how rapid advancement only meant more work and worse conditions. My other documents talked about the ill conditions that the children of that time were exposed to, and how they were not even allowed to be children. The conditions were described as unsanitary, crowded and unbearable. I feel that since they were primary documents they gave a better understanding and a more accurate view of the time period. Another important factor is that they were written during that time so we as the reader know that we are getting firsthand information.
The downfall of some of these documents was when there were pictures without any information with them for example where and when they were taken. We had to make a lot of inferences, and we were not really sure about the facts. Still the pictures explained how the living conditions were and how people lived. Plus the pictures of little kids and the conditions that they were working in had more impact than just reading about them. I feel that this exercise really helps us get a better and a thorough understanding of whatever time period we are studying because we can analyze the given documents ourselves and making our own assumptions makes it a bit more interesting.
Researching and reviewing primary source documents gives a different approach to analyzing history. It gives you a first hand example of the situations people were in and what they had to experience during the time period. The images and information given in primary source documents makes you infer and interpret what the meanings of the documents are. This type of exercise forces you to judge the sources and find a documents meaning by relating it to other primary sources and further research. The exercise makes you really think about what each document means and allows you to use the other documents to relate to each other and infer the documents’ significance. With primary source documents there is a lot more information that needs to be thought about and found out about where as secondary documents give you information up front and tells you the meaning of the documents.
Through this exercise I have seen that many secondary source documents are often biased and many people have different opinions on what a primary document is depicting. I have learned that primary source documents give you the beginning of a story or picture and through other research and historical evidence you are able to find out the meaning and significance of the original primary document. I feel that analyzing primary source documents taught me a different way of approaching and researching documents however it left me with some unanswered questions. I felt like I did not fully understand all of the information about the industrial revolution and that I was just looking at different pieces of the industrial revolution through the primary source documents. For instance, I do not know of all of the technological advancements, and society adjustments. I learned through the documents that there were gas lamps and power lines and that houses were mass produced in similar styles so that people were able to just live in them and then work in the factories nearby. Although I was left with some uncertainties about the industrial revolution I feel that the exercise of analyzing the primary source documents taught me a new aspect of researching documents.
In my personal opinion, primary source documents are the best way to get a look at history. I don’t believe that you can get more accurate than reading the words of a person who witnessed a particular event firsthand. These documents can give you information that textbooks and books written by historians may leave out. They also offer the reader a chance to formulate their own opinion based on what they read in the document. The exercise that we did in class teaches us that different people will always have a different take on the same event. Primary source documents prove this statement to us. You could look at five different people’s account on a certain situation and they could be five totally different concepts or ideas. This exercise teaches us a lot about history, it tells us that something that you learn could be taken a completely different way and the fact that there is never only one side to a story.
Primary source documents will give you a better idea of the time period than secondary source documents will. Primary sources will give the reader the exact words of the person whose opinions they are reading. Secondary sources will give you the historians’ opinion of the words that were said. There is some unnecessary biased involved in secondary sources. However, if there is no primary source document on the topic, a secondary source would be a good replacement because it does include information that is possibly based on a primary source documents. Looking at these documents has changed the way that I look at history. Instead of just being a thing in the past, these documents make history seem more alive. The pictures of the time periods just seem to make history more real to me than just words on a page. Looking at all of these documents has helped me to see that. I have learned so much from this exercise and it was a great way to learn a lot more about history.
Using primary sources in research helps bring insight to what society was really like during that time era. This type of research illuminates the circumstances of the time period by bringing various primary sources from that time. Primary sources give first hand accounts of the events that took place during the period, and thus have no bias. Secondary resources however tell or show history by an author who was not there at the time, and could also have a bias towards some of the topics. Speculation also occurs when history is recounted through a secondary source, because the authors did not have first-hand accounts. Therefore it is always better to make inferences and to learn about history through primary sources. By gathering information from primary sources only during this exercise I am able to see history without anyone else interpretations but my own, hence allowing me to gather my own results.
The documents my group had were primarily focused around the social and economic aspects of the Industrial Revolution. There were various medias such as photographs, paintings, and excerpts from books. After analyzing the documents there were still some questions left unanswered. One prevailing question was; what were the results of the reformers movements against child labor? Also it was hard to tell on some of the documents what time frame they were from and where they were from for some of the photographs and paintings. Overall these documents brought to life what we have been reading in our textbook, and have made the events and problems of the time more realistic.
An exercise such as this that relies solely on primary sources is helpful in terms of truly grasping the concept of life and society during the industrial revolution. It shows us that there is more to history than how somebody else saw it. Through the use of primary sources, especially the photographs, we can come to our own conclusions about a time period rather than a historians viewpoint on the subject. The actual existence of primary sources can aid in the definition of a time period, as opposed to much further in the past where assumptions are what our knowledge of history is guided upon. Sometimes a respected historian may have a much different view on an event or a time period than someone else examining the same evidence. Through the use of primary sources, we were given the opportunity to draw our own conclusions about history, which creates a more thorough understanding of a topic/time period. There are of course uses for secondary sources, because there may be more to something than just one person can see, and therefore can clarify certain events in history that may not have been understood otherwise. I wouldn't go as far as saying the exercise change how I looked at history, but definitely broadened my understanding of the topic, as it is much more "hands on" to examine primary sources than it is to understand someone else's view of the event. Perhaps it would have further helped to go into some detail as the effects of the industrial revolution more than just inside Britain. Being able to compare the advancements between two or more countries in Europe could have helped as far as how small or great the industrial revolution in Britain was. As far as the exercise is concerned though, it was definitely more helpful than previous assignments in obtaining an overall understanding of the subject.
Reviewing primary documents from the Industrial Revolution was a great way to learn about the political, social, technological, and economical aspects of the time period. It was a totally different experience than reviewing secondary sources, which had both its positives and negatives. This type of exercise really forced me to think for myself and develop my own thoughts and opinions. It presented me with straight forward documents, containing no bias from outside opinions unlike secondary sources, and forced me to make my own assumptions. Secondary sources are in many cases less beneficial than primary sources because they are altered from their original state. They most likely contain the bias of the author, as equitable as they may try to be, therefore hindering the document with a prior opinion. Primary sources are completely unbiased, allowing one to interpret them as they see them.
Beginning this project I had no prior knowledge of the Industrial Revolution so I was very surprised with the amount of information I was able to acquire through my classmates work and my own. This exercise definitely caused me to look at history differently in how I was able to see it for how it actually was, not through the eyes of some one else. The pictures really stood out to me, especially the one of the little boy working in a factory without shoes on, because it made it that much more real to me. The primary source documents help to take you back to that time period and imagine what life must have felt like to them, not from the perspective students of a whole new century. As much as I appreciated the picture primary sources, they also left a lot of unanswered questions. There were several documents which were just black and white pictures of buildings or something very simple that were often hard to interpret. Though, overall I felt that the reviewing of primary documents was a highly effective learning technique that left me skills I will be able to use in life later on.
The exercise done in class can teach several things about history and its study. For example, it teaches that many aspects of people’s lives throughout history are not properly documented, that through out history people did not record events or the conditions of their lives in an objective manner that future historians could use to gain an understanding of a particular time period. This therefore further teaches us that the study of history is essentially a mass group of assumptions made by historians that are generally assumed to be true. Because there are very few documents that have the expressed purpose to provide information to historians about a time period, historians must make assumptions and draw conclusions based sometimes on data that may not necessarily reliable. The exercise also shows with the various opinions and observations we observed from the different groups that the study of history is depend on the interpretations of the historians, many of which often have conflicting or completely different interpretations of the same document.
Researching a period with primary sources is different from using secondary sources because secondary sources are written with the expressed purpose to provide information about a time period and are generally very straight forward. The information in secondary sources is stated plainly in sentence form, rather than a series of inferences made about a source with a purpose other than that of informing a historian or reader. Primary source documents can be a wide variety of things and have different purposes. This makes it a great deal more difficult to use primary sources to make historical claims or gather information because the information is open to the interpretations of the reader rather than the undisputable facts found in secondary sources. My thoughts on history have changed because it makes me consider if some of the information given in even secondary sources is truly as valid as it seems. This is because all information in secondary sources is based on that found in primary sources; because the information from the same primary source can be interpreted in various different ways, it leads me to wonder if some of the generally accepted interpretations are wrong or if information provided by even the most prestigious secondary sources can really be considered reliable if sources can be looked at from so many different angles and result in so many different interpretations.
The only questions that I felt that were left unanswered at this time are: Are the conclusions drawn from the primary source documents necessarily reliable? and How can one come to conclusions about more detailed aspects of life at a particular time because I found during this activity that broad, common ideas and themes could often be seen with in the documents, but specific details about the topics could not be found with definitive proof within the documents?
Using primary source documents to research a period of time in history was, in my opinions, more helpful and more interesting than simply reading the information from a textbook or taking notes on it from a lecture. A large advantage of using primary source documents as opposed to secondary source documents it that the information is unbiased and straight from the time period being studied. Most of the time, even if the author tries to remain unbiased, there is still a slant to almost all secondary sources. Over time, people’s opinions on periods of history can change, and their views might not be consistent with other authors’. It is difficult to analyze a time period and form an opinion on it if you simply read only secondary sources which discuss the views of other authors. By seeing the information straight from the Industrial Revolution, you are seeing unbiased information and can then create your own analysis and opinion of the events and subjects during the time.
I especially enjoyed looking at the pictures. Many of these, especially those of the children working in factories as well as the cramped housing, were shocking or at least very interesting. Also, hearing the different language and writing styles of people of the time helped to give a sense of the Industrial Revolution, more so than a textbook or other secondary source could offer. What better way to research and study events or subjects than to see actual pictures of it, or hear from writers that experienced it? Seeing or reading these primary sources usually evokes more emotion from the reader or viewer. This allows them to connect more with what they are learning instead of memorizing facts or hearing other’s opinions and ideas. This also makes it less difficult to learn and remember the information, whereas straight facts are easier to forget.
I felt that when looking at the documents, it was somewhat harder to draw out information because the documents such as the photographs or poems had limited information. For example, the location of structures in pictures, the authors of the poems or journals, and the actual subject of the document were sometimes hard or impossible to interpret. This lack of information offered by the primary sources makes it difficult to get a complete picture of what the Industrial Revolution was like, and is a major disadvantage of using primary over secondary sources.
I think to get a complete picture of periods of time throughout history it is necessary to review a combination of secondary sources and straightforward factual information, as well as a good amount of primary sources. The primary sources will help in giving a sense of what the period was like as well as unbiased information straight from the time, where the secondary sources will fill in the blanks of needed information and share the perspectives of other authors on the time period.
Last week, the students were asked to look only at primary sources and create an image of this era.This type of studying teaches the students that history is essentially in the words and the account of those who were there, not those who study it. It is different from the regular overview of secondary sources because the students are asked to make their own judgment and put together their own evaluation of the different aspects of the period. Each individual primary source is a basically part of a jigsaw puzzle the student has to put together. This exercise gives the student exemplifies of what the study of history that the teaching of history really is just putting together the pieces or pulling the puzzles apart.
Reviewing primary documents from the Industrial Revolution to learn it differs greatly from reviewing secondary sources that already pieces together the entire picture. Likewise, there are several benefits and drawbacks to studying only primary or secondary sources. When one looks at primary sources, one gets the very true word for word account of what happened. Often times, these sources give invaluable in depth insight to a very specific aspect of that part in history. Documents such as the Chadwick report truly document the quality of life at the time, rather than using Spielvogal to spell it out to us that the quality of life was poor. The student of history observes the finest details of the happenings of that era. However, when looking at only primary sources, two negative things can happen. One, the students can often be mislead because of hindsight or a bias in opinion at the time thus, not giving them the complete picture of the era. Second, if the study of history is only to look at primary sources, it would be an extremely lengthy study. This makes history just inconvenient and not useful, because the purpose of learning it is to get the big picture and learn from our mistakes.
Likewise, studying from only secondary sources also has its positives and negatives. Students reading textbooks and analysis of historical era are given the big picture right up front by the text writer. They already see the puzzle completely finished (or so they think), and generally take their word of these credible authors for it. Looking at secondary sources is quick and requires no significant critical thinking skills. The negatives of studying only secondary source are bias and superficiality. Bias exists within all authors no matter what because of their background upbringings and who they are. As much as historical writing tries to be unbiased, it is always inevitable to see hints of the author’s viewpoint. This bias can create a false sense of what that period of time really was. The worst drawback to studying only secondary sources is that one only learns about the big picture but not the small details. For example, you don’t get the accounts of the daily life of a steel worker and the hardship he has to go through on a daily basis just trying to survive, but rather a description of the middle class. The intricacies and fine detail that makes history so interesting is often lost in translation in secondary sources.
In conclusion, I feel that neither primary nor secondary source can be used without the other. To truly study history, one must grasp both the big picture and the small details, and be able to relate them back and forth. There is no reason that we should only study one of the other, because they complement each other very well.
Analyzing primary documents about the Industrial Revolution certainly helped students achieve a greater scope of knowledge on the event. As opposed to reading about the Industrial Revolution in the textbook, with words written by a group of historians, the exercise allowed students to interpret information and form ideas from their own observations. This exercise taught other students just how important primary documents are to the study of history. Primary documents are much more personal and accurate since they are written by people who had existed during the time that is being learnt about. But in addition, the study of history is not always certain. Interpretation of a document can always be wrong—it’s just a matter of who chooses to accept a certain POV. Students have to be careful when examining primary documents; if they don’t look closely enough, they might get a wrong idea about one particular document and that can alter their whole perspective.
While a secondary source material is work that interprets or mentions a primary document, using the former to research a period is definitely a better move. Primary documents are sources that were present during an experience or time period, and could give any reader an “inside” look. Secondary only offer generalizations made by a group of people. Greater understanding can result from analyzing primary documents.
Yes, after doing this exercise, I’ve definitely been viewing history in a different light. I’ve mostly depended on secondary sources since they’re common to find, but now I know that if I want to be completely sure about something in history, it’s always best to refer to firsthand accounts and then secondary sources.
I’d really like to learn about where the pictures and document came from. Who were the ones who provided us these sources? If we learn about them, I feel like I’d be able to understand where they’re coming from too.
Relying on primary source documents to study the Industrial Revolution was a better approach then to read secondary sources. I think that history should be solely taught through primary source documents, instead of secondary because textbooks and movies will always have a bias toward the piece of the time period. I would rather have a bias from the author from the time period instead of a bias from someone analyzing the time period in a textbook. Don't get me wrong, a textbook should be used, but as a secondary source. Using a primary source is the best way to understand a time periods influences on history and to grasp a concept in history, since the subject is very cumulative. Through doing this project, I have learned that history is a very biased subject, even more than I thought it was. Reading the disturbing accounts of children getting caught in machines, raped, and working long hours beside their parents has made me appreciate history more. The IR is better taught through primary source documents because you get the in depth story of the people who helped advance the world. A textbook would only devote a chapter to this subject, and there would be author biases, but in primary sources, there is just the actual author from the time period, voicing his or her opinion, which is better understood then an author of a textbook, explaining the author from the time periods opinion. Since we are in the 1800's, it is easer to understand primary documents because the language is more modern and you don't have to spend half the time decoding the document while trying to understand the concept which is already confusing. I understand the principles, underlying causes, and effects of the IR because I haven't solely relied upon another persons interpretation, but have read the documents from the period, so there is only a direct view from the person of the time period. This exercised has made it easier for me to write the essay about the IR because I am not struggling with content due to reading secondary sources with contradictory opinions.
Because quality primary sources are often difficult to locate and analyze, students and historians alike are prone to gravitate towards secondary sources. Though secondary sources are a great place to start, a proper understanding of a particular person, event, or time period cannot be had without primary sources. Throughout this exercise, it became immediately apparent that there was no one correct interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. Particular views of the era were dependent on a person’s background and life experiences, on their age and their social status. Depending on what source you were given, various interpretations of the era could be formulated. This exercise taught that history is rarely black and white. If more than one person experiences the changes of the era, there will be more than one opinion on the pros and cons of the change. Because of this fact, it is essential that a wide variety of sources are analyzed throughout the study of a period of history; that is a wide variety of primary sources. Unlike secondary sources, primary sources are concrete firsthand accounts that have not been altered at the whim of a historian trying to prove a point. Without the interpretation of an outside source, the student is forced to rely on themselves to pick apart and interpret the meaning of a document. Without being exposed to the various firsthand accounts of a situation, an accurate understanding cannot be had. This exercise has made me realize, to a great extent, the complexity of our past as a human race. A history book simply cannot do any person, event, or era justice.
The downside to our particular exercise was the ambiguity of the documents. The lack of titles, dates, and backgrounds often left us wondering the story behind a particular picture or the meaning behind a particular poem. These unanswered questions however have forced me to think for myself. This exercise has most definitely bred positive results.
Using primary sources as the vehicle for interpreting history gives a much more different perspective as well as understanding of history. From reading secondary sources, though there will be sufficient information to provide an adequate description of the time period, it is only an interpretation of the time period by one person. What all secondary sources are based off from are primary sources, and the way that these primary sources are interpreted differs with each person. By looking at different types of primary sources, I was able to build an image of what life was like during the Industrial Revolution and make my own conclusions about that time period. I think this is much better than reading what others’ opinions are. What was interesting for me was seeing how different out interpretations of the documents were. I thought it was very interesting to see a different aspect and analyze each document from another point of view.
Another thing that I found interesting was much more personal our understanding of the Industrial Revolution is after analyzing these primary sources as opposed to reading about it from a text book. Especially by looking at the photographs of the ragged workers and their working conditions, I was able to have a human connection to the people in the photographs, and give me a better idea of the hardships they had to go through. What especially struck me was reading the testimonies from girls that are at the same age as me, who have to work the whole day in horrible conditions and do not have the educational opportunities that I have.
However, secondary sources do have their advantages as well. While primary sources do give good insight into specific groups of people and accounts, it does not effectively paint a generalized description of the time period being studies. Secondary sources are able to paint a fuller picture of what was happening at the time and is able to help establish a basis for further investigation by using primary sources. They can serve as the backup to primary sources as well as references as to explaining the primary sources. I think that though primary sources are good at looking at a specific demographic, they do contain not only exclusivity, but also possible misreading or misinterpretation of what really was going on at the time. Thus, I think the best kind of research and the most effective as well as thorough way of looking at a time period is by using primary as well as secondary sources.
From reading and analyzing primary source documents you are able to learn a lot about history. Not only are you able to get information about a particular time period, you are able to see what it was actually like for the people who were living during this era. Instead of information being retold to you like it is in a text book, the reader of the documents is able to get a feel of what life was actually like. The reader is able to read about the horrible working conditions in factories and how the people who worked there dealt with them. For me, I know that reading first hand accounts like this makes history seem more exciting. This is because instead of just reading about a bunch of names and dates like in a textbook, you are able to see what people at this viewed the events that were going on. Also through pictures you are able to see exactly how things looked back then. This allows you to get a better understanding then just reading a description of it in a book. Through the pictures you are also able to see what the people from this time period looked like and from their facial expressions you are able to see the different emotions that they were feeling. For example in the photo with the men outside of the coal mine you are able to see their faces all covered in dirt and also the sadness in their eyes. By looking at this photo it made me really understand how terrible the working conditions were and made me really be able to connect to what was going on. This allowed me to be more interested in what I was reading and looking.
This assignment also taught me that history can be bias. Different people will have different opinions about the same event. I feel that this allows you to get a better understanding of what is going on. I feel this way because you are able to see the same event from two or more different perspectives. Also I learned that primary sources are not as bias as secondary sources. This is because in a primary source it is coming from a person who was able to experience what they are talking about, while in a secondary source the author is simple retelling what they have read.
While I feel like primary sources are one of the best ways to study history, they do leave a lot of unanswered questions at times. For example when looking at a picture that was in my folder I would wonder how what I was looking at played a role in the industrial revolution. I would also wonder when and where the picture was taken. These were just some of the few questions what I would have when I was looking at the primary sources. Over all, I feel that primary sources are a great way at learning more about history in general and providing a better perspective of what actually happened compared to secondary sources.
By analyzing and interpreting a variety of primary source materials students become better educated on the time period because they are being provided the “true voice” of the Industrial Revolution. Reading first hand accounts and seeing the conditions during the Industrial Revolution helped for our class to get a true understanding. Secondary sources provide you with another person’s interpretation of a certain event or time period and can sometimes be filled with inaccurate explanations. Primary sources, however, offered us information that was much less biased. Examining the Industrial Revolution solely by primary sources has taught me the importance of primary sources. These sources offer so much more than secondary sources simply because they provided us with a much more extensive bit of knowledge. By seeing the terrible working conditions and overall affects of this time period it made me question why these awful things were allowed to be continued for such an extensive amount of time. Also, there were a few pictures that I analyzed and I questioned the importance of these images. Some of these images just appeared to be showing the infrastructure of the area and it made me question if I was missing the significance of the pictures. However, these primary sources provided me with extreme insight into the Industrial Revolution and have helped to prepare me much more than secondary sources ever have.
Relaying on primary source materials is a much more accurate way to learn about a time period. After all, one person can tell you that Ben Franklin was extremely brilliant but at the same time quite arrogant while someone else says he was brilliant and humble, but which is correct? They both have "proof" and data to back their ideas, but which is RIGHT. If you wish to write a paper on the arrogance or lack of arrogance of Ben Franklin there is no substitute for his actual writings, for in them he will reveal his own thought process, and the manner in which he writes will show his opinions of himself. I can tell you for a fact that during the industrial revolution there were children woriking in horrible conditions, but it means so much more when one reads documents from the times. Since facts remain solid there is one area where primary sources are priceless, the analysis of arts. Describing Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, Eroica, can not give meaning to the great sounds of the crescendos towards the end of the first movements, the overcoming of emotion, the power the horns posses. Only by hearing the symphony be played can one understand and say "that is power, that is emotion, that sound is the start of the Romantic Movement." Primary sources contain a wealth of knowlege because they tell us in context what facts mean, what life was. In essence, primary sources are the key components of history because they ARE history.
One can learn a lot about history from this type of study of primary source documents. When one uses secondary source documents, one relies on someone else’s interpretation of primary sources. In other words, one relies on someone else’s opinion of what happened. However, when I interpreted primary source documents for myself, I drew my own conclusions about how historical events took place. Although primary source documents are inherently biased in of themselves, I was able to interpret them without the biases other scholars may have had towards these documents.
The study of primary source documents also gives one a more personal view of history. Instead of reading a general account of events, one reads accounts and interpretations (or views images) from individual people. I found this gave me a better sense of what it was like to actually experience these historical events. This resulted in a more personal connection to the time period than I would have received from a secondary source document.
This type of exercise can be difficult, however. It forces one to piece together the big picture from many varied sources. Some of these sources may be incomplete or difficult to interpret. Also, it is difficult to determine the nature of specific events from these documents. Instead of receiving a straightforward account of specific events, like I would get from a secondary source document, I was only able to put together facts and trends about the period in general. Even when specific events were recounted, it was difficult to put them in any chronological order without outside help (especially since many of the documents lacked dates).
In general, this exercise gave great insight into the study of history in general. Scholars of history only have primary source documents to tell them what actually happened during a given time period. Sometimes these documents can lack crucial information, like their date, their author or creator, or even their purpose. Therefore, it takes a lot of interpretation (and frustration!) on the part of historians in order to piece together the big picture from these sources. It is even more difficult to discover what happened at individual events, especially when documents recounting these events lack crucial information.
Though the study of primary source documents give incredible insight about history, I think secondary source documents are also necessary for the effective study of history. It is impossible to view all primary source documents from a given era, and the straightforward accounts of events given by secondary source documents are invaluable in identifying the context and chronology of primary sources. When used in combination, secondary and primary sources can give one an in-depth look into history, one that includes the big picture, knowledge of specific events, and a personal connection to history.
This exercise, using only primary sources and what little background knowledge we have to write about the Industrial Revolution, was certainly an interesting experience. Researching the period through only primary resources is a much more powerful and informative way once you get used to it. At least for me, it was hard trying to get actual facts out of what seemed like random pictures and literary pieces from the era but once I got used to it, it became more like fitting together a puzzle of how things worked in that time period. That being said, the exercise is a great way of teaching people that history had happened and is a lot more than naming people, dates and places. When teaching a group of people history you have to get them to remember that all of this had happened to people not much different from themselves, just in a different position. When simply memorizing random statistics and facts, people almost never make the connection to what those figures and dates mean but primary sources like pictures and writings can change all that. The primary sources remind us that history is a study of the foundation that built up humans to what we are today and a study of the connections that make up the web of that foundation. The sources allow people to not only feel more connected to the time period but really understand where all these facts come from as a whole. Researching the period with primary sources will give you those facts and that connection which makes studying a period with them feel more like a detective’s case rather than a simple paper. Reading the documents of the time and viewing the pictures made it feel that clues to the lives of these people I had never met lied in every word or frame. While primary sources do give you all that it is not to say that secondary sources are absolutely horrible in comparison. For example while primary sources give you a wide breadth of information, secondary sources do have the ability of showing the time period over a greater span of time. As I said before everything in history is connected and has affected us so the good that came out of technological advancements and has helped us greatly in the future is hard to see in primary sources of the era since their effects hadn’t taken full effect yet. It is also true that secondary sources have a bias that comes from the author but primary source biases must be viewed as well. When using primary sources you quickly learn that a wide variety must be obtained because an article written on machinery is going to sound a lot different depending on whether it was written by a factory manager or a Luddite. You as the examiner also present a bias when working with primary sources because two people can pull two very different observations out of the same picture. The primary sources can also lead to many questions, even with all the answers they give. In my own experience studying the documents often posed questions like what specifically was this building for and what were the kids in the coal mines actually doing since they definitely weren’t strong enough to mine. Sometimes these questions were answered by information from another document but other times I was forced to make a best guess, showing how bias is still present in every interpretation. All in all though this activity can be beneficial in making people change their minds about the way they think about history. Personally, I really like history so it didn’t really change my perspective on the subject but I hope it allowed others to see the kind of puzzle history can be and the knowledge and wisdom that can be learned from studying our foundation.
This type of exercise teaches us that sources are not limited to just what their titles describe them as, as well as showing the importance of primary sources. The exercise effectively shows that without titles given to documents, they can be interpreted in several different ways. The exercise can also be used to display some important points about the study of history. For example, how different people can make different interpretations of the same document, and therefore there can be many different views on a certain subject in history. It can also be seen that some interpretations hold more validity than others, and that the validity of each view should be considered before adopting it for use in a scholarly work. Therefore, it can also be shown that history could be flawed, that a less valid interpretation was used for the accepted history, and that history is always changing because of inaccuracies. These inaccuracies can be corrected, or parts of history itself changed through discovery of new information.
Researching a period solely through primary documents exposes you to the opinions and personal bias of the authors. The documents need to be examined not as much for validity as secondary documents, but more for bias and partiality. This exercise didn't cause me to look at history in any very different way, however the use of all primary documents allowed me to interpret them in many different ways. The exercise helped show that there are many, many different views and interpretations of the primary documents.
I only had a few questions left unanswered. Mostly I would like to know how parents condoned the work that their children did everyday, in such poor conditions. I don't understand how they came to be in such a mentality to allow this to happen. To continue off of that, I would also like to know how society came to accept such horrible working conditions and health violations. In the documents it was clear that the conditions were poor both within the workplaces and out, and that the family became so focused on the workplace. I don't understand how they could go on day in and day out doing the same monotonous activity, and in such dreary conditions.
An exercise such as this shows that history as we know it is merely an interpretation upon any sort of documentation from a historical era. Countless events have occurred throughout history, some minor, others earthshaking. However, all future generations will know of is what is recorded. Our recollection of historical events is based solely upon what those taking in these events choose to record, and more importantly, our interpretation of these documents. Historians recover documentation from the various historical eras in order to inspect them, hoping that through analytical processes they may develop a picture of what it was like during the time period. It is these interpretations that we rely upon to define history. As a result, history itself is subjective. Documentation is typically biased; primary sources almost always reflect the view of the writer. One will almost never obtain a complete, unbiased view on an event or era as a result. In addition, these already biased documents are placed to the interpretation of the historian examining them. It is possible that a historian may come to a conclusion on a document that differs greatly from what the document originally intended to portray. Such was seen quite frequently while we discussed the documents we were asked to examine on the Industrial Revolution in class. Documents are often quite difficult to interpret. However, examining primary source documents provides one with a first hand account of an era, allowing them to gather a feel for the time. The interpreter may come to their own conclusions on a historical period and possibly comprehend it on a deeper level when examining documents that come directly from the period itself. This differs from relying upon secondary source documents to understand an era. While secondary sources provide a general understanding and analysis of an era, one does not come to understand the era quite as well as they would if they were to examine primary sources. When one is forced to examine an era through primary sources, I feel as though they develop a better understanding of said era. This is due to the fact that they must analyze and cogitate upon the information presented and come to a conclusion on the events and feel of the period themselves as opposed to just reading over the findings of another, as is the case with secondary source documents. In order to develop a complete understanding of history, I believe that primary sources must be heavily utilized. Secondary sources must also be used, but more for a directional purpose. While history is up for interpretation, secondary sources usually do provide an accurate general feel for an era. Most importantly of all, a wide variety of sources from multiple places must be used in order to curb the effects of natural bias in historical documentation.
After reviewing the primary source documents regarding the Industrial Revolution, the importance of primary source documents in understanding events in history was greatly demonstrated. All of the documents were unbiased and entirely factual recollections of the specific period in history because they were written about these periods when they were taking place. Most secondary source information is written years after the period in which they discussed; as that time passed, it is likely that the “facts” of the period were changed. These changes occurred just as changes in a statement may be made in a game of “telephone”, where the original statement made is nothing like the new statement that was created as it was passed through a group of people. These people who passed on the statement could have intentionally changed it according to what they wished the group to hear at the end of the game, or they could have simply misheard what was being said to them. The task of reading the primary source documents demonstrated that history is best taught by those who were really in history, not by a person hundreds of years later who only knows what the last person in the chain told them.
Researching a period only through primary sources rather than relying on secondary sources requires the researcher to formulate their own opinions, rather than relying on the opinions that someone else has already made. On most occasions, the first secondary source document that someone reads will determine that person’s viewpoint on the subject, as it is the only opinion on the topic that they will know. For example, a child who grows up with a parent who is an avid fan of a particular sport is likely to also become a fan of that particular sports team. Viewing primary sources is the best way to create an opinion on a subject that reflects a person’s beliefs, rather than the beliefs of another.
This exercise can help us learn history in a more different way than we are normally taught. Through out elementary school, to middle school, and to high school, history was mostly taught concrete facts from textbooks. But by analyzing primary documents, we are given a chance to learn about a certain period through our own perspective and how we interpret the documents.
There is a huge difference between a paper based on primary documents and a paper based strictly on secondary documents. In my experience, it seems that secondary documents are biased because they are written based on their own interpretation on a primary souce and what they personally think about it. As for a primary document, it is a legit piece of information from the past and we are left to view the document with our own judgement and how we see things. Through this exercise, I am able to look at history through texts and visuals and with the basic knowledge of this time period, I am able to put my own ideas into what the document relates to the history.
Although primary documents are very reliable, there are many downsides to them. Such as the fact that while doing this exercise, some of the documents left me with many unanswered questions. Especially the photographs since they had little information on the time period, the place, and who took the photo. Without the time period and location, it makes it hard to fully make out what the photo means. Nevertheless, primary documents are very helpful and have increased my knowledge of the Industrial Revolution and the events during that time.
Learning about a time period solely through the analyzing and interpreting of primary documents is a much different experience than learning through secondary documents. The wide spread use of secondary documents to teach history can be connected to the limited amount of first class primary documents, and the majority of primary documents that are found are often difficult for students to interpret. Due to the use of primarily secondary documents students often are introduced to history by a biased view. The majority of textbooks and readings written after the occurrence often add some biased opinions, however unintentional. Primary documents written during the time period offer examples of what was really happening and are unparalleled in terms of education. A quality primary document is extremely valuable and can teach you a lot about that time period.
Secondary documents are a good starting point, they give you a general and sometimes in-depth summary of the time period; but primary documents from that time period are the best way to learn. They offer indescribable amounts of information and also offer a look into the minds of people of that time which is the most important aspect. However, there is not one single way to interpret a primary document and that was shown in the very beginning of the activity. This is because views on the time period varied from the person’s situation, whether they are a factory owner or a poor miner that works hard every day. Primary documents allow us to see both sides of the age, there are negatives views and there are positive views, and using these two views and mindsets you can analyze how you feel about the time. Because there are such conflicting views it is important that you look at and analyze a multitude of different documents so that you do not take a skewed opinion and take it as an unbiased fact.
I found this activity interesting because it taught me that history is made up of millions of memories of a certain time or event and all of these memories and recollections create the facts that we know today. It made me think about history in a different light, I realized that it is not just what is written down in a textbook; history is something that everybody should understand because we feel the same way now that people did a long time ago and if we can learn and understand what they did then we can figure out what we should do. I feel as if this activity of interpreting primary documents helped me very much and was a very good idea.
There is a great advantage to using primary documents when analyzing a time period. Oftentimes we view history through the lens of the present, applying our contemporary expectations of thought, ethics, conduct and social theory to people who never would have imagined that in the future people would attempt to look at their lives and sort them into neat little categories. They lived and wrote about their times as we would today, a narrative of the simple facts of their experience. Unlike historians who may report with a bias to prove a point or reinforce their own theories, period works are more apt to be grounded in pure fact. Many primary sources do contain bias, however, it is often easier to distinguish as it may be more obviously directed for or against a certain cause.
Analyzing a primary source does present some significant challenges. Among these are the lack of knowledge of the writer and the possibility of misunderstanding the document. Writers in any time period save the modern day with the rise of the Internet are unlikely to have had access to all of the information about a topic that would help them develop a complete vision of the period. It must be understood when looking at these documents that selections must be made from all sides of arguments and even different geographical areas to maintain a balanced view. Also, when a document is hundreds of years old, it can be easy to misunderstand it. Expressions, words, and even manners of speaking and writing can change significantly over these epochs and require a basic knowledge of the time period and the speaker in order to analyze correctly.
A final benefit of primary sources is that using them allows the reader to formulate his or her own ideas about the meaning and underlying reasons behinds various events. Reading a secondary account is sure to include information that lends itself to being used for a single purpose or that directs thought on a subject toward a particular interpretation, as these accounts are directed at mass consumption, while primary sources were written without the intent of directing the thoughts of observers a decade or a century later.
Reviewing these primary sources has taught me a lot about the time period of the Industrial Revolution. By reading and taking a look at these pictures, you truly develop an idea as to what conditions were like for people of the time period. For me, by reading the daily manifest of a Utopian society, I really was able to grasp what daily life in a Utopian society was amongst all classes. By looking at photos taken during this period, you can see the hardships that the average person had to deal with. Even the picture heading this blog shows the “reader” the pain and the struggle that children as workers had to deal with. With primary sources, you get a firsthand account of what really happened during the time. You really can witness what this period brought to people among all social classes. Instead of reading accounts of the period through a history textbook, you are able to see real depictions of what conditions were like.
The documents offered perspectives in all aspects of the effects of this time period. While mine mainly focused on the social/cultural effects of this period, others had documents showcasing the things such as the economic effects of this period. You are able to see that, with social changes, a large swing of economic inflation came in the wake of the Revolution. Seeing firsthand the struggle on workers faces, witnessing their pain and hardships, is something that you would not be able to get while reading pages out of a book. So, clearly, it is beneficial to be using primary sources when researching the period.
The only downfall to the use of primary sources is that you have to interpret them as you see fit. While we were able to go up in front of the classes and be critiqued on our analysis of the piece, you do not always have that. So, in using these primary sources, it might be a good idea to use some form of secondary source to help with building a conclusion as to what each piece means and what each tells about the period. This activity helped me learn a lot as to using primary sources, and I just wish I had some of the knowledge I have gained after this when I was doing my last research paper (haha)…
This type of exercise is different from typical classroom lectures or discussions, because it is a hands-on approach to analyzing historical documents. It can help us give a more accurate view of history, because it relies solely on the use of primary documents.
By studying history directly through primary source documents, you can gain a more accurate and untainted understanding of the past. You will not be learning the biases and opinions of different historians; the only bias you will have to acknowledge is your own.
The downfall to this type of exercise is that it involves a lot of guessing and uncertainty. You must speculate in order to draw meaning from the documents and relate them to the social, political, and economic changes taking place at that point in history.
This exercise helped me examine history from all different angles, because it used all different types of mediums: photographs, paintings, law records, letters, articles etc. History is not reading dry facts from a textbook, it is learning how the people of that time lived through every aspect of their lives.
Post a Comment