Historians Study Historical Sources, They

¶ … historians study historical sources, they must account for varying interpretations. Those who documented an event or topic at the time (primary sources) and other historians (secondary sources) are affected by choice of sources and bias. From the time period of the course (1865-1945), and explain what you believe are some of the notable problems of researching and writing about the event. Can such problems be avoided? How?

During the 80-year period between 1865 and 1945, the United States fought three major wars and won two-and-a-half of them, but there are no Civil War survivors alive today to tell their side of the bloodiest conflict in American history and historians are left to the historic record to develop contemporary views about what happened. Unfortunately, the historic record is full of inaccuracies, distortions and out-and-out lies that make identifying the truth difficult or even impossible in many cases. Even primary sources from this period are considered through the unique lens of the authors, and to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, history would be very kind to him because he intended to write it himself (and he did in several volumes). Secondary sources are even more distorted in some cases, being a selective compilation of what the author considers relevant or that best suits a particular view being presented. Just as with statistics or the Holy Bible, a careful manipulation of the historic record can be used to present an infinite number of interpretations as to what really happened depending on the goal of the researcher. For example, according to the author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong, Loewen (1995), reports that his analysis of 12 leading American history textbooks revealed.".. An embarrassing amalgam of bland optimism, blind patriotism, and misinformation pure and simple, weighing in at an average of four-and-a-half pounds and 888 pages" (p. iii). This author compares the recordation of historical events to a pyramid in a process that would appear well-suited to providing an accurate and truth-filled result: "History can be imagined as a pyramid. At its base are the millions of primary sources - the plantation records, city directories, speeches, songs, photographs, newspaper articles, diaries, and letters from the time. Based on these primary materials, historians write secondary works - books and articles on subjects ranging from deafness on Martha's Vineyard to Grant's tactics at Vicksburg" (p. 2). The process in practice, though, does not work this way and it never really has. When they select materials for their secondary analyses, historical researchers will invariably seek out those sources that conform to their preconceptions about what took place or who did what and will use these sources to support their perspectives.

Unfortunately, because people are just people, these processes are unavoidable when history is recorded in any fashion, and even modern cinematography and photojournalism that provides viewers with concrete and instantaneous images of events only manages to provide a "snapshot" view of a particular event, again through the unique view of the researchers or journalists involved. Witness the toppling of the statues of Saddam Hussein that were featured prominently on American television followed Gulf War II or the crowds waving Iraqi flags in the street in seeming celebration. Well, it turns out that these events were either staged by the American forces or were otherwise manipulated to convince the American public that their forces were being greeted as liberators rather than invaders. Alas, even former Iraqi prisoner-of-war Jessica Lynch, celebrated as a genuine American hero, was forced to testify before a congressional hearing last week to explain that her "rescue" simply did not happen like the U.S. military said it did and yet another hero bites the dust of the gatekeepers of the truth.