Primary and Secondary Source Evidence in Evaluating History
Studying history is more than studying material and learning what happened in the past. The study of history is disseminating the who, what, where, why and when. What were the driving factors that led to the outcome? What was the motivation behind the choices of a person, people, country, etc.? Who could have influenced events and what was their motive? The when is more than just a date. The dates and time periods of historical events is remembered, but there is much more data that an in-depth analysis of events prior or coinciding along the same time frame, that caused an event to unfold the way it did. By analyzing history is such a way, we can have a much better understanding of history. By understanding our history well, we can better understand our current and future.
The material must first be examined to determine what kind of a source it is. There are primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are firsthand sources that are deemed historically relevant and significant. A photograph, a video, a diary, an oral history, or yourself viewing a speech can be primary sources. In certain circumstances these can also be secondary sources. A secondary source is just like it sounds. It is a source that is not directly from the event or historical topic, rather, it is data that has been previously analyzed and interpreted. This secondary source would be textbooks, articles, and retelling of accounts learned from a primary source.
Primary and secondary historical sources must be examined to determine their significance as well as whether they are accurate, authentic, and/or relevant. Even if a source is considered historically significant, it may not be relevant to the subject or area of study. This can get complicated when different historians are parsing the data. All historians bring their own biases when they are analyzing historical data. What is relevant to one researcher may not be relevant to another. It can be difficult to set those biases aside, but it is an imperative step in order to better communicate history. Data used must be important to the context and not merely important to the historian.
Our class used this information about primary and secondary sources to examine the Gilded Age. Not many of us knew much about the era, so bringing biases was not much of a concern. Instead, we focused on interpreting data from primary and secondary sources from that era. We used photographs, articles, advertisements, and multiple writings. We learned that in America, there was a small percentage of people who could be considered wealthy. Many were robber barons and had monopolies on goods and services. The much larger part of the population worked for a low wage and many lived in squalor.
This exploitation of a desperate working class made few rich and kept the rest poor. This is largely reason why the era was dubbed the Gilded Age. Superficially, it was an attractive time of innovation and discovery. Beneath the surface lay the ugly truth. Out this era was a positive for many Americans. The middle class was born. Much of the country sought to live a comfortable life instead of reaching for largely unobtainable goals of being ultra-rich. The middle class was content with what was called at the time, being “competent.” These citizens would have enough money to live comfortably, but not be too wealthy, and, they would not be poor. Ideally, upon their death, there would be enough money or assets to hand down to their children. This was considered by many, the American Dream.
