The Differences between Secondary and Primary Sources - Assignment Example

 A primary source can be defined as a source that contains firsthand information about the discussion at hand. For example, artwork like pottery, painting, weaving, and carving during the Stone Age can be classified as primary sources of data. On the same note, literature such as diaries and journal entries can also be ranked under primary sources such can also journal entries and letters. For example, the journals and letters by the American and Soviet soldiers during the Civil War can act both as primary and secondary sources. According to Emily, primary sources are described as the first-hand accounts of events or times in history that had yet to be interpreted by another person. According to her, the secondary sources are the scholarly books that are based on primary sources data but are analyzed, criticized and interpreted and thus restructured. She presents the case of diary entries by Annie Frank from the time she was 13 where Anne discusses her everyday thoughts in details. When they are just extracted but not edited, primary sources can also be used as secondary sources. Secondary sources comprise of publications like books, magazines, and manuscripts. Secondary sources are open to problems generated by translation, misinterpretation, and massive editing of the data while the primary sources are more prone to feelings of the writer. For example, where paintings and exist in good conditions, it would be pointless to edit them for research or historical purposes. That a historian uses primary or secondary sources will greatly influence the credibility of their work. This is because with primary sources, there is a greater benefit of doubt as it is in its raw form compared to secondary sources which are heavily adapted. Three obstacles faced by historians when analyzing data and how they can be overcome The problems faced by historians during the research are subjectivity, the immense of the work under study, authenticity, the choice of subject to study and problem of historical knowledge. According to Adeoti and Adeyeri (2005), the problem of the choice of study is more menacing. Consider a person interested in studying the evolution of man. The historian has to ask and answer questions such as; does the historical evidence exist? Which part of that has not been possibly covered before? (Adeyeri, 2005). When the evidence exists, they may be inaccessible to the historian due to bureaucratic and logistical difficulties such as travelling and forgeries. Another problem faced by the historian can be the authenticity. Referring to the Civil War soldiers’ example above, it is a fact that many of the letters have been destroyed or lost. This will in turn lead to bias of the research (Adeyeri, 2005). While they may exist, the problem of accessing them presents itself. This problem is tied to that one of the workload. If they exist, it would be immense work to go through all of them looking for evidence. Emily also highlights authenticity, objectivity and the amount of sources as the major challenges. I agree with Emily that when evaluating for a historic source, it is important to be objective. Meaning it has to be based on pure facts rather than feelings or opinions. The examples used above do not necessarily show objectivity. For example, the diary of Anne Frank and the letters and journals entries by the Civil War soldiers are filled with opinions and feelings rather than facts. These problems will make the historian conduct their research based on little evidence. According to (Adeoti & Adeyeri, 2005), these problems can be addressed by conducting feasibility studies before embarking on a subject and striving for credible sources. I am going to adapt the case of the fall of the Soviet Union. The source of this information is the Cold War Museum, membership@coldwar.org. The information concerning the fall of the Soviet Union was last updated on November, 2010 in the museum’s Issue 4, Vol. 10. The type of information provided on this site is in relation to the fall of the Soviet Union specifically the forces that led to its fall, the period, and the major cities that bowed to the fall from 1985 to 1992. According to the website, it was shortly after a failed coup attempt that the Soviet Union collapsed. This occurred after both the authorities and the populace discovered that nothing could be done to save their country. The site also goes ahead to show how the union disintegrated to 15 new countries with separate political and economic systems that are now struggling to establish themselves individually. The interesting part about this article is that it explains in details the events dating from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. By so doing, it opens the eyes of the reader to how this could have shaped the philosophy of socialism that eventually metamorphosed to communism. The state that was born of the Bolsheviks was fashioned to defy national differences by establishing one state that boasted of a centralized economic and political system. However, as the website explains, this was not the case as the communists transformed it into a communist leadership. It also acknowledges the problems created by the nonnative people who comprised of about 50 percent of the union’s population. Another reason I find it useful is that it presents these findings while still maintaining and indirect angle. This is helpful in that it removes bias by the writer through presenting what passes as historical facts which are frequently revised. I will consider the works of Josiah and Emily, who chose to work on “Did Ben-Guion reverse his position on bombing Auschwitz” by Richard Levy and “A postwar Myth: 500000 U.S Lives Saved” by Barton J. Bernstein respectively. Josiah picks an interesting and well research topic. However, in my opinion, the fact that the work has not been updated ever since its publication in March 2001 can spell two things; that either the work was done perfectly and conclusively, or it did not offer grounds for reviews. This would mean that the topic, albeit well-presented, may be narrow. It also has the advantage of showing how the various people being discussed could be able to change their opinions. According to Emily’s work, the author, Barton J. Bernstein, has also not updated his work ever since it was published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in June 1986. The credibility of the source can be traced to the fact that it was double checked by searching it through the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Therefore, this will give a reasonable analysis of the notion that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing during World War II saved 500000 American lives. That the source comes from the same minds that designed the atomic bomb gives it credibility and refutes president’s Truman theory of the 500000 men. In my opinion, this source is reliable as both primary and secondary when trying to decipher if the dropping of the atomic bomb was a good or bad decision based on the opinions at hand. However, I think more information from other scientists should be added to this source. The article I have chosen to review is “NAACP to Cops: identify Michael Brown Shooter” (2004) by Tierney Sneed, who is a news and cultural writer and can be reached on tsneed@usnews.com. Tierney is well equipped to handle and write an article based on her immense knowledge and many articles she has written on the US News. The article presents Tierney’s opinion on what emanates from the shooting. Well, for one, Michael Brown was an African American, who was shot by a white policeman on 9th august 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, United States. Mr. Brown who was only 18 years succumbed to multiple shots by a Ferguson police officer identified as Darren Wilson. The article also contains recounts from witnesses. One particular witness is Dorian Johnson, who is Mr. Brown’s friend and was walking with him at that time. According to Johnson, the said officer told them to “get the fuck on the sidewalk” to which they responded that they were only minutes away from their destination and would soon be gone. This brings a very delicate matter of racism to the eyes of the American public and the world over. According to Tierney, the fact that Mr. Brown was unarmed and did not have a history of arrests of arrests and criminal convictions only aggravates the situation. This particular article shows how the law is divided along racial lines. In its attempt to pass as unbiased, the article looks at The Washington Post reports on the same that ascertain that a great number of black drivers are pulled over and arrested in the area. Also, the article points out that the University of California at Los Angeles are studying the St. Louis County Police Department’s policing protocols in a bid to decipher the extent of racial profiling. According to Tierney, the idea of releasing the officer’s name is a bad one. This is seconded by the New York Times referring to the threats made to the police force as well as the shooting officer. On the other hand, she agrees that the authorities’ reluctance to feed the public more details about the development of the case only adds insults to injury. I feel that the author handles this particular adequately without bias because of the facts brought forward. President Obama broke his silence by offering condolence messages to Mr. Brown’s family. In my opinion, the author makes substantial and ethical use of the historical information by pointing out the facts about this historical injustice. It should be remembered that there are cases that show unconstitutional shooting of black people. Therefore, I can say that the purpose of the writer is to show the far-reaching racial injustices that have been going on for so long. I have reviewed the work of two of my classmates. One who wrote on Q&A: What You Need to Know about ISIS in Iraq” by Kelsley Harkness, who is a news producer and producer. What I find most interesting about this particular analysis is that it adopts an interview- based approach. As such, the writer gets firsthand information concerning the interview’s John Philip, on the subject that is the Middle East. It should be noted that Mr. Philip has immense knowledge on the area having written about it from 1978 to date. I am, therefore, sure that this study is efficiently and conclusively covered though referred from only one source. Another response is on Beck and Bachman whose discussion is interesting as it takes on the mainstream media. According to this article, the media has described itself as the filter that presents real news bred from factual reporting. A statement I also support that that is how it is supposed to be. However, I agree with my classmate that with daily advancements in technology, news is being streamed live as they happen. She takes the example of CNN and Fox news which have 24hr coverage of virtually everywhere in the world. The writer does not possessive impressive academic accolades on the area of writing, but one cannot fail to be impressed by his coverage on it based on the many academic literature he has written. It is however my opinion that this work could use other sources for referencing. This is because it is highly opinionated rather than factual, a problem that introduces massive historic bias and general flaws. Restructuring the past During the World War II (1939-45), precisely August 6, 1945, the Americans deployed the world’s first atomic bomb in the Japanese city of Hiroshima. In just a short time, the atomic bomb’s explosions would destroy over 90 percent of the city and instantly wipe out tens of thousands of people (an estimated amount is put at 80000 people). Another great number would later succumb to the radiation exposure. As if these statistics were not in themselves morbid enough to end the war, a second B-29 dropped another bomb “Fat Man” on the city of Nagasaki. This bomb led to the death of about 40000 people. (Bodden, 2007) It is only then that the Japanese Emperor Hirohito bowed to the statistics and announced his country’s surrender on August 15 owing to the “destructive power of a new and cruel cruelest bomb.” The U.S. became interested with the nuclear weapons research being conducted in Nazi Germany, and this interest led to their scientists-a large number drawn from the refugees from fascists’ regimes in Europe- starting to build their own, thanks to the funding by the American government. This came to be known popularly as the Manhattan project. By the time the Manhattan project had conducted its first test, the Allied forces had defeated Germany. At around this time (early 1944), the Japanese failed to surrender and instead vowed to fight to the bitter end. All in spite of the clear indications that their chances at winning were close to zero. By the time Harry Truman took over office as the new US President, the Japanese had shown clearly that there even more venomous in defeat and had wounded many Allied soldiers. An occurrence that led to their militant government being given the option of surrender or face prompt and utter destruction (Bodden, 2007). Now, the outcomes from any historic event are not always predetermined and occur based on either supporting factors or mere coincidence. In the above scenario, like in any other significant historic occurrence, it is important for a historian to ask the “what if” questions. For example, what if the Allied forces resorted to another form of weaponry to get Japan to surrender? (Bodden, 2007) At its essentiality, this method would have probably driven the casualty and death statistics by a greater margin. Also, the topographic and subsequent effects would have greatly reduced, probably. Another question is: would the Emperor Hirohito have surrendered to the Americans when he did? If he didn’t, how would the development of the war and its outcomes be any different from what transpired? If the Japanese had surrendered immediately after the Hiroshima bombing, what could have been the possible effects of this reaction? Suppose it is the Japanese and not the Allied forces that were in possession of the deadly weapons, would they have brought America to its knees? From that point of view, it is possible to see the ripple effect created by just a single event in history. In my opinion, whether or not the Japanese possessed powerful weaponry was not the question: the question was how organized and big their troops were. Such questions, therefore, shape the question; “What if V-J day never was?” I have looked at one of my classmates work titled “what if D-day had failed?” Well, the event being discussed is the successful invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. The work clearly shows the decisions which transpired by the Allies and the Germans. The defining actions was the massive investment by the Allied forces and the apparent lack of coordination among the Germans. Now, the results of the mediocre response of the German forces to the Allied forces not only led to the end of World War II but also shaped the subsequent Cold War as it determined the land under USSR. This historic turning point could have other ending if: the German had been more coordinated and not mediocre? If it had ended another way, would the World War II have ceased? Since it is historically accurate to say that these events shaped the world henceforth, how different would the world’s economic, social and political atmosphere be if the Allied forces had been defeated? Another interesting post is “Hitler’s bomb”. According to this post, it was the culmination of the years of secret research that eventually brought us the internet, microprocessors, Velcro and basically shaped technology as we know it today. This was undoubtedly a historic turning point also characterized by the space race. A read of this interesting article also shows how much of an alternate universe we would have if the United States had not the world’s super-power emerged over the Soviets. In fact, from 1944, the writer and I agree that nothing much about America and it being an overseer for other countries has changed. Another interesting question would be: what if the British bombers that destroyed Berlin did not kill Hitler then? What would have been the changes in history? What if he died but many of his closest advisors-who died alongside him-remained? It is possible that the WWII would have persisted. It is also possible that the Nazis would continue to be empowered to fight. Also, the Soviets could be the world super-power by now. Based on these assumptions, one can draw parallels on the effects of either of the two occurrences. The parallels that exist between the Vietnam and the Afghanistan war. The Vietnamese war can be dubbed as the Nixon war as it happened during President Nixon Era. The Afghanistan war is called the Obama War. Despite occurring at different time scopes, many similarities are exhibited. In 1979, the Soviets invades Afghanistan. Ten years later, they leave the country. In 1996; the Taliban took control of the government and went ahead to impose fundamentalist Islamist laws. Osama bin Laden then takes refuge in the country. An action that makes President George Bush to give an ultimatum to the Taliban concerning handing over the man after the 9/11 attacks of September 2001. Hamid Karzai then becomes the interim president of Afghanistan and is also later reelected in an election which is synonymous with fraud. Now, how is the Afghanistan like Vietnam? (Engelhardt, 2012). Most important of all is that like the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan is largely unpopular among the American citizenry and the political class. A factor that makes military expert Robert Haddock say that, all those Democrats who were there in the 60s can attest to the rebellion against the Vietnam War as a civil war within the Democratic Party. Another parallel is that Afghan president Hamid Karzai can be compared to Vietnam President Ngo Din Diem, whose green light for assassination was given by the U.S leadership. The Taliban in Afghanistan can be compared to the early Vietcong. The similarities show that like Afghanistan, what the National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong, did not have was massive support (Borer, 2013). They however had organization and the funding to build support against what later became a foreign invader. In spite of all this, I agree with president Obama that Afghanistan is not another Vietnam. As he puts it, the Americans are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency in Afghanistan (Borer, 2013). Also, the war (though I don’t think this can be justified enough) was as a retaliation effort on the side of the Americans for the 9/11 attacks while It should be remembered that Vietnam never attacked the United States. Other factors that should be consider before either accepting that Afghanistan is another Vietnam could be; the topography of either country, the nature of combat, the size in terms of duration of the war and the subsequent death toll, the history of colonialism, and the effects of the Cold War dynamism. While I do not support any war, big or small, it is my opinion that it would be historically inaccurate to run an analogy between the two wars. This is because of the points presented above. Thus, I do not support that analogy should be used in interpreting historical events. In as much as many will say that this is a good case of history repeating itself, many will also agree with me that every war or historic event is as unique as the time it happened and the events that catalyzed the reactions to it. As mentioned earlier, the nature of the social, political and economic arrangements play a significant role in the outcome and later interpretation of a significant historic event. Let us look at the Civil war again. It is in this war that women came out boldly to fight for the first time. Whether their efforts were direct or indirect, this gesture paved the way for women to participate in their country’s security from a very conservative background. In the Afghanistan war, Arabic women were not allowed to fight. These interpretations have in a way shaped many ideas such as post-modernism, feminism and the military as we know it today. There is also the question of power. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, I will consider a post by one of my classmates about the Allied forces. I agree that there were many social and political mishaps that shaped the war. First, the politicians were in a very poor position to build viable decisions. Come to the frontlines, these soldiers did not understand that “Auschwitz” meant a death camp. The language barriers must have confused the informers as it were. I agree the factors at hand shape any historic incidence. In the 1960s, a militant feminist trend mushroomed in the United States. This was fueled by studies on the gender such as The Feminine Mystique (1963) by Betty Friedan. This provided a platform on which feminists such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) was established in the 1970s under Betty Friedan. These feminist moves were favored by the new laws that sought to end discrimination against the minority groups. Since then, the women’s movement has focused on various issues directly affecting them (Burrell, 2004). Such issues include their reproductive rights, sexual harassment and the ability of a woman to scale the corporate ladder without gender discrimination and equal pay (Burrell, 2004). These movements shaped Hillary Clinton’s historic bid for the Presidential bid in 2008 although she lost to President Barrack Obama. Another interesting case is that of Sarah Palin, who was also a Republican nominee in the same year. Many agree that in a largely patriarchal society, it is this movement that has seen women such as Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton handle public offices as well as other in the corporate arenas. Sources of an alternative interpretation My post will consider German East Africa, which comprised of modern day Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda. The area under this Protectorate was around 994, 996km2 which is nearly three times as big as the area of modern Germany. The country is in Africa. This colony came to being after the German military was invited to end a revolt by the natives against the activities of a colonial company in the 1880s. It however crumbled after the German’s defeat during the World War I. after which it was split between Britain and Belgium (Gwassa, 2005). Just like any other imperial power, the Germans maneuvered the abolition of the slave trade to explain its expansion into mainland Africa. An event which was shortly followed by the German rule being quickly established over Bagamoyo, Kilwa and Bagamoyo. Obviously, this did not sit well with the natives who retaliated by organizing the Abushiri Revolt of 1888 (Gwassa, 2005). The revolt was sadly quenched out by the help of the British. After this, the Hehe tribe led by chief Mkwakwa tried to resist the invasion of the German into their territory. This however failed miserably as the surrounding communities refused to support their venture. In frustration, Mkwakwa resorted to suicide. This however inspired the Maji Maji rebellion that occurred in 1905 but was put down by the governor Count Gustav Adolf von Got Zen (Gwassa, 2005). The massive corruption and brutality made the authorities take a dramatic turn that saw this transformed into a model colony with education and economic activities extended to the natives. The individual countries have so far adopted democratic and sovereign governments, which borrow from their colonizer and had their economic strides. Implication and importance of writing history from below History “from below” is very important as it shows the life of the “everyday” man as it occurs without necessarily resorting to the political bourgeois. It is the history of the people in a certain area as they go about their normal lives, in their individual communities, carrying out their transactions while interacting or not even interacting with their individual states. Social history will involve a group of people and might be largely oral. This branch of history has inarguably led to the growth of historiography and the ethnographic spheres by recovering what may be lost or forgotten as more historians move to greater spheres (Stearnes, 2007). For example, McDougal’s work among the Turkana of Kenya opened up the world of these herders to billions of people the world over who dint know such people existed (McDougal, 2006). This is in spite of this area being the cradle of mankind. While many people cannot directly relate to the lives of these people, they can attest to the fact that people should be left to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn’t affect the others. Social history has contributed to the growth of history by among other things, offering a platform for making concrete historical inferences. What is a good history? The essential elements of researching good history should be unbiasedness and objectivity. History researchers will agree with me that though this is hard, it is only by avoiding them that we will be able to give the future generation non-prejudiced history. Good history research should extend from more than one source to avoid its being narrow in both interpretation and conclusions. When writing, objectivity should be considered too. A writer should not allow their bias mar their paper (Henri Jean-Martin, 1995). The literary styles used count too. Everyone will agree with me that historical writing must not pass for dull and uninteresting. Otherwise, people won’t read it. Whichever literary style used should be able to incorporate accurate details in an engaging but historic manner without falsifying the information (Cullen, 2009). This brings us to the ethical obligations of writing good history. The language and tone used in writing history are very important. For example, a judgmental, sarcastic or derogatory tone when writing about a group of people can breed negative interpretations from the audience. Falsification of the information as well as harassing the providers are also unethical and totally unacceptable. References Cullen J. (2009). Essaying the past; how to read, write and think about history. Barnes & Noble London. Stearnes P. (2007). Social history and world history; prospects for collaboration. Journal of world history. 18(1). 43-52. Gwassa, G. C. (2005). Outbreak and the development on the Maji maji rebellion. Amherst College, Cape Town, South Africa. tsneed@usnews.com. Accessed on, 17th August, 2014. Adeyeri & Adeoti (2005). History, the historian and his work: issues challenges and prospects. Lagos State Universtity (LASU), Ojo, Nigeria. Burrel, C. B. (2004). Women and political participation: A reference handbook. Northern Illinois University, Illinois, Texas. Engelhardt, T. (2012, April 10). What the Afghan war has in common with the Vietnam War. Retrieved August 18, 2014 from http/www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/Afghanistan-vietnam-war-quagmire. Jean-Martins, H. (1995). The history and power of writing (translated by Cochrane L. G). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. membership@coldwar.org. Accessed on, 18th August, 2014. Bodden, V. (2007). The Holocaust: roots, history and the aftermaths. Westview Press, NewYork, 100-156. Borer, D. A. (2013). Superpowers defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan compared. Oxford University Press. McDougal, D. (2006). The corporeal image: University Press, Miyazaki. Film, ethnography and the senses. Princeton. Read More