Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
In the essay "Primary Sources in History: Breaking Through the Myths," Keith Barton notes, “Ultimately, we cannot depend on any single source – primary or secondary – for reliable knowledge; we have to consult multiple sources in our quest to develop historical understanding.” Barton then proceeds to identify seven common beliefs (myths, Barton terms them) associated with primary sources. What do you think? Has Barton made a viable case for his myth argument, and how; or why not?
How He Makes the Case: Barton reminds us that a primary source is a human construction. A letter, a diary, or a government report is written to persuade, justify, or commemorate a specific view. For example, a Confederate soldier's diary entry about the Civil War is invaluable but is biased by his loyalty, personal experience, and wartime propaganda. To treat it as the objective truth of the event is to misuse it.
The Key Takeaway: This approach forces users to practice critical sourcing—analyzing who wrote the document, why they wrote it, and who their intended audience was—rather than simply accepting the content at face value.
Barton’s strongest point, summarized in your quote, is the necessity of multiple sources. This directly counters the myth that a single primary source is sufficient for historical understanding.
How He Makes the Case: By demonstrating that sources can be intentionally misleading, accidentally inaccurate, or incomplete due to the author's limited perspective, Barton establishes that reliability is achieved only through corroboration. If three different types of sources (a newspaper, a political cartoon, and a personal letter) all point to the same social phenomenon, the knowledge derived is much more reliable than that derived from any one document alone.
Connecting to Secondary Sources: He also makes a viable case against the binary opposition of "primary good, secondary bad." He argues that secondary sources (historical interpretations) are often essential for context, providing the background and existing scholarly debate necessary to even understand the primary sources.
In essence, Barton successfully transforms the perception of primary sources from being "vessels of truth" into "pieces of evidence" that must be carefully and critically interrogated alongside other forms of evidence to construct a robust historical narrative. This elevates the intellectual rigor required for historical inquiry.
You're asking for an evaluation of Keith Barton's argument in "Primary Sources in History: Breaking Through the Myths." I believe Barton has made a strong and viable case for challenging common "myths" associated with primary sources. His central argument is that primary sources, while essential, are not inherently objective or fully reliable on their own.
Barton’s case is viable because it rests on the fundamental principles of historical methodology—namely, sourcing, contextualization, and corroboration. By identifying seven specific myths, he effectively challenges the simplistic, often naive, view that students and the public hold about historical evidence.
The most viable aspect of Barton's argument is his assertion that primary sources do not offer simple, unvarnished "truth." He argues that every document is a product of its author's perspective, purpose, and bias.