History is the past, and the past is history. We all can comprehend the value of learning from the past to plan for the future once it becomes the present. And like all subjects, there is a multitude of ways to learn and study history, which is by far one of my favorite subjects of all time. There are films, texts, and lectures. In this article, I will be discussing texts and films.
Before we commence our comparison, let me address the difference between primary and secondary sources. Knowing this will be necessary when talking about different ways of studying history. Let’s use texts and writing as an example. Primary sources are written by people who have actually been alive to experience the events in history. For example, modern newspapers today would be the primary historical sources of the future. Secondary sources are written by those who weren’t alive to experience the events. Authors of secondary sources have used the information they have learned from others to write those texts.
So firstly, the primary source texts. I love reading these because they provide a real-life account of what happened from a living (probably not anymore) witness. Details are given that we can (most likely) trust. This also gives us a point of view from that period of time. This will help us determine what individuals thought about the events at that time.
However, specifically in the English language, the language has undergone significant change. Certain grammatical manners and patterns have altered, slightly or dramatically, and the spelling of words has also changed. For modern readers, this “ancient vernacular” might be hard to understand. It really is a primary source when it is being communicated in the form of language during that time in history. In this case, secondary sources would be the way to go.
As mentioned in the very previous sentence (you should remember if you don’t have “short-term rememory loss”, Finding Dory reference), secondary sources are written in a more modern form of speaking (or writing). This makes them a little bit easier to understand for those who aren’t used to a different style of grammar. And let us not forget that all secondary source authors get their information from either another secondary source or a primary source. This means that all sources lead to a primary source. So for the most part, we can still trust secondary sources.
But since language changes over time, misinterpretations are bound to occur. This might alter the facts presented in secondary sources. This is why I’m a little skeptical when reading secondary sources. For real ancient history, there was no writing system. These things spread by word of mouth, and this makes misinterpretation even more likely. So we can still say that secondary source texts are less likely to be trustworthy.
Now, there technically aren’t any “primary source films”. So why is this? Well, for the longest time, we didn’t have any cameras, let alone camcorders. We weren’t able to film things all the way up to Periodization 6. And also, think about it: nobody’s going to go out in the middle of a battlefield just to film something. All historical films are secondary source movies.
Secondary films do give us a more lifelike view at historical events. We can see and hear the experiences with our own eyes an ears, just digitally, of course. And like secondary source articles, these secondary source films we all traced back to a primary source. And also, films can be easier for those who don’t specialize in reading to understand than articles. And also, for many (maybe not me), films are much more fun than reading texts.
But oftentimes, films don’t completely recreate past experiences. Oftentimes the plots and backgrounds are altered to make the film more interesting. Nobody wants to see a boring film. But sometimes events in history really are that boring. A historical film’s job is not to entertain (unless people find enjoyment in learning), it’s to inform.
So in terms of trustworthiness, I’d personally trust primary texts most. I’m a well-learned, well-read person, so reading older-style English would be no problem. Also, they are trustworthy because they are taken from real experiences experienced by real people. But everyone’s different. With that, so is their preferred option for studying history.
For me, studying history is a bit different than studying other subjects. History combines language, analyzation, logic, and decision-making all in one. Therefore different methods of learning it are required. Obviously, personal preference can make a big difference in terms of which students learn well and which don’t. But the goal is for all of us to be able to successfully analyze and know about history. How we achieve it doesn’t matter, it’s what we achieve and if we achieve it or not.