Primary Vs. Secondary Sources

Primary and secondary sources are both valuable in learning about history, however, I would reason secondary sources to be more useful in learning about the past. I understand that historians need primary sources to create secondary sources, however, primary sources are very limited to the author's ability to write and convey his or her thoughts correctly. econdary sources have the advantage of perception. Secondary sources can provide a better picture of history than primary sources because historians can interpret past events and connect them to observe how they are related. Secondary sources also provide information in an organized way.

One of the main benefits of using secondary sources to learn history is that after an event take place, it is easier to analyze, interpret, and write about it. With a primary source, like Farewell to Manzanar, you can place yourself in the mind of a young adolescent girl who is having trouble dealing with the adversity and uncertainty she and her family suffer after Pearl Harbor was attacked. On the other hand, the article Japanese Internment, a secondary source, I find to be more informative in studying that period of time. Even though the primary source sufficiently provides readers with a look into the past - for example, when the narrator went to school and was surprised at her teacher's distance and hostility towards her - its perspective is very limited. However, Japanese Internment talks about all the anti Japanese-American feelings that were going around and how this eventually led to Roosevelt's Executive Oder 9066 being issued. Primary sources are very narrow in their scope and they lack the scrutiny of history's bigger picture.

Secondary sources also provide for enhanced study material because they are organized in a way that provide for the best possible learning. To study history from primary sources, a person would have to sort through the immense amount of articles, journals, and written accounts in hopes that all their research for that time period is correct and objective. With secondary sources, the information is clear and organized to provide for better quality. When comparing two articles, In the Strawberry Fields and Working in the Fields, I found the former to be more educational. In the Strawberry Fields discusses how illegal Mexican immigrants have fueled the source of cheap labor in Southern California's agriculture because they are willing to work for low wages and they are also replaceable. The analysis in In the Strawberry Fields would be difficult to imitate in a primary source, mainly because many of the immigrants were uneducated and couldn't write about how they were exploited by the strawberry growers. Many people did not bother to keep journals or write about things that occurred in their time, mainly because they were illiterate. In effect, this creates a limitation of what primary sources account for because only