Similarities and differences: primary and secondary sources

0:00- [David] Hello, readers. Let's talk about primary and secondary sources and how a firsthand account of a historical event can differ from a contemporary analysis of that same event. To do this and to further explain what I mean, let us introduce our setting for this video.

0:15The 1893 Chicago World's Fair, also known as the World's Columbian Exposition. People from all over the world set up exhibits in Chicago, corporations set up exhibits to showcase emerging technologies. This is the introduction of the clothes zipper, the dishwasher, the chocolate brownie, the very foundations of modernity itself.

0:35But other countries also set up exhibits where they showcase their culture, their foods, their clothing. You'll see in a minute that the primary source we found for this video references the Egyptian section of the fair, where they made part of the fairgrounds into the Egyptian city of Cairo.

0:52And to review, or if you never knew, a primary source is a firsthand account, the source was present at the event and witnessed it. A secondary source was not there, but heard about it or read about it. So let's look at our primary source. James Miller's 1893 letter to a newspaper in southeastern Ohio.

1:11"I shall give you a few notes taken from a list of wonderful things I saw at the Fair. We took a walk through the streets of Cairo and witnessed an Egyptian wedding, which began with a wild dance and ended with a sword fight. We also saw a woman take a comfortable ride on a camel, and I have no doubt she saw more of Cairo than she could have seen afoot."

1:30Now, 130 years later, we have this National Park Service article, which relied on research from four different sources. "While showcasing global achievements and celebrating progress, the Exposition also reflected the sexism of the time period. For example, the fair had a Women's Building," there it is in the photo, "Which exclusively featured women's accomplishments.

1:51Yet, some women argued that displaying women's achievements separately suggested that they were secondary to men. Women activists pushed for more representation in the fair, but were excluded from decision-making." I'm going to pause the video here for a second for you to discuss what information is repeated in both sources.

2:10What do you think the authors would agree on, and what are the differences between them? What does the primary source in yellow on the left, include that the secondary source in blue on the right, does not? And vice versa. Take your time. Pause the video in the middle of this music.

2:26I'll be here when you get back. All right, and here we go. (upbeat music) Now, let's do a Venn diagram. Both texts are about the World's Fair, both mention exhibitions held there. The letter mentions the Egyptian exhibit. The article mentions the Women's Building.

2:52So the authors would probably agree on some of the basics, like what the goal of the World's Fair was to showcase American and world cultures. But there are also a lot more differences between the texts, though they would probably disagree on whether or not the World's Fair achieved that goal of accurately showcasing American and world cultures to their fullest extent.

3:12The modern article talks about some of the behind-the-scenes wrangling about women's role in decision-making for the Fair, which is information that Miller, the author of the 1893 letter, simply would not have had access to as a regular fairgoer from out of town.

3:26So we have differences in perspective. Miller is only one guy, whereas the secondary source can pull from lots of different sources, both primary and secondary sources, and bind them together to give us a broader context. And we have differences in tone. The primary source is essentially a postcard.

3:45Here's what I saw. Isn't it neat? And the secondary source has the distance to be more critical. Here's what was missing. Here's who wasn't invited. I think we tend to put a lot of weight on primary sources, which is a legitimate thing to do. But primary source accounts are often only the opinion of a single person.

4:04And they don't always cite sources. I keep a journal, but I don't put a bibliography in it. And they're subject to biases. We all have them. Secondary sources do too. I could cherry-pick sources and make an argument that the World's Fair was actually quite fair to women, even if the majority of other scholars might disagree.

4:21This is why it's valuable to read widely, to compare texts that disagree with one another, so you can fare it out, your understanding of the truth and the truth is rarely simple. What happened is rarely simple. History is not some objective unchanging thing. History is a conversation between the past and the present.

4:41It changes as our understandings change. It's a mirror that looks different depending on where you stand, depending on how the light hits it. So the best way to understand that mirror, I believe, is to look at it from as many angles as you possibly can. You can learn anything.

4:59David, out.