instruction in the files
HW101 Topic: Freedom, Slavery, and the Revolutionary Aftermath, 1775-1800 Question: Document 20, Petition to the New Hampshire Legislature,Nero Brewster and Other New Hampshire Slaves, Nov 12, 1779 Document 21, Petition to the Massachusetts Legislature, John Cuffe and Other Free Blacks from Dartmouth, Feb 10, 1780 1. Choose two of the primary sources from your primary source list to analyze for this assignment. 2. Read and Analyze each of the primary sources individually. At a minimum, each analysis should do all of the following: 1. Explain what the source is (i.e. What type of source is it? Who created it? When? Why? For whom/what purpose? Etc.) 2. Explain whether or not you believe the source is reliable/trustworthy and why 3. Explain how you see the source answering your research question (this will be the bulk of the analysis) 3. Submit your two primary source analyses into this assignment as a separate file with the following formatting: 1. Include your research topic and question at the top 2. Include the citation details of the source itself above your analysis 3. Double space your analysis 4. Be sure to use parenthetical citations in three scenarios: 1. When you quote 2. When you provide statistical information 3. When you provide any information that came from a source other than the primary source you are currently analyzing 5. Your formatting should look something like this, although the number of paragraphs you have will vary: DOC 20-21 A Pocket Guide to Writing in History A POCKET GUIDE TO Writing in History NINTH EDITION Mary Lynn Rampolla Trin ity Washington Un ivers ity M bedford/st.martin's Macmillan LearningI Boston New York I For Bedford/St. Mortin's Vice President, Editorial, Macmillan Learning Humanities: Edwin Hill Program Director (or History: Michael Rosenberg Program Manager (or History: Laura Arcari History Marketing Manager: Melissa Rodriguez Director o( Content Development: Jane Knetzger Developmental Editor: Tess Fletcher Associate Content Project Manager: Matt Glazer Senior Content Work(low Manager: Jennifer Wetzel Production Assistant: Brianna Lester Senior Media Producer: Michelle Camisa Editorial Assistant: Mollie Chandler Editorial Services: Lumina Datamatics, Inc. Composition: Lumina Datamatics, Inc. Director o( Rights and Permissions: Hilary Newman Senior Art Director: Anna Palchik Text Design: Claire Seng- Niemoeller Cover Design: John Callahan Printing and Binding: Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc. Copyright© 2018, 2015, 2012 , 2010 by Bedford/St. Martin's. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as may be expressly permitted by the applicable copyright statutes or in writing by the Publisher. Manufactured in the United States of America. 2 1 0 9 8 7 f e d c b a For information, write: Bedford/St. Martin's, 75 Arlington Street, Boston, MA02116 ISBN 9 78-1 -319-11302-5 Acknowledgments Art acknowledgments and copyrights appear on the same page as the art selections they cover. 12 2b Working with Sources 2b Evaluating sources If primary sources always told the truth, the historian's job'would be much easier-and also rather boring. But sources, like witnesses in a murder case, often lie. Some times they lie on purpose, telling untruths to further a specific ideological, philosophical, personal, or political agenda. Sometimes they lie by omission, leaving out bits of information that are crucial to interpreting an event. Sometimes sources mislead unintentionally because the authors' facts were incomplete, incorrect, or misinter-· preted. Many sources are biased, either consciously or unconsciously, and contain unstated assumptions; all reflect the interests and concerns of their authors. More over, primary sources often conflict. As a result, one of the challenges historians face in writing about history is evaluating the reliability and usefulness of their sources. : oluati ng sources 2b 13 Tips for Writers Questions for Evaluating Text-Based Primary Sources • Who is the author? • When was the source composed? • Who was the intended audience? • What is the purpose of the source? (Note that some pri mary sources, such as letters to the editor, have a central theme or argument and are intended to persuade; others, such as census data, are purely factual.) • What is the historical context in which the source was written and read? • How do the author's gender and socioeconomic class compare to those of the people about whom he or she is writing? • What unspoken assumptions does the text contain? • What biases are detectable in the source? • Was the original text commissioned by anyone or pub lished by a press with a particular viewpoint? • How do other contemporary sources compare with this one? Special considerations for editions and translations • Is the source complete? If not, does the text contain an introductory note explaining editorial decisions? • If you are using a document in a collection, does the editor explain his or her process of selection and/or translation? • Are there notes introducing individual documents that provide useful information about the text? • Are there footnotes or endnotes that alert you to alternate readings or translations of the material in the text? • Does the edition or translation you are using most accu rately reflect the current state of scholarship? 2b-1 Evaluating primary sources Since primary sources originate in the actual period under discussion, we might be inclined to implicitly trust what they say. After all, if the author is an eyewitness, why should anyone doubt his or her word? Alternatively, we might lean toward dismissing primary sources alto gether on the grounds that they are too subjective; as 15 Working with Sources 14 Tips for Writers Questions for Evaluating Nonwritten Primary Sources For artifacts • When and where was the artifact made? • Who might have used it, and what might it have been used for? • What does the artifact tell us about the people who made and used it and the period in which it was made? For art works (paintings, sculpture, and so on) • Who is the artist, and how does the work compare to his or her other works? • When and why was the work made? Was it commis I sioned? If so, by whom? • Was the work part of a larger artistic or intellectual movement? • Where was the work first displayed? How did contempo raries respond to it? How do their responses compare to the ways in which it is understood now? For photographs • Who is the photographer? Why did he or she take this photograph? • Where was the photograph first published or displayed? Did that publication or venue have a particular mission or point of view? • Do any obvious details such as angle, contrast, or crop ping suggest bias? For cartoons • What is the message of the cartoon? How do words and images combine to convey that message? • In what kind of publication (for example, a newspaper or a magazine) did it originally appear? Did that publication have a particular agenda or mission? • When did the cartoon appear? How might its historical context be significant? For maps • What kind of map is this (for example, topographical, political, or military)? • Where and when was the map made? What was its intended purpose? • Does the map contain any extraneous text or images? If so, what do they add to our understanding of the map itself? :valuating sources 2b For video and film • What kind of film is this (for example, a documentary or a feature film)? • Who are the director, the producer, and the screenwriter for the film? Have they made other films to which you can compare this one? • Who is the intended audience? Why was the film made? • Does the film use particular cinematic techniques that convey a particular mood or tone? (For more on analyzing film, see 3e.) For sound recordings • Who made the recording, and what kind of recording is it (music, speech, interview, and so on)? • Was the recording originally intended for broadcast? If so, why was it broadcast, and who was the intended audience? ay police investigator could tell you, eyewitnesses see .:iifferent things and remember them in different ways. • fact, historians ste_er a middle ground between these - ·o approaches. Although primary sources comprise the _asic material with which they work, historians do not ·e the evidence provided by such sources simply at face alue. Like good detectives, they evaluate the evidence, pproaching their sources analytically and critically. Historians have developed a variety of techniques = r evaluating primary sources. One such technique is :o compare sources; a fact or description contained in ne source is more likely to be accepted as trustworthy � other sources support or corroborate it. Another tech -.ique is to identify the authors' biases. For example, the --astorian Polydore Vergil asserted in his book Anglica His- - ria that King Richard III kill,ed his nephews. Since Vergil ·as a contemporary of Richard III, you might accept his Kcount at face value, unless you were also aware that the :iook was commissioned by King Henry VII, an enemy of -Jchard III who had organized a rebellion against him, .-·ned him in battle, and seized his throne. Taking this =act into consideration, you would want to approach Ver ;il's work with a more critical eye, considering whether "tis loyalty to his employer led to any bias in his history. �istorians also read their sources carefully for evidence f internal contradictions or logical inconsistencies, and 16 17 Evaluating sourcesWorking with Sources they pay attention to their sources' use of language, since the adjectives and metaphors an author uses can point to hidden biases and unspoken assumptions. Evaluating primary sources: an example. In a letter written to heikh El-Messiri in 1798, Napoleon expresses the hope chat the sheik will soon establish a government in Egypt oased on the principles of