Reading like a historian:  Analyzing sources (evidence)

If history is only memorizing names, dates, etc., then why does one need a class for that?  Everyone has the ability to memorize to a greater or lesser degree.  What is not automatic, however, is historical thinking. 

Historians approach their evidence (different between history and the past) with a set of questions. Historians analyze historical sources in different ways. First, historians think about where, when and why a document was created. They consider whether a source was created close in location and time to an actual historical event. Historians also think about the purpose of a source. Was it a personal diary intended to be kept private? Was the document prepared for the public?  Some sources may be judged more reliable than others, but every source is biased in some way because it was human generated and everyone has their own way of seeing things.  As a result, historians read sources skeptically and critically. They also cross-check sources against other evidence and sources.  Historians thus carry on an imaginary conversation with their sources.

James Loewen includes some of these that he labels "Crap Detector" questions.  They include:  Who is the audience for the piece?  When and why was it written or produced?  Whose viewpoint is expressed? Whose viewpoints are omitted?  Is the piece believable? Are there contradictions within the piece?  How do they feel about the piece? How do they think they are supposed to feel about the key characters/arguments of the piece?  Here are some suggested questions to ask your sources to aid you in "reading like a historian."
 

Analyzing Primary Sources:  the "I was there" crowd Exercise: McGuffey Reader chapter 8: "Religion" > What was being communicated to students (both text & subtext) about religion?  Do you more-so agree/disagree?  State your reason(s).  Write a paragraph or so on this. Questions to ask a primary source:  historians carry on an imaginary conversation with their sources.  These are some of the kinds of questions used: __Who created the source and why? Was it created through a spur-of-the-moment act, a routine transaction, or a thoughtful, deliberate process? __Did the recorder have firsthand knowledge of the event? Or, did the recorder report what others saw and heard? __Was the recorder a neutral party, or did the creator have opinions or interests that might have influenced what was recorded? __Did the recorder produce the source for personal use, for one or more individuals, or for a large audience? __Was the source meant to be public or private? __Did the recorder wish to inform or persuade others? (Check the words in the source. The words may tell you whether the recorder was trying to be objective or persuasive.) Did the recorder have reasons to be honest or dishonest? __Was the information recorded during the event, immediately after the event, or after some lapse of time? How large a lapse of time?

Analyzing Secondary Sources: getting information "second hand" Exercise:  Edwin Gaustad's essay "American History, With and Without Religion" in Part II: Era 2 > What does he define as the problem, and what is his solution?  Do you more-so agree/disagree?  State your reason(s).  Write a paragraph or so on this. Questions to ask a secondary source: historians carry on a imaginary conversation with their sources.  These are some of the kinds of questions used. __ Identify the source and author. Who is the author and what are his/her credentials? __ Check out the sources: is the argument based on primary sources or mostly secondary sources? __ Figure out the argument:  restate the author's thesis.  How is the argument built?  If the author discusses others' interpretations of the topic, who are the key scholars included? __ How does this piece fit into the big historical question the work is addressing?