Reference no: EM133792885

Assignment:

Task: First, read the short chapter "Spain and the Native Americans: The Guale Revolt, 1597" Second, this document is a little tricky as it combines both primary and secondary source material. As you read, identify which sections are primary and which sections are secondary. Third, think about the questions from the previous assignment on secondary sources (and if you like, apply those questions to the secondary material here). There are different kinds of questions that you should always be trying to answer as you read primary sources. We'll start practicing this here. Consider the following:

1. What is the source? A letter? A speech? An interview? A diary or journal entry? A painting? A radio broadcast?
2. Who is the author of each document? You need to know more than their names. In this case, you'll find this information in the document, but sometimes you will have to conduct some research.
3. What is each author saying? Are they reliable? (I'll let you determine what that means here, but we will discuss this later.) Do you think their views are representative or are they uniquely theirs? (Can they be applied to similar people in similar situations, or must they be dismissed as aberrations? I know you're not ready to make this decision yet, but it's something to consider.)
4. What contribution does each author possibly make to our knowledge and understanding of their historical period, place, culture, society, economy, political system, contemporary events? You can potentially glean a lot of information from a single primary source, even a short one.
5. Is the perspective of the authors (think of them as witnesses) recorded at the time the event happened or are they describing it later? If later, how much later? This matters, and goes back to reliability, because people remember things differently, or even misremember things, many years later.
6. This isn't really a question that requires you to write down an answer, but reflect on it as you read. Are you reading the document critically? Are you judging the author rather than assessing? We not only have to consider the author's potential biases, but ours as well. When reading historical documents we have to be careful that we're not judging them through our feelings or emotions or our own self-important sense of "presentism." A critical reading of the documents asks you to consider the author from the perspective of their own period, society, and culture's values. This is not always easy, especially when dealing with controversial, sensitive, and offensive topics. Avoid "virtue signalling" when you write about sensitive topics. You're not learning about, thinking about, or analyzing the past if you dismiss a person, place, or thing as "bad" or "evil" or idolize them as "good" or "heroic." Even seasoned historians have trouble with this, so it takes practice and you will never perfect it (you are a human being with emotions and feelings and opinions, right?), but you must try!