Entry for week of September 30
One thing that stood out to me this week in class is the idea that some sources can be bias but still have truth to them. As we read and analyzed Cortes' article, we can infer that it was most likely bias based on the fact that he was a rebel at the time and trying to get back on the good side of the King. However, the historical facts about the places they traveled and the battles they fought were probably true. We can't just assume that because the source comes from one person's perspective it is completely untrustworthy. Rather, we should look for more sources to compare the information to. The Bernal Diaz article was a source that we can compare to Cortes. Because the historical events matched that of Cortes, we can infer that they are most likely true. However we can't just assume that the whole letter is completely true. From Professors Starks part of the class, we read the Oudijk and Restall article which told more about the Indigenous roles in these events. It brought to attention how important the Natives were in the achievements of the Europeans. Cortes barely mentioned the indigenous people and Bernal Diaz mentioned Malintzin and a few other instances where the Indigenous were useful. Looking at multiple sources gives better insight to what may have actually happened. Therefore we should always look to multiple sources for our information rather than just accepting or denying the source.
Hi Olivia! I definitely agree with you. It is always easier to take one source and see it as only objectively true, or only bias and false. Time and again I see myself, and others falling into this trap. This is not the way to go about finding out the truth of any situation. I really like your point about always looking at multiple sources. I hadn't thought about how looking at as many perspectives as possible is probably the best way piece together an accurate account of history.
ReplyDelete