A. Based on your viewing of the HC so far, how would you classify it as (a) historical source(s) and why?
I would say this is a secondary source. This piece of work is a group's interpretation of the historical past based off of the historical facts given to us through primary source texts. Evidence of this comes straight from the video with personal comments from the historians themselves, and there references to historical texts. Along with this, it is also a reenactment of the interpreted past from the historians' views.
B. How reliable do you consider it to be? Why?
I would consider this to be fairly reliable, but not enough so that I can watch it without filtering the facts from biases. Yes, most of the important facts of the historical past I feel are covered thoroughly through narration, reenactment, historian reviews, and the showing of primary sources, but there also seems to be some, not many, but some superstitions and biases in the presentation of this time period.
How would you classify the bias that you refer to ? What is the dominant "point of view" demonstrated by the documentary? What sort of audience do you believe this documentary is targeting? Is it problematic that many of the visual sources in the documentary are not cited--we are not sure when, why and by whom they were created?
ReplyDelete