Comparing 'Primary And Secondary Sources In Farwell To Manzanar'

In considering the two types of sources—primary and secondary—I think that each has their strengths. However, I think that primary sources are ultimately the best way to learn about the past, because they are more memorable, more interesting, and easier to empathize with. The first advantage to primary sources is that they are more memorable. The point of history, of course, is to learn about the past, and so this is an important concern. If you don’t remember, you don’t learn. Anyhow, I found it very difficult to remember the stuff I read in “Into the Strawberry Fields” and in the other secondary sources. By contrast, I think I will always remember the story of Jeanne’s mom destroying the China rather than sell it at a loss. I will also remember the Chumash story, and how they view the sun as a god. The second advantage to primary sources is that they are more interesting. I was, frankly, a little bored when I read “Into the Strawberry Fields.” IT was long and dry. On the other hand, I really enjoyed reading “Farwell to Manzanar.” It was interesting and engaging. I liked seeing things through her eyes—all the details, all the stories about her various family members, and …show more content…
If I want to understand people in the past, I want to know how they thought and felt. I can imagine that much more easily with Jeanne and with the migrant farm boy. I was, of course, a kid like them at one point, and while I was never interned or forced to work in the fields, I still can feel what they are feeling. Their experiences make sense to me. On the other hand, I didn’t really feel much of anything when reading the “Strawberry Fields.” I don’t doubt that he talked to real people, and that he tried to communicate as best he could. But the author of that piece, Erik Shlocher, has to talk in third person—‘they’ instead of ‘I’. That’s just not that easy to get involved