First Contact
Using Evidence
Developing Skills: Mining The Sources For The Real Story
Dealing with the Past
It has been said we should treat the past as we do a foreign country, as a place where
people do things differently. The work of the historian is to provide the reader with a travel
guide to the past, to what at first may appear, as many new places do, a strange place. By
analysing the issues of the past we use our imagination to reconstruct a world that no longer
exists.
You recreate the past, as only you can. Your version of the past will be unique because only
you can give the past a personal interpretation. Others may see the past in the same
general way as you do while others may differ completely in their interpretation. None will
quite see it in exactly the way you do. When you deal with historical evidence you cannot
help but interpret it through your personal filters and your biases. In this respect, everyone
who sifts through the evidence of the past is his or her own historian. Being your own
historian does not mean that your version of what happened cannot be flawed. However, if
you are careful in dealing with the evidence of the past your interpretation of past events
can be accurate and reliable. The exciting thing about history is that the past is constantly
being reinvented. Each new generation recreates a different past, one unique to that time
and place. People in the 19th century saw the European exploration and settlement of North
America in quite a different way the way we view it at the beginning of the 21st century.
For example, the education of Native children by the priests and nuns would have been seen
as a necessary step to assimilation and a good thing in the 19th century. Today we are only
too aware of the harm done to native children at residential schools and the price they paid
for the loss of their culture.
Points of View
As you explore First Contact you will be presented many sources of historical evidence with
many points of view concerning early years of contact between Canada’s native peoples and
the early explorers, fur traders and missionaries. The historical sources from the French and
the Natives each have their biases. For example, the Jesuit Relations are reports from
priests sent out to convert North American Natives to Christianity. Native traditions and
beliefs reported in the Jesuit Relations reflect this and must be approached carefully.
You are not expected to agree with these points of view, but to use them to come to your
own conclusions based on the evidence available to you. To do this you must be careful in
how you use of the evidence. Our interpretation of events will likely appear just as dated to
future generations.
Dealing with Evidence
The raw material of history takes many forms. It is the building material that historians use
to construct an accurate picture of the past. As you explore First Contact you will make use
of a wide variety of evidence. Excepts from legal documents, journals, correspondence,
memoirs, letters, diaries, pictures, statistics and cartoons are but a few of them. Visual and
oral evidence together with archeological evidence and artifacts of a period can also give us
with insights. Advertisements, cookbooks, gravestones, music, inventions, leisure and
fashion trends also add pieces to the puzzle of our picture of the past. There are many
other sources that originate at the time and from which we can gain insights into how people
might have thought and acted.
Using the Sources
The examples of evidence are usually referred to as sources. The sources of evidence
available to the historian will differ depending on the time period under consideration. The
period of First Contact poses special problems due to the lack of written evidence
representing the Native point of view.
Source Analysis
Source analysis involves the examination of documents, the evaluation of their reliability,
and the use of the sources in dealing with historical problems. For the purpose of analysis it
is useful to draw a distinction between a source and its creator. Any information about the
creator of the source is used to determine its credibility and reliability as a piece of
evidence.
Primary Sources are sources of information that are created at the time of an event, or
later by someone involved in the event. Eyewitness accounts are the most obvious primary
sources. These are often found in diaries, memoirs, minutes of meetings, government
documents, pictures, and illustrations. The journals and illustrations of Samuel de
Champlain are examples of primary sources.
Secondary Sources are accounts created after the event, often describing or analysing it.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that primary sources are always better than secondary
sources. Each must be evaluated on its merits and weighed in the balance as reliable source
of evidence. The perspective of time may allow secondary sources to offer a more balanced
picture or analysis of the event. Bruce Trigger’s ethnohistory of the Hurons, or Morris
Bishop’s biography of Champlain, are examples of a secondary sources.
Understanding Bias
When you interpret evidence, you cannot help but see it through your personal “filters” or
biases. Similarly, primary and secondary sources carry the author’s personal biases. You
should know something about the author’s biases to help you evaluate reliability and
credibility of the history with which you are involved.
It is important to be aware of biases when you analyse evidence. These might include
political, religious, racial, ethnic, gender, economic, or vocational biases.
Reliability and Credibility
It is important to realize that authentic or ‘first-hand’ sources may not be entirely reliable. In
First Contact sources from the French and the Natives each have their biases. For example,
the Jesuit Relations are reports from priests sent out to convert North American Natives to
Christianity. Native traditions and beliefs reported in the Jesuit Relations reflect this and
must be approached carefully.
The reporting of any event should be questioned. Ask yourself who wrote it? Who did he
represent? How close was the writer to the event? What were his sources of information?
When were the impressions of the event recorded? Information that originates further from
the event in time and space should be treated with caution.
An author of a piece of historical evidence may be quite competent to report the event and
yet not be credible. For a variety of reasons evidence presented may be biased. It may be
unconscious bias, deliberate bias or propaganda, or might be informed bias or what we
usually call point of view.
As with reliability you can check for credibility of the document. But first you should find
out something of the background of the author of the document.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who was the author, and how close was he or she to the event?
What was the author’s motive in recording the event?
How likely would he have been to tell the truth?
What are the author’s biases or points of view?
For whom was the evidence intended?
What was its purpose?
One way to determine a level of credibility and reliability is to see if what is said can be
supported or corroborated by similar sources of information. The more sources that are in
agreement generally the more reliable and credible is the source of evidence.
Monro Communications © 2004
http://www.monroco.com/