Primary Sources

One of my former OCC students sent me an e-mail decrying the use of his most recent, less favorite buzzword--"footprint." I concurred and added "transparency."

But that also sparked something I've been thinking about for a while--the use of, indeed, the emphasis on, primary sources in the current teaching of history. First, to be clear, I am not opposed to using primary sources, not at all. And, in fact, I do use them in class, in assignments, and even on tests/quizzes. But I wonder if, perhaps, "primary sources" have become a sort of buzzword in teaching history.

They might be fine, really required/necessary, for students planning on majoring in history. Let's give them more and more of them. And, I think primary sources should be introduced to all students of history, if, at the very least, to show them things like bias/prejudice, perspective ("the big picture"), etc. and their roles in history. But, do nonmajors really need a whole lot of primary source study? I wonder. Since we have such limited time with nonmajors and, according to all the published studies/reports, most Americans have such scant knowledge of history, shouldn't we spend more time on the actual history (I just frightened myself, almost using the word "consensus," another idiotic buzzword of years past!), not primary sources? Students/Citizens don't know about the Civil War, the Constitution, the Depression, etc. in any depth, with little understanding. So, if we spend more time on two or three generals' views of a battle (primary sources), are we cutting into information that would be more necessary and relevant to a nonmajor?

I'm not sure; I'm just asking. And, in the interest of "transparency" (yes, I am now laughing!), one of my favorite lessons in class (discussion/seminar) is based on two primary source readings. It's good to talk over such things in education/teaching.