Salut mes amis,
Last class was enlightening for me in more ways than one. I had no idea that Richmond had a rare book/archives collection (an extensive one at that!) It was incredible to take a peek into the lives of strangers decades, even centuries after these documents were written. At the same time, I was very conscious of the fact that I was reading letters that were likely never meant to be read by any other parties aside from the writer and the intended recipient.
Put yourself in their shoes: imagine someone reading your diary entries from when you were a kid or your text messages, it’s a bit (or a lot) mortifying to think about. If we apply this to our classrooms, do you think that it is ethical to have students read and analyze personal primary sources? Is the historical significance and opportunity to gain knowledge too great? Maybe a bit of both?
Some of the readings from this week addressed the idea of adapting primary sources to make them more suitable for students, whether it be for grammatical reasons, changing the syntax, or making the vocabulary more age appropriate. In the Tampering with History: Adapting Primary Sources for Struggling Readers reading from this week, the authors “urge teachers to tamper with history.” They also acknowledge that many people vehemently condemn this idea and believe that it “cheapens the past.” Historians often talk about how vital reading and interpreting primary texts from the past are for our current understanding of historical figures and events. Do you think any of the integrity or benefits are lost when we alter primary sources?
I look forward to hearing from you all,
Jordann
The caption reads:
