Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward
The very first thing we learn in history is to study primary sources whenever possible. Secondary sources take all the biases of primary sources and add their own biases.
|
Primary sources are great, assuming you can translate them yourself. Even if you can you will deal with multiple approaches to translation of those texts. Textual criticism is a robust field. And this assumes you have access to the actual document, and not a copy which can include errors. But that isn't what's being done here. What's being done is excluding whole categories of historical work for the purposes of concealing a poorly designed historiographical argument predicated on cherry picking evidence. It's a disturbing pattern, Dan, and you should know better by now.