Do we need already interpreted primary sources, such as biographies, to understand a topic better? Can we learn more from these interpreted sources rather than reading from a general history book that contains a myriad of primary sourced contents? Well, yes and no. There are many factors …show more content…
General history books are best used when researching or reading about different events or occurrences in that time period, whilst biographies are best read when researching certain figures. For example, when researching George Washington for an upcoming history paper, you might go to the library and pick out a book that says something like “The events of the American Revolution to the American Revolutionary war.”. But, you aren’t going to be writing a paper about the events of the Revolutionary war, you’re writing about George Washington. So, put that book back, and look for a much more specific book about George Washington, such as a complete biography that contains details about where he was born and raised, his role in the American Revolution to the American Revolutionary war, and where and when he died. Now, before you say “Oh, that means biographies are way more trustworthy than general history books, right?”. Not exactly. There’s always the chance of bias in biographies. For example, a biography could make a given politician look like a horrible human being, but, when you research the author of that biography, by happenstance, it was written by a supporter of his former rival. So, don’t always trust