History is looking at others perspective, point of view, understanding what they thought was okay and not okay. Evidence is cruel in history. Without evidence historians would not have known what happened. In an historical event such as Columbus and his men, and some people may be very bias to what he did, but what he did do to these people are not Okay, and would never in a million years pass in this century. Over a million Taint Indians killed, murdered, raped, shipped into slavery.
Without Columbus journal and is men and the priest journal, we would probably not really know what happen and how cruel he was to these people that welcomed and showed Him and His Men the land. A historical account would be that would still think he is an amazing person, that did great and wonderful things, but in reality he didn’t. Of course everything is selective or omitted, like when we were writing our biography or interviewing our parents, they would not want someone to know every detail.
What if they were doing something they didn’t want a trainer or their children or child to know? But how could we if the primary source story is reliable? That’s when we go to secondary sources. When there are two different stories we could go to witnesses or friends that were there with them. In history, the audience is who writes the books, tells the stories, and passes on the knowledge from their grandparents or parents to their children and they pass it on to their children.
