In understanding the study of history, there are theories and schools of thought when trying to gain an understanding of any aspect of historical research. One of the most important is the concept of German historicism. Historicism is a train of thought that should be undertaken when studying events in the past, meaning we must look at the world from their scope of view versus how we see things today. Three main principles guide historicism. The first is a difference, which entails an understating that humans in the times before us did not think the same way we do, have the same values, and even have drastically different interpretations of what was morally right or wrong. When looking at documents or any primary source, it is essential to recognize the situation at the given time at its potential influence in swaying the author of the papers or the actors within the event. It is also essential to understand the principle of the process with historicism. Understanding a specific event within a period requires understanding causation and the chain reaction to lead to a given point, idea, or theme in history.
They have impacted my history study, especially thought through the idea of the difference. To gain an empathetic visualization of the past, I have found it is necessary to forget the modern viewpoint of morality, identity, and method of thinking to a certain extent. When analyzing the story of the London cholera outbreak in the late 19th century London, we must be able to step into their shoes fully. We have to understand the prejudices and why they existed in dealing with the affected lower-income neighborhoods or why it was so hard to deviate from the given scientific theory of Miasma as the culprit of the deadly disease. Seeing the moral viewpoint taken by different social classes or how the condition was viewed, explained, and solved required seeing their world on their terms.
When conducting my research paper, the idea of source criticism played an essential role before being able to write any part of the paper. Source criticism studies the different types of historical sources, their validity, and how to evaluate them for one's use. Some way I used source criticism was my evaluation of the sources that were available through my research on the little bighorn. The documented existence of artifacts was essential as they were actual physical relics left over from the event. Artifacts also lend to serve credibility and strengthen the value of a primary source narrative. Also, source criticism describes the hierarchy of best sources with the progression of primary and secondary sources. A primary source obviously is more reliable and has closer involvement in the actual event being studied. Another positive factor when evaluating primary sources precisely is the idea of multiple sources providing the same data or storyline. This observation lends credibility and removes the concept of potential error or bias. This ideol...