When deciding which article to choose, naturally I picked one found in the "Weird News" section on the Huffington Post. I thought it would be fun to find sources for an unusual post rather than sources for a political and religious articles. This was one of the first articles I saw when looking and found it to be is quite interesting..
9 Reasons You Might Have Been Suspected of Witchcraft in 1692
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marilynne-k-roach/9-reasons-you-might-have-_b_4029745.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news&ir=Weird%20NewsUsing the guidelines in Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources, I did research on the sources listed in the Huffinton Post article.
This article was written by Marilyn K. Roach, Historian, Illustrator, and author of Six Women of Salem: the Untold Story of the Accused and Their Accusers in the Salem Witch Trials. Her book was written "to illuminate the larger crisis of the Salem witch trials." Reading the description of the book, it shares facts about how many were accused and executed, what it was like to be present throughout the Salem trials. As for her credibility, I looked at multiple event sites regarding the trials and found that the she has multiple books on this topic and has spoken at Salem trial events. In Marilyn's entry in the Huffington Post, she mentioned a few of her sources for this article and the book itself.
The sources mentioned and their credibility:
- Richard Bernard's "Guide to Grand Jury Men...in Cases of Witchcraft" Published N/A (Between 1568 and 1642)
- John Gaule's "Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcrafts" Published in 1646
- William Perkins's "Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft" Published in 1618
- http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;cc=witch;rgn=main;view=text;idno=wit075 http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/21/101021973/
- John Demos's "Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England" Published in 2004
I was pleased to find most of these articles were accessible in online libraries and learned that three out of the four were published during the time of the trails. I like that the majority of the articles used were from that time period instead of using information from other modern day historians. Being Puritan clergymen, the three sources would have been considered to be credible for that time period, but that does not necessarily make them credible sources.
With the unrestricted web publishing through mass media, anyone could write about anything and post it online for the whole world to see. For example, I could write an online essay about the Salem witch trials with information I gathered from history scholars and my fellow "history buffs". Because I, nor my sources were involved directly with the trials, my post would not be credible. This goes along with the discussion board for this week. Like the type of source mentioned in Kovach and Reosenstiel's Blur: how to know what's true in the age of information overload, the "Participant" source is where the source did not take part in the situation directly, but researched to get more information from another indirect source. It doesn't matter what topic you research online, it is easy for the internet to mislead people in regards to credibility, that's why we must be careful when doing our research.
If you happened to read the article I picked, I'm sure you are a little curious if I would have been burned at the stake or not. Out of 9 of the accusations, I just have three so it looks like I would have (mostly) been in the clear. Well, except for the fact that I have three major factors: I'm female, I come from an English Puritan background, and I am very stubborn and could be contentious (if necessary) when it comes to human rights. I may not have been in the clear after all. It's quite interesting to think about -- would you have been accused? I'm curious!
I hope you all had a wonderful week and am having a great start to the upcoming week.
Cheers!
RJ
Weekly Recap:
It was been quite the week! I had my post-op check up on Monday and was sent back to the hospital for some unexpected blood work and testing. We found that I have an infection, since I was not put on antibiotics after surgery, but I'm a fighter. :) I had an interview at a local University to be a coordinator of their service scholars - I should find out about that this week. I am very hopefully about that since that is where I am aiming to take my career. My college Homecoming was yesterday and it was so wonderful to see so many friends I haven't seen since last year. Overall, it was a pretty good week. It was nice to get out of the house for after two weeks of bed rest. How was your week?
1 comments:
Very good post this week, RJ! I really enjoyed your take on this topic. You found an interesting an original article. I also liked that you tied in your post with the readings for this week. Well done!
You also bring up an interesting point regarding historical sources. We must always remember that history is told through a particular point of view, particularly in ages of conflict. If the victors write the historical accounts, they will most certainly write it from their point of view. That means that there might be a lot of information missing. It's always important to pay attention to this when looking at historical sources.
Post a Comment