ia_2011_c_williams

=Evaluation of Sources (250-400 words) Tips]=

__Source One: Stonewall The Riots That Sparked The Gay Revoloution.- David Carter.__
My research has failed to discover much detail about David Carter. There is no evidence of his historical persuasion online, nor in the book does he state his historical stance. As we do not know what type of historian that he is, this makes it more difficult to jude what he is saying within his book, as we do not know what angle he is approaching it from. David Carter claims to have searched archives, conducted interviews and spend a decade studying this topic. We can question how valuable this information is. Regardless of how long he has studied the topic, relying on interviews is difficult because it counts upon peoples memory being perfectly clear. However, in the authors note Carter mentions rearranging conflicting accounts into a logical sense. This may be good as an overview technique of the topic, yet, if he is mistaken in his recall of the events, he is reporting history incorrectly.

The purpose of David Carters book is to provide a rounded history of Stonewall. It is undeniable that he doesn’t present homosexuals in a heroic light, through out the book there is very little evidence of the community being shown in a negative light, despite the extreme ;levels of violence, therefore we have to question how valuable the source is to us, although it would lead us to the same out com;, the sexual revolution, it is avoiding key facts from the alternate point of view. Although, there is an interview from Inspector Pines memory within the book. As a source I deem this valuable, considering the extensive research gone into creating the book, there is also several editions of the book, as it was first published in 2004, and the reference list in the back is extremely extensive.

__Source Two: A Witness account of Stonewall BBC Podcast.__
The BBC Witness: Stonewall podcast is an interview conducted with William Henderson and Edmund White. Henderson talks in reasonable depth about his first hand interpretation of the events. He is occasionaly interupted by the reporter to add some context, however, it is interesting that he varys between "they" and "i" and i get the impression sometimes that he is talking from heinsight. We can rely on the BBC to provide a factual report, however we cannot rely on the speaker to provide a 100% correct account of the situation, as it was over 30 years prior to the interviews.