WWI Source D (1 Viewer)

[JoyDivision]

Did Anyone notice that the source from the woman came from a publication called the 'Labour Leader'? I just took a guess, but I thought this was probably a left wing publication, thus the source succintly represented the attitudes of British minority groups toward the war. I thought it probably wasnt that useful to the historian studying peace-making because these groups wouldnt have had much influence on the actual process at the time of the publication, which was like 1919. Like it evidenced attitudes and perspectives upon the war, but it wasnt very factual when concerned with how peace was made in WWI.


What are everyone else's thoughts on Source D?

 

[joujou_84]

Did Anyone notice that the source from the woman came from a publication called the 'Labour Leader'? I just took a guess, but I thought this was probably a left wing publication, thus the source succintly represented the attitudes of British minority groups toward the war. I thought it probably wasnt that useful to the historian studying peace-making because these groups wouldnt have had much influence on the actual process at the time of the publication, which was like 1919. Like it evidenced attitudes and perspectives upon the war, but it wasnt very factual when concerned with how peace was made in WWI.


What are everyone else's thoughts on Source D?

i said it was a bias source as it was only the view of one women and it was not a useful source unless the historian was looking for personal views of women. didnt make the connection between the labour thing though although i gotta admit i was panicking at the end trying to finish and stuff............i also wanted to say somewhere that her opinion is not really worth considering since she seems to be a man-hater however couldnt find a sophisticated way of saying that

 

[konggo]

same i said only showed womans veiw but also symbolised...pacificst movement in britain

 

[LozziPozzi]

Yeh, i said that although it referred to peacemaking, it was primarily focused on woman suffrage and therefore wasnt as useful

 

[gemita]

Hmm..well every sources is useful for something. I emphasised that while it was only one woman's view, and thus not useful for studying the peace process in general, it provided a reliable and useful for source for demonstrating:

-the views of one (albeit minority) group
-the differing needs of men and women during the process, having had very different expeiences of war
-The pressure from the public that the individuals involved in peacemaking had to contend with
-The fact that it was published in 1915 was useful in studying the build up to peace, which had been called for by some groups as early as 1915.

I did find it a bit of a shock though....didn't know what to make of it first, since it didn't seem as relevant as the others.

 

[sped_kid01]

yeah i said it was bias too...however its still successful for an histrorian studying peacemaking in some ways (ie. a personal view, left wing view, feminist view?)...all that shit about the people needing women (im a girl btw) was rather bias and un necessary...the whole thing was sarcastic...and yeah pretty left wing, as labour was at that time....the chick seemed semi-educated who wrote it...but i wouldnt credit it as a 'valuable' source....

 

[The Nick]

It had a feminist/socialist perspective, notable because it preceded the major advances in feminism in Britain (that came a year or so later)

Useful as it shows how some interest groups felt

 

[lucyinthehole]

yeah, i noticed the name and commented that it was a possibly socialist newspaper, and thus wasn't completely reliable, as "letters to the editor" can be faked by the paper to create the idea that "the people" want something. but i only noticed that in the end, so it wasn't like my whole analysis was all paranoid