Learning Objectives
- Make sense of primary sources covering the same event from different perspectives and understandings (as related to the Stonewall Riots)
Interpreting History from Multiple Accounts
It is sometimes easy to distill our understanding of history to “an account of what happened long ago.” To discern this, it is important to look at the voices of those who took part in key events, when they are available to us. Oftentimes, these accounts will not agree on the sequence of events, the roles that certain individuals took, or the importance of the event at hand. Part of the historian’s craft involves unpacking these seeming contractions and differences, and using them to produce a more nuanced and complex understanding of an important historical event. In this hack, we’ll practice We will watch a short video on multiple perspectives on an event before looking at one key moment in this chapter: the 1969 Stonewall Inn riots.
Watch It
In this short video, historian Dr. Magdalena Gross explains why she wants students to understand history as a collection of accounts.
You can view the transcript for “Why should students consider history from multiple perspectives?” here (opens in new window).
Try It
Understanding Primary Sources
Primary sources are incredibly valuable to the study of history because they provide us access to first-hand accounts of events. In examining primary sources, we are forced to consider two essential facts—first, the record of historical events reflects the personal, social, political, or economic points of view of the participants. Second, we bring to the sources our own biases, created by our own personal situations and the social environments in which we live. As we grapple with primary sources, we realize that history exists through interpretation—and tentative interpretation at that.
Link to Learning
This Khan Academy video explains why it is challenging to piece together a complete picture of an event from multiple sources.
There are a number of reasons primary sources might seem to disagree or offer striking contrasts when relating the same historical event. Their physical or personal vantage point might be different. The author of a primary source might have a goal or agenda that relates to the event (this isn’t necessarily bad or insidious– we all have them! But it is good to be aware and open about them.) It is also at times possible that one or more eyewitness is lying, omitting, or severely distorting what he or she remembers.
Most of the time, seeming differences boil down to three factors, which we will explore today, using primary sources relating to events of the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are: perspective, emphasis, and significance.
- Perspective: Perspective can be physical– that is, where was this person when the event took place? Think, for example, of how different the Kennedy assassination might seem from the angle of a person in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, compared to a statesman in a car ahead of the president’s in the motorcade. But perspective can be more abstract– who is this person and what experiences and assumptions do they bring to the table? When is this person relating what he or she saw–is it soon after the event, or many years later?
- Emphasis: Even a person with an excellent memory cannot recount something with precise and unerring detail. It is natural to expect that the eyewitness will edit their memories, or try to turn a cacophony of recollections into something more compact. When this happens–what do they place a greater emphasis upon? What parts of the event do they stress or dwell on?
- Significance: What do these eyewitnesses believe is unprecedented, or impactful, or resonant about what happened? It’s important to know–the participants aren’t just relating what they remember– they are also actively interpreting its history as they do so.
The Stonewall Inn Riots
To understand how there can be some honest differences between primary sources, we will look at one key event that had many eyewitnesses give their account of what took place: the Stonewall Inn Riots in June of 1969. There are small differences in describing the course of events, but these surviving eyewitnesses also place emphasis on very different aspects of what happened that night.
Watch It: Account #1
First, watch this video from Miss Major, who talks about her experiences at the Stonewall Riots. Understand that this video and others on this page contain mature language expressing the raw feelings from people who experienced the Stonewall Riots firsthand. They use some profanity in speaking about their experiences.
Try It: Perspective
Watch It: Account #2
Next, we’ll consider the remembrances of Gil Horowitz. Watch this video to hear his account.
Try It: Emphasis
Watch It
Finally, let’s look at how Mark Segal remembers Stonewall. Segal was an eyewitness and also went on to become a key leader of the Gay Liberation Movement.
Try It: Significance
Try It: Review
Now that we have these three eyewitness accounts of the Stonewall riots, let’s consider their commonalities in the midst of their different understandings of how the event unfolded.
Activity
Now that you have considered these three different accounts, try to create a short 3-4 sentence narrative out of them, as our historian, Dr. Gross, suggested in the introductory video. (To help make sense of these different accounts, it may be helpful to consider this video that looks at how the mythology of the Stonewall Riot was shaped in the decades that followed.) In the practice space below, write down a summary of what happened at the Stonewall based on these accounts you heard. Who was there, and how did the rioting begin?
Link to Learning
If you’re interested in learning more about the events at Stonewall Inn and another influential LGTBQ+ activist from this time period, watch this CrashCourse Black American History video about Marsha P. Johnson.