Recently, during an argument on the Spanish Civil War here on Reddit, a user suggested the other to forgo “biased historians” (his words) and go directly to the primary sources. He then suggested obviously Homage to Catalonia, but also works by Abel Paz, Martínez Bande, Francisco Olaya Morales and others.
This makes sense to me, go to the people that were actually there and get a picture directly from them. But thinking about it more, I realize it is also possible for primary sources to be biased or to have an incomplete view or inaccurate information.
So I ask. As historians, what would you recommend a layman wanting to learn about an event? Go to the primary sources, go to the secondary sources, or somewhere in the middle? Not talking just about the Spanish Civil War here, but in general.
Both can be relevant to a historian or interested reader.
Primary sources are valuable because they often come from direct experience of an event. However, they can be limited in their scope. The fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is a good example, since each "Primary Source" reports, quite faithfully, that the elephant is like a snake or a tree or a wall, yet because a comprehensive picture hasn't been assembled yet, they are individually not as correct as a well-researched and vetted secondary source would be. Additionally, they can suffer from the bias of the source creator just as much as a secondary source can. Perhaps General Smith was passed over for promotion in favor of General Jones. Later, he became a scholar or historian, and while most of his work was accurate, his primary-source account of the battles he fought in show how General Smith was the true hero, dismissing or downplaying the contributions of his rival.
They also may be unintentionally flawed due to further investigation or the development of additional information. Think of any major crime where the initial suspect was freed after the true culprit was caught. You could find a contemporary primary source, accurate for the time it was written, stating the reasons why Suspect A (or even Convicted Criminal A) was considered the perpetrator, and even a good-faith primary source written at the time will be considered incorrect based on further investigation. In the scope of world history, involvement of certain powers, people, or organizations might not be known at the time that otherwise-accurate primary sources were created. A well-rounded historical account will draw on both types.
Some good sources on historiography and historical methods can be found below.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21914. The Teaching History is a good forum for this kind of information.
Brundage, Anothony. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing John Wiley &Sons; 5th edition (January 11, 2013)
EDITED: References were not formatted correctly.