As a historian, using sources would better help understand the past. Using mostly primary sources would better help understand the past as you were there or you get information from someone who was involved in the concept. Before we get into this, a primary source provides firs-handed accounts of an event or time period and are mostly considered very useful and best when explaining a period of time where something great happened. A secondary source describes a summary or discussed information originally presented by another source. That means that the words and what actually happened, could have been altered in a way to best fit the story or change the readers perspective. While using a primary source or secondary source, like a newspaper, it's somewhat difficult to tell which source it is, so you have to trust your gut. Now, as a historian, you would much rather use a primary source since it provides first-hand detail of what happened and what you'd want to share. Overall, it may be said that using a primary source when you're working with something with time, or an event, would be best; rather than a secondary source.
