Why shouldn't we use non-historical resources to study history?

Non-historical resources lack accuracy and reliability for studying history. Primary sources, such as diaries and official documents, provide more credible and valuable information. Using non-historical resources can lead to misconceptions and an incomplete understanding of the past.

Explanation:

Why shouldn’t we use non-historical resources to study history?

Non-historical resources should be avoided when studying history because they may lack accuracy, reliability, and a proper understanding of the historical context. Primary sources, such as diaries, letters, and official documents, provide firsthand information about the past and are considered more credible and valuable for historical research. Secondary sources, written by historians and scholars, analyze and interpret these primary sources, offering well-researched perspectives on historical events.

For example, a historical textbook written by a renowned historian would be a reliable source for studying history. On the other hand, a fictional novel set in a historical period may provide an engaging story but may not accurately depict the actual events and details of that period.

Using non-historical resources in the study of history can lead to misconceptions, misinformation, and an incomplete understanding of past events and their significance.

Learn more about The importance of using historical resources in studying history here:

https://brainly.com/question/13165153