If you read you will know much more stuff than people that hardly read. They can do most stuff they want to do. They know more stuff about the world and more word meanings. They can be kinder and more useful. They enjoy the world and the nature the way it is.
I agree that people should read primary sources and then may be follow up with textbooks if necessary. Textbooks require time to be updated which is sometimes longer then it should be or information may change the day after the text is released. I believe that primary sources are more recent and should be utilized more.
Thanks to the Internet we can often access the primary source of information. When this is possible it is always better than reading a textbook. Ideally a person would want access to both since the primary source may contain reading not comprehensible to someone outside of a specific field. Both sources are useful, but one is better.
Ideally people should read both primary sources and text books, but primary sources provide a better source of information. Textbooks are often interpreting texts the way that they feel is appropriate, while in a primary source you get the original text. Primary sources are also more insightful and on occasion can be more entertaining than a text book.
People should read primary sources. If they are available then people should read primary sources when it comes to trying to gain knowledge about a particular subject. The Internet is also a great way to find a lot of information about something. I think textbooks just touch on the subject but not too detailed.
Yes, primary sources are extremely important sources of historical information. Textbooks and other general research can provide a basic understanding, but they draw on primary sources. With the proper context, primary sources are more important and useful to read than textbooks. Additionally, textbooks are often restricted by current political concerns, and may leave out information that doesn't fit the views of modern textbook authors and commissions.