Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts

Sam Wineburg's compelling article attempts to answer the question: Why study History at all? The topic is introduced amid the backdrop of the national debate over which history is taught in American Schools. Ultimatley Wineburg warns of "..the seduction of coming to know people in the past by relying on the dimensions of our "lived experience".

I teach Global History II without issuing a textbook, not even a class set. Wineburg's emphasis on using source documents as the focal point of historical inquiry resonated with me. I try to use them frequently in my lessons. The NYS Regents Examination has an essay assignment based on interpreting source documents, so it is a skill my students need to master.

The initial discussion of which history is taught reminds me that history is written by the victorious not the victims. I remember how annoyed I was when reading parts of William J. Bennett's America: the Last Best Hope. The former Secretary of Education pardoned the anti-Native American policies of our country's past as allowable in the context of the times. This sweeping pardon so early in the book made me skepical for the rest of the book. While throwing barbs at the debate over emerging national standards Wineburg's article is not an indictment of the 'history curriculum by committee' trend, but rather a thought-provoking summary of the results of some history workshops he has conducted.

Wineburg summarizes some of the interpretation struggles and errors of three different subject groups dealing with three different sets of historical documents. He posits that the study of history can be more valuable when it challenges us to gain new understanding by not projecting ourselves into the lives of the people of the past, but rather questioning our own perceptions of this reality and imagining the past.