The main thesis proposed by Wineburg (1999) is that it is necessary to transform historical thinking in such a way that it allows people to study others, remote cultures, ages, situations. His argument is that currently, history is taught based on the notion of disconnectedness and disunity, which is a de-humanizing experience. In particular, the author emphasizes that history offers lessons on how to be human through knowledge of others, something that has received little attention in modern society. To give another strong argument he claims “study of history is so crucial to our present day and age, when issues of diversity dominate the national agenda” (Wineburg, 1999, p. 498). The author uses historical facts and examples from his own life as evidence, when people radically changed their understanding of previously unknown events after familiarizing themselves with their history. From a historiographical perspective, Wineburg (1999) cites statements and ideas from historians and thinkers that support the arguments presented. Thus, he builds a compelling discussion of how modern historical education ignores the most important humanizing purpose by refusing to consider points contrary to established notion.
The argument described is also complemented by other historians’ writings and opinions. For example, Spence (1998) underlines that history tends to look at individual characters and use them as evidence to understand the overall context. As Wineburg (1999), Spence (1998) believes that only knowledge of the stories of others can enable historians to create an accurate account of historical events based on facts. At the same time, Spence (1998) notes that the historian is constantly searching the past for links to the current time and place. This argument does the best possible job of supporting the Wineburg (1999) discussion as it answers the question of why modern historical thinking may result in disconnectedness. Iggers et al. (2008) in their examination of various historiographical traditions also provide explanations for the roots of the problem described by Wineburg (1999). They claim that existential study may have “the potentially subversive power” (Iggers et al., 2008, p. 57). Additionally, this fact was recognized by many rulers and historians at all times, which led to the creation of various historiographic traditions with their own rules and focuses of research.
The main strength of the source is the detail with which the author describes the existing problem. Wineburg (1999) not only articulates it, but presents the consequences that modern historical thinking has on individuals and entire nations. He emphasizes that the process of selective consideration of the facts leads to contemporary problems of discrimination. Additionally, it is a strength that the author gives examples from the past that show the continuity of the existing process. In this way, the reader can be convinced that the problem is not unique, which is also supported by the description of the historiographic traditions proposed by Iggers et al. (2008). Finally, Wineburg (1999) provides many and varied examples from both historical writings and personal experience, making the arguments more compelling. One of the shortcomings that can be identified in relation to this article is the limited focus on the roots and causes of the existing problem. Wineburg (1999) did not elaborate on the potential reasons for the development of modern historical thinking. Additionally, the author does not focus on how to solve this problem, which can also be a disadvantage.
References
Iggers, G. G., Wang, Q. E., & Mukherjee, S. (2008). A global history of modern historiography (1st ed.). Pearson Education.
Spence, J. D. (1998). Margaret Atwood and the edges of history.The American Historical Review, 103(5), 1522-1525. Web.
Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts.The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 488-499. Web.