Reflections on Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts- Wineburg

As I sat reading the article on the subway this Saturday, before our visit to the Sony Wonder Lab, the article posed a question to me that I am quite familiar with... why study history and furthermore what should we teach when exploring history? As the article clearly states, in today's educational world with more emphasis on math and science history and the other social sciences are being pushed aside. As a social studies educator I feel as if I, and my fellow social studies educators, are trying to convince people that our discipline still merits attention.
The article caused me to reflect as to why a student would want to study history. I think that this is a question when designing units one must take into account. It coincides with the question that I currently ask myself- what do I want my students to know and be able to do after this unit? To expand what do I want my students to understand. There have been lessons I have taught (keep in mind it is only the second year) that while I am teaching it I think to myself... so what. An example is when discussing early civilizations we often look at the contributions of each particular civilization. Many times when we talk about an achievement I ask.. so what. If I am asking that question I know that my students are. This causes me to dig deeper to look for current examples, connect themes, and find the major historical significance, but do my students take this extra step? I think that it should be my job to guide them in taking that extra step.
Another main thrust of this article deals with what history should we teach. Should we teach the text book version that gives overview of the subject or should we examine each event in depth, using aids such as primary sources. This dilemma faces all educators in today's world. I liken the question (since I was on a subway) to visiting a city. A text book is like seeing a city from the subway- you can cover a good amount of territory with little in-depth knowledge of any one particular neighborhood- but you still get a good "feel" for the city. Using primary sources is similar to staying your entire visit in one neighborhood. You become an expert on that one area, knowing all of the ins and outs, but do you know how it fits into the larger context of the city. It is the history (I don't mind being called a history teacher) teachers job to effectively use all teaching tools (textbooks, primary sources, technology, and charisma to hook and engage the student, just as a good visitor to a city, in order to understand the city better, would take the subway to see many different places, spend time in neighborhoods that interest them, and compile all of their experiences to tell someone what the city is like.

Comments/Questions Based on Reading:

• Historical understanding comes with relating present experience with themes that endure throughout history
• Each generation, society, or individual, must adapt history to meet their needs to live/learn by a set of ideals (comment in response to Weinberg's comments regarding the two sides of Locke)
• I see the author never fully answering his questions
• Article continues to pit Classical historians against Revisionist's. I look at the "do we tell kids the bad stuff about our forefathers" and questions like that as the nature vs. nurture debate. We don't just tell the history found in Lowen's "Lies my Teacher Told Me" book nor do we teach only from a state directed text. We teach students standards based ,inquiry driven history.
• To answer the authors main question: Why do we study history? We study history to learn what it means to be human