by When I hear the term “historical thinking,” I immediately think of it in its simplicity. The concept of thinking historically doesn’t seem to be a new phenomenon in our society, but the reality is that there’s much more to it than meets the eye. Over the series of readings I have gone through, I was taken for a ride on just how wrong I was about historical thinking. The philosophy of thinking historically is way more complex than I previously thought. Here are just some of the concepts and questions I have accumulated throughout my readings on understanding historical thinking.
In Sam Wineburg’s article titled “Historical Thinking,” there was a quote that really stood out to me. It read, “historical thinking, in its deepest forms, is neither a natural process nor something that springs automatically from psychological development.” That quote was the first thing that stood out to me, as the article it discussed aspects of the Revolutionary War between the British and American forces. This quote resonated with me because I began to understand that attempts to reconstruct worldviews hold true only if people share similar mentalities that guide one’s view as a set of assumptions about how their behaviors overshadow their very own observations.
The second notable factor came from Sam Wineburg’s interview discussing what he believes is historical thinking. During the interview, Sam begins to compare understanding President Lincoln by understanding the range of opinions of people like him in his day. Wineburg concludes that by playing this idea, we as historians end up playing a game of historical hubris, concluding that we’re smarter and more moral, and better than anybody who came before us in any previous generation. From what I can take away from the interview, Wineburg displays the conflict where individual interpretation can clash with historical data and understanding of events. I find this to be relatively refreshing, considering my personal philosophy that history should always rely on two principles: the cultivation of reliable data and the ability to defend your beliefs and opinions using that data.
In conclusion, there are some questions that I still have given what I know about historical thinking. For one, how do we combine what we know with people’s understanding of the past? On top of that, if everyone can have an opinion to embrace ideas or logics, how does that affect the concept of thinking historically overall? Sam Wineburg states the whole goal of historical understanding is the same way that we understand intercultural and global understandings. However, does the cultivation of empathy for logics help us understand what we do not possess or share? Despite all these questions, I hope to have this question answered throughout my time as a historian.
