Why I picked it up: Is history a list of facts and dates to be memorized? Of course not. If it were then, sure, we could leave history to our phones and simply look up what we need to know, when we need to know it.

But we all know history is much more complicated than that. It is also being politicized, which increases its capacity to harm if most people don't have the historical literacy to understand how bias works, what facts and truth really are (and how they differ), how to evaluate evidence, and who to trust. I am working on a project that assesses public attitudes around history and how it relates to inclusion and social justice, and this book caught my attention as a plea for historical literacy to increase for society's sake.

What you need to know: The book is largely a criticism of how history is taught and shared in this country. History as taught tends to be focused on facts, and stripped of its "intrinsically human character" … a method that discourages critical thinking about the past AND that leads many students to become disengaged with history as adults (as my research also clearly shows).

The teaching of facts means that students look at history as only facts, black-and-white, not changeable (hence charges of "revisionist history" when we change our interpretation of the past), and that today they don't know how to evaluate the source of information for credibility. We all know what that means in our fake news saturated world.

Wineburg makes two comments that stood out as important as we as a society wrestle with the past and how it affects today:
​

1. "Too often, whether we like someone's politics determines whether we like their history." My evidence-based response from my research? No kidding.
2. With the right efforts, "students' muscle for ambiguity grew stronger." I'd like to bottle that ability and then put it in the water supply because so much of my research shows how uncomfortable most people are with an ambiguous past. That discomfort leads to doctrinal, black-and-white approaches to history that draws absolute lines in the sand. This makes our work so much harder … especially when we try to be inclusive in our interpretations of the past.

There was one conclusion that did not sit well with me, however. Chapter 8 suggests that good work has been done in opening a more inclusive past to Americans. Specifically, he shared data that showed that MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman are now considered the most influential Americans (that were not Presidents or First Ladies).

While I agree that those individuals deserve that acclaim (their stories are courageous and inspiring), I also felt that their appearance so high on the list isn't necessarily a deserved pat on the back for history. This outcome does not mean that a truly inclusive history is being taught. That is, by teaching about the things that Harriet Tubman achieved, we skip over the horrors of slavery and its long-term repercussions. By extolling MLK and Rosa Parks, we can push to the side where the Civil Rights Act has failed. We can teach, then, "feel-good" history.

Or, as one of the qualitative panelists from my Inclusive History in America research noted, "I feel like the Civil Rights movement is taught about because it is the more convenient narrative of history to be taught. It is a way to teach about slavery and racism with the least amount of white guilt as possible."

We can't just teach the inspiring stories and what seems like happy endings, and then check off the inclusive work as "done." Inclusive history needs to become mainstream history. That hasn't happened. So while Wineberg doesn't say straight out that work for inclusion is successful/done, neither does he make the case that we haven't done enough … and why this matters.

Implications for museums: As the most trusted source for history, how we deal with history in this age of alternative facts really matters. My research shows how aware many of those on the left are that the traditional historical narrative deliberately leaves out whole swathes of the population … while those on the right see that traditional narrative as one that supports values and ideals that are important to them. How do museums deal with this tension? How do museums convey that history is messy, interesting, nuanced, ambiguous, inspiring, and challenging, and thus our understanding of history is ever-changing? It's hard. The past as taught teaches certainty, and when we share a more inclusive history, that certainty is erased, making many feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them (or worse). As that most trusted source of history, we need to figure out how to deal with this … and use it as an opportunity to truly share evidence-backed knowledge that works to open minds to other perspectives, understanding, tolerance, and the complexities of our past, present, and future.

Bonus: Quotes Stacia Kuceyeski of the Ohio History Connection on page 49!

Read or skip? A maybe. I think about history a lot, and I found this a highly thought-provoking read not only of how we teach history, but also extrapolating it to today's civil and historical discourse (or lack thereof). But while I think Wineberg is (mostly) right about his criticisms, I also thought the book would have been stronger if it included a more nuanced understanding of how most American adults actually approach history … and why this matters if we are going to raise new generations of historically literate and tolerant Americans. Bottom line, if my review piques your interest, go for it. It's a good read. 

Full citation:  Wineburg, Sam. Why Learn History (When It's Already on Your Phone). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018

Wilkening Consulting research quote: the Inclusive History in America research will be released late summer 2019; a full citation will be provided at that time.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: As I continue to analyze research I fielded around American attitudes towards inclusive history, anything that feeds into that analysis will inevitably catch my eye. The stat that nearly half of whites think a majority nonwhite population will weaken American culture certainly did that, and as places of American culture, museums need to pay attention to these attitudes.

What you need to know: Pew asked Americans to consider what they thought America would be like in 30 years, and found widespread pessimism, with respondents believing that the US will decline in worldwide importance while our American society becomes increasingly unequal and increasingly polarized. While this pessimism could reflect current dissatisfaction with the current state of the country (nearly 3/4 are dissatisfied with that), it also highlights very real challenges that we are grappling with.
​
The report focused on perceived challenges in four areas (perceived because they were asking what Americans thought about the future):

• Weaker economy
• Growing income divide
• Degraded environment
• Broken political system

​My focus, however, was on American culture, and here things were, well, interesting. While only 23% of respondents said that a shift to a majority nonwhite population (estimated in 2050) would be "bad," whites were about twice as likely to say so than people of color. Additionally, whites were about twice as likely to feel that this shift would weaken American culture. 

Yet interestingly, minorities are more optimistic about the country's future than whites. I wonder what drives this, and speculate it may be because whites may be more likely to see a majority minority future as a challenge, whereas minorities may see it as an opportunity.

While race, age, and education affected how people responded, the bigger gap in the survey was between Republicans and Democrats … a gap that I see in my research as well. People's political attitudes reflect their social attitudes in highly pervasive ways, and Republicans and Democrats agree on very little in this research. Bridging that gap (whether in politics or in attitudes towards inclusive history, DEAI, science and the environment, or anything else), will be a challenge that affects all of us … including museums.

Implications for museums: One of the things I have been thinking about in my work is how we bridge the gaps in our polarized society, and how much political persuasion correlates with what side someone takes on an issue. This report underscored those gaps today and projects them into the future in ways that are clearly troubling. Yet I keep coming back to a question: what are the shared values we still have? Then, how can we use those shared values to allow real conversations about our pasts, our environment, our communities, our different backgrounds, and our country today? And what should be the role of museums in sparking curiosity about others, gaining knowledge, and developing empathy, understanding, and tolerance? Because someone has to … and that work may be the work of museums as one of the few places that are trusted and considered safe for just that kind of exploration.

Read or skip? The big takeaway is it underscores how divided our country really is, and in ways that affect museums. Internalize that, and you can probably skip in favor of research more specific to how it affects museums. But if you want to get really depressed, go read it. It doesn't paint a particularly optimistic portrait of the future or for an America that is willing to come together to tackle problems.

Full citation:  "Looking to the Future, Public Sees an America in Decline on Many Fronts." Pew Research Center. March 2019
​
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.