The notion that one can argue history "versus" social studies requires that one commit to a troublesome dichotomy resulting in a partitioning of the two subjects into separate entities. As practiced in the schools, the courses consistently overlap. In fact, the commonalities are so extensive that often the terms social studies and history are used interchangeably or in tandem. Instead of "versus" one might want to consider what could be thought of as a disagreement between vested interests seeking to impose epistemological and ontological stances onto a mostly indistinct social studies subject. The author asserts two reasons why the debate on social studies and history is limited and suggests a new way to consider the purposes and the polemics of these two subjects.