An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Did Zinn Refuse to Be Confused by the Facts?
Here.
10 Responses to “Did Zinn Refuse to Be Confused by the Facts?”
I suppose now that Howard Zinn is no longer with us, he is fair game for speculators who aren't happy with his views of history. I read the article and don't see anything compelling enough to make me change my opinion of the man.
This post–with its smear question of a title and its single word of text–is mean-spirited and one-sided.
I'm not terribly eager to defend the author being attacked, who died only two weeks ago. Zinn's book, however explosive it might have been thirty years ago, is actually kind of tedious in its victim-mongering.
But it is–yes–a fact that Zinn was an advocate for his point of view. You can read his own quotes in the obituary from the New York Times:
This post is so goofy that it's hard for me to take the author's previous and similarly structured post about China seriously.
I'm impressed by the ability of the previous two commenters to type while holding their hands over their eyes and their fingers in their ears.
Aww did he shatter your myths or do you just prefer the victors version of history to the exclusion of all else?
Read the article linked by the OP. Then try reading some actual history by people who do archival research. Then feel free to continue to marinate in your own delusions.
Funny thing, I had obsessively read history books before learning of Zinn's existence in my early twenties. I know my history, I also know that the field historically has been filled with those that could “afford” such a career since historians make so little, in other words it was filled with those that lived off the money their predecessors had earned. Which is why we get to hear of heroic deeds of the few when in reality many more were involved and the picture was a good deal less black and white as Zinn or those that oppose him would like us to think. Reality lives in the middle but I don't think you really care about reality, you care about smearing a dead man and any who dared to take any pleasure from his work most likely because it shatters our cultural myths which are myths none the less. The kings history oddly just makes the king look nice and pretty but the history of other kings paints yours as a fool. Intelligent people know how to discern what is truth and what is bias if given access to as much information as possible. Children just try to make sure you just read theirs.
George:
I have no opinion about Howard Zinn. I just thought it was interesting to read the take of a professional historian. Plus, if you'll notice, at the bottom of the HNN post to which I linked, there were links to other articles of varying views on Zinn's work.
No opinion?
This post–with its smear question of a title and its single word of text–is still mean-spirited and one-sided.
Isn't it?
I understand now. You're one of those “intelligent people [who] know how to discern what is truth,” while I “don't care about reality,” but only want to smear a dead man. Your characterization of those who disagree with you as “children,” though, isn't a smear, it's just a self-evident truth to someone as smart as you.
Mark Daniels linked to evidence that Zinn chose in one or more instances to ignore hard historical evidence that challenged his preferred narrative. Your defense of Zinn serves merely to reinforce the critique of him.
Actually you are pretty wide of the mark. I am one of those people that defends the work of people like Pat Buchanan or yes Zinn that though proved wrong on a single issue late in his life still does not invalidate the rest of his work though it seems you desire that to be the case. The reason that is a problem is that history changes with new information for instance the Gulf of Tonkin incident was thought to have been an attack from the NVA but due to recent tape releases we now know it was a staged false flag attack to pull us deeper into war with the publics approval, so are all historians that got that wrong to be ignored? How about all of the people that refuse to believe it? Funny thing about old people, they tend to not be swayed by stubborn things like facts its a well known problem but if we use that to totally invalidate their work most of our history and science would be living in the era of the middle ages since we would have to ignore men like Newton. And yes those that wish to invalidate a lifetimes work on single issues I find childish much like my friends on the right find it childish when far lefties invalidate everything our founding fathers did and said because they owned or supported slavery and I agree with them, it is childish.