Howard Zinn Died

[Cavemonster]

What does this have to do with what Zinn said about "B-52 pilots" and their refusal to fly ending the Vietnam War? I have already stated that Zinn's comment had zero to do with Cambodia. Had he said the Cambodian bombings could no longer continue when three (3) B-52 pilots refused to fly, he might have had a leg to stand on. But of course this statement would also be absurd as the bombings continued for another three months after these guys made their move.

History has real things like names, places and dates. Zinn has a habit of gilding the lily when trying to make his opinions appear to be grounded in historical truth. But if he is certain of the rectitude of his position, why does he feel compelled to make up ******

BTW: Still waiting for you to finesse Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid in Europe.

I'm still waiting for your proof that less than two B-52 Pilots refused to fly.
The burden is on you to show the lie, a burden you have not even attempted.

 

[Cicero]

I'm still waiting for your proof that less than two B-52 Pilots refused to fly.
The burden is on you to show the lie, a burden you have not even attempted.

So no defense of Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid In Europe during WWII will be forthcoming? OK.

Zinn is the one who made the assertion that B-52 pilots, obviously many more than one, refusal to fly their missions ended the Vietnam War. The only name in historical documents that can be cited is Captain Michael Heck. If these other mysterious BUFF pilots who refused to fly missions made it impossible for the war to continue are still anonymous to this day, what information was Zinn using to substantiate his claim? You are confused on whom the burden of proof is on. Had I made the assertion that Zinn did, you bet JREF folks would require me to pony up the names.

 

[Cavemonster]

So no defense of Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid In Europe during WWII will be forthcoming? OK.

Zinn is the one who made the assertion that B-52 pilots, obviously many more than one, refusal to fly their missions ended the Vietnam War. The only name in historical documents that can be cited is Captain Michael Heck. If these other mysterious BUFF pilots who refused to fly missions made it impossible for the war to continue are still anonymous to this day, what information was Zinn using to substantiate his claim? You are confused on whom the burden of proof is on. Had I made the assertion that Zinn did, you bet JREF folks would require me to pony up the names.

No, you're making a very essential mistake.

If Zinn were here making this statement, then yes, the burden would be on him to prove the truth of it. He's not here though, and not able to participate. You well know that all the historical sources that exist are not available within a quick google search, you couldn't even find direct quotes from Zinn's very popular books. Yet the only evidence you have that his statement is a lie, is that confirmation is not easily at hand over the internet. You're working from the assumption that he's lying until his claim has been proven when it's not an extraordinary claim, or even an unlikely one.

I'll show you how absurd your approach is. Here is the autobiography of Ben Franklin. Here

he makes several dozen historical assertions per page that no internet search will provide strong evidence for. Can we then jump to the conclusion that these assertions are lies? Multiply for every dead historical figure who has ever been interviewed or written anything. By your standard of evidence, they were all liars.

In fact, if I extend the same standard to you. You made the statement that Zinn was a liar, and that only one B-52 pilot refused to fly during the war. Since you have failed to prove that to be so, and you even have the advantage over Zinn of being alive, and being here, I can only conclude based on the standard you've set, that you are a liar. It is an unavoidable conclusion if your standards hold.

Further, it is a much more bold statement than any of those you've challenged Zinn on, calling a well respected historian a liar and a fraud is s bigger claim, and more central to your thesis than Zinn saying B-52 pilots refused to fly. It's also far easier to see such a claim as being influenced by your politics. You do have the advantage of not being a public figure, but besides that every claim you made about Zinn is equally, if not more true of your own statements.

I like to debate people who passionately disagree with me, but liars (which by your own logic you must be) don't make very interesting debate partners, sad . Maybe there's another critic on Zinn's willing to approach the issue more honestly.

 

[Praktik]

Actually, that is not what the issue is at all

Actually, it is. He listed it among other items to demonstrate the morale problems that made the vietnamese victory inevitable. If the contest was between will, resolve and unity, the Vietnamese kept it up longer and better.

Note: he listed the bomber pilots as one thing of several, which in combination pointed to the larger morale imbalance that turned the tide.

You are intentionally construing his argument in the silliest way possible.

You're smarter than that, and don't need to use such tricks to make an argument.

 

[Praktik]

Since when do you have to "know" a famous "historian" to characterize their own statements as lies, or to put it diplomatically, untruths, when by being scholars in their own discipline, they would have to know, unless they were just posers, what they were saying was not factual?

I don't remember this hair-splitting when libs were emphatic that Bush deliberately "lied" about Iraq having WOMD's. Bush's excuse was that his intel and UK intel said they were there. What's Zinn's excuse for claiming he was in on the first napalm raid in Europe even decades after WWII when he could easily check to find that his raid was 10 months after the first napalm raid by the Allies in Europe during WWII?

I'm not sure why I have to answer for anyone but myself. Its the same game all over again: construe your opponent's position in an absurd way so you can "win".

I've already explained that the meaning of that sentence is entirely different than the premise you work from. I don't know that he was completely wrong, but if there 4-7 pilots who didn't fly, or heck, even the one - it takes nothing away from his larger point, the B-52's thing being a minor facet of the argument.

Am I mistaken, or isn't it from an interview to boot?

If it came out in a list and turned out to be slightly exaggerated off the cuff, why attribute this to malice intent and deliberate lying, if not to characterize Zinn in the most tawdry way possible?

Alright I'm gonna clean up, too much time in the gutter with you today.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You really need to expand you repertoire. Repeating your "libruls" mantra only reinforces your incapability to offer any substantive dialogue. But you already admitted you have no clue who Zinn was so why would you continue to embarrass yourself?

Point to where I said that. You won't be able to, of course, which means that you have just publicly humiliated yourself, yet again. And I didn't even have to do it to you this time.

 

[grunion]

Good short clip defining the role Zinn saw for himself in American historiography, and a bit about his inspiration.

 

[grunion]

...and a bit about the inspiration for his final project, The People Speak.

 

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

The Howard Zinn defenders remind me of the David Irving defenders -- not in their morality, but in the irrelevance of their defense. The essence of the defense is that the subject's politics are correct, that his heart is in the right place, and that he is fighting for presenting a different, heretical point of view against an evil conspriacy to hide the truth, thus he should be supported. But the point of the criticism of both Zinn's and Irving's histories has nothing to do with their politics. It is that both of them are lousy historians -- their books are full of inaccuracies and distortions, and you cannot read a single page in them and trust what is said there to be close to the truth.

Politics might have motivated the lousyness of their work, but then again, so could back pain and their desire to finish the damn book already and not have to sit next to the keyboard any more. It would make as much sense to praise their lousy, inaccurate books for being a monument to the ability of man to withstand back pain as it is to praise them for their political slant.

It is clear that those who defend Zinn or Irving for fighting the "establishment" by presenting an "alternative view" know nothing about what historians do. Historians have been reexamining the Third Reich or American history, revaluating it, correcting inaccurate myths, for decades; this is their job. Both Zinn's and Irving's "political martyr" schtick is just an attempt to cover their deliberately biased, inaccurate, lousy history.

The praise for Zinn and Irving is, in effect, that they are great historians because they are politically commited activists. It's like rich people wishing to be respected because they are smart. Who says being rich doesn't deserve respect in itself? As for their intelligence, we'll see about that after they are no longer rich. Same here: who said being a politically motivated activist isn't a reason to consider someone great? But as for their status as historians, let us consider that after we set aside the "I am a political fighter for the cause" shtick -- and the result is, not only are they not great historians, they're clearly lousy ones.

 

[Praktik]

And here we have more debasement, and a list of ways Howard Zinn and his supporters are like holocaust deniers.

I just don't know why someone can't be mistaken, or put even more simply, have a radically different worldview that results in disagreement.

Instead: Skeptic and Cicero engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to ensure that Zinn is put in the cheapest, most degrading light possible. He's a liar. He hates America. In some ways, he and his supporters remind one of David Irving.

This is the sign of emotion and the wide gulf between Zinn's politics and theirs, and not reasoned logic. It is not enough that he is wrong, his character must also be impugned.

 

[Cicero]

And here we have more debasement, and a list of ways Howard Zinn and his supporters are like holocaust deniers.

I just don't know why someone can't be mistaken, or put even more simply, have a radically different worldview that results in disagreement.

Instead: Skeptic and Cicero engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to ensure that Zinn is put in the cheapest, most degrading light possible. He's a liar. He hates America. In some ways, he and his supporters remind one of David Irving.

This is the sign of emotion and the wide gulf between Zinn's politics and theirs, and not reasoned logic. It is not enough that he is wrong, his character must also be impugned.

When a celebrated "historian" makes up history it is self-impugning. Let's see how one of Zinn's peers explains how Zinn's "radically different worldview" effects his work as an historian.

"He [Zinn] has been active on the left since his youth in the 1930s. During the 1960s, he fought for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam and wrote fine books that sprang directly from those experiences. But to make sense of a nation's entire history, an author has to explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own and that, as an engaged citizen, he does not favor. Zinn has no taste for such disagreeable tasks."

Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University

 

[Praktik]

Ok, so?

How does that support your argument that he is a liar? Or Skeptic's that he belongs in the ranks of holocaust deniers? That he is bent on deception?

If anything that quote argues to self-deception, a kind of ideological tunnel vision. If that's the case than there is no wilful deception, just a narrower band of politics that informs his worldview.

And that's why I find him valuable. I like to take a variety of views, and if I want to see an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective on things why wouldn't I go to Zinn to add that to the mix?

Anyway, it's ironic that in the quote you provide there's a sentence there that applies just as well to you and Skeptic: "an author has to explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own and that, as an engaged citizen, he does not favour."

You and Skeptic have no essential mandate to do the same, but it is clear that you are not engaging with the "weight and meaning" of worldviews that are not your own and that "you do not favour." Instead its a race to the bottom in an attempt to discredit and caricaturize the worldview of Zinn in the cheapest possible way.

May I suggest you re-read Kazin's quote, and consider applying that strategy to your own life.

 

[Cicero]

Ok, so?

How does that support your argument that he is a liar? Or Skeptic's that he belongs in the ranks of holocaust deniers? That he is bent on deception?

If anything that quote argues to self-deception, a kind of ideological tunnel vision. If that's the case than there is no wilful deception, just a narrower band of politics that informs his worldview.

And that's why I find him valuable. I like to take a variety of views, and if I want to see an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective on things why wouldn't I go to Zinn to add that to the mix?

Anyway, it's ironic that in the quote you provide there's a sentence there that applies just as well to you and Skeptic: "an author has to explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own and that, as an engaged citizen, he does not favour."

You and Skeptic have no essential mandate to do the same, but it is clear that you are not engaging with the "weight and meaning" of worldviews that are not your own and that "you do not favour." Instead its a race to the bottom in an attempt to discredit and caricaturize the worldview of Zinn in the cheapest possible way.

May I suggest you re-read Kazin's quote, and consider applying that strategy to your own life.

There are plenty of liberal pundits espousing the "anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective." That you seek out Zinn and laud him for this perspective is quaint. However, if you rely on Zinn for historical accuracy along with your expected "anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective" then you would be laboring under a misapprehension. Who is your go to source for just plain historical truth?

You and Cavemonster's rustiness in fielding challenges to Zinn's work means you are both unaccustomed to defending your hero, which explains why when confronted with examples of Zinn's poor scholarship, Cavemonster picks up his marbles and retreats, and you want to deflect Kazin's criticism of Zinn's as a rebuke of my criticisms of Zinn.

Can you apply this Kazin rebuke of Zinn's methods to me as well?

"Howard Zinn is an evangelist of little imagination for whom history is one long chain of stark moral dualities. His fatalistic vision can only keep the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life."

 

[Skeptic]

And here we have more debasement, and a list of ways Howard Zinn and his supporters are like holocaust deniers.

Except that that's not what I said. I said: "The Howard Zinn defenders remind me of the David Irving defenders -- not in their morality, but in the irrelevance of their defense."

I explicitly said that Zinn's defenders are not the same as Irving's defenders morally, but that they make the same logical mistake, to wit, defending a man's lousy historical pseudo-scholarship because they like his politics.

I just don't know why someone can't be mistaken, or put even more simply, have a radically different worldview that results in disagreement.

Of course it's possible. Many historians have done just that.

But in both Zinn's and Irving's case, this is not what is going on. As the criticism of Zinn's and Irving's work have shown, they do not simply disagree on the meaning of the evidence, or present a neglect facet of the evidence, or interpret the evidence differently than others. Instead, they constantly and crudely manipulate, suppress, and misinterpret the evidence to make it fit with their preconceived political view.

It's one thing to have a worldview, or write a history book that attempts to support that worldview. It's quite another thing to suppress and distort the historical facts, or to simply buy into well-known falsehoods, to fit with one's worldview. The former is history (although perhaps lousy history). The latter is pseudo-history and propaganda.

The lines between good history, bad history, and pseudo-history might be blurry, but both Zinn and Irving very clearly crossed far into pseudo-history territory -- Zinn to the left, Irving to the right.

 

[Praktik]

There are plenty of liberal pundits espousing the "anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective." That you seek out Zinn and laud him for this perspective is quaint. However, if you rely on Zinn for historical accuracy along with your expected "anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, socialist perspective" then you would be laboring under a misapprehension. Who is your go to source for just plain historical truth?

I dont think its possible to have one source for historical truth. I think its the responsibility of individuals to inform themselves from a diverse array of sources, including opposing ones, and determine the truth for themselves.

 

[Praktik]

Except that that's not what I said. I said: "The Howard Zinn defenders remind me of the David Irving defenders -- not in their morality, but in the irrelevance of their defense."

I explicitly said that Zinn's defenders are not the same as Irving's defenders morally, but that they make the same logical mistake, to wit, defending a man's lousy historical pseudo-scholarship because they like his politics.

If you were just pointing out a logical error, or assuming "irrelevance" there are plenty of examples you could have chosen that don't carry the moral baggage of David Irving and his followers.

The fact you chose a holocaust denier for your analogy demonstrates your deviance from rational discussion, and tendency to not just disagree with people who hold different views but debase them as much as is possible to boot.

 

[Praktik]

Can you apply this Kazin rebuke of Zinn's methods to me as well?

"Howard Zinn is an evangelist of little imagination for whom history is one long chain of stark moral dualities. His fatalistic vision can only keep the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life."

I probably could, but its not a game worth playing really, and no quote of Kazin-on-Zinn I think could match the fit with you in the previous one.

 

[Skeptic]

If you were just pointing out a logical error, or assuming "irrelevance" there are plenty of examples you could have chosen that don't carry the moral baggage of David Irving and his followers.

(Shrug)

My first thought was to choose a creationist: they, too, claim to be merely "interpreting the evidence differently" and "just reaching a different conclusion from the same facts", while, in reality, they are engaged in suppressing and distorting evidence to fit their dogma, which is precisely what Zinn did.

But I chose Irving because I have read books about the famous Irving trial and was struck by the similarity between Prof. Evans' demolition of Irving's scholarship and many scholars' demolition of Zinn's scholarship.

They both suffer from the same problem: misreading and misinterpreting evidence to such an extent, and in such a non-random direction (always in the direction of their political bias), that the inescapable conclusion is that they are not merely bad or sloppy historians, but are engaged in deliberate manipulation, as Evans (and the judge) said about Irving, and other historians about Zinn.

If you take one of the demolitions of the scholarship of one of them and make the appropriate technical replacements ("Jew" with "capitalist", "Hitler" with "socialist revolutionary", or vice versa), you get a demolition of the other's scholarship with little or no changes needed.

This seems to me a perfectly rational, indeed a striking, discussion of Zinn's scholarship. Indeed, using Irving as the analogy has the additional advantage of showing that I don't consider this something only "left-wing" propagandists are capable of, but also right-wing ones.

To avoid the claim that I meant to say Zinn's supporters are as bad as holocaust deniers, I explicitly said they are not. That you choose to go all huffy and insulted and claim that I "really" meant that anyway -- anything to avoid discussion Zinn's embarrassing pseudo-scholarship, I guess -- is your problem, not mine. But go ahead -- take your ball and go home.

 

[Cavemonster]

Instead, they constantly and crudely manipulate, suppress, and misinterpret the evidence to make it fit with their preconceived political view.

...

It's quite another thing to suppress and distort the historical facts, or to simply buy into well-known falsehoods, to fit with one's worldview. The former is history (although perhaps lousy history). The latter is pseudo-history and propaganda.

Those are some pretty extreme accusations to make without any evidence. I asked for evidence that he had published falsehoods and no one has supplied a single quote from his published work.

You make additional claims that require evidence and to take you seriously, I need to see both a direct published quote from Zinns work, and a link to outside evidence for each of these.

1) Show a distorted fact attributable to his world view and the objective evidence that it is a distortion.

2) Show some evidence that he has "suppressed" any kind of information.

3) Show a well known falsehood that Zinn has published as truth. Again, post his exact published quote and reliable evidence.

As I said before, I won't accept trivial mistakes/historical disagreements. Whether the unknown pilots who refused to fly during the war flew B-52s was neither important to Zinn's point not proven to be false. It is not my burden to find source material to show that Zinn's claims are all true, but you're to show definitively that at least one is false in each of the three ways listed above.

If you can do that, back up your claim with real evidence, then I'd have to conceed that you were right about Zinn.

The quote you posted from Oscar Handlin was did not contain enough information to make any judgement, and the one that was easy to fact check, Zinn's reference to Polly Baker I looked at above, shows that Handlin was completely and clearly inccorrect about his assessment. I hope you understand that without the original quotes by Zinn that he's addressing, it is impossible for us to make a judgement.

 

[Cain]

On the fact history is necessarily biased by selection of facts:

This is the cheater's usual excuse: "hey, everybody does it!". Which is, of course, not true.

Straw man.

There is a huge difference between selecting evidence, which all historians must do, and deliberately distorting the truth, which is what Zinn (and other pseudo-historians, like David Irving, for instance) did.

This is an attempt to inflame rather than argue. Zinn is a well-respected historian; David Irving is not. Rather than saying "Zinn lies," document these alleged lies (understand a "lie" is much more serious charge than a mistake, and more difficult to prove). It's amusing to see people struggle to meet Cavemonster modest challenge for evidence.

Once again, Zinn sets out a systematic overview of the history that has been too often overlooked in schools. Nobody says it's a definitive history of America, that one should only read this book. Your arguments ("arguments"), such as they are, say more about you than Zinn.

I recall someone asking Zinn about Paul Johnson's book, and he encouraged people to read it. His criticism had more to do with Johnson's choices (why didn't he bother to mention X, Y, Z?). This is exactly why I said Zinn's self-conscious of the history he's trying to tell: the traditionally oppressed and overlooked groups -- Native Americans, blacks, women, union activists. It's A People's history, not the THE history.