Howard Zinn Died

[Skeptic]

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

That's not even hard. Just looking at a recent claim by Zinn concerning the Clinton sex scandal:

"He [Truman] deceived the nation and the world when he described Hiroshima-which he had just devastated by atomic bomb-as 'an important Japanese Army base.' "

Actually what Truman said was:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. "

(My emphasis in both cases).

Zinn obviously distorts the quote by adding the word "important", "Japanese" and changing "military" to "army". This is because he wants us to think that Truman implied Hiroshima was a "base" in the sense of an "army base" like Ft. Hood -- no civilians -- while the words Truman actually used ("military base") are far more general, and could easily be used for a city that has important military installations.

Zinn "forgets" to mention that Hiroshima was indeed a military base in the sense Truman obviously meant, including tens of thousands of soldiers, important headquarters, massive air defenses, military factories, etc. Simon and Shuster's History of WWII, for example, notes that Hiroshima's normal population was doubled during the war with the addition of military personnel, factories, etc.

What's more, Zinn also "forgets" to note the context of the speech or the rest of the quote, which proves of course that Truman's point was not to deny civilians were killed by saying it was only a civilians-free army base, as Zinn insinuates. Not only does he explicitly admit (and tries to justify) the killing of civilians in such attacks, but anybody looking in the Atlas to see what the hell this "Hiroshima" place was, or looking at newspaper pictures, already knew Hiroshima was also a city.

Where, then, is the "deception" in Truman's claims? Perhaps Truman was wrong and a city being a military base is not good enough of a justification for bombing it. But Truman did not deceive anybody. Everybody listening knew Hiroshima was a city with civilians; it was also a military base, just like Truman said; and he explicitly admits civilians are killed in such attacks.

Zinn is simply lying when he speaks of Truman "deceiving" anybody -- and tries to "prove" this lie by both suggestio falsi (changing Truman's actual words to make it look as if he meant to suggest Hiroshima was only a military base and no civilians were killed) and suppresio veri (cutting out -- oops! Sorry! -- the rest of the quote, ignoring the context of the speech, and the fact that Hiroshima was in fact a military base).

Good enough a misquote, distortion, and insinuation for you?

Now, let's see: how did I get to this lie by Zinn in the first place, you might ask? Let us see: I checked google for "criticism of Howard Zinn" just to see what I shall get, in order to vary my examples a little.

Well, mirablis dictu, the very first link google returns which isn't simply Zinn's or A People's History's wikipedia page is the article by Zinn I linked to above. The article's very first claim about an historical figure (Truman) is a lie -- saying that Truman "deceived" to the American people about Hiroshima -- and is "supported" by Zinn by his usual combination of suggestio falsi and suppresio veri.

Now, what does that tell you about Zinn's credibility?

 

[Cavemonster]

That's not even hard. Just looking at a recent claim by Zinn concerning the Clinton sex scandal:

"He [Truman] deceived the nation and the world when he described Hiroshima-which he had just devastated by atomic bomb-as 'an important Japanese Army base.' "

Actually what Truman said was:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. "

I guess that would make sense if the above were the only statement Truman ever made about Hiroshima, but the official press release about the bombing uses the exact words you claim Zinn added. Important, Japanses Army Base-

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base.

From the original press release

 

[Cavemonster]

Mispost

 

[Cavemonster]

Zinn obviously distorts the quote by adding the word "important", "Japanese" and changing "military" to "army". This is because he wants us to think that Truman implied Hiroshima was a "base" in the sense of an "army base" like Ft. Hood -- no civilians -- while the words Truman actually used ("military base") are far more general, and could easily be used for a city that has important military installations.

This statement you made is shown to be unquestionably false. You attributed to Zinn a deliberate distortion when I've linked above that he used a direct quote. What does that say about the way you reached this conclusion above?

 

[Cicero]

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

Straw man.

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.

Well-respected by whom? Certainly not by the 20th century's bona fide historians. The only person struggling is Cavemonster[,/U] who prefers to stick his head in the sand than address Zinn's problem with changing historical facts to suit his message. How could Zinn be confused about being in the first European Theater raid to use napalm? How could he continue to assert this untruth, if you prefer, for 60 years, when studying official documents was part of his professional career? This information is not classified. If the guy can't even get his own history straight, his ability to accurately recount the history of the United States is suspect.

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.

Overlooked? Zinn never published any original findings that were previously not known about American transgression home or abroad. To say that public school history books do not highlight American transgressions is to admit that you have never opened a public school history book.

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.

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if Zinn's only interest was in concentrating on the plight of "Native Americans, blacks, women, union activists," and making the U.S. out to be the villain in all conflicts, wars and police actions, excluding any material that might weaken his one-sided diatribe makes him guilty of sins of omission, not commission. As Kazin says, Zinn's refusal to "explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own" is a fatal trap for an author publishing under the guise of an historian.

 

[Skeptic]

Two different quotes, Cavemonster. One was the quick press release. The other was the speech to the nation.

Again: Truman did not deceive anybody, since, first, whatever the press release said, he explained exactly what he meant by military base in the speech two days later. And anybody looking at an Atlas knew Hiroshima was also a city; he admitted civilians were killed; and once again, and above all, Hiroshima was a military base, and an important one too.

Just like Truman said.

So where, again, is the "deception"? In Zinn's mind. Only by deliberately ignoring both Truman's words -- those words which disagree with his "Truman lied, people died" idea -- could he possibly make Truman's claim into a "deception".

If Zinn had any evidence that Truman was lying -- that he knew Hiroshima was not an important military center and yet bombed it anyway -- that would have been one thing. But he has no such evidence, of course.

He simply wishes to accuse Truman of "deception" because he dislikes him and the A-bomb dropping: Truman, of course, is a monster who just wanted to bomb poor, innocent Japanese to scare the wonderful USSR, and let the greedy capitalists to get raw materials. Yawn.

 

[Skeptic]

I wonder why we are even having this discussion about Zinn's importance as an historian, when he himself admitted that he is not an historian. As he himself said:

Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.

When one's attitude towards history is that it being objective (or as objective as possible) is "undesireable" and that, instead, it should "serve society" (that is, of course, serve one own's political goals) one is longer an historian. One is a propagandist, or a social activist, or a TV commentator, or a ranter on a street corner, or something, but simply not an historian. He no longer obeys the most important requirement of an historian, the sine qua non of historical research: to try to honestly get at the truth.

Suppose that someone is a physician and says, "well, objectivity in medical treatment is not desirable. What we really need is for the doctor to treat people in a way that advance the cause of socialism! (Or Nazism, or communism, or pacifism, or democracy, or Islam, or "the revolution", anything -- you fill in the blank)." Someone like that is no longer a physician, since he does not obey the most basic requirements of being a physician -- treating the disease according to medical knowledge to the good of the patient no matter who they are.

 

[Skeptic]

By the way, here's another simple example of Zinn's lies and distortions: the claim that "umemployment grew in the Reagan years". Yes -- in the first two years, when unemployment went up from 7.5 to 10%. But it declined for the rest of his term, ending at 5.4%. Zinn, naturally, looks only at the two years that fit his thesis, ignores the other six years, and calls that "research" or "exploding myths".

But again, why bother with someone who explicitly tells you he is making no attempt to be objective, but only to advance progressive causes (whatever that actually means)? You know in advance the analysis of Reagan by someone like that would bear only scant relationship to the truth.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh, and here are a few historical events that are not mentioned in A People's History:

Washington's farewell address
Lincoln's Gettysburg address
Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech

(Too much against Zinn's thesis that America has something to do with freedom)

Here are people who don't get mentioned in it:

Alexander Graham Bell
Jonathan Salk
the Wright Brothers
Neil Armstrong

(Too positive a view of American achievements for Zinn)

Some events which are not discussed (thought I am not sure there aren't fleeting references somewhere):

D-day (makes America look like it's fighting for freedom, and Zinn won't stand for this sort of lie in his book)
The battle of Gettysburg (might make people wonder why the Gettysburg address isn't mentioned -- better leave it out)
Valley Forge (might make people think Washington, that evil capitalist slaveholder, actually cared for his soldiers or shared their deprivation).

Ah well. That's what you get when your view of history is that it has to serve some "progressive" cause. Anything that doesn't fit the thesis is thrown out, while ridiculous misrepresentations -- from the Arawak Indians who met Columbus living in an idyllic existence in the beginning, to Reagan's "destruction" of the economy (the opposite is closer to the truth) near the end -- are called in, instead.

 

[Cain]

Overlooked? Zinn never published any original findings that were previously not known about American transgression home or abroad. To say that public school history books do not highlight American transgressions is to admit that you have never opened a public school history book.

I say something, and then you reply in the least direct way possible: Zinn emphasizes history overlooked in public schools and you have a two pronged reply: his findings are not original. As I may have mentioned earlier, Zinn's intention was to tie together critical voices that had largely been overlooked. As for public schools, I was probably in one more recently, I passed the AP U.S. History exam, and I teach American government to students who have just completed high school. They get the fairy tale story, the one that takes root in elementary school, especially the fifth grade.

By "overlooked," I do not mean completely ignored. There might be a paragraph about Shays' Rebellion while far more attention is paid to George Washington's Farewell address. Even conservatives do not ignore extermination of the Natives and the enslavement of blacks; they just underplay it: "yeah, yeah, yeah, that was a long time ago."

That said, there has been noticeable change for the better in the last 30+ years, in part because of Zinn's work. Remember, People's History was first published in 1980, more than a decade before

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if Zinn's only interest was in concentrating on the plight of "Native Americans, blacks, women, union activists," and making the U.S. out to be the villain in all conflicts, wars and police actions, excluding any material that might weaken his one-sided diatribe makes him guilty of sins of omission, not commission. As Kazin says, Zinn's refusal to "explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own" is a fatal trap for an author publishing under the guise of an historian.

More nonsense. Zinn's up front about challenging the "Great Man" view of history, which is why may be why he does not bother discussing Neil Armstrong. And Neil Armstrong, seriously? Jesus, if the television ratings for American Idol replicate those numbers, should he have a paragraph or two about Adam Lambert? All of the people on the ground would have put someone up on the moon, so why bother with all that personality nonsense?

Look at how the "space race" is generally portrayed. Russia launches the first satellite into space, and the race is on. It's put in the context of science and achievement, but what really frightened people in the corridors of Washington because Sputnik made it aboard the world's first ICBM. Instead of back patting and jingoism, this is actually relevant to our world -- the ongoing militarization of space.

 

[gnome]

I'd like to back up Cain here... from the introduction Zinn makes it clear that he intends to present the history that isn't written by the winners.

Whatever Zinn's personal bias was, I walked away from the book with something valuable-- a better understanding of how America looks outside of the mainstream patriotic view. These viewpoints may be undeserved. They may be based on misinformation. But to be unaware of them leaves one with the mistaken impression that opposition emerges only from simple evil or rejection of our highest ideals. It makes us more easy to manipulate by falsely claiming an automatic moral high ground.

The other primary message that I found valuable was to question that "Great Man" idea. While there have been truly great individuals that made history, and they should indeed serve as an inspiration to personal excellence, Zinn warns us not to wait for a hero to fix things. This is done by revealing that the great mean of our history were not perfectly altruistic or always right--and by describing how we can make our own changes without waiting for that perfect guy to qualify for our vote.

 

[Cavemonster]

Zinn obviously distorts the quote by adding the word "important", "Japanese" and changing "military" to "army". This is because he wants us to think that Truman implied Hiroshima was a "base" in the sense of an "army base" like Ft. Hood -- no civilians -- while the words Truman actually used ("military base") are far more general, and could easily be used for a city that has important military installations.

I'm still confused about Zinn's obvious distortion.
What made you think that Zinn added the words that were in Truman's official release?

 

[Skeptic]

Whatever Zinn's personal bias was, I walked away from the book with something valuable-- a better understanding of how America looks outside of the mainstream patriotic view.

That may well be true, but that's just as true for reading, say, David Irving's lies. Or Goebbles. Or David Icke's. As J. S. Mill said, in favor of freedom of speech, even the worst book and most despicable opinion can help us to the degree that they force us to employ our own knowledge to combat its lies.

We should, I suppose, thank Icke for forcing (?) us to think why, exactly, the world isn't actually secretly ruled by alien green lizards. We should thank Zinn for forcing us to think why, exactly, America isn't actually secretly ruled by an all-powerful capitalistic conspiracy that brainwashed everybody except himself into believing obvious, ridiculous lies about history and politics since the very discovery of the country on.

But that's not much to thank them for.

These viewpoints may be undeserved. They may be based on misinformation. But to be unaware of them leaves one with the mistaken impression that opposition emerges only from simple evil or rejection of our highest ideals.

Absolutely, but that's not at all the point. Historians do just that -- look at different viewpoints, histories, opinions, etc., questioning their own society's prejudices, etc. etc. -- all the time. As you say, that is a good thing.

The point is that Zinn's comic-book "history" helps us not at all at that. His fantasies are worthless due to being so full of manipulations, distortions, etc. that they are simply not trustworthy at all, even as alternative history: because when you write such a Manichean work, both sides come out as caricatures.

It is one thing to write a history of socialism in America. Many people did that. It is one thing to have a history that emphasizes things neglected in the past. Many people did that.

But for Zinn, as many socialist-leaning commentators noted, "history" is an all-powerful conspiracy of monied interests (seamlessly moving from Columbus' companions to Ronald Reagan, it seems) while the "workers" are a bunch of naive dolts and unworldly bubbleheads: they always aim for the good... and always are (usually quickly and easily) cheated, using the same crude propaganda and lies, by the powers that be.

Drat! Foiled again!

The other primary message that I found valuable was to question that "Great Man" idea. While there have been truly great individuals that made history, and they should indeed serve as an inspiration to personal excellence, Zinn warns us not to wait for a hero to fix things. This is done by revealing that the great mean of our history were not perfectly altruistic or always right--and by describing how we can make our own changes without waiting for that perfect guy to qualify for our vote.

Again -- 100% true, but again -- this is precisely what historians are doing anyway. Read any modern history of, say, the first world war and you'll find just that in the analysis of the leaders of both sides, including the authors' own.

The problem is, again, not with historians doing that in general, but with Zinn fancying himself an historian. Zinn helps us not at all in the process of the critical examination of the "great man" view. Instead of the "great man" theory of history, he gives us the "evil man" theory of history -- there isn't a succession of all-powerful men who bent history to do their bidding, but instead there is a single, amorphous "capitalist" that did that. Everybody else is a puppet.

Not much of an improvement, and, if anything, giving far more power (this time both omnipotence and secrecy) to "great" (if evil) men than the "great man" theory ever did.

 

[gnome]

I'm willing to experience better. Is there a book you can recommend that satisfies a similar interest without Zinn's flaws?

 

[Cicero]

Dennis Prager & Howard Zinn discussing Zinn's book "Original Zinn" back in August 30, 2006.

Prager is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor is he an historian, and granted that Zinn was 84 at the time, but when even a dilettante like Prager challenges Zinn's sine qua non for how this land was settled by essentially European barbarians, and how Americans only became more perfidous at home and abroad, there isn't a whole lot of substance left when Zinn's hyperbole is exposed.



Zinn: "After the American Revolution, when the colonists expanded westward, we began to annihilate the Indian tribes."

Prager: "What percentage of the Indians do you believe we massacred as opposed that disease ravaged."

Zinn: "Well, it might have been 10%."

Prager: "OK. OK. So I'll say 10%. But 10% is very different from the generalization that we annihilated the Indians."


Prager: "If let's say Europeans never came to North America and it was left in the hands of the American indigenous Indians, do you think the world would be a better place?"

Zinn: "I have no way of knowing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-HTWAoJZo

 

[Praktik]

Oh ya it was all just disease!

I guess talking about the Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson and the Seminoles of Florida is all so much hyperbole...

EDIT: "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian" - Theodore Roosevelt

 

[carlitos]

Praktik, if you listen to that entire hour-long interview, Zinn did not acquit himself well. Unfortunately, I don't see it anywhere online. The 10% <> "annihilate" was just an example.

 

[Praktik]

Hey Im not saying he's perfect, I just wasn't sure what was so objectionable about the part Cicero drug out. If our mission here is to find a time when he was wrong, or misspoke, would we really be surprised to find examples of each?

Not many can claim spotless records in these respects... I guess Cicero's argument is that Zinn's is SO shoddy, we should discount most of what he says. Given my experience with his material, I'm not sure that's true. I still think Cicero is missing "the weight and meaning" of a viewpoint he doesn't "favor".

 

[Cicero]

Praktik, if you listen to that entire hour-long interview, Zinn did not acquit himself well. Unfortunately, I don't see it anywhere online. The 10% <> "annihilate" was just an example.

The entire interview is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-HTWAoJZo

 

[carlitos]

Thanks. I'm going to re-listen. I heard it on the ipod while working out a few years ago, so my recollection could be wrong.

ETA - this was at a time when many of the Salem radio guys seemed to be going out of their way to interview liberals. It was good radio. The "Authoritarian Republican" guy (John Dean?) also came off poorly, IIRC.