Howard Zinn Died

Well he lived a great, long life and represented his politics well...

RIP
 
Cain said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_en_ot/us_obit_zinn

In high school I had the opportunity to listen to Zinn guest lecture graduate students, then later that night saw him give the big talk in the auditorium. He also wrote the wonderful book A People's History.
Click to expand...

Zinn's political ideology overwhelms "A People's History" to the point of rendering the book useless as an accurate account of American history. His recollections of his time in the 490th Bomb Group during WWII, particularly the raid on Royan, France, strain credulity.
 
Definitely the exemplar of the "blame America first" school of revisionist history.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Too bad. He was able to look critically at history, a truly important skill.
Click to expand...

By look critically at history do you mean promoting Conspiracy Theories (i.e. a cabal controls america, or something to that effect) and being extrmely revisionist with regards to the Cold War. I am more Post-revisionist/Orthodox and i can see a lot of faults in that position.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Too bad. He was able to look critically at history, a truly important skill.
Click to expand...

If by that you mean he could blame the USA for all the world's problems, then yes, he was unparalleled at criticizing America. When it came to recognizing his own faults as an historian, he was less cognizant.
 
Zinn maintained his propensity for bombastic pronouncements right to the end.


"Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured. I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president—which means, in our time, a dangerous president—unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction"
 
I agree with that quote wholeheartedly, and among the civil liberties crowd, such sentiments are widely shared.

Not sure what's bombastic about that!

In any event, should we pick apart his politics here, or start a new thread you think? Just wondering whats the most tasteful way to go about it.
 
Praktik said:
I agree with that quote wholeheartedly, and among the civil liberties crowd, such sentiments are widely shared.

Not sure what's bombastic about that!

In any event, should we pick apart his politics here, or start a new thread you think? Just wondering whats the most tasteful way to go about it.
Click to expand...

Obama is a "dangerous" President? That's not bombastic?
Obama is misguided in treating detainees at GITMO as "suspected terrorists." That's not bombastic?

The civil liberties crowd? You mean the ACLU? The same organization that doesn't cotton to internal criticism.

Why not call Zinn out on his politics in this thread? His politics were his identity.
 
I'm just saying there's a lot of people that wouldn't find any bombast in that quote, myself included.

And I asked a question, if everyone's cool having debates in this thread then we can do it!
 
Brainster said:
Definitely the exemplar of the "blame America first" school of revisionist history.
Click to expand...

Actually he was neck and neck with Noam Chomsky for that role.
He could write well, but in the end his sacrificed his skill as a historian on the altar of Marxist political ideology.
Of course this is not confined to the political left. The "Politically Incorrect" series of histories resort are as bad ..in fact, worse, as anything Zinn ever did.
 
dudalb said:
Actually he was neck and neck with Noam Chomsky for that role.
He could write well, but in the end his sacrificed his skill as a historian on the altar of Marxist political ideology.
Of course this is not confined to the political left. The "Politically Incorrect" series of histories resort are as bad ..in fact, worse, as anything Zinn ever did.
Click to expand...

What about Ward Churchill, William Blum and John Stockwell?
 
dudalb said:
Actually he was neck and neck with Noam Chomsky for that role.
He could write well, but in the end his sacrificed his skill as a historian on the altar of Marxist political ideology.
Of course this is not confined to the political left. The "Politically Incorrect" series of histories resort are as bad ..in fact, worse, as anything Zinn ever did.
Click to expand...

That's 100% true, those books cause one to cringe in embarrassment. But the difference is, I don't know any serious history teacher that assigns, say, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam in religious history class, but many who assign Chomsky's or Zinn's works.
 
dudalb said:
If by "Look Critically" you mean "Slant toward a political ideology" you are right.
Click to expand...
Ah, and I suppose you have a favorite historian that does not have a political slant that influences his/her work? Zinn was forthcoming about his ideology, was an eloquent writer, and told of historical episodes and points of view that were widely ignored until his People's History. It threw mainstream history into a more critical light. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideology, this historical mission should be lauded.
 
grunion said:
Ah, and I suppose you have a favorite historian that does not have a political slant that influences his/her work? Zinn was forthcoming about his ideology, was an eloquent writer, and told of historical episodes and points of view that were widely ignored until his People's History. It threw mainstream history into a more critical light. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideology, this historical mission should be lauded.
Click to expand...

So distorting history in favor of an ideology is now a "historical mission that should be lauded".?

And I don't buy this "All Historians are Slanted" BS either. Yes, they are, but a good Historian does try to be fair. Zinn was not. Zinn whole thesis is that American is a Oppresive and Corrupt Nation because it has a Capitalist/Free Market system. The his "peoples history" basically says everybody in American History was corrupt except for those on the Left is pretty damn extreme..
 
grunion said:
Ah, and I suppose you have a favorite historian that does not have a political slant that influences his/her work? Zinn was forthcoming about his ideology, was an eloquent writer, and told of historical episodes and points of view that were widely ignored until his People's History. It threw mainstream history into a more critical light. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideology, this historical mission should be lauded.
Click to expand...

This.

He never hid his politics, he was proud of them, and explained his perspective on American history well.

In A People's History we're introduced to people that didnt get the spotlight before either and that's worth something.

As someone who enjoys navigating politics of differing perspectives I found his particular take refreshing and worthwhile.

I also have a few Pat Buchanan books on historical themes for example, and can enjoy them for the view they provide into a certain brand of politics regardles of whether or not I agree with everything he says.
 
dudalb said:
OOh, They are as bad, but never had the name recognition and level of fame that Zinn and Chomsky did.
Click to expand...

Stockwell's credibility went out the window with the mitrokhin archive and spymaster by kalugin (i have both btw).

I thought ward churchill was as famous as zinn or chomsky given his little eichmann controversy as well as his on the justice of roosting chickens.

As for Blum, i thought he got infamy when bin laden plugged hiim, and i suspect he's a truther as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom