A hero has fallen...

NashBamaOld Faithful

quote:
Howard Zinn was a collage professor and accredited Historian. Where did you read he is not "praised" and who said it?

I've already given you this quote before. From Michael Kammen, a history professor at Cornell.

"I wish that I could pronounce Zinn's book a great success, but it is not. It is a synthesis of the radical and revisionist historiography of the past decade. . . Not only does the book read like a scissors and paste-pot job, but even less attractive, so much attention to historians, historiography and historical polemic leaves precious little space for the substance of history. . . . We do deserve a people's history; but not a singleminded, simpleminded history, too often of fools, knaves and Robin Hoods. We need a judicious people's history because the people are entitled to have their history whole; not just those parts that will anger or embarrass them. . . . If that is asking for the moon, then we will cheerfully settle for balanced history."

quote:
When he did interject his opinion it is seperate then the incident itself, and who's perspective was that of the least important in societie's eyes and least written about.

He interjected his opinions throughout the book. He even admitted his book was not objective, go back and look at my first post on this thread. If you believe he did not interject his own opinions, then your disagreement is with Zinn, not me.

quote:
He is criticized for being Passoinate about Peace and history being other then war. Countries are run by people and Zinn wrote about them all.

Lots of people, artists, writers, who are not appreacated at the time but are vindicated by the future.

No, he is criticized for being a revisionist. Because of his poor work, he is only respected among those who agree with his warped point of views. For the rest of the world, he is unknown and will be lost to the ages.

I studied history in college and it's my hobby today. Zinn's work was not required reading in any of my American History classes. His works are not recommended by any legitimate historian with any respect for the subject.

1/29/1011:50 AM

❤️ 0

Tenn on my mindHall of Famer

quote:
Originally posted by Elvis Wearing a Bra on Head:
quote:
Originally posted by Tenn on my mind:
If Bruce Springsteen and Ben Affleck think he's great, he's great. Whenever I want really incisive opinion, I go to Bruce and Ben. Loose, left wing nuts.

Whetever be their political stance, I hardly value the opinion of an overrated rocker and a so-so actor to inform me.

Wasn't that my point? All that's missing is Sean Penn and Michael Moore.

1/29/1011:51 AM

❤️ 0

Pogo142Post Master

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NashBama:

I've already given you this quote before. From Michael Kammen, a history professor at Cornell.

"I wish that I could pronounce Zinn's book a great success, but it is not. It is a synthesis of the radical and revisionist historiography of the past decade. . . Not only does the book read like a scissors and paste-pot job, but even less attractive, so much attention to historians, historiography and historical polemic leaves precious little space for the substance of history. . . . We do deserve a people's history; but not a singleminded, simpleminded history, too often of fools, knaves and Robin Hoods. We need a judicious people's history because the people are entitled to have their history whole; not just those parts that will anger or embarrass them. . . . If that is asking for the moon, then we will cheerfully settle for balanced history."

quote:
No, he is criticized for being a revisionist. Because of his poor work, he is only respected among those who agree with his warped point of views. For the rest of the world, he is unknown and will be lost to the ages.

I studied history in college and it's my hobby today. Zinn's work was not required reading in any of my American History classes. His works are not recommended by any legitimate historian with any respect for the subject.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your Post backs up my Post. He doesn't change the ending, the North won the war, when an incident ends up in a lynching, he mentions it. He continunally ridicules authority that is corrupt and has led the people into untold suffering, misarble senseless wars and thievery.

The Authority Establishment doesn't like to be made fun of and exposed as corrupt liars and thieves and they find spokespeople.

Zinn gives the perspective of the common man. Not the statesman and the official Historians, who tell us of great battles and how they put down strikes or attacked weaker nations to steal their resources. They tell us that is history.

I believe Mark Twain wasn't liked either by a lot of his contempories.

1/29/101:01 PM

❤️ 0

NashBamaOld Faithful

quote:
Your Post backs up my Post. He doesn't change the ending, the North won the war, when an incident ends up in a lynching, he mentions it. He continunally ridicules authority that is corrupt and has led the people into untold suffering, misarble senseless wars and thievery.

The Authority Establishment doesn't like to be made fun of and exposed as corrupt liars and thieves and they find spokespeople.

Zinn gives the perspective of the common man. Not the statesman and the official Historians, who tell us of great battles and how they put down strikes or attacked weaker nations to steal their resources. They tell us that is history.

I believe Mark Twain wasn't liked either by a lot of his contempories.

History doesn't have an ending, it's still being created as long as there is a present.

History is in the details of the events. When a historian is criticized by his peers for being a revisionist, it's a serious accusation.

You prefer Zinn because he tells the story of America from the perspective of someone who hates it. He inserts his opinions and disdain for the very country that gave him the right to express himself. He wrote what you want to be true, that's why you like him.

History isn't about what we want to be true, it's about what is true whether we like it or not. Yes, there were ugly times and events in the foundation of this country. There were also great times and events. A historian has to understand and teach all of this, not just the parts that fit his political ideology.

Mark Twain was highly respected by his peers and his audience. That's why he was able to sell so many books and make public appearances. The difference between Twain and Zinn is that neither were historians, but only Zinn claimed to be.

1/29/101:44 PM

❤️ 0

Pogo142Post Master

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NashBama:

[quote]History doesn't have an ending, it's still being created as long as there is a present.

History is in the details of the events. When a historian is criticized by his peers for being a revisionist, it's a serious accusation.

You prefer Zinn because he tells the story of America from the perspective of someone who hates it. He inserts his opinions and disdain for the very country that gave him the right to express himself. He wrote what you want to be true, that's why you like him.

History isn't about what we want to be true, it's about what is true whether we like it or not. Yes, there were ugly times and events in the foundation of this country. There were also great times and events. A historian has to understand and teach all of this, not just the parts that fit his political ideology.

Mark Twain was highly respected by his peers and his audience. That's why he was able to sell so many books and make public appearances. The difference between Twain and Zinn is that neither were historians, but only Zinn claimed to be.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Zinn is "highly repected" and popular among his peers and audience, except they are on the left, the peoples side. You are so brianwashed as to say he writes and thinks "I hate America."

Clear you are unfamiliar with him. He was a popular writer and speaker as well as a professor. Well Respected as expalined by another poster in earlier posts.

Zinn didn't change history, we still won WW2 and the Nazi's were gassing and burning Jewish People. He is the peoples historian. Tells t he story as it meant to the people at the time. The people who lost loved ones or limbs in a war or mine.

1/29/102:12 PM

❤️ 0

dolemitejbHall of Famer

quote:
the aspect of Zinn's teaching/writing I do find appealing was that he would teach young people to question their history teachers and US government supremacy.

He was a leftist, but by most accounts a leftist that was a somewhat reasoned, intelligent one...as opposed to the leftist who mindlessly spews talking points.

Agreed. I have yet to read A People's History of the United States. Other reading has always taken precendent. So, I am not in a position to comment on the validity of anything Zinn says. My problem is that I rarely hear his detractors question the validity of his research. They only scream "leftist," and think that can somehow debunk anything the man wrote.

1/29/102:50 PM

❤️ 0

elinterventor01Post Master

quote:
Originally posted by moelarrycheez:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
No, a despotic non-english king attempted to destroy their rights as Englishmen. Members of Parliament such as John Locke agreed. You hew the Marxist line to max.

Well, there's a few problems with your argument. King George III was not a despot. In fact, he had limited power ruling in a constitutional monarchy, far from the definition of a despot, who rules with absolute political power. Many of the demands that Parliament made on the colonies after the Seven Years' War were reasonable, but due to the effects of salutary neglect, where they allowed the various colonies to develop their own political identities, they underestimated the negative effects such measures as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Acts would have.

Also, George III was as English as Victoria and Elizabeth. True, he was a member of the Hanoverian house, but he was born in London.

As far as John Locke, if you are referring to the Enlightenment philosopher, he was never a member of Parliament and had been dead since 1704.

All that being said, Zinn's historiography meshes with Charles Beard and the Progressives of the early twentieth century, a view that has been refuted by historians such as Forrest McDonald. His view that “...certain important people in the English colonies...found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire,” ignores the fact that many of the leading citizens, such as John Adams, George Washington and especially Benjamin Franklin, resisted the idea of independence almost up until the last moment.

Did Zinn lean to the left? Most definitely. Marxist? Yep. Important? Yes, because he did promote history "from the ground up." True, this viewpoint can be, and has been, co-opted by those of a Marxist bent (see Georges Lefebvre's views on the French Revolution), it does bring to the party the stories of those who had been silent until then, such as women, Native Americans and slaves. Is he a "hero?" No, and neither should any other historian be viewed as such. They are flawed men and women whose arguments, no matter how sound they may seem to be, ca
n always be countered.

You are correct about Locke, mea culpa.

However, as the UK has never had a written constitution, George III could not be a constitutional monarch.

1/29/105:58 PM

❤️ 0

moelarrycheezHall of Famer

quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:

However, as the UK has never had a written constitution, George III could not be a constitutional monarch.

You are correct in that they did not have a consitution such as ours. However, a consitutional monarchy can be based on either a written or unwritten constitution. In the case of Great Britain, it is not based upon a singular document, but upon various documents, such as the Bill of Rights 1689, which limited what the monarch could and could not do. The Founders based their claims upon this English "consitution" and their rights as Englishmen as granted by the aforementioned Bill of Rights, as well as Magna Carta.

Our viewpoints, however, are much closer in agreement in regards to Zinn.

1/31/104:13 AM

❤️ 0

Skip to main content

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Please wait...