Howard Zinn's America the Horrible

[Mediocrates]

Howard Zinn died last week.

Ronald Radosh explains the difference between history and propaganda.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/01/america_the_awfulhoward_zinns.html


From Zinn's perspective, history should not be told from the standpoints of generals or presidents, but through that of people who struggle for their rights, who engage in strikes, boycotts, slave rebellions and the like. Its purpose should be to encourage similar behavior today. Indeed, Zinn candidly said that history was not about "understanding the past," but rather, about "changing the future." That statement alone should have disqualified anyone from referring to him as a historian.

Zinn did not exempt President Barack Obama who he thought was both "a mediocre" and "dangerous president" from his criticism. In the last article he wrote, that appeared in The Nation last week, Zinn argued that Obama's foreign policy was "no different from a Republican," that he was "nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike." As for his proposed domestic programs, he found them "limited" and "cautious." He also did not approve of the apparent decision to try those responsible for 9/11, and referred to them as "suspected terrorists," who "have not been found guilty."

Zinn was certainly entitled to his perspective, widely held by many in the academy, but its danger lies in the favorable reception he often got from those who know little. As one of his proteges, Dave Zirin, writes on The Huffington Post: "With his death, we lose a man who did nothing less than rewrite the narrative of the United States." That, precisely, is the problem.

[bararallu]

I like what that Afgani kid said to him a few years back.

[Yala]

I like what that Afgani kid said to him a few years back.

tell us :)

[Mediocrates]

http://article.nationalreview.com/423758/professor-of-contempt/roger-kimball?page=1

[Mediocrates]

What starts out as a screaming defense of Zinn by another blind Marxist winds up as a compendium of the exact points Zinn's critics made. Brilliant

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/howard-zinns-detractors/


Note: one refrain you often hear about Zinn is that when he made a speech he referred to the same ancient manuscript notes. In short, his positions never changed, his views never evolved, his 'research' never reflected anything anyone had ever written. Ever.

[bararallu]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2010/01/original-zinn.html

"The young man rose determinedly and said, "Professor Zinn, I am a student here at Harvard. I come from Afghanistan. Were it not for the courageous actions of George Bush and American soldiers, my Mother and Sisters would no doubt have been killed by the Taliban. Needless to say, the room fell silent. Professor Zinn waited what seemed an eternity and quietly said, "I'm sorry you feel that way."

[dayag]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2010/01/original-zinn.html

"The young man rose determinedly and said, "Professor Zinn, I am a student here at Harvard. I come from Afghanistan. Were it not for the courageous actions of George Bush and American soldiers, my Mother and Sisters would no doubt have been killed by the Taliban. Needless to say, the room fell silent. Professor Zinn waited what seemed an eternity and quietly said, "I'm sorry you feel that way."

I will never understand the mental gymnastics that must be necessary for those who claim to be liberal (even a radical like Zinn) and yet support oppressive theocratic groups like the Taliban or Hamas.

[bararallu]

Well, I'll take a random shot at it Dayag.

Socialism is on one level a religion (= it taps emotion/belief rather than logic). As such it attempts to negatively circumscribe both pre-existing ethnic consciousness and individualism. So the ethos of the tribe, bottom line: the extended family, is voided and neither is it supplanted by personal responsibility and meritocracy but rather by a new elitist hierarchy which enlists a new elitist core.

In the most basic analysis socialists like Zinn are the high priests of what they hope is the new autocratic super-state where they would potentially get elitist status and be more equal then others. Their supposed anti-statism is as real as their criticism of Maosim etc. AKA nonexistent.

[Mediocrates]

Oh I think it's a bit more basic than that. Zinn, Chomsky, et al hate the west, hate modernity itself. In some ways they hate humanity.

[bararallu]

Why? They are not some blatant anarchists that "want to see the world burn". No, they are entrenched in a hierarchy as is (= the Academy) and are pushing for their own progeny and progeny-of-mind to take the reins of power through the deconstruction and reconstruction of society. If there is any doubt about that, witness an intellectual like Trotsky go for the full nine before he lost his war with the dumber but more determined Stalin. In the US Trotsky = Zinn or Chomsky. The opportunity just didn't present itself for them to step into the roles of direct shapers of reality.

[redcake]

They work in constructs, shaping a liberal academic dogma. Essentially, they are careerists first, and activists second, who believe the end justifies the means. Zinn's greatest legacy will be promoting the idea that history has no facts, and that objective research is undesirable. Forget footnotes, or sourcing. That, has filtered it's way into high school curriculums. It's not simply a hatred of the West, but their 1950's era fixation on "the other", followed by the failed utopian politics of the 60's era, which turned marketable by the 70's.

[andak01]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2010/01/original-zinn.html

"The young man rose determinedly and said, "Professor Zinn, I am a student here at Harvard. I come from Afghanistan. Were it not for the courageous actions of George Bush and American soldiers, my Mother and Sisters would no doubt have been killed by the Taliban. Needless to say, the room fell silent. Professor Zinn waited what seemed an eternity and quietly said, "I'm sorry you feel that way."

Just as Zinn is required to back up his statements with facts, so should the student. How is it so self evident that Afghanis are destined to be killed by Taliban and not by Americans or the new regiem or civil conflicts that the invasion exacerbated? As is typical, the emotional argument passes without any need of proof. Many, many people have died in Afghanistan for a multitude of reasons. If that man's mother and sister weren't killed by the Taliban after many years of their total rule, why does their semi-ouster guarantee the safety of his mother and sister? Why couldn't they still be killed by the Taliban?

[redcake]

Yeah!

Let's error on the side of the Taliban!

The burden of proof is on anyone making such outlandish statements about the Taliban Caliphate movement!

Zinn is right to ignore the oppression, and murders unless the Western World does it!

[bararallu]

Yeah Andak... lets apply a little logic. Afghani in Harvard... probably not your typical peasant. Come Talibanisation... the family flees or gets stranded. Or both. Now tell me where that doesn't compute? What would compel this kid for speaking out? Perhaps now you will deny those Iraqi Kurds that have done likewise on European campuses against Sadam and his supporters like Zinn.

[andak01]

If you want to list supporters of Saddam, you should include Reagan, who sold him weapons to use against Iran as well as Rumsfeld, who visited him and offered his warm handshake. And if you want to talk about supporters of the Taliban, you should include the Unocal corporation, who invited them to a tour of Houston, Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal_Corporation

It is largely because of support of the Mujahiddeen under Carter that radical Islam and particularly its militant aspects grew. Our military trained and encouraged them to fight the Russians. Of course, we're not allowed to mention this in a lecture of Howard Zinn or anywhere else. The media paints this whole affair as if it never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

[Sanket]

Yeah Andak... lets apply a little logic. Afghani in Harvard... probably not your typical peasant. Come Talibanisation... the family flees or gets stranded. Or both. Now tell me where that doesn't compute? What would compel this kid for speaking out?.

I was telling the same for a long time. The Afghanis hate Taliban & they know very well Pakistan is behind the mess. But America is playing a double game supporting Pakistan.

[redcake]

If you want to list supporters of Saddam, you should include Reagan, who sold him weapons to use against Iran as well as Rumsfeld, who visited him and offered his warm handshake. And if you want to talk about supporters of the Taliban, you should include the Unocal corporation, who invited them to a tour of Houston, Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal_Corporation

When did Reagan and Rumsfeld support Saddam again? The 80's? Zinn/Chomsky leftists were defending Saddam post massacres, in the present day.

When did the Taliban visit Houston? The 90's? Zinn/Chomsky were whitewashing their activities to the present day, and absent from your list of supporters is today's news that Amnesty International promoted pro-Taliban activists. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece




It is largely because of support of the Mujahiddeen under Carter that radical Islam and particularly its militant aspects grew. Our military trained and encouraged them to fight the Russians. Of course, we're not allowed to mention this in a lecture of Howard Zinn or anywhere else. The media paints this whole affair as if it never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone[/quote]

So now you agree with us on Carter? Again, Carter's problem is that he continues to support these elements to the present day.

Everything you just posted is standard rhetoric you either learned directly from Zinn, and his collaborator Chomsky, or from their acolytes. It's all standard deflection, to mention in a Zinn lecture, and any other Leftist lecture placing blame on the West. These people are placing the empathy with the bad guys, and point out that despite the tons of injustices, they provided great sanitation systems.

[Yala]

It is largely because of support of the Mujahiddeen under Carter that radical Islam and particularly its militant aspects grew.

Is that why Carter blames radical Islam on Israel?

[andak01]

Is that why Carter blames radical Islam on Israel?

I wasn't aware that he did. Radical Islam was there, but its explosion is a factor of Saudi, US, British and Pakistani support for insurgiencies against the Russians. Both Republicans and Democrats assisted in that effort as well as Saudis and Pakistanis. It's a Frankenstein's monster and we should at least acknowledge the existence of Dr. Frankenstein and his Ygors. Without them, radical Islam would be on the level of the Branch Davidians or Christian Identity. But when you have four governments funding military training next to the madrassas, it's throwing gasolene on a fire.

[Mil]

I wasn't aware that he did. Radical Islam was there, but its explosion is a factor of Saudi, US, British and Pakistani support for insurgiencies against the Russians.

So it's not the fault of third world authoritarian regimes, like Morocco, but of America and Britain? The blame game is the reason why countries like Morocco are sh&***t-holes of this world.

[andak01]

I wasn't aware that he did. Radical Islam was there, but its explosion is a factor of Saudi, US, British and Pakistani support for insurgiencies against the Russians.

So it's not the fault of third world authoritarian regimes, like Morocco, but of America and Britain? The blame game is the reason why countries like Morocco are sh&***t-holes of this world.

No Mil, the Taliban is not the fault of Morocco. Ugh! I've been to sh&***t-holes, and believe me, anyone living in those places would give an arm to live in Morocco. Morocco is to West Africa what South Africa is to Southern Africa.

[Mil]

I am talking about radical Islam, something that Morocco is full of. Taliban is just one of many...

[andak01]

I am talking about radical Islam, something that Morocco is full of. Taliban is just one of many...

Actually not. There is a particular neighborhood in Tetouin that has produced many of the people connected with terrorism in Morocco. There has been no history of government sponsored terrorism in Morocco ever and the 2003 attack saw an outpouring of outrage against terrorism (BTW, the targets were Jewish at that time). Many were arrested and programs to reduce extremism have been enacted throughout the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25tetouan-t.html?ei=5088&en=822b6cbd2cc04831&ex=1353646800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The Taliban is far from "just one of many". They ran an entire country and they still run parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are more numerous, better armed and better supported than any radical group in the world. There is no other group that could claim even the remotest possibility of overthrowing a country, but the Taliban is presently destabilizing two governments. In fact, they are so powerful that there is a tendency to treat them more like a government than an insurgiency or a terrorist group. Witness Waziristan where they got concessions.

[redcake]

There is no other group that could claim even the remotest possibility of overthrowing a country, but the Taliban is presently destabilizing two governments.


Never heard of Hezbollah? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Muslim Brotherhood?

[Mil]

So radical Islam only exists in Afganistan? From what I remember 9/11 hijackers had no Taliban members.

[andak01]

Never heard of Hezbollah? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Muslim Brotherhood?

Hamas was never as powerful as the Taliban was. Neither was Hezbollah. The Taliban controlled a nation of 28 million people. Hezbollah never controlled all of Lebanon, nor did they constitute its government. Hamas does not control their own borders or even their internal security. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the government of Egypt. And which country does Islamic Jihad run?

[andak01]

So radical Islam only exists in Afganistan? From what I remember 9/11 hijackers had no Taliban members.

I never said anything remotely resembling that. You brought up Morocco when we were talking about the Taliban. This thread referred to a student from Afghanistan talking about the Taliban.

[redcake]

Hamas was never as powerful as the Taliban was. Neither was Hezbollah. The Taliban controlled a nation of 28 million people. Hezbollah never controlled all of Lebanon, nor did they constitute its government. Hamas does not control their own borders or even their internal security. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the government of Egypt. And which country does Islamic Jihad run?


Another example of you knocking down your own straw man....and why are you talking about Hamas, or Hezbollah in past tense?

You claimed no terror organizations "could claim even the remotest possibility of overthrowing a country". All of the organizations I mentioned represent major threats to one or more countries.

[andak01]

Another example of you knocking down your own straw man....and why are you talking about Hamas, or Hezbollah in past tense?

I was talking about the Taliban as a national power in the past tense. If you want to create a straw man that I believe that Hamas and Hezbollah no longer exist, be my guest. I never said that.


You claimed no terror organizations "could claim even the remotest possibility of overthrowing a country". All of the organizations I mentioned represent major threats to one or more countries.

Not on the scale of the Taliban, and none of those other countries is a nuclear power, unlike Pakistan. And no, I don't think either Hamas or Hezbollah has even the remotest possibility of overthrowing Israel. They'd have to go through the US first, assuming the extremely unlikely event that they got that far which they wouldn't and couldn't. Hamas doesn't have a country, unless you consider an area that they have no control of security in, bordered by borders that they don't control.

[redcake]

I'm sure you know Hezbollah still exists, that's why I pointed out that you were talking about them in past tense. Now I'll point out that, you're pretending they didn't annex a chunk of Lebanon, while sitting in their official government....

[andak01]

I'm sure you know Hezbollah still exists, that's why I pointed out that you were talking about them in past tense. Now I'll point out that, you're pretending they didn't annex a chunk of Lebanon, while sitting in their official government....

Oh, then you were deliberately creating a diversion. I know to what extent Hezbollah had and has power. They never ruled the whole country like the Taliban DID. There is no comparison whatsoever, even from a purely religious perspective. Moreover, Lebanon is subject to a lot of Western pressures and forces which barely exist in most of Afghanistan. Yes, from a perspective where Israel is the only thing that matters, Hezbollah is the greatest threat in the world. From a global perspective, no.

[redcake]

You made a deliberate misstatement, so it was you trying to create a diversion.

...and again, you make another scarecrow argument. Do you think you said "no other terror group is exactly like the Taliban" or even "no other terror group posed as much of a threat as the Taliban" ? You didn't, you said no other terror groups represented a threat to any nations sovereignty. That's just an absurd attempt at a "terrorism is the bogeyman" argument. You also used past tense to describe thriving terror organizations.

[redcake]

Yes, from a perspective where Israel is the only thing that matters, Hezbollah is the greatest threat in the world. From a global perspective, no.

Hezbollah are a proxy army from Iran.

Along with Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, their activities include Europe, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Liberia, Mali, and so on.

Western targets have included 200 Marine casualties, and a TWA hijacking in addition to targeting Jewish interests worldwide.

[andak01]

You didn't, you said no other terror groups represented a threat to any nations sovereignty. That's just an absurd attempt at a "terrorism is the bogeyman" argument. You also used past tense to describe thriving terror organizations.

It happens to be true. Hezbollah is a fly in Israel's ointment. If they wanted, Israel has the military might to kill every man, woman and child within the bounderies of Lebanon. THEN they could drop a couple of nukes to finish off the parking lot. If truely faced with an existential crisis, the Sampson Option is available to Israel and not (thankfully) to Hezbollah. Hezbollah on the other hand has the power to kill a few Israelis on the border and kidnap some soldiers.

Assuming the above wasn't true and there was a significant military threat, how could Hezbollah maintain of Israel??? They couldn't.

Back to Lebanon. Hezbollah, assuming they could ever get control over the entire Lebanese government would never be allowed to rule. Either the US would invade directly, or back a coup or support Israel in her efforts to do so. Within Lebanon there would be enough resistance that not only the above would never happen, but in any scenario where it could, it couldn't survive.

Also, unlike the Taliban, Hezbollah never did run Lebanon or any other country.

Now, compare that to the Taliban, who have continuously evaded the combined forces of the US and other nations to maintain an insurgiency in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If they gain control over a portion of Afghanistan or Pakistan, they have significant local support and could maintain it for any amount of time. In Pakistan, they have the terrible possibility of going nuclear.

[redcake]

All hyperbole.

There was a time when the PLO was brushed off because they only had 100 tanks, because they were Russian, and old. Now they have a chunk of Israel, and a commitment that Israel will accept Auschwitz borders, not to mention, a Peace Prize, and diplomatic for doing it. Since you like hyperbole, I would argue that their support in academia is about as dangerous as any nuclear bomb, and would happily go door to door and dump a bucket of chemicals on the heads of every Jew they could find, if ever Israel engaged in actual genocide.

A war with Hezbollah is a war with a now nuclear armed Iran, and represents a multiborder attack on Israel. Any organization annexing key border towns, colluding with 2 foreign governments, and pushing a country into war with it's neighbor while sitting in Parliament is a threat. It proves that a terror organization like Hezbollah can undermined Lebanon's sovereignty. Take into account their activities worldwide, including attacks on US military targets, Syria's own occupation which the US did nothing to stop, and add in some history so you can grasp the reasons why there is a Free Lebanon movement in the first place, and it's not much of a debate. Terror groups do pose real threats to sovereignty.

I also don't think it's accurate to actually compare the Taliban to a terror organization anyway. It's another straw man.

[andak01]

I also don't think it's accurate to actually compare the Taliban to a terror organization anyway. It's another straw man.

Seriously? My God you're right! A terrorist organization then is one that commits acts of terror and doesn't control oil pipeline territory. Cutting of heads and terrorizing villages doesn't put them in that category. I'd think the very fact that they do what they do and aren't classified as terrorists makes them more dangerous. This means the Taliban could be seen as some group we'd be willing to negotiate with at some point even though they sheltered Al Qaida. That's a pretty sad thought.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_doesnt_classify_Taliban_as_terrorists_0503.html

[redcake]

Okay, so maybe it serves some purpose for you to blur the lines between a radical underground terror militia, and a radical governing power, but there is a difference between, say, Abu Nidal Group, and the Baathist Party. I don't know why you would argue otherwise.

Dictatorships do tend to come to power through coups, and other rogue means, often deploying guerilla armies, and employing terror. Once in power, we must distinguish between a head of state ordering decapitation, and a network of radical Muslim mercenaries and Islamic terrorist organizations. Why marginalize the the threat that any of the above pose? Eliminate Saddam, or the Taliban, and you still have the Muslim Brotherhood, which predate them both.

[andak01]

Okay, so maybe it serves some purpose for you to blur the lines between a radical underground terror militia, and a radical governing power, but there is a difference between, say, Abu Nidal Group, and the Baathist Party. I don't know why you would argue otherwise.

No. It serves a purpose for you to claim I'm blurring distinctions when it is you who are doing that. I claimed that the Taliban was different from other groups in very specific ways and your response was to group the Taliban with Hezbollah and Hamas.


Dictatorships do tend to come to power through coups, and other rogue means, often deploying guerilla armies, and employing terror. Once in power, we must distinguish between a head of state ordering decapitation, and a network of radical Muslim mercenaries and Islamic terrorist organizations. Why marginalize the the threat that any of the above pose? Eliminate Saddam, or the Taliban, and you still have the Muslim Brotherhood, which predate them both.

It isn't marginalizing Hezbollah to state that they are neither as large or as powerful as the Taliban. That's like saying it marginalizes the moon to claim that it's smaller than the sun! Hezbollah could not stave off the best that America and a multinational force has to offer for a period of years in more than one country, the Taliban can and continues to.

[redcake]

It's not entirely inaccurate to refer to them as terrorists, but it is inaccurate, not to mention, deliberately misleading for you to use them as your scare crow to discredit the long standing extremist Muslim threat outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. You're even overstating the Taliban's defense abilities to make your argument. Stop mischaracterizing the current threat of terror groups.

[andak01]

It's not entirely inaccurate to refer to them as terrorists, but it is inaccurate, not to mention, deliberately misleading for you to use them as your scare crow to discredit the long standing extremist Muslim threat outside Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I wasn't the one who brought up Hezbollah and Hamas in the first place! We were talking specific to Howard Zinn's speech where he was interupted by an Afghani! I wasn't discrediting them (other than to say that they can't and shouldn't rule).



You're even overstating the Taliban's defense abilities to make your argument. Stop mischaracterizing the current threat of terror groups.

Well after one of the longest conflicts in American history, they are still a threat demanding extra troop deployments against a multi-national force. I don't think that's overstating. Do you think that Hezbollah or Hamas could last a similar period against the same force???

[redcake]

Their brethren in Iraq have done as well as any Taliban forces, and without the terrain.

[andak01]

Their brethren in Iraq have done as well as any Taliban forces, and without the terrain.

Whose brethren? Hezbollah? Be clear. There are many different groups operating in Iraq, almost none of whom were present during Saddam's bloody rule.

[redcake]

Be clear about what? Hezbollah, yes. Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups, yes.
What needs clarifying for you?

[andak01]

Be clear about what? Hezbollah, yes. Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups, yes.
What needs clarifying for you?

You mentioned Iraq. Much of what is happening in Iraq is Shiite based vigilanteism which also has Iranian support. If you are talking about Hezbollah's "brethren", perhaps that's what you meant. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban are both Sunni, but miles apart both physically and philosophically. Again, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt spends half their time in prison. They never ran Egypt as the Taliban did Afghanistan and still do parts of Pakistan.

[redcake]

If you're going to attempt to minimize the influence and widespread activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, including an active role in in the Soviet-Afghan war, you're making a losing argument.

If you're going to deny collusion between Shia and Sunni terror organizations, that too is a losing argument.

[andak01]

If you're going to attempt to minimize the influence and widespread activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, including an active role in in the Soviet-Afghan war, you're making a losing argument.

I was not going to attempt that. I never said anything like that and you can make losing arguments 24/7 by putting words in my mouth, but it doesn't contribute to the thread. Next you'll say that I love the Muslim Brotherhood or some other nonsense just like you claimed that I was a maniacal fan of the caliphate.

If you'd stick to topic, we'd still be talking about Howard Zinn and his relation to the Taliban one way or the other and the truth of whether every American student from Afghanistan will 100% certain have his family saved from the Taliban because of George Bush. There's plenty to talk about without the usual smear tactics.


If you're going to deny collusion between Shia and Sunni terror organizations, that too is a losing argument.I don't recall saying that either. But they aren't the same thing and any cooperation is the exception rather than the rule. It seems to me you are the one attempting to blur distinctions while accusing me of doing that.

[redcake]

Blaming the West, manipulating history, and misrepresenting the abilities of terror groups is about as on topic with Zinn, as you can get.

Holding you accountable for your own words isn't smearing you. On the other hand, I never called you a maniacal fan of the Caliphate, so really, who here is doing the smearing, and going off topic, by bringing up something from a locked thread?

[andak01]

Well I couldn't quite remember the quote word for word. No, you didn't say fan. This is right on topic. I have to restate everything thrice to keep you from twisting my words. If I don't mention my loathing for Saddam in every single mention of him, that counts for support. If I don't call the Taliban terrorists with every single word, that's support of them. If I do call them terrorists, I'm marginalizing the Muslim Brotherhood. No, this smearing and misrepresentation is continuous. My job, is not to parrot new orientalists. I don't do this as a job, and if I did, I don't tow the line of caliphate lovers or jihadis or communists enough to last a minute.

Saying that the US was involved in the resistance against the Russians in Afghanistan and that that involvement increased the level of jihadiism there is not a misrepresentation. Did any of the players do it with this end in mind? No!!! The US did it to fight Russia, the Saudis in order to remove a destabilizing threat to their hegemony. But omitting that whole episode as though it never happened- that's misleading. I don't hate my country for doing that and I certainly do hate the Taliban for many of the things they've done. But I won't have the story of Afghanistan told as though it began with 9/11 and ended with Bush making the world safe for Afghanis. Mission not accomplished or even defined.


Holding you accountable for your own words isn't smearing you. On the other hand, I never called you a maniacal fan of the Caliphate, so really, who here is doing the smearing, and going off topic, by bringing up something from a locked thread?


Because your job is to parrot the new orientalists, which is at best all you'll ever be. Only this breed of leftist orientalism is a whitewashing, a defensive apologist orientalism, that borders on fetish and caters towards the maniacal desire for a caliphate. So yes, it should sting to get called on it.

[bararallu]

Ok... Now that we have that settled.

Zinn was a bastard. I hope hell was invented for him and he rots in it for a good while. Hopefully his friend Chimpsky gets the ole wink from the skinny ferryboatman any day now as well. Old capos are hard to to chase off to Sheol, but I hear they may leave in pairs. Then again Novak took the last train the to the west just last year, so Noam may be boring us for a good half century yet.

[andak01]

A lot of historians are nothing more than agitprop. That's why it's important to experience as many as possible. I just watched a library dvd of Kenneth Clarke's "Civilisation". He espoused the view that all of world history culminated in a superior British Empire. "Civilisation" omits India, China, the Golden Age of Spain and everything outside of Christian Europe. One of my favorite quotes is him sitting in a destroyed church with all of the heads of the statues chopped off oozing "Well, it had to happen." I wonder what he would have said about the Taliban.

http://www.dominios.net/perez-rubin/Civilisation_Perez_Rubin.pdf

[dayag]

...One of my favorite quotes is him sitting in a destroyed church with all of the heads of the statues chopped off oozing "Well, it had to happen."...


statues ooze when you cut their heads off? :scratch:

[redcake]

I don't do this as a job, and if I did, I don't tow the line of caliphate lovers or jihadis or communists enough to last a minute.

I don't recall being the one to ever have made those accusations, though your recent posts have reminded me of them.

As for US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody is denying it. Zinn on the other hand is famous for approaching history, not as a scholar, for accuracies sake, but as an activist pushing a biased agenda. His approach is that of a community organizer, and he has carefully created an alternate reality history with glaring omissions.

There is no such thing as a fact in Zinn's world. He admits to such in the intro for People's History. When confronted with these facts, which fall outside his narrative, he has no answer, no footnotes, no sources, nothing. All culpability lands in the lap of the Western World, and dictators are just part of the victimhood cycle.

If you can't admit that Saddam or the Taliban were ruthless dictators who murdered and killed their own, then you are not to be mistaken for a historian. This includes Finkelstein, Chomsky, and the rest who work in that tradition.

[andak01]

statues ooze when you cut their heads off? :scratch:

They do when you use bad grammar! :D

Should read...

...chopped off - he oozed...

or

(independant clause)...chopped off. He oozed: "...

[andak01]

I don't recall being the one to ever have made those accusations, though your recent posts have reminded me of them.

Go back and read the thread that it came from and you'll be reminded again.


As for US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody is denying it. Zinn on the other hand is famous for approaching history, not as a scholar, for accuracies sake, but as an activist pushing a biased agenda.

He's only pushing from the other direction. Historians have used history to prove all sorts of racist and classist theories for centuries. They all have biases as best and form agitprop at worst.



His approach is that of a community organizer, and he has carefully created an alternate reality history with glaring omissions.

My take on it is that he talks about subjects that other historians just don't. The quality and accuracy of what he says is a separate issue. But it is good to include a bit about the struggles of labor unions or anarchists if that is pertanent to the story.


There is no such thing as a fact in Zinn's world. He admits to such in the intro for People's History. When confronted with these facts, which fall outside his narrative, he has no answer, no footnotes, no sources, nothing. All culpability lands in the lap of the Western World, and dictators are just part of the victimhood cycle.

I've heard the same said of Chomsky who provides copious notes.


If you can't admit that Saddam or the Taliban were ruthless dictators who murdered and killed their own, then you are not to be mistaken for a historian. This includes Finkelstein, Chomsky, and the rest who work in that tradition.

I can admit it and have on repeated occasions. That's why I celebrated Saddam's capture and didn't mourn his death. As I mentioned, this continuing effort to paint me as a supporter of him is a smear. As for the Taliban, though it is true that initially I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan, I know much more now than I did then and I long ago changed my tune on that. Hence, post after post of mine describing the Taliban as a threat! Chomsky is to my knowledge still against the conflict in Afghanistan and Finkelstein, unlike myself did not justify any incursion into Lebanon against Hezbollah. So no, I'm not their parrot or their shill because I almost never agree with what they say.

[redcake]

He's only pushing from the other direction. Historians have used history to prove all sorts of racist and classist theories for centuries. They all have biases as best and form agitprop at worst.

This is the morally bankrupt line that liberals have been using to push their propaganda. Even in cases where it's true, that doesn't really explain why someone would attempt to rectify the problem by repeating the same sin. Overtly.

It's a lie to suggest the entire field of historical research and sciences are without ethics.

As to the issue of who you're shilling or parroting, that's neither here nor there for the topic. The Left did in fact provide roundabout support for Saddam through the Zinn deflection approach.

[andak01]

This is the morally bankrupt line that liberals have been using to push their propaganda. Even in cases where it's true, that doesn't really explain why someone would attempt to rectify the problem by repeating the same sin. Overtly.

But you yourself are entirely behind pseudo-historians like Dershowitz who do the same thing.


It's a lie to suggest the entire field of historical research and sciences are without ethics.

I never said that. I said that there is a bias. That is nothing like saying there are no ethics. In fact, some historians have used history to tell a story that they believe is an ethical contribution to humanity, though from a purely factual standpoint, it may not be true.


As to the issue of who you're shilling or parroting, that's neither here nor there for the topic. The Left did in fact provide roundabout support for Saddam through the Zinn deflection approach.

And even if they didn't, that's neither here nor there. The important point is to say that as many times as possible everyday until people believe it. Just like Cheney used to use Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence until people thought he flew the planes! The important thing with you is that you keep telling people I support Saddam and that you connect me with other people you claim are doing the same, not whether I actually did ever support him or not. The truth isn't as important to you as the smear.

BTW, I don't recall being extraordinarily supportive of Howard Zinn anywhere in this thread. I didn't say: "Oh what a great man we lost." or "You just can't stand it that he was right." or anything of the sort.

[redcake]

But you yourself are entirely behind pseudo-historians like Dershowitz who do the same thing.

Am I? Prove it.
Does he? Prove it.

Show me where Dershowitz brags about distorting facts purposely to re-edit history in his own vision.




I never said that. I said that there is a bias.

Garbage. Those who cite the so called unethical practice of historians to justify Zinn's own unethical practices are disparaging every legit historian.

Even where bias exists, it doesn't justify the cycle of bias within Zinn's pseudo-histories.




The important thing with you is that you keep telling people I support Saddam and that you connect me with other people you claim are doing the same, not whether I actually did ever support him or not. The truth isn't as important to you as the smear.

BTW, I don't recall being extraordinarily supportive of Howard Zinn anywhere in this thread. I didn't say: "Oh what a great man we lost." or "You just can't stand it that he was right." or anything of the sort.

Yeah, yeah. I've said nothing of the sort, but you insist on personalizing every discussion and crying wolf. You were defending Zinn, in regards to his approach, which placed the singular blame for modern wars of the middle east, on the West, while refusing to simply acknowledge the population of Afghanistan is better off without Taliban rule.

[bararallu]

First of all,

Where does Dershowitz claim to be a historian? Hes a polemicist, a writer. Zinn fancied himself a historian (even though he was faculti in polysci at Boston U) and abused tenure to get his agenda across. Dershowitz teaches law, not I-A conflict.

[andak01]

First of all,

Where does Dershowitz claim to be a historian? Hes a polemicist, a writer. Zinn fancied himself a historian (even though he was faculti in polysci at Boston U) and abused tenure to get his agenda across. Dershowitz teaches law, not I-A conflict.

Fair enough, though he has written at least one book of purported history. So did Morey, a pastor whose Islamophobic ravings on Islam have been the subject or more than one thread in Israelforum. So did P. V. Oaks, who posited that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple.

I'm not going to be put in a position of defending Zinn. I haven't read any of his books and only a couple of his articles. He did have a Phd. from Columbia in history. That is no measure of how he practiced his craft.