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/orig...ard_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/42...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/20...ns-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