Thread: History of the United States

This cuts right through the propaganda.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

Originally Posted by BigDyl

This cuts right through the propaganda.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

Thanks Dyl. Sorry for ripping into you in the sports forum.

Originally Posted by Doublebase

Thanks Dyl. Sorry for ripping into you in the sports forum.

You did?

There's no way in the world you're going to get a realistic account from Howard Zinn. Just check up on his history and ideology.

These two reviews of his book (at Amazon) spell it out correctly:

A book like this could only be taken seriously within the political context that we currently live. Today, it is considered 'sexy' and 'enlightened' to bash white American men and all they accomplished. Today, it is considered 'sexy' and 'enlightened' to feed the flames of white 'guilt' and extoll accomplishments however dubious or downright fanciful of those conquered by historical circumstances. Pure common sense, however, would dictate that White Americans have no more reason to feel 'guilt' for what was done in the past than the Angles and the Saxons have to feel 'guilt' for conquering England. Likewise, it is equally ludicrous for the Norwegians and the Swedes to feel 'guilt' over what the Vikings did to the peoples of Russia, France, Britain, Greenland and Newfoundland. And I think we call all be reassured that the tribes of West and Central Africa which assisted in the roundup of fresh slaves to be sold to European and Arab traders likewise give the issue very little reflective thought.

Historical interpretation is all relative. What is considered 'wrong' by today's moral standards was not considered 'wrong' when the events described in Zinn's book actually took place. You simply cannot understand the motivations of people of two hundred years ago if you insist on filtering them through the politically correct standards of today. This makes for serious historical mis-judgements and injects books like Zinn's with obvious political taint which compromises their historical value.

Judging history in a politically correct context is a dangerous thing. What is politically correct today may not be so tomorrow and Zinn's book may thus be rendered redundant or, at the very least, pure bunk -- Matt Damon's unauthoritative opinion notwithstanding.

History and politics must always remain a separate thing. That it isn't today is obvious. Just as political correctness forbids an open and objective debate on, to cite an eloquent example, the so-called 'holocaust', where researchers like Germar Rudolf and David Irving have even been put in jail for research that at least demands a re-opening of the whole issue of exactly what happened to European Jewry during the Second World War, books like Zinn's can only serve to entertain rather than educate and inform.

And

Do you think America was to blame for Pearl Harbor? Or Fidel Castro's Cuba has no bloody record of oppression? Or that the American response against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9-11 was inappropriate? If so, _A People's History of the United States_, written by Howard Zinn, a committed Marxist, "will knock you on your ass" as Matt Damon put it in _Good Will Hunting_. Rational people will come to a different conclusion.

Comparing a "people's history" to history is similar to comparing a "people's republic" to a republic.

For starters, Zinn doesn't believe in objectivity. Surprise there. For Zinn, to be objective is to avoid taking a point of view, which he thinks is impossible. When we choose to talk about something, Zinn writes in the Afterward, we simultaneously choose not to talk about something else. The interests of the historian are inevitably interwoven in history, whether the historian is conscious of it or not. So Zinn says.

If Zinn happened to write about baseball, he would "expose" the team's best hitter as a bad player by showing a dozen videos of him striking out while ignoring the 40 home runs, the 120 RBIs, and the .300 batting average. If you build a baseball team like this, that is, deliberately avoiding the big picture, i.e. overall, general assessments -- you'll end up with a collection of losers. Such has been the story of modern socialism.

For Marxists like Zinn, morals, metaphysics, and thought are all part of an ideological superstructure that sit upon an economic base that determines everything. We're all zombies with minds determined by economic conditions, except for Marxists, who have direct insight into reality that no one else has. I don't know how free marketers like Ludwig von Mises, son of a railroad engineer, or Milton Friedman, a son of working class Hungarian immigrants, are explained, but we can always put these people in the gulag.

Zinn ignores context and substitutes partisanship for synopsis. If one reads other histories, class and race are unified with everything else to form a whole that means something. A good history not only combines particulars in meaningful ways, but finds the relations in the particulars, leading to an answer why things happened. Again, context matters.

Zinn doesn't provide *any* documentation for his claims. This is history for stupes. Zinn treats his audience like hippie stoners too indolent to look things up and verify his claims.

As I mentioned before Zinn doesn't connect any dots. He just dumps his dots there, as if they "expose" the evil nature of our society. Unfortunately, exposure without argument is not justification for a claim; it explains nothing. From Zinn, we don't learn anything about how military, legal, and religious innovations influence the course of events. Not to mention individual initiative. Zinn proceeds aimlessly from topic to topic without justifying his Marxist theses with any reasoning, as if a list of all of the tragic events that have occurred in the United States are enough. For Zinn, if he only talks about class conflict, race, gender oppression, and imperialism, then everything is about class conflict, race, gender oppression, and imperialism. I never knew words had such magic power.

There are other problems too. Zinn seems to forget that the people he deals with are real; they never come off the page and all seem like cardboard cutouts -- everyone is either a capitalist oppressor or a noble victim. None of Zinn's victims ever get what they deserve, and no good deed is done with noble intent. When good developments do come along, like the American Revolution, it is always a secret conspiracy among elites to ingratiate themselves with middle classes to screw the poor. Since the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer, it is an unexplained miracle how everyone obtained cars, DVD players, computers, dishwashers and other oppressive features of modern life.

Zinn provides nothing except propaganda. One can't go from a few examples to sweeping generalizations without explanatory principles, and when one can think of many counterexamples quickly, extraordinary inductions require extraordinary evidence.

This book is not a research effort that searches for the truth and lets the chips fall where they may. It is seriously skewed, and no, it is *not* okay to write history this way.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

You did?

I just corrected you. I noticed there is a newer copy of this book.

Originally Posted by DOMS

There's no way in the world you're going to get a realistic account from Howard Zinn. Just check up on his history and ideology.

These two reviews of his book (at Amazon) spell it out correctly:

A book like this could only be taken seriously within the political context that we currently live. Today, it is considered 'sexy' and 'enlightened' to bash white American men and all they accomplished. Today, it is considered 'sexy' and 'enlightened' to feed the flames of white 'guilt' and extoll accomplishments however dubious or downright fanciful of those conquered by historical circumstances. Pure common sense, however, would dictate that White Americans have no more reason to feel 'guilt' for what was done in the past than the Angles and the Saxons have to feel 'guilt' for conquering England. Likewise, it is equally ludicrous for the Norwegians and the Swedes to feel 'guilt' over what the Vikings did to the peoples of Russia, France, Britain, Greenland and Newfoundland. And I think we call all be reassured that the tribes of West and Central Africa which assisted in the roundup of fresh slaves to be sold to European and Arab traders likewise give the issue very little reflective thought.

Historical interpretation is all relative. What is considered 'wrong' by today's moral standards was not considered 'wrong' when the events described in Zinn's book actually took place. You simply cannot understand the motivations of people of two hundred years ago if you insist on filtering them through the politically correct standards of today. This makes for serious historical mis-judgements and injects books like Zinn's with obvious political taint which compromises their historical value.

Judging history in a politically correct context is a dangerous thing. What is politically correct today may not be so tomorrow and Zinn's book may thus be rendered redundant or, at the very least, pure bunk -- Matt Damon's unauthoritative opinion notwithstanding.

History and politics must always remain a separate thing. That it isn't today is obvious. Just as political correctness forbids an open and objective debate on, to cite an eloquent example, the so-called 'holocaust', where researchers like Germar Rudolf and David Irving have even been put in jail for research that at least demands a re-opening of the whole issue of exactly what happened to European Jewry during the Second World War, books like Zinn's can only serve to entertain rather than educate and inform.

And

Do you think America was to blame for Pearl Harbor? Or Fidel Castro's Cuba has no bloody record of oppression? Or that the American response against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9-11 was inappropriate? If so, _A People's History of the United States_, written by Howard Zinn, a committed Marxist, "will knock you on your ass" as Matt Damon put it in _Good Will Hunting_. Rational people will come to a different conclusion.

Comparing a "people's history" to history is similar to comparing a "people's republic" to a republic.

For starters, Zinn doesn't believe in objectivity. Surprise there. For Zinn, to be objective is to avoid taking a point of view, which he thinks is impossible. When we choose to talk about something, Zinn writes in the Afterward, we simultaneously choose not to talk about something else. The interests of the historian are inevitably interwoven in history, whether the historian is conscious of it or not. So Zinn says.

If Zinn happened to write about baseball, he would "expose" the team's best hitter as a bad player by showing a dozen videos of him striking out while ignoring the 40 home runs, the 120 RBIs, and the .300 batting average. If you build a baseball team like this, that is, deliberately avoiding the big picture, i.e. overall, general assessments -- you'll end up with a collection of losers. Such has been the story of modern socialism.

For Marxists like Zinn, morals, metaphysics, and thought are all part of an ideological superstructure that sit upon an economic base that determines everything. We're all zombies with minds determined by economic conditions, except for Marxists, who have direct insight into reality that no one else has. I don't know how free marketers like Ludwig von Mises, son of a railroad engineer, or Milton Friedman, a son of working class Hungarian immigrants, are explained, but we can always put these people in the gulag.

Zinn ignores context and substitutes partisanship for synopsis. If one reads other histories, class and race are unified with everything else to form a whole that means something. A good history not only combines particulars in meaningful ways, but finds the relations in the particulars, leading to an answer why things happened. Again, context matters.

Zinn doesn't provide *any* documentation for his claims. This is history for stupes. Zinn treats his audience like hippie stoners too indolent to look things up and verify his claims.

As I mentioned before Zinn doesn't connect any dots. He just dumps his dots there, as if they "expose" the evil nature of our society. Unfortunately, exposure without argument is not justification for a claim; it explains nothing. From Zinn, we don't learn anything about how military, legal, and religious innovations influence the course of events. Not to mention individual initiative. Zinn proceeds aimlessly from topic to topic without justifying his Marxist theses with any reasoning, as if a list of all of the tragic events that have occurred in the United States are enough. For Zinn, if he only talks about class conflict, race, gender oppression, and imperialism, then everything is about class conflict, race, gender oppression, and imperialism. I never knew words had such magic power.

There are other problems too. Zinn seems to forget that the people he deals with are real; they never come off the page and all seem like cardboard cutouts -- everyone is either a capitalist oppressor or a noble victim. None of Zinn's victims ever get what they deserve, and no good deed is done with noble intent. When good developments do come along, like the American Revolution, it is always a secret conspiracy among elites to ingratiate themselves with middle classes to screw the poor. Since the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer, it is an unexplained miracle how everyone obtained cars, DVD players, computers, dishwashers and other oppressive features of modern life.

Zinn provides nothing except propaganda. One can't go from a few examples to sweeping generalizations without explanatory principles, and when one can think of many counterexamples quickly, extraordinary inductions require extraordinary evidence.

This book is not a research effort that searches for the truth and lets the chips fall where they may. It is seriously skewed, and no, it is *not* okay to write history this way.

Well, Well, what a suprise, DOMS couldn't resist!

Yeah, I knew you were going to cut and paste some reviews that were negative towards that book. Of course there are negative reviews, it is highly controversial because of its progressive nature.

DOMS probably didn't even read the negative reviews, let alone the book. He just saw some 1 stars, and copy pasted that shit.

I just want a book that is not partial to anyone. That just explains what happened and why. Like a timeline that briefly generalizes the events in U.S histroy. Sort of like a textbook but more interesting, if you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Well, Well, what a suprise, DOMS couldn't resist!

Yeah, I knew you were going to cut and paste some reviews that were negative towards that book. Of course there are negative reviews, it is highly controversial because of its progressive nature.

DOMS probably didn't even read the negative reviews, let alone the book. He just saw some 1 stars, and copy pasted that shit.

If you believe that Howard Zinn (do you even know who he is?) can provide a balanced book, you're more of idiot that I thought.

You really and truly are a dumbshit.

Originally Posted by Doublebase

I just want a book that is not partial to anyone. That just explains what happened and why. Like a timeline that briefly generalizes the events in U.S histroy. Sort of like a textbook but more interesting, if you know what I mean.

There is no such thing as a non-biased source.

Originally Posted by DOMS

If you believe that Howard Zinn (do you even know who he is?) can provide a balanced book, you're more of idiot that I thought.

You really and truly are a dumbshit.

I guess Foxnews had him on their blacklist?

Originally Posted by Doublebase

I just want a book that is not partial to anyone. That just explains what happened and why. Like a timeline that briefly generalizes the events in U.S histroy. Sort of like a textbook but more interesting, if you know what I mean.

Then forget that book. You're going to be hard pressed to find such a book. What you're going to have to do is find serveral, non-extremist, books on a particular period and start reading. You'll have to exptrapolate the "truth" from them. By "truth", I mean what seems most resonable. There is no way you're going to get a truly factual book for most events.

Many people find this an enjoyable pasttime. You many find that you're one of these people.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I guess Foxnews had him on their blacklist?

Do they? I wonder who's on the Washington Posts blacklist?

Originally Posted by Doublebase

I just want a book that is not partial to anyone. That just explains what happened and why. Like a timeline that briefly generalizes the events in U.S histroy. Sort of like a textbook but more interesting, if you know what I mean.

not gonna happen! thats like asking for a hot chick who cooks and cleans!

Actually, what you'll have to do is eliminate the books which only have the white male version of history - you know, the ones in which the only heroic figures that weren't hetero white dudes was a lady who sewed a flag, a nurse and a President's wife who is more famous today for making fast-food baked goods.

What is interesting is the idea that inclusion of the stories of other Americans is somehow "extremist" in its viewpoint. . .rather than questioning just what the "political correctness" was in a society where the minority of the population had pretty much all the historical stories for 200 years. Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't had the biblical view that some human beings exist for the sole purpose of serving the white male for most of our history.

There's nothing extremist about including other American voices - though it is difficult in a country where 35% of the population holds more than 80% of all elected offices and has a history of utter paranoia at the notion that someone of a different color, different gender, or a peepee that points in another direction might have accomplished something of value.

If you decide to use Zinn's book, try contrasting it with a typical American History textbook of, say, about 30-40 years ago. It could be a pretty amazing project.

Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr.,Ph.D.! Good read and it totally unbaised!

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Actually, what you'll have to do is eliminate the books which only have the white male version of history

What you've just said is that everyone but white males have the "truth." I bet you think you're being "realistic" or "even-handed."

What a joke.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

a country where 35% of the population holds more than 80% of all elected offices

See, us crackers are underdogs, doers of the impossible. We have the eye of the tiger and there is nothing you can do about it.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What you've just said is that everyone but white males have the "truth." I bet you think you're being "realistic" or "even-handed."

What a joke.

I think the joke here is your amazing inability to comprehend a sentence. You don't have to reword, rephrase or reconstruct a statement in order to create a new meaning.

What I said was "Actually, what you'll have to do is eliminate the books which only have the white male version of history."

One does wonder why that makes the white boyz so damned insecure. But then, they were the ones who invented political correctness.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

IWhat I said was "Actually, what you'll have to do is eliminate the books which only have the white male version of history."

This is in the context of the rest of your post. You know, where you extolled the virtures of a non-white history.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

One does wonder why that makes the white boyz so damned insecure. But then, they were the ones who invented political correctness.

White, liberal wing-nut, people did it with the help of, primarily, black people.

"boyz"? So, you're black then? You're a gay minority? A liberal's wet dream?

Originally Posted by Doublebase

I am looking for a good book that goes through the history of the U.S. A basic overview and timeline. I know I could get this from reading on the internet but I don't want to stare at a computer screen. Any recomandations, John H. Thanks everyone.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

A People's History of the United States
by Howard Zinn


Best American history book you will ever read..

Originally Posted by DOMS

This is in the context of the rest of your post. You know, where you extolled the virtures of a non-white history.

Right. That's why you quoted the other part. So we assume that something is virtuous simply because we acknowledge and teach its existence? That would reflect the mindset of the white forefathers who eliminated or minimized other voices in our history books, wouldn't it? This is exactly the curious and insecure issue - the notion that if we even include or acknowledge the existence of others in our culture, it somehow degrades the white male's contribution. How very curious. But then it lines right up with the idea that white boyz take no responsibility for anything bad the forefathers might have done, but want all the glory for the good things - and consider the contributions of any other Americans as "political correctness."

White, liberal wing-nut, people did it with the help of, primarily, black people.

"boyz"? So, you're black then? You're a gay minority? A liberal's wet dream?

My, my. . .always go right for the wingnut strategy of personalizing a discussion.

Does someone have to be Black in order to learn or study about the contributions of Harriet Tubman or Fredrick Douglas? Does someone have to be gay to find out that the man who saved Ronald Reagan from Sara Jane Moore's assassin's bullet was a gay American...whose life was ruined after media scrutiny discovered his sexual orientation and the White House couldn't treat him as a hero. While I might admit that you almost have to be a liberal to understand concepts like freedom (since conservatives are still trying to find Bible verses they can reconstruct to show that God ordered a republic established with a President and Congress under the 700 Club) it isn't a requirement to be one to understand child labor laws, 12-hour workdays, tenement slums, individual rights or (shudder) the right to privacy.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

A People's History of the United States
by Howard Zinn


Best American history book you will ever read..

Already posted that...

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Already posted that...

Just getting your back........bitch

Originally Posted by kbm8795

My, my. . .always go right for the wingnut strategy of personalizing a discussion.

Does someone have to be Black in order to learn or study about the contributions of Harriet Tubman or Fredrick Douglas? Does someone have to be gay to find out that the man who saved Ronald Reagan from Sara Jane Moore's assassin's bullet was a gay American...whose life was ruined after media scrutiny discovered his sexual orientation and the White House couldn't treat him as a hero. While I might admit that you almost have to be a liberal to understand concepts like freedom (since conservatives are still trying to find Bible verses they can reconstruct to show that God ordered a republic established with a President and Congress under the 700 Club) it isn't a requirement to be one to understand child labor laws, 12-hour workdays, tenement slums, individual rights or (shudder) the right to privacy.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

My, my. . .always go right for the wingnut strategy of personalizing a discussion.

Does someone have to be Black in order to learn or study about the contributions of Harriet Tubman or Fredrick Douglas? Does someone have to be gay to find out that the man who saved Ronald Reagan from Sara Jane Moore's assassin's bullet was a gay American...whose life was ruined after media scrutiny discovered his sexual orientation and the White House couldn't treat him as a hero. While I might admit that you almost have to be a liberal to understand concepts like freedom (since conservatives are still trying to find Bible verses they can reconstruct to show that God ordered a republic established with a President and Congress under the 700 Club) it isn't a requirement to be one to understand child labor laws, 12-hour workdays, tenement slums, individual rights or (shudder) the right to privacy.

Nice to see you back Kbm.
How old are you anyway?

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Does someone have to be Black in order to learn or study about the contributions of Harriet Tubman or Frederick Douglas?

These people are in the "white man's" history books. Try to imply that they are not?

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Does someone have to be gay to find out that the man who saved Ronald Reagan from Sara Jane Moore's assassin's bullet was a gay American...whose life was ruined after media scrutiny discovered his sexual orientation and the White House couldn't treat him as a hero.

This is absolutely atrocious.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

While I might admit that you almost have to be a liberal to understand concepts like freedom (since conservatives are still trying to find Bible verses they can reconstruct to show that God ordered a republic established with a President and Congress under the 700 Club) it isn't a requirement to be one to understand child labor laws, 12-hour workdays, tenement slums, individual rights or (shudder) the right to privacy.

You whine and cry about attacks, yet here are doing the same. Just another hypocritical leftist who believes they can do no wrong.