Anyone here read his work? This is the kind of crapola being fed to college and high school kids: You are all evil or dupes, because you’re American.
Here’s a good review of Zinn’s evil masterpiece.
HH
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anyone here read his work? This is the kind of crapola being fed to college and high school kids: You are all evil or dupes, because you’re American.
Here’s a good review of Zinn’s evil masterpiece.[/quote]
“crapola”? “BECAUSE you’re American”? “Evil Masterpiece”?
So, you use over-the-top, distorted comments to blast a book for being over-the-top?
That’s hilarious.
And, by the way, this is NOT what is “being fed to college and high school kids”. As far as I know, no high school teacher uses this book, and the college professors that ASSIGN it, do it mostly for fringe courses for History majors, simply as a point of view – not as proven fact.
Plus, if you are right, and Americans are NOT all “evil or dupes”, I’m pretty sure the students that get the book assigned don’t simply eat it up like mindless morons. Because if they do, it basically proves HIS point – not yours!
And NO, I am not defending his point of view – I am, however, defending his right to have a point of view, his right to print it, and rejecting the assertion that anyone who reads it will instantly become a fringe leftie.
Well, Doc, there’s a teacher in my high school who uses it as his primary text. I’ve battled him for years because its a tissue of Marxist BS — for ex, I never knew that Harry Truman started the Korean War, or that Washington was the richest man in America. I never knew that the British and Americans are like the Bloods and the Crips, the Crips coming out with some tissue of trickery (calling it the Constitution) in order to take over the turf.
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
Since you responded to the thread, I’ll assume you’ve read the book. Being highly intelligient with 3 doctorates, and me trusting in your integrity, do you honestly think this ‘book’ should not be laughed off of any serious lectern?
HH
ON the site, linked to, we see:
“Matt Damon, playing a working-class wunderkind in the 1997 movie Good Will Hunting, quoted from Zinn’s book to show up an arrogant Harvard boy (and impress a Harvard girl).”
As a point of note, the book is mentioned by name not at this part of the movie [when another book is referenced, in light of the topic at hand which I belive is, though can’t spell- pre-aggrerian societies].
The book is mentioned by name when Damon’s character is reviewing the books in the Williams character’s office, and suggests that Zinn’s book is better than the ones he finds on Williams shelf. Williams counters with a reference to Chomsky’s “Manufactured Consent”.
If anyone’s interested, I’ve read everything ever written by both Zinn as well as Chomsky. And I’ve (obviously) seen Good Will Hunting about a zillion times.
If you’re interested in American History, then Zinn’s book is a good read, and is fully referenced with primary texts, for the most part.
Thats where the name comes from. “A People’s History of the United States” was written by examining what actual people (not historians) who were living at the time had to say about things.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Plus, if you are right, and Americans are NOT all “evil or dupes”, I’m pretty sure the students that get the book assigned don’t simply eat it up like mindless morons. Because if they do, it basically proves HIS point – not yours!
ie. [/quote]
How many typical 18 or 19 year olds are able to discern History from Zinn’s tissue of half-truths?
HH
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anyone here read his work?
HH[/quote]
I was just going to ask you that same question.
Have you actually read the work you are criticizing?
Just a question…
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anyone here read his work?
HH
I was just going to ask you that same question.
Have you actually read the work you are criticizing?
Just a question…[/quote]
Certainly, several times. The first chapter is well-documented, which is a good trick. That convinces ‘lightweights’ that this truly is an objective history text. Of course, he finally admits at the end that the book is ‘his take’, from a Marxist perspective. (If I wasn’t familiar with the man, I’d think he wrote this book as a grand joke.)
You’d know all of this if you had genuine teachers instead of phony, posturing left-wing nutcase profs; and hadn’t ingested bug spray, in an attempt to lose bodyfat by cooking your body. Tell me, when you run out of caps, do you whoof some Raid or something?
HH
The book is awful and should not be assigned at any level - assigning would give it authority it does not deserve.
At its base, it isn’t a history book - the history, that is the chronicling of events of the past, has already been done for him. All Zinn is doing is applying his Marxist theory to work that has already been written by legitimate historians.
It has no footnotes. And, even if you accept it as a social theory piece, it conveniently ignores information that does not square with the author’s opinion. At the least, even the most committed ideologue has to address counterpoints and try and explain them away - that apparently is too much trouble for Zinn.
It is therapeutic at best - and with so many other good books available, it should remain a choice for boneheaded leftist imbeciles, and not required reading.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, Doc, there’s a teacher in my high school who uses it as his primary text. [/quote]
Well, you much teach at a very unusual high school – I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t fly well at all even here in the ultra-liberal Bay Area. If any teacher around these parts did that, either the PTA or the School District would make sure that was changed or accompanied by a large disclaimer that even a chimp could read.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?[/quote]
What “major Big 10”, specifically? Just curious. I’m sure it wasn’t Harvard, Stanford or Princeton, so which one was it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since you responded to the thread, I’ll assume you’ve read the book. Being highly intelligient with 3 doctorates, and me trusting in your integrity, do you honestly think this ‘book’ should not be laughed off of any serious lectern?[/quote]
I’ve read the book cover to cover a couple of times, and I actually have it at home. It is obviously biased but it still is interesting, even if it’s because it’s one of the very few works written in the US that is in the far left end of the spectrum. You have to understand a view in order to disagree with it. Much like I read the ?Communist Manifesto? (technically the title is Manifesto of the Communist Party, but let?s use the short version of the title) a couple dozen times, even though I am a Capitalist (believe it or not, I am).
You taking the position that it should just be laughed off would be like me claiming that Atlas Shrugged should be laughed off. However, I have read AS cover to cover a couple of times too and still keep it. And I don?t find it particularly amusing, just extremely na?ve. Still, I recommend it to anyone who wants to be educated about politics. Like I do the Communist Manifesto.
And yes, I understand that many people around here laughed off Atlas Shrugged, and if THEY said you should laugh off this book, I couldn’t argue much with them. But a firm Rand Evangelist like yourself? That’s not very consistent of you, that’s all I’m saying.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is therapeutic at best - and with so many other good books available, it should remain a choice for boneheaded leftist imbeciles, and not required reading.[/quote]
If you want to claim to be an expert in an area, you need to understand all aspects of that area – left, right and center, fringe included. So a History or a Political Science Major absolutely needs to read this book in other to claim any kind of expertise in those matters. You cannot talk intelligently about you cannot understand, and his views, albeit outside mainstream, are still shared by enough people that they require attention from anyone that claims to know about US History or Political Science.
Anyone can be an expert on their own opinion – and you don’t need to go to college to become one. Just stay at home and talk to yourself.
[quote]hspder wrote:
If you want to claim to be an expert in an area, you need to understand all aspects of that area – left, right and center, fringe included. So a History or a Political Science Major absolutely needs to read this book in other to claim any kind of expertise in those matters.[/quote]
I agree, you need varying viewpoints - my point is not just that Zinn’s book is ideological - it is poorly constructed to support his ideology. In that sense, I think it doesn’t do well to spend any time on it.
My suggestion is that reading Marx would cover it. Zinn does not add anything to the debate at all.
[quote]Anyone can be an expert on their own opinion – and you don’t need to go to college to become one. Just stay at home and talk to yourself.
[/quote]
We agree on this - but in the context of a History/Political Science education, there are only so many books you can assign. And this one should be skipped. It does not add to any critical thinking skills, largely because it doesn’t even make arguments on its own behalf. Assigning it gives it undue authority, in my opinion, and we should be sending the message that whatever your political stripe, this is not a book of good scholarship. It should not have the privilege of being part of that canon - and there are plenty of others to choose from.
I love history; in fact, nearly all of my interests–art, politics, religion, literature–are born out of my love for history. I plan on someday teaching history.
The man responsible for fostering that love is an ardent leftist; however, as an intellectually honest person and responsible professor, regardless of his personal feelings about Zinn–and I assure you, he agrees with the man on most points wholeheartedly–he never once asked or even suggested that we, his students, read Zinn’s work as a source of objective history. The reason: Zinn doesn’t even pretend to present an objective view of history. He has an axe to grind.
Everyone interested in history should read his work; however, take it for what it is. He effectively takes history and transforms it into a political treatise and while there is nothing wrong with that per se, it makes his work wholly inappropriate as a secondary source in a histroy classroom, and I find it hard to believe, and scary if true, that any self respecting teacher would use it as such.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My suggestion is that reading Marx would cover it. Zinn does not add anything to the debate at all.[/quote]
Zinn is looking specifically at US History – very different from just reading Marx’s work. Many people, in order to understand a philosophy, like (or need) to see it being applied to something familiar in order to better grasp it. And Zinn does exactly that.
And no, looking at USSR history would not be equally enlightening, because Stalinism has as much to do with Marxism as an ape has to do with a bird.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’d know all of this if you had genuine teachers instead of phony, posturing left-wing nutcase profs; and hadn’t ingested bug spray, in an attempt to lose bodyfat by cooking your body. Tell me, when you run out of caps, do you whoof some Raid or something?[/quote]
Let me guess: you heard that joke from one of your students?
Because, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds just about right as a jab an immature teenager would use.
[quote]hspder wrote:
And no, looking at USSR history would not be equally enlightening, because Stalinism has as much to do with Marxism as an ape has to do with a bird.
[/quote]
What?! Stalinism is Marxism taken to its logical conclusions. The basic premise of Marxism is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Since no objective measure of need exists, some person or group has to decide what someone else’s needs are.
Those who do the deciding also have to decide if each person gave ‘according to his ability’. This therefore sets the stage for dictatorship. What if someone doesn’t WANT to give according to his ability? What if someone decides they NEED a yacht, provided by the ‘commune’? The PARTY decides and must have the power to enforce its decisions.
Suppose I love the work of Beethoven. Someone else needs new furniture. So, some ‘party’ decides that the needs of those wanting furniture supercedes my love of Beethoven. I have to do without. But why are someone else’s needs more important than mine? The Party decides.
Why did every society that tried this evil theory become a dictatorship, a hell on earth? Its because the theory is designed to do just that. Why can’t a very evil person propose a theory that THEY KNOW will cause suffering? Marx was a cold-blooded killer, the longest range murderer on earth. He knew what he was creating. Let’s damn him and move on.
HH
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You’d know all of this if you had genuine teachers instead of phony, posturing left-wing nutcase profs; and hadn’t ingested bug spray, in an attempt to lose bodyfat by cooking your body. Tell me, when you run out of caps, do you whoof some Raid or something?
Let me guess: you heard that joke from one of your students?
Because, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds just about right as a jab an immature teenager would use.
[/quote]
Just search for his article here about DNP.
HH
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
What “major Big 10”, specifically? Just curious. I’m sure it wasn’t Harvard, Stanford or Princeton, so which one was it?
[/quote]
Big 10 = Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State… etc.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
What “major Big 10”, specifically? Just curious. I’m sure it wasn’t Harvard, Stanford or Princeton, so which one was it?
Big 10 = Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State… etc.
[/quote]
And the funny part is, he’ll swear up and down he’s not an elitist jackass.
and it’s THE Ohio State University. 
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Big 10 = Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State… etc.[/quote]
I know that. I just want to know which one of them was it…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
What “major Big 10”, specifically? Just curious. I’m sure it wasn’t Harvard, Stanford or Princeton, so which one was it?
Big 10 = Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State… etc.
And the funny part is, he’ll swear up and down he’s not an elitist jackass.
and it’s THE Ohio State University.
[/quote]
Haha, who doesn’t know what the Big X is? There may be 11 of them, and they may not be as dominant football teams as the SEC, but still…