The Murdering of History - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tor · #16 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Here is a link to an interview with Howard Zinn.

Howard Zinn | The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism

In this interview Zinn dicusses how our lack of historical knowledge and perspective damages our ability to make informed decisions. Our lack of knowledge leads us into be duped by politicians and the media, so that we consent to things which are not always in our best interest for reasons of emotionalism and faith rather than critical analysis and informed choice.

Dilettante · #17 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

This whole concept almost makes you go crazy because you just don't know what to believe. This is another reason why when people ask for "proof" or "facts" I don't do it... it's almost pointless.

I don't think I would go that far.

I imagine, in most cases if you let two very different groups (women/men, winners/losers, elite/oppressed, whatever) write the history of some given event or period of time, the two histories would tend to agree more often then not when it came to objective historical information.

By "objective historical information" I mean the basics of when, where and what events took place. Each group might choose to highlight different events and disregard others, but (assuming these are real historian and not intentional propagandists or historically ignorant) I doubt the accounts would often directly conflict with regard to what events happened, when, and where and to/by whom.

However, such objective measures in actuallity make up only a portion of history. There is also the questions of "Why" events happened and "How" they happened. These are far more subjective and its quite likely that even the most honest historians from different backgrounds will end up differing on these issues.

An example. NPR recently did a little spot on the changing history of the Spanish-American War. They presented the texts of various history books from different years. They all more or less concurred on the basics of what happened (e.g. this battle was fought on date X, so many people died. A treaty was signed on date Y stating that.... etc). Some included facts that the others left out, but by in large they didn't really conflict on the basic objective facts.
When it came to why the war was fought, who won it, who the good guys were, and whether the result was good or bad, the texts differred substantially.

Tor · #18 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

When it came to why the war was fought, who won it, who the good guys were, and whether the result was good or bad, the texts differred substantially.

IMHO, the why is the most important part of the equation. Why did we go to war in country X? Was it liberation or imperialism, good intentions or nefarious purposes?

What becomes important is not the event, but the consequences of the event. Who gained control politically or economically, who lost it? Who became the one to choose how history viewed the outcome?

Luap · #19 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Whose reviews are you reading, Strom Thurmond's?

And define historical accuracy.

A review from Amazon, actually, struck my eye. One was by Publisher's Weekly and another from a customer (apparently a historian). As for historical accuracy, I would consider that to be the consideration of all viewpoints and sources without preference or ignorance toward any. Zinn, on the other hand, is apparently attempting to show an unbalanced account. From a review on Amazon:

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. J Szasz

Zinn's "radical" style is deliberately unbalanced, he makes no apologies for this, it is an attempt to right the largely unbalanced scales of history written by dominant elites, those who have and hold the power. This is a worthy ideal, but I am not so sure that a descriptive litany of abuse by those with power really says that much about an accurate interpretation of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Is it not accurate to portray Columbus from the perspective of the population he oppressed to gain his objectives? Must we still view him as the brave explorer who "discovered" America, centuries after the Vikings?

Is it not accurate to portray the settling of America from the perspective of the American Indians, to whom we lied, made false promises, and then shuttled from place to place when we wanted their land? Should we keep stereotyping them as bloodthirsty savages who killed helpless settlers?

Is it not accurate to portray the economic development of the southern colonies from the perspective of indentured servants and slaves, or the Industrial Revolution from the perspective of immigrants, women and children? Or is the only important factor the glorifying of the United States and our elusive American Dream?

Of course all those instances are accurate. History should portray events as objectively as is possible, and that means the historian must take into account any perspective on an event he finds. As I said, no preference for one side or the other. Again, according to a review (I’ll post it all at the end) Zinn clearly shows preference for the “underdog.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Should we condemn history to be viewed only from the perspective of good old white male presidents and politicians, the business tycoons, slave owners and land holders?

No, that wouldn’t be history, that would be propaganda. And so would a history viewed only from the perspective of the people oppressed by the figures above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Perhaps we could allow just a little bit of history to include the perspective of minorities, political adversaries, blue collar workers, and the nations we so handily invade in order to foist our belief systems upon them?

I am not saying that Zinn is unbiased in his viewpoint. Just that he actually offers us a different viewpoint than what has been rammed down our throats through our distorted educational system; a history told from the viewpoint of the western elitists. It's time for a different perspective.

Here is the review I liked most. I underlined a portion of it that I feel replies very well to the quote above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. J Szasz (Amazon reviewer)

After quite a while I finally put the time into reading this book and I am totally ambivalent whether I should have or not...I do not think that one should pay too much attention to those readers who do not take their history seriously, to those that want to propound a certain ideological agenda -- something I am realising has been,and is, a depressing fact of American socialisation. Those people of the ideological left will love this book and the those of the ideological right will hate it.... that is a given.

My question is this: What does Zinn have to say for the non-ideological historian? For the thinking and well considered historian, the person who well distilled in classic debates of history and the role of people, power and groups (classes?) in the grand scheme of things? What does Zinn have to say for those who were raised with a university education where the primary goal was to "display an adequate overview of all major acceptable views, and to show a mature understanding of those views?" -- not to argue just one side. American historiography has a broad tendency to degenerate into opposite truth camps of the right and left, mindlessly shouting out statistics, citing dates, supporting and dashing administrations to try to make a point. The entire pursuit of knowledge has been subverted by a kind of default to crude rhetoric for rhetoric's sake (see any American news programme or most prime-time columnists), and purile debate. Other countries and cultures shake their heads at such perversion of the whole idea of the way Americans understand history.

So do historians such as Zinn add to this atrophy of the brain or do they ammeliorate it? I am not so sure I know the answer. I am thinking that his whole style may betray an answer. Zinn's "radical" style is deliberately unbalanced, he makes no apologies for this, it is an attempt to right the largely unbalanced scales of history written by dominant elites, those who have and hold the power. This is a worthy ideal, but I am not so sure that a descriptive litany of abuse by those with power really says that much about an accurate interpretation of history. And if it does not, then what are people actually taking away from this book...?

Anyone who reads history, and I mean people who read a lot of history, will find Zinn to be more than just unbalanced, they will find him to be simplistic. I was caught up in his light drama (he writes well), in the same way as one reads a comic book... and then it dawned upon me... Zinn (like a left-wing version of Fox News reporting) writes as if history were a comic book. All evil on one side and all deprived and down trodden masses on by the other. For the considerate person looking for a higher understanding there will be an amazing sense of dissatisfaction, a feeling of being swindled. If one is trying to achieve social justice, there is a feeling of being swindled.

That may not be flattering for Mr. Zinn, but I got the distinct feeling that one was dealing with a light-weight in the area of history (some of his research is hard to check, he does not cite pages, and I sometimes wonder if he ever cracked an economic history textbook). He certainly would not be considered up there with the grand old man Hobsbawm (who is truly an intellectual joy to read -- and a leftist with common sense!!), or Lukas(another leftist) in his great tour-de-force "Big Trouble: A Study of Class in America." Zinn does not even rate compared with these historians.

So the question I return to is this.... for the considerate person of history, what does one get from this read? My conclusion is that besides some interesting vignettes on American inhumanity to man, or American inhumanity to American -- not much...Even if American history is imbalanced because the "majority" or mainstream history does not pay heed to the downtrodden, meeting diatribe with diatribe is neither a worthy nor reasonable approach -- moreover it is intellectually dishonest. Being biased, for whatever reason, is not something that historians, scientists, or social theoritst should TRY to be...

Historians must try to grasp a modicum of understanding through the haze of sources and alternative viewpoints. They must neither be hoodwinked by the codswallop of postmodernism or the absolute truth "certainty" of various right-wing historians. That is the challenge for the historian -- indeed it is the challenge for any thinking human being. If one wants to write comics that is a worthy endevour -- it is not however history. For a man of his age, he should know better!

*If you are thinking of reading this I would say that his writing style and capturing the drama is rather good, despite the fact that his sources (from the little I was able to check) are horrible.

iamwhatiseem · #20 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

A couple of points upon reviewing this thread.

1. Stephen Ambrose is a 2nd rate 'pop-culture' historian and a serial plagarist.

Yeah your right...all 2nd rate authors have been sanctioned by a President to write their personal biography.
All 2nd rate historians spent 35 years teaching history at the collegiate level.
All 2nd rate authors have a number of their books being used in colleges to teach from.

The plagarist....in a sentence he had in a book, he placed a footnote on the bottom of the page giving the source for that remark, however he failed to put quotes on it - yeah MM - that is the definition of a "serial plagerist" -

Dormouse · #21 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Yeah your right...all 2nd rate authors have been sanctioned by a President to write their personal biography.
All 2nd rate historians spent 35 years teaching history at the collegiate level.
All 2nd rate authors have a number of their books being used in colleges to teach from.

The plagarist....in a sentence he had in a book, he placed a footnote on the bottom of the page giving the source for that remark, however he failed to put quotes on it - yeah MM - that is the definition of a "serial plagerist" -

Get a fucking grip.

There are plagarism accusations against almost EVERY book Ambrose has published.

As for being Eisenhower's biographer, all of the acts (and accusations) of plagarism long post date that period. Indeed, the plagarism appears to accelerate with Ambrose' fame in the 80's and 90's.

Computers and software developed in the 1990's is what is catching all these plagarists. They got away with it for decades because it is hard to catch them. With today's software, it is quite easy.

Tor · #22 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

You have brought up some interesting points, some of which I agree with, and others not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

As for historical accuracy, I would consider that to be the consideration of all viewpoints and sources without preference or ignorance toward any. Zinn, on the other hand, is apparently attempting to show an unbalanced account.

Agreed. As you said, Zinn does not pretend to be unbiased, but tries to educate his reader to the other side of "mainstream history". By this I mean what we are taught in school. Not neccessarily university, as not many students will go beyond History 101 where the same old crap is reiterated.

The history R. J Szasz speaks of is one seldom known by the average American. Zinn is not writing for "the person who well distilled in classic debates of history and the role of people, power and groups...", he is writing for the common people. He is offering the history of our country not offered to us as children, when we were indoctrinated with myths about the indians, the glory of the Revolution, the justness of all our wars of liberation.

It is clear that [B]R. J Szasz [/B]is a historian, and in that case, his review would be better off aimed at a publication read by historians. Yet he is writing a review for the common Joe on Amazon.com, which has a very diverse range of readers who might not be as socially aware or as well educated as an historian. In this case his review is somewhat inappropriate.

Szasz does not attempt to look at Zinn's work as it might be viewed by the common citizen. He does not take it at face value in an unbiased manner, but judges it as a scholar would, and even attempts to bash Zinn as a historian of little worth compared to his personal favorites.

Originally Posted by R. J Szasz (Amazon reviewer)
"I got the distinct feeling that one was dealing with a light-weight in the area of history (some of his research is hard to check, he does not cite pages, and I sometimes wonder if he ever cracked an economic history textbook.."

Apparently Szasz did not read Zinn's bio (link below), nor did he offer his own credentials, so we are at a loss as to whether or not the reviewer is even qualified to offer an opinion. The bibliography for A People's history is 20pages long. IMHO, If Zinn's research is difficult to check, it's because the reviewer does not want to do the research himself.

Howard Zinn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(New York University, B.A. in 1951 and Columbia University, M.A. (1952) and Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958). Chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, 1964, Boston University 1964-1988)

As for the part you found most salient, I am captured by this;

Originally Posted by R. J Szasz (Amazon reviewer)
"... Being biased, for whatever reason, is not something that historians, scientists, or social theoritst should TRY to be... "

Really? Then how does he explain the majority of grammar school textbooks? History is biased. In order to present it, history is minimised into summaries where facts are ignored or given more or less importance according to the perspective of the writer. Books are chosen by educators who might have their own bias, for instance a military academy that wants to promote their own agenda.

In my opinion, Zinn is merely attempting to correct history's lack of social perspective offered by the mainstream. You can buy the book if you feel it could be of value, or you can put it back on the shelf. Your choice.

Meridious · #23 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Just curious - one of my favorite US History writers is Stephen Ambrose - you read his work much?

I've read all his books...and I also like McCullough.

Luap · #24 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Szasz does not attempt to look at Zinn's work as it might be viewed by the common citizen. He does not take it at face value in an unbiased manner, but judges it as a scholar would, and even attempts to bash Zinn as a historian of little worth compared to his personal favorites.

How might a common citizen look at it? I certainly don’t know. Some might look at it as a textbook that attempts to portray an objective history; that’s a possibility, right? Unless Zinn explicitly says that his work is only meant as supplementary to a working knowledge of American history, some might think they are getting the whole deal with this book alone. Szasz is careful to point out that this is not so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

Originally Posted by R. J Szasz (Amazon reviewer)
"... Being biased, for whatever reason, is not something that historians, scientists, or social theoritst should TRY to be... "

Really? Then how does he explain the majority of grammar school textbooks? History is biased. In order to present it, history is minimised into summaries where facts are ignored or given more or less importance according to the perspective of the writer. Books are chosen by educators who might have their own bias, for instance a military academy that wants to promote their own agenda.

Notice the capitalized “TRY” in the quote you provided. Szasz apparently understands that history is biased, he is just disappointed with an alleged historian that is intentionally biased. As he says, it is “intellectually dishonest.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor

In my opinion, Zinn is merely attempting to correct history's lack of social perspective offered by the mainstream. You can buy the book if you feel it could be of value, or you can put it back on the shelf. Your choice.

Zinn can say that he is trying to “offset” the sheer number of historical accounts from the “oppressors,” but as Szasz said, and I have to agree: “…meeting diatribe with diatribe is neither a worthy nor reasonable approach…”

I understand your position, of course. History is not balanced and is more malleable than most people believe. Instead of trying to tip some metaphorical or invisible scale, though, Zinn should have fused his knowledge of the underdog with that of the credible mainstream history. I don’t want to comment much more on it, since I have not even read the book; however, I was just throwing in the point that I had heard that Zinn’s book was not a great solo source of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden

This whole concept almost makes you go crazy because you just don't know what to believe. This is another reason why when people ask for "proof" or "facts" I don't do it... it's almost pointless.

I think source texts are the only way to find out if something is believable or not—and that can take a long time to check if one is reading a contemporary history textbook. One has to go through the process of checking the sources used by the history book, checking the sources of the source book, and so and so forth until one comes to a true “source” (I forget the proper name for it). It may be an ancient parchment, a journal of a commoner, governmental tax or census records, etc. One historian looking at all these sources may connect the dots differently than the next historian. Really, all I can think of doing is checking history books against history books, as I’m not intellectually equipped to do the research and re-research done by academic historians.

Meridious · #25 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Get a fucking grip.

There are plagarism accusations against almost EVERY book Ambrose has published.

As for being Eisenhower's biographer, all of the acts (and accusations) of plagarism long post date that period. Indeed, the plagarism appears to accelerate with Ambrose' fame in the 80's and 90's.

Computers and software developed in the 1990's is what is catching all these plagarists. They got away with it for decades because it is hard to catch them. With today's software, it is quite easy.

I could have sworn you left the forum.

If you want to use 'accusations' as justification, then just remember that just about every author of history is 'accused' of plagiarism...in the most basic sense, most historians rely on the works of others.

Te subjects of the works are no longer around, after all.

Ambrose is a great author, and just like the majority of other historians, he has never been found to have intentionally plagiarized anyone.

If you are going to use 'accusations' of plagiarism to determine what historical books you read...you will have one helluva short list to choose from. Anyone can accuse anyone of plagiarism...especially if a quote that is used already exists in several hundred texts.....whichever you choose to cite, the others may feel theirs was the more deserving either due to date or some other specificity...

Either way, an accusation does not make anyone guilty of anything.

Dilettante · #26 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

I've read all his books...and I also like McCullough.

I enjoy McCullough aswell.

He wouldn't be my first choice to use for a research paper or anything, but he makes for a very pleasent read.

IronMaiden27 · #27 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

think source texts are the only way to find out if something is believable or not—and that can take a long time to check if one is reading a contemporary history textbook. One has to go through the process of checking the sources used by the history book, checking the sources of the source book, and so and so forth until one comes to a true “source” (I forget the proper name for it). It may be an ancient parchment, a journal of a commoner, governmental tax or census records, etc. One historian looking at all these sources may connect the dots differently than the next historian. Really, all I can think of doing is checking history books against history books, as I’m not intellectually equipped to do the research and re-research done by academic historians.

That's what I've done over the past 5 years pretty much. Christ, I should just go to college heheh

Meridious · #28 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I enjoy McCullough aswell.

He wouldn't be my first choice to use for a research paper or anything, but he makes for a very pleasent read.

Actually, while Ambrose is great at citing sources and could be used much more/in better ways than McCullough, I would not use either one in a research paper.

I do not doubt the general accuracy of either authors, however.

Tor · #29 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

How might a common citizen look at it? I certainly don’t know. Some might look at it as a textbook that attempts to portray an objective history; that’s a possibility, right? Unless Zinn explicitly says that his work is only meant as supplementary to a working knowledge of American history, some might think they are getting the whole deal with this book alone. Szasz is careful to point out that this is not so.

The common citizen, in just glancing through this book, would realise that it is by no means a complete history of everything to do with US history. As Szasz (mis)states, it is comprised of vignettes, (I would call them essays), on specific highlights in US history; Columbus, the Revolution, Indian relations, slavery, specific wars, etc.

It does not read like a text book, nor does Zinn claim to be objective in his presentation. He specifically states that history is biased, and that historians cannot be totally objective when they choose to omit facts or give emphasis to certain facts over others. He states;

"There were themes of profound importance to me which I found missing in the orthodox histories that dominated American culture. The consequence of those ommisions has been not simply to give a distorted view of the past but, more important, to mislead us all about the present."

Indeed, I find most of what Zinn writes about in his essays are facts one would not find in any common textbook. When one sums up an historical event, including these facts throws a whole different perspective on the event and calls into question what most people believe as truth.

For example, when I was in grade school it was not questioned that Columbus discovered America. Even today, I believe the majority of the population will tell you that this is so. We still celebrate this man's accomplishments once a year. Few people know that the Vikings were in America long before Columbus was born. Few people know how many people Columbus exploited to achieve his objectives. Should this matter? YES. Considering this is a man we honor in our country, I find it repugnant that his stolen glory dims in comparison to his exploits. It would be like honoring Hitler for bringing Germany out of decline. Yes, Hitler was a leader of his people. But at what price?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

Notice the capitalized “TRY” in the quote you provided. Szasz apparently understands that history is biased, he is just disappointed with an alleged historian that is intentionally biased. As he says, it is “intellectually dishonest.”

Why is it dishonest? He doesn't try to hide his bias, in fact he purposefully wrote this book to illustrate the bias of current textbooks. His purpose in writing this book is to bring the readers attention to the fact that what they have learned to accept as history is not the total truth. Zinn, (who is a social historian and political activist and does not claim to be other than what he is), attempts to educate the reader by showing a perspective NOT FOUND in schools and textbooks which educate our children today.

When I entered middle school, we received a history textbook which was taken away from us the next day. It was taken away because the portrayal of minorities was racist and failed to include certain events which would make our government appear dishonest and immoral. It failed to tell the whole story in an unbiased manner. And while textbooks have been updated, some carry the same old tired message: Columbus discovered America. Oh, really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

Zinn can say that he is trying to “offset” the sheer number of historical accounts from the “oppressors,” but as Szasz said, and I have to agree: “…meeting diatribe with diatribe is neither a worthy nor reasonable approach…” .

Whyever not? How else is one to force the issue of what remains forgotten by history? If historians fail to fully research and take all facts into account, if they fail to realise the importance of certain facts or events in history, if they miss the implications of how these events shaped history and how history is viewed because certain facts have been ommitted or glossed over as unimportant, isn't it neccessary to have it pointed out to them?

If the media controls our everyday news and they have a hand in our current perception of history, the elitist conglomerates which own that mass media and own the spin on current events own our history. It is up to us to accept or refute the truth of their spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

I understand your position, of course. History is not balanced and is more malleable than most people believe. Instead of trying to tip some metaphorical or invisible scale, though, Zinn should have fused his knowledge of the underdog with that of the credible mainstream history. I don’t want to comment much more on it, since I have not even read the book; however, I was just throwing in the point that I had heard that Zinn’s book was not a great solo source of history.

You just don't get it. He never claimed that it was; it was not his objective to write a comprehensive history!

And while in theory this sounds ideal, in practice the task would have been astronomical, given the amount of research and writing that went in to this 700 page plus book. Zinn did not have the backing of some major publishing house with several cowriters and editors, nor did he have the time or money required to pull every salient fact of a single event and put it into historical perspective. In fact he has been criticised for all he ommitted in his essays, from the influence of Latino culture to gay rights.

The book is titled, "A People's History of the United States", not "The White Man's history of the United States". Zinn wanted to portray the multiracial and ethnic character of our nation and the voice of people not mentioned in standard texts, not to reiterate facts and figures. It is absurd of anyone to suggest that he somehow failed to fuse his knowledge with "credible" history when his whole objective was to prove that credible history is not credible!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

I think source texts are the only way to find out if something is believable or not—and that can take a long time to check if one is reading a contemporary history textbook. One has to go through the process of checking the sources used by the history book, checking the sources of the source book, and so and so forth until one comes to a true &#