Howard Zinn

[peledre]

What are your guys' opinions on Zinn's writings? I've always enjoyed him as the Yang to the Ying of PC middle school and high school history textbooks.

[Una Grande Libre]

he isnt a history writer ill tell you that... he puts his own opinions and ideologies in his writings... that stops his writings from being history. And besides... his ideologies are mainly against mine so i obviously dont like him

[Michael K.]

he isnt a history writer ill tell you that... he puts his own opinions and ideologies in his writings...

As does every history writer, to some extent.

[nicephoras]

he isnt a history writer ill tell you that... he puts his own opinions and ideologies in his writings... that stops his writings from being history. And besides... his ideologies are mainly against mine so i obviously dont like him

He's a history writer who has his own opinions. All historians do, they just have to make sure to control them. There are entire schools of history dedicated to historiography. Every single great historian is re-read and deconstructed in order to fit him in with the time and place of his writing and to place his theories, because every historian, no matter how professional, projects his own reality onto his works. Professional historians do this all the time - scholars like Momigliano wrote extensively on Roman historiography, for instance. (In the interests of disclosure, my own thesis dealt a great deal with the reinterpretation of Rostoftzeff's early conception of the fall of the Roman Republic vis a vis the Russian revolution.)
Its not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

[needs]

he isnt a history writer ill tell you that... he puts his own opinions and ideologies in his writings... that stops his writings from being history. And besides... his ideologies are mainly against mine so i obviously dont like him

Yeah, a historian would never put ideology into his writings. It's great to be able to write narrative with no opionion and no ideology. It makes going to the archive fun as well. :rolleyes:

Listen, historians are steeped in their own opinions, interests, and ideologies from the moment they start thinking about what questions they want to ask, what archive they will go to, and what kind of source material they will look at. There's simply no way to conduct historical inquiry that doesn't contain all three. The mark of a good historian is the ability to not allow preconceived opinions, interests, and ideologies to determine the meaning of what he/she finds when they get to the archive and how they organize their narratives.

I think peledre hits it well, Zinn's a good counterweight to the grand liberal narrative of American history contained in many high school textbooks (although college textbooks are getting much better). He writes compelling broad narrative history but is limited by his Beardian (as in Charles) framework. It's something IMO to be read in high school and then complicated later.

He also made a tremendous mark on the nation by teaching many civil rights workers in all-Black colleges in the South in the late 50s and early 60s.

[nicephoras]

Yeah, a historian would never put ideology into his writings.

The bonfire we could make with all Marxist history works would likely produce enough energy to power half of the cars in Southern Calfornia for a year.

[bigredfutbol]

I enjoy Zinn, even as I keep in mind that he has an ideology. "People's History" is an interesting read--the basic thrust is that the US has an elite (just like any other political entity), but that the elite here has been very, very good at turning different elements of the underclass against each other, while enlisting the middle class in that ongoing struggle to keep the masses down. Basically, a divide-and-conquer strategy.

You don't have to buy the whole hook line and sinker to at least enjoy the contrarian (at least at one time) point of view.

[Karl K]

In my view, Zinn is required reading because he is the most articulate proponent of a leftist oppressor vs. oppressed view of history.

Because he represents the best example of oversimplification and hobby-horse riding, he needs to be read.

[DoctorJones24]

In my view, Zinn is required reading because he is the most articulate proponent of a leftist oppressor vs. oppressed view of history.

Because he represents the best example of oversimplification and hobby-horse riding, he needs to be read.

Only Karl can call someone "articulate" in one sentence and then accuse him of "oversimplification" in the next. You were right the second time, btw. Zinn's history is purposely simplified (and not particularly articulate) because he's writing as a populist. There are plenty of more finely crafted and significant Marxist/poco/generally leftist historians out there.

This isn't to slam Zinn--I think he should be required reading for hs students and/or lower level undergrads.

[Bluto11]

He's a history writer who has his own opinions. All historians do, they just have to make sure to control them. There are entire schools of history dedicated to historiography. Every single great historian is re-read and deconstructed in order to fit him in with the time and place of his writing and to place his theories, because every historian, no matter how professional, projects his own reality onto his works. Professional historians do this all the time - scholars like Momigliano wrote extensively on Roman historiography, for instance. (In the interests of disclosure, my own thesis dealt a great deal with the reinterpretation of Rostoftzeff's early conception of the fall of the Roman Republic vis a vis the Russian revolution.)
Its not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
spent a good 6 weeks on historiograhpy in my senior seminar. tons of fun, let me tell you.

[nicephoras]

spent a good 6 weeks on historiograhpy in my senior seminar. tons of fun, let me tell you.

Not sure if you're being serious or not, but I think historiography is fascinating.

[needs]

Not sure if you're being serious or not, but I think historiography is fascinating.

Have you read Novick's That Noble Dream, a history of the idea of objectivity among historians in the US? Great read.

[nicephoras]

Have you read Novick's That Noble Dream, a history of the idea of objectivity among historians in the US? Great read.

I've heard of it, but haven't read it, no. I think the first introduction into historiography any history major gets though is EH Carr's book. Which is still wonderful.

[Anthony]

I enjoy Zinn, even as I keep in mind that he has an ideology. "People's History" is an interesting read--the basic thrust is that the US has an elite (just like any other political entity), but that the elite here has been very, very good at turning different elements of the underclass against each other, while enlisting the middle class in that ongoing struggle to keep the masses down. Basically, a divide-and-conquer strategy.

You don't have to buy the whole hook line and sinker to at least enjoy the contrarian (at least at one time) point of view.

I agree about his writings, but as someone whose family came from the underclass, I don't buy it.

[needs]

I've heard of it, but haven't read it, no. I think the first introduction into historiography any history major gets though is EH Carr's book. Which is still wonderful.

That was mine, and it is.

[Bluto11]

Not sure if you're being serious or not, but I think historiography is fascinating.
i am being serious. it was really interesting. it was something i never really studied, but my prof had us study it before we wrote our senior papers

[aloisius]

Only Karl can call someone "articulate" in one sentence and then accuse him of "oversimplification" in the next. .


Do you not know of nuance?

He is the most articulate amongst the lefty moonbats, that still doesn’t make him articulate or free of oversimplication, it just makes him very good at that.

[Dan Loney]

I'm a big fan of American historians who focus on the dissenters and the marginalized. But I think Zinn simply tries way too hard to balance out what he sees as mainstream thinking. Skepticism is fine, but I've rarely read worse analyses of America's aims and motivations in World War II. There may not be anyone alive who accepts the premise that Japanese internment camps invalidated US participation in World War II. Probably including Zinn himself.

If he is trying to get people to think and question assumptions, then well done. Starting from a perspective of "The US is always wrong" is more productive than "The US is always right," at least. You shouldn't read anyone uncritically, Howard Zinn least of all. (I think he'd agree.)

[ratdog]

The bonfire we could make with all Marxist history works would likely produce enough energy to power half of the cars in Southern Calfornia for a year.

The only reason that isn't also true of Richard Pipes is that he is only one guy and hasn't written as much as the thousands of Marxists. On a page-for-page basis, though, he's as bad as them in that regard.

As for Zinn, at least he speaks of the history of the American people, which, as was alluded to earlier, isn't really taught in schools. In the schools, you learn a lot about Amercia's military history, some about the history of our political institutions, a little about the everyday experience of the majority of the American people and, of course, almost no labor and economic history. I'll leave it to you to conclude how and why these biases are present in our classrooms. Whatever you may think of his own ideology and whatever faults to which that ideology leads him, Zinn would valuable if all he did was to bring those neglected elements to the fore in his writings. Of course, he does that partly because of his ideology, but it's valuable nonetheless.

As for those who decry Zinn's lack of "objectivity", I point them to the chapter titled "The Use and Abuse of History" in his own "Declarations of Independence". I suspect you'll come away from the chapter with a different view of "objectivity" in the writings of historians.

[Q*bert Jones III]

I wish more writers would stop pretending like they're above subjectivity. Nobody is. Zinn's admission, even pride, of his own subjectivity is endearing.