Howard Zinn: what's the deal with that guy?

[illram]

*Thread title should be read in Seinfeld voice.*

Anyway I am lopping this off from the behemoth OBL post-athon as I am interested in this narrower and totally off-topic discussion: Howard Zinn, and what people think of him.

In that thread, two distinct complaints arose. 1) Howard Zinn provides an inaccurate portrayal of history that omits facts and fails to include context; and 2) Howard Zinn is admittedly not objective, which turns people off.

I am interested in specific examples of issue (1), primarily, and if you have an argument that history can be portrayed in a completely objective, neutral manner, (i.e., addressing issue (2)) please provide it, because I tend to agree with Mr. Zinn on that one. Picking facts and putting them in a book to provide to someone else is, inherently, not objective. I don't see how one can provide anyone else with a historical narrative that is not in some way picking and choosing. And perhaps on a more fundamental level, is history more boring when it's just presented in a mindless "date, time, act" manner? And does ignoring the human element or the story or the narrative behind it--whatever you want to call it--ignore a crucial part of that history and what it really means for the human experience??

Off-Topic Moderator Gods: I am more interested in discussing Mr. Zinn and his ideas on history than historical facts themselves, (although historical facts as evidence of his bias are relevant to the discussion) hence my inclusion in the OT forum and not the world history forum. But if ye deign to move this olde threade, so it be!

 

[Japanrocks12]

I read a part of his book. It seems as if he writes factual statements, but only about America's marginalized groups. My only complaint is that that doesn't constitute a "people's history of the United States" at all, and would be better served with a more honest and accurate title.

 

[illram]

But "the people's" perspective, i.e. the working man/woman, is the perspective for much of the book. I think it's a very apt title.

And again, I don't see how he is being dishonest. I think that's a very tall claim to say he is being untruthful in some manner. I am genuinely curious however to see if this is the case because I tend to hold his work in high regard.

 

[Dreadnought]

Eh, I had to "read" it for a history class once. I lost interest after reading the title: A People's History of the United States.

 

[MobBoss]

His last name reminds of a wussy malt liquor drink.

 

[illram]

Thank you for that wonderful insight.

 

[MobBoss]

Thank you for that wonderful insight.

What...you were expecting people to take Zinn seriously?

My bad then.

 

[warpus]

Never heard of him. Any links?

 

[Aegis]

I don't think that he's being dishonest, only irresponsible. He makes personal interpretations as to people's motives without having any real evidence to back it up and presents it as fact. I have a problem with that, especially if his book is going to be used as the main textbook for a US history class.

Like in the other thread, it was brought up that Zimmer said that the US refused peace with Japan because they wanted to test their atomic weapons on a real human populace. Unconditional surrender was not an unreasonable request, and if the Japanese were chomping at the bit to surrender so badly, they would have done so after the first bomb was dropped. The Japanese were so willing to defy the Allies that they didn't capitulate until after the USSR declared war and the second bomb was dropped.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Never heard of him. Any links?

Here's the book which some are complaining. Enjoy.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

Howard Zinn seems to incense the far-right even more than Michael Moore does.

"And for that I am thankful." Tosh.O

 

[Dachs]

But "the people's" perspective, i.e. the working man/woman, is the perspective for much of the book. I think it's a very apt title.

But, um, those aren't the only People in the United States. Far from it.

I am aware that Zinn was well regarded among a lot of people who got their academic training in history thirty or forty years ago, and I've read a few excerpts from the book, but never anything that struck me as particularly notable one way or the other. It's certainly not enough to form an opinion on him, and my experience with American historiography is low to nonexistent on anything approaching a level that would permit me to feel comfortable commenting.

On the topic of objectivity, I commented in the previous thread and was summarily ignored:

Yeah, that's been a standard thread in history for the last seventy years; Zinn ain't the only one by any stretch. In What is History?, one of the few texts that passes for an overview of historiography in the English language, Edward Hallett Carr argued that objectivity is impossible due to the limitations of language, while even if it were possible, it would be undesirable because it would reduce the historian to the level of a clerk or archivist, merely compiling already-known facts.

Objectivity is only desirable to the point of actually having facts straight, not the opinions one draws from them. Even the choice of facts destroys any presumption of objectivity. There are a near-infinite amount of known facts about many events in modern history, and it is impossible to include them all; the historian must make judgments as to pertinence, and therefore by necessity injects subjectivity. But this subjectivity is desirable, because otherwise we would be left with nothing but the vast ocean of sources and no filter, no way to make sense of any of it. So claiming that Zinn is a poor historian because he does not include all of the facts is silly, because he cannot have done anyway. And the fact that Zinn admits to his lack of objectivity - like virtually every decent historian who has commented on historiography in the past eight decades or so - means that he is at least self-aware enough to be potentially worth a read.

I would, however, think that Zinn's book is not particularly useful on subjects that don't directly deal with the history of activism in American society; it would be like citing John Lewis Gaddis on Turkish history when he offhandedly mentions factoids about the Straits crisis of the late forties in his Cold War writings. If you slavishly employ Zinn's books as catchall references without employing other works, especially more pertinent ones, then you miss the point and the criticism of employing grossly biased sources becomes a relevant one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If I were teaching American History, I would never consider it to be the primary text for the course. However, I do think it is quite worthwhile as an adjunct textbook. And I do believe it almost always is used that way, instead of as the principal or only text.

Many of the points which Zinn makes about our history are deliberately glossed over or completely removed by the revisionist historians who write textbooks for sale to Texas public schools and elsewhere. And based on some of the comments in the other thread and this one, it is easy to see why. Many people don't want to read about facts and hear opinions which disagree with their own notions of history. They have already decided what must have happened.

 

[Dachs]

Revisionism as a concept is a good thing.

My comment about the way Zinn was used stems from its use in the previous thread.

 

[Aegis]

On the topic of objectivity, I commented in the previous thread and was summarily ignored:

Objectivity is only desirable to the point of actually having facts straight, not the opinions one draws from them. Even the choice of facts destroys any presumption of objectivity. There are a near-infinite amount of known facts about many events in modern history, and it is impossible to include them all; the historian must make judgments as to pertinence, and therefore by necessity injects subjectivity. But this subjectivity is desirable, because otherwise we would be left with nothing but the vast ocean of sources and no filter, no way to make sense of any of it. So claiming that Zinn is a poor historian because he does not include all of the facts is silly, because he cannot have done anyway. And the fact that Zinn admits to his lack of objectivity - like virtually every decent historian who has commented on historiography in the past eight decades or so - means that he is at least self-aware enough to be potentially worth a read.

You don't think that mentioning any of the positive progressions for worker rights, lower class citizens, women, minorities, etc. whatsoever, is important? Because that's exactly what he did. The task he set out to do was to uncover the glossed over portions of history and illuminate them, which is an important and noble goal, however he went the extra mile to make the most pessimistic and disgusting view of the US as possible. He accomplished this by focusing on all of the negative traits of the country and none of the positive traits. The book is a borderline hack job or assassination piece, which is sad because it had the potential to be so much more valuable.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Revisionism as a concept is a good thing.

Revisionism of propaganda? Certainly.

Revisionism of facts and the intentional oppression of opinions which disagree from the official story? Not so much...

I am sure you would agree.

 

[galdre]

You don't think that mentioning any of the positive progressions for worker rights, lower class citizens, women, minorities, etc. whatsoever, is important? Because that's exactly what he did. The task he set out to do was to uncover the glossed over portions of history and illuminate them, which is an important and noble goal, however he went the extra mile to make the most pessimistic and disgusting view of the US as possible. He accomplished this by focusing on all of the negative traits of the country and none of the positive traits. The book is a borderline hack job or assassination piece, which is sad because it had the potential to be so much more valuable.

have you studied much of US history? there's a lot of negative in there (like the history of any nation)

my main complaint with Zinn is that he seems to romanticize the working class.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is rather difficult to blame the oppressed for their own predicament if you really think they have been oppressed. Taking up arms obviously didn't work too well.

 

[Aegis]

have you studied much of US history? there's a lot of negative in there (like the history of any nation)

Yes, I have, and yes - there is. There are also positive accomplishments that directly effect the subject matter he was writing about - yet he neglected to write about them because that would have taken the OOMPH away from his effort.

 

[Dachs]

You don't think that mentioning any of the positive progressions for worker rights, lower class citizens, women, minorities, etc. whatsoever, is important? Because that's exactly what he did. The task he set out to do was to uncover the glossed over portions of history and illuminate them, which is an important and noble goal, however he went the extra mile to make the most pessimistic and disgusting view of the US as possible. He accomplished this by focusing on all of the negative traits of the country and none of the positive traits. The book is a borderline hack job or assassination piece, which is sad because it had the potential to be so much more valuable.

I haven't actually read the book, dude, so I can't possibly speak to how biased it actually is. I have a hard time believing that any book that actually gets what facts it discusses right is inherently bad; you may disagree with the analysis, which is fine, but when the book came up for the purpose of citing him with regard to fact, not analysis, that's hardly relevant. If the facts are wrong, as they very well may be, then the book is bad.

Revisionism of propaganda? Certainly.

Revisionism of facts and the intentional oppression of opinions which disagree from the official version? Not so much...

I am sure you would agree.

Historical facts are not necessarily true; ask any classicist. Revisionism involves the examination of things that need examination, whether they have to do with the overarching narrative or a specific fact that has been poorly handled.

Now, the way in which you used "revisionism" there doesn't have anything to do with "blatant hatchet job" or whatever specific context in which you are deploying it. Historical revisionism is just the normal critical analysis of past work; it's the basic stuff of historiography. In a given field where there are two or more potentially valid (or not) interpretations of data, the suppression of one by adherents of the other isn't revisionism, it's censorship.

If I come across as a little picky about the way "revisionism" is used, it's because the concept of revisionism is frequently attacked on its own grounds by people mislabeling it as questioning every fact for the sake of questioning it; I have no interest in being lumped together with state censorship into the bargain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, I have, and yes - there is. There are also positive accomplishments that directly effect the subject matter he was writing about - yet he neglected to write about them because that would have taken the OOMPH away from his effort.

It is rather difficult to rationalize slavery and sweatshops these days. Fortunately, the "oomph" wasn't taken out of those particular struggles by other factors. It is also much more difficult to be fundamentally opposed to unions and civil rights advancements if you actually know what great contributions they have made in the past.

Zinn decided to dwell on the aspects of American History which are all-too-frequently deliberately neglected or ignored. You can pick up just about any American History textbook to learn about the rest. If he had included those topics as well, his own textbook would have been quite unwieldy and repetitive.

If I come across as a little picky about the way "revisionism" is used, it's because the concept of revisionism is frequently attacked on its own grounds by people mislabeling it as questioning every fact for the sake of questioning it; I have no interest in being lumped together with state censorship into the bargain.

I have no problem with that at all. I am referring to the "hatchet job", as you put it, that occurs in Texas public schools and elsewhere, not a critical reexamination of past historians.

And I wasn't trying to "lump you" with the rest. I actually wasn't even responding at all to your posts.