Some of you around here have a substantial knowledge of American history, are students of history in general, or are even professors of history. I have a question. I've been poking through Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and I'm fascinated. Reading this book gives me the sense that the current government actions I'm so upset about are not at all exceptional, but rather business as usual. Do people in the field of history consider this a legitimate resource? What's its reputation? I know Zinn is a lefty, but the book appears to be well researched and full of facts, even if they are in some sense selective facts. Thanks in advance.
Well, Bob...speaking for myself, I have very little of substance to add. Trying to get historians takes on current writers is like trying to get 10 weathermen to agree on what next Saturday will be like. I haven't even read the book in question. However...both because I am interested in the subject, and to make up for previously not responding ( unwittingly) to your questions, I will actually go out and get the book, read it, and give you my opinion. As far as the field's perspective on Zinn in particular, I am unaware of any consensus...nor even of all that much interest at this point. I will ask around.
MacBeth, I... I don't know what to say... Other than: don't do that! You have real books to read and p*rn stars to shag and really long posts to type. If you're interested, go for it, but you owe me less than nothing. Just curious if you'd heard anything about it in the field. The weathermen example was excellent, and I get it. Anyone here read the book?
I've read bits and pieces B-Bob, and I get the same feeling as you. I recall hearing that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were going to write a movie based on the book (it's mentioned in Good Will Hunting).
"The People's History of the United States" is the best general history book I've ever read. It presents history through the eyes of the average citizen -- not rich white men, which is the default setting for virtually all historic narratives. In school, our history lessons are steeped in nationalistic jingoism, socio-economic bias and political correctness, and stripped of any context and color.
I am about a third into it. I am reading a chapter a month, so it will be awhile before I am done. I think that it safe to say that Zinn is biased, self-admitted so. His intent appears to be show American history from the oppressed peoples perspective. This is just the sort of history book that Newt Gingrich does not want in classrooms.
Whoa! Really? Part of me can believe that from them, but I can't imagine that movie. ... I thought Braveheart was long! Thanks for the thoughts, folks. I think my question is answered when a poster named "greenvegan" loves the book! If Zinn wants to admit his bias up front, maybe he should change his name likewise.
B-bob, The book is used a lot in entry-level college and HS classes, or excerpts at least. He has a top-notch pedigree as well. For the most part, as far as I can tell, he is respected. Of course, there are those that disagree with him, but he is not concidered a hack or anything. Most criticism I have seen is that his books are not really hard-core history books, but by their nature they should appeal to a more general public. They are generally well researched as well.
Rimmy...question...Zimm has always sounded, and this is not a criticism, to be clearly of the socialist historian wave, which is I'll grant you, the overriding trend in the field. Myself, I'm a bit of an anachronism; I'm still naturally attracted to slightly more individualistic history, to a dgree, although I recognize the significance of movements, etc., I feel that the socilaist history wave threw out the baby with the bathwater... But the question is, where do you fit on screen? Some things you say would lead me to believe that, if you are not a socialist historian, you at the very least come from that school, in terms of influences...but other times I can't tell. I agree that anyone would be hard pressed to remain unaffected by that school of thinking, what with most of the 70's and 80's academics having been weaned on it, but I still don't know where you stand.
While I was finishing my degree, the only thing I could get my proff's to come to a consensus on was the use of CE and BCE--Common Era, Before Common Era--they didn't like us using BC and AD, always good to be PC.. I never recall Zinn being mentioned in my clasess--I will definitely try it out and tender my opinion as well. If you're feelin' froggy, try reading Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples"--have fun!
Zinn is definitely a Marxist, and is understood as such. So, are you saying that you are riding the "New Biography" wave? Now that is a question. First of all, it should be noted that I am an art historian, not an historian. I, therefore, find historians to be "behind the times" and the methodology to be rather dull. History is pretty much grand narrative, Marxist, or Foucaultian...yawn. In any event, if I were to label myself...post-marxist is an easy label and also a pretty meaningless one, as it simply means that I am informed but not limited by Marxist methodolgy (and Debord informs my work more than Marx, anyway) but can fall anywhere within. I can say the same about postmodernism as well. So I guess I am a post-Marxian post postmodernist (huh?).
Writing a history book from a viewpoint other than of rich white men doesn't make him biased. The book is universally renowned for its research, historical accuracy and readability. Yes, Zinn is a social activist with strong "liberal" ideas. But being liberal (or conservative, for that matter) doesn't preclude one from objectivity...or from writing a fair and interesting view on American history. That's what this book is. Presidents signing treaties, signing legislation and declaring war are not the only aspects of our history. American history is made by the other 99.9 percent of us. What our government does is indeed historically noteworthy, but does not paint an accurate picture of our history. The government is not America. We are.
Being aware of (and studying) other ideologies, ideas and religions doesn't mean you espouse them. That's what learning is all about. A true education exposes you to a little bit of everything -- different cultures, histories, viewpoints and religions. Where we run into problems is when we try to slap labels on everything, and dismiss them as such. Liberal. Republican. Neo-Christian. Marxist. These are horrible terms, because there's no such thing as a TRUE liberal or liberatarian, etc. We're all different, and at different points on the policial, social and religious spectrum. No two people share the exact same beliefs as another person, so why do we insist on lumping them together? I consider myself open-minded about politics and most would probably label me a socialist (I'm not, though I do share some of those perceived beliefs, just as I do with conservatives and libertarians). Lumping someone into a group and debasing their opinions because of that label is repellent to understanding. Until we learn to decipher and evaluate each issue and argument on their own individual merit (as opposed to where they fit in our neat, tidy ideological tipsheet), every debate will boil down to "us versus them." And, thus, very counter-productive to understanding the complex world around us.
I think he's responding to the conversation we had re: schools of historical thought... GV...it's not really about applying lables to individuals, although that's always a danger...it's about understanding which movements in historical theory a person ascribes to, and sort of a quick code to getting a perspective. Think about rimmy's field. There have been several specific movements in art, most of them intentional; Think of Monet, et al, intentionally trying to break the restraints of the accepted art schools, of choosing to focus on the everyday, and the common man, rather than the Biblica, Gothci, famous, and powerful...of getting away from triangualrization of perspective, and experimenting with means of so doing. Now does that mean that Monet and Manet painted the same...let alone Serat? Of course not...but they were part of the same movement, with complementary aspirations, and to understand the movement is not necessarily to limit their individuality, but to give it texture, if you have a lens with which to focus on it. As such rimmy and I were merely trying to get markers with each other...not to define, but to lead o'erleap time.
Not to stew in self-importance, but I think our green friend might have been moved by that bit of idiocy from me. ... (?) Or maybe she/he is in the midst of a monologue. So far, so good. I recall fatfatcow having some excellent games of one on none. Sort of like Dr. J in "The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh."
I'M SOOOOOOOOOOOOO READING THIS BOOK!!!!!!!! MATT AND BEN!!!!!!! Did J-Lo read it? Btw- What ya read'n' fore?
MacB, Don't try to talk art history, it hurts me. And you didn't answer my "New Biography" question. GV, If MacB was right and it was in response to us, methodology is not bias or label, it simply defines method of research. B-bob, No, you are a post sharks-a-lot. Ugh, that was bad.
