- This topic has 7 voices and 80 replies.
-
Posts
-
Has anybody read this? I have not but have seen a bunch of conservative blog posts slamming the book. It is making me curious enough to maybe read it, then I figured I would ask if anyone else has read it and decide if I would be wasting my money or not.
It's the book the Program was based on. Malkin did a column about it here: Hollywood and Howard Zinn's Marxist Education Project. I think I am going to check proquest and EBSCO for sholarly reviews and see if there are any. If so I will post a synopsis here.Here is a link to Zinn's Education Project, just the stuff on his site starts to paint a picture.
This sounds Rankean doesn't it? Teaching What Really Happened: How To Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks and Get Students Excited About Doing History, here is a sample chapter and table of contents. This juicy quote shows part of his goals and higlights where he is headed
Of course, every national story is unique. Consider Portugal: no othernation ?discovered? half the globe, as Portugal?s tourism board puts it.Or Namibia: no other nation in the twentieth century had three-fourthsof its largest ethnic group (the Hereros) wiped out by a foreign power(Germany). But by American exceptionalism, authors of U.S. history textbooksmean not just unique, but uniquely wonderful. Consider the fi rstparagraph of A History of the United States by Daniel Boorstin and BrooksMather Kelley:American history is the story of a magic transformation. How did people fromeverywhere join the American family? How did men and women from a tiredOld World, where people thought they knew what to expect, become wideeyedexplorers of a New World?21Surely that passage is meant to impart that the United States is trulyspecial?and in a positive way. Presumably Boorstin and Kelley wantstudents to be wide-eyed themselves as they learn more about the ?magictransformation? that is American history.
Now I can pigeonhole this guy. He is a multiculturalist that says all other cultures are equally relevant if not more so than our own.
I think I am going to have to read this book, but it will be low on my priority list for getting too. I have to finish my theses and MA before I have time to get to stuff like this.
I came across this, which gives Zinn's view in a nutshell.[html]US Politics: A People's History Of American Empire By Howard Zinn[/html]
RIP'People's History' author Howard Zinn dies at 87Excerpt:
Even liberal historians were uneasy with Zinn. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: "I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian."In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Zinn acknowledged he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter ? not the last ? of a new kind of history.
Typical leftist anti-western (specifically anti-American) drivel. I like how he indirectly blames the destruction of New Orleans on American imperialism as well. According to this, any time Americans leave the country on any official capacity, it is imperialism.Reminds of a discussion we had in class once about what exactly constitutes imperialism. The discussion was in the context of the British Empire but the definitions we talked about could be equally applied to so-called American Imperialism. I wonder if he would think American support for Zelaya in Honduras as opposed to the countries legislative and legal bodies was imperialist too?
... but the definitions we talked about could be equally applied to so-called American Imperialism. I wonder if he would think American support for Zelaya in Honduras as opposed to the countries legislative and legal bodies was imperialist too?
Depends on the definitions; paraphrasing from a text that I used to use on the modern era: Imperialism can be defined as domination of another nation or region by way of any of the following... economically [raw materials, markets, or investments... make them a vassal state] nationalistic motive [territorial conquest... absorb and if possible acculturate them... see below] religion [spread of yours to them... save thier souls] cultural [seeking to impose yours at the expense of theirs... ala Kipling; bring them up to speed]
I have read this book and found it enlightening. Mr. Zinn, an avowed LIBERAL, letsus see through a different lens than most mainline history books. There is danger here.If you let your children read this book they may well ask questions that you are unprepared or reluctant to discuss such as race, class and the true meaning of liberty. Mr. Zinndropped bombs on people in WWII and then got his doctorate in History. He recently died--most unfortunate for his fans. You may remember him being alluded to in the move "Good Will Hunting".
I have read this book and found it enlightening. Mr. Zinn, an avowed LIBERAL, letsus see through a different lens than most mainline history books. There is danger here.If you let your children read this book they may well ask questions that you are unprepared or reluctant to discuss such as race, class and the true meaning of liberty. Mr. Zinndropped bombs on people in WWII and then got his doctorate in History. He recently died--most unfortunate for his fans. You may remember him being alluded to in the move "Good Will Hunting".
You are kidding right? I am not a big fan of any kind of bias in historiography but outright blatant political posturing has to be the worst. Zinn's work is thinly disguised propaganda.
Zinn–propaganda–surely you jest! Would you say that Paul Johnson's works are Rankean, without biasand provide a balanced view of history? How do you feel about David Irving?
Zinn--propaganda--surely you jest! Would you say that Paul Johnson's works are Rankean, without biasand provide a balanced view of history? How do you feel about David Irving?
Be forewarned Willy, most of us here are of the conservative ideological view. Scout, skiguy, and myself are probably the most far right. Phid and Wally are maybe not as far right as the rest of us. I prefer a balanced view of History, but by balanced I mean explaining the various interpretations offered by historians. Still, at the end of the day, one side has to be taken and defended.
