I am forewarned.  I am not quite sure what the Conservative ideological view is nor am I convinced thata balanced view is not an historical chimera.  I am to old and to scarred to abandon my worship of Clioin whose service I have willingly laboured all these many years.  I agree with your contention that at the end of the day one must take a side and defend it regardless of the consequences.  Your views may differand I trust that if I am allowed to stay in this august company that we will both find worthy adversaries.Mark me down as inclined toward the left and delighted to become involved in historiographicaldebates.  Let us rush to the list armed with honour, knowledge and the realization that in a free societyideas compete--sometimes bloodlessly.  Thank you for the warning--I am sharpening my quills.So what about old von Ranke and David Irving-objective and balanced or self deluded?

Please don't put me in the far right category when it comes to history.  I've never read nor seen any Zinn so I will not judge him, but I have seen comments on right-wing blogs like free republic and newsbusters and I find their bias mind-numbing.  I'm no fan of Victor Davis Hanson because I think he interjects way too much right-wing emphasis in his writing. I've read two of his books so far and had to put one down (A War Like No Other) because I found it extremely biased and, dare I say, incorrect. (No, Dr. Hanson, you are wrong. Athens was not like the USA and Sparta like the 'terrorists') The Colonial American history class I've taken recently has opened my mind quite a bit as to the dangers of right-wing bias in history.  At times I hate the British and at times I admire them.  I think historian JB Bury can be very racist, yet I think he is one of the best ancient historians I've ever read.

To Donald Baker on being Rankean.Without doubt Ranke's attempt to elevate HISTORY from literature to  discipline akin to a science was a wonderful goal and he should be remembered and lauded.  There is just one problem that continues to vexlovers of Clio.  The historian who strives to be objective and disciplines himself to adhere to the mostrigid standards cannot help but be biased as his selection of the sources, his picking through the documentsand his conclusions are all subjective--perhaps without his being aware of it.  In my opinion Rake'ssterile objectivity is a myth.  Please feel free to destroy me for this heresy.

To Donald Baker;I agree with you too.  Too much zeal blinds us to reality and adherence to a particular school of thoughttends to channel our writing as it stints our research.  Following one's sources is surely the honest way togo--you are to be lauded.Agoraomai (willyD)

Howard Zinn was a zealot for truth as he saw it.  He explored the byways and midden heaps of historyso that ordinary people could be shown in a different light.  Was he a propagandist for his point of view--of course he was just like others are for theirs--Charles and Mary Beard come to mind as does AJP Taylor,Edward Gibbon, Alfred Mahan, and David Irving to name but a few.  The reason I found him fascinating is that he covered material I had never heard of, things that were forgotten, covered up or merely neglected in mainline history books.  Check out a high school textbook and see how much time is devoted to thelabor movement, the war protestors of WWI and the Red scare of 1919.  Find out why Harry Anslingersaw that he would have to find a new target for the prohibition agents one the 18th amendment was repealed--he did marijuana.  See how little time is devoted to the de facto segregation in the Northdirected against Jews and Blacks and people of inferior European stock.  Zinn covered all of this in his books and essays and perhaps his screed is better thought of as a scream --ala Munch--against thehypocrisy and Babbitism of American society.  Zinn should be read to flavour the stew.  One need notadopt his views, but one ought to hear of them.

Thank you very much for your welcome and kind remarks.  This forum looks as though there are many talented people here and I hope to learn from them.  I have always found it useful to hear from the whole chorus of ideas before falling back on my prejudices.Thanks again.  WillyD ( Agoraomai)

Zinn is a perfect example of a point I always tried to make to the students; the author includes those points he thinks most important. They, too, can leave out or underplay those things the think less so. Might not sit well with some but that is how it works.My state set up a framework for the teaching of history based on a set of standards that were arrived at by folks that set standards for a living with a little help from some teachers (read with an agenda)... my only agenda was that the kids be exposed to a fair and balanced view of history, sooo... I didn't always use the books. One of my chief gripes with education was, rather than teaching the students to read, evaulate, and be critical thinkers, we were supposed to fill them up with what amounted to state approve propaganda. Before this becomes a diatribe against public education (on my part or that of anyone else), understand that by propaganda I mean merely the promotions of one particular viewpoint. Much of the curriculum I was supposed to use was good and I used it with out reservation; some was a crock which I took pleasure in debunking, and some was just useless or far too complex for the grade level and I flushed it. Good that I am out of education because the edu-Nazis are gainning ground all the time. As dollars become tighter they can add more bogus mandates and fuzzy issues to the mix and impose them in the name of NCLB as no one wants to see any child left behind.Want to fix education? Make schools like they were in the 50's and early 60's... kids that don't really want to be students; teach them a trade. If (as today) math and English teachers have to be math or English majors... then so should science and history teachers majors in those fields (interesting point considering I wasn't a history major, but that is another story...   :o).  

I am delighted to see that we agree than the banning or burning of books is just not the way to go,but I am shocked that you put this little book in the same category as Mein Kampf or Das Kapital.Mr. Zinn may arouse passions, but his books are hardly in the same league as those penned by Hitleror Marx.I believe that Mr. Zinn saw the books that were written and found them wanting either because certainsubjects were not covered at all or because they were glossed over or contained statements that were not factual.  I think he wanted to fill in the blanks.Let me give you 10 examples of the kinds of things I mean.1.  American Revolution--I did not learn in High School that only one third of the colonial people inAmerica supported the revolution--the others were Tories or indifferent.2.  Manifest Destiny--I did not learn in High school that Polk manufactured a war with Mexico so as togain territory--it seems un American!3.  I did not know that one of the first things Woodrow Wilson did when he became president andmoved into the White House was to dismiss all the black supervisors.4.  I did not know that slavery was regularly justified by Bible scholars--and people said this is good--the sons of Ham ought to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.5.  I did not know that A.G. Palmer and his horrid little lapdog--Hoover violated laws on a regularbasis during the Red scare following WWI.6.  High school textbooks are silent about the fact that JFK's father bought the Democratic nominationin West Virginia thus placing is son of the road to the presidency.7.  Commentary on the Iran-Contra disaster are discussed very briefly and without much depth incurrent text books.  The President's lies are merely dismissed--he was old.8.  Current texts do a very poor job when describing alternatives to Capitalism and Democracy.  In arecent interview Newt Gingrich was asked whether he thought our President was a Socialist.  he replied--yes!  Now we both know he has a PhD in History so it is somewhat surprising that he answered as he did as a "Socialist: is one who belies that the Government ought to control the means of production, distribution et al.  In fact, if you look at our President closely, you might well conclude that he is much more likely to be a Fascist than a Socialist.  So if Newt blundered in such a manner--what can we expect from little Audrey who believes that textbooks contain truth rather than viewpoints.9.  Current textbooks do little to enlighten students concerning the struggles between capital and labor from 1865 to 1941.  The Pullman strike, the violence in the mines, the shops and the oilfields , the IWW and Big Bill Haywood,  Eugene Debs the Holmstead strike, the  CIO, the UAW and the battle of the overpass are touched on lightly if mentioned at all.10. Textbooks do not contain much material on the way we acquired Hawaii and what we did to thepatriots in the Phillippine insurrection, the fate of the patriot Emilio Aguinaldo. An American army ofover 60, 000 men was necessary to convince the natives that American hegemony was "good" andbetter than the freedom they had hoped to acquire when the boot of Spanish rule was lifted from their neck. The American soldiers who fought there had some colorful sayings--"civilize them with a Krag"and some unprintables--L.B.F.M. being one.So all in all I think you will agree that history should be taught using the maximum of factual narrativeand a minimum of cant.  You will also, no doubt, agree that it should be taught as it happened--warts and all.