Why howard zinn is an idiot

Be on guard not to take sides, if it is possible to avoid it at all. Play dumb. Until you get your Ph. If I had had that book available to me when I started my teaching career, I mean, who knows what I might have become?

A dean, maybe. And, well, he had worked for the RAND Corporation and for the United States government, and he was in the habit of not asking questions other than professional questions, and so it was only fitting now that he should work for the New York Times.

And in this review, the reviewer in the New York Times talked about her involvement with Hitler. And just at that time, the Association of Black Journalists met in Philadelphia and debated the question of whether they should call for a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal, which is what the campaign was for.

We have conflicting evidence. Who can say for sure whether Mumia Abu-Jamal killed this policeman or not? But judging from the way the trial was conducted, from the way the witnesses were brought forth, from the prejudice of the judge, who was proud of having sentenced more people to death than any other judge, he deserves a new trial. And this is what the Association of Black Journalists was debating.

And one of—they finally decided not to call for a new trial, but to make some statement short of that. And one of the grounds for not declaring themselves boldly in favor for a new trial was that they felt it was not their job as journalists to do that. Come to think of it, I just thought of another example, in which—in my own profession.

Sometimes I consider myself a member of the historical profession, just for speech purposes. And during the Vietnam War, there was a business meeting of the American Historical Association—oh, thanks. Why is Howard Zinn sufficiently significant to warrant a full-scale biography, this splendid one actually being the second?

A lesser one by Davis D. Joyce appeared in Because he was one of the most outspoken radicals of his generation concerning issues of race, class, and opposition to American intervention overseas.

His anti-war rallies drew hundreds if not thousands and helped to mobilize many activists. Zinn was already under FBI surveillance. His telephone was later tapped. He was a remarkable polemicist, producing numerous political tracts and essays spanning half a century, eventually harvested wholesale as The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy Seven Stories Press, His causes were just.

His heroes are instructive because they too were insubordinate, like him. He could not be more fortunate in his amicable biographer. Martin Duberman is a distinguished historian and biographer with impeccable credentials for this project. When Paul Robeson, Jr.

Delivered to the publisher one month before his death, The Bomb falls into the latter category. In it, Zinn puts two essays side by side, one entitled "Hiroshima, breaking the silence", the other "The bombing of Royan". As a young man eager to be demobbed, Zinn recalls celebrating the dropping of the atomic bomb; it meant the end of a war he did not wish to return to.

He had taken part in the bombing of the French town of Royan just three months earlier. The essays revisit that unthinking celebration and desire to follow orders of those months in Using historical evidence, it also argues that neither mission was necessary and asks what prompted military action that would transcended military logic and moral sensibilities. Like Zinn, I have changed my mind over the need and glory of war.

Leaving Quaker school at 17, I wanted to be a fighter pilot. But travelling the world on my bicycle, I came to the same realisation as Zinn — that there is no "them", but only a global "us". I will gladly say that changing one's mind is not and should not be seen as a sign of weakness, as it so often is for politicians, but of creative reflection. They had to cover their windows at night, or shut their lights off so submarines off shore could not use cities as a guide for navigation.

Some citizens were prevented from continuing their schooling and put into the Army or Navy with all its restrictions. My grandmother had to register since she was not born in this country. The list goes on. The widows of those KIA for putting their lives on the line probably got a lot less than the settlements received by those interned.

And, as far as I know, all those interned remained in the U. I understand many Japanese families were separated. Do you tell your students that many more American families were separated during this war and many were killed. The reason the Babe Ruth story bothers you is because you understand the key defect which is, as Heretous says, this is not a balanced report. It is not benchmarked against anything and has no frame of reference. When we accept such analyses without these considerations we get very biased teaching and propaganda.

One free from bias and as objective as possible. One that distances the problems of the present from the analysis of the past. One that is dispassionate, but still engaging. That's so hard? Look you two--be as proud as you want. There's lots to celebrate. But you two are supposed to be historians. Should historians just ignore things that aren't pleasing? There are some nasty aspects to American history--the extermination of indians, the lynchings, averaging two a week, of African Americans starting in the s, the end of immigration in the 20s on eugenecist grounds, the internment of the Japanese Americans--there are many nasty aspects to Us history just as there are many nasty aspects to all countries' histories.

What are we supposed to do--just ignore these facts? Should i teach course on the s, and pretend that the JimCrow laws were never passed? I'm serious--what sort of history do you people think it's ok to teach?

Why do you assume I'm a leftist let a alone a Marxist? Do only leftists criticize U. I'm getting the feeling you're actually some kind of primitive computer program, capable of issuing only rote, meaningless phrases.

Addressing a specific question in a rational manner would help convince me that you are, in fact, a human being. This guy makes sense. This rarely happens here. I applaud. God bless America. Somebody tell me why, in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism has infected the supposedly intellectual class of America? What happened to make so many who consider themselves so bright so damned stupid.

God didn't did. Marxism did. You see it on this board all the time. Judging from the tortured responses, you'd never understand that the past 40 years has been a landslide of comment denouncing the U. This point of view is hackneyed. It's been said a million times. The era of every citizen holding his or her own foreign policy is over. I'm calling the people one this board who think this hate the U. The leftists who dominate this board keep insisting that this analysis is fresh and courageous.

It's just the same old drivel. Here's the problem the left needs to confront. God didn't die. This has gutted the left. Babe Ruth struck out many times. The actual number which I don't remember is a fact. I was just reading a book about the "Babe", titled, "Babe Ruth was a loser. The author points out the many times when the babe had men on base and he struck out. He even struck out with no men on base, one man on base and two men on base.

He never struck out with women on base because they were not permitted to play at time. Still the Babe was a chauvanist and never fought for women's rights. He was also a racist who never played against teams that had non-whites on it. Many other examples are given to show the "Babe" was self centered and only played to make money and get rich, for his own pleasure and amusement and really if ever did anything to improve the plight of the poor and downtrodden. He also cheated the management and bosses of the Yankees with all his strikeouts.

The fans in the stands were cheated when this happened, as well as the man in street who worshipped the Babe. These strike outs happened thousands of times and the Babe did nothing about them, but continued on with his sloppy way.

This book reminded me of Zinn's portrayal of America. No wonder we can't be proud, particularly when we can't even have a hero in baseball. Calling critics of the U. You wouldn't want people to think that, would you? How is it against one's self-interest to take responsibility for one's mistakes? The president is also a representative of our country and to say that there are no circumstances which merit an apology from us, is to admit to such arrogance and absence of honor as to tarnish the moral land intellectual reputation of the U.

You have to be pretty defensive to take criticisms of the U. Is it impossible to criticize your parents and still love them? Of course, not. Try to relax. I don't think I ever implied that George Bush Sr.

He was our president, our leader, and our representative to the world. One only has to look objectively at U. Anyone with any honor whatsoever knows that when one makes a mistake that hurts others, one apologizes. And what's worse, Bush Sr. This is a position devoid of honor or courage. I've never heard Zinn or any other leftist say that the U. Only that it has yet to take responsibility for its mistakes. And it's rather silly to be proud to be an American, unless you're an immigrant.

I feel lucky to be an American, but I had nothing to do with being born here. One might as well be proud to have a certain eye color. Thanks Caroline. I remember reading several book reviews on recent work on the Pequot war but couldn't locate which titles were the better ones. Although a typical "leftist academic" I do not think of Zinn as a particularly good historian. He is, however, an extremely talented polemicist and that is why his writing teaches so well.

Whether they agree with him or not, students are forced to confront their own assumptions and construct coherent responses. This results in better thinking by all students.

For anyone reading these exchanges interested in the most recent scholarship on the Pequot War which accords fully with neither Howard Zinn--not an expert on colonial history by any measure--nor Mr. Flynn's tirade [good grief!

Palfrey, who has all the racist prejudices of other 19th c. It is far more even handed than either Flynn or Zinn. Yes, the Pequots were aggressors vs. Why is HNN printing this kind of rhetorical nonsense?

There are many rightist academics who could supply a counterbalance to the arguments of Professor Zinn. While I probably wouldn't agree with many of them, it would further the historical discourse that this site is supposed to be about. Come on, HNN, you can do better. And you are trying to fundraise? There is plenty of genuine scholarship from across the politcal and ideological spectrum. Why go to the pseudo-intellectual punditry that passes itself off as scholarship in the popular media?

No, he's the president and commander-in-chief. His job is to represent the self-interest of our nation to the best of his ability. You morons can gas about how awful the U. Evidently some of you get paid to make a nuisance of yourselves in this fashion. And, it's not like this gassing has been in short supply. We've been fed a nauseating diet of it for four decades. No, Prez Bush is absolutely right. He shouldn't apologize for anything. He should fight for the self-interest of the U. That's his job.

Why won't leftists worship the real god? The false god of Marxism continues to tempt our moral betters. Even after the million executions. And, then the morons want to lecture the rest of us. The Marxists used the social movements you've mentioned in the hope that they could spread chaos, hatred and violence in the U. That those movements had value has nothing to do with the Marxist attempt to subvert the U. This has always been the Marxist ruse, and here we have another bunch of morons falling for it.

Useful idiots of the world, keep belching out the fumes! Arnold, why don't you get some real religion, instead of the fake Marxist religion? Well, that would entail revealing your motives. Marxism isn't called the politics of envy for nothing. Marxism is Nazism. Marxists are Nazis. The result is what counts. How does this idiocy continue? I'm glad he finally admitted it.

God didn't die, Kirstein. Marx did. There is no difference. Kirstein is a worshipper of the False God. He missed the primary moral lesson of the 20th century.

How's that arm, Peter? The patting yourself on the back has got to be painful. I knew you were completely ignorant. Wasn't aware that you are without any moral compass as well. Sorry Mr. Flynn, but the truth is that if Howard Zinn did not exist, it would be necessary--and my pleasure--to invent him.