Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (204533)	7/8/2021 11:51:11 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362834

>> It matters if Zinn included an event in the book that did not occur. That would be getting it wrong. If you know of such a thing, such as claiming that Dewey beat Truman and became president, I hope you would enlighten us. In which case I would agree with you that he got it wrong. There are literally books available today the sole purpose of which is to debunk Zinn's nonsense. Yet, when the union presidents yesterday referred to a funding legal challenges in support of those who teach truthful history, they were referring to the "truth" as Zinn told it. Zinn is so, so far off base that it is impossible to take the book seriously if one is reasonable in his analysis of it. If you want anecdotes, I will refer you to any of the large number of articles that address various details. At the time I read the book, I was closer to the years when I was enamored of academia, attached to the processes of writing and research, and still having do some occasional writing for graduate classes in which I was still engaged. At first I didn't realize it, but eventually understood that the book makes very radical claims then fails to support those claims with proper references. This matters because entire generations have now changed their understanding of history based on this poorly referenced material. A lot of noise has been made relevant to unfounded claims against Columbus, for example, where Zinn clearly hasn't objectively researched the topic. Instead, substituting a narrative Zinn designed for his own purposes -- and over the last 40 years that has become the operational narrative for teaching in public schools (which those in control, the unions, allege to be THE TRUTH). While it is true the debunkers are now out in force, this book was used as the basis of high school curricula for a lot of years without question at all. And it is still in use even though many historians now take issue with it. Howard Zinn characterized the American Revolution as a struggle between rich and poor. In principle, the coverage of the Revolution suggested that it was an effort, not for American independence, but instead, over the divide between the poor and the ruling class. How does he get to this absurd notion? With a hell of a lot of misleading bullshit. There are reams of criticism available now -- entire books written in criticism of Zinn's nonsense -- but still, the tale lives on and is being taught in our schools and certainly is a pillar in support of the 1619 Project, I suppose an effort at keeping Zinn alive. My point here is that Zinn's book misses the mark in telling a truthful history: it might be fine as a 1% "other view" of what happened, but it is not okay as a foundational reference for the subject. So, as part of a graduate course of study, one could say, "This is another person's view, but check his references". In a university setting as the basis for a graduate course in alternative history, Zinn's tripe might have a role. But teaching it to high schoolers as a principal source of knowledge is wrong. Even as a reading assignment, you will have many who come away with the idea that Zinn's history is history, and that simply is not true. Having teachers stand before a classroom and claim that it is truth simply isn't what we should want for the nation's children. If you want anecdotal details, there is plenty of material available on the web which makes interesting reading. Notably, in support of the question of how Zinn's book rose to be translated to 15 or 20 language worth of America-bashing, having sold I guess millions of copies, with no apparent basis in historical fact.