"the disgraceful Howard Zinn" Topic

As I have mentioned elsewhere, "history" is perceived and even defined differently by different parties.

Some view it in its purest essence – an honest and objective effort to understand the truth of mankind's past.

Others view history simply as a "tool" to re-direct, mislead or seduce the public into beliefs that conform to particular points of view politically, economically, psychologically or strategically advantageous to them.

Freud laid the foundation stones of modern propaganda and we live with its consequences every day of our lives.

B

"Freud laid the foundation stones of modern propaganda"

Please explain

Yes, a three-hour course on historiography ("the history of history") was required for my Masters.

The first chapter of Paul Johnson's MODERN TIMES is a good look at the effects of Freudianism.

Wow doc, do you think the title of your thread leads a little? Or that propaganda hit job of an article?

Let's see, blah blah blah Leftist…blah blah blah Marxist…blah blah blah Indoctrination…blah blah blah some lady with dubious motives and credentials publishes critiques while hiding at right wing think tanks masquerading as institutions of higher learning.

Ah the real motivation behind the article:

The appearance of Grabar's book would be welcome at any time, but is especially relevant now that the New York Times has reincarnated the spirit of Howard Zinn with its "1619 Project." It describes the U.S. as a country founded as a slavocracy with racism in its very DNA, an interpretation of the American past as misguided as Zinn's attempt to characterize all of U.S. history as a tale of class conflict.

Mon dieu! Help us, Americans are exceptional but can't survive a critical book about their history or do any deeper research.

@Blutarski

Some view it [History] in its purest essence – an honest and objective effort to understand the truth of mankind's past.

Examples?

Don in what context? If I wrote about the battle of Gettysburg, I could easily do so without an agenda. I would neither favor the Union nor Confederacy. I could not change the outcome. No matter how many times I read about it, the Confederates still lose. I have known writers who have done written with no agenda, just wrote what happened.

I know there are those out with an agenda to prove. We know they exist. "It was all Lee's fault." "It was Longstreet." "It was Ewell on day one". "If Meade had followed up". Then they try to push that agenda.

I find agenda to be more so on more modern subjects, especially Vietnam, or Presidencies. Especially the later. Also "America's guilt" seems to be the latest.

Not disagreeing with you in full, it is out there for sure, just saying there are good non agenda accounts written too. I especially like those that have a lot of participant accounts. The soldiers account of what they feel, see or encounter.

35th, yes, but it is still the old trade-off: you can use the testimony of participants, but they were interested parties. Or you can use the testimony of those who were NOT there, were NOT interested parties, but then may well lack essential knowledge, particularly of assumptions that people involved often never write down. Take slavery: we have many northern travelers' accounts, but they may lack the context to understand what they are seeing -- but they also may mention things that southerners take for granted. At least where that topic is concerned, we do have many many accounts to compare with one another. Where you have only one or a few sources, you can never know what is NORMAL and what is aberrant.

If you have ever tried to write an account of an engagement, it is almost always very hard to reconcile the two opposing sides' accounts, and often hard to reconcile different views from the same side.

You write from the point of what they actually did. You are writing on what actually happened. You are correct, when you start trying to determine if Sickles was right, wrong, or both, you are injecting your opinion and therefore agenda. What I am saying is you can write exactly what happened without injecting that into it and thus avoid agenda. That was my only point. Those books exist, as do the other type, as we all know. 🙂

History in the modern era has morphed into quite a complicated creature

History has long been a battleground for differing opinions regarding past events, personalities and the circumstances surrounding them.

However, over the past century or so, it has also become a political and ideological battleground. Look into Antonio Gramsci, his later devotee and ideological successor Rudy Duschke and Gramsci's politically strategic concept of "The Long March Through the Institutions" as a means of achieving the spread of socialism in western societies.

Gramsci's writings are ideologically dense (in the classic manner of the early socialist "theologians") but nevertheless make for quite compelling reading ….. particularly as a means of understanding the political and social upheavals we have been experiencing here in the West since as far back as the post-WW1 period. The Long March Through the Institutions IMO represents a very long-term cooperative plan to de-stabilize, discredit and replace existing western cultural, religious, social, economic and political values in order to pave the way for establishment of a new "utopian" socialist order

Of course, I understand that others may view things very differently; but that is my take-away after some decades of reading and study.

B

Seems pretty easy to understand to me:
If you assemble your facts first then create your thesis you are objectively pursuing truth in history.
If you create your thesis first then assemble facts to support it you are not objectively pursuing truth in history.
Zinn created his thesis first.

My hat is off to you, Murvihill.
Incisively and succinctly put!

+1

B

@35thOVI

just saying there are good non agenda accounts written too.

What are these non agenda accounts of Gettysburg?

I especially like those that have a lot of participant accounts. The soldiers account of what they feel, see or encounter.

What makes you think that participant accounts dont/cant have an agenda?

@Blutarski

Rudy Duschke and Gramsci's politically strategic concept of "The Long March Through the Institutions" as a means of achieving the spread of socialism in western societies.

Is it that the agenda is obvious or that it is so subtle it has to be tracked and pointed out?

The Long March Through the Institutions IMO represents a very long-term cooperative plan to de-stabilize, discredit and replace existing western cultural, religious, social, economic and political values in order to pave the way for establishment of a new "utopian" socialist order

This bit in bold sounds a lot like the rationalization used for "Western chauvinism".

So, this long term, sinister "utopian" plot, is is succeeding?

Of course, I understand that others may view things very differently; but that is my take-away after some decades of reading and study.

Surely after all this dedication, you must have one agenda-less history book to toss into the conversation?

@Murvihill

Seems pretty easy to understand to me:
If you assemble your facts first then create your thesis you are objectively pursuing truth in history.
If you create your thesis first then assemble facts to support it you are not objectively pursuing truth in history.
Zinn created his thesis first.

So, taking your easy to understand formula, can the casual reader of the OP article assume it created its thesis first and then assembled facts to support it and therefore it is not objectively pursuing truth in history?

Or is this an example of non-agenda driven research and writing?:

The Disgraceful Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn's polemical history of the United States is distorted, manipulative, and dishonest.

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Is it that the agenda is obvious or that it is so subtle it has to be tracked and pointed out?"

I think that depends a very great deal on the reading and study habits of the individual. For example, what do you suppose is the connection between our current Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Antonio Gramsci?

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"This bit in bold sounds a lot like "Western chauvinism"."

Why is it not "Socialist Chauvinism"? On what basis did the international communist movement justify their program to impose Marxism around the globe?

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"So, this long term, sinister plot, is it succeeding?"

You tell me.

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Surely after all this dedication, you must have one agenda-less history book to toss into the conversation?"

Do you know of any? Aspirations to achieve a goal and actual achievement thereof are two very different issues; agendas can be conscious or unconscious. How would one recognize a truly "agenda-free" work even if one were to be dropped in your lap? It's fairly easy to point out agenda-driven works of history. Truly "agenda-free" works are another matter altogether. Identifying the presence or absence of "bias" is like identifying "beauty" – it really exists in the eye of the beholder.

B

@Au Pas

I never said that first hand accounts do not have an agenda, I said I enjoy the books that have first hand accounts better then those that don't. "We moved forward from the ridge. We immediately came under fire from the Confederate battery on the hill above us. 1st Sgt. John Smith, carrying the colors was hit, taking off both legs, also hitting Corporals Jones and Hale…….." no agenda though, just an account. I have many books by WW2 veterans recounting their experiences, flying, as prisoners or as infantry on the ground. I met them, no agendas. Just recounting what they experienced.

I am sure if one looks for agenda hard enough, one can find it in anything. It is like my English Lit classes in college and the Professors in them asking, "what was the author trying to say?". I always thought, they probably were not trying to say anything, they were just waiting for some "enlightened" individual to say "all I think you were trying to say, blah, blah, when you wrote that weren't you?" The author would then respond, "Well of course I was! How perceptive of you." When all the author was doing was writing a book to make money and the other was trying to show how intellectual they were. Both had their egos shined.

As far as Gettysburg books. Honestly it has been years since I read one on the battle and I recently sold most off. There are good regimentals out there. Read them all and enjoy.

@35. It may in theory be easy to write history without an agenda. In practice it is very difficult. Even if the intent is to present things the way they were the subject is quite often just too broad to present it all. Some stuff gets in while a great deal gets left out. While we may justify the decisions by saying only the important stuff gets in, whether it is important enough reflects our own biases.

I don't disagree. My whole point is there are non agenda books out there. If I write about the Battle of the Wabash and put in what happened based on the sources I have. Agenda was not intended. My sources might be all from one side (let's be honest, not many first hand accounts from the Miami and Shawnee). So agenda can be perceived, because it seems one sided.

If I write an account of Gettysburg and use only Union sources, agenda intended. If I use both sources, but my sources are limited. You might perceive agenda, because I left something out, due to lack of sources, but it was never intended.

If I start making judgements on Longstreet's actions, or Sickles actions, then obviously intended.

I have a book "Sickles the Incredible". Gee do you think there is an agenda there? 😉

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Is it that the agenda is obvious or that it is so subtle it has to be tracked and pointed out?"

Blutarski said: I think that depends a very great deal on the reading and study habits of the individual. For example, what do you suppose is the connection between our current Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Antonio Gramsci?

I didnt know that one existed but dont see this to be relevant unless it is an example that if anyone associates themselves with an ideology someone else disapproves they become "diseased" and cannot perform anything outside of that "sickness". I suppose the Transportation secretary has a socialist agenda for US roads and bridges? When he orders lunch, is it made up of socialist ingredients?

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"This bit in bold sounds a lot like "Western chauvinism"."

Blutarski wrote: Why is it not "Socialist Chauvinism"? On what basis did the international communist movement justify their program to impose Marxism around the globe?

I was speaking to your statement about threats to western culture which is very similar to how the Proud Boys justify pushing back. Check it out.

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"So, this long term, sinister plot, is it succeeding?"

Blutarski:You tell me.

How could I? I never heard of it. You brought it up. Apparently, the socialists are turning us all into mindless zombies and no one knows. It's like the play "Rhinoceros" but in reverse.

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Surely after all this dedication, you must have one agenda-less history book to toss into the conversation?"

Blutarski:Do you know of any? Aspirations to achieve a goal and actual achievement thereof are two very different issues; agendas can be conscious or unconscious. How would one recognize a truly "agenda-free" work even if one were to be dropped in your lap? It's fairly easy to point out agenda-driven works of history. Truly "agenda-free" works are another matter altogether. Identifying the presence or absence of "bias" is like identifying "beauty" – it really exists in the eye of the beholder.

Again, this is your assertion, not mine.

Remember this?:

Some view it in its purest essence – an honest and objective effort to understand the truth of mankind's past.

I was hoping for a bibliography of books living up to this standard. I'll settle for some that fly close to truth's flame.

I was also hoping that this thread's tone would get straightened out because at the moment it sounds like "agenda" is French for an opinion someone doesnt like and refuses to accept or consider. Further, my impression is that to disguise their own ideology, they accuse the work of not really being an intellectual work but instead an indoctrination or propaganda tool pushed on kids to justify censoring it.

Further, the assumption that what has come before or the status quo doesnt also have an agenda is bizarre. No one wants to relate whether the Claremont Institute has an agenda? It isnt a trick question.

To clarify. An "agenda" is a point of view that someone doesnt like. A lack of "agenda" is a point of view that someone already holds or is comfortable with. Is that about right?

But I have to ask, if there are no non-agenda historical works then why do you maintain that there are? Was it just idle chatter?

@35thOVI

You did say (or suggest) that first hand accounts are agenda free.

Not disagreeing with you in full, it is out there for sure, just saying there are good non agenda accounts written too. I especially like those that have a lot of participant accounts. The soldiers account of what they feel, see or encounter.

Unless the 2nd sentence was supposed to be disconnected from the first one.

But no a big deal.

This is more interesting:

just saying there are good non agenda accounts [of Gettysburg] written too.

I was excited to get some non-agenda written Gettysburg book recommendations but alas, this seems to be something of a unicorn.

I thought Stephen Sears' "Gettysburg" was pretty objective. Although known for his writing on the Army of the Potomac each of his books on the individual battles avoid bias as far as I can see, no agenda.

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Is it that the agenda is obvious or that it is so subtle it has to be tracked and pointed out?"

Blutarski said: I think that depends a very great deal on the reading and study habits of the individual. For example, what do you suppose is the connection between our current Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Antonio Gramsci?

I didnt know that one existed but dont see this to be relevant unless it is an example that if anyone associates themselves with an ideology someone else disapproves they become "diseased" and cannot perform anything outside of that "sickness". I suppose the Transportation secretary has a socialist agenda for US roads and bridges? When he orders lunch, is it made up of socialist ingredients?

Blutarski comments – Well then, one may conclude that you are indifferent to the possibility of plots, sinister (your word, not mine) or otherwise, and appear to be disinterested in exploring the matter. Your head will rest easy tonight. Ignorance is indeed blissful. Great for you!

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"This bit in bold sounds a lot like "Western chauvinism"."

Blutarski wrote: Why is it not "Socialist Chauvinism"? On what basis did the international communist movement justify their program to impose Marxism around the globe?

I was speaking to your statement about threats to western culture which is very similar to how the Proud Boys justify pushing back. Check it out.

Blutarski comments – How lucky for us all, to know that chauvinism exists on only one side of the great political bell curve!

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"So, this long term, sinister plot, is it succeeding?"

Blutarski: You tell me.

How could I? I never heard of it. You brought it up. Apparently, the socialists are turning us all into mindless zombies and no one knows. It's like the play "Rhinoceros" but in reverse.

Blutarski comments – If you've never heard of Gramsci, Rudi Duschke and "The Long March Through the Institutions", then I absolutely agree it was a waste of my time to assume that you could possibly comment upon the matter. Totally my error to have assumed you would be more informed about such topics. My apologies.

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote -
"Surely after all this dedication, you must have one agenda-less history book to toss into the conversation?"

Blutarski: Do you know of any? Aspirations to achieve a goal and actual achievement thereof are two very different issues; agendas can be conscious or unconscious. How would one recognize a truly "agenda-free" work even if one were to be dropped in your lap? It's fairly easy to point out agenda-driven works of history. Truly "agenda-free" works are another matter altogether. Identifying the presence or absence of "bias" is like identifying "beauty" – it really exists in the eye of the beholder.

Again, this is your assertion, not mine.

Remember this?:
Some view it in its purest essence – an honest and objective effort to understand the truth of mankind's past.

Blutarski comments – As a matter of fact, I do. I recall posting that a short while ago. Why do you assume that means that I, you, or anyone else can actually detect the difference. I recall also mentioning "eye of the beholder" as an essential factor; did you perhaps miss the influence that might exert on the issue?

- – -

Au pas de Charge wrote – I was also hoping that this thread's tone would get straightened out because at the moment it sounds like "agenda" is French for an opinion someone doesnt like and refuses to accept or consider. Further, my impression is that to disguise their own ideology, they accuse the work of not really being an intellectual work but instead an indoctrination or propaganda tool pushed on kids to justify censoring it.

Further, the assumption that what has come before or the status quo doesnt also have an agenda is bizarre. No one wants to relate whether the Claremont Institute has an agenda? It isnt a trick question.

To clarify. An "agenda" is a point of view that someone doesnt like. A lack of "agenda" is a point of view that someone already holds or is comfortable with. Is that about right?

But I have to ask, if there are no non-agenda historical works then why do you maintain that there are? Was it just idle chatter?

Blutarski comments – If you think carefully about what I wrote …

As I have mentioned elsewhere, "history" is perceived and even defined differently by different parties.

Some view it in its purest essence – an honest and objective effort to understand the truth of mankind's past. … Others view history simply as a "tool" to re-direct, mislead or seduce the public into beliefs that conform to particular points of view politically, economically, psychologically or strategically advantageous to them.

… I described what I believe people tend to PERCEIVE about history. I never asserted or argued that a perfectly pure and impartial agenda-free example of history has ever actually existed. Nor do I believe that anyone would necessarily even be willing or able to recognize it as such a thing, even if it slammed them in the face.

Nice chatting.

B

As I stated au pas, I don't remember the GBurg books specifically anymore, to far back, although the regimentals are good for non agenda driven. But I can give you a more specific recent. WW2. "Spearhead" by Adam Makos. It embodies all of what I said. First hand accounts, plus background and no agenda that I could garner. I thought it was an excellent read.

Also the sentences were meant to be separate.

Allen Guelzo – Gettysburg, The Last Invasion. Along with Sears, Guelzo is the best of the modern accounts IMO. History prof at the college there, now at Princeton, I think.

Second thoughts, I think it is wrong to call Zinn disgraceful. I may disagree with him, but he is not a disgrace – a word we have heard used so many times in recent years that I am not sure it has much meaning anymore. I have no personal judgement to make about him or his conduct. He is entitled to his views.

Let us recall the BATTLES AND LEADERS books which were first serialized in a magazine. Personal accounts and reminiscences of many participants. And some famous feuds, not so much between Yank and Reb but among commanders on the same side, debating who was to blame. Are those books history? Yes. or original sources? yes, though less immediate than reports in the OFFICIAL RECORDS. Can we ignore them? NO. Must we use them with great care? YES.

I SORT OF agree that the historian gathers facts first an then writes an interpretation of them. BUT a THESIS has to be propounded BEFORE it can be tested. If the historian doesn't go into the factual record with some questions clearly in mind (thesis, or maybe alternate theses) he is likely wasting his time. It really is a complicated discipline.

I have described the assignment I do on plantation slavery, giving students four alternate ideas about how best to describe it, then sending them into primary sources (the 1930s slave narratives) to test which of the four theories works best. Of course it is quite possible (likely even) that all four ideas contain some truth, even where they are opposed, and also possible, likely even, that there are other ways, fifth and sixth alternate ideas. (I'm not trying to make them experts but to teach them how historians work and also the complexity of the subject.)

Just deciding what is a fact is sometimes difficult.

History is what the Present finds useful to remember about the Past.

I have spent a great deal of time at Gettysburg. I have found the Civil War Institute to be an objective and professional organization.

US park rangers there have an exceptional depth of knowledge and historical methodology, some are former college students from the Institute. Well informed on many differing views, no obvious or apparent bias. They are also walking bibliographies.

The ACW resulted in a huge number of memoirs from leaders, many with axes to grind or images to sell. These may tell us more about the authors than they originally intended and are kind of their own study project in that way.

IMO the objective historian uses the ability to assess info and accord it appropriate weight in seeking objectivity. Both Sears and Guelzo appear to be adept at this. This requires careful judgement and a commitment to ethical pursuit of the truth.

The thesis proposal needs to avoid being front loaded with bias,IMO. Although it may be about bias. Facts are what they are, I think the difficulty is trying to strip away the distortions.

Blutarski comments – Well then, one may conclude that you are indifferent to the possibility of plots, sinister (your word, not mine) or otherwise, and appear to be disinterested in exploring the matter. Your head will rest easy tonight. Ignorance is indeed blissful. Great for you!

Well, I suppose it is healthier to be unaware of what's going on around you than to imagine things are occurring which aren't.

How lucky for us all, to know that chauvinism exists on only one side of the great political bell curve!

I was simply trying to put you in touch with kindred spirits.

If you've never heard of Gramsci, Rudi Duschke and "The Long March Through the Institutions", then I absolutely agree it was a waste of my time to assume that you could possibly comment upon the matter.

Never heard of them and dont care. Further, never plan on reading them. It's probably useless to point it out but familiarity with the book's contents wasnt really important to refute the idea that just because someone writes something partisan doesnt mean the reader automatically takes it as gospel.

Newsflash, I hadnt heard of Zinn or read his books either and likewise have zero plans to do so.

In any case, I thought your fear was that people will read their books and succumb to their noxious fumes? I would've thought you'd be delighted that I hadnt read them. Although, I counter assume that you've read them and managed to survive their talsimanic charms unscathed? Does that mean that you are immune to socialism but you fear for the minds and souls of everyone else?

Totally my error to have assumed you would be more informed about such topics. My apologies.

Perfectly alright, you've made more egregious errors and I havent held it against you. :)

Blutarski comments – If you think carefully about what I wrote …

Why would I be burdened with a standard you yourself eluded?

… I described what I believe people tend to PERCEIVE about history. I never asserted or argued that a perfectly pure and impartial agenda-free example of history has ever actually existed. Nor do I believe that anyone would necessarily even be willing or able to recognize it as such a thing, even if it slammed them in the face.

I am glad we cleared that up. Which leaves us all free to accuse anyone and everyone we dont agree with to have an agenda? I think this is a supreme victory for the status quo. Dont you agree?

Nice chatting.

Always a pleasure and a treat to interact with one of nature's true gentleman and scholars. ;)

Sorry, ain't taking the bait.
Have a nice day.

B

"So, taking your easy to understand formula, can the casual reader of the OP article assume it created its thesis first and then assembled facts to support it and therefore it is not objectively pursuing truth in history?

Or is this an example of non-agenda driven research and writing?:"

I got the impression this was a review of Zinn's work and not an historic presentation. As such they used polemic to condemn him. In any other profession it would be called over-the-top but critics seem to get a pass on such things.

The OP is a review of Zinn's work.

Zinn was a commie, enough said!

I was lucky to meet Howard on a number of occasions. He participated in, made, and wrote history, telling the side of the story often suppressed or overlooked. I'm not surprised he has many detractors on this forum, he was an ardant antimilitarist, but the rest of us are better off for his life work writing and supporting peoples' history.

Isn't that what all history is? People's history.

Even Veterans who have honorably served their nation make mistakes later in life – might be because of the effects of their service, so perhaps we should be charitable, not knowing what the fellow went through.

In the Wiki article [I know…I know…] he describes himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." So is he a product of left-leaning European Jewish intellectualism? The question is too esoteric for me, and I'm not interested enough to decide.

As for his "A People's History of the United States", I read part of it, decided it was ideological pap and it lay around for a while. Eventually I tore it up and recycled it – that seemed the action that would do the most good for the planet.

It also reminds me of a book review written by some witty fellow…"This book should not be put down lightly – it should be hurled with great force."
:)

Of course, opinions vary… I find he is a useful name with which to gauge where people are – if they like Zinn, I usually wander off and see if they've brought fresh appetizers out from the kitchen. So perhaps he hasn't lost all social utility.

Thank You 35thOVI.

"I did not refer to them as native Americans on purpose. They are no more or less native than I am, unless history is incorrect. They just happened to migrate here before we did. I was born here, they were born here."

This has been a pet peeve of mine for along time.

Nice to know someone agrees with me. 😉

I am a historian. PhD and everything. I teach at a college. My view is something along the lines of "My country may be right, my country may be wrong, but my country right or wrong." We do need to address the issues and problems that have made up our history. However, we must balance this with the good and positiveness of this country as well. I find many from the left that love to do the first but reject the latter. I find some on the right that refuse to do the first but love to focus on the second. But if all we do is pound on our past and only speak negatively about our country then how do we ever survive as a nation? If a person only received negative feedback about themselves all their lives at the end what will they think of themselves?

Grattan54 +1

I am a historian. PhD and everything. I teach at a college.

I take it you've resisted Marxist assimilation? Are you one of the last holdouts?

We do need to address the issues and problems that have made up our history. However, we must balance this with the good and positiveness of this country as well. I find many from the left that love to do the first but reject the latter. I find some on the right that refuse to do the first but love to focus on the second.

This doesn't result in a sort of happy medium?

If a person only received negative feedback about themselves all their lives at the end what will they think of themselves?

I think we can see some of the results in our minority communities.

On the other hand, if someone never gets any negative feedback, what sort of empathy do they develop and what sort of egomaniac do they become?

Not a question of no negative feedback. It is when it becomes a steady diet of negativity that it becomes an issue of concern. I don't think we should be striving for a happy medium but historical truth. Not based on one's political views. I love it when my students come up to me and say "I can't tell if you are a Republican or Democrat." Good. They shouldn't be able to tell that.

I would not say the field of history today is marxist. But it is heavy on race, class and gender. Often to the exclusion of more traditional and mainstream history.

When I went to college (40 years ago, history major) the political bent of all the history professors was Pessimist. They'd seen it all before and knew where it would go wrong.
Nice guys though.

The Influence of Howard Zinn's Fake History | National Leadership Seminar

YouTube link

History should be a research of the original documents and then a comparative discussion of them. Today a professor writes or selects his version of history that the students have to regurgitate to get a passing grade.

My son was taking an American History course at an east US college. The professor determines what sources will be used and the assignment was to research why a specific period of history is bad (I leave out the specific details). The idea was to do research to come to the conclusion the professor deemed historical. My son did his research and presented his documentation that the basis of the assignment was wrong and based on original documents the professor came to the wrong conclusion.

The professor said he must flunk him because he is not "thinking about it in the right way." and declined to discuss the historical facts and sources my son presented. In other words the facts do not matter, it's being indoctrinated is what matters. He told the professor he's wrong and dropped the class. He's not the kind of guy that compromises the facts just to kiss someones ass to get a good grade.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Wow! Sorry to hear that about your son. I would never do that in one of my classes. If the student can base their argument on solid research I don't care what their conclusions are. But myself and my colleagues in my department are very traditionalist historians. We don't agree with many of the new approached to history.

Howard who?

Wolfhag, sounds like your son did some serious work and took a position based on it. And that should be a goal of any teacher.. IMO. If your son did not follow the assignment guidelines and challenged the rationale and parameters of the assignment, he has to expect things might not go his way. But his work was still a valuable learning experience on more than one level. Integrity matters.

We have been indoctrinating students with historical perspective from both right and left for a long time. Zinn is like the Lost Cause Narrative, just another chapter.

Howard Zinn was a socialist thinker so I always took his writings with a truckload of salt. Still, I think his point of view has some value. Ultimately, I believe he was more of a propagandist that an objective historian.

Wolfhag, sorry to hear that your son was the victim of "progressive" politics in higher education. His experience, though frustrating, may be useful to him and open his eyes to some of the biases among college professors and the downright Stalinist tactics they use and encourage in order to enforce their version of the truth. Sadly, many current college professors discourage and are opposed to free-thinking individuals. Certainly not what a college and university experience should be.

A good point. He was no more disgraceful than someone like Mark Levin. But neither writer's work is unbiased or very useful, IMO.

I don't recall progressive bias in college long ago, history was pretty straightforward. But I do object to politicizing topics in the classroom unless there is a balanced presentation. As a teacher and a parent, I would want students thinking, not being told what to think.

This Howard Zinn thing is a conspiratorial crutch which seems to have been created for people to rationalize why their cherished backwards reflexes are suddenly considered revolting.

Do the posters here believe that people cant read something without unwillingly becoming it? If so, does that mean then that there is little faith in people's ability to think for themselves?

To make it clear, you cant pick and choose your invisible global conspiracies a la carte. Is this indoctrination a two way street, or do we believe the truth can be blotted out forever? Or is it that the truth finally revealed is part of the dastardly conspiracy?

Incidentally, Wolfhag's scenario strikes me as incomplete? A professor asked the students to use preset research to determine why a particular period of history is bad? Isnt that its own answer? We dont know the purpose of the assignment including that it was perhaps a study in propaganda. Maybe the professor is unqualified, maybe the school is, who knows.

But if the assignment is to prove that something is bad, it doesnt follow that the answer was that it was actually good, unless the student believes that their job is to be a counterrevolutionary.

A lot is confused and unclear about the assignment, including whether the student used the materials assigned or not. And how would he figure the Professor came to the wrong conclusion? Seems an odd result. Did this student just stumble onto the truth or did they not like the original tenor of the assignment and decide they were going to prove the contrary from the outset?

Incidentally, I'm on a board where people are supposed to be able to parse history and research to get at the truth and I have seen a few tell me that I'm wrong about the civil war and that the South was within its constitutional rights. NOT, mind you, that there are two sides to the issue and here is our evidence and argument that the South was no worse than the North but, that the prevailing belief is dead wrong and that I'm blind to the truth.

So forgive me if I dont think folks against Zinn arent exactly seeing history through an undistorted looking glass themselves.

So, I gotta ask just what period of history the professor thought was bad that was then suddenly proven to be good?

My son did his research and presented his documentation that the basis of the assignment was wrong and based on original documents the professor came to the wrong conclusion.

And where did your son learn these research skills?

Translation -
There's YOUR truth.
Then there is MY TRUTH.
But there is no OBJECTIVE truth.

B