American History

» pink101 - Back to Zinn

In response to Back to Zinn posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Brian,
.
I guess I am ready to reapproach the subject regarding your opinion of Howard Zinn.
.
It seems you have a strong bias against him for his stand on social and economic issues as well in regards to his historical perspective. It is as though you want the readers to see Zinn as an untrustworthy historian from whom they discover valid information on American history.
.
# 1. Do you believe he provides a false picture of American history per se?
.
# 2. Would you address my comments regarding what appears to be your bias?
.
Thanks
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Back to Zinn

In response to Back to Zinn posted by pink101:

1. Do you believe he provides a false picture of American history per se?

I believe he provides a SELECTIVE and only partially accurate picture of American history. Picture the break-up of a marriage. You've got the POV of the wife, the POV of the husband, and the POV of each child involved. If a 'historian' comes along and writes a history giving the POV of only the wife, there IS value to that - but it's only PART of the picture. And if the 'historian' then takes that one POV and essentially tries to argue that, based on that POV, we need to deconstruct and revamp our entire perspective of marriage and the family....well, now, we have a problem. Zinn provides a largely one-sided, highly selective POV of American history -- all geared toward advancing an agenda. I have a problem with this, and so should every one who reads Zinn.

2. It seems you have a strong bias against him for his stand on social and economic issues as well in regards to his historical perspective. It is as though you want the readers to see Zinn as an untrustworthy historian from whom they discover valid information on American history.

It's not that simple, although I know you want it to be that simple. Zinn doesn't simply bring out previously neglected aspects of American history. If that is all he did, I would praise him up one side and down the other. I applaud the fact that many historians want to give us different perspectives on history. The more POV (points of view) we have, the better. What Zinn does is glorify one POV and demonize the others. It presents American history in a class CONFLICT (emphasis on conflict) manner. It's all about exploitation of the poor and the downtrodden. That's how he sees America. And that is just NOT true. Has there been some exploitation? Yes. Should we remember that? Yes. But has that DEFINED the United States - is that the "American way"? NO!! Zinn disagrees, and that is really the heart of my opposition to him.

» pink101 - Then, Can We Proceed

In response to Back to Zinn posted by BrianTubbs:
.
All right, you have answered my two questions of concern.
.
Then, can we proceed on the basis of your answers or is there more you want to have on the table?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Then, Can We Proceed

In response to Then, Can We Proceed posted by pink101:

The two aspects of any participant in the public square are MEANS and ENDS. What "means" is he/she willing to pursue in order to achieve certain "ends"? What are the "means"? What are the "ends"?

In Zinn's case, I disagree with both his means and his ends, but it's his MEANS that get under my skin. So, I'm willing to proceed and, to the extent possible, stay focused on the means.

» pink101 - So, Then, :et

In response to Then, Can We Proceed posted by BrianTubbs:

.
This post was a slip of my fingers on the keyboard.
.
Please ignore it.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - So, Then, Let's Move Along

In response to Then, Can We Proceed posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You mentioned the POVs (points of view) in an above post using a family problem as an example citing the fact that any one person's POV isn't enough to give a proper perspective to the situation. After all, people viewing such a problem from the outside must make their decisions based on evidence that may be uncovered. Correct?
.
And, if that is correct, is it not also true that our view of history depends a great deal of the POVs that are given by various people who are held out to be experts of one degree or more? After all, we do view history from a distance, do we not?
.
It appears as though you want to diss Zinn as a person unworthy to be read and who has no real business writing history. Young and impressionable readers might get the idea that there is no need to develop any perspective that might come out of reading Zinn. Is that the message you want sent out to the readers here? Doesn't make a very good statement about academic excellence, do you think?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - So, Then, Let's Move Along

In response to So, Then, Let's Move Along posted by pink101:

Zinn is the most popular, most well-read of all the historians who seek to bring out the POV of the lower class. I think that POV has a great deal to offer of value to the study of history. I just wish there were other, more fair and balanced historians covering it.

It's kind of like this. I look forward to the day that we have a woman President. I just don't want it to be Hillary Clinton.

» Brian Tubbs - POV

I will also say that some POVs do matter more than others. Here, I would part ways fundamentally with Zinn. Zinn believes that the fact that the "Great Man" POV has prevailed in history is a smack in the face of the common person. I disagree. I think that it's important to bring out the other POVs in history, but I also think that there's a REASON why giants like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt dominate our history books.

Take Lincoln, your favorite President. Should the Civil War be taught from the POV of Lincoln or from the slave or from the wife at home who doesn't see or hear from her husband in years or from the soldier on the battlefield?

You might be tempted to say: "All of them." Well, that's all nice and pie-in-the-sky, but...

Can you imagine the sheer SIZE of the history book? Can you imagine trying to cover all 230 years of US history from all the different points of view? How in the world could a schoolteacher do that? I can speak from experience here. It's just about IMPOSSIBLE to cover all of US history in one year as it is. But if you force teachers to cover ALL the points of view or at least several points of view, you've just made it EXTRA impossible.

So, Zinn's solution is more or less: Throw out the "Great Man" POV and stick to the common people - specifically the lower classes. Well, I strongly disagree with this.

I think what you do is for SURVEY courses, you pick milestone eras in US history - and then give snapshots of the common person within those eras. For example....describe one of the women in the Triangle Waist Factory fire of 1911? What was she like? How did she live? What were teh working conditions? Why? and so forth. Do snapshots like that. But in a survey course, you can't cover ALL of history that way.

Your survey courses have to focus PRIMARILY (though I don't believe it should be exclusively) on the LEADER POV. Not just the "Great Man" POV as the critics say. But the LEADER POV. In other words, you focus on those people who made the greatest impact in history - the movers and shakers of history. You HAVE to do it that way. And why not? Aren't they people too?

That last question is key. It's as if Zinn implies that when a person rises above the masses and stands out as a pivotal leader worthy of acclaim, then that person ceases to be worthy of respect and attention (in HIS mind anyway). Unless the person is a socialist. That's not a cheap shot. It's a fact. Zinn will highlight people like Eugene Debs, but not people like Thomas Jefferson.

It's important to me, Pink, that you see where I'm coming from here. That you see my beef with Zinn.

» pink101 - POV

In response to POV posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I see that you have a definite perspective on Zinn and his place as a historian.
.
But, it is not only that you have that attitude; but, it is that you want to impress your audience that Zinn is unworthy and should be discounted if not ignored all together--more or less because you say so. And, I'm trying to hold your feet to the fire.
.
I haven't come here with a well thought out or organized agenda on how history should be taught. Even so, I do believe the way it has been taught leaves most to be desired. Yet, there are specific lines able to be drawn and--in particular--one of them, if not, the main line seems to be about the struggle of humanity to rise above the oppression of powerful leaders--maybe that could be what you refer to as the "Great Man" identity. It looks like the Herods would qualify as such and so would Jesus.
.
So, maybe, what we are really looking at here is the dialectic between the oppresseds and their oppressors? As such, perhaps some men like Washington come along and take the role of one side or the other and, so, qualify to be a champion of the people? Could that be?
.
In any event, let us suppose that Howard Zinn never existed or, just, that he had never written his book, A People's History of The United States; Harper Collins; as updated and revised; http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Un...
.
Chapter 12 starts out with, "Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897, "In strict confidnence...I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." The title of the chapter is "The Empire and The People". Generally speaking, Zinn opens our eyes to a period in which long term historians in the distant future might include the Bush father and son team as heirs of the Theordore Roosevelt tradition of aggression and expansionist policies on behalf of corporate America.
.
Does it bother you that Zinn appeals to the ordinary person with his history lessons in which he points such things out?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Ordinary POV

In response to POV posted by pink101:

First, it doesn't bother me that Zinn appeals to the ordinary person - to the extent that's true. I don't see Zinn representing the POV of the ordinary person, by the way. He represents only SOME of the so-called 'ordinary' people. I keep making that point and it doesn't seem to register with you. You keep coming back to imply or charge that I don't like Zinn because he (Zinn) favors the masses. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. How many times do I have to say that I support covering the POV of ordinary folks. How many times do I have to say that? You keep ignoring it!