We Still Need Howard Zinn(lithub.com)
lithub.com
We Still Need Howard Zinn
https://lithub.com/we-really-still-need-howard-zinn/
162 comments
Assuming the criticism is true, would an edited version put US history in a much brighter light?
Probably not, just a different one. The AskHistorians threads about this are typically accompanied by more credible left/populist histories; Jill Lepore, as an example.
Exactly, so to focus on dismissing the book/author seem very opportunistic since the core of the argument is still based on facts, and people should acknowledge the bad parts of their history.
disown(3)
I don't really understand the hate for Zinn by some folks. He tells the truth, a truth not often told. Curious how so many self styled "contrarians" and "free thinkers" dislike his work without reading it. Anyway, it's a good read.
Your comment explains the hate.
There is no such thing as history without a political philosophy. Herodotus had one, Thucydides had one and Zinn has one. This is all fine and good. The issue is when people come along and say "He tells the truth, a truth not often told".
It's not the truth. It's a contribution. In the medium-to-long run, parts of Zinn's writings will be accepted and other parts will be rejected. In fact, this has already happened. The problem is people selling Zinn as "the last word," as if we can all stop thinking about history now because Zinn finished the job. In reality, history is a never-ending process. Historical theses can be more right than others but none of them are "the truth".
There is no such thing as history without a political philosophy. Herodotus had one, Thucydides had one and Zinn has one. This is all fine and good. The issue is when people come along and say "He tells the truth, a truth not often told".
It's not the truth. It's a contribution. In the medium-to-long run, parts of Zinn's writings will be accepted and other parts will be rejected. In fact, this has already happened. The problem is people selling Zinn as "the last word," as if we can all stop thinking about history now because Zinn finished the job. In reality, history is a never-ending process. Historical theses can be more right than others but none of them are "the truth".
Your comment explains why one might dislike people who take Zinn's writings as the absolute truth but doesn't explain the hate for Zinn himself.
You're hanging an awful lot on one casual use of the word 'the' in the GP (although I agree with your general argument).
100%
The above OP quite literally said, “>the< truth” immediately followed by “>a< truth not often told.”
I find it baffling that the general HN/Reddit sentiment is anti-Zinn given the oft cited ideals of “contrarianism” that much of the community holds.
That doesn’t mean take everything said a face value but rather assign some worth to a work that told the stories of people that were hidden from the usual, “winner writes the tales” style of history writing.
I know, for me personally, Zinn’s work was a lot more engaging to read while balancing scholarly repute. This is certainly something from which other history books could learn.
The above OP quite literally said, “>the< truth” immediately followed by “>a< truth not often told.”
I find it baffling that the general HN/Reddit sentiment is anti-Zinn given the oft cited ideals of “contrarianism” that much of the community holds.
That doesn’t mean take everything said a face value but rather assign some worth to a work that told the stories of people that were hidden from the usual, “winner writes the tales” style of history writing.
I know, for me personally, Zinn’s work was a lot more engaging to read while balancing scholarly repute. This is certainly something from which other history books could learn.
If anyone thinks that Zinn is not offering precisely a counterpoint to history as written by the victors, they have not understood his message.
His memoir is literally titled: "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train"
His memoir is literally titled: "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train"
Sure. But there are gazillions of people who didn't even take a single history class in undergrad who clearly haven't understood his message and hold up his text as the last word when scholarship, even leftist scholarship, has added so much more in the intervening decades. Zinn gets more recognition than other scholars among laypeople, not experts. It becomes frustrating watching truly excellent scholarship go unnoticed.
That phenomenon is not in any way unique to Zinn. You can see parallel behavior across the political spectrums.
Of course. And plenty of scholars also have things to say about Sapiens or whatever other hot popular scholarship is happening on a given day. Zinn's flaws are not unique and the fact that Zinn has overzealous fans is not unique. That still doesn't mean that scholarly criticism isn't valuable.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I am bothered by the idea that people read A People's History largely uncritically, and then, their studies complete, go on to act as though they were de facto experts on U.S. history.
Studying history (even as a non-historian) is impossible unless you are constantly revising your views, and that's not possible if you only know one source.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who read Howard Zinn critically, as part of a "balanced diet" of other sources. However, I think that among the type of people who have only read one general history of the U.S. since high school, but are still happy to preach to you from it, A People's History of the United States is probably the most popular selection.
Studying history (even as a non-historian) is impossible unless you are constantly revising your views, and that's not possible if you only know one source.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who read Howard Zinn critically, as part of a "balanced diet" of other sources. However, I think that among the type of people who have only read one general history of the U.S. since high school, but are still happy to preach to you from it, A People's History of the United States is probably the most popular selection.
What else would you recommend as part of this balanced diet of sources on US history?
For starters, presumably, the founding documents, but after that (and Zinn) I haven't come across a lot of accessible general histories in general discussion. One could perhaps compensate with the AAA biographies of famous presidents and the like (David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Caro etc) but that doesn't really get you an alternate narrative arc.
For starters, presumably, the founding documents, but after that (and Zinn) I haven't come across a lot of accessible general histories in general discussion. One could perhaps compensate with the AAA biographies of famous presidents and the like (David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Caro etc) but that doesn't really get you an alternate narrative arc.
It isn't necessarily about balance. One can carry a leftist view of history and still find that there is way more to modern scholarship than Zinn provided.
In my experience, you'll find more uncritical experts in the realm of WWII aficionados. The number of WWII buffs who are unable to grasp history dwarf the relative minority who use Zinn as their singular lens of understanding.
See also: people who watched a Ken Burns documentary
See also: people who watched a Ken Burns documentary
I think there is a deeper reason to this.
In Sapiens, Yuval Harari makes the point that one of the most powerful things human society does is make myths.
One of the most powerful myths in American society has been the idea that the United States was based on a belief in human freedom and equality from the beginning.
While, definitely not completely true, it was powerful enough that it actually catalyzed the fight against a lot of the injustices. See for example Abraham Lincoln's speeches or Martin Luther King, Jr's speeches where they are always appealing to people to live up to the ideals of America's founding[0].
Zinn directly attacked that myth in his work. And he attacked it at the point where he could do the most damage, in the early education of American youth.
The loss of this myth has had profound consequences. Before, we had a shared myth that everyone American, across all faiths could appeal to. Now there really isn't one. A significant portion believes that America was never great because it was hopelessly oppressive and all of American success is based on oppression. I am worried we are starting to see the emergence of another faction. One that is proud to be American, but justifies American greatness through "might makes right", and not through any appeal to principles of freedom. Thus this second group would say American became great, because it was oppressive. Both of these views are in contrast to the previous view that America was great, because of the founding principles of freedoms, despite the history of oppression which is to America's shame.
With no appeal to either religion or a founding myth that unites people, I feel American divisions will get even more nasty in the future.
0. "In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
In Sapiens, Yuval Harari makes the point that one of the most powerful things human society does is make myths.
One of the most powerful myths in American society has been the idea that the United States was based on a belief in human freedom and equality from the beginning.
While, definitely not completely true, it was powerful enough that it actually catalyzed the fight against a lot of the injustices. See for example Abraham Lincoln's speeches or Martin Luther King, Jr's speeches where they are always appealing to people to live up to the ideals of America's founding[0].
Zinn directly attacked that myth in his work. And he attacked it at the point where he could do the most damage, in the early education of American youth.
The loss of this myth has had profound consequences. Before, we had a shared myth that everyone American, across all faiths could appeal to. Now there really isn't one. A significant portion believes that America was never great because it was hopelessly oppressive and all of American success is based on oppression. I am worried we are starting to see the emergence of another faction. One that is proud to be American, but justifies American greatness through "might makes right", and not through any appeal to principles of freedom. Thus this second group would say American became great, because it was oppressive. Both of these views are in contrast to the previous view that America was great, because of the founding principles of freedoms, despite the history of oppression which is to America's shame.
With no appeal to either religion or a founding myth that unites people, I feel American divisions will get even more nasty in the future.
0. "In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Really great comment. I wish I could upvote this multiple times as you've done a great job articulating something I've failed to communicate to others.
Plenty of people who scorn Zinn agree directionally with his politics. Historians dislike him due to the poverty of his sourcing, about which you can read a lot just by casually Googling, and because of his flattening of US history into a totalizing class struggle that ignores race, immigration, religion, culture, and the goals and attitudes of the people who actually lived in the 19th and 20th century.
You can readily find left, class-centered histories of the United States that aren't criticized the way Zinn is. You can yourself scorn ideologically-motivated superficial criticism of Zinn from the right, if that's your thing! But you shouldn't dismiss the substantive critiques. Sometimes, being a good read is a tip-off that something's amiss.
You can readily find left, class-centered histories of the United States that aren't criticized the way Zinn is. You can yourself scorn ideologically-motivated superficial criticism of Zinn from the right, if that's your thing! But you shouldn't dismiss the substantive critiques. Sometimes, being a good read is a tip-off that something's amiss.
[deleted]
If the OP had led with the book titled "Debunking Howard Zinn" the post would have been flagged. Calling one truth and the other a lie puts us back to the beginning of the 20th c. Soon we will be chanting "viva la muerte".
He gets hate for the same reason he gets love. Because he doesn't toe the state history propaganda line we are all spoonfed. That doesn't mean he isn't biased. After all history is interpreted propaganda. But he does point out some "inconvenient truths".
> Curious how so many self styled "contrarians" and "free thinkers" dislike his work without reading it.
There is a lot less of this here than you think. I think the name of site is misleading you.
> Curious how so many self styled "contrarians" and "free thinkers" dislike his work without reading it.
There is a lot less of this here than you think. I think the name of site is misleading you.
That's obviously not true, since many of the historians who criticize Zinn are themselves leftists.
Because you see your politics as the truth. What more needs to be said?
Zinn explicitly disregards objectivity -- he is telling his own truth with a goal to shape society to be more Marxist.
Because it’s not the truth, and is in fact propaganda. There was a purpose to it back when it was published, because it was a response to books that were also propaganda. But there is no place for it today, where better scholarship exists and the Internet provides ready access to a plethora of view points.
>>> "But there is no place for it today, where better scholarship exists and the Internet provides ready access to a plethora of view points"
Thats now how history works at all man. Pretty much all writing on history goes into the metaphorical dust bin maybe 20-40 years after it is created but the "dust bin" isn't a dead place that no one should ever explore, its the world of historiography, and understanding how people understood their point in time at different points in time. No one should read a history book like its the bible handed down from on high, they should read it knowing the authors biases, the contemporary views on the authors work from other experts in the field, and an understanding of their own knowledge level and context. The reality is that a huge amount of K-12 American history education is propaganda and for someone with a K-12 American history background this book is a very compelling read that provides a useful counter narrative to what they have been taught, the main function of which is not to blindly trust the words in the book, but to understand the practice of history not as a recitation of facts but an analysis of past events with a specific point of view, and how different points of view from authors with different motivations can give different views of the past. IMO, this really brought the field of history to life for me.
Thats now how history works at all man. Pretty much all writing on history goes into the metaphorical dust bin maybe 20-40 years after it is created but the "dust bin" isn't a dead place that no one should ever explore, its the world of historiography, and understanding how people understood their point in time at different points in time. No one should read a history book like its the bible handed down from on high, they should read it knowing the authors biases, the contemporary views on the authors work from other experts in the field, and an understanding of their own knowledge level and context. The reality is that a huge amount of K-12 American history education is propaganda and for someone with a K-12 American history background this book is a very compelling read that provides a useful counter narrative to what they have been taught, the main function of which is not to blindly trust the words in the book, but to understand the practice of history not as a recitation of facts but an analysis of past events with a specific point of view, and how different points of view from authors with different motivations can give different views of the past. IMO, this really brought the field of history to life for me.
It seems like the spirit of your comment is in accord with GP. GGP put forth that Zinn is "the truth."
GP may have phrased it a bit dismissively but I read that comment as making the same argument you do: no given history book contains the final truth.
As for GP's comment that Zinn has no place today -- you offer a more nuanced take. But we're in a moment replete with valorizing paeans to Zinn (like TFA) and calls for using People's History more widely as a _textbook_. Maybe, given that we are 40 years on from it's writing, that's not the best move.
GP may have phrased it a bit dismissively but I read that comment as making the same argument you do: no given history book contains the final truth.
As for GP's comment that Zinn has no place today -- you offer a more nuanced take. But we're in a moment replete with valorizing paeans to Zinn (like TFA) and calls for using People's History more widely as a _textbook_. Maybe, given that we are 40 years on from it's writing, that's not the best move.
Which parts of it are untrue?
Sorry to point you to more references, but the AskHistorians subreddit has a pretty good survey of views on the issue. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=zinn&restric...
I made what I think is a good faith effort to review the link you provided, but I don't see any indication of factual errors Howard Zinn makes. It appears the criticism of him is that he is biased, he makes heavy use of secondary sources (a quantifiable claim which as best as I can tell is false given that Zinn's sources are enumerated and mostly primary) and engages in something called "presentism", which is to make moral judgements of historical acts based on modern moral standards, a claim I don't have any particular issue with but even if I did it has no bearing on the factual content of his work.
At no point have I seen anyone point out a factual error that Zinn has made, only that people don't like the conclusions he draws from those facts. Another commonly repeated point is that there are other historical works that do a better job than A People's History. That is almost certainly true as well, but that claim is no more relevant than pointing out that there are better scientific works that do a better job than Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
Having read A People's History, the very beginning of the book explicitly states that he is biased, that bias is something very hard to escape in almost any social study and is present among almost all historical literature whether the author admits it or not, and that the difference between his book and other historical works is that he makes the conscious decision to be biased from the point of view of the people who were conquered as opposed to writing from the point of view of the people who did the conquering.
Certainly Zinn has likely made some errors, but none of them are in the link you provided (as far as I could tell).
At no point have I seen anyone point out a factual error that Zinn has made, only that people don't like the conclusions he draws from those facts. Another commonly repeated point is that there are other historical works that do a better job than A People's History. That is almost certainly true as well, but that claim is no more relevant than pointing out that there are better scientific works that do a better job than Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
Having read A People's History, the very beginning of the book explicitly states that he is biased, that bias is something very hard to escape in almost any social study and is present among almost all historical literature whether the author admits it or not, and that the difference between his book and other historical works is that he makes the conscious decision to be biased from the point of view of the people who were conquered as opposed to writing from the point of view of the people who did the conquering.
Certainly Zinn has likely made some errors, but none of them are in the link you provided (as far as I could tell).
This is also very similar to the criticism Noam Chomsky have received. He has been very accurate for decades but is still handled as an outcast.
Come to think about of it actually, it's also similar with the criticism of David Graeber's (RIP) book "Debt", which usually focus on "well, he wrote something really wrong paragraph about Apple, so you can't believe anything he writes really"
Come to think about of it actually, it's also similar with the criticism of David Graeber's (RIP) book "Debt", which usually focus on "well, he wrote something really wrong paragraph about Apple, so you can't believe anything he writes really"
> factual errors
This is not the limit of criticism of history scholarship. Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism isn't considered dated because of factual errors but instead because it over-represents a particular narrative and analysis style that fails to paint a detailed picture of things.
History scholarship is absolutely not a list of facts. It is the construction of a narrative from source material. A text that is 100% truthful to fact can still be entirely bogus scholarship (I'm not saying that Zinn's is).
This is not the limit of criticism of history scholarship. Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism isn't considered dated because of factual errors but instead because it over-represents a particular narrative and analysis style that fails to paint a detailed picture of things.
History scholarship is absolutely not a list of facts. It is the construction of a narrative from source material. A text that is 100% truthful to fact can still be entirely bogus scholarship (I'm not saying that Zinn's is).
I will accuse Zinn of many things but not constructing a narrative from his facts is not one of them :)
I happen to disagree with a lot of his political opinions but I think it's very important that APHUS exists.
I happen to disagree with a lot of his political opinions but I think it's very important that APHUS exists.
Sure it is a relevant book, especially in leftist history work. The problem scholars have with it is that it is held up as the text by some laypeople. It is not unique in having narrative issues. That's true of all history. It is just frustrating to see people say "well, he didn't get any facts wrong so all criticism is invalid".
No, I would never say all criticism is invalid. I think it's a relevant and important text to read, along with criticism of it. Nothing should be taken in isolation, scholarship is ultimately a conversation at a high level between knowledgeable parties, and it's a pretty dated book in a lot of ways. Nonetheless it was extremely influential and solid as a basic leftist history text, and he even acknowledges its bias in the preface and title as I've mentioned. I don't by half think it's a perfect book and I have a lot of criticisms of Zinn.
I ask for specifics because I know all the general arguments around it. I asked about what was specifically untrue, I have not read solid criticisms of it that cast serious doubt on its factual claims, only that it shows history from a certain perspective, which (to be fair to Zinn here) is evident in the title.
[deleted]
Right, so go check the thread that you were linked to. It's clearly going to be a more holistic treatment than you're going to get in this thread on hacker news, a site for programmers and software entrepreneurs, not historians.
I've read them, and I've also read Michael Kazin's criticism in particular numerous times.
[deleted]
Quite a bit of the people's history of the united states is primary sources.
Zinn decided to bias the viewpoint towards oppressed people, the same way many textbooks bias it in favor of the 'winning' party. While I felt like I got a pretty decent education in high school history, Zinn didn't invalidate what I learned but showed quite clearly how these things affected others.
When I was in school it would have been highly controversial to compare chattel slavery or the conquering of the New World to the holocaust but the reality is the severity is similar, just on a different timeframe.
Zinn decided to bias the viewpoint towards oppressed people, the same way many textbooks bias it in favor of the 'winning' party. While I felt like I got a pretty decent education in high school history, Zinn didn't invalidate what I learned but showed quite clearly how these things affected others.
When I was in school it would have been highly controversial to compare chattel slavery or the conquering of the New World to the holocaust but the reality is the severity is similar, just on a different timeframe.
Except that one of the primary criticisms is that the primary sources are edited heavily and misleadingly. I have particularly little sympathy for that, because one of the things you learn as a lawyer is that using a misleading quote or omission destroys your credibility in an adversarial system like legal proceedings. Your opponent will invariably provide the missing context in response and make you look like a liar. If a history book takes liberties (for example, in one passage, using an ellipses to connect sentences in two completely different documents written two days apart) that I wouldn’t in legal practice, that’s a huge red flag.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-histor...
> Wineburg, one of the world's top researchers in the field of history education, raises larger issues about how history should be taught. He says that Zinn's desire to cast a light on what he saw as historic injustice was a crusade built on secondary sources of questionable provenance, omission of exculpatory evidence, leading questions and shaky connections between evidence and conclusions.
A similar warning needs to be leveled at the 1619 Project, which likewise focuses more on rhetoric than careful scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
In particular, the lead essay originally stated that protecting slavery was “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
After extensive criticism from scholars, the Times edited that sentence to read that protecting slavery was “one primary reason some of the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
Of course the “one primary ... some of...” construction dilutes they assertion beyond recognition. The Times defended this as just the addition of “two words” but it undermines the central thesis of the lead essay. Think of the evidence required to support the first assertion, compared to the second assertion. To support the first assertion, you needed evidence that protecting slavery was a primary reason for the colonists as a whole. To support the revised assertion, you need only find some colonists, among millions, with that motivation.
The 1619 articles on the economic importance of slavery, moreover, are not written by an economist and do not represent the consensus views of economists. Here, the Zinnesque aspect really comes out. It is an often overlooked and very important fact that slavery made some politically powerful people very rich, and those people had a major hand in fashioning America. But most people can’t trace any wealth back to that time. Politically, it would be better to convince people that they continue to benefit from slavery having existed. So the essays are forced to make the far more tenuous claim that America traces its exceptional wealth to slavery. But of course it defies basic economics to suggest you can make a society—as opposed to specific oligarchs—richer through non-free, non-market labor. That’s where it helps to have an author write the essays who isn’t an economist! https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-...
> Wineburg, one of the world's top researchers in the field of history education, raises larger issues about how history should be taught. He says that Zinn's desire to cast a light on what he saw as historic injustice was a crusade built on secondary sources of questionable provenance, omission of exculpatory evidence, leading questions and shaky connections between evidence and conclusions.
A similar warning needs to be leveled at the 1619 Project, which likewise focuses more on rhetoric than careful scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
In particular, the lead essay originally stated that protecting slavery was “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
After extensive criticism from scholars, the Times edited that sentence to read that protecting slavery was “one primary reason some of the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
Of course the “one primary ... some of...” construction dilutes they assertion beyond recognition. The Times defended this as just the addition of “two words” but it undermines the central thesis of the lead essay. Think of the evidence required to support the first assertion, compared to the second assertion. To support the first assertion, you needed evidence that protecting slavery was a primary reason for the colonists as a whole. To support the revised assertion, you need only find some colonists, among millions, with that motivation.
The 1619 articles on the economic importance of slavery, moreover, are not written by an economist and do not represent the consensus views of economists. Here, the Zinnesque aspect really comes out. It is an often overlooked and very important fact that slavery made some politically powerful people very rich, and those people had a major hand in fashioning America. But most people can’t trace any wealth back to that time. Politically, it would be better to convince people that they continue to benefit from slavery having existed. So the essays are forced to make the far more tenuous claim that America traces its exceptional wealth to slavery. But of course it defies basic economics to suggest you can make a society—as opposed to specific oligarchs—richer through non-free, non-market labor. That’s where it helps to have an author write the essays who isn’t an economist! https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-...
Damn, a millionaire professor at Stanford has issues with Howard Zinn. Funny coincidence!
Unless they are associated with the Hoover Institute in some manner, no humanities faculty at Stanford is raking in big bucks. They all live in the dumpy professor-ville offered by the university because salaries cannot pay for palo alto homes.
Argument ad hominem.
Actually a genetic fallacy. An ad hominem would be 'an ugly millionaire professor.'
you think history professors are paid in millions?
Considering the median price of a house in Palo Alto is now 3.1 million dollars, it's a plausible assumption this professor is indeed a millionaire.
what makes you assume he owns a home in Palo Alto? what makes you assume he owns a home at all?
> Over time, however, a problem emerged as Zinn's book became the single authoritative source of history for so many Americans, Wineburg said. In substituting one buttoned-up interpretation of the past for another, Wineburg finds, A People's History and traditional textbooks are mirror images that relegate students to similar roles as absorbers – not analysts – of information. Wineburg writes that a heavily filtered and weighted interpretation becomes dangerous when "we are talking about how we educate the young, those who do not yet get the interpretive game."
I kind of hated a People's History, but if you take it as a project to show that you can write multiple narratives of American history that are true if you squint at them at just the right angle, it more or less succeeded in its aim. American high school textbooks are just as terrible if not moreso.
I kind of hated a People's History, but if you take it as a project to show that you can write multiple narratives of American history that are true if you squint at them at just the right angle, it more or less succeeded in its aim. American high school textbooks are just as terrible if not moreso.
Yes, of course. And in 1980 that was a really important contribution. But in many cases it’s just become a different narrative that’s accepted uncritically as truth.
Indeed as someone who wasn't ever shown the book, and who is reading it now, the primary sources and stories shown reveal events that were glossed over and even looking at them in isolation show that the history I was taught in school, especially of early America was highly romanticized.
he has a whole book of primary sources...https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Peoples-History-United-States/...
From OP:
> We need Howard Zinn now more than ever. Not for the sake of romance or to construct another hero in history. We need his insights, his politics, and his commitment to the struggle for a better world.
Unless your position is that there is such a thing as an unbiased history or that Zinn presented historical falsehoods (not a usual position even among Zinn's critiques), I don't think the valid points you raise on the 1619 project rebut the thesis of the OP.
> We need Howard Zinn now more than ever. Not for the sake of romance or to construct another hero in history. We need his insights, his politics, and his commitment to the struggle for a better world.
Unless your position is that there is such a thing as an unbiased history or that Zinn presented historical falsehoods (not a usual position even among Zinn's critiques), I don't think the valid points you raise on the 1619 project rebut the thesis of the OP.
This feels like a reduction to either/or thinking. Sure all history is biased. Everything is biased. But I think you probably believe that some things are more biased than others. The argument above seemed to be that Zinn is more biased and this is perhaps less worthy of our attention than somebody who makes more of an attempt to reduce bias. Not taking a position on Zinn btw.
Historians will be the first to tell you there is no such thing as unbiased history, the difference is historians work towards reducing and identifying bias. If I remember correctly Zinn himself says at the beginning of his book he is writing with intentional bias.
If you're concerned about Zinn's sourcing you could read Takaki instead. Takaki is a bit like the undergrad-level Zinn, if you think of Zinn being suited to high school.
The over-the-top political attack on the 1619 Project, from Trump on down, has spread much more misinformation than 1619 Project itself ever could. Personally I had no idea that the American Revolution had any connection to slavery, so I am thankful that the 1619 Project made me aware of that fact.
From Lucas Morel: https://americanmind.org/essays/america-wasnt-founded-on-whi...
You posted the same link a few minutes earlier. Please don't spam.
The 1776 Unites project presents solid rebuttals to the 1619 project:
https://1776unites.com/
Lucas Morels' rebuttal of Nikole Hannah-Jones central essay in the 1619 project is a must read and much better supported by evidence:
https://americanmind.org/essays/america-wasnt-founded-on-whi...
https://1776unites.com/
Lucas Morels' rebuttal of Nikole Hannah-Jones central essay in the 1619 project is a must read and much better supported by evidence:
https://americanmind.org/essays/america-wasnt-founded-on-whi...
> In particular, the lead essay originally stated that protecting slavery was “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
At the time of the American Revolution, the British public has started raising its voice against slavery. At the same time, slavery was the backbone of the future US economy and many of the US founding fathers were slaveholders. I think it's very valuable to know these facts, and the 1619 project does a good job of pointing them out. Whether the perpetuation of slavery was "a primary reason" for the American Revolution or not is IMHO of secondary importance in that context.
As an aside, I think the reason why the 1619 project is being attacked so hard is not because of its supposed sloppiness but because it puts a spotlight on the role of slavery in US history, and apparently that's something that many people cannot accept.
> The 1619 articles on the economic importance of slavery, moreover, are not written by an economist and do not represent the consensus views of economists.
Why does it matter which discipline the expert belongs to? The economic bits were based on analysis by Matthew Desmond, a Princeton University sociologist.
> So the essays are forced to make the far more tenuous claim that America traces its exceptional wealth to slavery.
I think you're setting up a straw man here. The economics part establishes the role of slavery in the early US economy, and it does a good job of doing that. One fascinating bit that I found there is that British financial markets traded bonds backed by slaves as collateral. As a consequence, the dollar value of slavery can be easily established. Here's the precise quote:
State-chartered banks would take this slave-backed mortgage from this plantation owner, and this one, and this one. And they would bundle that debt and make something called a bond. And they would sell those bonds to investors all over the Western world. And so when owners made payments on their mortgages, the investors got a little return. Today, we call this securitizing debt, and it’s really a way to kind of sink global capital into the American slave economy at the time. [...] So at the height of slavery, the combined value of enslaved workers exceeded that of all the railroads and all the factories in the nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/podcasts/1619-slavery-cot...
At the time of the American Revolution, the British public has started raising its voice against slavery. At the same time, slavery was the backbone of the future US economy and many of the US founding fathers were slaveholders. I think it's very valuable to know these facts, and the 1619 project does a good job of pointing them out. Whether the perpetuation of slavery was "a primary reason" for the American Revolution or not is IMHO of secondary importance in that context.
As an aside, I think the reason why the 1619 project is being attacked so hard is not because of its supposed sloppiness but because it puts a spotlight on the role of slavery in US history, and apparently that's something that many people cannot accept.
> The 1619 articles on the economic importance of slavery, moreover, are not written by an economist and do not represent the consensus views of economists.
Why does it matter which discipline the expert belongs to? The economic bits were based on analysis by Matthew Desmond, a Princeton University sociologist.
> So the essays are forced to make the far more tenuous claim that America traces its exceptional wealth to slavery.
I think you're setting up a straw man here. The economics part establishes the role of slavery in the early US economy, and it does a good job of doing that. One fascinating bit that I found there is that British financial markets traded bonds backed by slaves as collateral. As a consequence, the dollar value of slavery can be easily established. Here's the precise quote:
State-chartered banks would take this slave-backed mortgage from this plantation owner, and this one, and this one. And they would bundle that debt and make something called a bond. And they would sell those bonds to investors all over the Western world. And so when owners made payments on their mortgages, the investors got a little return. Today, we call this securitizing debt, and it’s really a way to kind of sink global capital into the American slave economy at the time. [...] So at the height of slavery, the combined value of enslaved workers exceeded that of all the railroads and all the factories in the nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/podcasts/1619-slavery-cot...
> At the time of the American Revolution, the British public has started raising its voice against slavery.
True. But keep in mind that Britain didn't abolish slavery in its colonies until 57 years after the American Revolution. The idea that this was a "primary" concern back in 1776 is contrived.
> At the same time, slavery was the backbone of the future US economy
That is wildly overstated, see below.
> and many of the US founding fathers were slaveholders. I think it's very valuable to know these facts, and the 1619 project does a good job of pointing them out.
True, and agreed.
> Whether the perpetuation of slavery was "a primary reason" for the American Revolution or not is IMHO of secondary importance in that context.
If it was presented as an overlooked thread of narrative about the founding, that would be one thing. But the premise behind the lead essay, and calling it the "1619 project" is that protecting slavery was "one primary reason" for the revolution. Also, it's a critical distinction. My home country declared independence in 1971. Yes, "some" people were motivated by self-interest. But the "primary reason" was because we were being oppressed by a far-away Pakistan.
> As an aside, I think the reason why the 1619 project is being attacked so hard is not because of its supposed sloppiness but because it puts a spotlight on the role of slavery in US history, and apparently that's something that many people cannot accept.
Slavery and Indian removal featured prominently in history class even when I was a kid in Virginia in the 1990s. There is a lot more we could teach--we tend to act like slavery just ended with Lincoln, and give short shrift to the end of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, etc. But the reason 1619 Project is getting so much push back is that, in Zinn-esque fashion, it uses history as a pretext to attack the constitution and capitalism.
> I think you're setting up a straw man here. The economics part establishes the role of slavery in the early US economy, and it does a good job of doing that.
Not really. First, the essay relies heavily on a work by Ed Baptist, who is neither an accountant nor an economist and makes numerous grave errors where he double- and triple- counts the contribution of slavery to the economy: http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-guide-to-econom...
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-sl... ("Ultimately, the value of cotton production was equal to about 6% of GDP.").
> One fascinating bit that I found there is that British financial markets traded bonds backed by slaves as collateral. As a consequence, the dollar value of slavery can be easily established... So at the height of slavery, the combined value of enslaved workers exceeded that of all the railroads and all the factories in the nation.
Yes, it is interesting, but ask yourself--why is it presented this way, rather than as a percentage of GDP, as above? The reason is because in what was still a pre-industrial economy, the value of "all the railroads and all the factories in the nation" wasn't very much compared to the whole economy. A free person working on a farm is part of the economy, but isn't a value-producing asset. When most of the economy is self-sustaining farmers, looking at the value of capital assets doesn't tell you much about how important something is to the economy as a whole.
If slavery had been so economically important, ending it should have at least temporarily resulted in an economic catastrophe. But you can't even see on the chart of GDP-per-capita when the U.S. and the U.K. ended slavery. Not even a blip: https://fee.org/media/35711/gdp-per-capita.png. Destroying what was supposedly half the country's "capital stock" didn't result in economic collapse because that was always a legal and financial fiction. It was labor the whole time, and the proper comparison would be to look at the output of free versus non-free labor.
In fact, if you look at the data, America got dramatically richer when it ended slavery--as economic theory would predict: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html
True. But keep in mind that Britain didn't abolish slavery in its colonies until 57 years after the American Revolution. The idea that this was a "primary" concern back in 1776 is contrived.
> At the same time, slavery was the backbone of the future US economy
That is wildly overstated, see below.
> and many of the US founding fathers were slaveholders. I think it's very valuable to know these facts, and the 1619 project does a good job of pointing them out.
True, and agreed.
> Whether the perpetuation of slavery was "a primary reason" for the American Revolution or not is IMHO of secondary importance in that context.
If it was presented as an overlooked thread of narrative about the founding, that would be one thing. But the premise behind the lead essay, and calling it the "1619 project" is that protecting slavery was "one primary reason" for the revolution. Also, it's a critical distinction. My home country declared independence in 1971. Yes, "some" people were motivated by self-interest. But the "primary reason" was because we were being oppressed by a far-away Pakistan.
> As an aside, I think the reason why the 1619 project is being attacked so hard is not because of its supposed sloppiness but because it puts a spotlight on the role of slavery in US history, and apparently that's something that many people cannot accept.
Slavery and Indian removal featured prominently in history class even when I was a kid in Virginia in the 1990s. There is a lot more we could teach--we tend to act like slavery just ended with Lincoln, and give short shrift to the end of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, etc. But the reason 1619 Project is getting so much push back is that, in Zinn-esque fashion, it uses history as a pretext to attack the constitution and capitalism.
> I think you're setting up a straw man here. The economics part establishes the role of slavery in the early US economy, and it does a good job of doing that.
Not really. First, the essay relies heavily on a work by Ed Baptist, who is neither an accountant nor an economist and makes numerous grave errors where he double- and triple- counts the contribution of slavery to the economy: http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-guide-to-econom...
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-sl... ("Ultimately, the value of cotton production was equal to about 6% of GDP.").
> One fascinating bit that I found there is that British financial markets traded bonds backed by slaves as collateral. As a consequence, the dollar value of slavery can be easily established... So at the height of slavery, the combined value of enslaved workers exceeded that of all the railroads and all the factories in the nation.
Yes, it is interesting, but ask yourself--why is it presented this way, rather than as a percentage of GDP, as above? The reason is because in what was still a pre-industrial economy, the value of "all the railroads and all the factories in the nation" wasn't very much compared to the whole economy. A free person working on a farm is part of the economy, but isn't a value-producing asset. When most of the economy is self-sustaining farmers, looking at the value of capital assets doesn't tell you much about how important something is to the economy as a whole.
If slavery had been so economically important, ending it should have at least temporarily resulted in an economic catastrophe. But you can't even see on the chart of GDP-per-capita when the U.S. and the U.K. ended slavery. Not even a blip: https://fee.org/media/35711/gdp-per-capita.png. Destroying what was supposedly half the country's "capital stock" didn't result in economic collapse because that was always a legal and financial fiction. It was labor the whole time, and the proper comparison would be to look at the output of free versus non-free labor.
In fact, if you look at the data, America got dramatically richer when it ended slavery--as economic theory would predict: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html
But of course it defies basic economics to suggest you can make a society—as opposed to specific oligarchs—richer through non-free, non-market labor. That’s where it helps to have an author write the essays who isn’t an economist!
You can't take a free society and make it more prosperous by the institution of slavery, but if you have a thinly-populated continent and eager export markets to play with you can certainly generate great profits, howbeit unevenly distributed and with the slave class excluded completely from per-capita considerations because they are themselves considered property.
This whole post seems like a rather forced and tendentious diversion from the topic.
You can't take a free society and make it more prosperous by the institution of slavery, but if you have a thinly-populated continent and eager export markets to play with you can certainly generate great profits, howbeit unevenly distributed and with the slave class excluded completely from per-capita considerations because they are themselves considered property.
This whole post seems like a rather forced and tendentious diversion from the topic.
> You can't take a free society and make it more prosperous by the institution of slavery, but if you have a thinly-populated continent and eager export markets to play with you can certainly generate great profits, howbeit unevenly distributed and with the slave class excluded completely from per-capita considerations because they are themselves considered property.
This is true! But it probably doesn’t support the assertion that “out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: it’s economic might, its industrial power...”
The 1619 project makes a ton of very good points. But it also makes a bunch of over-the-top assertions. But it can’t back those up. Ignoring those is a motte-and-bailey defense of the work.
> This whole post seems like a rather forced and tendentious diversion from the topic.
It’s on my mind because I have kids and the 1619 project will be this generation’s People’s History.
This is true! But it probably doesn’t support the assertion that “out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: it’s economic might, its industrial power...”
The 1619 project makes a ton of very good points. But it also makes a bunch of over-the-top assertions. But it can’t back those up. Ignoring those is a motte-and-bailey defense of the work.
> This whole post seems like a rather forced and tendentious diversion from the topic.
It’s on my mind because I have kids and the 1619 project will be this generation’s People’s History.
Eric Hobsbawm's account of the "long 19th century," as told in his The Age of Revolution, The Age of Capital, and The Age of Extremes, is something that readers who are interested in Zinn may also be interested in. Hobsbawm appears to have a significantly better reputation among professional historians than Zinn does.
Hobsbawm still frequently appears on university reading lists for history majors. I remember the trilogy as engaging and easy to read for an outsider to the field. He is less polemical than Zinn, even if his political sympathies are similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm
Favorable mentions of Hobsbawm from AskHistorians:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5bcvbe/i_am_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efznsq/is_er...
Hobsbawm still frequently appears on university reading lists for history majors. I remember the trilogy as engaging and easy to read for an outsider to the field. He is less polemical than Zinn, even if his political sympathies are similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm
Favorable mentions of Hobsbawm from AskHistorians:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5bcvbe/i_am_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efznsq/is_er...
Can cosign. Hobsbawn was widely regarded as the greatest British historian (as opposed to historian of Britain) by his death.
No shade to Howard Zinn, but he, like pretty much every other historian, didn't nearly have that level of respect.
No shade to Howard Zinn, but he, like pretty much every other historian, didn't nearly have that level of respect.
He's got his flaws, all classical Marxists do, but Invented Tradition is an extremely useful concept
I doubt that many people as truly well intentioned as Zinn have done as much damage to the world as he has.
I think you could tie a lot of the "the ends justify the means" attitude of current leftists to Zinn.
I think you could tie a lot of the "the ends justify the means" attitude of current leftists to Zinn.
Can you cite examples of Zinn causing the world damage?
That would be too easy. Better to make vague accusations.
Nice to see an article about a history professor at the top of HN. :)
As a former history major, I can confirm that Zinn's work, while well intentioned, isn't much respected in academia. He brought a useful new perspective but didn't back up his arguments with strong evidence.
Poor evidence, however, doesn't discredit Zinn's central thesis about American history.
For more rigorous approach American history I would recommend Eric Foner:
http://www.ericfoner.com/books/index.html
Although his focus is more global, Eric Hobsbawm is one of the most influential historians of the twentieth century. His "The Age of..." are worth a read"
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/eric-hobsbawm-t...
The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991
As a former history major, I can confirm that Zinn's work, while well intentioned, isn't much respected in academia. He brought a useful new perspective but didn't back up his arguments with strong evidence.
Poor evidence, however, doesn't discredit Zinn's central thesis about American history.
For more rigorous approach American history I would recommend Eric Foner:
http://www.ericfoner.com/books/index.html
Although his focus is more global, Eric Hobsbawm is one of the most influential historians of the twentieth century. His "The Age of..." are worth a read"
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/eric-hobsbawm-t...
The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991
This is presumably posted today because Trump announced an executive order to establish an anti-anti-racist "1776 Commission" for "patriotic education" to instruct children "to love America with all of their heart and all of their souls": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-calls-pat... https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/trump-history-educa...
> Zinn’s approach to history essentially inverted the traditional approach that placed the rich and powerful ... To tell history from the perspective of the oppressed and marginalized
The mirror image of Ayn Rand. I wonder if there is anyone at the intersection of their fandoms.
The mirror image of Ayn Rand. I wonder if there is anyone at the intersection of their fandoms.
Rand wrote fiction, not even anything purporting to be history.
She is best known for fiction but was also a prolific essayist. The essays expound on her theories of history, economics, and philosophy. See https://aynrand.org/novels/, bottom of the page for the non-fiction.
People don't understand what Ayn Rand's writings are. It's basically a deliberate anti-communist screed from someone who experienced it in real life, whereas e.g. Marx's work is a deliberate pro-communist screed. Both are meant to be extreme, and neither presents a viable blueprint for a society.
Rand wrote fiction novels, and Marx was - irrespective of your views on his output - a well respected philosopher and well known, if controversial economist.
Equating the two is... super off base. Crucially, you can make any point you want when writing a novel, since you set up the world and the characters and get to choose the reactions of everything. Marx at least wrote about the real world, and our ability to critique that work rests at least in part upon its claims about the real world.
Equating the two is... super off base. Crucially, you can make any point you want when writing a novel, since you set up the world and the characters and get to choose the reactions of everything. Marx at least wrote about the real world, and our ability to critique that work rests at least in part upon its claims about the real world.
Have you read "We the living"? I believe it was her first book published. It's a homage to her life as a middle class person living through the soviet world she was in.
> St. Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both. Many other people have thought so too. In 1998 readers responding to a Modern Library poll identified Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as the two greatest novels of the twentieth century—surpassing Ulysses, To the Lighthouse and Invisible Man. In 1991 a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club found that with the exception of the Bible, no book has influenced more American readers than Atlas Shrugged.
– Corey Robin in "The Reactionary Mind"
– Corey Robin in "The Reactionary Mind"
Be that as it may, his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed. It is not viable as a consistent view of the world, just like Atlas Shrugged isn't. I'm not equating the two in other aspects.
As to writing whatever you want, Marx did write the most insane and damaging things in his work. His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century, and the way I see it, the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money, just like Marx himself did.
As to writing whatever you want, Marx did write the most insane and damaging things in his work. His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century, and the way I see it, the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money, just like Marx himself did.
> his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed
Marx, for all intents and purposes, created what we today would consider "communism". That is, from a academic perspective, and not whatever goes as "communism" in American pop culture.
> the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money
The above is a terribly ironic criticism, considering how Ayn Rand lived out her life living off of the dime of the government.
> His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century
If we presuppose that any death, as a result of the actions of a state claiming to be using a given economic system, is attributed to said economic system we should be counting honestly. Every death caused by Capitalist countries, both domestically and abroad, should also be counted.
Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted. Whether there's a direct shortage of food, or the person can't afford the food available, doesn't really matter. A person isn't receiving food when acting inside the system and thus died.
Then consider the imperialism carried out by these capitalist states. Millions upon millions of native inhabitants of Africa, South-East Asia, Southern America, and North America have been all but wiped out by capitalism.
What about WWII? Because in the of-cited number of "100 million killed by Communism" several wars are counted. In WWII a major contributor was the failure of the capitalistic system in Europe after WWI.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
Marx, for all intents and purposes, created what we today would consider "communism". That is, from a academic perspective, and not whatever goes as "communism" in American pop culture.
> the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money
The above is a terribly ironic criticism, considering how Ayn Rand lived out her life living off of the dime of the government.
> His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century
If we presuppose that any death, as a result of the actions of a state claiming to be using a given economic system, is attributed to said economic system we should be counting honestly. Every death caused by Capitalist countries, both domestically and abroad, should also be counted.
Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted. Whether there's a direct shortage of food, or the person can't afford the food available, doesn't really matter. A person isn't receiving food when acting inside the system and thus died.
Then consider the imperialism carried out by these capitalist states. Millions upon millions of native inhabitants of Africa, South-East Asia, Southern America, and North America have been all but wiped out by capitalism.
What about WWII? Because in the of-cited number of "100 million killed by Communism" several wars are counted. In WWII a major contributor was the failure of the capitalistic system in Europe after WWI.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
> Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted
You can count, but I can tell you right now, you wouldn't like the comparison. :-)
You can count, but I can tell you right now, you wouldn't like the comparison. :-)
If the same measurement stick would be used against Capitalism it would be so vile* that capitalists are usually very careful to not accept the same measurement stick.
* Just to take a single point: 72k/deaths per year in just the US because of lack of access to health care.
* Just to take a single point: 72k/deaths per year in just the US because of lack of access to health care.
Take the lowball 6 million deaths under Stalin from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Sovi... and divide by 72K/year. That's 83 years worth of the cited death statistic in the US.
And that does not count the deaths _due to_ access to what passed for "healthcare" in the Soviet Union. And that's just Stalin. You gotta count Lenin as well, an austere scholar of Marx so fiery but mostly peaceful, he invented the Red Terror (according to which most of the people on this site would be executed without trial, along with their families, as belonging to the "wrong" class) and set up concentration camps and GULAG to get rid of the counterrevolutionary element (AKA basically everyone he didn't like).
That was a very poor country ravaged by wars and totalitarianism. This is a figure from a country well within its means to provide universal health care but choose not due to Capitalist ideology.
The country does not own the means. It is arguably within the citizen's means. The capitalist ideology only says that we shouldn't confuse those two pocketbooks.
Let's keep our feet on the ground and realize that all countries collect taxes and decide through their particular version of politics how these are spent. The US are responsible for the outcome of their politics.
Communism cannot be sustained without totalitarianism though.
Well, certainly not the version you keep peddling as the only version.
Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are totally undemocratic. That is, to actually give the workers control of the means of production, not to just change the bosses from capitalists to state bureaucrats.
Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are totally undemocratic. That is, to actually give the workers control of the means of production, not to just change the bosses from capitalists to state bureaucrats.
I said a single data point just to give an indication of what would happen if we start adding stuff up. Now take all the other data points.
And to be clear, I'm not a Stalinist or want to excuse that regime in any way shape or form, but this hypocrisy regarding "communist/socialist deaths" is a very annoying propaganda tool to dismiss progressive movements.
And to be clear, I'm not a Stalinist or want to excuse that regime in any way shape or form, but this hypocrisy regarding "communist/socialist deaths" is a very annoying propaganda tool to dismiss progressive movements.
Is "screed" a word you're just using to show contempt, or something that is personally meaningful to you? Describing something with contempt is not a proof that it is worthless, and that tactic doesn't become any more honest if you choose something "on the opposite side" and describe it with the same contempt - and by making it "fair" in this way, somehow make it neutral.
Both Marx and Rand have very easy vulnerabilities to critique. Just saying there on equal and opposite ends of some imaginary scale where the truth must lie in the middle and those on the extremes are irrational advocates who write "screeds" is not rational, although it can look like it if you're in a friendly room or say it quickly enough.
Both Marx and Rand have very easy vulnerabilities to critique. Just saying there on equal and opposite ends of some imaginary scale where the truth must lie in the middle and those on the extremes are irrational advocates who write "screeds" is not rational, although it can look like it if you're in a friendly room or say it quickly enough.
I'm a fan of Rand but can admit that she was quite capable of an epic screed. The premier example is the notoriously long and tedious John Galt speech. I feel that I deserve a merit badge for reading it all.
He wasn't describing an ideal but problematic society like you claim Rand was though. Have you read Marx? He was developing philosophical technique for analyzing history, politics, and economics.
Unfortunately, most people that feel the need to comment vehemently in opposition to the very mention of Marx's name haven't read Marx, nor do they understand that the "communism" of Marx is not the one they've been taught is the ultimate evil (tm) while the capitalist billionaires evade taxes, laugh their way to the bank, and ensure America remains a country in which 1% of the inhabitants live in the 0th world while 99% slip into the 3rd.
Oh well. :(
Oh well. :(
I mean, I don't call myself a communist anymore, mostly because I think the term has been irrevocably poisoned and now refers to the authoritarian states of the USSR and China, which are surely no leftist's view of the best of socialism. Marx's criticism of capitalism is immensely valuable though, I would argue regardless of your political affiliation.
The term has been irrevocably poisoned not because it is associated with authoritarian states but because it reliably leads to them.
Don't revise history, those authoritarian states started out authoritarian from the get go. There were no "decline" into authoritarianism because of some inherent force in socialism.
Sure, good enough for me. I don't want that situation, but it's not inherent in left ideology. I'm more of a strong social democrat with market socialist/anarchist tendencies.
Well, if you want a far-left and deeply pessimistic interpretation of history, he's you guy.
That was my point of view when I considered myself a libertarian. If you actually give the stuff a chance and read it - it’s just facts, often untold and unknown. It did shift my views far to the left, but the only thing holding me back from that was ignorance of the truth.
As a revisionist, the great thing about Zinn is that he told the lesser known side of a lot of stories. However it seemed like he had a tendency to put a ton of weight on non-objective primary sources. Just like it's healthy to question and criticize the traditional narratives, I don't think every "fact" in A People's History should be taken at face value.
> To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. [...] If we remember those times and places–and there are so many–where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory. [0]
Doesn't sound like a "deeply pessimistic interpretation of history" to me.
[0]: You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train, Howard Zinn
Doesn't sound like a "deeply pessimistic interpretation of history" to me.
[0]: You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train, Howard Zinn
This seems like a kneejerk response to a strawman version of Zinn. He's a pretty middle-of-the-road academic politically speaking and doesn't get anywhere near what I would call far-left.
As for "pessimistic", well, I'd just say that the facts don't care about your feelings. Powerful institutions are (generally speaking) violent and uncaring towards those without power; ignoring that fact does us all a disservice.
As for "pessimistic", well, I'd just say that the facts don't care about your feelings. Powerful institutions are (generally speaking) violent and uncaring towards those without power; ignoring that fact does us all a disservice.
Zinn's own words (which are quoted in the article) confirm the parent's point:
From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country . . . something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society—cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian.
From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country . . . something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society—cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian.
Saying that America has deeply rooted problems is not pessimism, it's realism. Not believing in people's ability to make it better is pessimism.
And in that quote, Zinn explicitly mentions he doesn’t believe in “people’s ability to make it better”:
I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy
I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy
You're misreading him. He's talking about the ability of an ideology and a system to correct itself, not that of the people it rules to choose a different society for themselves.
He is saying a revolution is required because the people can’t change things. I’m not sure, short of outright nihilism, how one could be more pessimistic that that.
He's literally saying that he believes that American democracy is fundamentally flawed and that it can't be fixed, therefore necessitating a revolution.
He said it's not self-correcting, meaning people have to take charge to build the country that they need and want. That's not the same as saying it can't be fixed.
>He said it's not self-correcting, meaning people have to take charge to build the country that they need and want.
Yeah, and he believes that this has to happen through a revolution, because the democratic system can't fix itself _even if the people vote and try to change laws to do so_.
>That's not the same as saying it can't be fixed.
Maybe you call tearing down a system and replacing it wither another 'fixing', but I (and likely most others) certainly don't. At the very least, it's a hell of a lot more pessimistic than reformism.
Yeah, and he believes that this has to happen through a revolution, because the democratic system can't fix itself _even if the people vote and try to change laws to do so_.
>That's not the same as saying it can't be fixed.
Maybe you call tearing down a system and replacing it wither another 'fixing', but I (and likely most others) certainly don't. At the very least, it's a hell of a lot more pessimistic than reformism.
Reform and revolution are a false dichotomy. Social movements and popular unrest effect the electoral process significantly.
>Reform and revolution are a false dichotomy.
Reformist and revolutionist actions aren't contradictory, but reform and revolution absolutely are. People who advocate for revolution (which Zinn does in the above quote) fundamentally reject the idea that peaceful, incremental legislative reform could be used to transform the democratic system.
>Social movements and popular unrest effect the electoral process significantly
Sure, but Zinn isn't advocating for that. This bit
>The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society
makes it pretty damn clear that he thinks real change won't come through the electoral process.
Reformist and revolutionist actions aren't contradictory, but reform and revolution absolutely are. People who advocate for revolution (which Zinn does in the above quote) fundamentally reject the idea that peaceful, incremental legislative reform could be used to transform the democratic system.
>Social movements and popular unrest effect the electoral process significantly
Sure, but Zinn isn't advocating for that. This bit
>The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society
makes it pretty damn clear that he thinks real change won't come through the electoral process.
>makes it pretty damn clear that he thinks real change won't come through the electoral process.
Yeah, and that's where I break with Zinn, (because it requires a silly definition of "real" change) but you're wrong if you think he's advocating violent overthrow. He was in favor of civil disobedience. His contemporary Chomsky has been quite clear on this, especially recently, when he's even criticized leftists for defending violence at protests.
Yeah, and that's where I break with Zinn, (because it requires a silly definition of "real" change) but you're wrong if you think he's advocating violent overthrow. He was in favor of civil disobedience. His contemporary Chomsky has been quite clear on this, especially recently, when he's even criticized leftists for defending violence at protests.
No, he says he doesn’t believe in the “self-correcting character of American Democracy.” That doesn’t just mean that people need to fix it, it means he thinks they need to operate outside the Democratic process to fix it.
You're overfocusing on the "American Democracy" part and missing what he means about self-correction. Being an active and engaged citizen does mean being engaged beyond the ballot box. What specifically do you believe he was advocating that you find immoral or distasteful?
> doesn't get anywhere near what I would call far-left.
To the far-right, everything looks like far-left.
To the far-right, everything looks like far-left.
Far left is a pretty fuzzy term, but I don't think you need to be far-right to consider someone advocating for revolutionary anti-capitalism to be part of it.
I don't question Zinn's position is very much to the left, but, I've often heard people say universal healthcare is "socialism" and that makes the person sound like they are so far into the right, well past nazism, to confuse human rights with socialism.
Yep, I'd rather the rosy Disney-fied version of history that hides the truth behind indigenous/minority struggles and keeps the impoverished in their place.
Did you even read his book? Calling it “far-left” or “pessimistic” is pretty far off. If you have critiques then present them clearly with evidence.
I absolutely agree. I am as lefty as it gets but having this ideological indoctrination shoved down my throat in highschool was an awful experience. It didn't feel constructive, it didn't feel educational, it felt like an uninterrupted lambasting. It totally failed to persuade and left an awful taste in my mouth that decades have not erased.
I think we have had quite enough of Zinn.
“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493
“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493
This is true of all history, regardless of political viewpoint. There is no such thing as objective explanation of history.
Yes, Hegel figured that part out 200+ years ago. However, I think it's fair to say that some historical explanations or narratives hew closer to actual verifiable events than others do. Perhaps it could be viewed as problematic if a historical narrative becomes dominant despite being constructed from falsified evidence, or having little evidence to support it.
Is it undesirable to aim for objectivity? Zinn seemed to believe it was his job to shape American society not record its history.
Reshaping American society may be a fine goal. And, Zinn certainly has been successful at that, but it does not sound like history to me.
Reshaping American society may be a fine goal. And, Zinn certainly has been successful at that, but it does not sound like history to me.
> Is it undesirable to aim for objectivity?
It's definitely undesirable to admit the concept is meaningless, then to strive for it. That's just producing propaganda. You know the standards you're going to strive for are arbitrary and just made up of a combination of things you haven't questioned the importance of and things you've decided the importance of, but not only do you cleave to them anyway, but you criticize those who deviate from them as dangerous propagandists.
He thought his job was to create a more rational, more just society, and the narrative he used to connect the events described in his sources was a servant to that. That's the same thing that people who claim objectivity claim to be doing, while they write history as the conflicts between the wealthy and royal.
Claiming "objectivity" is just claiming that someone would be insane or seditious for daring to question the claimant's premises. Claims that objectivity is real inevitably ends in journalists and writers having to be licensed and approved by the government.
It's definitely undesirable to admit the concept is meaningless, then to strive for it. That's just producing propaganda. You know the standards you're going to strive for are arbitrary and just made up of a combination of things you haven't questioned the importance of and things you've decided the importance of, but not only do you cleave to them anyway, but you criticize those who deviate from them as dangerous propagandists.
He thought his job was to create a more rational, more just society, and the narrative he used to connect the events described in his sources was a servant to that. That's the same thing that people who claim objectivity claim to be doing, while they write history as the conflicts between the wealthy and royal.
Claiming "objectivity" is just claiming that someone would be insane or seditious for daring to question the claimant's premises. Claims that objectivity is real inevitably ends in journalists and writers having to be licensed and approved by the government.
No it’s not. You can study history and strive to understand the truth of the matter however imperfect, perhaps across various perspectives and with appropriate deference to contemporaneous context and the roles of the players in arc of global history, or you can see it as a means to an end and select and present so as to advance the narrative that you feel bests moves mankind to wherever you feel he need be moved. I’ve nothing against Zinn - dude wrote a book. Whatever blame for whatever fault there might be lays at the feet of an education establishment who selected his narrative as the one with which to indoctrinate a generation of Americans.
isn't there a difference between accepting that true objectivity is impossible and not even trying to be objective?
Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased.
Consider an event that created some gain for a country at the expense of a specific group of people. A history book that claims "This event helped the country through so and so" would be biased because it chose to include some piece of history while excluding the other. Similarly, a textbook including the latter part but not the former would also be biased.
Now you may argue that including both consequences of the event would make the textbook unbiased but it actually suffers from the same problem. The very inclusion of any one piece of history is biased because you're making an explicit decision to include some event but not everything else.
I agree with you that we can and should strive to be more objective, while accepting that true objectivity is not possible. However, it's important to understand that at the time of Zinn's writings, history was heavily biased towards one end of the spectrum. The intention of his own biased history was not to balance the scale, but to introduce the overlooked and erased aspects of history into the conversation.
Zinn was basically saying "Look, we can't fit every little aspect of history into what we teach our kids. So if we're going to pick and choose the narratives and lessons that go in their books, we need to choose the ones that will help us avoid the mistakes of the past and shape a more just society. If history is going to influence the world, it should be for the better".
Consider an event that created some gain for a country at the expense of a specific group of people. A history book that claims "This event helped the country through so and so" would be biased because it chose to include some piece of history while excluding the other. Similarly, a textbook including the latter part but not the former would also be biased.
Now you may argue that including both consequences of the event would make the textbook unbiased but it actually suffers from the same problem. The very inclusion of any one piece of history is biased because you're making an explicit decision to include some event but not everything else.
I agree with you that we can and should strive to be more objective, while accepting that true objectivity is not possible. However, it's important to understand that at the time of Zinn's writings, history was heavily biased towards one end of the spectrum. The intention of his own biased history was not to balance the scale, but to introduce the overlooked and erased aspects of history into the conversation.
Zinn was basically saying "Look, we can't fit every little aspect of history into what we teach our kids. So if we're going to pick and choose the narratives and lessons that go in their books, we need to choose the ones that will help us avoid the mistakes of the past and shape a more just society. If history is going to influence the world, it should be for the better".
> Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased.
Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased.
You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors.
You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.
Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased.
You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors.
You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.
> Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased.
I agree, and I explicitly took this position in my initial reply.
> You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors.
This is what Zinn was trying to achieve by introducing the parts of history that don't make it into the textbooks.
> You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering.
I'm not a Zinn or a history expert by any means so this is a bit above my pay grade. All I can say is that from some of Zinn's essays I've read, one of his main points was that you need to be critical of the history you're exposed to and try to understand what the text is trying to accomplish. In Zinn's texts he makes what he's trying to accomplish very clear.
> There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.
You're absolutely right. This was the major idea Zinn introduced to history in academia.
It honestly seems to me like you agree with the central thesis of Zinn's writings. A lot of the criticism I've been reading in this post mirrors the same criticism Zinn had of academic history when he first began writing.
I agree, and I explicitly took this position in my initial reply.
> You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors.
This is what Zinn was trying to achieve by introducing the parts of history that don't make it into the textbooks.
> You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering.
I'm not a Zinn or a history expert by any means so this is a bit above my pay grade. All I can say is that from some of Zinn's essays I've read, one of his main points was that you need to be critical of the history you're exposed to and try to understand what the text is trying to accomplish. In Zinn's texts he makes what he's trying to accomplish very clear.
> There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.
You're absolutely right. This was the major idea Zinn introduced to history in academia.
It honestly seems to me like you agree with the central thesis of Zinn's writings. A lot of the criticism I've been reading in this post mirrors the same criticism Zinn had of academic history when he first began writing.
Your comment reacts to the wrong part of the quote. It is not controversial to say that all history is biased. The controversy is stating that perfect truth (objectivity), were it achievable, would not be desirable because the author believes that he serves a higher value than truth. That is a basic (and abhorrent) tenet of communism, and probably amoral leadership generally (see Trump vis-a-vis suppressed Covid information in early 2020.) If you don't hold truth as a central value, you will often find yourself discarding it in situations where it is clearly inconvenient.
But isn't Zinn's intention still to achieve truth? He just believes that to do so one must take into account the current state of the world, and biases in collective understanding, and that's why his works were in reaction to the lack of bottom-up historical analysis of his day. From Zinn's point of view, that part of "the truth" was underrepresented at the time.
I mean, his autobiography is titled "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", so I had the impression that Zinn cautioned against attempts at objectivity/neutrality because it often serves the status quo, and actually hides the truth, not because "he believes he serves a higher value than truth," as you say.
At a high level, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me, blind pursuit of "objectivity/neutrality" is not uncommon, and often leads to false equivalences, perpetuates misinformation, and results in real societal harm. For example, see the framing of "the climate change debate" in popular media for decades. Furthermore, in such cases, some parties may passively benefit from such "neutrality", or even actively play a part in creating such a framing in bad faith.
Therefore, if you believe that you exist at a point in time when the oppressed have not had their side of history told, and your aim is to reach "the truth", whether for the sake of greater understanding or for the benefit of society, then it follows that you would need to counterbalance existing biases and even strategize against bad actors to reach the "truth".
It's entirely understandable then, that Zinn's attempts at bottom-up history would be valuable in their time, but if successful they would lose their significance, and their flaws would be more apparent, as new works would build upon, correct, and challenge them.
In that sense, I find Zinn similar to figures like Rachel Carson, who's work was revolutionary in her time, but today would be easy to find flaws in, dissect, and dismiss, but only because we have a better understanding of environmental issues and phenomena.
Anyway, my point is just that it doesn't seem fair to me to say that Zinn believed he served a "higher value than truth," it's not so simple.
I mean, his autobiography is titled "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", so I had the impression that Zinn cautioned against attempts at objectivity/neutrality because it often serves the status quo, and actually hides the truth, not because "he believes he serves a higher value than truth," as you say.
At a high level, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me, blind pursuit of "objectivity/neutrality" is not uncommon, and often leads to false equivalences, perpetuates misinformation, and results in real societal harm. For example, see the framing of "the climate change debate" in popular media for decades. Furthermore, in such cases, some parties may passively benefit from such "neutrality", or even actively play a part in creating such a framing in bad faith.
Therefore, if you believe that you exist at a point in time when the oppressed have not had their side of history told, and your aim is to reach "the truth", whether for the sake of greater understanding or for the benefit of society, then it follows that you would need to counterbalance existing biases and even strategize against bad actors to reach the "truth".
It's entirely understandable then, that Zinn's attempts at bottom-up history would be valuable in their time, but if successful they would lose their significance, and their flaws would be more apparent, as new works would build upon, correct, and challenge them.
In that sense, I find Zinn similar to figures like Rachel Carson, who's work was revolutionary in her time, but today would be easy to find flaws in, dissect, and dismiss, but only because we have a better understanding of environmental issues and phenomena.
Anyway, my point is just that it doesn't seem fair to me to say that Zinn believed he served a "higher value than truth," it's not so simple.
Well, first I'll say that it does seem fair to say that when he tells you himself. But, it turns out there's more to the quote.
" I was not going to be an objective historian, because I didn’t really believe objectivity was possible, nor was it desirable—unless objectivity meant telling the truth as you saw it, not lying, not distorting, not omitting information, and not omitting arguments because they don’t conform to some idea that you have. But if objectivity meant not taking a stand, if objectivity meant presenting data without caring about the social effect of the kind of data you present, at that—I didn’t want that kind of objectivity."
So, the beginning of the quote, which was the basis of the comment I answered, was an excerpt which suggested that he didn't believe in truth. The full quote shows that he was attempting to redefine the word 'objectivity' in order to make himself sound like an iconoclast, and in doing so declare that the general group of historians are shills. So, in a sense, his description of the historians of human history is like the one you've mentioned about Carson in your penultimate paragraph: he finds them easy to attack from his convenient position of hindsight.
" I was not going to be an objective historian, because I didn’t really believe objectivity was possible, nor was it desirable—unless objectivity meant telling the truth as you saw it, not lying, not distorting, not omitting information, and not omitting arguments because they don’t conform to some idea that you have. But if objectivity meant not taking a stand, if objectivity meant presenting data without caring about the social effect of the kind of data you present, at that—I didn’t want that kind of objectivity."
So, the beginning of the quote, which was the basis of the comment I answered, was an excerpt which suggested that he didn't believe in truth. The full quote shows that he was attempting to redefine the word 'objectivity' in order to make himself sound like an iconoclast, and in doing so declare that the general group of historians are shills. So, in a sense, his description of the historians of human history is like the one you've mentioned about Carson in your penultimate paragraph: he finds them easy to attack from his convenient position of hindsight.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/howard-zinns-history...