Shunning Howard Zinn's History

[Amianthus]

What I can't stand is nagging.  

I can't stand it either. That's why I didn't make any suggestion until you had made a post that needed to include special markers and colored sections to identify which quotes went with what statements, and made a suggestion that it would be easier for others to follow the conversation if you had followed the nearly universal "standard".

I've suggested it a few times in the past, and to XO as well, but given the high number of your posts using your own "style" of replies and relevant darth of my suggestions to use the "standard", I feel that it's hardly nagging. A ratio of thousands to one can hardly be nagging in my opinion.

[Universe Prince]

Declare victory, hit ENTER.  Right.

An apt description of of your entire post.

The article you provided is not proof that Zinn was predominately shunned by the mainstream. It is proof that truthout can cherry pick quotes to whine about the ideas of "progressives" supposedly being "kept from the American people." The truthout assertion is a flat out lie. Praise for Zinn is all over the place.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/28/howard-zinn-dies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630657/20100128/story.jhtml

And that is just a few of what I could find with a quick search on Google.

You know what is really funny in all this? Zinn gets praise and criticism for promoting his bias in his work, and you are complaining that because the people who criticize Zinn's work are only doing so because they are biased, the criticism is invalid. What it comes down to is a double standard. Zinn's bias, your own bias, you claim are good. The bias of anyone who dares criticize Zinn or you is bad. So my comparison of you to hard core Objectivists is valid. You are like them. You have that same sort of myopic hubris of opinion. Zinn's books were/are bestsellers and highly popular. People all over the MSM liked and praised Zinn and his works. Hollywood folks made movies based on Zinn's work and life. But you and truthout want to claim the public is being kept from Zinn's work. Schlesinger worked for JFK and Dissent is really just a bunch of Zionists and neither is truly "progressive", so their criticisms of Zinn's work should be dismissed without even being read. Can you say 'double standard'? I knew you could.

Granted, Michael, you phrased your arguments well, and spent plenty of words on defending Zinn, but when one cuts through your verbosity and rhetoric on this issue, you've got nothing of substance. Your arguments are obvious logical fallacies, and the emotion you're trying to invest in this issue is based on a lie. You're just blowing smoke, my friend.

I am now officially done with this. Michael, you get the last word.

[Michael Tee]

<<The article you provided is not proof that Zinn was predominately shunned by the mainstream. It is proof that truthout can cherry pick quotes to whine about the ideas of "progressives" supposedly being "kept from the American people." The truthout assertion is a flat out lie. Praise for Zinn is all over the place.[/color]

<<http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/28/howard-zinn-dies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630657/20100128/story.jhtml

<<And that is just a few of what I could find with a quick search on Google.>>

Let's sum this up in the real world, Prince.  The article I found noted that Zinn's work had been panned by Arthur Schlesinger (a "progressive" who actually apologized in person to Cheddi Jagan, a real progressive whose Guyanese government the "progressive" Schlesinger had helped to overthrow during the "progressive" regime of JFK,) the New York Times Book Review, leading American wire services and some overseas papers as well.  Against this, you counterpose:  his obit in his own hometown paper (Boston.com is owned by The Boston Globe; ) an op-ed in the NYT (coincidentally or not, the owner of The Boston Globe,) two left-of-centre publications, Hufpo and The Guardian and (how's this for political opinion-making?) some MTV organ.

Moreover, ALL of the articles you picked to deny that Zinn was cold-shouldered by the MSM during his lifetime just happen to be obits.  Amazing.   The guy got a loving obit from his hometown paper, what a surprise!  A WWII combat vet and his obit failed to rake him over the coals.  Wow, proof positive that the MSM must have loved the guy.

<<You know what is really funny in all this? Zinn gets praise and criticism for promoting his bias in his work . . . >>

No, he got praise from some people and criticism from others.  When his readers praised him, it was for the novelty of his insights; when the MSM panned him, it was as foot soldiers in their employers' class war.

<< . . .  and you are complaining that because the people who criticize Zinn's work are only doing so because they are biased, the criticism is invalid. >>

Of course, the criticism is invalid.  It's nit-picking in the examples I saw, and it's falsifying his work in some of the other examples I saw.

<<What it comes down to is a double standard. Zinn's bias, your own bias, you claim are good. >>

I think, deliberately or not, you are sowing confusion by misuse of the word "bias."  Zinn's critics are biased and allow their bias to drive the production of their basically dishonest evaluations of Zinn's work.  The trivial errors (if in fact they are trivial errors) are allowed to justify mistrust of the entire work, even when the alleged errors are concerning peripheral affairs, foreign affairs really, and the centrality of Zinn's work has to do with the sham nature of the American "democracy" so-called.  Zinn, at the most, has a bias towards countercultural history (in other words, a history that runs counter to the conventional version of U.S. history.)  

Zinn's "bias" drives him to find facts that conventional historians have overlooked or unceremphasized, but not to manufacture or invent them.  He's not digging up fake facts.  Shays' Rebellion really happened.   There is thus nothing dishonest in Zinn's work.  

The bias of Zinn's critics has driven them in fact into dishonesty - - into overinflating the importance of trivial errors as I stated in the previous paragraph and into creating a strawman Zinn (all of whose victims of America are "saintly" and "innocent," which even if false would not have diminished the Americans' villainy towards them in the slightest degree.      

<<The bias of anyone who dares criticize Zinn or you is bad. >>

No you still don't get it.  The bias in itself is neither good nor bad.  It's what those critics have done in adopting and furthering the cause of their employers' bias which is bad.  Or what Schlesinger or the liberal Zionists at Dissent have done to serve their bias that is bad.  Zinn, driven by his "bias" against the conventional histories, has not let his bias drive him to dishonesty.

<<So my comparison of you to hard core Objectivists is valid. You are like them. You have that same sort of myopic hubris of opinion. >>

More total bullshit.  Obviously you don't understand the crucial distinction that Zinn's bias leads him to produce novel descriptions of American history, but in an honest manner, whereas the bias of Zinn's critics has led them into dishonesty and intellectual fraud.  (I should limit that last statement of mine to criticism of Zinn's works that I have seen, as there may have been valid criticism written of Zinn, which I have not seen.)

<<Zinn's books were/are bestsellers and highly popular. >>

That's IN SPITE OF the MSM cold shoulder, not because of it.

<<People all over the MSM liked and praised Zinn and his works. Hollywood folks made movies based on Zinn's work and life.>>

ditto.  The article I linked to gave you some good examples of the MSM cold shoulder.  But thank God not everyone in the U.S.A. lets the MSM shape his or her opinion.

<<But you and truthout want to claim the public is being kept from Zinn's work. >>

Not that they were kept from it, but the MSM did their best to contain it to the smallest possible audience and to marginalize Zinn.

<<Schlesinger worked for JFK . . . >>

Yeah and helped overthrow the progressive government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana and worked for the guy who launched the Bay of Pigs . . .  a guy YOU want to call "progressive."   Please.

<< . . . and Dissent is really just a bunch of Zionists >>

Uh, now I suppose you're going to deny THAT too???

<<and neither is truly "progressive" . . . >>

Pay attention please.  They may or may not be "progressive," but the real issue is are they biased, due to "progressivism" or anything else, against  Zinn and his work?

<< so their criticisms of Zinn's work should be dismissed without even being read. >>

Wow, you are DENSE.  They were dismissed AFTER they were read.  Can you remember "triviality?"  Can you remember "bias?"  Can you remember "overinflated?"  ALL of them were reasons that I gave, which, combined with the bias that explained them, was what justified the dismissal of the criticisms.

<<Can you say 'double standard'? I knew you could.>>

Well aren't you smart.  Did you know I could say "bullshit" too?

[Plane]

..

<<The article you provided is not proof that Zinn was predominately shunned by the mainstream. It is proof that truthout can cherry pick quotes to whine about the ideas of "progressives" supposedly being "kept from the American people." The truthout assertion is a flat out lie. Praise for Zinn is all over the place.[/color]

<<http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/28/howard-zinn-dies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630657/20100128/story.jhtml

<<And that is just a few of what I could find with a quick search on Google.>>

Let's sum this up in the real world, Prince.  The article I found noted that Zinn's work had been panned by Arthur Schlesinger (a "progressive" who actually apologized in person to Cheddi Jagan, a real progressive whose Guyanese government the "progressive" Schlesinger had helped to overthrow during the "progressive" regime of JFK,) the New York Times Book Review, leading American wire services and some overseas papers as well.  Against this, you counterpose:  his obit in his own hometown paper (Boston.com is owned by The Boston Globe; ) an op-ed in the NYT (coincidentally or not, the owner of The Boston Globe,) two left-of-centre publications, Hufpo and The Guardian and (how's this for political opinion-making?) some MTV organ.

Moreover, ALL of the articles you picked to deny that Zinn was cold-shouldered by the MSM during his lifetime just happen to be obits.  Amazing.   The guy got a loving obit from his hometown paper, what a surprise!  A WWII combat vet and his obit failed to rake him over the coals.  Wow, proof positive that the MSM must have loved the guy.

 
<<You know what is really funny in all this? Zinn gets praise and criticism for promoting his bias in his work . . . >>

No, he got praise from some people and criticism from others.  When his readers praised him, it was for the novelty of his insights; when the MSM panned him, it was as foot soldiers in their employers' class war.

<< . . .  and you are complaining that because the people who criticize Zinn's work are only doing so because they are biased, the criticism is invalid. >>

Of course, the criticism is invalid.  It's nit-picking in the examples I saw, and it's falsifying his work in some of the other examples I saw.

<<What it comes down to is a double standard. Zinn's bias, your own bias, you claim are good. >>

I think, deliberately or not, you are sowing confusion by misuse of the word "bias."  Zinn's critics are biased and allow their bias to drive the production of their basically dishonest evaluations of Zinn's work.  The trivial errors (if in fact they are trivial errors) are allowed to justify mistrust of the entire work, even when the alleged errors are concerning peripheral affairs, foreign affairs really, and the centrality of Zinn's work has to do with the sham nature of the American "democracy" so-called.  Zinn, at the most, has a bias towards countercultural history (in other words, a history that runs counter to the conventional version of U.S. history.)  

Zinn's "bias" drives him to find facts that conventional historians have overlooked or unceremphasized, but not to manufacture or invent them.  He's not digging up fake facts.  Shays' Rebellion really happened.   There is thus nothing dishonest in Zinn's work.  

The bias of Zinn's critics has driven them in fact into dishonesty - - into overinflating the importance of trivial errors as I stated in the previous paragraph and into creating a strawman Zinn (all of whose victims of America are "saintly" and "innocent," which even if false would not have diminished the Americans' villainy towards them in the slightest degree.      

<<The bias of anyone who dares criticize Zinn or you is bad. >>

No you still don't get it.  The bias in itself is neither good nor bad.  It's what those critics have done in adopting and furthering the cause of their employers' bias which is bad.  Or what Schlesinger or the liberal Zionists at Dissent have done to serve their bias that is bad.  Zinn, driven by his "bias" against the conventional histories, has not let his bias drive him to dishonesty.

<<So my comparison of you to hard core Objectivists is valid. You are like them. You have that same sort of myopic hubris of opinion. >>

More total bullshit.  Obviously you don't understand the crucial distinction that Zinn's bias leads him to produce novel descriptions of American history, but in an honest manner, whereas the bias of Zinn's critics has led them into dishonesty and intellectual fraud.  (I should limit that last statement of mine to criticism of Zinn's works that I have seen, as there may have been valid criticism written of Zinn, which I have not seen.)

<<Zinn's books were/are bestsellers and highly popular. >>

That's IN SPITE OF the MSM cold shoulder, not because of it.

<<People all over the MSM liked and praised Zinn and his works. Hollywood folks made movies based on Zinn's work and life.>>

ditto.  The article I linked to gave you some good examples of the MSM cold shoulder.  But thank God not everyone in the U.S.A. lets the MSM shape his or her opinion.

<<But you and truthout want to claim the public is being kept from Zinn's work. >>

Not that they were kept from it, but the MSM did their best to contain it to the smallest possible audience and to marginalize Zinn.

<<Schlesinger worked for JFK . . . >>

Yeah and helped overthrow the progressive government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana and worked for the guy who launched the Bay of Pigs . . .  a guy YOU want to call "progressive."   Please.

<< . . . and Dissent is really just a bunch of Zionists >>

Uh, now I suppose you're going to deny THAT too???

<<and neither is truly "progressive" . . . >>

Pay attention please.  They may or may not be "progressive," but the real issue is are they biased, due to "progressivism" or anything else, against  Zinn and his work?

<< so their criticisms of Zinn's work should be dismissed without even being read. >>

Wow, you are DENSE.  They were dismissed AFTER they were read.  Can you remember "triviality?"  Can you remember "bias?"  Can you remember "overinflated?"  ALL of them were reasons that I gave, which, combined with the bias that explained them, was what justified the dismissal of the criticisms.

<<Can you say 'double standard'? I knew you could.>>

Well aren't you smart.  Did you know I could say "bullshit" too?

[/quote]  

.  .

[sirs]

hehe...nicely done, Plane       

[Plane]

hehe...nicely done, Plane       

That was a lotta work.

[Michael Tee]

If it's a lotta work, you gotta ask, what is the corresponding benefit?    Not a helluva lot, IMHO.

If I or another poster says that AB is a dipshit in post n and later in post n+12 I have to remind someone that I or the other poster said that AB was a dipshit, most people following the thread will recall the original remark and not bother to check back through the thread to read it in context.  On rare occasions, context may be important, or even the accuracy of the quote, so there is a need to check back to verify.   I gotta balance the inconvenience to me in producing letter-perfect quotes that are one-click verifiable against the inconvenience to the member who might want to check for accuracy or context in some but not all of the posts.

Balance of convenience favours me doing things same as I've always done them.

[sirs]

With the other "thing that you've always done" of course is how you could care less about others.  Perfect mindset of the hard core liberal, screw how hard it is for others to follow, others will just have to deal with it

[Plane]

If it's a lotta work, you gotta ask, what is the corresponding benefit?    Not a helluva lot, IMHO.

If I or another poster says that AB is a dipshit in post n and later in post n+12 I have to remind someone that I or the other poster said that AB was a dipshit, most people following the thread will recall the original remark and not bother to check back through the thread to read it in context.  On rare occasions, context may be important, or even the accuracy of the quote, so there is a need to check back to verify.   I gotta balance the inconvenience to me in producing letter-perfect quotes that are one-click verifiable against the inconvenience to the member who might want to check for accuracy or context in some but not all of the posts.

Balance of convenience favours me doing things same as I've always done them.

What made it hard was accurately placeing the breaks between your thoughts and your quotes.

if you write (/quote)(quote) and copy that to clipboard you can place the break from clipboard before you begin to type you lines and begin the typeing between the bracketed quotes,your lines will appear outside the box that encloses the quotes , I used Perins because really useing bracket would havce made the /quote quote dissapear.