Shunning Howard Zinn's History

[Michael Tee]

ok I will try it now (quote button) as a test

I went back to my post.  Highlighted the fraction of a line that I wanted to quote.  The only quote button at that point said "Insert quote" so I clicked on that and came back to this REPLY screen.  Here I am and I see that not just the tiny section that I highlighted but the whole fucking post has migrated to this page.  Fuck dat.  Quote button?  Thanks but no thanks.

<<Actually the criticisms I've read are exactly about the value of Zinn's writings as history.>>

OF COURSE they are.  What do you expect the writers to say, "Well, since I'm a whore for the money of the mainstream, I'm going to show Zinn the trashing of his life, for purely historical reasons, of course?"  Grow up, please.

<<Just how poor is Zinn's history? After hearing of his death, I opened one of his books to a random page (Failure to Quit, p. 118) and was informed that there was "no evidence" that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Whatever one thinks of the Reagan administration's response, it is flat wrong, bordering on dishonest, to argue that the plot wasn't masterminded in Tripoli.>>

Oh, that's brilliant.  No indication of the date of Zinn's writing, and no indication of the evidence then available that Qaddafi's Libya WAS  behind the bombing.   

<<Nor is it correct to write that the American government, which funded the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, "train[ed] Osama bin Laden," a myth conclusively debunked by Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars.>>

More brilliance.  Again no date of Zinn's allegations, no date  for Steve Coll's contradictory statement, no proof (other than the opinion that Coll "conclusively debunked" Zinn's "myth") that Coll was right and Zinn wrong, and finally, BFD.  The significant fact is that the U.S.A. supported bin Laden in one way or another, whether that support would have been training or something else.  Hard to think of an "error" more trivial or nit-pickingly insignificant than that, but I have no doubt you'll keep trying.            


<<Yeah, he [Schlesinger] was "progressive". That he helped JFK during the problems with Cuba hardly makes Schlesinger a right-winger. And I find it funny that you think the Kennedys were not "progressives". I guess next you're going to tell me FDR wasn't "progressive" either.>>

Let's cut to the chase.  Whether or not Schlesinger did or did not meet whatever criteria are required to be considered a "progressive" in modern American society is not important.  What is important is whether Schlesinger had ulterior motives to trash Zinn, be those motives the same as those of the owners of the MSM or otherwise.  What is important is whether, if Schlesinger was in fact a "progressive," would he have the same motives as other "progressives" might have to promote Zinn as a historian if he could do so in good conscience.

The fact of the matter is that Schlesinger, much like the criminal scumbag Henry Kissinger, was a power whore, using his credentials as an historian to worm his way into the inner circles of power and influence.  Like Kissinger, Schlesinger had to adopt the ways of the courtier and not necessarily the ways of the historian to achieve his objective.    Schlesinger was smart enough to realize that anyone looking for admission into the Charmed Circle, could never be too far left of centre, or he'd be dropped like a hot potato the closer his man got to the centre of the power.  Think Lani Guinere, think Bill Ayers, think Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  At what point does your radioactivity on the Geiger counters of the Far Right outweigh whatever prestige as an intellectual or a "progressive" you can bring to the politician you have just placed your bets on?  Schlesinger had to have known that Zinn's worldview posed a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. government itself and that anyone who espoused or promoted such views would ipso facto become persona non grata in anyone's White House.  By embracing Zinn at any time, he could kiss his power-whoring aspirations goodbye forever, and he knew that.  He'd have had to be a moron NOT to know it.

Furthermore, the two men were rivals.  Schlesinger was a modern American historian himself, whose Pulitzer-prize-winning study of FDR and the New Deal stood in stark contrast to the worm's-eye-view of that same history espoused by Zinn.  Either Schlesinger had missed something in his book, or Zinn had fucked up by missing the essentials and focusing at their expense on the most minor and insignificant trivia for political rather than historical reasons.  Now which of those two possibilities would have been the more attractive to Schlesinger?

<<You're starting to sound as bad as the folks at lewrockwell.com who want to argue over who is and is not really libertarian. >>

Sorry but I'm not going to get dragged into a discussion of the folks at Rockwell or how I compare to them.  This is the second time (at least) that you've attempted to make that comparison, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a total distraction, it's way out in left field and it's completely irrelevant.  I'll discuss my own ideas here and now, against any criticism you have of them, but I don't see any point in trying to distance myself from the Rockwell site on general principles and getting bogged down in argument with you about how close to them or how far from them I am.  Please try to stay on topic.

<<This is a good example, however, of how you're intent on trashing the messengers who criticize Zinn without actually pointing out why they're wrong. >>

LMFAO.  Actually it's a perfect example of your trying to justify criticism of Zinn by falsely or irrelevantly claiming that it comes from "progressives" and me calling you out wrong on that allegation.  The fact is that whatever technical qualifications these critics have as "progressive" or "progressive-like," they nevertheless have ulterior motives for criticizing and belittling Zinn that would exist whether or not they qualified for the "progressive" brand.  Your assumption that once you could hang the "progressive" label round their necks, they would thereby become immunized to any criticism of impure motivation is both touching and comical.

<<You just rationalize away any criticism of Zinn with the basic argument that opinions critical of Zinn are from people who are not to be trusted because they're not in agreement with Zinn.>>

Uh, just to bring this fantasy of yours down to earth, you advanced a grand total of TWO supposedly unbiased (because they were "progressive") sources of criticism against Zinn and I was able to show without too much trouble that in each of your examples, it was highly doubtful that the sources were real progressives and that in any case, progressive or not, each of them had ulterior and impure motives to belittle and dismiss Zinn and his work.

<<By your reasoning, no criticisms of Zinn could ever be legitimate . . . >>

LMFAO.  So because you provide two examples of criticism and I find them both illegitimate, for excellent reasons which I have provided to you, therefore it is not possible that I could find ANY criticism of Zinn to be legitimate?  Whooah, there is a hole in your logic big enough to drive an eighteen-wheeler through, and I'm sure if you think about it long enough you'll discover what it is.

<< . . . and frankly, I've not seen any evidence to support your argument>>

Why, were you in an isolation booth all afternoon and evening?

<< . . .  and plenty of evidence against it.>>

Well, I think I've just dealt with that evidence.  Frankly, not very impressive at all.

<<Yeah, because Dissent is so mainstream. >>

Again with the irrelevancies.  It doesn't matter if Dissent is mainstream or underground.  Progressive or reactionary.  What matters is whether they have motives to diss and belittle Zinn and his theories, or whether their status as underground, progressive or whatever renders them immune to any imputation of bias.  Or even guarantees that they will have to support Zinn as an historian if they can do so in good conscience. 

Dissent speaks in many voices, however if there is one predominant theme in all or most of them, it is liberal Zionism.  Liberal Zionists can be progressive in many ways, but one type of argument they all would like to shy away from is the argument about Big Money and the influence that it can buy in Congress, because these ideas come too close to the source of the Israel Lobby's power in Washington and raise further questions that skirt the edge of anti-Semitism, viz,, how much influence do "the Jews" have on Congress and in whose interests are they using that influence?  Zinn's methodology and theories come much closer to those questions and issues than many of those liberal Zionists are comfortable with.  It's a lot more comfortable for most of them to deny any kind of legitimacy whatsoever to Zinn, and thus move the discussion away from the legitimacy of the President and the Congress and the special interests to which they are so responsive, as well as the "common interests" to which they are mysteriously so unresponsive.

Furthermore it would be a huge mistake at this stage of Dissent's life to characterize it as "socialist."  It's editorial board and list of contributors cast a very wide net, from Red Diaper babies running from their pasts to war-mongers to the present leader of Canada's Liberal Party, who has castigated Canada in writing for not joining in the gang-rape of Iraq.  There is, unfortunately, very little "socialism" left in Dissent.

<<Pooh yi. I never said a word about Schlesinger being anti-establishment. I said he was "progressive". I did not say Dissent was anti-establishment either. I said it was socialist. >>

Again with the irrelevant and distracting distinctions.  Neither Schlesinger nor Dissent is an unimpeachable source when it comes to Zinn, and that's all that counts.

[Amianthus]

Here I am and I see that not just the tiny section that I highlighted but the whole fucking post has migrated to this page.  Fuck dat.  Quote button?  Thanks but no thanks.

It's trivial to edit out the sections that are not needed.

[sirs]

You'd think someome so superior in intellect, could figure that out. 

[Universe Prince]

Michael, you are tap dancing so fast, it would be a delight to see if it were not all a cover for your really lousy argumentation.

Zinn got at the very least some basic history facts wrong, and you want to dismiss it all as trivial. And then you want to say all the criticism of his getting facts wrong has nothing to do with a concern for facts, as if somehow historians routinely ignore getting the facts wrong for people they like, but with a desire to denounce Zinn. Why? Some vauge desire for the vauge power they supposedly from being mainstream. Michael, your argument is a load of excrement. Getting historical facts wrong is trivial if one is writing a novel, Michael, but not when writing something that purports to be a non-fiction history book.

You want to complain about the comparisons I make of you to other sorts of people. I don't care even a smidgen about the fact that you don't like the comparisons. If you don't want to discuss them then ignore them. But stop whining about it.

"Because I raise two objections to Zinn's critics which you are unable to contradict," you say. No, Michael, you're being dishonest at this point. Your objections were easily contradicted. But the point was that the ad hominem manner of your attempts to discredit Schlesinger and the article in Dissent (for which I did provide a link, and now have again) and the fact that you started the thread by attempting to show that the MSM is somehow denying the supposed scholarly excellence of Howard Zinn, that leads to the clear conclusion that you believe pretty much any criticism of Zenn's writings would be inherently corrupt. Notably, when asked to provide an example of a criticism you would not find inherently corrupt, you say merely that you don't have any criticisms.

By the way, the bit of text you put in red was part of you attacking Schlesinger's motivation, not an admission on your part that Zinn might be wrong. You allowed that Schlesinger would think Zinn was wrong, not that you would.

Your defense of your ad hominem attacks might work if we were talking about cigarette companies paying for research into the health effects of smoking tobacco, or about the ethics of a doctor blaming vaccines for autism when he has a vaccine alternative he wants to sell. But we're not talking about anything like that, Michael. Your argument is that the criticism of Zinn is invalid not because the criticisms themselves are flawed in any way (indeed you barely even touch on them), but rather because the criticism comes from people you say are just out to trash Zinn for their own gain. And your support for that assertion is little more than your own speculative belief about their motivations. Notably, the only part of your argument to actually address what the critics actually said is your attempt to dismiss what they said as trivial, which may be, for reasons already given, the most laughable part of your defense of Zinn's work.

The answer to the question of why has Zinn's work been so roundly denounced is that it is shoddy work that is, in fact, not being shunned at all. Zinn and his work have been praised in the media as much as they have been criticized. A People's History of the United States is a best seller and it even got mentioned in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting". Not too many history books get mentioned in the movies. Hell, Matt Damon and a bunch of other Hollywood folks even made a movie, called "The People Speak", based on A People's History. BSB pointed out that Zinn's lectures were packed out. This notion that Zinn is somehow being forcibly kept away from the public by the MSM is complete nonsense.

Your objections to the criticism of Zinn amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks, and flimsy ad hominem attacks at that. That has been clearly demonstrated, despite any denials you might make to the contrary. So we're done unless you actually have something of substance to say.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's trivial to edit out the sections that are not needed.>>

That was the obvious solution, but I thought I was somehow not using what was available to simply cut and paste the selected text with a link back. 

For what I was doing (a single short section quoted out of a long post) it was easier to cut and paste as originally done, simply because the quote was short and probably would not be tracked back by anyone who had been following the debate, since it was probably quoted more or less as remembered.

The quote button + editing would be useful for the excision of several quotes from various parts of a long post, otherwise it's more trouble than it's worth.

[BT]

Highlight the quote desired . Paste into your reply. Highlight again . Press the yellow balloon. The proceed with your witty retorts.

[Amianthus]

The quote button + editing would be useful for the excision of several quotes from various parts of a long post, otherwise it's more trouble than it's worth.

And is a pain in the ass for the READERS of your post to track back the thread.

But of course, I understand that you care nothing about others, only what is convenient for you.

[Amianthus]

Highlight the quote desired . Paste into your reply. Highlight again . Press the yellow balloon. The proceed with your witty retorts.

But doing that doesn't include the link back to the post you're quoting.

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael, you are tap dancing so fast, it would be a delight to see if it were not all a cover for your really lousy argumentation.>>

Thanks, Prince, I wasn't aware that I was tap dancing at all.  And I guess lousy is in the eye of the beholder, but in that case I'd have to suggest an eye examination for you.

<<Zinn got at the very least some basic history facts wrong . . . >>

You can stop right there, Prince, neither of the two alleged errors are "basic history facts," particularly the specific means by which the U.S.A. extended its support to OBL.

<< . . . and you want to dismiss it all as trivial. >>

Yes, Prince, I do.  I want to dismiss the trivial as trivial.  Radical, huh?

<<And then you want to say all the criticism of his getting facts wrong has nothing to do with a concern for facts, as if somehow historians routinely ignore getting the facts wrong for people they like, but with a desire to denounce Zinn. >>

Well, Prince, let's just say that Zinn had some pretty basic things to say about the history of the United States and the class war in America and in that context, the contribution made by the U.S. to OBL in the Afghan-Russian War, and the role of Libya in a cafe bombing in Berlin are not exactly crucial central issues, are they?

<<Why? Some vauge desire for the vauge power they supposedly from being mainstream.>>

Yeah, that "vague desire" for a "vague power" is actually concerned with these rare, esoteric financial instruments known as paycheques and royalties and employment contracts, Prince.  I'm sure a down-to-earth guy like yourself has never heard of them.

<< Michael, your argument is a load of excrement. >>

Geeze, Prince, you're losing your touch.  Usually, you can tell me what kind of excrement.  Adult male bovine, IIRC.  You really need to hold on to your usual finely-honed precision if you are going to continue to engage in the kind of rarified intellectual discourse that I am accustomed to seeing you engaged in.  

<<Getting historical facts wrong is trivial if one is writing a novel, Michael, but not when writing something that purports to be a non-fiction history book.>>

Well, Prince, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what is trivial.  Believe it or not, historians can also commit trivial errors, yes, just like novelists, and what you and I regard as trivial are just not going to be the same.

<<You want to complain about the comparisons I make of you to other sorts of people. I don't care even a smidgen about the fact that you don't like the comparisons. If you don't want to discuss them then ignore them. But stop whining about it.>>

I wasn't whining about it, Prince, I thought it was hilarious and I took the liberty of pointing that out.  Stop whining about my pointing out the hilarious aspects of your arguments.

<<"Because I raise two objections to Zinn's critics which you are unable to contradict," you say. No, Michael, you're being dishonest at this point. Your objections were easily contradicted. >>

Geeze, Prince, I wasn't being dishonest, I guess I was just confused by your failing to contradict that which, according to you, was "easily contradicted."

<<But the point was that the ad hominem manner of your attempts to discredit Schlesinger and the article in Dissent (for which I did provide a link, and now have again) and the fact that you started the thread by attempting to show that the MSM is somehow denying the supposed scholarly excellence of Howard Zinn, that leads to the clear conclusion that you believe pretty much any criticism of Zenn's writings would be inherently corrupt.>>

You keep making the same logical mistake over and over again, Prince.  The MSM criticism of Zinn is virtually monolithic, as the article I linked to in my first post demonstrates.  The article explained the MSM antipathy to Zinn's ideas, which I reiterated and I further went on to demonstrate that for their own reasons, which are not necessarily the same as the MSM's, both Schlesinger and Dissent could be expected to be hostile to Zinn as well.   Your logical error is to assume that because I can invalidate (on the basis of bias) attacks from three different directions (I say "three" for the sake of argument, although some of them clearly overlap, for example, Schlesinger's establishment-whoring overlaps with the MSM pro-establishment slant, and the liberal Zionist POV at Dissent clearly overlaps with the ZioNazi POV of the MSM)  that therefore I will reject any criticism of Zinn from any quarter as biased and invalid.  Your logic was bullshit when I first pointed out it was bullshit, and it does not gain authority with repetition.

<<Notably, when asked to provide an example of a criticism you would not find inherently corrupt, you say merely that you don't have any criticisms.>>

Well, we're approaching the theatre of the absurd here.  You are asking me, a defender of Zinn, to find a valid criticism of him, which you, an attacker of Zinn, are apparently unable to find.  It's just a question of the rules of the game at this point - - you make your case and I'll make mine, don't ask me to make your case for you as well as mine.  I do not know of any legitimate criticism of Zinn.  I'm not an historian.  I don't KNOW of any valid criticism of the man.  I'm sorry.  Shoot me.  Sue me.  How is it a fault of mine that I'm not able to find any really valid criticism of Zinn, a man whose work I like and defend?  If I knew of valid criticisms of the man's work, why on earth would I continue to support and defend it?  And OTOH if the guy is such a lousy historian, surely to God by now you could have found valid and authoritative criticism of him coming from an unimpeachable source.

<<By the way, the bit of text you put in red was part of you attacking Schlesinger's motivation, not an admission on your part that Zinn might be wrong. You allowed that Schlesinger would think Zinn was wrong, not that you would.>>

Well for the record, I can't take a position that Zinn could never be proven wrong on a major or significant point that would impair his credibility as an historian, but I have never seen any such attack.  All attacks on him that I have seen have come from "interested parties" and there is certainly no shortage of them.

<<Your defense of your ad hominem attacks might work if we were talking about cigarette companies paying for research into the health effects of smoking tobacco, or about the ethics of a doctor blaming vaccines for autism when he has a vaccine alternative he wants to sell. But we're not talking about anything like that, Michael. Your argument is that the criticism of Zinn is invalid not because the criticisms themselves are flawed in any way (indeed you barely even touch on them), but rather because the criticism comes from people you say are just out to trash Zinn for their own gain. >>

Or the gain of the causes they support.  I have never seen a truly disinterested attack on the man.

<<And your support for that assertion is little more than your own speculative belief about their motivations. >>

I look to the source but also to the trivial and nit-picking nature of the criticism.  It's a no-brainer.

<<Notably, the only part of your argument to actually address what the critics actually said is your attempt to dismiss what they said as trivial, which may be, for reasons already given, the most laughable part of your defense of Zinn's work.>>

Well, so my reasoning is "laughable."  NBD.  You are certainly entitled to your absurd opinion.  I already stated that we will never agree on what is trivial in this instance.  You'll have to forgive me for holding to my opinion on that matter, and I don't see anything "laughable" about it.  

<<The answer to the question of why has Zinn's work been so roundly denounced is that it is shoddy work that is, in fact, not being shunned at all. Zinn and his work have been praised in the media as much as they have been criticized. A People's History of the United States is a best seller and it even got mentioned in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting". Not too many history books get mentioned in the movies. Hell, Matt Damon and a bunch of other Hollywood folks even made a movie, called "The People Speak", based on A People's History. BSB pointed out that Zinn's lectures were packed out. This notion that Zinn is somehow being forcibly kept away from the public by the MSM is complete nonsense.>>

I think I touched on this point before, which is exactly what BSB had said.  I'm not going to answer it twice.  The MSM has routinely and regularly panned Zinn and the article I linked to provides chapter and verse.

<<Your objections to the criticism of Zinn amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks, and flimsy ad hominem attacks at that. >>

Repetitive bullshit which I certainly won't respond to again.  See my earlier responses to those absurd allegations.

<<That has been clearly demonstrated, despite any denials you might make to the contrary. >>

Declare victory, hit ENTER.  Right.

<<So we're done unless you actually have something of substance to say.>>

I've said what I have to say, Prince.  If you raise anything new, I'll certainly respond.

[Michael Tee]

<<And is a pain in the ass for the READERS of your post to track back the thread.

<<But of course, I understand that you care nothing about others, only what is convenient for you>>

So far you are the only reader who complains about this pain in the ass.  But I will try to keep it in mind for you.  Maybe I just have to get used to it.

[Amianthus]

So far you are the only reader who complains about this pain in the ass.  But I will try to keep it in mind for you.  Maybe I just have to get used to it.

Well, most of the posters seem to be able to use it, at least most of the time. You and XO are the only ones who routinely shun the feature.

[Michael Tee]

As I have said, the only poster who ever complained about it is you.  Most of the others seem to have no problem skimming back through the thread to find the source.  More likely, they have a sufficient attention span to recognize the quote when they see it and know that it was in fact made as quoted.

[sirs]

Best not assume there Tee.  Ami is simply being civil and sincere in trying to help you out.  Your "technique" of quoting is very hard on the senses, but like you would ever take advice from anyone else that doesn't share your mindset, especially someone like myself

[Amianthus]

As I have said, the only poster who ever complained about it is you.

It takes an interesting mindset to turn a suggestion for a better posting style (and one that is nearly universal on Internet forums) into a "complaint".

[Michael Tee]

What I can't stand is nagging. 

I will try the posting style recommended a few more times and if I can get used to it then I'll stick with it.