/lit/ - Literature

>>15296335
Biased liberal bullshit. Its objectivity is nonexistent

>>15296355
can you expand on that

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/606046050

>>15296951
>Likewise, he has rejected US intervention in Korea, despite the fact that when we look at the split Koreas today--the North a wasteland of violence, malnutrition, and ignorance, the South a modern nation with a thriving economy--it is difficult to argue that, despite the deaths in that war, the intervention was not, overall, a positive.

Let's just act like the Korean war didn't destroy North Korea?

>>15297014
damn this J.G Keely guy seems like a big pseud arsehole

>>15296335
Political bs, it's always just propaganda

>>15296335
works on high school students

>>15296335
Everything it said about black people concerning both world wars is a bold face lie .

Zinn has a way with words where he can make the reader see something more inflammatory than what he's actually describing. Basically know the facts, but don't adopt his rhetorical style, because he's trying to shock, and that's not how one convinces anyone.

It's a bunch of triumphalist slop of dubious historical consequence thrown together at the tail-end of the Bill Ayers era of late-20th century political activism.

>>15296335

Actual blueprint/guidebook for revisionist history. Was considered a joke 20 years ago when I was in college.

>>15296355
>me no likey hear bad thing about USA, me perfect and no wrong ever

There that's the level, inconvenienced by history wrecking the narrative.

>>15296364
He can’t, he has no idea what he’s talking about.

>>15297403
who is this bitch and why does she always sound so arrogant?
go be a snob somewhere else

>>15297407
That anon hasn’t read the book and has no idea he’s a liberal

>>15297014
Both North and South Korea were destroyed in the war. One is a thriving democratic republic and the other is a starving absolute monarchy.

>>15296335
>Jewish academic solider rewrites history
>Leftists furiously masturbate to its pages
Why does everything have to be so predictable?

>>15297431
That is true, but The south didn't become a "thriving democracy" right after the war. The South got help from the USA, while the north is still in an economic war with that superpower. It isn't right to just compare these the north and south. (and North Korea lost more people in the war)

>>15296335

Worth a read, shows a different perspective (different if you've been unaware of social movements for the last few decades). It's perspective is nakedly obvious. If you want a counter point to it you can also read the three William Bennet books "America the last best hope." which paints a more endearing picture.

The books raise questions about the philosophy of history, etc. Just read them if you have time.

It's propaganda, basically the opposing counterpart to the American history volumes of that series of books called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to..." There are things in it that are true and do highlight truths overlooked in American high school history curriculum, but there are also a lot of things in it that are half-truths, distortions of the truth, or outright lies. I would recommend reading a less politically biased history book. There are plenty out there written on a whole slew of topics.

>>15296355
>Objectivity

kek

>>15296335
BS.

>>15297014
>Let's just act like the Korean war didn't destroy North Korea

Let's just act like Korean war didn't save South Korea?

>>15297598
fuck South Korea and fuck US imperialism

>>15297882
Fuck Worst Korea and every country belongs to the USA.

>>15296335
Read a lot of it for highschool and by the saints that kike lays it on thick.

>>15296335
Interesting interpretation but i cant get over the fact he completely rejects the idea that any one person can completely change the course of history. This book is evident of the shift in the historical community in focusing much more on social history rather than new interpretations of political history. Zinn is really the only notable social historian that tried to tackle a political history... but it ends up being sort of contrived.

>inb4 you just hate his politics
I agree with the majority of his politics in the book but i cant get over his dismissal of the individual's role

>>15296335
It's a single account. It has its lenses and through them some successes and some failures. No single historical text will likely tell the whole story of an event, let alone a country. At least this one tells readers about what they're in for on the tin.

>>15297492
>Got help from the USA
Not really lol.
The South was incredibly autocratic until the end of the 1980s, and Park Chung-Hee is the man who set up Korea for success by ignoring American advice and essentially setting up a state-managed economy similar to Japan's.

>>15296335
>Hating Columbus? Get that shit the fuck outta here!

>>15297882
USA is run by satan himself

>>15296335
It has a good bibliography, not the best take on everything.

>>15297431
There's a McDonalds in Hanoi today despite everything. You don't know what a unified socialist Korea would of ended up looking like. I doubt it be like the DPRK today. The Kim's only hang on because they can make their case to the Politburo. If American forces weren't a couple miles away from the border ready to invade I doubt the level of militarization could be justified. Until the politics of unification are settled the Kims are going to be around and no one in the South is serious about that, only Kim Jong-Un has a plan for peaceful unification.

>>15298305
>Not really lol.
Ya they got aid and access to international markets. It's not like North Korea could export consumer goods to the American market for dollars.
>by ignoring American advice and essentially setting up a state-managed economy similar to Japan's.
America didn't care what Park Chung-Hee did as long as he maintained relations with the West and didn't get to friendly with neutrals. It wasn't really until the Reagan administration when the US really started fucking with allies on trade relations even if they were good puppets.

Fake history. Read Settlers for the truth

readsettlers.org

>>15296335
Should be read as a counterpoint to mainstream American historiography and not for a baseline understanding.

>>15296355
>liberal
Why can't Americans tell the difference between liberals and socialists?

>>15296335
Read it myself, back when I was a leftist. I used to think it was so cool because it made me feel good about hating my country, my culture, and the people who I was related to. I was resentful and angry about the poor decisions I had made in my life up to then and really, looking back, I was basically throwing a temper-tantrum.

Basically it says that white people are bad and are responsible for every bad thing that any other group does. Non-white people are good.

>>15299384
Keep in mind that America is very young as a country, so that our "conservatives" and European "conservatives" are actually miles apart.
For a European conservatism is basically being a Monarchist to a greater or lesser degree. With Americans it means being a classical Liberal to a greater or lesser degree...

>>15299708
Neoliberalism ≠ classical liberalism

There are not many conservatives in the US that are actually classical liberals.

>>15297367
I don't care that Zinn focuses on things like the slaughter of Indians and the enslavement of black people. I care that he tries to paint those things as bad.

>>15296335
It's a book. Want to read it over the summer? Go ahead.
Don't like it? Stop reading.
Like it? Continue reading.

I remember reading this years ago when I was just starting high school. It was the first book I read and thought "Is the author jewish? Because he sounds very jewish". Hadn't even discovered 4chins yet lmao.

Bullshit
Zinn is not concerned with historical facts.
Read Gordon Wood instead

>>15300620
I too am interested in the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

OP here damn look at all the people i triggered because im a liberal. do you need me to find you a safe space?

>>15299687
I'm a little weary to trust a lot of the advice in this thread because it seems to boil down to this. I really doubt that anything is this black and white and, though i haven't read it, i fear that your comment about it summarizing all of history as "white people are bad" speaks more about your preconceptions than what is explored in the book. Unless you're going to get into the gritty details of where Zinn failed as a historian and political commentator I think you should stop embarrassing yourself.
Aside from the discussion of Korea I don't see much support here.

>>15299750
obviously my question was a little more nuanced than "is this book fun?"

>>15300620
>Zinn is not concerned with facts here are zero facts to support my claim

>>15296335
Dogshit mythology, not history. 99% of it is just the same narrative: America BAD, America BAD over and over again. Which is fine and all but it's just uninteresting and so on the nose like he's not even attempting to control his biases even slightly. If you want some actually interesting history of the U.S read some Hofstadter. I recommend Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

>>15300979
You’re not going to get any. /lit/ is i fested wit /pol/pots and you’ll get nothing useful when it comes to a book that even slightly questions their ideology, especially one that outright stands for all the opposite of it. Read it and make your own opinion. Come back and provide an analysis.

>>15300979
I'll answer you and be clear about how my ideology informs my advice, unlike the rightwing charlatans on this thread.

I'm a communist, and it's not the most communist history of the U.S. It's an accessible, detailed, and illuminating presentation of U.S. history. If you have been through the public school mill, you likely have many ideas about history that were planted by your teachers. Some of these ideas may be grounded in truth, but they are often presented in a typical, pro-america manner. This book is good at getting you to reconsider many ideas like that, and gives you the details to consider different perspectives more heavily.

I would say read it. It's babby's first non-patriotic history, and it opens the door to more focused historical study. Anyone flat out telling you to not read it and that it's full of lies or not objective etc. has an agenda in keeping you ignorant.

Remember that the people that browse this board are 99% fucking idiots who haven't read a book in the last month. Godspeed anon

>>15296335
I mean you can just look at the academic criticism of the book to see that it's largely a work of propaganda rather than objective academic history. For example https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Wineburg.pdf

>>15302340
This book is part of the modern highschool curriculum. Its as mainstream as it gets. Hating american whites is as orthodox an opinion as you can have

>>15296951
pseud confirmed

>>15296335
>history of the united states
can't be that long, why would you need a whole summer?

The quintessential history book for American's who hate America. My biggest problem with this book is not its existence but that it is too often introduced to young people, not as an alternative viewpoint, but as a "primary" guide to American history. As someone who encourages free and open debate and believes America's greatest virtue is the ability of its people to criticize its leaders and speak freely about all issues, I think it is important to have books like this, inaccurate and misguided as they may be. However, holding books like this up as texts to be taught to young students as opposed to a radical and minority viewpoint is just another indication of how disastrous our educational system has become.

>>15297014
North Korea is one of the most GOAT countries in the world. Anti-North Korean sentiment is CIA/Boomer hottakes

>>15304389
Agreed you should move there

>>15296335
historically illiterate and comically biased. severely lacking in sources and citations. perfect for leftists who just want confirm their prior beliefs

>>15296335
It’s a significant book, not only for the mindshare it holds in American culture (other anons have pointed out that it is required reading in high schools), but also as a major star in the constellation of American left-liberal-progressive works. You should at least know what it says so that you know what a major American political movement thinks, even if you’re not going to read it. Also know that it is a tendentious work.

Any historian who proceeds from a certain narrative or ideological assumption will necessarily be flawed in their methodology. One paragraph of Zinn could deal with a topic that ten or so contemporary historians have dedicated their entire careers to studying. Inevitably Zinn will subordinate the nuances of more particular study to his project of re-casting American history in this explicitly Marxist light. It can be interesting and provocative, but it should certainly not be taken as the definitive work of a specialist. There's nothing wrong with inciting a little controversy to jar people into reconsidering their preconceived notions, but that should not be the only, let alone chief, objective of historic study. Some other anon mentioned his bibliography- use it as a gateway to find other more focused and nuanced studies to augment your own understanding and worldview.

>>15299384
Because, immediately after circumcision, they are dropped on their heads. Sad but true.

>>15299687
>Basically it says that white people are bad and are responsible for every bad thing that any other group does.
No, you're thinking of Ted Kaczynski.

>>15304381
>The quintessential history book for American's who hate America.
That's good. Everyone should hate America, even Americans. America is awful. It was fashionable to hate america in the 70s-80s, but now it should be the default position for anyone that is sane.

>>15304381
>The quintessential history book for American's who hate America.
Quintessential soulless Angloid bugman detected.

>>15296335
The only people that hate it are liberal globalists.

>>15304486
>Everyone should hate America, even Americans. America is awful.
Why? As long as you don't live in one of the cites it's pretty comfy here.

>>15299158
>Ya they got aid
Under Yi Synghman, and that was entirely devoted to keeping the government solvent.
>and access to international markets
The only market that mattered was the Japanese one, and that was not opened until the normalization of relations in 1965.
Again, South Korea's success has nothing to do with the United States.

>>15302340
wonderful thank you. would you recommend any other history texts? trying to educate myself on what i am severely lacking an adequate understanding in

>>15302441
why do all of the critics in this thread sound like literal children

>>15296335
if you do read this garbage, please also read mary grabar's "Debunking Howard Zinn".

& report back to us!

>>15304520
literally the opposite is true.

globalists happily sow racial animus, as it allows them to exploit mobile labour (brown servant underclass), and anyone who bats an eyelid is called a white supremacist

>>15305443
disingenuous as fuck and told through the lens of modern partisan politics

>>15305455
>globalists happily sow racial animus
Yes, it's called capitalism.

>>15305443
Ad hominem the book against Zinn

read A Patriot's History instead.

fuck that liberal book in the OP.

>>15305482
>everything driving that which I don't like is ideology

Self-reflect, it will help you

>>15306147
I can already tell from the title that it is awful and will sugar coat atrocities.

>>15306172
as opposed to overstating atrocities?

>>15306183
>overstating atrocities
are you listening to yourself? lol

>>15306202
how so?

you think an "atrocity" can't be overstated?

>>15306147
>>15306172
>>15306202
>A book's ideological bent is obvious, because of ideological words used in the title
God you people are the worst.

>>15296355
>>15297070
>>15297072
>>15297148
>>15297213
>>15297228
>>15297340
>>15297442
>>15297530
>>15297589
>>15299163
>>15299687
>>15300620
>>15301956
>>15304421
I haven't read the book and I don't really give a fuck about politics but I knew immediately that these would be the comments and I'm convinced that it's purely political. It's not a coincidence that it's nonliberals specifically that dislike the book, and spout claims about how much it gets wrong without really naming any of what that consists in. If it were just bad history then the criticisms wouldn't be politically charged. All this shit talk aimed at him being a liberal/Jew/whathaveyou only serves to show your hand. You dislike it because it's critical of conservatives and rewarding to liberals, I don't think it's much to do with care for the truth.

>>15306320
>If it were just bad history then the criticisms wouldn't be politically charged.
You're being ridiculous. Obviously, when someone writes bad history in order to insert their ideology, the people complaining are going to be

1) Opponents of that ideology and
2) Historians

>You dislike it because it's critical of conservatives and rewarding to liberals
Jesus. Even you don't get it.

"People's ______" is not a phrase used by liberals. Regardless of whether we're talking about American liberals or European liberals. It's a word used by Socialists/Communists, or maybe some populist-type groups that are affiliated with one of them.

>I don't think it's much to do with care for the truth.
Then read an actual history textbook, rather one that has an obvious ideological bent. You might as well read something written by somebody on FOX news. Technically, some of them are history books, too.

If your preferred history book comes with an clear and obvious ideological bent, you're not interested in "the truth". You're interested in ideology.

>>15299233
This. There's no reason for all this liberal this socialist that, I meant as a counter perspective. Both evils and goods can happen in one action. Also everyone in here can suck a cock I miss old 4chan

>>15306388
Set the "bad history" assumption aside for a moment. Absent a conclusion on that matter, what we have is a history book that seems to be critical of the behavior of American government, which by itself is bound to be inciteful to conservatives even if the book didn't have a slant. I won't doubt that it does, I'm only saying that if it could be a much better book than it's being portrayed as here and the response would be the same. That is my point. Also note the other part of my comment - these people aren't saying what it is that the book is getting wrong. When I'm in positions like that, I explain the issue and what my position is based in, because that makes more sense to me. Surely you can acknowledge that the responses to OP are unacceptable regardless of your stance on the matter. We have no way of distinguishing who among them are objective people who have read the book and who are just triggered conservatives who are pretending to have be informed.

>"People's" means socialism
I can't take that seriously.

>>15306527
>what we have is a history book that seems to be critical of the behavior of American government, which by itself is bound to be inciteful to conservatives even if the book didn't have a slant.
Firstly, most books are "critical of the behavior of American government". Do you think you can find a positive description of the trail of tears in any mainstream textbook?

Hell, most "Conservatives" are highly critical of the American government. In their belief system, the government is over-taxing and over-regulating us, and we need to be liberated from government restrictions.

Secondly, the "People's history" is primarily critical of mainstream history because it supposedly ignores the history of marginalized economic/racial/social groups. Often, this includes a pro-American-government bias. E.g. during the civil war, when the Union bulldozed the American South in the name of industrialization and abolition. Or during the Mormon war, when the Union bulldozed the LDS in the name of proto-feminism and monogamy.

>>"People's" means socialism
>I can't take that seriously.
It doesn't "mean" socialism. It's a standard word used by Communists/Socialists to represent certain ideological conclusions. Zinn would probably agree with me.

Same way that "_______ is on the Road to Damascus" might potentially mean several different things. But in a religious context, it has only one clear meaning.

>Also note the other part of my comment - these people aren't saying what it is that the book is getting wrong
The book openly ignores accuracy. It's giving a "people's history", rather than studying "history".

Do you know how Communists used the phrase "people's _____"? It's an ideological term, and lacks any potential neutrality. Ideological opponents of the USSR were designated as an "enemy of the people". Organizations were designated as the "People's ____" (e.g. the "People's Liberation Army").

A similar parallel is how in certain Monarchies, everything is "HRM", meaning "His/Her Royal Majesty's _________".

Imagine someone posted pic related, and then asked for "genuine critiques about it's accuracy". The book is openly such a load of ideologically-driven bullshit, that it doesn't deserve a critique. Same with the "people's history of the united states".

>>15297367
Why did you imply he is engaging in the polemic opposite?

>>15306622
Nice reply. Thanks for teaching a polemicist.

>>15306622
>Firstly, most books are "critical of the behavior of American government". Do you think you can find a positive description of the trail of tears in any mainstream textbook?
>Hell, most "Conservatives" are highly critical of the American government. In their belief system, the government is over-taxing and over-regulating us, and we need to be liberated from government restrictions
Sure, I worded that very lazily and I suppose this is the consequence I deserve.
I meant that a history book that casts the general behavior of the American government across American history in a negative light is naturally inciteful to conservatives. Generally speaking, and according to some theorists by definition, conservatives are characteristically inclined to identify positively with their country and its history.
Indeed most books are critical of the American government, which is an extension of the fact that most books concerned remotely with politics are “critical”.

>Hell, most "Conservatives" are highly critical of the American government. In their belief system, the government is over-taxing and over-regulating us, and we need to be liberated from government restrictions.
Yes, this is the nature of partisanship and of course that's not what I'm contesting. You can spare me the description of what conservatives are.

>Secondly, the "People's history" is primarily critical of mainstream history because it supposedly ignores the history of marginalized economic/racial/social groups.
The "supposedly" is interesting to me here - is that something you consider to be false? I would've thought that is a rather safe claim to make, and that the problem is more with the preachiness that's associated with it.
Now I find your argument a little unclear.
Are you saying the People's History has a pro American government bias, on account of something about the way it handled the examples you mention?
[cont…]

>>15306878 [cont]
>>15306622
>It doesn't "mean" socialism.
Pedantry
>It's a standard word used by Communists/Socialists to represent certain ideological conclusions.
>Do you know how Communists used the phrase "people's _____"? It's an ideological term, and lacks any potential neutrality
I’m aware, but you’re not making your argument very thoroughly or clearly. If you’re arguing that this book is socialist in character, then that is interesting to me. I’m sure you can make some case for that too. But don’t base it in the presence of the word “People”. Your evidence -
>Ideological opponents of the USSR were designated as an "enemy of the people". Organizations were designated as the "People's ____" (e.g. the "People's Liberation Army").
- is not compelling. This idea that the word “People” is a red flag of socialism, communism, or populism is absurd to me. Moreover, you introduced this point to contest my characterization of the book as “liberal”. You’re disagreeing with pretty much the entire thread on that point, and you’ve not attempted much of a case for it, nor have you stated anything directly. You’re working through insinuations.

>The book openly ignores accuracy. It's giving a "people's history", rather than studying "history".
? Elaborate. Otherwise you’re just doing the same thing I criticized initially - throwing out claims about the book being wrong while making no motions to back it up.

>Imagine someone posted pic related, and then asked for "genuine critiques about it's accuracy". The book is openly such a load of ideologically-driven bullshit, that it doesn't deserve a critique. Same with the "people's history of the united states".
Again, you telling me this book is “ideologically-driven bullshit” means nothing to me. And again-again, one of the first things I said was if the book wasn’t flawed in the ways here described, I would expect the same reaction. The only thing that could differentiate this reaction as I’m interpreting it from something more legitimate would be actual critique, or some backing-up.
So from my perspective, the criticism of the book is a bunch of ideologically driven bullshit. I’m intrigued by the fact that no one seems able to back up that claim, you’re here saying it “doesn’t even deserve a critique”, which with all due respects reeks of bullshit to me, if not as a conventional cover-up for having nothing to say, then as a disservice to the OP, who was only curious about the book, and they’ve been given a response that is impossible to differentiate from ideologically driven bullshit.

>>15306878
Aren’t you tackling this from an angel assuming polemicist. Not saying it’s not their, but to do this is to innately bring in the danger of strawmanning. >“Conservatives are inately...
This starts a precedent to do the opposite. This mind frame is conspiratorial and may lead to correct assessments contextually, but be woefully inadequate when brought into a wider scope.

>>15307014
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you wrote

>people's
It's shit. Don't waste your time.

This thread sucks, too many /pol/ faggot boomers whining about how their highschool history class instilled patriotism and this book hurts their feefees. Fucking snowflake /pol/fags up in here. Little bootlicking history LARPers. Funny stuff. Y’all should deus volt back over to /his/, this is a board about literature, not wooden doors sweety.

>>15306878
>>"People's history" is primarily critical of mainstream history because it supposedly ignores the history of marginalized economic/racial/social groups.
>The "supposedly" is interesting to me here - is that something you consider to be false? I would've thought that is a rather safe claim to make
Generalizations are always false.

If you want an actual answer, I'd imagine mainstream history is full of various biases. And generally, it's common for mainstream history to over-represent social/racial groups that are venerated in today's moral zeitgeist. E.g. a lot of historians (or quasi-historians) will claim Abe Lincoln was gay, because gay people are popular in 2020. I imagine if Catholicism was popular in modern academia, they'd speculate that he was a secret Catholic.

>>15306886
>you’re not making your argument very thoroughly or clearly.
It's not an "argument" or debate. I'm describing reality as I perceive it, and you can either explain how your view conflicts with mine, or you can dismiss it. I'm not really interested in rigorously proving my beliefs. This is /lit/, not /his/.

>This idea that the word “People” is a red flag of socialism, communism, or populism is absurd to me
It's not the word "people". It's the use of the phrase "People's _____" in an antagonistic way toward opposing groups. Context, man. Context.

>Moreover, you introduced this point to contest my characterization of the book as “liberal”.
I bet Zinn would not call himself a liberal. I'll look:

From Wikipedia
>Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist."

Well, kinda. Given the "maybe", what would a "non-democratic socialist" be?

>You’re disagreeing with pretty much the entire thread on that point
Yeah. But this thread is basically a shitshow. I'm 100% comfortable being alone.

>you’re just doing the same thing I criticized initially - throwing out claims about the book being wrong while making no motions to back it up.
Oh, I'm definitely doing what you were criticizing. I'm just explaining why I feel justified in doing it. (The full answer is that I read a portion of the book, and it misrepresented some specific stuff I knew about the period following the American revolution. So I chucked it.)

>you’re here saying it “doesn’t even deserve a critique”, which with all due respects reeks of bullshit to me
That doesn't sound like an unreasonable assessment.

Although I'm also not a historian, nor are most of the people on /lit/, so my/our historical critique would be kinda amateurish. You'd certainly be better off finding a historical critique from someone who is actually an expert in American history. (And those critiques definitely exist) You won't find that critique in posts on /lit/.

And an actual question: How ideologically slanted does something need to be, before you can dismiss it? Would you dismiss Savages book >>15306622 at the title?

It’s kinda interesting how people have such strong opinions on history, as if fact isn’t real and the series of events of the past are simply the opinions of people. They don’t have to make anything themselves, but it gives them the feeling of uniqueness all their own, for because I read another book that aligns with my internal values I can write off this other book that goes against my internal values even if they presuppose “fact” I refuse to acknowledge.

>>15307195
>>15307215
Here's a review by a professor of education and history at Stanford.
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Wineburg.pdf

>>15307254
Lmao it’s only 8 pages long and like 5 of them are giant pictures of books with question marks.

>>15307264
Book reviews are generally not very long. Four pages is standard.

>>15307267
I mean ... it's not really just a "book". It's almost a textbook, and as such, probably justifies more.

>>15307264
The amusing stylistic choices aside, the only "giant" picture is the first one.

>>15307203
>Generalizations are always false.
That's a cop out, and not true. You're thinking of absolutes. Generalizations could be statements of a general (read: majority) case.
Regardless, that does nothing for the description and it's sheer sophistry to retreat to such an argument.

>If you want an actual answer, I'd imagine mainstream history is full of various biases. And generally, it's common for mainstream history to over-represent social/racial groups that are venerated in today's moral zeitgeist. E.g. a lot of historians (or quasi-historians) will claim Abe Lincoln was gay, because gay people are popular in 2020. I imagine if Catholicism was popular in modern academia, they'd speculate that he was a secret Catholic.
I really don't want to hear about the 2020 zeitgeist, I'm asking you what it is you were trying to insinuate about Howard Zinn's book.
You said it is primarily critical of mainstream history because it ignores the history of marginalized groups. I think that's a rather agreeable and obvious statement. You said "supposedly". Did you seriously mean nothing by that except that you take issue with generalizations, and if so, why refuse to say so to begin with?
If you meant that there's something questionable about the assertion, which I hoped was the case as it makes much more sense as an argument, then I'd like to hear your basis for that. Talking about modern occasions where people speculate on Lincoln being gay does not suffice, and that's hardly "mainstream history".

>I'm describing reality as I perceive it, and you can either explain how your view conflicts with mine, or you can dismiss it. I'm not really interested in rigorously proving my beliefs.
Bullshit. You came in arguing, and I'm hardly asking for rigor. Most of what you're saying is empty and if you don't have any point or case to make I'm confused as to why you're here.

>Context, man. Context.
Still not buying it.

>I bet Zinn would not call himself a liberal. I'll look:
>From Wikipedia
>>Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist."
Excellent! This is providing something to discussion. The question remains whether the book's title was intended to be evocative of socialism. I think that would have been needlessly damaging to its marketability. It makes it appealing to less people, to no real advantage except maybe to carry out some sort of elaborate psyop.

>The full answer is that I read a portion of the book, and it misrepresented some specific stuff I knew
And you don't remember anything about what it was? The fact that I can't - won't - take things on your vague word about it means there is no reason to bring it up. You don't need to be a historian to back up your shit, that is anyone's obligation. If it's not a person in /lit/'s place to worry about being credible in the topic of history then they shouldn't be talking empty shit on history books!
I still think it's just conservatives

>>15307295
>I mean ... it's not really just a "book". It's almost a textbook, and as such, probably justifies more.
Longer book reviews exist, but they're generally polemic pieces that forward a separate line of interpretation developed by the author.

>>15307301
You should really read the review posted >>15307254. You're completely wrong about this issue.

>>15296335
>jewish socialist thinker's account of US history endorsed by the media
Yeah nah.

>>15307254
For those wondering, this review just concludes that it's too assertive, and for targeting a layman audience stands to sway people to conclusions on matters that are uncertain, which is meant mainly as a general issue in the study of history where complexity and debate are of great importance. Zinn's is one viewpoint, where many are needed to adequately understand history.
That, and it leans too much on secondary sources.

So I think >>15307195 stands. Whatever the problems with Zinn's book may be, /pol/tards really don't know the difference.

>>15307312
UNCANNY
I was just reading it (knowing that no one else was), and responded! >>15307360

>>15307203
>Generalizations are always false.
First sentence of post is self-refuting ---> into the trash.

>>15307312
You should really read the review posted >>15307254 you clearly haven't

>>15307360
>this review just concludes that it's too assertive
That's not what it concludes.
>That, and it leans too much on secondary sources.
That's not what it says.
Here are some revealing quotes.


On Zinn's failed attempt to portray African-American soldiers who fought in WWII as discontented: "In fact, the black press wrote about the 'Double V' - victory over fascism in Europe, victory over racism at home.
"But Zinn argues something else. He asserts that black Americans restricted their support to a single V: the victory over racism. As for the second V, victory on the battlefields of Europe and Asia, Zinn claims that an attitude of 'widespread indifference, even hostility,' typified African Americans' stance towards the war."

On Zinn's narrative of the Second World War, a narrative he chooses to begin in 1940, and not in 1941 and in which he attempts to portray the Allies and the Nazis as moral equals: "Zinn is silent about Poland. Instead, he approvingly cites Simone Weil, the French philosopher and social activist. At a time when the Einsatzgruppen were herding Polish Jews into the forest and mowing them down before open pits, Weil compared the difference between Nazi fascism and the democratic principles of England and the United States to a mask hiding the true character of both. Once we see through this mask, Weil argued, we will understand that the enemy is not 'the one facing us across the frontier or the battlelines, which is not so much our enemy as our brother's enemy,' but the 'Apparatus,' the one 'that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves.' Zinn adds that the real struggle of World War II was not between nations, but rather that the 'real war was inside each nation.' Given his stance, it's no wonder that Zinn chooses to begin the war not in 1939, but a full year later."

On Zinn's reaction to learning that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were actually Soviet spies: ""To me it didn't matter whether they were guilty or not. The most important thing was they did not get a fair trial in the atmosphere of cold war hysteria."

"Howard Zinn lived an admirable life, never veering from the things he believed in. But the man himself is not the issue when a teacher conducts a lesson on the atomic bomb using an account based on two secondary works written more than 40 years ago; or conflates the Nazi bombing campaign with the Allies, ignoring Hitler's assault on Poland; or places Jim Crow and the Holocaust on the same footing, without explaining that as color barriers were being dismantled in the United States, the bricks were being laid for the crematoria at Auschwitz."

The author is kind to Zinn, but in the review he essentially outs him as an ideologically motivated fraud. His work is shoddy and dishonest and his arguments are clearly intended to deceive the reader into believing that our government has always been sinful and has always been against the "victims" of American history.

>>15307301
>>Generalizations are always false.
>That's a cop out, and not true
That's the joke.

(The statement is itself a generalization ...)

>I really don't want to hear about the 2020 zeitgeist, I'm asking you what it is you were trying to insinuate about Howard Zinn's book.
>You said it is primarily critical of mainstream history because it ignores the history of marginalized groups. I think that's a rather agreeable and obvious statement. You said "supposedly". Did you seriously mean nothing by that except that you take issue with generalizations, and if so, why refuse to say so to begin with?
Well, you asked about whether mainstream historians under-represent marginalized economic/racial/social groups. I implied that they probably over-represent certain groups that are popular today, but were historically marginalized (e.g. gays). And they probably under-represent certain groups that were marginalized then, and are still marginalized today (e.g. isolated maroon communities and their modern rural equivalents).

Stuff like African-American history is a bit more mixed, because they're

>Bullshit. You came in arguing
I did not. If I did, those were some shitty arguments. Maybe I came in a somewhat antagonistic manner, but that's just because it's 4chan.

>Still not buying it.
And that's fine. Nobody said you have to agree with me.

>>Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist."
>Excellent! This is providing something to discussion.
I just quoted Wikipedia.

I didn't contribute shit.

>The question remains whether the book's title was intended to be evocative of socialism.
I'm not sure "evocative" is the right word, but you're definitely close.

>I think that would have been needlessly damaging to its marketability.
Interesting thought. Firstly, I'm not sure Zinn was necessarily focused on marketing. Secondly, I don't agree that associating with socialism would damage it's marketability. Books (and most media) tend to exaggerate and sensationalize, in order to attract attention. Boring stuff doesn't get attention. Imagine savages book >>15306622 being titled "Liberalism is wrong about important issues". Would it sell more copies, or less? Even if you aren't primarily marketing to socialists, exaggeration tends to help sales.

(1/2)

>>15307301
(2/3)

Secondly, I think "People's ______" is one of those words that is often only fully understood by people who believe the ideology. A little like a code.

1) American conservatives can tell they're using Liberal/Socialist code words, and have noticed how the book is popular with certain Liberals/Socialists, but don't necessarily understand it fully, so they get angry.
2) (American) liberals hear "The Gay/Black/Female History of the United States".
3) Socialists hear the (American) liberal stuff, plus more stuff about Unions and Poverty (economic stuff that American Liberals often leave out of their ideology)
4) Communists hear "Comrade, this is the Party's History of the United States".

>And you don't remember anything about what it was?
Only vaguely. The whiskey rebellion was the most specific thing I remember. I'll look it up.

From
https://mvlindsey.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/peoples-history-zinn-1980.pdf
Which is a copy of the book.
>One of these tax laws was the Whiskey 'lax, which especially hurt small fanners who raised
grain that they converted into whiskey and then sold. In 1794 the fanners of western
Pennsylvania took up arms and rebelled against the collection of this tax. Secretary of the
Treasury Hamilton led the troops to put them down. We see then, in the first years of the
Constitution, that some of its provisions-even those paraded most flamboyantly (like the
First Amendment)-might be treated lightly. Others (like the power to tax) would be
powerfully enforced.

Alright, so some stuff is wrong. Some important stuff is left out. And some doesn't make much sense.

1) Washington lead the army, not Hamilton.
2) In fact, Hamilton couldn't have led the army - POTUS is the commander in chief, but Secretary of the Treasury has no role in the military hierarchy.
3) On the other hand, Hamilton was the architect of the Whiskey tax, and advised Washington to forcibly suppress the rebellion.
4) It's unclear to me why Zinn would consider suppression of open, violent, rebellion to be a "first amendment" issue.
5) The law didn't primarily hurt "small farmers". It hurt non-landowers. (That is, laborers, who were often paid in Whisky) Whisky was widely used as an informal currency, because Gold was largely unavailable in the colonies, and Scrip was not widely trusted, and often not issued by the government.
6) There is a reason it hurt non-landowners - they couldn't vote, and so elected representatives didn't care about them.
7) This was a tax-protest, that had many, many parallels to the tax-protests in the US revolution (e.g. the Boston Tea Party, and similar). Washington's reversal demonstrates the federal government quashing many American revolutionary behaviors.

5 & 6 are the most bizarre points. Isn't this supposed to be a "People's history"?

>>15307301
(3/3)
>If it's not a person in /lit/'s place to worry about being credible in the topic of history then they shouldn't be talking empty shit on history books!
I mean, I can tell if food taste bad, even if I have no idea how to cook it, or what exactly went wrong in the cooking process.

>I still think it's just conservatives
I haven't read the article in this post, but >>15307254 is a Professor at Stanford, and there aren't terribly many conservatives in Ivy League universities. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see see some centrists/Liberals hating on the book for ideological reasons.

>>15307421
That's the joke, dipshit.

can someone tell me the difference between neoliberal and classical liberal?

it seems that neoliberal is used as an insult from the left to describe any ideology that isn't socialism, whereas classical liberalism is essentially the same but has positive connotations.

>>15307492
Neoliberalism refers to a set of economic proposals.
Classical liberalism refers to a set of political and social proposals. One can be a classical liberal and despise neoliberals.

>>15307474
>>15307301
I forgot to finish the though about African-American history. They were marginalized in American society until about 1960. Today, they're marginalized in some ways, and promoted in others. E.g. "black history month" is promoted by a lot of people in academia, but it's hard to find a building named after a rich black person that donated a lot of money to the school.

(And if they don't get their name on buildings, I suspect they can't encourage the school to study certain subjects. Since you missed the earlier implications, I'm implying that rich white people get to pick the subjects that researchers and students focus on. Not rich black people.)

>>15307437
>begin in 1940, and not in 1941
and not in 1939*

>>15307503
>>15307492
Classical liberalism was originally developed in conflict with traditional governments. E.g. Monarchies, Aristocracies, Theocracies. They generally advocated secular government, free market economies, and powerful centralized states. As opposed to the previous system of religious authorities, guilds, mercantilism, and governments largely controlled by local aristocrats.

As Monarchies and State churches declined, Classical liberals basically conquered the world. In World War II, there were two new major challenges that potentially could have defeated the liberal consensus. The Fascists/Nazis were defeated in World War II, so their challenge was gone. Then the Socialists/Communists eventually collapsed, but still have many supporters across the world.

In the 1960s and 1970s, There was a gradual development of liberal economic theory, and Socialists (or other anti-market types) got pissed that the liberal economists weren't supporting all their anti-free-market ideas. So they started calling them "neoliberals". (Which wasn't entirely unreasonable - they certainly weren't identical to old classical liberal economics)

If you are wondering about the development of liberal economics in the 1960s and 1970s, look up stuff like "monetarism", "price controls", and the history of labor laws.

>>15307505
*thought

Fucking liar
>That's not what it says.
Fucking LIAR

You're brazenly attempting to manipulate the perceptions of people who aren't going to read the article for themselves and aren't going to scrutinize your "revealing quotes". Let's examine what those come down to:

>On Zinn's failed attempt to portray African-American soldiers who fought in WWII as discontented:
LIAR
"But just as we can find instances that embody resentment, so too can we find expressions of African American patriotism and support for the war."
The article says that there are varied perspectives - there are records of discontent, and records of patriotism. What the fuck is this language of "failed attempt to portray"? He obviously succeeded at the portrayal, the argument is whether it's correct, and again, this article means to argue that the matter is UNCERTAIN.

>in which he attempts to portray the Allies and the Nazis as moral equals
No, that is not what the article says, and it's not even remotely evidenced in your selected passage. The parallel between Nazi fascism and the inner character of other countries isn't even a novel point, in fact it's a common one. Regardless, it's Simone Weil's point, not Zinn's, and characterizing Zinn by what someone he "approvingly cites" says at some point is obviously sloppy. Charitably speaking, I don't think that's what the article is doing(because that would be stupid), rather, it's criticizing his resources and affiliations. Which is fair, just not damning.

>On Zinn's reaction to learning that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were actually Soviet spies: ""To me it didn't matter whether they were guilty or not. The most important thing was they did not get a fair trial in the atmosphere of cold war hysteria."
He underreacted!

>The author is kind to Zinn, but in the review he essentially outs him as an ideologically motivated fraud. His work is shoddy and dishonest and his arguments are clearly intended to deceive the reader into believing that our government has always been sinful and has always been against the "victims" of American history
Bold faced sophistic bullshit, fuck you

>>15307437
>That's not what it concludes.
Fucking liar
>That's not what it says.
Fucking LIAR

You're brazenly attempting to manipulate the perceptions of people who aren't going to read the article for themselves and aren't going to scrutinize your "revealing quotes". Let's examine what those come down to:

>On Zinn's failed attempt to portray African-American soldiers who fought in WWII as discontented:
LIAR
"But just as we can find instances that embody resentment, so too can we find expressions of African American patriotism and support for the war."
The article says that there are varied perspectives - there are records of discontent, and records of patriotism. What the fuck is this language of "failed attempt to portray"? He obviously succeeded at the portrayal, the argument is whether it's correct, and again, this article means to argue that the matter is UNCERTAIN.

>in which he attempts to portray the Allies and the Nazis as moral equals
No, that is not what the article says, and it's not even remotely evidenced in your selected passage. The parallel between Nazi fascism and the inner character of other countries isn't even a novel point, in fact it's a common one. Regardless, it's Simone Weil's point, not Zinn's, and characterizing Zinn by what someone he "approvingly cites" says at some point is obviously sloppy. Charitably speaking, I don't think that's what the article is doing(because that would be stupid), rather, it's criticizing his resources and affiliations. Which is fair, just not damning.

>On Zinn's reaction to learning that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were actually Soviet spies: ""To me it didn't matter whether they were guilty or not. The most important thing was they did not get a fair trial in the atmosphere of cold war hysteria."
He underreacted!

>The author is kind to Zinn, but in the review he essentially outs him as an ideologically motivated fraud. His work is shoddy and dishonest and his arguments are clearly intended to deceive the reader into believing that our government has always been sinful and has always been against the "victims" of American history
Bold faced sophistic bullshit, fuck you

>>15307537
thanks for the historical background
>Socialists (or other anti-market types) got pissed that the liberal economists weren't supporting all their anti-free-market ideas
why would socialists expect liberal economists to support anti-free market ideas, when that's a key feature of classical liberalism?

>>15307503
right but focusing on the economic side, there seems to be a lot of overlap

>>15307578
I refuse to continue this discussion with you, because you're committed to telling lies and pretending that the article supports your point of view. It does not. I hope you one day learn the meaning of honesty and humility.

>>15307590
Psychotic

>>15307590
Running away from accountability with your nose up in the air is still running away from accountability

>>15307584
People are always pissed that their political and ideological opponents aren't spontaneously agreeing with them.

Also, a lot of Socialists expected liberalism to gradually evolve into Socialism. Which wasn't an unreasonable thought. From about 1880 to about 1960, liberal governments shifted away from market economies, and toward various socialist/big-government programs. Stuff like work programs, unemployment benefits, old-age benefits, socialized health care, protectionism, unions in political power, labor laws, et cetera, all got implemented. After 1960, Socialists stopped making gradual gains, and in some cases (e.g. protectionism, unions in political power) most Western governments actually shifted toward liberal economics.

We still have most of the stuff that got introduced in 1880-1960, but not much new stuff.

>>15307619
the economist magazine often mentions in articles that things like welfare and work programs were invented by classical liberals (and conservatives, in the uk) as a way to make capitalism function better, by giving people a safety net which would prevent collapse of the free market. it's weird that socialists viewed this as evolution towards socialism... but based on what you've said and a few other things like this that i've read, it seems that neoliberalism was intended to be a return to an earlier, more laissez faire classical liberalism, like paleolibertarianism, or simply right-libertarianism.

i don't wanna get hung up on labels but why is it that neoliberalism is used in a disparaging way, when libertarianism is a completely acceptable for most people?

never read it but let me guess.

It made great man theory babys butthurt.

Am i right in my assessement??

That book'll knock you on your ass!

Fuck Matt Damon, what a gay retard.

>>15307757
>the economist magazine often mentions in articles that things like welfare and work programs were invented by classical liberals (and conservatives, in the uk) as a way to make capitalism function better
Mealy-mouthing bullshit. They were originally socialist programs, and only advocated by socialists.

The industrial revolution shifted the population from rural areas to industrialized urban areas. It also increased wealth inequality. Democratic reforms also gave poor workers a lot of voting power. And because there were a lot more poor workers than rich capitalists, some socialists got elected.

After socialists started gaining electoral power, liberals thought it was prudent to accept some small programs that would
stabilize society and keep the poor from demanding radical reforms. Gradually, classical liberals kept accepting more and more concessions, in order to keep the radicals out of power. By 1960, significant portions of the original Socialist vision were actually implemented. But most of their vision hadn't happened yet. E.g. factories and land were largely still privately owned.

>it seems that neoliberalism was intended to be a return to an earlier, more laissez faire classical liberalism, like paleolibertarianism, or simply right-libertarianism
That's probably true on certain issues, but untrue on others. Neoliberals aren't trying to abolish the Welfare state, or most of the gradual concessions that liberals made to Socialists in the 1880-1960 period. You don't find many Neoliberals trying to abolish old-age benefits or unemployment benefits.

The areas that they're potentially pushing back to the 1880s are stuff like trade/protectionism, monetary policy, price controls, and certain areas of labor laws.

Also, I wouldn't mix the word "libertarian" with that. The American word "libertarian" has a completely different meaning that the historical and European meaning of the word.