France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism

[Dragon]

He flat-out tells you he's distorting history to serve his agenda.

No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his People's History of the United States, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.

 

[regent]

So assuming that historians are more of a liberal bent than the population in general, a question: Do liberals gravitate to history or does history convert people to liberalism? Which comes first?
And what of the other university acadamia, do they tend to be libeals or become liberal after their education. Is it education that creates liberalism? If that were true would not conservatives be doing all in their power to destroy education?

I don't accept your premise. Among academics in general, and among historians, can be found people of all different political persuasions, from far-left to far-right and everything in between.

Good, I don't accept your evidence that they have not changed. The question, does the academic study of history change a budding historian's attitudes or just reinforce his attitudes. If it does neither, it's a pretty sad discipline. Limbaugh spends his mornings trying to change or reinforce America's political and social attutudes; can seven years of history not change or reinforce?
History is often used in the lower grades to instill an attutude of patriotism or morality. In high school it's use and application might be more questionable. But if if a person spends seven or eight years as a history major should it not have some kind of impact, does the individual leave the university with his previous attitude and perspective toward historical events unchanged? That would be a sheer waste.
Historians are often been charged with being liberal, is that true? What evidence is there to support that premise? If true, has the study of history created the liberalism or just reinforced the ideology?

 

[koshergrl]

"Arguably exaggeration"? No, it's unquestionably bullshit. You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.

Your irrational hatred of Christians makes you say stupid shit.

Actually you just need to go to Uganda or Nigeria to see that... anno 2012.

Are you talking about the Lord's Resistance Army?

The LRA's ideology is disputed amongst academics.[40][56] Although the LRA has been regarded primarily as a Christian militia,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] the LRA reportedly evokes Acholi nationalism on occasion,[57] but many observers doubt the sincerity of this behaviour and the loyalty of Kony to either ideology.[58][59][60][61][62]
​

Not really a Christian organization, and certainly not Christian in their actions.

Although you failed, at least you tried.

Ignorant anti-Christian pukes like to point to the presence of Christian missionaries in the worst shitholes in the world as evidence that Christians support oppression, tyranny, murder, etc.

In reality, Christians are there because they travel to places where people are oppressed, to serve the people who are being oppressed. And they frequently get killed for their efforts.

 

[daveman]

No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his People's History of the United States, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.

All that means is you share his delusions.

 

[Dragon]

No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his People's History of the United States, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.

All that means is you share his delusions.

No, the fact that I approve of what he did means I share his -- whatever you want to call them.

It remains true that he distorted no facts. That's nobody's delusion.

 

[daveman]

No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his People's History of the United States, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.

All that means is you share his delusions.

No, the fact that I approve of what he did means I share his -- whatever you want to call them.

It remains true that he distorted no facts. That's nobody's delusion.

Riiiiight.

http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton’s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this “violent crime continues to increase.” It doesn’t. Like much of Zinn’s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

According to Zinn, it was Mumia Abu-Jamal’s “race and radicalism,” as well as his “persistent criticism of the Philadelphia police” that landed him on death row in the early 1980s. Nothing about Abu-Jamal’s gun being found at the scene; nothing about the testimony of numerous witnesses pointing to him as the triggerman; nothing about additional witnesses reporting a confession by Abu-Jamal—it was Abu-Jamal’s dissenting voice that caused a jury of twelve to unanimously sentence him to death.

--

Zinn claims that “George Washington was the richest man in America.” He wasn’t, but it makes for a good Marxist tale.

--

“Unemployment grew in the Reagan years,” Zinn claims. Statistics show otherwise. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in his first month in office. By January of 1989, the rate had declined to 5.4 percent.​

And the reviewer hits upon why you like Zinn:

Here we come to the real secret of the commercial success of A People’s History. It is a case of simple ideas for simple minds – a broken record for the tone deaf.​

Read the entire article. If you're at all honest, you'll have to admit Zinn is a liar.

 

[regent]

To evaluate Zinn or any other historian can be done best by reading what other historians say about the historian's history.

 

[Dragon]

Getting something in current events wrong is different from distorting the facts of history.

 

[DCJ]

All that means is you share his delusions.

No, the fact that I approve of what he did means I share his -- whatever you want to call them.

It remains true that he distorted no facts. That's nobody's delusion.

Riiiiight.

History News Network

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton’s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this “violent crime continues to increase.” It doesn’t. Like much of Zinn’s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

.​

Where exactly is Zinn making this argument???
\​

 

[daveman]

Getting something in current events wrong is different from distorting the facts of history.

No, it's not. Current events is history that happens right now.

And to further skewer your so-lame-it-should-be-euthanized rebuttal, George Washington, Mumia, and Reagan are NOT current events.

Kiss Zinn's ass all you like. But don't you dare tell me it tastes good, kid.

 

[daveman]

No, the fact that I approve of what he did means I share his -- whatever you want to call them.

It remains true that he distorted no facts. That's nobody's delusion.

Riiiiight.

History News Network

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton’s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this “violent crime continues to increase.” It doesn’t. Like much of Zinn’s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

.​

Where exactly is Zinn making this argument???
\​

Here, in this book review:

From Howard Zinn: "The return of INSTEAD OF PRISONS comes at a time when it is very much needed, when two million human beings languish behind bars and barbed wire in the United States, and the reports of abuse, torture, rape, well as false convictions and cruel sentences, make moe people question the whole idea of prisons. But these thoughtful essays are not utopian. They present realistic alternatives to a system which is both cruel and ineffectual. It is more and more clear that prisons do not diminish crime. They diminish the men and women inside, and diminish the humanity of the rest of us outside. I hope this book will be widely read, so it can do for imprisonment what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did for slavery -- arouse the nation."​

 

[Dragon]

And to further skewer your so-lame-it-should-be-euthanized rebuttal, George Washington, Mumia, and Reagan are NOT current events.

Ignoring your ignorant statement about current events being history, which deserves it, the above at least is true So tell me, what did Zinn say about George Washington, Mumia, and/or Ronald Reagan that is not factually true?

Incidentally, your quote from Zinn in his review of his own book does not state that crime is on the increase.

 

[DCJ]

Riiiiight.

History News Network

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton’s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this “violent crime continues to increase.” It doesn’t. Like much of Zinn’s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

.​

Where exactly is Zinn making this argument???
\​

Here, in this book review:

From Howard Zinn: "The return of INSTEAD OF PRISONS comes at a time when it is very much needed, when two million human beings languish behind bars and barbed wire in the United States, and the reports of abuse, torture, rape, well as false convictions and cruel sentences, make moe people question the whole idea of prisons. But these thoughtful essays are not utopian. They present realistic alternatives to a system which is both cruel and ineffectual. It is more and more clear that prisons do not diminish crime. They diminish the men and women inside, and diminish the humanity of the rest of us outside. I hope this book will be widely read, so it can do for imprisonment what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did for slavery -- arouse the nation."​

I don't see that comment attributed to Zinn in that quote............​

 

[editec]

Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

FWIW, Zinn was a professor of political science at BU.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.

I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.

Zinn was in my opinion a humanist if any IST must be attached to his POV.

Zinn may have taught political science, but his PhD was in History and he was an active member of the AHA.
I think Zinn would certainly have considered himself leftwing and at least a socialist sympathizer if not an outright socialist (albeit a democratic one and not really a communist).

Well you can THINK whatever you want but I actually took classes with the man and he was NOT supportive any of the communist regimes that existed.


Sometimes REALITY does trump theory, kid.

This is one of those times

 

[daveman]

Where exactly is Zinn making this argument???
\

Here, in this book review:

From Howard Zinn: "The return of INSTEAD OF PRISONS comes at a time when it is very much needed, when two million human beings languish behind bars and barbed wire in the United States, and the reports of abuse, torture, rape, well as false convictions and cruel sentences, make moe people question the whole idea of prisons. But these thoughtful essays are not utopian. They present realistic alternatives to a system which is both cruel and ineffectual. It is more and more clear that prisons do not diminish crime. They diminish the men and women inside, and diminish the humanity of the rest of us outside. I hope this book will be widely read, so it can do for imprisonment what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did for slavery -- arouse the nation."​

I don't see that comment attributed to Zinn in that quote............

Really? Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, how about you address Zinn's other lies? Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist?

 

[daveman]

FWIW, Zinn was a professor of political science at BU.



Zinn was in my opinion a humanist if any IST must be attached to his POV.

Zinn may have taught political science, but his PhD was in History and he was an active member of the AHA.
I think Zinn would certainly have considered himself leftwing and at least a socialist sympathizer if not an outright socialist (albeit a democratic one and not really a communist).

Well you can THINK whatever you want but I actually took classes with the man and he was NOT supportive any of the communist regimes that existed.


Sometimes REALITY does trump theory, kid.

This is one of those times

And yet he was a member of the Communist Party.

Howard Zinn

 

[Dragon]

Really? Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, how about you address Zinn's other lies?

The opinions you paraphrased above are all values statements, therefore are neither true nor false, therefore cannot be lies.

I suspect this sort of confusion is where all of your errors about Zinn are coming from. You are confusing values opinions with which you disagree, with lies. The only way that a values statement can be a lie is if the person making it doesn't actually hold that value. For example, if I were to say, "Women who get abortions deserve to be in prison," that would be a lie, not because it's factually wrong (it's not making a factual statement ans so is neither true nor false), but because it's claiming a belief that I don't actually hold.

So unless you think that Zinn really believes that criminals SHOULD be imprisoned, that is not a lie.

 

[Dragon]

And yet he was a member of the Communist Party.

Howard Zinn

That link says that he was not. You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

 

[DCJ]

Here, in this book review:

From Howard Zinn: "The return of INSTEAD OF PRISONS comes at a time when it is very much needed, when two million human beings languish behind bars and barbed wire in the United States, and the reports of abuse, torture, rape, well as false convictions and cruel sentences, make moe people question the whole idea of prisons. But these thoughtful essays are not utopian. They present realistic alternatives to a system which is both cruel and ineffectual. It is more and more clear that prisons do not diminish crime. They diminish the men and women inside, and diminish the humanity of the rest of us outside. I hope this book will be widely read, so it can do for imprisonment what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did for slavery -- arouse the nation."​

I don't see that comment attributed to Zinn in that quote............

Really? Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, how about you address Zinn's other lies? Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist?

So, as I suspected, you do not have the quote................

 

[Dragon]

So, as I suspected, you do not have the quote.

Actually he did present a quote from Zinn. It doesn't include any lies, just opinions he disagrees with, but it WAS from Howard Zinn.