ForumGarden

Found a reading of Howard Zinn's best known book on youtube. Seems like a good idea right now to get a wider perspective of how we got to the current state and I've never read this book. They start about half way through, for more focus on the modern culture.

Audio books are awesome. Can actually clean the house and do chores while 'reading' a book.



Part one

I read that book when it came out. I still ponder as to what motivated me into thinking there was a punchline to that there was a punchline to that joke of a book.

What do you, specifically, feel he got wrong?

The idea that there should have been a punchline make me wonder if the book was supposed to have some sort of a statement that you felt was missing. To me, though I haven't finished it yet, the book is a concept, as opposed to a conclusion. Zinn seems to be committed to making sure that the efforts and voices of those who didn't/don't agree with the choices of the ruling class get a chance to be recorded in history. A tidy timeline of history will inevitably only represent the voice of the "winners" whereas Zinn encourages people to inject a variety of visions into what will stand as History.

That's a rather noble idea.

John Ralston Saul writes that "[politicians] don't seem to understand the historical process. Instead they seem actually to believe that their definitions of the world will become both real and permanent simply because they are the result of applied logic. When these formulae refuse to stick, the technocratic mind, rather than deal with failure, simply wipes the slate clean and writes a new definition. They are, in that sense, slaves of dogma. At the same time they tend to avoid the maintenance of linear memory. An accurate picture of recent events would prevent the constant reorganizations which they use as a means of erasing the past and justifying current actions." Voltaire's Bastards, p107

Very little of Zinn's work was anything new to people who actually studied history. And certainly the US did not invent exploitation.

A history of the US, without the context of European history leading up to the colonization period is little more than rabble rousing.

I have not read Mr Saul, yet, but I hope he offers more insight than Mr Zinn.

The revolution was lost in the early Seventies.

However the struggle remains.

And The Time To Resist Is Now.

What do you, specifically, feel he got wrong?


As I remember, it was a matter of perspective. Seems to be a, "gee see what your parents and government schools didn't teach you" kinda thing.

As LarsMac wrote:

Very little of Zinn's work was anything new to people who actually studied history.


As Dr.Suess primer for determined discontents.

The events are somewhat dated but the perspective was/is entirely the point. Sometimes people keep quiet and keep their heads down because they don't think they can make a difference. I like the idea that dissidents will be recorded in history without having to blow something up.