Howard Zinn's A People's History Available Free (Page 2): I find it very well documented. While most of the historical material used in teaching in a school where I was this past...

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I find it very well documented. While most of the historical material used in teaching in a school where I was this past school year comes from copies of the original (and often in pairs of conflicting) documents, I am very pleased that it is the main text.

Amazon.com has almost 1,000 customer reviews, and more than half of these are highly favorable.

What I find most revealing about the comments regarding this book, both in this forum and on Amazon, is that those who denigrate often either have not read the book or do not note specifics in the text they disagree with. Those who write favorable reviews tend to be far more specific. This isn't always true, but it is usually true. That in itself should tell you that the critics are basing their criticisms more on their own beliefs than on the actual text of the book.

bemused_bystander wrote:

I've read four chapters already, it's fascinating. Thanks

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Just a comment on your general intellectual outlook. You are certainly an intelligent person, but you are so entrenched in your point of view that you refuse to look at evidence that disagrees with your beliefs.

For instance:

If one believes that Blacks are intellectually equal to whites, then you owe it to yourself to read The Bell Curve, just to see what the opposition is saying.

If you believe in evolution, then you owe it to yourself to read a book advocating creationism.

If you believe the reassuring, right-wing version of American history that has characterized much of American historical thought, then YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF to read Zinn's book. You don't owe it to anyone else.

Bmac wrote:

Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana now, not Mitch Daniels, who is president of Purdue. I suppose you realize that now, thanks for the link. 8-)

"Hence the deranged quality of this fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history. It may be unfair to expose to critical scrutiny a work patched together from secondary sources, many used uncritically (Jennings, Williams), others ravaged for material torn out of context (Young, Pike). Any careful reader will perceive that Zinn is a stranger to evidence bearing upon the people about whom he purports to write. But only critics who know the sources will recognize the complex array of devices that pervert his pages... On the other hand, the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely Anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book... He lavishes indiscriminate condemnation upon all the works of man that is, upon civilization, a word he usually encloses in quotation marks. "

Handlin, Oscar, "Arawaks", review of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, The American Scholar, Vol. 49, Issue 4 (Autumn 1980), pp. 546-550.

Oscar Handlin (September 29, 1915 in Brooklyn, New York September 20, 2011 in Cambridge, Massachusetts) was an American historian. As a professor of history at Harvard University for over 50 years, he directed 80 PhD dissertations and helped promote social and ethnic history. Handlin won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1952 with The Uprooted. Handlin's 1965 testimony before Congress was said to "have played an important role" in abolishing a discriminatory immigration quota system in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Handlin

I have no desire to read an anti-American history book by socialist Howard Zinn, but I do thank you for the link to it as others may wish to read it. :D

Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana now, not Mit... (show quote)

bvm Loc: Glendale, Arizona

I see the issue as one of,
depending on your point of view,
your background or lack of one,
your common sense or lack there of,
your environment,
likes and dislikes.

I believe this book was written in the 80's, If it was SO profound, where's it been for going on 30 years?

Alchemy perhaps??????

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I don't think one can disagree with the beginning of your post. That's how you see things.

But to claim that how rapidly a work "catches on" shows its quality is faulty reasoning. Many examples prove it. I haven't researched the original reception this book met, but you can see the sort of non-thinking reception a few otherwise intelligent people are giving it in this forum. They haven't read it, but they're against it.

Then there is the label "revisionist" that many established historians have slapped it with. They are using it in a pejorative way, but there is nothing wrong with revising a version of history by incorporating more material in it to tell a fuller, more accurate story.

And as someone here pointed out, the book was not intended to be the definitive history of the United States. It tells what happened in American history from the point of view of people we almost never hear about -- the common citizens.

We all need to be careful with labels. The phrase "card carrying" was demonized by the right-wingers of McCarthy's time so successfully that it still has strong pejorative connotations. Even if I were to call someone a "card-carrying member of the local Better Business Bureau" it would still elicit a faint suspicion. The term "revisionist" affects people similarly.

There are times when stories need to be revised to incorporate more of the truth.

bvm wrote:

I see the issue as one of,
depending on your point of view,
your background or lack of one,
your common sense or lack there of,
your environment,
likes and dislikes.

I believe this book was written in the 80's, If it was SO profound, where's it been for going on 30 years?

Alchemy perhaps??????

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

"By the way, in case you wish to read "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic," by Mark R. Levin, I have included the Amazon link. You can read the book, or not read it, I will attempt no absurd arguments as to why you should or must read it."

Does this book have any relevance to a discussion of Zinn's?

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

.......... but you are so entrenched in your point of view that you refuse to look at evidence that disagrees with your beliefs.

I can say the same of you, but it would be without any basis whatsoever, just as your contention has none. Argue substance Richard, not assumption nor straw man arguments. 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

We all need to be careful with labels. The phrase "card carrying" was demonized by the right-wingers of McCarthy's time so successfully that it still has strong pejorative connotations.

Then why do you frequently resort to labeling? 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

You are definitely wrong here. I look at lots of arguments counter to my beliefs. Just because I reject them doesn't mean that I haven't looked at them.

Bmac wrote:

I can say the same of you, but it would be without any basis whatsoever, just as your contention has none. Argue substance Richard, not assumption nor straw man arguments. 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Examples, please ?

Bmac wrote:

Then why do you frequently resort to labeling? 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

This should really not be spilling over into generalized arguments -- and I am guilty of helping it take that path. My discussion is supposed to be focused on Zinn's book, which some of you have criticized without reading it. If you haven't read it, and if you are only quoting critics with agendas of their own (discrediting the book because they omitted important material, for instance), then in academic circles you would simply be laugfhed at.

Bmac wrote:

I can say the same of you, but it would be without any basis whatsoever, just as your contention has none. Argue substance Richard, not assumption nor straw man arguments. 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

We all need to be careful with labels. The phrase "card carrying" was demonized by the right-wingers of McCarthy's time so successfully that it still has strong pejorative connotations.

Bmac wrote:

Then why do you frequently resort to labeling? 8-)

Richard94611 wrote:

Examples, please?

Sure:

Richard94611 wrote:

The phrase "card carrying" was demonized by the right-wingers of McCarthy's time so successfully that it still has strong pejorative connotations.

Richard94611 wrote:

I would not expect any right-winger, Republican or conservative to see the incredible scholarship behind this book.

Richard94611 wrote:

And as I am sure all you Republicans who damn Obama if he acts and damn him in the same situation if he didn't, there is nothing that he could do or not do, regardless of any circumstances, that you would not find as an excuse to pile blame on him.

Richard94611 wrote:

Now, the standard Republican excuse for its not being passed is usually something like, "Oh, it was filled with pork and that's why it wasn't passed."

If you wish more Richard, simply read your own posts. 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

.......... but you are so entrenched in your point of view that you refuse to look at evidence that disagrees with your beliefs.

Bmac wrote:

I can say the same of you, but it would be without any basis whatsoever, just as your contention has none. Argue substance Richard, not assumption nor straw man arguments. 8-)

Richard94611 wrote:

You are definitely wrong here. I look at lots of arguments counter to my beliefs. Just because I reject them doesn't mean that I haven't looked at them.

Wrong about what? Read my post. 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

If you haven't read it, and if you are only quoting critics with agendas of their own (discrediting the book because they omitted important material, for instance), then in academic circles you would simply be laugfhed at.

Not quite sure what agenda George Mason University nor Harvard scholar Oscar Handlin have but perhaps you are privy to this. As to being laugfhed [sic] at......well.

Anyway, perhaps you did not read this previous post of mine:

You opened this thread lauding over a 1980 book and announcing that it is one of the "great books about American History" and how it was "meticulously researched." I referenced opposing views, one from George Mason University finding the book to be one of the "least credible history books in print," and another opinion from a Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard history professor. It's that simple. 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

No, I want you to be specific. The labels I cited are pejorative labels of the sort that advertisers call "buzz words." These are words intended to convey emotional feelings -- they connote but don't denote. I don't think I have used "buzz word" labels of this sort. You have made the statement that I do. Now find them and show them to us.

I think we are working with different definitions of what the word label means. If you will cooperate, we can determine if this is true.

Bmac wrote:

If you wish more Richard, simply read your own posts. 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Richard94611 wrote:

The labels I cited are pejorative labels of the sort that advertisers call "buzz words."

Actually, you only cited only one label, revisionist. That word can be used pejoratively or positively.

Richard94611 wrote:

I don't think I have used "buzz word" labels of this sort. You have made the statement that I do. Now find them and show them to us.

I never stated that you used "buzz word" labels of any specific sort. Here is what I stated:

Bmac wrote:

Then why do you frequently resort to labeling? 8-)

I then referenced specific examples of you using labels. Certainly, not only are terms such as right wing and left wing labels but can also be construed as political "buzz words."

Richard94611 wrote:

I think we are working with different definitions of what the word label means. If you will cooperate, we can determine if this is true.

Richard, the word "label" is a rather simple word and easily defined. If you are having trouble with understanding it I suggest you seek help from that academic circle that would have "laugfhed" [sic] at me for quoting critics of Zinn's book. No, I will not cooperate in a discussion of the word "label" unless it involves a very young child.

All this attempt to somehow criticize me in various ways for not wishing to read a book seems ironic to me Richard as I want to read one of your books! You claimed to have written four and that you were now working on another. I want to read the historical one, remember?

Richard94611 wrote:

But here is a summary of some of them:............
3) A history, culture and psychiatric book about a particular culture;......

Bmac wrote:

Well Richard you have only fanned my curiosity. I think the history (#3) would be the one I would be most interested in reading. If you wish, you can PM me the title. I assure you I do not post private messages. 8-)