Comments on: IN WHICH WE LOST A GREAT WRITER, A GREAT HISTORIAN, AND A GREAT MIDGET ACTRESS

By: Some Random Dude

Some Random Dude — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:45:22 +0000

Actually i’m going to leave it broken so I can mug people with it. I have to think economically.

By: Some Random Dude

Some Random Dude — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:43:58 +0000

yo I just traded my beyond the permafrost shirt for a broken (i’m gonna gorilla glue it) GWAR drumstick my friend knocked some dude out for at a show.

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/119/l_9cb8c75e26424031874e054164eb5305.jpg

This was the first place I could think to brag, and I really wanted to brag.

By: Chip Northcutt

Chip Northcutt — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:46:25 +0000

When he discusses slave ships from the slave’s perspective or the Demise of the Aztecs from the calculated delivery of smallpox he is telling the truth. He is “biased” in perspective, not in the observation of fact. Calling someone biased invokes thoughts of selective delivery or application of facts to meet a desired conclusion. I don’t think he did that, he was very clear in stating what his persective was. While his perspective is not that of the establishment, facts are facts and PHOTUS is basically a compilation of accounts written at the time the events occured. I don’t buy this as biased.

By: CrapMcPoopin

CrapMcPoopin — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:15:22 +0000

Although I think Zinn is extremely biased, he does challenge the status quo of history. Some of the things he discussed in A People’s History of the United States are rather thought provoking and do have some truth. History is not objective, and he is just one of many people trying to get you to look at another view. I can’t say whether what he is saying is bunk, as I have never exclusively researched his research, but any history is cleaned up by the dominant civilization in order to cover it’s flaws. Look at the two differing educations of the American Revolution. In the US, whole semesters are dedicated to it, but in the UK, it is either referenced in passing, or hardly taught. The old adage of the winner’s write the history books is still a dominant frame of mind. Zinn is just playing the other side.

By: Chip Northcutt

Chip Northcutt — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:34:29 +0000

He revised a bunch of propaganda by applying actual facts. Techinically revising but correcting for the most part.

By: Chip Northcutt

Chip Northcutt — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:32:07 +0000

Hell yes.

By: Chip Northcutt

Chip Northcutt — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:18:32 +0000

Zinn was great. His critics are mostly those whom he showed to be revisionist. If you read Poeple’s History you would know that it is made mostly first-hand accounts assembled into a narrative.

Jason H, I know we have CIA revisionism in the non metal media. That shit has no place in the metal community where a pride is taken in social objectivity and the throwing aside of political and religous propaganda. Zinn embodied his spirit, you embody the spirit of mindless pop music and the controlled response of the manipulated. Eat shit bro.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:53:10 +0000

You guys are “goddamn phonies” I enjoyed this book a lot. Holden’s character is mentally unhealthy, so that was Sallinger’s point in make him crabby.

By: kazz

kazz — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:59:20 +0000

Agree with you, sir. Not an awful book, but not worth the praise. And god damn that character got so annoying about halfway through.

By: bucketochicken

bucketochicken — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:37:11 +0000

I’m not sure Googling “Jason H’s opinion on the work of Howard Zinn” would yield any results…

By: iolanach

iolanach — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:08:59 +0000

sure man, great place to be debating Zinn’s shitty work. Want me to send a 50 page dissertation on it? Just google for some info, don’t be lazy.

By: The Overmatt

The Overmatt — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:49:23 +0000

I personally think that Catcher In The Rye is a shitty book and that Holden Caufield is the original whiney emo kid, but sucks about Salinger’s passing none the less.

By: bucketochicken

bucketochicken — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:41:21 +0000

Further, please cite specific examples (actual cited quotes w/page numbers, etc, if possible) of Zinn’s work that qualify as revisionist history, and what the true/actual history is of the events/times in question.

By: bucketochicken

bucketochicken — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:39:06 +0000

Care to explain why he wasn’t? And why you’re qualified to make such an ssertion? What, exactly, did he revise, and in what way does what he wrote qualify as such?

Where do you study history, and what history (or “whose history”) do you study?

By: bucketochicken

bucketochicken — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:36:41 +0000

A Radical Treasure, by Bob Herbert: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html?ref=opinion

RIP Mr. Zinn. And thank you.

By: ceth carter

ceth carter — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:33:52 +0000

What, were completely taking off fridays now to?? MLK day wasnt good enough now you just quit on fridays all together.

By: Gormlet

Gormlet — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:27:23 +0000

Rule of Three

By: p-tor

p-tor — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:46:43 +0000

Bingo.

By: Metalcelt

Metalcelt — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:04:32 +0000

10000

By: Justin Foley

Justin Foley — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:12:54 +0000

Please. Someone please tell me how Howard Zinn isn’t a historian. PHOTUS was written in 1980 and is still – 30 years later – giving people a revelatory experience of how they understand their own country’s history and their place in it.

Look, I may know deep in my soul that Ayn Rand is a total piece of shit, straw-man contstucting, lazy-ethicist garbage writer, but I would still have to acknowledge that she’s a novelist. I would certainly qualify what kind of novelist she is, but I wouldn’t say she’s not one.

So let’s hear how Zinn is not a historian. Please provide some counter-examples. Of course, your own personal contribution to the field would be appreciated, but we won’t rely on ad-hominem arguments, right?

Riiiight.

= Justin