Comments on: Obama Disappoints Howard Zinn Groupies

By: Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave? | FrontPage Magazine

Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave? | FrontPage Magazine — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:30:47 +0000

[...] Note: Click here for more of NRB’s coverage of Howard Zinn’s death. Click here for a collection of NRB’s [...]

By: Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave? | NewsReal Blog

Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave? | NewsReal Blog — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:12:24 +0000

[...] Note: Click here for more of NRB’s coverage of Howard Zinn’s death. Click here for a collection of [...]

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:29:22 +0000

Btw: How on Earth did you identify me (implicitly) as of "the Left"? Is challenging fraudelent argument inherently Left? That's all I did. If you actually had a better basis for identifying me as "Left", please tell me what it is. (ESP, perhaps?)

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:23:54 +0000

So let it be found (provisionally): that "Tar_n_Feathers" is acting like a FRAUD, full of bluff_n_bluster, but offering no molecule of substance to back up his claims.

This is not to say that they *are* a FRAUD — perhaps they actually know what they're talking about (as implausible as it seems). But their behavior does justify acute suspicions.

What does it reveal about "who they really are"? I'll leave it to my fellow bloggers to arrive at whatever conclusions result. (Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks…but is a human being? Perhaps. But more likely a quack!)

NOTE: My point isn't to destroy anyone, but to encourage greater honesty and integrity in the public discourse, which is so famously poisoned with b.s. and nonsense. I trust that even "Tar_n_Feathers" is capable of doing much better — IF they start taking things seriously, and quit the Big Game.

By: Joe Johnson

Joe Johnson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:26:54 +0000

"Marxist propagandist".

Shame on you! Learn the truth before you speak.!

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:48:44 +0000

Ok, I got you, no problem. You make vague dismissals devoid of substantive content, *implying* that you know things that you explicitly refuse to give examples of.

If you refuse to back up what you say, but don't back off from having said it, then am I not justified in describing your behavior as "hiding", and its content as, most probably, bullpuckey?

Can you at least *honestly* answer this questions:

Q: Are you familiar with Zinn's work?

(If so, it should be very easy for you to accurately characterize some of the basic principles underlying his outlook and analysis. C'mon! You're not a FRAUD, are you???)

By: Tar_n_Feathers

Tar_n_Feathers — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:11:48 +0000

My statements stand. Dismiss them at your pleasure. I have no need or desire to win arguments with Leftist, Progressives, or Zinn apologists. I'll speak for conservatives here: Engaging the Left, especially on those subjects that really set them off, usually reveals something significant about who they really are. And I'll leave it to my fellow bloggers to arrive at whatever conclusions result.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:58:54 +0000

You, Tar 'n' Feathers, smell very much like a crank without a clue. I suspect that you're unfamiliar with Zinn's work, but have absorbed some dismissive Right-wing "analysis" (there's plenty of it on the 'net) intended to discourage people from discovering Zinn's work. Obfuscation, in other words.

If you sincerely believe that you know Zinn's work well enough to justify your remarks, please accept my challenge to back them up. We'll find a suitable forum online for the debate, if you wish.

Otherwise, please be more careful in choosing what to say, and when to respect your lack of knowledge with a closed mouth.

By: Donnacha DeLong

Donnacha DeLong — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:12:42 +0000

Patriotism, as Emma Goldman said, is a menace to liberty. Zinn's view of American history is anything but hostile to the majority who experienced it. History of the people is true history and Zinn helped bring that to the forefront. Are you saying that there are things in People's History that are factually inaccurate, or simply that you hate him for highlighting racism, discrimination, persecution and violence against the people and the courageous fights of people against it? Obviously, you prefer your history white-washed and focussed only on the leadership.

By: Tar_n_Feathers

Tar_n_Feathers — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:10:48 +0000

Anarchist, Marxist, post-modernist crank, whatever. Intellectual obfuscation doesn't change Zinn's purposefully hostile view of American history. While his work has certainly been embraced by Academia, I wouldn't consider him an important historian other than as a leading contributor to the mythos of the Left.

By: Leftist Heads Explode Over Howard Zinn’s Death | NewsReal Blog

Leftist Heads Explode Over Howard Zinn’s Death | NewsReal Blog — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:54:16 +0000

[...] suffer delusions President Obama should have used the State of the Union address as a platform to recognize Zinn, [...]

By: Donnacha DeLong

Donnacha DeLong — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:39:51 +0000

"If one has the same understanding of history and America as a communist — and Zinn did — then one can label them a Marxist or a neo-communist even if they do not advocate a government akin to the USSR."

Eh, Marx didn't invent communism. Bakunin was a communist as well, as were Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, etc. Also, Zinn, as with most anarchists, did not agree completely with the Marxist understanding of history (Marx/Engels believed that capitalism was necessary and that every society should go through it to get to communism – thus the destruction of the native peoples of the world under colonialism was a good thing).

However, it was the opposition to statism and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that caused the split in the First International and is the primary difference between Marxists and anarchists. Thus, it is completely incorrect to label someone a Marxist when they oppose the state, they're anarchists.