Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?
The other day a reporter from NPR called me and asked me for my comments on the death of the lifelong Stalinist and propagandist Howard Zinn. I was a little reluctant because I knew that whatever I said, legions of unscrupulous myrmidons on the left would jump on it and say I had spit on Zinn’s grave. I also knew that while I was interviewed for ten minutes, out of what I said only a 20 second sound-bite would make it onto the air. I don’t begrudge NPR this selection. That’s what their obit was and would have to be, a collection of sound-bites.
Sure enough the bottom-feeders at FAIR pounced on my bite and accused me of spitting on Zinn’s grave. So here’s what I said that was cut from the interview. I’m not putting quotes around it because it’s from memory, but it’s pretty close to some of my remarks and captures the sense of others: No one should celebrate the death of another human being unless they are child-molesters or murderers. Howard Zinn lived to a ripe old age (87), and bad human being that he was, I wouldn’t begrudge him an extra few years; he’s done about as much damage as he could.
Howard Zinn was a Stalinist in the years when the Marxist monster was slaughtering millions of innocent people and launching his own ‘final solution’ against the Jews. Put another way, Howard Zinn was helping Stalin to conduct those slaughters and to enslave all those who had the misfortune to live behind the Iron Curtain. Howard never had second thoughts about his commitment to leftwing totalitarians and never flagged in his political commitment to freedom’s enemies. In the years since Stalin’s death, Zinn supported every enemy of the United States in every war, and devoted his writing talents to every socialist tyrant including Mao Zedong who killed 70 million Chinese in peacetime because they got in the way of his progressive agendas.
When the Cold War was over and freedom had won — thanks to all the political forces and figures (e.g., Reagan and Thatcher) that Zinn opposed – Zinn continued his malignant course. He supported America’s enemies right to the end including the Islamic Nazis whose first agenda is to finish the job that Hitler started and then to impose a totalitarian theocracy on the infidel world.
Zinn’s wretched tract, A People’s History of the United States, is worthless as history, and it is a national tragedy that so many Americans have fallen under its spell. It is a political cartoon which even the socialist magazine Dissent described as an intellectual fraud, which it is. All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn’s life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere.
Editor’s Note: Click here for more of NRB’s coverage of Howard Zinn’s death. Click here for a collection of NRB’s coverage of the recent Zinn-inspired documentary “The People Speak.”
UPDATE: David Horowitz has decided that he came down a bit too harshly on Zinn. The above text is revised to remove the description of Zinn as a “wicked man.” For an explanation click here.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- This just in….Howard Zinn died of a bleeding heart « Natural Family BLOG
- NPR Finds Right-Wing Crank to Spit on Zinn’s Grave | The Greanville Post
- David Horowitz on Howard Zinn - Maggie's Farm
- News You Need to Know 31Jan10 | Mega Glomerate Main-Stream Media
- PoliGazette » Zinn Dies
- A Wicked Man? No, a Fool with Wicked Ideas | NewsReal Blog
- Free In Idaho! » Blog Archive » Horowitz On Zinn
- David Horowitz on Howard Zinn « Scott Rhymer: Historian and Writer
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » Zinn & Salinger
- Daily Right 2/1/10 « The Quantum Conservative
- NewsReal Contest: What is the Most Amazing Example of Leftist Condescension? | NewsReal Blog
- Leftist Condescension on Display in Yet Another Lecture from a Zinn Disciple | NewsReal Blog
"Howard Zinn lived to a ripe old age (87), and bad human being that he was, I wouldn’t begrudge him an extra few years; he’s done about as much damage as he could."
Perfect! I wish I had written that.
Satan might as well presume tell Jesus that he was a bad human being! An (arguably) intellectual fraud, muddle-headed ideologue, a puny "scholar" filled with irrational hostility to all that he mindlessly labels "leftwing", and an apologist for imperialism and war crimes dares to fling shit from his own backyard at Zinn ??? Where is the evidence that Zinn was a Stalinist or defended Mao's crimes? Substantiate the facts before you malign good people, Prof. Horro(r)witz! And, by the way, the new Nazis are now in power in Israel spouting anti-Arab and anti-palestinian racist invective and carrying murderous military campaigns against the civilian population in the Gaza!
Sounds like Zinn has actually returned from the dead! Are you sure that “Truth” is not an alias for Howard Zinn? Just wondering…
Just a note to our commenters: I will be deleting any posts which are overly mean-spirited or cruel toward Howard Zinn. Disagree with the disgusting ideas the man spent his life promoting. Any comments about where Zinn's soul is or how you want to deface his grave will be deleted and the commenter banned.
I always try controll my coments, and I have utter contempt for liars like Mr. Zinn. How they've poisoned so many young minds. That being said, because of Mr Swindle's warning I won't be commenting on this site or reading it any longer. It's funny I've disagreed a few things written on this site at times not often. But I found this coment by him childish and insulting. I think the thing to do is If you find something untoward about something written delete it,or edit it. Maybe the person who wrote the comment lost a relative or a loved at some time because of one of Zinns heros. Who are you to judge? Maybe someone needed to vent. Anyway before I get too offensive I'll ban myself from your site.
When I visited this page to check the comments earlier today I had to delete all of the comments except for David Forsmark's because they were talking about peeing on Zinn's grave and Zinn burning in hell. It was an embarrassment. And I've had to keep an eye on this thread even after posting my warning because people still put up garbage that they shouldn't. My comment is entirely justified.
Who am I to judge? I'm the person managing the site and trying to prevent the publication and David Horowitz from getting smeared because too many commenters cannot handle the freedom that we've given them. If you can't understand that then you're really not missed as a reader.
Fair enough
It's irrational that you would abandon the site merely because I repeat what's already listed in our commenting guidelines. http://www.newsrealblog.com/commenting-guidelines... But suit yourself
It's irrational that you would abandon the site merely because I repeat what's already listed in our commenting guidelines. http://www.newsrealblog.com/commenting-guidelines... But suit yourself
Well-said, bravo and thanks, Swindle!
No, if this site is to be more than a collection of childish graffitti, some control needs to be exercised. Also, the site owner does have the final say over what gets posted on it. If you or anyone else cannot come up with something more substantial than middle school insults, why even bother posting anything? Besides, it just provides “juicy” quotes for leftist websites that wish to prove that sites like NewsReal and FrontPage are not fit for regular people.
Thank you, Walt.
I find it amusing that since you declared you were going to abandon the site you've come back twice. I get the impression that you only made your comment declaring your intention to leave the site so that you could get some attention.
I obviously don't have a disdain for everyone who comments at NewsReal. And the simple fact remains: when I first checked this thread I had to delete 75% of the comments on it because they were disgusting violations of our commenting guidelines. My comment was legitimate, that you took it the wrong way says more about you than me.
David — it is you that are disgusting in your blatant ignorance and disrespect to Professor Zinn. It is tragic that so many fools like you perpetuate lies when Zinn's life work and actions illuminated the truth of our complete history and the responsibilities we have to hold our democracy in check. It is quite pathetic for you really that you reject reality and can't handle what the evidence shows us all.
Every comment that claims NRB is lying refuses to say what those lies are. What are we lying about?
What the evidence shows us all is that Howard Zinn was a supporter of totalitarian governments and movements his entire life. Anyone who's read A People's History or his positions on Israel will know that.
Why the prohibition? Zinn personally had no compunction about defacing the graves of the victims of Stalinist and Maoist terror.
Because conservatives need to hold themselves to higher standards than leftists. Two wrongs don't make a right.
In explaining to my children en-route to University how to read Zinn. "If the history of the United States were a human being, and history professors doctors, Zinn would be a proctologist. That is the only view he has of our great experiment."
Astley: Well said about Zinn being a proctologist. I guess, in the end, you might say he was full of it.
I’ve never met a died-in-the-wool marxist who didn’t need a good dose of Ex-Lax, and I’ve tangled with the best – Aptheker, Novack, Porter, McAulliffe, Jarvis Tyner, etc. Their lies and ignorance of reality (i.e. history) was more than appalling, but that is what Zinn was all about.
Zinn deserves all the derision we can heap on him. In fact, I find him more revolting than the American Nazis, Holocaust-deniers (I lost a whole European family in the Holocaust) and Klanners whom I’ve met. I understand their mental illnesses but the reds are usually more educated then they are. Therefore, there most be another form of invidious mental illness that makes marxists/communists/socialists the way they are – utopian dreamers who become delusional, pathological liars, and even Bill Ayers terrorists.
Then you become a college professor.
Zinn dies at 87.
NARAL founder Ruth Proskauer Smith dies at 102.
The good die young.
It seems a more than generous and honest comment in that you were humane without excusing Zinn's conduct. However, it's a shame that you gave NPR an opportunity to smear you. You knew they would. It's time they had their funding pulled and that they be left to survive, if they can, on the merit of their product–like Air America. Can we still get Radio Moscow? Or has NPR co-opted their niche?
Zinn argued that in a democracy, civil disobedience is much more important than strict, blind obedience to the government. Please do continue being sheep to the right. You all look like fools.
John, has it ever occurred to you that civil disobedience of the Mumia-Abu-Jamal (or whatever he calls himself) variety is murder and should be punished by death. Has it ever occurred to you that you are a sheep of the Left? To me all Leftist thinkers are fools.
Cas (or is it "Crass"?) –
Do you really think Zinn advocated any and all "civil disobedience"??? Set aside that I think Abu-Jamal (on my review of the evidence) was wrongly convicted (regardless of guilt or innocence):
If you have read any Zinn (or listened), then you know perfectly well that his intelligence is not the blunt instrument your comment assumes. And if you haven't read him (which I think is the highest probability), then you really have no business making definitive questions — at least not in any discussion that pretends to be serious. Do you?
Sheep!!! I mean, sheesh!!!
Sorry, in my comment above I meant "…you really have no business making definitive *statements*", not questions.
I know why I made that mistake. It's because I was thinking, while typing that, that questions would be more appropriate in light of your apparent ignorance of Zinn's work, rather than statements delivered *as if* you knew what you were talking about.
Not a random typo.
Is (was) Zinn a socialist or a Marxist? That's a yes or a no type question.
No, it's not. "Socialism" and "Marxism" are not simple, monolithic block-concepts that can be useful for such simple, unambiguous classification. For *some* purposes, they may be useful that way, but much more likely is that sloppiness, error and confusion will be the fruit.
We should be careful to choose tools that are appropriate to the job.
Have you actually read “A People’s History of the United States”? I have had the misfortune to endure it. What was subtle about it? Its view of how the U.S. Constitution was put together was not even original, if one had read Charles Beard’s work from decades before. “”A People’s History of the United States” reminded me of the books I used to get from Progress Publishers, with the only major difference being that the English was better and Lenin was not an object of worship. Economic determinism and class struggle were the major themes of that work. The tedious and simple pageant of wealthy cabals controlling society and exploiting the little people went on and on. Was that really some clever insight on Zinn’s part, or just reguritated Historcial Materialism? Even in 1980, when it was first published. “A People’s History of the United States” had a fairly stale feel to it. I would say that it was inferior version of Herbert Aptheker’s work, which was published years before.
Reading this into Mr Horowitz's above blog, that belief in civil disobedience didn't extend into the Soviet Union. And the so-called "sheep to the right" in the US didn't get slaughtered. That's being a fool?
Howard Zinn really had no problem with sheep, as long as he and his favored idols were the shepherds. Do you have something that resembles something other than Marxist talking point to offer?
Any intelligent person knows that, in a free Republic, there is a wide range of behavior between civil disobedience and strict, blind obedience to the government.
Thanks for the link to the Dissent article. It helped me to understand the man's popularity with non-academic leftists.
Since the 'progressives' or leftists are in power in the US government, how do those on the right who criticize the current government become "sheep?" We look like Zinn's heroes right now.
It is rare to see a comment from the left that is any more reasoned or thoughtful than this one. This guy obviously has no clue and yet he calls those on the right "fools." I think we know who the real fool is.
Judahlevi – I don't see any sign that you tried to get John's point, but your comments certainly miss it. (And if you're going to be throwing the word "fool" around, it behooves you to get it right, so you don't look foolish.)
Horowitz characterizes Zinn as a Stalinist and an enemy of freedom. Those claims are bizarrely disconnected from Zinn's actual attitudes, outlooks, worldviews, words and expressions. Yet commentators on these pages eagerly (and unknowledgeably) embrace such slanders like…well, I've never seen a sheep *embrace* anything, but you get the point.
Zinn is virulently anti-sheep, yet so many on the Right happily flock to call him a shepherd! Have you no sense of irony?
"I think we know who the real fool is." I agree.
No, I completely understood his comment but nice try at the twisted convolutions you needed to go through to try to make it sound reasonable. You need to read his comment again.
And also, I did not start the name-calling, he did. I simply returned it to where it belongs. Nonetheless, it does not surprise me that you, a fellow leftist, would end your own comment with the inference of the same name. It is rare that I ever see a leftist not end a comment without name-calling and you have both validated that experience.
As for Zinn, I sincerely doubt that you are the sole heir to knowing in the entirety his "attitudes, outlooks, worldviews, etc." David has his view of Zinn and you have yours. Reviewing the writings of both you and David, he wins by default for credibility. You have none.
If you understood his comment, then please explain it to me.
As for "the twisted convolutions [I] needed to go through to try to make it sound reasonable": there were no such things. It's straightforward, and your playing dumb doesn't make it complicated, it just makes you look dumb (tho I know you're not).
As for the content of your second paragraph: you are right, John did use "fools" first. But you, bizarrely, go on to ascribe "name-calling" as a characteristic attribute of "leftists" (and not, implicitly, "rightists"), and then go on to embrace name-calling yourself.
Perhaps you can say that you merely held a mirror up to the original name-calling? Fine, but that's precisely what I did wrt your own. So: HOW IS IT that your mirror-holding is excusable, and doesn't justify any sterotypes about "rightists", but *my* mirror-holding is oh-so-predictably "leftist".
Do you see that you have a serious problem of consistency/hypocrisy? (Saying "no" doesn't make it not-so.)
Btw, you 'sincerely doubt that [I am] the sole heir to knowing in the entirety [Zinn's] "attitudes, outlooks, worldviews, etc."'
Why did you say that? Did someone make such an absurd claim? If not, why are you refuting it? You cannot win or lose in a jousting with ghosts, you can only waste your time.
As for my own credibility: feel free to challenge it, but hold yourself to a higher standard of discourse than you're displaying now. I welcome any honest challenge, but you're not offering that kind yet.
Yes Judahlevi, you got it exactly right. That's why you got the reply you did. You smoked them out. The truth is, as has been proven out by history, it is the marxist system that demands strict obedience to the government, and without a choice too. The U.S. system, which is not a democracy, but rather a republic, is predicated on limited government. A government of, for and by the people. A government that serves at the behest of the people. In the marxist system, you have two types of people: true believers (those who have a blind obedience to the government) and those who are forced to have obedience to the government.
In the last 75 years the democ-rats have shown that they have no respect for the people, they have shown a strong contempt for the notion that the government serves at the behest of the people. It has especially been on display in the last 3 years.
He smoked something, all right. But I wouldn't mind having a peek in your pipe. There's a certain common kind of fallacious reasoning that you *seem* to be invoking here, tho your argument isn't exactly clear. It goes like this:
GENERAL FORM:
A is widely accepted to be discredited (as far as we're concerned) .
B is widely accepted to be associated with A (as far as we're concerned).
Therefore:
B is discredited (as far as everyone should be concerned).
IN THIS CASE:
A: Marxism/Stalinism/Communism/totalitarianism/socialism/etc. are…discredited.
B: Howard Zinn is widely accepted (amongst ourselves) to be a Marxist/Stalinist…etc.
Therefore:
C: Howard Zinn is discredited, period.
Do I have the reasoning wrong?
Is it not very *squishy*? Very *bad*?
As for the "factual" assumptions: I hold that the assumptions of (B) are plainly and egregiously wrong. And I challenge anyone to show otherwise.
Come on – you're not too busy to expose me, if you can.
"As for the "factual" assumptions: I hold that the assumptions of (B) are plainly and egregiously wrong. And I challenge anyone to show otherwise.
Come on – you're not too busy to expose me, if you can."
Um..I think you've exposed yourself as a crank. If…say 1000 people studied everything Zinn has said and written, and all his associations and alignments, do you dispute that by far the majority of those 1000 people would come to the conclusion that Zinn was a marxist ( I haven't even thrown in the rest of your terms, Stalinist, totalitarian, socialist, etc.)? That he supported the concept of communism? That he hated the United States as it was founded and what it had become? That because of that hatred, he had blown the shortcomings of the U.S. completely out of proportion? I do, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the people in the country would come to the same conclusion as I'm pretty sure they have. Tell me he wasn't pulling for an American Communist system.
I'm a fool? LOL! Have you read some of the headlines on this website? I guess entertainment is better than truth.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/01/hate-mail-...
yes, John. You're a fool.
Why are the close minded so threatened by healthy debate of historical events?
Is there a healthy debate around here? Please – tell me where!
What are you debating actually? Howard Zinn was not a sheep? How was that so? Please be specific, rather than making the same assertion time and again. Would you like to discuss his views on Mao’s China? Also, if you find this blog so troubling, why remain?
How was Zinn not a sheep, Walt? How about this: he steadfastly advocated that each person be independent and courageous in their thinking, not to simply accept the word of authorities (whoever they be). He repeated such sentiments frequently in his talks and interviews.
And such sentiments *directly oppose* sheep-hood. They are *totally inconsistent* with sheephood.
Here: it took me about 10 seconds in a Google Search to find this quote from an interview with Bill Moyers:
[HOWARD ZINN: ...think for yourself. Don't believe what the people up there tell you. Live your own life. Think your own ideas. And don't depend on saviors.]
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-...
Now, how about taking some burden of proof upon yourself: on what basis do you claim (time and again?) that Zinn was a sheep, or encouraged people to be sheep?
I say your claim is MASSIVELY FALSE. Go ahead, find some evidence that I'm mistaken. Do your research. Take your time. Lots and lots of time.
Not usually between Right and Left. Most of the leftists who show up here are more interested in ad hominem arguments than intellectual discourse. I usually end up having to ban them because they disregard our commenting guidelines.
Why are the leftist (now in full failure mode thatnks to Obama) so unwilling to admit Zinn was a propaganist?
Come on David Horowitz get real. This write up is full of lies.
Funny that you choose not to mention what those lies are.
Well, I'm not the guy you're responding to, and I wouldn't necessarily have used the word "lies", because it's seldom possible to prove that a misstatement was known to be a misstatement by the person making it, when they made it. So I don't throw the word "lies" around carelessly. But if you ask my opinion, yes, I think it is riddled with huge lies. It is certainly riddled with huge misstatements. Perhaps tomorrow, when I have a little time (I'm done for today), I will lay some out in detail. Not all – that would take too long. But a few, for the sake of example.
If so, I would appreciate if the flamethrowers would go play somewhere else, and only serious commentators respond. But it's everyone's choice!
It would be nice to know what specific lie are being referred to, if any. Howard Zinn was always quite open about being a Marxist, so how is that a lie?
I don’t know why students can’t sue the professors who knowing the liespresented in this book goes ahead and teachs them anyway.
While reading David’s book “One Party Classroom” I find myself flashing back to college and all the damage they did to my poor brain.It is like having PTSD.
Shouldn’t we get compensated for trama these people inflict?
As a student these profs had me pertified that if I didn’t go along I would fail.
Students can sue professors. People can get sued for anything. People have been sued for selling people haunted houses before. It's just unlikely you'd win.
I've written about the indoctrination issue a lot and support David Horowitz and One-Party Classroom. However, I think it's important for conservative students not to adopt a victim mentality when it comes to stuff like this. Students need to take personal responsibility for the schools they go to, the programs they pursue, and the professors whose courses they take. Most of the time the syllabus is handed out on the first day of class. As O-PC demonstrates, usually one can tell just by reading the syllabus if one has signed up for an education or an indoctrination.
May Zinn's twisted idea of history die with him.
Our country deserves better.
Academic like Zinn should be more stridently questioned and forced seperate his "commentary" from his "history".
There's a whole generation of kids soaking up his hogwash.
Let's correct their misconceptions fostered by Zinn and Zinn types now.
James –
Who told you these things about Zinn? I ask, because you comments don't seem to make any contact with Zinn's work – they don't reflect any familiarity with it, and could just as well be about anything else you dislike.
So I ask: since you obviously didn't get these ideas from the study of Zinn's work – where *did* you get them from? And on what basis do you trust their authority?
“Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane. But, too often, U.S. actions have been uncivilized and inhumane.” – Howard Zinn
There are a myriad of misstatements, distortions and out right lies that can attributed to Zinn.
I'm glad I can help blow up the myth that is Zinn's "brilliance".
I'm puzzled, James. You present a quote from Zinn ostensibly as an example of his "misstatements, distortions and out right lies".
But what do you find objectionable about it? After all, Zinn certainly never dismissed American as "uncivilized and inhumane" — anyone who knows his work knows that. So:
1) Is it FALSE that "Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane"? I was, and every one of my childhood classmates was. And pretty much everyone I've known in America (with very few exceptions) grew up on that belief. So I don't see a problem with that.
Look, reconstituting history through the jaded eye of an avowed socialist "political activist" might be dandy for you, I reserve the right to criticize and disparage the old usless waste of humanity as I see fit, and within the posted guidelines of this site. That's it. I disagree with this old socialist's conclusions about my country because he (A) lacks context and (B) viewed Americans history through that jaded lens as I mentioned previously, and finally (C) he had a stated agenda, one that I reject. So (D) screw you. How do like them apples?
I dare you to ask a vetern that survived the storming of Hitler's "Fortress Europa" on D-Day whether "America is civilized and humane". I dare you. If you do you've stood in the surf in Normandy looking up at the huge ramparts that young Americans with obstensively NO REASON to fight Germany and Nazism took those beaches, then the hills then the country of France and utimately the western part of the continent BACK from pure evil. Those men were civilized and humane (as much as possible in war time) and Zinn, despite his war record spits on them with his "brand" of history.
Jamesb, Howard Zinn had a nice, safe job Stateside building Navy ships in the early part of WWII. HE VOLUNTEERED to go to Europe to risk his life and fight, because it was a cause he believed in.
Do you suppose Zinn would have some quarrel with you about the evils of Naziism? Your comments suggest that you do. The facts suggest that you do so wrongly.
Do better.
I'll bet you that like all the rest of the U.S. commies though, he was against our involvement in WWII until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.
Ok: bet's on. What's your wager?
Warning: if you guess is premised on the assumption that Zinn's motivation was a desire to defend the Soviet Union, you're making a bad (and, frankly, ignorant) mistake.
If you ask me, I suggest that you don't take the bet, but do a little honest research.
But it's up to you. Ok, I'll put it in CAPS:
I'M CALLING YOUR BLUFF. YOU ARE BLUFFING. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOUR'E TALKING ABOUT. BET'S ON!!!
I hope that wasn't too loud…?
I mentioned his service in Europe. His attacks on the U.S. and it's procecution of post war strategy (since he was clearly a Marxist) are anyones guess.
My problems with Zinn are with his Marxism. My problems with another commenter are with his command of the facts.
Reread the post. Do better.
So you're not going to bet, huh? You'll just just do a niftly little deflection, change the topic. Why? Do you lack confidence in what you have said?
Well, I understand; you should.
You're small minded an myopic – I stand by every thing I've said here. Zinn was a communist clown and nothing you say – however trite and trivial – will change anyone's mind.
Let it go. Zinn=Communist=Fool
Who are you to question anybody here vis a vis` Zinn? He's a published liar. Socialism DOESN'T work.
His shilling for unions and othe "progressive"/socialist/liberal garbage is reprehensible, but legal and welcome under the auspices of the 1st amendment.
My right to call him a Communist liar is also guaranteed.
I HOPE you aren't a teacher, polluting young, impressionable minds.
Jamesb,
I don't understand why you've commented this way here. I thought Malcolm was asking you about the quote you had chosen as an example. It seems to me he was asking you about your opinion of the second sentence. You seem to have bypassed his question to emphasize that you think Zinn is a Communist liar. By doing this, do you mean to imply that your answer to Malcolm's question is no? So, does that mean that you think the US has never, or at least not 'too often', acted in ways that were uncivilized? It seems to me that though some of us may always have had 'the best intentions' and meant to act civilized, there are quite a few examples of times when we as a country/ goverment did act uncivilized. Some of our actions in Vietnam seem to have been uncivilized, for example.
I'm not to get into a protracted debate about the "merits" of revisionist history. It's a waste of my time and yours. I disagree with a whole host of Zinn's conclusions. That's my Constitutional right.
To compound the "injury", know that I have left the business world and rejoined the academic life and my sole delight in life is challenging the little pin heads that leftist academia have been churning out for the last 40 or so years – both students and faculty.
Before you disparage that I still manage a nice GPA doing and I'm now taking the debate to Gred School.
Enough of academia (like the academia polluted by Zinn) for liberals only.
It's your Constitutional right to rub Tabasco sauce in your eyes, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I suggest becoming acquainted with Zinn's ideas before forming frothy-mouthed conclusions about them. There's no Law requiring it, but it's still a good idea.
What a stupid and specious argument.
I know enough about Zinn's ideas to REJECT them out of hand.
No you don't. I've called your bluff several times, and you always avoid my challenge.
You're bluffing. You're not serious, but playing intellectual games. (I play too, but I'm serious, and I offer to back up anything I say, if you can challenge it with questions that are specific and detailed enough to get a toehold in. But you consistently avoid my challenges, and consistently fail to offer your own serious challenges.
Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about? Well, that's a problem. Consider doing something about it.
What are you rambling on about? Zinn was an avowed Marxist. I disagree with Marxists for the mere reason that – hold on here – they are Marxists.
As for "your hero" being a Marxist, let's old Howie speak for himself:
" Zinn took part in the Communist movement in New York, before serving in the US Airforce as a bombardier over Germany in WW2."
"According to one of his pupils, far left author Alice Walker, Zinn shocked an audience from a local white college by declaring "Well, I stand to the left of Mao Zedong."
"Forced to leave Spelman because of his radicalism, Zinn went to teach at Boston University from 1964 to 1988.
Zinn stayed close to Communist Party for many years."
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/02/howard-zinn-9...
Let it go – he was a commie, even your "revisionist history" doesn't change that.
Get a hobby, a boyfriend, something. Defending Zinn isn't real work.
You are obviously under informed about Vietnam from the "big picture" view. Our abandonment of that region of the world, when we had already spent 16 years, resulted in TWO MILLION PLUS DEATHS of Vietmanese and Cambodians amongst others.Check it out. The Zinn shill above speaks of "massively documented" FACTS. Look up those facts.
I'm sure you're right, and I really should respond (to "save face", of course).
But I can hear my toenails growing, and the *really* need chewing.
I mean, there are important things to do. Why waste time?
Just to clarify something. Almost all of the atrocities that occurred in
Viet Nam were perpetrated by the Viet Cong. The one or two that were committed by U.S. forces led by a deadbeat officer were abberations. We operated under strict ROE's (rules of engagement). In fact we took many more (possibly thousands) KIA's and casualties by adhering to these ROE's.
And further, the only report I have ever heard of or seen is the one reported by members of John Kerry's Swift Boat, that he personally shot up a village's livestock just for the fun of it. John F'n sKerry is not all there.
That your for sevice in Vietnam, I appreciate your service. My dear ol' Dad flew combat "in country" in '69/'70.
I've tried to inform myself about the war, we left alot of good people to die under a despotic communist dictatorship. I hope all the POS hippies are enjoying their crappy athletic shoes sewn by neo-slave labor. Hypocrites.
Jamesb, our involvement in Viet Nam was a noble endevour. If it had not been for the left in this country, and abroad, South Viet Nam would have ended up with the freedom, prosperity, civil rights and religious freedom, much like South Korea has enjoyed all these years. South Korea enjoys something like the 6th best economy in the world. Instead, because of marxists like Zinn, Dr Spock, and marxist professors all through academia, not only did SVN lose that chance, but the commies, having outlasted the South in 1975, subsequently murdered over 2 million souls and imprisoned hundreds of thousands more. Not to speak of all the boat people who fled and drowned at sea. John F'n sKerry was one of the leftists arguing that if we pulled out of VN there would only be around 4 or 5 thousand people who would be murdered, I guess that's not bad enough.
Well, we did get the war to a Peace Accord in 1973 (Paris Peace Accords), but the democ-rats weren't satisfied with that, South VN was still free, that couldn't stand, so treacherous bastards (who controlled congress) that they are, they cut off all funding, spare parts, etc., (all things we had agreed to supply the South in the Accords). Consequently, in 1975 the North, in violation of the Accords, invaded the South. The South put up a valiant fight, but in the end the commiecrats had pulled the rug out from under their feet. Subsequently condemning to death over two million people. That's why I wish all leftists could be hanged by the neck. They aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell.
The Viet Nam War was a de facto war with the Soviet Union and Red China. It was just a 'hot' episode of the greater Cold War. Both the Soviet Union and Red China were communist and that's why the left, Zinn, et al, didn't want the U.S. and SVN to prevail. The Soviet system was "the workers paradise", and whether or not people like Zinn were plain stupid or shills for communism, makes no difference to me, either way they were reprobates of the first magnitude. Recall how they went apoplectic when Reagan called the Soviet Union the 'Evil Empire'.
With the VN War, we were however able to save Thailand and Indonesia, and we cost the Soviets much of their treasure, which they could ill afford owing to the fact that they were operating under an anemic marxist/communist/socialist economic system. This would come into play when Reagan started to put the screws to them some 10 or so years later. So it's very probable that the demise of the Soviet Union was a direct result of the Viet Nam War. It didn't help the plight of the Vietnamese people, but it did the people in Russia, Germany, Poland and other eastern european countries. Of course Zinn and leftists around the country have never forgiven Reagan for allowing capitalism to upstage and defeat their "utopian" dream. It's probably why they're always angry and can't enjoy life.
At the peak of USSR military/defense spending it was exceeding 30% of GDP while we remained and remain about 4% (excluding WWII)
That what finally KILLED Communism – it BROKE itself.
Malcolm and Zinn probably cried the day the Wall came down and the Communist wave of murder stopped.
Instead of speaking for me, you could have asked me, to ensure your comment's accuracy. But you didn't bother, you just supposed "probably" whatever you wanted to. The facts couldn't have mattered to you, could they have?
You would have been wrong. I would have corrected you – in a friendly spirit, for your having so graciously asked.
[sigh] My fantasy. Your delusions.
"Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
This illustrates what you fail to acknowledge, and in fact deny – Zinn LACKED objectivity, and because you agree with conclusions (presumably) you also lack objectivity.
That doesn't wash with you contention that his version of "history" is vetted by public documents and fact. He clearly statyes that he "shades" the truth. How 'bout them apples?
Walking through Borders the other day, I saw this book on one of the shelves. As a fan of American history, I thought this book would be an interesting, eye opening read. Wow, how naive was I. Knowing nothing about the man, his diatribes on this country and how horrible our founding was is a little too much. To serve the principle of intelletual honesty, I continued. However, after conducting a little research, (ironically I found the author died around the same time I bought the book) I just don't think I can continue. From the first couple of chapters I get the idea. Our country was founded by a bunch of greedy Europeans that killed, raped, pillaged other cultures. (I've been getthing these topics shoved down my throat since public, grade school.) Now back to Borders for my refund or perhaps to trade it in for something much more useful and honest, like "Eat This, Not That" or "Twilight".
Tom, here's the one you want. A History of the American People, by Paul Johnson.
Well Zinn has passed but the content he brainwashed young people with is still around, and so are his celebrity followers like Matt Damon. They need to be held accountable for spreading this venom and called out!
Well, I'm not so young, but I'm happy to have you call me out. Go ahead – please!
My only demand is that your charges be specific, detailed, well-reasoned, and factually sound (not excluding inconvenient facts, e.g.). In other words: criticisms without insults.
Tell me: (1) what am I guilty of? (2) Why is it a matter of guilt?
Can you do it? The absolute certainty of your tone suggests that it would be easy for you. C'mon – 5 minutes of your life to teach me a lesson I'm ready to learn. How can you say "no"?
Oh yeah: I'm not a celebrity. I hope you don't mind. On my small scale, I still "corrupt" minds that I come into contact with, so if the "celebrities" are guilty, I am too. Don't let me off the hook just because I'm small fish!
You corrupt 'em and I set 'em straight Skippy, everyday at the university level. A. Global Warming? Fraud. Zinn style revisionist history? Lies.
You keep up you leftist propaganda and I'll keep poking legitimate holes in it.
Nice threat, "Skippy", but so far it's hollow. If you can do it, then go ahead and do it. If you can't, then quit fooling around with all the noisy huffery-puffery. It's not as impressive as you may think in the moment when you press the "Submit comment" button.
Ok, I'm sorry, I was exaggerating. It's not impressive at all.
Peach — read some real history and get educated…you disgust me with you vitriolic lies and slander.
If he had to live as long as he did, I'm sure glad he lived long enough to see what he might have thought was America going marxist with the election of Obumba, in fact marxism's crumbling with the last three elections, e.g., VA, NJ & MA. In fact, it might just have been this recent election, the loss of MA and the revelation, that caused his death. Apropos I think.
2) "…too often, U.S. actions have been uncivilized and inhumane." Well, I grew up playing Cowboys and Indians, and thought nothing of the fact that the Lone Ranger's "Indian" sidekick was named "Tonto", which means "Stupid" in Spanish. So the slaughter and genocide (sometimes incidental to other aims, often deliberately an end in itself) doesn't seem *too* bad: the Redskins' lives just didn't have central importance in the White mythology of justification. And I'm white. So no problem, so far.
But look at…so many departments of US history – foreign policy, for example. Say, since WWII. Can you think of any large populations that have been decimated, directly and indirectly, by US power? Can you think of a few democracies that have been overthrown, and brutal authoritarian regimes that have been installed, by the US? Oh, justifications are always promulgated for public consumption, but look past the justications (whether you believe them or not): are the facts not facts, just as I've said?
What a bunch of pap and pablum. You state that you are "white". Fine, I'm 50% Mexican, from immigrant grandparents. Perhaps my heritage gives me a different perspective. I also grew up in West Texas, not in lilly white New England (where Zinn lived and taught, right?) The settlement of the West can be discussed but one must KEEP in context. Zinn's context was 20th century Marxist looking backwards. Jackson for example ( a DEMOCRAT) was brutal to the extreme. Fine. Painting the entire history of the settlement of N.A. as "Jacksonian" would be trite and innacurate, like Zinn.
Can you name any "really peachy" outcomes of brutal Marxist or socialist regimes? Castro? Thousands maybe more DEAD. Lenin/Stalin? MILLIONS DEAD. Cambodia? TWO MILLION plus DEAD. Red China? MILLIONS DEAD.
Mao – mass murderer – by fiat.
Stalin – mass murderer – by fiat
Pol Pot – mass murdered – by fiat
Where the "good work" of Marxism? Zinn was a Marxist, right?
Jamesb: your'e guessing wildly; your argument is as weak as your knowledge. Why don't you try to find out what Zinn had to say about the dangers of concentrated government powers of any kinds, so far as they stand apart from, and are unresponsive to, the interests of, and participation by, The People.
Even Marx was so dismayed by what was being done in his name (decades before the 20th century) that he felt compelled to proclaim: "I am not a Marxist". And Zinn is most DEFINITELY not a Marxist, by your understanding of the term.
Useless comments. Do better.
Play games of semantics with someone else, clown. Defend Marx in any way you see fit; that doesn't "unring the bell". His doctrine has led to MILLIONS of murders and if you are even a "smidge" intellectually honest you'll admit it.
As for Zinn I've found a MOUNTAIN of evidence that he was a Marxist. Case closed.
Useless attack. Do better, fool.
"Through Zinn’s looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history’s bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were “welcomed” by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a “terrorist group” that “seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua.” Castro’s Cuba, readers learn, “had no bloody record of suppression."
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17914
Wow, should I believe some fool that calls himself "Bruce- the- Juice" or this article…that's a tough one.
The problem with you sheeple Malcolm is that your defective brains exaggerate missteps made by the U.S. Missteps that pale when juxaposed against the countries that operate under marxism and communism. Missteps that unintended were byproducts of an otherwise positive outcome. Missteps that are amplified in your addled minds by propagansists like Zinn, et al, who embellish the missteps with fiction.
I think you must be responding to another Malcolm, but since I have the same name, I'll pretend you were addressing me.
First, then, please explain, in factual detail, your justification for calling me (or anyone) "sheeple".
Second: I addressed the matter of "missteps" above: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
Third: an assessment of the factuality and extent of crimes committed by the US government is not made true or false depending on whether other governments were/are worse. Separate questions: (1) what are the facts; (2) how do they compare.
I don't suppose your brain is defective. But if you drove your car the way you drive your brain, the streets and sidewalks of your town would not be safe. Please: buckle up, and watch out!
I called you a sheeple because you and your fellow leftists are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Oh, you think that the free system the United States provides is the enemy. And I'll admit that at present the government is. And I'll admit that the government has usurped way more power than was enumerated it by the Constitution. This is not a new situation, it's been this way since at least 1932. This usurpation is dangerous to freedom. The Founders knew this. But you and your fellow marxists want more government, can't get enough government. Of course you want to be in control of that government, because you're smarter than the average schmuck, and would run a kinder gentler government. Only this is at odds with empirical history. The kind of governments that have been run by people of your ideology have been notoriously evil, totalitarian, and antithetical to freedom.
Dear Mr. Vet,
You shower me with inappropriate stereotypes, telling me things about myself as if you had a clue, when it's punch-in-the-face obvious that you don't. It's not admirable, it's not respectable, it's not helpful – it's not even funny. It's just mean and stupid. Sorry.
Please read the comments I posted to you a few minutes ago, above:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
And, again: please try to do better. Or just do something else.
" an assessment of the factuality and extent of crimes committed by the US government is not made true or false depending on whether other governments were/are worse."
I agree. There are rogue operatives in every aspect of life, even governments. Luckily, with our form of government being inherently good, those are kept to a minimum. There are those few times though as you point out, such as Jimmah Karter allowing the Shau to be overthrown. Or Kennedy getting cold feet and allowing the freedom fighters who went ashore at The Bay of Pigs to be abandoned there to death and prison. However, to properly gage as to where a nation stands in the community of nations, where missteps or atrocities, etc., are concerned, one has to juxtapose those missteps, missdeeds, atrocities, etc., against each another. The U.S. has a pretty clean record in comparison. But all the communist/marxist nations would fall under atrocities as much or more than simple missteps. I'm not saying that there are not nations that aren't as good as the U.S., but they're not marxist/communist nations. And they also don't have the capacity that the U.S. has to do mischief.
We could only wish that every country in the world was as inherently good as the United States. If that were true, you wouldn't be talking about U.S. "crimes." Because there would be very little the U.S. would have been called to do over the many years on a foreign front.
" an assessment of the factuality and extent of crimes committed by the US government is not made true or false depending on whether other governments were/are worse."
I agree. There are rogue operatives in every aspect of life, even governments. Luckily, with our form of government being inherently good, those are kept to a minimum. There are those few times though as you point out, such as Jimmah Karter allowing the Shau to be overthrown. Or Kennedy getting cold feet and allowing the freedom fighters who went ashore at The Bay of Pigs to be abandoned there to death and prison. However, to properly gage as to where a nation stands in the community of nations, where missteps or atrocities, etc., are concerned, one has to juxtapose those missteps, missdeeds, atrocities, etc., against each another. The U.S. has a pretty clean record in comparison. But all the communist/marxist nations would fall under atrocities as much or more than simple missteps. I'm not saying that there are not nations that aren't as good as the U.S., but they're not marxist/communist nations. And they also don't have the capacity that the U.S. has to do mischief.
Where you find fault with our treatment of the injuns, I know how ruthless they were. They were ruthless with each other long before white man came on the scene. For many tribes their lives revolved around ambushing each other and killing as many of the "enemy" as they could. I often marvel at the fact that even a hundred years ago or more, we negotiated with the indians, that we actually gave them money for land. Our ancestors didn't have to do that, they could have killed every last indian and taken any land they wanted. Then there's the BS about how good the injuns were for nature, etc. crapola…the injuns drove whole herds of
buffalo over cliffs just to get a 10th of the meat and robes they needed. WASTE! And they peed in the streams and crapped on the shore too. Mix in the fiction by Zinn, Churchill, and company such as the whites purposely giving the indians smallpox via the contaminated blanket.
Well, my post became completely discombobulated because of this stupid posting system that requires you to break the post up into small ittsy bittsy pieces. I post again when that gets changed.
["They were ruthless with each other long before white man came on the scene."]
Isn't that awfully crude thinking? Let's refine it: "Some were, some of the time, under some conditions – some tribes more, some tribes less"
That's a better fit to Reality, don' t you think?
Now, how about on the other side of the Atlantic? How were things in Europe? Europe had been through long centuries of fluctuating violence, and the blood-soaked centuries of religious battle in Europe (particularly the 17th, or 1600's) were just the time when many settlers came flooding to America – by no coincidence!
Let's watch out for the comfortably self-justifying (but factually unsustainable) mythology, that the Indians were violent savages, and the Europeans were the gentle bearers of Civilization. It's just not true.
As for the rest of your Indian tale: let's just say that it could use a bit of work. Tempus fugit!
Note: "I don't know" is a legitimate answer. So is "I'm not sure". So is "Yes, absolutely". But it will be a high hill for you to climb, to defend an answer of "no". Specifically, it will require massive blindness to facts that are massively documented (and massively cross-correlated with each other) in the public record.
Would you like to try that? I hope not, for your sake.
"massively documented (and massively cross-correlated with each other) in the public record." LOL!
Dude – get out of the liberal/academia echo chamber! Zinn made stuff up. or twisted history to fit his liberal/progressive world view. That doesn't make him right. He "monday morninhg quarterbacked" history.
Dude – who told you that I have only a single source for my claim – or only a few dozen, or that Zinn is one of them? (I'd say he's not in the top 2-300 of my sources on Foreign Policy.)
What echo chamber are you talking about? I avail myself of a very wide range of information, from any and every kind of useful source (including right-wing blogs). Heck, I've probably listened to more Rush Limbaugh than 38.6% of his devoted "dittoheads".
Now if you want to talk about the crimes of the US Government (not the USA, but the American government) in foreign policy throughout its history, and particularly since WWII, on the basis of facts that are "massively documented (and massively cross-correlated with each other) in the public record", I'm quite happy to do so.
And if you think that's not possible, PLEASE: CALL MY BLUFF.
But history shows that the truth was recorded at the time by the post sutler. Don't want to believe him? Then use some logic, the Fort was not a military fort, it was a Fur Trading Fort. The indians were not hostile indians, and they had their permanent village right there beside the Fort. The whites who ran the fort depended almost entirely on the furs brought in by the indians. To believe that these whites purposely killed off the indians, who were of no danger to them, and whom they depended on for their livelihood, is to be defunct of reasoning power. Unless you don't do the research and you just take the propagandist's word for it. The marxist propaganda regarding Columbus is especially egregious.
.
These leftist sychophants are a hoot. If they wern't so dangerous they be an absolute laugh riot.
James, look: I'm challenging you to stop calling names and throwing around sloppy nonsense, and talk some substance with some integrity.
And if you can't accept that honorable and sincere challenge, then please meditate on the question of why you're doing this, and not something else.
Ya, head on. Tell us how evil the U.S. is and how we oppress and the rest of the leftist rot. Be sure to properly frame your screed and cite it cafefully.
"A People's History" not withstanding.
Why should I do that? It's not something either you or I believe in. If you think it should be done, do it yourself.
What's your point, except conflict for the sake of conflict? I'm not interested.
Oh, be sure to use the term "American Imperialism" and other Zinn-lke "catch terms" – it makes your nonsense seem sensible.
This is a nice take on Zinn's "history":
"Through Zinn’s looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history’s bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were “welcomed” by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a “terrorist group” that “seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua.” Castro’s Cuba, readers learn, “had no bloody record of suppression."
He's totally wrong about communism yet continues to push the propaganda.
Zinn: What deluded, foolish moron.
Ok, you made a specific citation, instead of name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and sweeping use of vague generalizations and ambiguous lables. Good.
But before your citations are complete, some questions need to be answer. If we can't answer the questions, it's WAY too early to be drawing conclusions as to their significance.
1) What, exactly, are Zinn's actual words [a source citation would be helpful]
2) What is the context of those statements?
3) What – with those words that that context – was he trying to convey? – NOT according to you, but according to him?
4) In light of what he was trying to say, and in light of the facts of the world, (a) how true or false are his claims; (b) how coherent or incoherent are his arguments; (c) how significant or trivial are his points.
You've finally contributed something of substance, from which a quality discussion can begin. But it seems like you're running away with an ill-won conclusion before the discussion has fairly begun.
Come back!
Malcolm, I must say I'm really getting sick of your insufferably arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone. If it's your objective to come in here and reform all of the evil conservatives who write and comment here then you're really shooting yourself in the foot the way you talk down to all of us. It's just incredibly annoying. Communication can only take place between equals, thus when you think you're better than others — and it's clear that you do, don't lie and say you don't — then you can't really get through to those who you place below you.
What are the factors that go into the mix determining whether somebody experiences anothers thoughts/attitudes, etc. as attractive or repulsive?
You didn't mention the content of my comments, only the "insufferably arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone". Why? Was the content not a factor? Or were there some reasons that you neglected to consider it?
Would it surprise you to learn that the attitudes I have adopted in my comments on these pages (not characteristic of my day-to-day communications) have been motivated by exactly the same experience of the "arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone" of dozens of the commentators I've been jousting with on these pages? I wonder if you fail to see that because you are basically sympathetic to the viewpoints expressed, unlike mine. To me it is (to use a phrase I invented earlier on these pages) punch-in-the-face obvious. So I'm not sure if you're actually tellling me something about myself, beyond your reactions to what I have said and how I've said it. Perhaps you are; but if so, it's not clear. [cont...]
But the way I'm presenting on these pages is motivated by an important element besides the "tone" of discourse (or discoarse?) here., and that is the content, which can be broken into 3 basic categories:
factual (self-explanatory);
rational (logic/reasoning); and
moral (including things like hypocrisy, and honest acknowledgement of one's own ignorance).
And in each of the three categories – I hope you don't have much ego invested in this forum – the content is appallingly bad. I'm sorry. This is not a serious forum for serious debate. It COULD be; that depends on the participants. Habitually, I never give up on anybody, but act on the assumption that anyone who's f**king things up CAN learn from their mistakes and do better.
David –
What are the factors that go into the mix determining whether somebody experiences anothers thoughts/attitudes, etc. as attractive or repulsive?
You didn't mention the content of my comments, only the "insufferably arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone". Why? Was the content not a factor? Or were there some reasons that you neglected to consider it?
Would it surprise you to learn that the attitudes I have adopted in my comments on these pages (not characteristic of my day-to-day communications) have been motivated by exactly the same experience of the "arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone" of dozens of the commentators I've been jousting with on these pages? I wonder if you fail to see that because you are basically sympathetic to the viewpoints expressed, unlike mine. To me it is (to use a phrase I invented earlier on these pages) punch-in-the-face obvious. So I'm not sure if you're actually tellling me something about myself, beyond your reactions to what I have said and how I've said it. Perhaps you are; but if so, it's not clear.
But the way I'm presenting on these pages is motivated by an important element besides the "tone" of discourse (or discoarse?) here., and that is the content, which can be broken into 3 basic categories:
factual (self-explanatory);
rational (logic/reasoning); and
moral (including things like hypocrisy, and honest acknowledgement of one's own ignorance).
And in each of the three categories – I hope you don't have much ego invested in this forum – the content is appallingly bad. I'm sorry. This is not a serious forum for serious debate. It COULD be; that depends on the participants. Habitually, I never give up on anybody, but act on the assumption that anyone who's f**king things up CAN learn from their mistakes and do better.
I have been willfully provocative: I didn't come here to be spit on and slapped around by people who are take any significant disagreement as a sign of foolishness, corruption or insanity, and thereby prevent any possibility of adult disagreement over any non-trivial matters. I've been around long enough (I'm in my mid-40's) to know that they would make me their "Leftist" whipping-boy if I gave them a chance.
So I give fair push-back. I challenge bullshit and nonsense, I challenge sloppy reasoning, and I challenge hypocrisy. In response to insults, I usually respond with serious criticisms (but occasionally slip in a little jab, for fun). It's how I've been playing the game. Give me a reason to apologize, and I'll actually do more: I"ll change my ways.
But don't ask me to be a saint in this cesspool of intellectual sin. That would be hypocritcal. And you know how I feel about that. [cont...]
Malcolm's head on attack is predictable. He thinks (wrongly) that he has a toothless dolt on the hook and if he just whacks me with a few $20 words I'll "see the light". In actuality I reject Zinn's "scholarship" because he was an avowed Marxist and even a quick study of his work shows errors and backwards "logic". Not worth much effort "retorting", but thanks.
Your last paragraph is nonsensical. Not that we haven't also made misteps in foreign policy, but again the lies, half-truths and distortions, only serve the propagandist in totally distorting the picture for the benefit of his self-ignorant acolytes. No we never decimated, directly or indirectly (an impossibility) large populations of people. Where we "overthrew" brutal authoritarian regimes, we put in place people who, while being far from perfect, were exponentially better than the people we took out. Such as the Shau of Iran. Or in some cases we caused free elections to take place. We did screw up though in not following through and taking Castro out. JFK's cowardice will forever haunt him.
So your thinking process has been clouded by your programmed hate of the United States. You take our many mistakes that, again, pale when judged against the regimes you favor, remember our mistakes were generally unintentional, theirs weren't, and you blow them out of all proportion. But worst of all you then advocate we switch to the system that has indeed, purposely, caused no end of human misery and suffering throughout its history. Yes, leftists are insane.
]"No we never decimated, directly or indirectly (an impossibility) large populations of people…"]. I'm responsible for myself, and I'll allow you to be, too. So *we* "never decimated, directly or indirectly (an impossibility) large populations of people", but the American government (a good friend of yours, perhaps?) very definitely has, and committed many other crimes that don't count as "decimation".
(And by the way, indirect responsibility for crimes is absolutely possible: thru proxies, for example, or thru the negligent implementation of policies with predictable harmful consequences – as, say, with the insurgency in Iraq, which was itself carried out by Iraqis, but was totally predictable, and was in fact predicted, as a consequence of the invasion, particularly with the lack of a post-war plan: a serious and deadly crime of negligence.) [cont...]
Now, the sort of crimes I'm referring to are not mere "missteps" (mistakes are not crimes, per se), but either deliberate or banefully negligent infringements upon the freedoms and livelihood of peoples without their consent and against their interests, on the basis of the fact that the US gov't had the power to do so, and that it served "American interests" (not yours or mine, but business', generally).
The record includes, as I've said, the systematic overthrow of democracies and installation/support of the worst kinds of dictators, as well as the suppression of all kinds of popular movements, or the undermining of their economic autonomy thru the forced imposition of unfair trade policies that hve been implemented over the heads of The People and rammed down their throats anti-democraticallly – and always on justifications that Americans have been conditioned to accept reflexively: fighting communism, defending freedom, defending America, helping our allies, economic modernization, etc.
Can you think of no examples by yourself? There's no shortage (hello, Haiti!).
Your hate of the U.S. taints your thinking. You come from a position that the U.S. is evil and therefore everything it attempts to do is done with malice in mind. I can gather from your stated hate of business, that you are one of the wingnuts who believes we went into Iraq because of oil. This alone dings your credibilty. Many of the countries we attempted to help were for humanitarian purposes. Such as Somalia, until Klinton expanded that roll to go after the Warlords, which were the enemy of the people. I don't fault Klinton in doing that, I fault him for retreating. And bin Laden has said that was when they realized the U.S. would not take casualties and they started planning the 9/11 attack. Other countries, the heads of state asked for our help. And as I said in an earlier post, where we replaced a tyrant, the one we replaced him with was much better for the people than the existing one. Not everytime, but the great percentage of time. The point is, because we are an inherently good country, our intentions were honorable, and in more cases than not, we improved the situation.
Dear VN Vet –
You're telling me things about myself that seem to be stereotypes you acquired long before you met me here. They're wild guesses, and they're just plain wrong.
Not just wrong wrt me: I think you should seriously question their usefulness as stereotypes (they may be very useful, but not for worthy purposes).
That I "hate" the U.S. On the contrary, I've traveled extensively throughout the U.S. largely because I love so much about it: I've visited most States many times, and the only one I've never visited is Delaware (no offense, if you're from there).
I like Louis Armstrong, and Rogers and Hammerstein, and Don McLean;
I like the Grand Canyon, the giant trees of Northern California, the comfy, rustic quaintness of Maine;
I like the great melting-pot of cultures in the cities, and all the wonderful cuisines that are available as a result;
I like the principle of representative democracy (however poorly it is effectuated);
I like baseball, and football, and basketball;
I like Bill Moyers, and Rachel Maddow, and Howard Zinn.
YES – THEY ARE AMERICAN!!! If you disagree, then I suggest that your concept of America is flawed, constricted, strangled.
Nobody gave you the right to define what is authentically American for anyone but yourself. So you're not justified in telling others that they *hate* America, just because they don't like some of your dogmas.
Nor are you justified in making such accusations on the basis of their critically analyzing the behavior of the American Government (however much you may love the government) and finding it flawed, even morally objectionable, and criticizing it in the hope of improving it.
Just as I'm criticizing your thinking for the flaws I find in it – not to destroy you, but in the hope that you will improve.
Btw, you asserted:
"You come from a position that the U.S. is evil and therefore everything it attempts to do is done with malice in mind."
Q: How did you learn such a thing?
A: You didn't. And it is hugely and significantly wrong – prejudicially wrong. And prejudice prevents quality contact, worthwhile relationship.
IN FACT, I have never been comfortable with the concept of evil, because I can't quite get clear on what it is supposed to mean, and I've never met anybody who *does* use the word "meaningfully" (in a quarter-century of questioning the word) who could, under scrutiny, explain it coherently. (I bet you didn't know that about me, did you?)
More:
I avoid coming to definite judgments about others' motives unless I have sound, objective grounds for doing so. I may speculate and wonder (I allow myself to be unsure). But I avoid facile and unjustified conclusions about others' assumptions and motives, of exactly the sort you made about me and mine.
No, apologies don't fit with the truculent tone of this forum, and I don't expect one. But please: try to do better. K?
Destroying the U.S. (or at least attempting to) while praising it is crazy.
Why didn't Zinn leave the U.S. rather than die in it? Why?
As a Marxist he should have "walked the walk".
By the way I'd venture I've seen way more of this country and also Europe as well as Asia and EVERY TIME I land in the U.S.A. I'm happy to be back.
I spent a month in Europe last summer and nearly kissed the ground of the terminal upon arrival in Atlanta.
…and I was born in and grew up in Japan.
"I like Bill Moyers, and Rachel Maddow…"
Well that explains everything.
Do you like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter?
Well that pretty much explains everything too.
You and Zinn and other leftists come from the point that the U.S. is inherently evil and our intentions were anything but honorable. If it seems there were a few times we were looking out for our own interests, with apparent disregard for some other country then it's very possible we were. In view of our overall humanitarian record it would have been important to do so. We have helped many a nation over the years with humanitarian aid, foreign aid, and military aid, we have conquered and occupied as conquerers very few. And graded on a international curve, especially considering our emense power we have shown great restraint and willingness to be a good neighbor. To my way of thinking we bend over too far many times. Not the same can be said, nothing of this can be said, for the totalitarian regimes that many leftists prefer. Your charges against the United States are for the most part without merit.
As I said, we, the U.S., has not decimated large populations of people, notwithstanding your insistance. That you use the Iraq example shows the vacuousness of the charge. The premise you seem to put forward is that if we had only known there would be an insurgency we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. We sure better have. It's like saying, if we would have only known that the Nazi's would put up a fight we wouldn't have invaded France on D-Day. As you would have condemned europeans to Nazism, and as you did condemn the S. Vietnamese to Communism, you would condemn Iraqis to the death and rape of a madman. Not to mention the possible exploitation of WMD's to threaten the region as well as the U.S., Israel, and western Europe. Foreign policy is formulated in real time, not with the hindsite of 20 or 30 years. That things don't always work out as planned is usually better than doing nothing at all. And usually the reason they don't work out is, such as the Iraqi example…wait a minute, they did work out..oh well.
I'm afraid you misunderstood my point – perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I said:
___________
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
"And by the way, indirect responsibility for crimes is absolutely possible: thru proxies, for example, or thru the negligent implementation of policies with predictable harmful consequences – as, say, with the insurgency in Iraq…"
___________
I didn't give it as an example of decimation, but of "indirect" responsibility for harmful outcomes actually effectuated by others: the US gov't not only failed to develop a post-war plan for implementation, but actively refused to consider a plan that had been carefully developed by a State Dep't group. The failure of post-war planning (along with other factors) was predicted to have the result – and *did* have the result – of fostering the insurgency, which resulted in further death and suffering beyond imagination. It was, at best, a crime of gross negligence on the part of the U.S. government (not me; I don't know about you).
I used Iraq as an example because it's recent and prominent, and so safe to assume that you're somewhat familiar with it.
But if you want decimation, per se, that's on the menu, too. May I suggest East Timor, in 1975, when 1/3 of the population were slaughtered by Suharto's forces, using U.S. military hardware, and with the connivance and support of the U.S. government (Kissinger gave the decisive "wink").
Oh…you're not familiar with that case? Then perhaps that means that it didn't happen, or that it just doesn't *matter*. Or perhaps there's…something…for you to learn?
Why don't most Americans know anything about it? There are reasons. They're worth investigating.
Have to!
Btw, you said:
[The premise you seem to put forward is that if we had only known there would be an insurgency we wouldn't have invaded Iraq."]
Not at all! From at least 1992, Iraq had been on the NeoCon Invasion to-do list, and it was a priority from the earliest days of Bush's Presidency. 9/11 made it practically inevitable (what a huge opportunity of justification, not to be wasted!). Insurgency or no insurgency!
The Bush Administration would have refrained from invading if they had known that there would be the insurgency? Even tho it's their own criminal negligence (and other factors of their culpability) that did so much to foster it?
There seems to be a problem with the logic here.
If they hated the prospect of an insurgency so much (the bloodshed, and loss of innocent life), then it's reasonable to assume that they would have heeded the warnings from many (including high-level military officials, and within the State Department), and developed at least a half-assed post-war plan — instead of just cancelling the invasion.
But yes it could have worked out better if the terrorists were somwhere close to humans. I think the planners of the Iraq War figured they would get opposition, to the military, but they couldn't have imagined that the terrorists would target their own civilian population. 99% of the civilian deaths in Iraq were from the terrorists. Now, there were something like 40,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, as there are civilian deaths in Afghanistan, far from what would be classified as decimation, if that's what you mean by decimation, but that's neither here nor there, the salient point is that you would/are blaming these on the U.S. invasion. Convoluted logic at best. There were around 29 million civilian deaths in WWII, had we known that would be the case, we would have abdicated to Hitler. The greater point is, that in order to preserve feedom and the freedom's of other people, sometimes there are abhorrant prices to pay for that freedom. But the blame should be placed where it actually resides with the abhorrant and evil people who actually perpetrate it.
Well he served America and for that he is an to be honorable man and is allowed a military burial an American flag draped over him and all rights.
Have you ever thought how American Military families feel?
Have you ever lived in a home where as the great Professor Zinn had to live each day suffering what he was ordered to do as a very young innocent man?
Many of us from Military families suffer.
Professor Zinn told the truth and witnessed it.
As a military veteran myself (former US Marine), the "truth" is not the exclusive property of Zinn.
And yes, my experience is that most military families love their country and do not have the hatred for it that Zinn had.
Exactly, all the while living acomfortable upper middle class life, with the freedom the first amendment granted all of us, yet oppression of the masses by communism and socialism are "fine and dandy" for the proletariate he hoped to propagate with his lies.
Did Zinn hate his country? I think you ought to be able to document that startling claim. Please give me an example of SOMETHING that supports your claim (something factual, that is).
I mean…you wouldn't have made that claim if you couldn't back it up, would you?
Awww…ok, I was just kidding. You would – and *did*.
Tsk! Please start trying to do better.
A posting above mentioned that Zinn volunteered to fight in WWII, when he could have stayed Stateside. You didn't know that, did you? See:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
Now cut the crap, awlright?
Zinn hated America. Read the first chapter of A People's History and he denies that the US is even a legitimate nation. He accuses the US of being an illegitimate country. He rejects the very idea of nationhood. That's why he's opposed to the US defending itself from those who would destroy it.
Except, he said that the only reason he served in WW2 was to aid the USSR in its fight against Germany. Had the Nazi/Soviet Pact of 1939 held he would have avoided military service.
As a graduate of a particular southern military college, a former veteran and current history teacher, I greatly admired Howard Zinn. I might not agree with everything he wrote, he did provide a voice for a group within our nation that is generally not found in history books.
History is an interpretation of events, and it is good to inquire, question. This discussion/debate is something he would have been very fond of. He encouraged it, as we should encourage students to do as well. Too bad we didn’t do more of this before the war in Iraq.
Yawn. You should read Philip Foner or Herbert Aptheker. Zinn was in no way original, and in fact was quite a bit inferior to his predecessors. How are class struggle and economic determinism new methods of analysis? If one likes such simple formulaic writing, Stephen King is a great novelist. Howard Zinn’s great achievement in producing “A People’s History of the United States” was to repackage a creaky old polemical tract as some new form of historiography. It is on a par with William Fuld patenting and marketing an old “witch board”, which had been around in various forms for centuries, as a spanking new “Ouija Board”. That was a similar example of repackaging something old as something new.
Walt: no historian does entirely original work, or even mostly original work, or even *largely* original work. I'm not prepared to argue against the idea that his work was "in no way original", because that would require exhaustive knowledge of all other texts against which it might be compared.
But the question rises naturally: what is your purpose? I seriously doubt Zinn would have claimed that his work was original. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would have rejected the idea. Maybe that wasn't his point.
What was his point? Well, what was the outcome of his work? I'm guessing here, but I suspect he wasn't trying to break new ground in academic historiography, but to provide a teaching tool (he was a passionate teacher); to have an effect in the world outside of academia. And, so far as that goes, I think it's fair to say that he was far more successful than he imagined (again, I'm guessing – but not blindly).
So…it seems to me that your purpose is simply to discredit Zinn. It also seems that your attack may be aimed at the wrong target.
Well, as long as he was passionate about trashing America and aiding the Soviet Union at every turn everything's fine then.
Howard Zinn demystified history and was a voice of reason.
He was a revisionist lunatic. Buh bye Howard.
All history is revistionist (except, if one wants to nit-pick: original histories on a period are visionist, all others revisionist: but none can claim comprehensively validity: the vast, messy and multifarious World just doesn't reduce so neatly to a few hundred pages of linear thought; the World doesn't work that way).
As for lunacy: it's pots and kettles, mirrors and…oh yeah, hypocrisy.
Buh bye, James!
Howard Zinn was a fool who demanded moral perfection of America while "understanding" every crime of America's enemies. He belonged to the race that thinks that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence–and failing to realize that it might be so only because someone wasted a lot of green paint over there.
yup. another Marxist spreading lies. funny, these labratory commies talk but don't live it.
Howard Zinn, in promoting his agenda, revised history to fit that distorted vision of his. To portray
the U.S.A., it's founding and its subsequent policies based on evil intentions is just not so.
The Declaration of Independence, having stated the self-evident, that we are all created equal
had within it the seed of ridding our society of the evil of slavery. Communism, which makes the
state master makes everyone under its influence a slave.
Why don't you read Marx. The ultimate goal of communism is not state control.
Absolutely true. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, Marx saw what was being done in his name and was compelled to assert: "I am not a Marxist".
But few on this page know that. And even if they read it, from multiple cross-corroborating sources (even Marx himself), they will likely never know it. Some facts are just unwelcome intruders on self-contained and self-satisfied worldviews, and can find no home therein.
Whatchyagonna do?
Taking on the Zinn apologists has been a revealing first-hand experience for me. What I've learned is that my objections to his views is the result of my own ignorance. It's been suggested that I lack sufficient knowledge to truly appreciate his work and legacy. For the Left, Zinn's eminence is beyond dispute, and to challenge his excellence is the deed of an ill-informed idiot. I also had no idea how enraged leftwingers get if you don't accept or respect their intellectual superiority. I never would have guessed that all you have to do to get a liberal academic to go ballistic is to imply that they're not as smart as they think they are. Liberals are funny people.
Dear Tar_n_Feathers,
It seems you had the misfortune of meeting some *liberals* and *leftists* who haven't learned to engage in serious, high-quality discussion and debate, but who prefer "bullpuckey" and bluster: people who don't know what they're talking about, and can't back up their claims when asked, but don't care, because it's all about the Fight (not about such boring things like truth, reason, principles, etc.)
I feel for ya! Really – I have the same problem.
What shall we do about it? We can't force others to improve. All we can do is make sure that we, ourselves, take things with appropriate seriousness, and think and act with integrity.
More power to us!
How's that "Hope & Change" working out for you? Good?
Millions of working American men and women disagree and shills for socialism, who live ensconced in the cocoon of academia, are in for a rude awakening.
The mini-era of "progressivism" is over in November. Enjoy it while you can.
Oh, my dear friend, please do accept a humble tidbit of advice, toward the end of improving the overwhelming butt-blast of discourse we find ourselves in, in our small and humble ways.
Please: recognize the overly-facile stereotypes that lace your comments about "the Left", "leftwingers" and "Liberals". I suggest that, if you ever want to have a serious conversation with any of "them" (in their capacity as dignified human beings, and not as cartoon-like foils for some intellectual game), you will find that such stereotypes are a serious impediment to making any kind of real contact with them – just as their stereotypes of you prevent contact from their side.
“…..the overwhelming butt-blast of discourse we find ourselves in, in our small and humble ways. ” Are you having a bowels problem right now? Just asking.
Actually, that sentence was poorly made. Read: "…please do accept a humble tidbit of advice, toward the end of improving the..discourse…in our small and humble ways." That's the basic architecture, but it was confusing as I wrote it.
No, my bowels are happy, thanks for asking. But the public discourse – doesn't it *stink*???
People might respond to you better if you didn't put yourself on a pedestal by dispensing debating advice. It makes you come off as arrogant.
C'mon Tar_n_Feathers, you had to have known this. They are after all elitists. Arrogance and condescension is their middle and last names. Ignorance is their creed.
The link to the Dissent article is very useful in helping us understand the thinking of the left. Since his thinking was so extreme the logic comes out. The assumptions he makes are inequality of wealth is bad and the people are good. Since the people are good they must want equality of wealth. There are rich people in America and America's capitalist system leads to inequality of wealth. At the same time many people are patriotic. Therefore the people are being duped by the clever and malevolent pro-wealth inequality government. Such a malevolent government must be malevolent in its dealings around the world and must be imperialist. Regarding Al Qaeda which Mr. Horowitz mentioned, anyone who strikes at the U.S. is striking at a clever, malevolent and imperialist government and so must be doing the right thing.
They first had to attack and diminish religion. Their hate of religion, especially Christianity is manifest, because it is the primary impediment to making people class warriors. Generally people derive their 'richness' from their faith. They can be poor financially, but because of their faith feel rich. They know which is really important, their monetary poorness doesn't cause them undo anxiety. That had to be destroyed in order for people to become class conscious. To become class envious. Thus their ongoing war on religion (unless it benefits their cause such as muslim) and likewise their ongoing war on the Founding Fathers.
It is so sad to see and read so much hypocrisy and hate. Shame on you Mr Horowitz! "What are they? Men at all?" Henry D. Thoreau
Interesting to see noted racist David Horowitz refer to Howard Zinn as “a wicked man”.
How is Horowitz racist?
His stance on slavery reparations and the distortions of history that he presents as part of his argument are quite clearly racist.
No they aren't. Which comments and how are they racist? Have you read his book on the subject, "Uncivil Wars"? Or are you just recycling leftist smears that he's refuted dozens of times?
Yes, I have read it. Have you read Dottin’s rebuttal? We can go round and round in this left/right debate all day, but the simple fact is that Horowitz is not a historian, and does not understand the research methodologies required for the discipline. His book is flawed as a true historical analysis because he contorts the research to fit his avowed political persuasions, which he masks under the guise of academic freedom.
I don't think I've read Dottin's rebuttal to "Uncivil Wars" though I do recall reading a rebuttal to Horowitz's 10 points. Link?
You still haven't answered my question, though: how does Horowitz's arguments against Oprah Winfrey receiving reparations for her ancestors' enslavement 150 years ago from the taxes paid by first-generation Mexican immigrants (who had nothing to do with slavery) make him a racist? Is my bi-racial wife a racist because she agrees with his arguments? Are the black libertarians and conservatives who agree with Horowitz's arguments racist too?
Why do you feel the need to go ad hominem against Horowitz by trying to disqualify his arguments by saying he is not a historian? Why must you attack the person instead of the idea?
And I find it amusing that you're accusing Horowitz of twisting history to fit his ideology on a thread about… Howard Zinn. That's just ridiculously ironic.
And "Uncivil Wars" has nothing to do with Academic Freedom. Given that Horowitz is not a professor or a student the concept of Academic Freedom has nothing to do with his writings. He's certainly written about Academic Freedom, but the concept doesn't apply to whether he can make the arguments he wants. I find your comment about Academic Freedom as it relates to "Uncivil Wars" to be very puzzling.
Horowitz’s opinion that black Americans are not due reparations is simply that, an opinion, right or wrong (though in fairness, I think Oprah Winfrey is hardly representative of all black Americans). If yourself, your wife, Horowitz, or anybody else analyses the arguments for reparations and concludes that it is not warranted, then that is merely an opinion and not necessarily a racist one (though I suspect many reject reparations based on their own personal prejudices rather than a reasoned interpretation of the arguments). The elements of his book that I believe are racist are his attempts to absolve white American society of the time of blame for slavery and his obfuscation of the effects of slavery.
Horowitz is entitled to his opinion and to make his argument — I am not questioning this. However, when he dresses it up as a rigorous, scientific interpretation of the past based on established history writing methodologies, then it is entirely justifiable to measure him on his qualifications (or lack thereof) to do so. “Uncivil Wars” is presented as history (indeed, Horowitz appears to believe that it’s “historical validity” is what gives his argument power), but it is ultimately an opinion piece founded on substandard historical research.
I've asked you repeatedly to cite a racist statement he's made. You've been unable or unwilling to do so. Thus, you've demonstrated that you're more interested in making ad hominem attacks against Horowitz than engaging in intellectual discourse.
Of course it's an opinion that reparations is a bad idea. So what? He cites history to support that opinion — as we all do to cite all of our opinions. What a tiresome discussion this is.
He cites history incorrectly to justify his opinion. If you can’t understand that then you’re right, it is a tiresome discussion.
<<though I suspect many reject reparations based on their own personal prejudices rather than a reasoned interpretation of the arguments >>
What garbage. Reparations is the loser, crybaby, grifter con of the last 50 years. Christ, can't you make an argument for your position without basing it on someone else's "personal prejudices," a/k/a racism?
Where's my air sickness bag when I need it?
Opposing reparations is racist!
Who knew?!
Ah, another Hasa/Hizbollah supporter. Thanks for chiming in from Gaza. Ask the Muslim Brotherhood what racist means every time they pollute a college campus with their lies and hate.
What have Hizbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood got to do with this or the comment I made?
The Muslim Brotherhood actively protest Horowitz where ever he speaks (if they're not too stoned on blunts and Colt 45) and Hizbolla and Hamas are the new "cause célèbre" for leftist and liberals seeking to turn the issue of Israeli state sovereignty into a debatable isuue.
Good for you, you've managed to side with vicious racist terrorists opposed to Israel. Horowitz MUST be correct in his views.
Except we know it's only 'noted' in very mixed up minds. And of course in the minds of the propagandist, who is not sane, but in his own convoluted way knows exactly what he's doing.
that fairly succinctly sums up much of Horowitz’s work.
I'm sorry, but you are very wrong. For all his many faults, Horowitz is most certainly NOT a racist. Opposing reparations and rubbishing the free Mumia movement aren't, in and of themselves, racist positions.
It would do you good to see the textures in people, rather than merely surface patterns.
From al the crap I’ve just read from both sides of the debate, I am more confident than ever in sticking to my libertarian principle of the primacy of the individual and his right to life, liberty & property, which also totally respects the line, “My rights end where your nose begins.” This so-called “wicked country” (USA) has provided more opportunity for the individual to flourish than any other on earth and in history. Little people like Zinn, who was always tearing down that ideal, will eventually be assigned to the dustbin of histroy – UNLESS World Domination by some dictator eventually prevails. In other words, the State is, ultimately, the enemy of the Individual and the People. Zinn was just plain wrong in his “ideals.”
Zinn recognized individual rights. He, in fact, wanted it extended to those less fortunate: blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc. The state or government , to Zinn, was artificial. So i don't know where you got your information, but pick up one of his books and read it.
WHAT???
A central theme in Zinn's work is that the State must be relentlessly challenged, and that individuals must remain steadfastly independent, skeptical and courageous in their thinking. I don't know where you got EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE ideas (tho I have my suspicions, since they're shared so widely by commentators on these pages and in a thousand niches on the web and on talk radio, etc.) BUT YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T GET THEM FROM ANYTHING ZINN SAID OR WROTE.
Now: about thinking for yourself….
[I wonder why you spelled "history" similar to "destroy": histroy. Do your fingers know something your brain doesn't?]
I did not see any Boston University students of the 3 decade Zinn era posting comments so let me be the first. I enrolled at B.U. as a freshman in 1965, just a year after Howard Zinn arrived on campus.
Howard was already achieving superstar status on campus and all my left wing friends couldn’t wait to enroll in his classes. I did not, contrarian that I was and am. I later discovered Howard’s classes were no sweat B’s at the worst, always sure to attract students.
B.U. in the mid-60’s was already a hotbed of anti- Vietnam war activity with an active SDS as well as a left wing newspaper edited by Ray Mungo, a dedicated leftist. Mungo became famous as the first college newspaper editor to call for LBJ’s impeachment, in 1967, a sure-fire winner for students of the ’60’s.
As the frequency of demonstrations increased, Howard Zinn could often be seen out front as a “faculty advisor” to the radicals. He loved the limelight and the limelight loved Howard back. A celebrity radical was born. When not out front, Howard was “advising” the radicals in the background. I began to think of him as an advisor to radicals rather than as a professor.
Howard had free rein on campus in the ’60’s but began to receive push back beginning in 1971 when John Silber became President of B.U., after my time on campus. Silber was an old line Democrat from the University of Texas who abhorred the likes of Howard Zinn, and they quickly became mortal enemies for the rest of their days on campus.
The Silber-Zinn battle is really a whole other, fascinating story and one which I hope to see told in full. Silber was a no nonsense guy who did not suffer fools gladly, and never lost an opportunity to tell you so. Silber, like Howard, became a legend in his own time at B.U.
Many B.U. alumni and students cheered the arrival of Silber as he soon put B.U. on the map as a serious, national and international university. And his on going battle with Howard Zinn and the left wing faculty was an entertaining side show. Has David Horowitz written about this epic battle of wills?
A thirty-odd page "People's History" of the Vietnam war that neglects to mention the USSR. There is no Peoples Perspective that justifies this nonsense. Just the thing for enthusiastic young lefties to read…
What? No USSR? The Zinn ilk would tell you that the 'poor oppressed" North Vietmanese banged rocks together until "magically" – SAM missles came forth from the "Rocks of Freedom" and installed themselves around Hanoi. Then "sha-zam" they launced themselves at the B-52's.
Come on, it's a "Zinn World" and real history is "just along for the ride".
Remo William:
Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Really, think (if you can!) what you just wrote! Think for a second!!!
God, I am so sad to see this world full of lunatics and hypocrites.
Sam
I don't know much about Zinn but if he was trying to defend Stalin , then he must have been evil. Stalin between 1937 and 1939 arrested 1, 300,000 people in his "great purge". Of those 681,000 were executed about a 1000 a day. The rest died in gulags and labor camps. The evil of the Stalin regime must never be covered up.
don't worry, he wasn't trying to defend Stalin, while Zinn was a member of the US air force, where he defended this country, he read (in 1946) a book by Arthur Koestler that made him realise Stalin was monstrous and wrong. he wrote about this, what a pity that the ignorant David Horowitz has based this demolition of a man on lies, in much the same way Stalin might have done.
Forget about the 1.3 million arrested in the Great Purge. That was just the Communist Party cannibalizing itself. There were tens of millions of ordinary people in the then-Soviet Union who suffered for all kinds of things that an ordinary country would consider ordinary thinking or making a living or being born in a certain ethnic group.
Zinn was a propagandist (not a historian), who excelled at being sort of a Pied Piper to young leftists everywhere. He promoted the socialist Utopian dream, that has seduced so many young people (including myself back in the 60's). The realities of work, raising a family and paying taxes has a tendency to shake the fog of socialism from ones senses. It took me a dozen years, from the time I graduated from college, to realize the socialist dream was really a nightmare. Zinn should probably be remembered alongside Walter Duranty and other apologists for human misery on massive scales.
Walt: The same goes for you. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Really, think (if you can!) what you just wrote! Think for a second!!! You are very smart and brave. Congrats!
Btw, did any of you read a single line from any of his books?
Grow up,
Sam
Walt: The same goes for you. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Really, think (if you can!) what you just wrote! Think for a second!!! You are very smart and brave. Congrats!
Btw, did any of you read a single line from any of his books?
Grow up,
Sam
"Howard Zinn was a Stalinist in the years when the Marxist monster was slaughtering millions of innocent people and launching his own ‘final solution’ against the Jews. Put another way, Howard Zinn was helping Stalin to conduct those slaughters and to enslave all those who had the misfortune to live behind the Iron Curtain. Howard never had second thoughts about his commitment to leftwing totalitarians and never flagged in his political commitment to freedom’s enemies."
That's very interesting, why aren't the libs talking about this?
Why should anyone talk about it, including anyone on this page? It is, after all, total baloney: malicious, delusional, factually-ungrounded baloney churned out from the imaginations, prejudices, and rampantly aggressive wishful thinking of the people on these pages and others like it on the 'net.
If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, COME ON: IT'S ABOUT TIME!
We all need to GET REAL, and stop playing this juvenile play-pen game of pretend-rational discourse, with blue circles, green triangles and red squares, in a world of vast complexities of shape and color.
STOP DEPENDING SO HEAVILY ON LABELS (which are often mental crutches), and start paying attention to details – REAL detalis, not the ones you want to believe in no matter what.
it's embarrassing, really. Come on, let's stop embarrasing our race. The human one. Snap out of it!
Zinn wasn't a Stalinist, but an anarchist. Just goes to show how ridiculous this site is. Get your facts straight DH. And for those of you that aren't aware what the differences between Stalinism and Anarchism are (or how anarchists opposed Communist Russia), then, Lord help you.
When you support and defend Stalinists you become one. And Zinn did throughout his entire career. It's quite clear to anyone who's read A People's History. Just read how he portrays Fidel Castro.
"John · 1 day ago
Zinn argued that in a democracy, civil disobedience is much more important than strict, blind obedience to the government. Please do continue being sheep to the right. You all look like fools."
This is a Republic – not a Democracy, thanks for being an idiot.
It's next to impossible for a historian to be totally unbiased however Zinn didn't appear interested in presenting but one view of American history, that of an elite oppressor against the minorities or masses whereas there always are multiple sides to every historical drama.
Well stated czekmark. Being totally unbiased is not something one can be, though one can strive to present a better overall picture instead of the myopic one Zinn preferred.
You misunderstand what Zinn was trying to do. He never pretended to be offering a comprehensively adequate history that would make standard histories irrelevant. "A People's History" was written to counterbalance the standard texts which were almost universally assumed to present such a comprehensively adequate account — and assumed so in error.
To be clear: standard histories (centered a top-down perspective and elite-powers orthodoxy of legitimation) are totally, totally biased. That does not categorically invalidate them (they contain a lot of useful history, nonetheless), but the perspective is seriously imbalance. Biased, in other words.
Those who accuse Zinn of bias are absolutely right. But in *accusing* him, they reveal that they don't quite understand what he was trying to do and why. (In fact, he is very open about his biases, on friendly terms with them, able to talk freely about them – or was. ARE YOU???)
I cannot comment on Howard Zinn as a person but as a student of history I can comment on his historical and political diatribes against the USA. Saying that his works were laughable or even "intellectual fraud" as was quoted in Mr. Horowitz' article is actually being quite complimentary to Zinn. Most of my liberal history professors actually requested that no one use his work as a reference in any course papers because he was not credible. That liberal professors would make such a request speaks volumes. Zinn as a historian was a caricature of the underground comic character not to be mentioned here though they both shared Z in their names. Though he is now gone his work will unfortunately continue to damage the young minds that read and believe the nonsense that he wrote. How sad.
"his historical and political diatribes against the USA"
Really? Give me ONE example.
Never mind. You can't. Howard Zinn NEVER made a diatribe against the USA, and you, embracing Horowitz' charge of "intellectual fraud", join him in that very crime. And the crime of hypocrisy.
Now, you may ask, how can I possibly say, categorically, that Zinn never made a diatribe against the USA? Wouldn't that require my having read and listed to ever sentence he wrote or spoke?
Technically, yes: I cannot make such a categorical claim without such comprehensively total familiarity with his every word.
But we have other was of knowing. I know, for example, that such a diatribe would have been jarringly out of character for him, and it's simply inconceivable (in the real world, not the world of logical possibility) that he would have been guilty of one – even if he were very drunk! It's just not him.
Now let me elucidate a possible point on which you may be confused. Zinn made numerous diatribes, not so much against the American government *in toto*, but against policies and deeds of the government, and the institutional structures and procedure that led to the perpetuation of baneful policy.
But he urges us – you included! – to resist the government's impulse to conflate America-as-a-whole with itself, such that criticizing specific policies of the government can be equated, simply, with attacking America.
Yeah?
Earlier I wrote a post on the attacking-America confusion (or rhetorical device). Read it; I'll be listening for your applause:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...
What's going on here, did this guy write a bible?
Howard was a great guy who challenged and warmed an entire generation of students, scholars and activists. His legacy is magnificent, as was he.
At the core of his greatness is the fact that would have welcomed ALL the above comments with grace and humor. He will be greatly missed, though his gifts will be with us. No Nukes! / 4 Solartopia HarveyWasserman
You don't get to put a blue underline under the word "Stalinist" unless you're linking to actual proof that Zinn was a Stalinist — not just a definition of Stalin. That's misleading, especially when you have so many links no one will click on most of them.
the ignorance of this piece is astounding, in fact, Horowitz has revealed himself to be more of Stalinist than Zinn ever was by using a Communist smear tactic. In 1946 Zinn then serving in the US air force (which service have you been in Mr Horowitz to defend your country) was given a book by Arthur Koestler that opened his eyes to the hideousness of Stalin. he knew from that point that Stalin was a despot and never celebrated him (let's not forget that was about the same year he ceased to be a US ally, so Zinn was not exactly a Johnny Come Lately). Horowitz's lie is disgusting and demonstrates a deep and ugly savoured stupidity.
You don't really understand why Horowitz is calling Zinn a Stalinist. When you shill for Stalinist dictators in the third world (Castro, Che Guevara, etc.) and demonize those who are fighting them then you can be called a Stalinist.
so Reagan was a Fascist then for his support of Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua etc etc? Or was Reagan a drug dealer for his involvement with Oliver North? This is where you end up if you are so simplistic. Zinn a Stalinist , Reagan a drug peddling Nazi.
You don't really understand the Cold War very much do you? You've just swallowed the communist version of events and now appear to vomit it back up as though I've never heard this stuff before. (I actually used to promulgate stuff like this myself.)
Conservatives did not embrace Pinochet the way leftists continue to embrace Che and Mao to this day. (Pinochet t-shirts and flags? Is Benicio Del Toro going to play Pinochet in a 4 hour biopic?) If you're America which would you rather have in your backyard, a capitalist totalitarian state or a communist totalitarian state that's actually a satellite state of the USSR? Look at Chile today and you'll see that conservatives were right with Pinochet. Conservatives understand that in politics, foreign policy especially your options frequently range from the lousy to the horrific.
Read David Horowitz and Peter Collier's "Destructive Generation" they talk about the issue that you're bringing up — a view I once held when I was a leftist myself.
I don’t think we’ll find any common ground. all i asked was for quoted justification of an attack on a man who had just died. no one on this site managed it and now we’ll get trapped in semantics. thank you for your time.
No, you didn't ask for a quote in your comment. But since you're demanding one now I'll give it to you.
Quoted justification:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProf...
These quotes are from A People's History of the United States:
In Professor Zinn's view, Maoist China was "the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people's government, independent of outside control"; Castro's Cuba "had no bloody record of suppression"; and the Marxist dictators of Nicaragua were "welcomed" by the people, while the opposition Contras, whose candidate triumphed when free elections were held as a result of U.S. pressure, were a "terrorist group" that "seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua."
—–
Now do you see how one who shills for Mao, Che, Castro, and the Nicaraguan Marxists could be called a Stalinist? Zinn was a supporter of totalitarian mass murderers and dedicated his life to slandering America as an entity not even worth acknowledging. How can you tolerate and celebrate this?
we see history from entirely different perspectives. Your use of Zinn quotes is taken from a one page summary of him, maybe you should read his books, not summaries of him. I don't agree with Ann Coulter but I do read her books, if you want to attack/disagree with someone then you should really know their work. I will not deny their have been cruel leftist regimes and cruel rightist regimes, both sides have had a hideous number of totalitarian regimes. How can you declare Castro a despot and yet think Pinochet was right. is the herding of your opponents into sports arenas to be tortured and killed in any way acceptable? Is the disappearing of thousands, including teachers who dared to teach what was deemed unacceptable to the regime morally acceptable? Or murdering folk singers for singing against a dictatorship? This is not a defence of Castro, this is me trying to discover what is good about Pinochet and bad about Castro or similar regimes. Many have a poor records on human rights I am trying to find out what you believe in, who do you think is a good example of a leader, who is bad one. It would be good if we could leave the tags of left and right and worry about people instead. My apologies about the request for quotations, that was under the other article on this site. You may say Zinn was "evil" , but does it make the majority of US presidents evil for being complicit with totalitarian regimes, for usurping a democratically elected leader in Guatemala to keep United Fruits happy but leading to oppression of the population? For their work in El Salvador? Indonesia etc etc . if you can despise Zin for your belief in the sides he supported, why don't you despise most of your presidents who aided oppressive regimes or is it that you think if they are an ally of America (like Saddam Hussein used to be) then to hell with their people.
You are so condescending and arrogant. I have read Zinn. And I've read Chomsky. And I've read the Nation, ZMagazine, etc. I was a leftist for years and read the people whose opinions you're parroting.
Your condescension is predictable and discouraging:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/07/newsreal-c...
How can you expect to come in here and lecture we evil, warmongering neo-cons when you do so from a position of such arrogance? Why would we want to entertain your positions when you're so disrespectful?
I've addressed your point about the US's reliance on a real politik foreign policy during the Cold War. You ignored it. When I'm trying to discuss issues with a leftist friend and they start ignoring my arguments and just continuing their monologue then I know that they're not worth my time.
I hope some day you'll have the courage to challenge you political faith as I did. Best of luck.
I haven’t ignored any of your arguments. I found it interesting that when you went for quotes you just used a one page website summary with an agenda. I have not been condescending, I have merely asked for definitions on evil and anti-American. You have said Zinn hated America, it is precisely because Zinn did not hate the American people that he stood for what he did. He loved the American people, this is why he wanted a better deal for the majority of them.
“before I became a professional historian, i had grown up in the dirt and dankness of new york tenements, had been knocked unconscious by a policeman while holding a banner in a demonstration, had worked for three years in a shipyard, and had participated in the violence of war. Those experiences , among others, made me lose all “objectivity”, whether in living my life, or writing history”
“I decided early that I would be biased in the sense of holding fast to certain fundamental values: the equal right of human beings – whatever race, nationality, sex, religion – to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Jefferson’s ideals. it seemed to me that devoting a life to the study of history was worthwhile only if it aimed at those ideals”
Are these the words that suggest this was a man who believed in the oppressions of Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Suharto?
I have never lectured “neocons” here. I have asked questions and found that you have not answered. You have called man evil and declared he hated America. You have done this as his family grieve. You have not justified your hate.
Please explain how this “You don’t really understand the Cold War very much do you? You’ve just swallowed the communist version of events and now appear to vomit it back up as though I’ve never heard this stuff before. (I actually used to promulgate stuff like this myself.)” explains the Cold war. I have not questioned what the US did during the Cold War, I have questioned how the same actions by right wing despots are the wrong actions by left wing despots. I have justified neither of their actions. Back to Guatemala – that democratically elected leader was not usurped because of communist fear but because a US company feared a decent wage for their workers may mean a price increase in bananas and effect their profits. How have I swallowed the communist version of the Cold war? This hasn’t even come up, the discussion is about human rights and oppression and as you might have read, I do not support torture and mass murder whether on right or left. whether it was Stalin’s Gulags and his ludicrous Lysenko agricultural policy or Pincochet and his football stadiums of mass murder.
Thatcher helped end the Cold War? How, by opposing German reunification? Mr. Horowitz, your grasp of is history isn't much less "worthless" than what you accuse Zinn of.erve to strengthen your weak polemic.
Spitting on Ziin's grave?
Oh goody.
Is there a sign up sheet?
Will there be seconds?
If Marxism CLEARLY doesn't work and CLEARLY EXTERMINATED MILLIONS why would a college professor adhere to its form and pricipals?
Please, explain clearly what you think he was thinking (besides "I hate America!)
I have been willfully provocative: I didn't come here to be spit on and slapped around by people who are take any significant disagreement as a sign of foolishness, corruption or insanity, and thereby prevent any possibility of adult disagreement over any non-trivial matters. I've been around long enough (I'm in my mid-40's) to know that they would make me their "Leftist" whipping-boy if I gave them a chance.
So I give fair push-back. I challenge bullshit and nonsense, I challenge sloppy reasoning, and I challenge hypocrisy. In response to insults, I usually respond with serious criticisms (but occasionally slip in a little jab, for fun). It's how I've been playing the game. Give me a reason to apologize, and I'll actually do more: I"ll change my ways.
But don't ask me to be a saint in this cesspool of intellectual sin. That would be hypocritcal. And you know how I feel about that. [cont...]
And when I saw how bad things were – in a roomful of people venomously slandering Howard Zinn as “arrogantly, self-righteously and condescendingly” as you please, blithely unconcerned by the screamingly obvious (to me) fact that very few evinced possession of a clue what they were talking about – it was clear to me that while the forum is ostensibly dedicated to debate (presumably quality debate), that meeting-space draws those who gather in it primarily by satisfying other pursuits. (One hardly needs to speculate on what those other pursuits are – affirmation and support in shared beliefs? the sharing of talking points? the thrill of battle? – to know that they are in play, just on the fact the rewards to sincere disputation are so paltry. So I thought I’d see what I could stir up – I couldn’t make it any worse!
I have been willfully provocative: I didn't come here to be spit on and slapped around by people who take any significant disagreement (not as I presume, but as they have shown me) as a sign of foolishness, moral corruption or congenital insanity, and who thereby prevent any possibility of adult disagreement over any non-trivial matters. I've been around long enough (I'm in my mid-40's) to know that they would make me their "Leftist" whipping-boy if I gave them a chance.
So I give fair push-back. I challenge bullshit and nonsense, I challenge falsehoods, I challenge sloppy reasoning, I challenge hypocrisy and meanness. In response to insults, I usually respond with serious and substantial criticisms, but occasionally slip in a little jab, for fun. It's how I've been playing the game. Give me a reason to apologize, and I'll actually do more: I’ll change my ways.
But don't ask me to be a saint in this cesspool of intellectual sin. That would be hypocritical – and you know how I feel about that. And don’t ask me to pretend I’m as intellectually lazy and corrupt as the worst in the room, so that nobody is offended by my appearing superior – let them improve!
When I saw how bad things were in here – in a roomful of people venomously slandering Howard Zinn as “arrogantly, self-righteously and condescendingly” as you please, blithely unconcerned by the screamingly obvious fact that very few evinced possession of a clue what they were talking about – it was clear to me that while this forum is ostensibly dedicated to debate (presumably *quality* debate), this meeting-space draws those who gather in it primarily by satisfying other pursuits. (One hardly needs to speculate on what those other pursuits are – affirmation and support in shared beliefs? the sharing of talking points? the thrill of battle? – to know that they are in play, just on the fact the rewards to sincere disputation are so paltry.
So I thought I’d see what I could stir up – I couldn’t make it any worse!
I have been willfully provocative: I didn't come here to be spit on and slapped around by people who take any significant disagreement (*not* as I presume, but as they have shown me) as a sign of foolishness, moral corruption or congenital insanity, and who thereby prevent any possibility of adult disagreement over any non-trivial matters. I've been around long enough (I'm in my mid-40's) to know that they would make me their "Leftist" whipping-boy if I gave them a chance.
So I give fair push-back. I challenge bullshit and nonsense, I challenge falsehoods, I challenge sloppy reasoning, I challenge hypocrisy and meanness. In response to insults, I usually respond with serious and substantial criticisms, but occasionally slip in a little jab, for fun. It's how I've been playing the game. Give me a reason to apologize, and I'll do more: I’ll change my ways. Yes, I can – if I have a good reason.
But don't ask me to be a saint in this cesspool of intellectual sin. That would be hypocritical – and you know how I feel about that.
And don’t ask me to pretend I’m as intellectually lazy and corrupt as the worst in the room, so that nobody is offended by my appearing superior – let them improve!
["If it's your objective to come in here and reform all of the evil conservatives..."]
It's not, for two reasons.
(1) I know I can't be responsible for someone else's reformation; and
(2) If you've read all of my posts, you know that I haven't found that "evil" is a useful concept, and so don't use it (except with reference to others' speech, or in jest).
["Communication can only take place between equals..."]
I can communicate perfectly well with my dog, not because he is my equal as a human, but because I am his equal as a dog. Do I have some higher faculties than my dog has? Of course, but not as far as he's concerned. In any case, that doesn't make me superior, nor does it prevent communication.
Not that I *am* a dog, and I'm certainly not interested in *being* a dog – only that I am my dog's equal on the field of my relationship with him, as far as he's concerned.
In these forums, I don't care whether I'm better than someone else or not – I'm not even sure what that might mean, as a comparative existential attribute.
But I make no apologies for practicing intellectual hygiene (see the above 3 categories), and if it turns out that my doing so, habitually, makes me better at it than others who are habitually careless (or worse) in their thinking – what's wrong with that? I'm more skilled at thinking than my dog; should I quit thinking, and take up barking instead, so as not to offend him?
No. And I'm perfectly happy with him as a dog. That he doesn't practice intellectual skill with moral care is not a flaw, because dogs don’t do that, and it’s unreasonable to expect it of them.
That people abuse their brain on forums like this is a human flaw, and a bad one. I'm not going to start barking for their egoic comfort. They can do better; so let them do better.
[“…thus when you think you're better than others -- and it's clear that you do, don't lie and say you don't -- then you can't really get through to those who you place below you]
If I responded, “Woof! Woof!”, would you get the point, and the humor? My guess is that you get both, but not a laugh.
Perhaps I should point out, with professorial dryness (tho I’m not a professor, or an academic) that you are the moderator of a forum filled with people who exhibit a very high degree of intolerance toward anything they disagree non-trivially with, at least in the fields of Politics, Society and, of course, History.
On a colloquial level, one might say that they use an “insufferably arrogant, self-righteous, condescending tone” toward the disgusting and reprehensible creatures who hold such contrary views. Creatures such as myself and Howard Zinn (did you not notice that Howie and I received truckloads of vitriolic abuse during my short visit?).
oh and can you pinpoint the arrogance of my questions? so why is Pinochet good and Castro bad? I am a fan of neither. I am also not some leftist with a big Che poster on my wall.
Sorry Robin but I've lost faith in investing my time in discussing the issues with you.
what you actually mean is that you have been unable to answer the questions. I am not trying to stir things up, but it seems a pity when this site is prepared to put on such incendiary pieces about a man who has just died that it then fails to be able to back up its arguments and reveals itself to have the intellectual depth of graffiti on a restroom door.
Of course you think that. No, what I mean is that I'm not going to debate with someone who ignores my points (I've explained how Zinn supported Stalinists and why Pinochet and Che are not comparable – you ignore these aguments only to continue with your Zinnian monologues) and talks down to me (Oh you need to read Zinn for yourself.) And now you're insulting the publication. Why should I bother engaging you in intellectual discussion when you refuse to treat me with respect as an equal?
I don't know how you think any of your points have made any sense whatsoever. You have made up what you think I have been arguing about and then confused yourself. Your argument seems to be about Hollywood and people wearing T shirts, mine is about human rights and why one side's atrocities is acceptable from another side if they are deemed to be an alibi. My argument was never about the cold war, why did you think that? what is your definition of a Stalinist? in many circles it is considered to be someone who follows the methods of Stalin. As I stated at the beginning of this farrago, Zinn was clearly not a Stalinist. Would you be happy for me to call you a fascist for your support of Pinochet?
Look, guys, the Indians and African-Americans should daily thank Almighty God that they came under the control of an intelligent, humane, and civilized white population–one that even allowed them whatever piece of the pie they could earn once they learned the rules.
I mean, ultra-Progressive China, under the wise, much-worshipped Mao Zedong, had basically a similar line towards minorities such as the Uighur and Tibetans. Why should America self-flagellate that a few eggs got broken while making an omelette far more palatable than the one Sinn's daddy Stalin and his acolytes made.
Gavin, you are the racist. Horowitz is ABSOLUTELY NOT a racist. I find that many on the left are bigots and race baiters. Remember it took a Republican to free the slaves from the liberals. Reparations for slavery would be one of the WORST things to ever happen to this country and if it was ever enacted I would do everything in my power not to pay. But I have an idea, since you seem to feel it is a good idea, why don't YOU and your comrades pay extra taxes (most libs like to pay taxes anyway) that are specifically for reparations for slavery.