tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2938174560672681315..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: NYT Notices HNN Poll That Rates Barton the WorstBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66291113732747593272012-07-31T10:59:00.196-06:002012-07-31T10:59:00.196-06:00.
My guess is, Tom, that you don't know what i....<br />My guess is, Tom, that you don't know what it means to be an orthodox Christian.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89885066344635165642012-07-29T15:54:00.062-06:002012-07-29T15:54:00.062-06:00.
While I most certainly oppose much of what the C....<br />While I most certainly oppose much of what the Christian Right stands for and promotes. I don't think I am its enemy.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27296912588301536852012-07-28T11:50:07.992-06:002012-07-28T11:50:07.992-06:00The Founders were mostly orthodox Christians. That...The Founders <i>were</i> mostly orthodox Christians. That's why Paine's "Common Sense" is so Biblical [even though he wasn't]. You don't get it.<br /><br />You---and most Barton critics---reveal yourself not as friends of history, but enemies of the Religious Right. Your own words right here betray it, Phil.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26026401913552770522012-07-28T06:49:31.140-06:002012-07-28T06:49:31.140-06:00.
Thus, you expose yourself as a person who uses c....<br />Thus, you expose yourself as a person who uses citations to promote your bias and, thereby, render yourself as untrustworthy even though you might be a good representative of most times.<br />.<br />And, that is a stupid thing for such an intelligent person to do, Tom.<br />.<br />Otherwise, you could be a contender.<br />.<br /><i>You must be consistant!</i> Barton making his point about Jefferson promotes the idea that the Founders were mostly orthodox Christians and that is a BIG problem in America today--giving credance to the religious right.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48770550703558477302012-07-27T22:13:01.714-06:002012-07-27T22:13:01.714-06:00I just say Zinn is a polemicist---and so does he. ...I just say Zinn is a polemicist---and so does he. I don't like him in our schools as "history."<br /><br />As for Barton, I think it's hilarious how upset he gets some people, that they write long essays and even book-length rebuttals.<br /><br />I would oppose Barton's books being used in our schools too, but I find his torturing of factoids like "Jefferson <i>chose</i> to sign documents in the name of Jesus Christ" or some rhetorical hairspitting about the Kaskaskia Indians as fairly harmless---there's no way we're going back to such language in our official documents, the government is not going to pay for Christian missionaries.<br /><br />As for Zinn poisoning our nation's young against their own country---and leftist academics using his books to do so---not so harmless. And my anger is really at the teachers who spread his propaganda to our kids. And other weaker minds...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71324411095928049162012-07-27T18:08:01.890-06:002012-07-27T18:08:01.890-06:00Zinn never told me how to think.
I was under the ...Zinn never told me how to think.<br /><br />I was under the impression that you considered yourself enough of an equal to Howard Zinn that you were able to so vibrantly fault him an being inferior.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81510226587447454422012-07-26T12:30:10.059-06:002012-07-26T12:30:10.059-06:00Thx, Phil, but I'm not even half as good as Ho...Thx, Phil, but I'm not even half as good as Howard Zinn.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48319210703226843142012-07-25T12:23:44.971-06:002012-07-25T12:23:44.971-06:00.
I think I intuitively thought that, JRB.
.
So, t....<br />I think I intuitively thought that, JRB.<br />.<br />So, thanks for making it all so clear.<br />.<br />Life is better experienced when we do our <b>own</b> thinking rather than having some expert explain reality for us.<br />.<br />But, I have to hand it to Tom. He is quite an expert.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28353516858008130722012-07-25T09:41:19.918-06:002012-07-25T09:41:19.918-06:00Phil, a lot of the comments made to posts about Zi...Phil, a lot of the comments made to posts about Zinn around the intertubes are from history teachers that comment on using Zinn in conjunction with traditional texts; maybe at the intro survey level or possibly at more advanced levels. They use it to spark critical thinking in the students and not as a leftist indoctrination tool.<br /><br />There is more than one way to read and to use the <i>People's History</i>. If my experience in university history classes, and humanities classes in general, is a guide, reading Zinn is just as likely to hit a brick wall as to spark anarcho-terrorism or a milder form of America hating. As much as some radio announcers like to think of students as minds full of mush waiting to be indoctrinated, most are bright and not easily led. <br /><br />But, as I mentioned early on - cough, Texas GOP - not everyone likes encouraging critical and independent thought. Scary beans.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79778064151807633532012-07-25T08:57:59.306-06:002012-07-25T08:57:59.306-06:00.
Isn't it an important part of the teacher....<br />Isn't it an important part of the teacher's job to created a desire in the student to seek further information?<br />.<br />Or are we to learn by rote?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84796793976827596822012-07-25T08:55:13.777-06:002012-07-25T08:55:13.777-06:00.
As a not so greatly educated as some of the blog....<br />As a not so greatly educated as some of the bloggers here at this site, I come seeking information rather than showing off my knowledge and expertise. I'm over my head here and that's great. I always liked to go to places over my head--out of the box.<br /><br />What <b>The Peoples' History</b> does for most readers it that it points in a direction; whereas, the works of the highly sophisticated historians employing footnotes and references put an end to the student's curiosity. When brother Tom makes a claim, there's no more to it--that's all there is and everything else is capute. You cannot question his claims as he has included the necessary citations to back him up. <br /><br />Which approach is better?<br />.<br />Actually, it seems to me, that the kind of work we are exposed to in Zinn causes us to seek further information and our mind is expanded.<br />.<br />Regarding citations and references all of which are necessary to back up certain claims, I think of the comment we often hear about the Bible that it can be used to prove just about anything you wish. References can be used to prove almost anything.<br /><br />That's the difference between annotation and connotation is it not?<br /><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75095406920733235212012-07-25T08:16:50.117-06:002012-07-25T08:16:50.117-06:00Here's another commentary from the academy (fo...Here's another commentary from the academy (found via John Fea's blog):<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/lies-the-debunkers-told-me-how-bad-history-books-win-us-over/260251/#.UA7CyBQyP9k.twitter<br /><br />As I was reading this article it occurred to me that there are two parts that are being conflated in most review's involving both Barton <i>and</i> Zinn; 1) the actual veracity of the work(s) produced, and 2) the use to which the work(s) is/are used and those, the activists, that use the work(s).<br /><br />If just evaluating the veracity of the work(s), or their reliability in conveying accurate historical information (ignoring the authors biases and conclusions), then one thing is not like the other. <br /><br />Beneke and Stephens state,<br /><br /><i>"Both offer stark, simplistic accounts (buttressed, in Barton's case, by a litany of historical errors)."</i> <br /><br />Which can be restated, <br /><br />A) Zinn offers stark, simplistic accounts.<br /><br />B) Barton offers stark, simplistic accounts that are buttressed by a litany of historical errors.<br /><br />B is different than A<br /><br />Add to that, <br /><br />A) Zinn was educated and trained as a historian and worked his entire career within the academy, <br /><br />and<br /><br />b) Barton is a Republican political operative, once having been the Texas GOP chairman, with no training or credentials in studying or presenting history,<br /><br />and A and B are different. That has been my point. The works produced are not equal and opposite, thus I see a false equivalency. I'm not saying that either are "good history" as defined in the Beneke and Stephens commentary. <br /><br />The activism and the zealous use of their products does seem, however, far more equivalent in my view.<br /><br />It also seems to me that the Beneke and Stephens commentary, like the Kazin article, contains a bit of the academic ire, "The trick works partly because of how little credit Barton and Zinn give their fellow historians, even those who have some affinity with their own conclusions." But I understand the validity of charging Zinn with not building a more scholarly work and that the scholarly works should not be ignored (unfortunately that's what zealots do but it is different than how I would read Zinn).<br /><br />I'll let it go that Barton is referred to by Beneke and Stephens as a fellow historian. I assume that was just a slip of the fingers.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6822121140012864582012-07-25T07:02:35.698-06:002012-07-25T07:02:35.698-06:00.
My education--what little of it that I have--see....<br />My education--what little of it that I have--seemed to promote the idea of self criticism. Maybe mine was out of the back waters, I'm not sure.<br />.<br />There is a problem with referencing one's commentaries that seems so obvious to me. A skilled historian can make almost any claim based on some reference by citation. Seems that Zinn's work has the ability to leave it up to the reader to search out the veracity of his claims. What's wrong with that?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75717158296178676292012-07-25T06:50:19.543-06:002012-07-25T06:50:19.543-06:00Tom has it right that Zinn has contributed to the ...Tom has it right that Zinn has contributed to the black-washing of America that is common in today’s academic establishment and that undermines the Republic. Barton, however, undermines the opposition and contributes to their marginalization. Perhaps that's why two Christian conservatives, at Grove City College, are particularly upset by Barton.Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73892431909116210112012-07-24T20:27:19.096-06:002012-07-24T20:27:19.096-06:00Instead of calling them names, now we're linki...Instead of calling them names, now we're linking to Zinn critics.<br /><br />Excellent.<br /><br />Get busy, Phil. You've a lot of catching up to do.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91459297863603746332012-07-24T12:03:38.457-06:002012-07-24T12:03:38.457-06:00.
I don't waste a lot of my time reading all ....<br />I don't waste a lot of my time reading all the clap trap that Tom puts out when he gets into his sociopathic ways.<br />.<br />Asode from that, he could have been a contender.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61379432233104160092012-07-24T11:57:51.205-06:002012-07-24T11:57:51.205-06:00Phil, sorry, I was referring to this that was writ...Phil, sorry, I was referring to this that was written above: <i>"Kids, hell. Look at poor Phil. Anti-Americanism for Dummies."</i><br /><br />Maybe I misconstrued what was being said. But, I thought that it might need clarification and/or rebuttal.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60010066801457589892012-07-24T10:45:07.689-06:002012-07-24T10:45:07.689-06:00/
And, Phil, maybe I haven't been paying close.../<br /><i>And, Phil, maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention but are you anti America? </i><br />.<br />WTF?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37039342286440225602012-07-23T18:00:54.442-06:002012-07-23T18:00:54.442-06:00And, for the woebegone lone stumbler still on the ...And, for the woebegone lone stumbler still on the fence, here are some additional sources of commentary for Zinn.<br /><br />John Fea<br />http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2010/01/howard-zinn-rip.html<br /><br /><br />Ben Alpers (US Intellectual History Blog)<br />http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com/2010/01/howard-zinn-1922-2010.html<br /><br /><br />And, Robert Farley (Lawyers, Guns & Money)<br />http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/01/zinn<br /><br /><i>It appears that Howard Zinn has passed. The only work of Zinn’s that I’ve read is People’s History; I was both deeply disappointed in it as a work of history, yet glad that it existed.<br /><br />Rest in peace.</i>jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88301935402579085562012-07-23T17:00:13.359-06:002012-07-23T17:00:13.359-06:00And, Phil, maybe I haven't been paying close e...And, Phil, maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention but are you anti America?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90594621748168806642012-07-23T16:44:57.584-06:002012-07-23T16:44:57.584-06:00Tom, It's hard to believe that you would have ...Tom, It's hard to believe that you would have been anything but a king's man during the revolution - what with the anti-colonialist tendencies of the revolutionaries. One of the fears of the common man was that the Empire and the East India Company would ride roughshod over them and leave them ruined under the weight of their tyranny, much as they'd done elsewhere. Holy cow, pre-Zinnian madness!<br /><br />Zinn has hardly ruined the republic and there's not much chance that he will. I'll hold the same out for Barton. You can catch your breath now.<br /><br />As to your heroic struggle against epistemological darkness - at least to the benefit of the lone, yet un-indoctrinated straggler that happens by, you seem quit taken with the idea of the kind of epistemic closure that is fueled by a top-down happy history that keeps the kids quite and the status quo on track. No unhappy talk, adherence to doctrine and orthodoxy. That's fine. But, I think that we're all adults here and can handle a little unpleasant family history. <br /><br />By the way, did you notice that I conceded - bad scholarly history. Even after actually reading some Zinn. Woohoooo. I lost the argument. At least I think that was the argument. Of course I can understand why it befuddles some that I don't see Barton and Zinn as offsetting equivalents. That has something to do with the fact that one of them builds their history on outright lies, concocted distortions and misrepresentations in a manipulative attempt to advance a narrow political agenda (that even fellow conservative coreligionists have had enough of) and one just pisses people of by using history the "wrong way" - in support of a broad and transparent political agenda. <br /><br />But then they probably both put their pants on one leg at a time. So, there's that.<br /><br />I guess we'll just disagree.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22305289730546082812012-07-23T15:20:34.063-06:002012-07-23T15:20:34.063-06:00The old epistemological black hole trick. Ask for...The old epistemological black hole trick. Ask for more evidence, get it, spin it away.<br /><br />Fortunately, I didn't post it for you, since I knew it was a waste of time. It's for the reader passing by, just so they know that Zinn is held as a propagandist even by scholars like Micheal Kazin who are themselves very much to the left of center.<br /><br />I don't mind Zinn so much for his banal thesis, that America was built on crimes against weaker peoples [every nation begins with a crime], but that he's taught as "history" in our schools. I would say the same about David Barton, whose history is crap but whose thesis is more true than false.<br /><br />And that's why they are indeed peas in a pod, despite the sophistic attempts to raise Zinn with one hand and smite Barton with the other.<br /><br />And Barton's mythologizing has done the republic far less harm than Zinn, who has helped raise generations of students now to hate their country.<br /><br />In the end, Barton is selling no more than George Washington and the cherry tree. The republic survived that; the damage done by Zinn and the numerous teachers who have propagated Zinn's jaundiced view of our history to our kids is yet to be measured. <br /><br />Kids, hell. Look at poor Phil. Anti-Americanism for Dummies. Thanks a lot, Dr. Zinn.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21102759526677325642012-07-23T10:30:43.352-06:002012-07-23T10:30:43.352-06:00Michael Kazin is far preferable. Broadly speaking...Michael Kazin is far preferable. Broadly speaking, he calls <i>The People's History</i> (the History) bad history (and I suppose this applies beyond just that one work). (So did John Fea not long ago.) But Kazin's criticism is also at least partly ideological in scope - I guess Zinn asks for it - as much as scholarly. <br /><br />But still I haven't seen anything that indicates that Zinn's "bad history" was wrong history or that he compiled lies and falsehoods on top of distortions and misrepresentations in order to create a totally false narrative (he is not the counterweight to Barton). It seems the critics in academia, in which Zinn was educated and was always a part, may take some offense at work that steps so far outside of the more staid and cautious academic world.<br /><br />It is charged by Zinn's critics and admirers alike that his work is too focused on good v. evil (manichean they call it) and that he oversimplifies. But, as Kazin points out about the History, it is a survey. And it's written with full and honest acknowledgement by Zinn as to his approach and his biases. It is written simply in the style of such surveys and addressed to the people, not to academia. <br /><br />Eric Foner (American Historian) started his acknowledgement following Zinn's death with:<br /><br /><i>"Friedrich Nietzsche once identified three approaches to the writing of history: the monumental, the antiquarian and the critical, the last being history 'that judges and condemns.' Howard Zinn, who died on<br />January 27 at 87, wrote the third kind. Unlike many historians, he was not afraid to speak out about the difference between right and wrong.</i>"<br /><br />I managed to find a copy of the History and read the first chapter on the exploration and conquest that founded the Americas .... for the Europeans at least, since it was already occupied.<br /><br />It was not as bloody bad as I thought it would be - much or all of what is said in the way of historical evidence is fairly undisputed*. Probably because it has been so widely disseminated since Zinn popped the bubble of the academic world and allowed some countervailing history to leak out; enraging professional historians and conservative commentators alike.<br /><br />To paraphrase Zinn from his opening chapter, the point is to give people a fuller story of our history; to expose the warts and the stumbles. Not just to be an anarchist or a carrier of the Marxist banner but to give a fuller accounting, to give greater information to the people that, in our system, make decisions and that ultimately will have to live with the consequences. His greatest sin appears to be just this; sharing of information. Information that had generally been swept aside or doled out in microscopic doses by professional historians of the academy - the History is an anecdote for or supplement to the other two styles of histories that Nietzsche described. <br /><br />He apparently trusted that we Americans, adult Americans, could be trusted to know the full accounting of history. And, rather than force the reader (at least in the single chapter that I read) to dogmatically take what he presented at full face value, he asks questions and challenges the reader to ask questions. Among them:<br /><br /><i>"If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves?"</i> <br /><br />Fair question? <br /><br />*it is likely due to Zinn's influence (among others) that more focus has been given since 1980 to the subjects and style of the History. But, if you've ever taken survey American History at the college/university level then you know that the first accounting is generally the much blander, less provocative, and more scholarly surveys that are designed and tested not to offend. Maybe, supplemented with the History. Maybe.<br /><br />Anyways, I agree, bad scholarly history. But, I'm OK with that. And glad that there is a lot of good scholarly history to go around.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78498823197824549802012-07-22T20:02:21.922-06:002012-07-22T20:02:21.922-06:00"Along comes Zinn with a populist history tha...<i>"Along comes Zinn with a populist history that makes it easy for us dumbos to learn. "</i><br /><br />I thought you were over 80, Phil? Zinn is even after my time (61yrs old). <br /><br />In any case, I remember learning about everyday colonial life in elementary school. I preferred Franklin's kite experiment to kettle cooking and bed warmers. But I guess I'm one of those nerds. I hear today's children don't learn about the great inventors and inventions. Progress?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79665134333533708122012-07-22T12:41:31.043-06:002012-07-22T12:41:31.043-06:00Is left-leaning [and award-winning] historian Mich...Is left-leaning [and award-winning] historian Michael Kazin a hack? Educate yourselves about Howard Zinn.<br /><br />http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385<br /><br /><i>POINTING OUT what's wrong with Zinn's passionate tome is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the American past. By why has this polemic disguised as history attracted so many enthusiastic readers?</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com