http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957283,00.html
One of my favorite historians and professional role models gone. It is sad, but he had a long and decorated career. RiP.
Quote from: Jaron on January 27, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957283,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957283,00.html)
One of my favorite historians and professional role models gone. It is sad, but he had a long and decorated career. RiP.
In that article, liberal historian, Arthur Schlesinger jr. calls him "a polemicist, not a historian."
The fact that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as well as Oliver Stone love him is enough to make me go :x
I'm sure he was a nice human being but his History was wretched.
RIP
Another America-hating POS dropped dead.
Way to stay classy Hans.
"A People's History" was brilliant. While its bias was undisguised, it was eminantly readable and it addressed many worthwhile issues not approached by other histories. Zinn never expected his work to be the last word in anything; he delighted in being the first word in something.
I agreed with virtually nothing he wrote, but I am thankful that he wrote. He didn't think in bumper-sticker terms, like the polemicists of today (left and right). He was an intellectual, which is why Hans was angered and confused by his work.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 09:48:09 AM
He was an intellectual, which is why Hans was angered and confused by his work.
Hans is so much like my freshmen students...
:RIP: :(
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 09:48:09 AM
"A People's History" was brilliant. While its bias was undisguised, it was eminantly readable and it addressed many worthwhile issues not approached by other histories. Zinn never expected his work to be the last word in anything; he delighted in being the first word in something.
I agreed with virtually nothing he wrote, but I am thankful that he wrote. He didn't think in bumper-sticker terms, like the polemicists of today (left and right). He was an intellectual, which is why Hans was angered and confused by his work.
Intellectual. :rolleyes:
I guess being a brain-dead blame America leftist does count as being an intellectual nowadays, at least amongst the academia, which is why "intellectuals" are held in such low esteem nowadays.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:34:56 PM
Intellectual. :rolleyes:
I guess being a brain-dead blame America leftist does count as being an intellectual nowadays, at least amongst the academia, which is why "intellectuals" are held in such low esteem nowadays.
Being thought braindead by the anti-intellectuals is the price one pays for being an intellectual. No one expects you to know any better, though, so don't feel bad.
The real funny thing is that intellectuals I agree with are just normal folks summarizing the correct stuff really well. The rest are just extremist hacks.
I prefer the works of Erich Zann myself.
Quote from: PDH on January 29, 2010, 12:48:24 PM
The real funny thing is that intellectuals I agree with are just normal folks summarizing the correct stuff really well. The rest are just extremist hacks.
Well, a true intellectual likes to dick around with ideas, IMO. Writing provocative books to try to stir up some debate over the "known truths" (like the "known truth" that the types like Rockefeller and Carnegie built this country, not the immigrants and the underclass) is a very intellectual thing to do, if you don't think that you are actually replacing old truths with new ones. Zinn would argue that it doesn't matter how skillful you are at summarizing the half of the truth you include in your summary; the exclusion of the other half makes the summary moot.
I think he would reject authors like Lowen who seek to replace known truths with new truths that are truer than truth.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 09:48:09 AM
"A People's History" was brilliant. While its bias was undisguised, it was eminantly readable and it addressed many worthwhile issues not approached by other histories. Zinn never expected his work to be the last word in anything; he delighted in being the first word in something.
I agree. And I don't think bias is necessarily a bad thing in a history. A relative lack of it and an open-mindedness can be wonderful (I think Herodotus is the model in this regard) but I love histories that are very partisan against one or more of the peoples and periods they discuss (Gibbon springs to mind) and I also love ones that have a strong ideological or theoretical perspective (Foucault's fun and Hobsbawm's a genius).
All history has bias, it's really a question of whether it's well-written or not. Zinn was a superb writer.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:34:56 PM
I guess being a brain-dead blame America leftist does count as being an intellectual nowadays, at least amongst the academia, which is why "intellectuals" are held in such low esteem nowadays.
I think the intellectuals were right. It's because knowledge is something for TV game shows.
And I don't have experience of the US education system but I really doubt it's stuffed full of left-wing radicals. I saw a trailer for a conservative documentary 'exposing' academia and one of the outrageous things that was being forced on college students was the idea that 'gender' is cultural. That's not radical, that's just a kid who didn't understand what he was talking about.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:34:56 PM
Intellectual. :rolleyes:
I guess being a brain-dead blame America leftist does count as being an intellectual nowadays, at least amongst the academia, which is why "intellectuals" are held in such low esteem nowadays.
The only ones coming across as brain-dead are the types like yourself who fear anything that can't be automatically assumed as gospel truth. Don't project your phobia of analyzing your source material on us.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Hobsbawm's a genius
His barely concealed attempt for the mid 19th century middle classes did hurt my feelings though :(
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2010, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Hobsbawm's a genius
His barely concealed attempt for the mid 19th century middle classes did hurt my feelings though :(
But it is true that the mid-nineteenth-century middle class was more concerned with political change (i.e. they just wanted to be part of the "responsible class' that had a voice in government) than enacting needed social change, and so muffed the revolutions of 1848, which in my opinion was the true "European Catastrophe." Imagine how European history would have been different if Germany had been unified as a liberal state in 1848.
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2010, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Hobsbawm's a genius
His barely concealed attempt for the mid 19th century middle classes did hurt my feelings though :(
I assume you mean "contempt"? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2010, 06:54:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2010, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Hobsbawm's a genius
His barely concealed attempt for the mid 19th century middle classes did hurt my feelings though :(
I assume you mean "contempt"? :huh:
Duh! :lol:
Quote from: citizen k on January 28, 2010, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Jaron on January 27, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957283,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957283,00.html)
One of my favorite historians and professional role models gone. It is sad, but he had a long and decorated career. RiP.
In that article, liberal historian, Arthur Schlesinger jr. calls him "a polemicist, not a historian."
The fact that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as well as Oliver Stone love him is enough to make me go :x
I liked "Dogma" and "Alexander". WTF.
Just though of another one. As historians go I don't think you'll find anyone more enjoyable to read than Carlyle. Now he was hardly a moderate, restrained and temperate voice dispassionately surveying the past :lol:
I cant believe I put "piece" :shutup:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2010, 09:37:13 AM
Way to stay classy Hans.
This piece of shit supported every genocidal regime of the 20th century (even Al Qaeda after 9-11 when Zinn identified the "real terrorists" as of course being the USA). He thought Mao's China epitomized true democracy and that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy by the US to to build a global empire (him and Pat Buchanan probably got along well).
Howard Zinn loved and defended every evil, barbaric totalitarian state while reserving all his hatred for the US and Israel. He was an infantile marxist polemicist, whose "scholarship" was laughably riddled with massive factual errors. he was neither an intellectual nor a historian, only a hateful, deranged piece of shit who spent his life excusing the worst behaviors by the most evil regimes because of his unhinged hatred for his own country and his own race. Just like that other hatemonger Noam Chomsky.
Did he support Franco?
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:28:46 AMJust like that other hatemonger Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is one of the greatest minds in the history of Linguistics, no matter what you think of his politics. You are an idiot if you think otherwise; even his sworn intellectual enemies in the field acknowledge as such.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:12:58 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:28:46 AMJust like that other hatemonger Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is one of the greatest minds in the history of Linguistics, no matter what you think of his politics. You are an idiot if you think otherwise; even his sworn intellectual enemies in the field acknowledge as such.
Ideological purity comes first.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2010, 03:28:01 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:12:58 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:28:46 AMJust like that other hatemonger Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is one of the greatest minds in the history of Linguistics, no matter what you think of his politics. You are an idiot if you think otherwise; even his sworn intellectual enemies in the field acknowledge as such.
Ideological purity comes first.
Chomsky is to Linguistics as Einstein is to Physics. Find it odd that Hans could ignore Einstein's political and religious beliefs while respecting his contributions to the field, while Chomsky ist verboten. Maybe the fact that Chomsky is alive, and able to fight being steamrolled by the Conservative White-Wash Express?
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:31:50 AM
Chomsky is to Linguistics as Einstein is to Physics. Find it odd that Hans could ignore Einstein's political and religious beliefs while respecting his contributions to the field, while Chomsky ist verboten. Maybe the fact that Chomsky is alive, and able to fight being steamrolled by the Conservative White-Wash Express?
Maybe the fact that Hans made no mention of Chomsky's work in linguistics?
I've not joined in the fray so far because I haven't read anything by Zinn, but Chomsky I've read. "Conservative White-Wash Express??" Are you out of your mind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2010, 07:19:32 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:31:50 AM
Chomsky is to Linguistics as Einstein is to Physics. Find it odd that Hans could ignore Einstein's political and religious beliefs while respecting his contributions to the field, while Chomsky ist verboten. Maybe the fact that Chomsky is alive, and able to fight being steamrolled by the Conservative White-Wash Express?
Maybe the fact that Hans made no mention of Chomsky's work in linguistics?
I've not joined in the fray so far because I haven't read anything by Zinn, but Chomsky I've read. "Conservative White-Wash Express??" Are you out of your mind?
Apparently you haven't read Queellus or you'd already know the answer to that :P
QuoteMaybe the fact that Hans made no mention of Chomsky's work in linguistics?
He has previously (Oex and I ended up arguing with him, before Hans gave up), and I took the entirety of his comment to be inclusive of both Zinn and Chomsky.
Quote
"Conservative White-Wash Express??"
Conservatives have a way of editing history to fit their narriative. One of the many things they have in common with Cylons. They've already warped the memory of the Founding Fathers, (http://www.greatdreams.com/climate/washington%20praying.jpg) and greatly simplified Einstien's views on Religion, (http://www.conservapedia.com/Einstein) not to mention the hitjob they are trying on Darwin's supposed Racism. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution)
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:15:25 PM
Conservatives have a way of editing history to fit their narriative. One of the many things they have in common with Cylons.
One of the many things they have in common with liberals.
How has the Conservative White-Wash Express streamrolled Chomsky?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2010, 03:22:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:15:25 PM
Conservatives have a way of editing history to fit their narriative. One of the many things they have in common with Cylons.
One of the many things they have in common with liberals.
How has the Conservative White-Wash Express streamrolled Chomsky?
Hans has attempted to comment on his Linguistics work, saying that he is a hack there. Chomsky is a far more complex figure than that. I was implying that Chomsky's politics will either be warped by the Conservatives in to NAZI-SOVIET-LOVER-HACK-LINGUIST or in to some kind of Conservative. Einstein went through the second, Darwin and Zinn the first.
Quote
One of the many things they have in common with liberals.
Conservatives tend to go out of their way to create alternatives to well-established institutions with the excuse that they are "liberally biased". Look at Conservapedia or Fox News, though MSNBC is moving towards becoming FNC's Liberal foil.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:27:36 PM
Hans has attempted to comment on his Linguistics work, saying that he is a hack there. Chomsky is a far more complex figure than that. I was implying that Chomsky's politics will either be warped by the Conservatives in to NAZI-SOVIET-LOVER-HACK-LINGUIST or in to some kind of Conservative. Einstein went through the second, Darwin and Zinn the first.
You mean Hans saying Chomsky is a hack linguist is the Conservative White-Wash Express steamrolling Chomsky? :unsure:
QuoteConservatives tend to go out of their way to create alternatives to well-established institutions with the excuse that they are "liberally biased". Look at Conservapedia or Fox News, though MSNBC is moving towards becoming FNC's Liberal foil.
And leftist write histories to "set the record straight" from "establishment propaganda."
Quote from: Queequeg on January 30, 2010, 03:15:25 PMOne of the many things they have in common with Cylons.
:lol: :nerd:
QuoteYou mean Hans saying Chomsky is a hack linguist is the Conservative White-Wash Express steamrolling Chomsky?
How about Conservative White-Wash/Black-Wash machine?
Quote
And leftist write histories to "set the record straight" from "establishment propaganda."
This seems fair, in retrospect, though Zinn had something different in mind.
I see. So Hans is the Conservative White-Wash/Black-Wash Express, and the only thing preventing Hans from steamrolling Chomsky's reputation as a linguist is the fact that he is still alive and able to fight back.
Has he actually fought back against Hans to defend his reputation, or is it simply his ability to do so that has prevented the steamrolling? The moment he dies will that ability be lost, and will Hans instantly steamroll him?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2010, 05:33:11 PM
I see. So Hans is the Conservative White-Wash/Black-Wash Express, and the only thing preventing Hans from steamrolling Chomsky's reputation as a linguist is the fact that he is still alive and able to fight back.
Has he actually fought back against Hans to defend his reputation, or is it simply his ability to do so that has prevented the steamrolling? The moment he dies will that ability be lost, and will Hans instantly steamroll him?
Hence my happiness everytime one of the anti-american left dies. :P
Chomsky was of course a very outspoken supporter of Pol Pot and for two decades denied the holocaust occured in Cambodia ( at which point it became too silly to deny so he instead blamed the "real culprit" the USA). Of course Chomsky has also been a denier of the holocaust that occured during WWII (I guess he just lacks the imagination necessary to pin the blame for it on the US).
Quote from: Jaron on January 30, 2010, 12:05:26 AM
I cant believe I put "piece" :shutup:
Yeah, you left off the "s" at the end.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2010, 03:43:26 PM
And leftist write histories to "set the record straight" from "establishment propaganda."
I think there's an element to that which explains the stridency of some 'left-wing history'. It depends how you define conservative history, though. My own definition would probably include most histories until the mid-twentieth century - with a few notable exceptions (Buckhardt springs to mind) - most history was focused on the acts of great men even with Thucydidean cause-and-effect. It is the history of an elite and, in Marxist terms, it is the ideology that underpins the economic system - it's the myth we tell ourselves and are told. Part of this it should be said is inevitable and academia helped to undermine in the sense that for most of our history histories have either been official documents prepared for and preserved by an elite, or they have been written by gentlemen. The late 19th century professionalisation of history started to change that because what had been a narrative was suddenly disrupted and to an extent exploded into a myriad of little bits of history that contributed to our understanding of history but also undermined our narrative sense. My understanding is that German historians' work on, for example, family and aristocracy in the Roman Republic revolutionised the study of Ancient History.
I think the stridency of 'left-wing history' comes from a desire to set the record straight. For example social history did not exist, for the most part, didn't really start until the 20th century, neither did cultural history, neither really did economic history. There was a great deal of pushback against all of those trends by traditional conservative historians and I think many of the early works proclaimed themselves with a great degree of certainty and theoretical weight to establish their presence. But the truth is that now even a conservative, narrative history will take cognisance of the economy, of general social structure, of cultural norms, of the position of minority groups within a society. The extreme is micro-history, such as Ginzburg's wonderful 'The Cheese and the Worms' or Duffy's 'The Voices of Morebath'. These histories depict one village and sometimes one man, but enlighten things that we've not really known anything about: the effects of literacy and books in 16th century Europe/Italy/Friuli and the popular reaction to the English Reformation. But because they're so localised they both damage the traditional received narrative - Duffy's work on the English Reformation is a great example of this revisionism in general.
I think 'left-wing' history in the 60s and the 70s was over the top and strident precisely because they were setting the record straight but that their goal has now been integrated into every mainstream history. We read them now and they seem a bit ridiculous they put things so strongly but that's because we're used to their argument and what they're doing whereas in the 60s and 70s it was very new indeed.
Edit: And here's E.H. Carr in 'What is History? about bias:
'Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St. Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use - these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation. Indeed, if, standing Sir George Clark on his head, I were to call history "a hard core of interpretation surrounded by a pulp of disputable facts," my statement would, no doubt, be one-sided and misleading, but no more so, I venture to think, than the original dictum.'
I liked Carr when I first got to read him in my undergrad historiography class. "The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab." :)