• Brian S

    I’m confused. Are you saying that to speak honestly about the past, present, and future of our nation is a bad thing? That is a very odd stand for you to take indeed. OH! I see what you are doing! This was intended to demonstrate how sad and pathetic a person would sound if they were truely stupid enough to deny reality. That is clever prose. You almost had me believing that someone could actually type without a brain.

    • JerseyJoe

      Zinn was a communist pig and with followers like you his big lie about America will continue to damage this great country's reputation.

    • H. Geschichtemann

      I find it strange that you would try to defend Prof. Zinn by implying that he spoke "honestly about the past, present and future of our nation," when Prof. Zinn himself would have emphatically denied the possibility of any such category as "honest." Zinn himself made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that he understood the act of describing the past as a political weapon. For you to invoke "truth" in his defense indicates that you missed the whole point of his thinking, which was that historical "truth" was not only impossible but undesirable! While his writings failed to demonstrate his assertion of the impossbility of historical truth, they more than substantiate the fact that he believed it to be undesirable! Requiescat in pace, Howard Zinn, you old charlatan!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      Of course, Zinn spoke honestly. He honestly spoke from the Marxist standpoint. Zinn and you have your own existential viewpoint.

      This, however, is a CONSERVATIVE website. So, don't be surprised when you get attacked for you views by people speaking from their viewpoint.

      • guest


        Ah, thanks "Conservative" for your refreshingly abject failures of Mental and Moral progress as a Man, Political one at that according I see how childlsh such Logical Fallacies as The Screen Orwell saw'd be installed in each of your living rooms, Conservative self proclaimed jihadists against ANY: dissent, true Human Expression which's intangible in it's profound germination by way of experiences personally Or, via reading and EMPATHY! "New, Exciting, different" is how Mankind grows and such disregard from American History, as Howard Zinn says in his documentary, "You CAN'T BE NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN," as if ONE DOESN'T KNOW HISTORY THEN THEY'll believe ANYTHING the next blogger said. Honestly, criticism of Nate Silvers & ANY Projections of the election even if it's called Arithmetic I am ASTOUNDED HOW FAR Repbulicans have blasted to the Past the Historical accuracy/knowledge is appalling EVEN HAD YOU MODELLED yourselves after Mad Men.

        To really believe USA IS a Bastion of FREEDOM, Democracy, not even touching how well it worked for the Founders across the pond, YET, WHY IS THE NEED TO FEEL INCLUDED SO INTEGRAL you'll discard LOGIC, Critical Thinking Skills, Adulthood REQUIRES SELF-DOUBT, then, EMPATHY (put ur own self in another's shoes), FIND ANY ORIGINALITY and Truth cause "IF UR WRONG" u go back to living for yourself & U, yet still A MAN CAN READ AND LEARN BOTH SIDES INCLUDING WHAT any 'Marxist' would believe Or say, rather than playing O'reily or Rush as you laugh at 'socialist, marxists' slurs….. Howard Zinn is by far MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN YOU'd be able to grasp.

    • ajnn

      To speak honestly about history is a good thing. The point of this article is that Zinn spoke DIS-HONESTLY. That can be a destructive and despicable act.

  • http://www.dnk.cz Jirka D

    Well, Zinn spoke honestly about the sufferings American government brought about on people all over the world. On the other hand, he was silent about other sources of evil, many times bigger than American “greedy capitalism”. He himself sais in defense that writing a book that includes everything is an impossible task. I agree, that book would be too long and too incoherent to read. And id would be a book of antropology, about the evils in everyone of us, not a history book

    So in my oppinion Zinn did the best job he could in showing the shortcommings of the “American way of governing thinks”. Churchil said, that democracy is not an ideal system, but it is the best we have. I think, that capitalism is not an ideal form of owning possesions, but it is the only stable one we have that is coherent woth democracy. And it backs the democracy off, because without a group of rich people in the positions of power the democracy is unstable and can easily turn out into anarchy.

    So I can put up with the fact Zinn haven’t critised Indians and so on. If one wants those stories, they can easily fint those on the web (as we who are reading this article). The main message of Zinn is that there will always be some selfish people in the position of power, who will want to use their power for their personal gain. And we the people of out respective countries (I’m not from the usa) shouldn back them off when this is happening.

    Well, may he rest well

    • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

      There is no such thing as inherent evil inside all of us. There is original sin and its derivatives. And remember, Zinn was playing with fire. A reckless child on his daddy's farm playing with matches not worrying about who was killed or how many ICBM's would be launched.

      He's lucky he didn't get an old sicilian message, a la Lucca Brotzi sleeps with the fishes.

      End of Story !!!!

      PR 10 !!!! USA #! !!!

      • Karim

        You and your laughable kitchengod are evil.You have that whispering in that empty shell of a head and call it allmighty.

        • annie

          And who is your God? Is it the moon god of a barbaric evil pedophile or yourself?

          • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

            hmmmmmmmm. Leftists interested in religion. Interesting. I am hoping Putin goes back to his Nordic roots. Think of communism as Nordic Tradition and you will see how I view men like Zinn: misanthropes. Cavemen lost in the nuclear age who cannot comprehend what exactly the proud people of the Cherokee Nation did. We uttered the word of death on the fascists he lusted for and split the atom. Unfortunately, people like Zinn gave that monster Stalin borrowed time when they took out McArthur and let the Rosenbergs give the Kremlin our atomic secrets. Think of the people who would be alive today if we would have let Patton, McArthur, and Churchill hang Uncle Joe as a war criminal.

            Anyways, Chango exists as my Father, Jesus Christ exists as His Son providing the blue print on the Souls of Men, and My Grandfather exists as the Holy Ghost providing the strength to men who aspire to be on Seal Team Six but just can't make it.

            My religion dictates to be the type of guy who walks the stations of the Cross at midnight during major military maneuvers chanting Allah Akbar God Is Great and afterwards doing the ghost dance in my backward just for good luck because they won't let me in because you're right, I am crazy, I know I'm crazy. I really would advocate preemptive nuclear strikes as the opening gambit everytime. We got that missle shield now. We got that defensive laser. It really is time to build sky net.

            The Horse Worshipers fight and die in the Middle East for Prince Bin Laden. Hey! Mullah Omar !!!! How many white women you want !!! Bin Laden's going down and honestly I'm glad a black American is doing it. I just want a Republican Congress in there because the elephant is cool, but really, isn't this a much more nobler creature.


            So in essence my God is representative as a Satanic T-800 created by Isaac Newton controlled by the current pope who is unleashed to this music alongside my fellow Native Americans on evil people:


            In essence I read one book from the Bible, Revelation. That's it. End of story. It's a lot like Jesus Christ Superstar, but literally He has a sword tongue that kills people like Charles Ng a la the Heaven's Sword from Castelvania: Symphony of the Night. The debtor's debt will be paid, and you can take that one to the bank.


            PR 10 !!! USA # 1 !!!!

    • AntiFascist18

      You sorry ignorant girl…

      Zinn was disingenuous in his vicious hatred of America. He never cast a positive light on the accomplishments of this nation. He even called the Civil War a war fought for big business! Incredible. Not only smearing Lincoln but the 400,000 Boys in Blue who died on the battlefields or of disease in the camps for ending Slavery and preserving the Union. I'm surprised somewhat that he didn't subscribe (or did he?) to the Reverse Racism of Lerone Bennett who suggested Lincoln was a Racist who didn't care about the fate of Black people.

      But I digress. Did you know, little girl, that your hero Zinn "regretted" bombing Nazis who were murdering his relatives in the Holocaust? But that he NEVER regretted his Communist Party membership or even Stalin? He hated U.S. militarism, but if it wasn't for our military he'd be a lampshade in some German household.

      As for our "sufferings" – honey, you don't like, move to Gaza.

      • Karim

        You pathetic liar.He never regretted bombing Nazis,he regretted dropping Napalm on civilians.

        • coyote3

          Napalm was used to a very, very, very limited extent in WWII. Indeed, in the Pacific theatre. What theatre did Zinn serve in? Maybe he didn't drop napalm at all.

          Notwithstanding the answer, "…he regretted dropping napalm on civilians." Why????????????

        • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

          Well. There you go. Could not ascribe to Flame War. Strike 1 against Zinn.

        • AntiFascist18

          You're the damn Liar, you Muslim Fascist piece of trash. Learn how to read, you might find that reference if you did.

          Better yet, Go home. Go home to Gaza with the rest of your animal-murdering friends. And take Zinn's bloated corpse with you. He'd make a nice lampshade for the likes of you and your Hamas friends -wouldn't he?

          • Jack

            Again, paging David Swindle… Are you proud to edit a site with "regulars" like this guy?

  • http://u2r2h.blogspot.com Jutu Artoh

    Amazingly you only repeat Zinn’s arguments, distorting them as you please. How rude to denigrate the deceased who cannot defend themselves any more! Zinn wasn’t “Anti American” or ANTI-ITALIAN! — CHOMSKY: The concept “anti-American” is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships … Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet.” That’s a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as “anti-Italian.” It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.

    • aliko

      Tell that to your immune system that is responsible for mass killing of immigrant cells (otherwise called germs and viruses) and killing cells that like to reproduce (otherwise called cancerous cells).

      Enjoy your Satori.

    • Jason

      What incoherent nonsense. The united states is a democratic republic and private ownership of the means of production. Zinn advocates for the undoing of this economic and political system. Since being a democratic republic with private ownership of the means of production is the essential characteristic of this nation (and the reason for its founding), by being against that Zinn is anti american. Furthermore, his stated purpose is to give encouragement to armed aggressors fighting against the United States. Therefore, he is anti-american.

      This is not a simple play on words or attempt at propaganda. Zinn is against every distinguishing characteristic and stated purpose of this country. Therefore, he is anti-american. That is logic. Nothing more.

    • Jason

      Oh, and just because Chomsky said the concept of anti-American is a totalitarian concept doesn't make it so. First of all, being anti-Soviet brought death, dismemberment or gulag. Being LABELED anti-Soviet brought with it BY DEFAULT political persecution or violence. However in the US, when we call someone anti-American (like Zinn and Chomsky) we are simply stating the obvious. The actual totalitarian in this argument of yours is actually you, because you are the only one trying to silence someone and interfere with their God given right to speak on political matters. It is orwellian in the extreme to call free speach totalitarian as Chomsky does. But I would expect that from someone with kind words for holocaust deniers

  • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

    How's this for an argument:

    Nihilism exists in the heart of every communist sympathizer and also every fascist. Let those who believe in death as nihilistic annhiliation be annihilated and those who believe in death as child birth be born again.


    For I do not see a Culture of Death in America:


    I see a culture in a perpetual death throw. Think of a wolverine in a cage. That's the America I love:


    Zinn has not died. His soul has been annihilated by the hand of My Savior !!!!!!

    End of Story.

    PR 10 !!!! Frontpagemag.com #1.

    • we the people

      Lot of annihilation going on there for a guy whose Savior said to 'love your enemies as yourself.' You wan't to argue Zinn's politics, fine. Leave the theocracy and brimstone at home. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence was the prime force behind what is called today 'the separation of church and state'. Guys like you are why he promoted it. Righteous annihilation, sounds more like bin Laden than Jesus.

  • Matt

    "He cited capitalism as the reason “why we have 45 million people without health care,” “2 million people homeless,” and “millions and millions of people who can’t pay their rent.”

    Well, that means that capitalism is the reason, conversely, that we have over 300 million people WITH healthcare, over 340 million who AREN'T homeless and hundreds of millions of people who CAN pay their rent. For Zinn, America is evil because the glass is 1/8th empty.

    • annie

      For Zinn, America is evil because people like him do not have absolute power and rule over other human beings. Yet.

      • Matt

        I think you are wrong to say that America is evil.

    • VN Vet

      And besides that, the numbers are purposely grossly inflated.

      In Zinn's Soviet Union, the state furnished it's people with groceries. Only there were no groceries.

      In Zinn's Soviet Union the state funished it's people with healthcare. Only what healthcare there was, was 19th century.

      In the Politburo however, it was caviar and vodka and everything in between. They lived like kings…er..dictators.

      Since Zinn had to live past the age of 30, it's rewarding to American Patriots that he lived to see the Capitalist United States bury the Communist Soviet Union. And that he lived long enough (just barely) to see the American people turn away from marxism and the obamination.

      Wherever and whenever we see communism raise its ugly head we need to kick it in the teeth.

      • Virgil

        Zinn fought for the U.S. in WWII. How dare you malign him, young man! As a WWII vet who knew Zinn, I find your ignorance and presumption a very sad commentary on the younger generation. Zinn hated tyranny of all kinds. He was first and foremost an American, and therefore fought the hardest to achieve freedom and independence from the abuses of his government.

        It is fine and dandy for people to sit here and strike heroic poses about how evil our official enemies are. I am sure that is exactly what people in the Soviet Union were encouraged to to w/r/t the U.S. It is a far more challenging and meaningful task to act to effectuate change within one's OWN society.

        • davarino

          Ya right, ok, equate the US with the Soviet Union. I got your number. I dont give a damn if zinn served in WWII, to work against the great nation on earth that fights for freedom around the world is enough for me. Thanks for your chastisement, I will consider commmunism more thoughtfully in the future as per your advise, maybe you could give democracy, capitalism, and freedom more consideration.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wss25 wss25

    Obviously this author did not know Prof. Zinn. Zinn was an honorable, wonderful man who loved his Country. The problem for his critics is that Zinn told the truth.

    • AntiFascist18

      He was a self-hating Jew who regretted bombing Nazis but never regretted Stalin. An ass who put the Palestinian Muslims above the lives of Jewish women and children, victims of genocidal bombings by his "suffering" Paly pals. He hated America but if it wasn't for this oh-so-fascist, racist country – NOT – he'd be a freakin' lampshade.

      You're just a typical brain dead fascist girlieboy who admires a self-loathing, America-hating piece of crap.

    • MMcFM

      He was a man locked into a peculiar perspective that saw oppression, but failed to acknowledge what the same nation did to overcome the same. My grandparents and great grandparents left countries where they were subjected to the slavery and taxation of Islamic governance, government seizure of property, poverty so abject they could not feed their children, and grinding classism that had limited opportunity for generations and institutionalized the perception that the lower class could not be entrepreneurial. I thank all eight of them that they left their villages, and came to America. They faced additional discrimination and abuse, but they worked around and past it. The glass is half full, if you have eyes to see and lack a 19th century mentality.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/wss25 wss25

        IntenseDebate Notification <DIV dir=ltr align=left> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>To:MMcFM,</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>To defame Prof Zinnafter his death is unscrupulous.</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>As for his thought process, you can be informed about what a giant of a man he was by watching this:</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> <DIV>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2… <DIV></DIV> <DIV>You also may wish to enlarge your reading habits to become better informed.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Information Clearing House and Huffington Post would help balance Front Page for you.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Your ancestors were fortunate to work around it – obviously they were not drafted or otherwise oppressed bypast US war mongers.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>You may wish to watch 911 Revisited on youtube.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Your reading Front Page without other information will warp your views.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>wss25</DIV></DIV></DIV>

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Indioviejo Indioviejo

      Are you for real? Zinn himself recognized that he didn't care to tell the truth,but only cared to give his ideological slant to a History that in spite of his malignant spin goes on to enchant millions of smarter peolple than the ones who comune with the marxist view. The evidence stands up in the contrast of our way of life, and the life lived in Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Venezuela, China and all other countries to numerous to mention. Their citizens vote with their feet and walk, row or sneak under fences just to have the priviledge of living in America. You sir, must be stupid by staying inj a country that opresses you. Seek freedom elsewhere.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/wss25 wss25

        IntenseDebate Notification <DIV dir=ltr align=left>To: Indioviejo,</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>To defame Prof Zinnafter his death is unscrupulous.</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>As for his thought process, you can be informed about what a giant of a man he was by watching this:</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> <DIV>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2… <DIV></DIV> <DIV>You also may wish to enlarge your reading habits to become better informed.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Information Clearing House and Huffington Post would help balance Front Page for you.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>wss25</DIV></DIV>

    • George

      Zinn was a snobby punk. How much money did this "honorable man" make trying to distort American History. The Japanese killed MILLIONS of people and all he could whine about was we killed 240,00 Japanese? If the rest of us were just as honorable we would all be speaking German and Japanese. Our country is great if you agree with Zinn why don't you live in a different socialist perfect utopia. Only in America could this flaming Jack -Ass make a living off of trashing the very place that gives him the freedom to do so.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

    There is constructive criticism, and then there's rationalized hatred. We all have faults and areas where we should improve. Don't we all agree that America should improve? But Zinn was clear and unequivocal in stating that America was a fundamentally evil place; that the world would have been better if America had never existed. This attitude indicates a fundamental disconnect from reality. There's no value in trying to find a few nuggets of truth in the words of a man who comes from a place of such perverse darkness. Can anyone seriously assert that Zinn was intellectually honest? And I'd say the same thing of anyone who was as far off base in the other direction, and that America hadn't done evil to the natives and African slaves.

    • Karim

      Did Zinn say that America itself was fundamentally evil or that what she did to Natives,Africans and Vietnamese was fundamentally evil?There is a difference.
      If Zinn was wrong,which he wasnt,why make such a big deal?The thing is he was right and the majority of the world agrees that for example killing 4 Million Vietnamese with Napalm and Agent Orange was one the biggest atrocities of the twentieth century.Killing that many people because of an opposition to ideology is fundamentally evil.

      • AntiFascist18

        Go home – home to Gaza, if you live here. After all, pissant, you are occupying Native American land. So was Zinn who truly deserved to go home to a ghetto in Poland or Russia. Trouble is, those Nazis he "regretted" bombing wiped out those shtehls, helped in the beginning by the butcher Zinn admired, one Uncle Josif Vissionovich Stalin.

        But you don't belong here, Islamofascist, with your virulent hate of America. Go home and stay there with your so-tolerant gutter religion.

        • Albert

          "Antifascist18" — Please leave my great country. Your ignorance and hatred run counter to everything that makes America great. Go back to where ever you came from. Leave. Go. We Americans do not want you here.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

        4 Million?

        It's interesting how the "casualty figures" keep rising, the farther from the actual events we get, and the more control over "history" the Left gets. What's the latest "casualty figures" on Iraq, by the way?

        However, I did my part, with my trusty Model 70, to increase the casualties among the Vietnamese enemy, and I'm proud of every squeeze of the trigger …

        • VN Vet

          Hi Sniper, I assume your Winchester was chambered in .30-06. If I remember right.

          Yes, isn't it interesting how the figures keep rising with each leftist telling, LOL. But of course there were 2.5 million Vietnamese and Cambodians who were killed, by THE COMMUNISTS, subsequent to the Paris Peace Accords which ended hostilites in 1973. The communist genocide taking place in 1975 and beyond.

          Leftists like Zinn and company, were all along agitating for our departure from SVN, which they feared we would win, they knowing as well as anyone that it was a de facto war with their beloved Soviet Union. All along they maintained that there would not be a bloodbath, if we departed. Well notwithstanding that we left with the Peace Accords, we did depart, and then two years later the North invaded and the ensuing slaughter occurred. Well, the leftists were stunned, they knew they were culpable, so they quickly set about writing coverup tomes, blaming the slaughter on the U.S.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/lovesjeeves lovesjeeves

            Thank you for this, it is appreciated. This fact of history alone should make anyone on the left want to reconsider alliances with those of same mindset.

          • ChampionBowHunter

            Your "story" presupposes that the U.S. simply wanted Vietnam to be a place of peaceful smiling people. That would make a cat laugh. The U.S. gov't didn't really give a damn about Vietnamese, anymore than the U.S. gov't care about Phillipinos when it invaded in 1898. The pattern is the same: the third world is a source of raw materials, markets and cheap labor. The "communist" pretext did not exist at the birth of the "empire" (which is what the founding fathers quite candidly called their conception — not our conception — of what the U.S. was); nor does that pretext exist now. No matter. So long as there is an endless supply of official enemies, concocted to keep people stupified and afraid, then there is plenty of opportunity to exploit.

            Now, you can hate that history or you can like it. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending that it had anything to do with high-minded ideals like "helping people".

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

            Although I know that this won't be seen on the site, I thought I would reply to it, anyway.

            The rifle was indeed chambered in .30-06, and I used handloaded rounds based on the old Remington Accelerator (a 59-grain .223 sabot-discarding round). The fellow who did the handloading said that the muzzle velocity was slightly under 4000 fps, and I never had any reason to doubt him!

        • VN Vet

          The charge had little credibility beyond the leftists in the country, which of course included the democ-rat party and their sycophants in the media, and they knew it was propaganda, but were caught with egg on their face, they had to try something. Somehow in their warped minds they assumed the communists were good people like Americans were good people. That reality however never stopped them from adoring communism, just like Stalin's purges in the 30's never stopped them from loving Uncle Joe. And so it goes.

          Oh, a good joke…regarding snipers…I love. It goes something like this: a snarky info-babe, prolly from one of the lefty alphabet networks, was interviewing a young sniper in Iraq and she, hoping to prey on his "humanity", asked him what he felt when he killed a terrorist. The young sgt., completely innocent of the setup, shrugged his shoulders and replied, a little recoil…

      • VN Vet

        The one good thing about having assholes like you come here and post is that the many people who peruse this site get to see first hand just how insane and detached from reality you, Zinn, and all leftists are. The display of ignorance and downright insanity that permeates your mush for brains is breathtaking. For many of us of course this is no surprise, but for many more it has to be an eyeopener. And for that reason alone it's good to see you.

        • FarmerKent

          Still waiting for an argument. So far, I see nothing more than broad generalizations, name-calling, unsubstantiated conclusory assertions and the like. If this is what passes for enlightened discussion, then lord help us.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

        For the benefit of anyone that doubts my assertion that "Zinn was clear and unequivocal in stating that America was a fundamentally evil place; that the world would have been better if America had never existed."

        Dennis Prager once interviewed Zinn, and Zinn says exactly what I said he did. Here's the quote and link to the transcripts if you want the whole discussion. Prager is pretty good about letting people talk and clarify their position in their own words.



        Dennis Prager: I think a good part of your view is summarized when you say, "If people knew history, they would scoff at that, they would laugh at that" — the idea that the United States is a force for the betterment of humanity. I believe that we are the country that has done more good for humanity than any other in history. What would you say . . . we have done more bad than good, we're in the middle, or what?

        Howard Zinn: Probably more bad than good.

    • VN Vet

      They know exactly what Zinn stood for, and they themselves stand for. Their presence here is expressly for damage control.

  • Hentry

    "But Zinn was clear and unequivocal in stating that America was a fundamentally evil place; that the world would have been better if America had never existed. This attitude indicates a fundamental disconnect from reality. There's no value in trying to find a few nuggets of truth in the words of a man who comes from a place of such perverse darkness."

    You either haven't read his work or misunderstand what you have read. The proposition you make is so grossly overstated and absurdly generalized as to have discredited anything that follows. If you wish to contribute substantively and meaningfully, then please do so. Present your arguments: state a proposition, provide evidence, explain how the evidence supports the proposition, and let the facts and reason do the work. But you provide is not an argument; it is sheer assertion void of any explanatory power. To that extent, it lacks any persuasive effective, and will do little to enlist the consideration of anyone who does not somehow already hold the opinion you express. I hardly think such an attitude conducive to enlightenment.

    • Jason

      Actually having read a ton of Zinn's word (as well as his fellow travelers like Chomsky), and having been a former leftist well versed in their nonsense, I can state that he is generalizing Zinn quite well.

      • Hentry

        oh. well, then. what more is required. We'll all just take your word for it. Thanks for sharing. I once was blind but now can see.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

      See my citation above, where I quote Zinn (with a link to the transcript) stating that America has, in weighing the totality of its history, done more bad than good.

    • Dave P

      Gee. I felt like I was listening to a speech being read from a teleprompter. From what I have ever read about Zinn, which wasn't much because I always looked at him as an elitist, like Ward Churchill. Those who are quick to point out the faults of our country, but refuse to look at the atrocities of other political systems. Like most on the left, slavery began and ended in America, even though most every human being on the planet can trace their beginnings in some sort of bondage. But your post, which was very elegantly worded, it felt like I was being chastised by my mother. Which is usually the case when Liberals ramble on.

  • davarino

    Noam Chumpski is another worthless pile of human debris. I am sure their russian and chinese handlers love the work they have done. Lets see how well they can lie to the devil.

  • Karim

    Just the fact that the label Marxist keep on appearing again and again is a sign of the festering bullshit on this site.There is no evidence that Zinn was a Marxist.Case closed.Its just a lable for totalitarian people to orient themselves in a confusing world.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      You and Dicky like to "close cases" …

      Marxist, Communist, Trotskyite, Bolshevik, National Socialist, Fascist … there's little to choose between them.

    • Ken

      That's a lie. Either that or it's a lack of personal ignorance on your part. Mr Zinn was a Marxist throughout his life, participated in demonstrations in favor of known governments that were in fact Marxist. (e.g. Sandanistas in the 80s, North Vietnamese in the '60s)
      Not exactly the stuff of an "unbiased" historian without a personal agenda.
      But yes, just the fact that that label keeps coming up, right. No such thing as Marxist. Either as an ideology, a worldview, paradigm (whatever one chooses to call it).
      Again, what you wrote, the first part, assuming for a moment it was not merely uninformed ignorance, what you wrote …is a complete and utter. Lie.

  • Guest

    What would be hysterical about Zinn, and Chomsky as well, if it weren't so pathetic, is to consider how they themselves chose to live their adult lives. I live in Newton, MA, roughly 5 minutes walk from Zinn's palatial home in the Auburndale section of Newton. I grew up in Lexington, MA and attended a middle school that is approximately 500 yards from Chomsky equally luxurious home. Evidently one of Zinn's daughters also lives in Lexington. It is no exaggeration to say that Newton and Lexington are among the most affluent communities in the USA. Such men of the people! It's fine to be an out-of-the-box thinker, but even Zinn's ardent admirers should be troubled by his hypocrisy and double standards.

    • VN Vet

      The Politburo lives high off the hog. The proletariat are just the vehicle used to get them there.

      • Guest

        No lie

    • Jim

      So, Zinn didn't actually LIVE among the people? He lived pretty rich, huh? Maybe it explains how he palled around Matt Damon and Ben Affleck? Always thought those dudes grew up dirt poor. Guess they came from money too.
      Maybe that's it. They live in their own little worlds when they write it makes sense they'd go to live where the grass is the greenest (capitalist green, that is)
      Question: How would the left react if Zinn's daughter became a born again Christian? A card carrying member of Pat Robertson's 700 Club? HA!

    • Tom Smith

      Zinn was born poor and did not get where he got by working for Goldman-Sachs. His work was aimed at discrediting and removing the structures that prevent others from rising to the same level of comfort that he rose to. That is the exact opposite of capitalism – which imposes those structures.

  • GBArg

    Howard Zinn: What a tragedy, with such a great intellect completely wasted on a philosophy of Marxism and death. Perhaps a greater tragedy, that so many mourned his passing.

    • VN Vet

      Intellectuals (pointy heads) have a habit of being wrong, because they are usually devoid of that most important aspect of all intellect, common sense. Which prevents them from thinking logically/analytically. They seem to subconsciously understand that and the impulse to offset it manifests itself in arrogance.

      Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher said about intellectuals: give them everything but power.

  • BowHunterSupreme

    Even assuming that Zinn or Chomsky or Jesus H. Christ or whoever was a "marxist" (whatever that is supposed to mean), afixing that label to someone does nothing to address the specific arguments raised. I mean, Vlad the Impaler surely recognized that 2+2+4. If he stated as much, does that mean 2+2 does not equal 4 — simply because he was "the Impaler"?

    I agree with Karin . . . The proposensity within the above comments to seek to discredit the specific arguments made by Zinn, by merely painting him as "anti-American", "America hating", "marxist" and the like is a sure sign that there is no real substantive argument opposing the positions Zinn articulates in his. That is not to say no such reasoned criticism does not exist or cannot be made. But it certainly does not appear in any of the comments, or for that matter in the lead article. Basically, it all reduces to the proposition that "X" is a bad man; therefore, everything that "X" says is wrong. Any 4-year old could readily perceive the fallacy of such a proposition.

    • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

      I question the zeal of Zinn supporters. This is someone who played Russian roulette with nuclear missiles. His failure to forsee what Stalin was doing, emulating the Nazis, is a major black mark and really should discredit everything he did.

      Vlad the Impaler would probably say yes, 2+2 = 4 because 2 stakes + 2 spears = 4 dead men. In Zinn's case, it is 1 million dead people do not matter because Uncle Joe killed them.

      Masochistic masturbation exists at the heart of every self indulgent American dissenter. Nothing more, nothing less. You want to destroy Zinn and his acolytes? Rub them raw with their self hatred. Like the blacks say, everything can be white if you rub it hard enough!

      It all boils down to that damn Yankee tradition. You seek meaning in modularity you do not understand. I say meaning can be found if you knock a system hard enough. Who cares? We are just going to be dead anyways.

      PR 10 !!! USA #1 !!!

      • VN Vet

        One million was just for starters.

      • Orlanda

        If someone can find an argument in this reply, please advise.

        • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

          Pragmatism, dummy, pragmatism. Zinn's beliefs were not only irrational, ie not grounded in reality, ie psychotic; they actively got people hurt. Che Guevara would not exist if people like Zinn did not exist.

        • VN Vet

          Looks like no one's arguing the point.

    • Marc

      Ok, I don't know what color the sky is in your world or if the meds didnt come thru this week. REAL BASIC. Critiques: Ron Radosh, Pajamas Media's on Zinn's History Channel series. Richard Shenkman of History News Network. Historian Michael Kazin and his review at dissent magazine.org. How bout this? We'll all agree that Zinn clearly was a Leftist. Certainly nothing moderate either in tone text or writings to clarify him as such. If you don't want labels affixed to your fave heroes of whom the hosannahs and verbal fellatio comes forward, then have your actions less assinine and more middle of the road. Labels actually are a good thing. They're the soundbite and summation for what people are. All the infamous and great people of history can be labeled, or summed up in a single word. What word should we sum you up in? Hm…maybe…dumbass. Or Assclowns. Example: If someone says Pat Buchanan is a "Man of the common people in his political essays and speaks truth to power and is a honest middle of the road" what would Karin and BowHunterSupreme respond with? The defense rests. Marxist assclown douchebags

  • Host

    The observation that Chomsky and Zinn lived in affluent suburbs of Boston is neither relevant nor surprising. (Neither community was particularly "rich" when they settled there in the 50s.) Both were tenured academics. They worked hard to earn a good living. They are perfectly entitled to choose to live whereever they choose. The assumption is that the arguments raised by these men may only merit our consideration if they choose to live on the streets. That is a preposterous presumption. People who oppose the abuses of power are entitled to live safely and to provide safe environments for their family.

    In any event, they certainly didn't STAY in those suburbs. Both logged millions of miles traveling all over the world to witness suffering and work to alleviate it.

    Just because one might observe that a political-economic system is exploited by those in power, does not mean that one necessarily must relinquish the right to live in the world such political-economic system produces. I mean, if that proposition were true every dissident seeking to challenge abuses of power within their own society would be required to ex-communicate themselves from the very society in which they live and which they hope to change.

    No one can pretend to live "outside" the global economy. Even Ted Kazinski's ability to live in a shack in the woods of Montana could only do so by virtue of a society that fosters many of the values Kazinski opposed.

    The argument that Ziinn and Chomsky are hypocrites because they lived in a relatively affluent suburb might have some credibility if both men attacked the existence of suburbs per se. Of couirse, they did not. They were critics of abuses of power. They may have opposed exploitation that fostered the ability of decent people to live and work in peace. They did not hold that no one has the right to live or work.

    We are still waiting for your specific arguments addressing the actual work of these men.

    • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

      How about Virginia? The south was caught in the middle, and tens of thousands of Virginians were killed. Hell, the entire Antebellum south was burnt to the ground.

      As a southerner, can I express the same dissent Noam and Howard applied to the founders that they apply to America today?

      In the scheme of things, everything exists as an evil until it is over. Noam and Howard just throw gasoline on an evil fire and say "Look at me !!!! I can defecate on it too!! Give me a prize !!!"

      I say sufficient a day its own evil. End of story !!!!

      PR 10 !!! USA #1

      • Bill

        what grade are you in?

      • nordant

        "In the scheme of things, everything exists as an evil until it is over"

        "entire Antebellum south was burnt to the ground. "

        Earth to eerie Steve.

        Earth to eerie Steve.

    • Guest

      "We" are still waiting, LMAO. Sorry but I don't have sufficient time for a point by point "Fisking" of their dubious work. In fairness, though, I will not request a specific accounting of all of the specific things you stated that they have done to "work to alleviate" suffering "all over the world" (is their support for Hezbollah and Hamas an example?). You write very nicely and I do appreciate to some degree some of the thoughts in your reply. However you constructed a straw man argument here

      • Guest

        A couple more points I'd like to add to my response (which fore whatever reason I wasn't able to fit above). First, you objected to my point as not being relevant. Correspondingly, I don't see the relevance of your statement about Zinn and Chomsky being tenured academics or people who work hard. My objection to their stated views has nothing to do with them being academics, tenured or otherwise, wanting to ensure a safe environment for their familiies, or whether (as you posit) they worked hard. They are indeed entitled to all of that, as are you and me, and I'm pleased that we live in a country that permits us, and them, to have enjoyed the fruits of their labors and talents and which did not, as another commenter rather crudely put it, result in their becoming lampshade material. My objection is based on my opinion (key words right there) that they were advocates for government imposition of control that would abridge the freedoms and deny the fruits of labor and talents to others when I don't believe they themselves demonstrated an evident desire to live according to their own stated principles. You and I will respectfully disagree on this opinion. <continued in next post>

        • Guest

          Second, perhaps you are simply not aware of the level of affluence in the communities these "great men of the oppressed" chose to live. I know very well what Lexington was like in the 1950's and particularly the value of property in the Willards Woods area of town. It's a story as old as human society itself, Zinn and Chomsky lived like kings and expected us "inferiors" to live in relative squalor. They are guilty of some of the same abuses with which they charge others. That's hypocrisy, in my mind.

          Thanks for the exhange, I know it wasn't entirely what you were asking for, sorry for some poor spelling above, best regards.

  • USMCSniper

    Howard Zinn's world view is representative of the rampant spread of our parasitic victim-culture and our impotence in the face of Islamic terrorism – these are both symptoms. The root cause lies in the psychology of sublimated self-hate that has come to be the prevalent psychic condition middle class liberals and especially those in media and academic circles. The truth is that virtually the entire ‘social justice' project of the last century – driven by middle class liberals on behalf of ‘the oppressed' – was motivated not by something noble but by something weak and creepy. It is a self hating mindset that did then (and still does) dominate academic life.

    • Pete

      Stop whining about how much of a victim you are.

    • Karim

      Yes, you love the thought of still being a plantation owning white master with a whip ,who has nothing to fear but god allmighty.And when the wife doesnt obey you show her gods natural order.Fucking liberals indeed.

    • VN Vet

      Hmm…the wussification of academia and the political left. I think you're onto something.

      • Goldminer

        "wussification of academia" is code language for "I stopped learning when I dropped out of the 10th grade".

        Please, redneck, do us American Conservatives a favor: turn off your magic flickering picture box, get off your ass and do something meaningful to contribute. Eating off your own spleen is no way to go through life.

        • VN Vet

          Not true, I have a college education. You hilariously imply yourself as a "conservative", but your phraseology and arrogance expose your true ideology, if not sexual persuasion. True conservatives don't use such wussified expressions. If by 'redneck' you mean I have loads of guns and ammunition, then yes, I am a redneck.

          Golddigger, isn't it true that what really has your panties in a knot is my post a little further up, the one about the 'pointy heads'?

  • aliko

    I think this quote from http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=4.html says volumes about the man:

    "Well, do you get the feeling sometime that you're living in an occupied country? Very often that's a feeling I get when I wake up in the morning. I think, "I'm living in an occupied country." A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are. I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me, you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live, they are not alien to me, you see."

    Obviously a man who embraces Muslim expansion and doesn't recognize the Muslim genocidal intentions doesn't need further analysis. Calling him a bad person is a mild understatement as one can produce.

    • Aliko2

      You forgot the rest of the quote: "They've taken over the country. They've taken over the policy. They've driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They're ruining the environment. And they're holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon."

      Question for you, aliko: Why do you hate America so much?

      • aliko

        Your quote supports my views just as well.

        To let a country that sent hundreds of thousands of children to battle in the Iran-Iraq war, supports suicide bombings and have a large force of suicide bombers is exactly the reason why nuclear bomb at their hands is a disaster for two scenarios:

        1. They won't use a rocket to send it to its target but blow it at the top of a high rise building in a western county and won't even take responsibility, just let one of their terrorist groups take blame. What then? who do you retaliate against?

        2. They'll use that weapon as a guarantee against attacking their country and begin their expansion plans in the middle east.

        Zinn uses "them" – Is it just the Bilderberg group? is it every member of the Republican and Democratic parties? every voter? This paranoid sounds like a red neck hiding in the mountains for fear from the evil government. Blaming just the U.S for the middle east, disregarding the huge part that the Soviets played, the Iranians, Saudis – Zinn was above details living in a cartoon like reality.

        Aliko2 – you're obviously an idiot asking me why I hate America. You have nothing to support this false claim and the scum that you are, you can't even choose a unique name.

        • aliko3

          The U.S. also supports suicide bombings. Defense Dept. studies in the 1950s and 1960s (and likely today) show that it was well known that a certain percentage of combat troops would die as a result of a given operation (e.g., a bombing run over heavily fortified territory). Based on the statistical certainty that X no. of planes would be shot down, and Y no. of bombs were required to be deployed to achieve a military objective, it was therefore ordered that Z no. of planes be deployed. As a result, the number of planes lost and crew killed was verified, but the objective was achieved.

          That is what war is about. You can like it or you can hate it. But don't pretend that somehow the American military is not capable of making calculated decisions that weigh the costs and benefits of using American lives as a means to achieve a military objective.

          • aliko

            One word makes the difference between your BS equation and the truth – Intention.
            Kamikaze pilots, Hamas suicide bombers and those that flew the planes in 9/11 all had *intention* to kill as many as possible *by suicide*. Comparing these lowlifes, especially the last two, to the U.S army makes you a very sick person.

          • aliko4

            Your comment explains nothing.

            Warfare is always intentional. And those who engage in war are always willing to sacrifice themselves for their purpose. Sometimes that means deliberately engaging in conduct that you KNOW will result in your death, but doing so in order to kill as many of the enemy as possible. The D-Day Invasion is a perfect example. Thousands of men landing that day — especially those running first into enemy fire — knew that they were rushing into certain death. They did so because they believed that their sacrifice was worth it. No doubt, every suicide bomber carries the same conviction.

            Let me ask you a question: Would you agree to fly a suicide mission if you knew that by crashing your plane into an enemy destroyer (and surely killing yourself) might save tens of thousands of Americans from dying in an invasion of the U.S.? Most military men would not hesitate to do so. (That's why its called a "suicide mission" — a phrase that has been common coin in the English language long before "Kamikaze".)

            What you really object to is not the PRINCIPLE of suicide missions. Rather, you object to the cause or purpose for which a suicide mission is the end.

            Have the honesty to admit the distinction.

            Also, have the honesty to honor American soldiers who have died by running suicide missions.

          • aliko

            Have you ever been in a car? every time you enter one and drive, there's a chance you'll end your life. In warfare there's no guarantee ever. You could be killed by friendly fire just as well as by your enemy.

            The way you blend everything and make it look the same is just a word game for you. As a veteran myself, I need no lessons from a troll – suicide mission is still one you want to come back from and the kind of sacrifice you make in war can't be compared to suicide among civilians just to kill unarmed innocent people.

            If you can't make the distinction, join Al-quaida or Hamas if you're not already a supporter.

        • Mika

          "They'll use that weapon as a guarantee against attacking their country and begin their expansion plans in the middle east. "

          Isn't this basically the doctrine of every U.S. president since Roosevelt?

          • aliko

            When was the last time you fueled your car and how much did you pay?
            Was it cheap? did you feel like a thief or did you feel like paying a high price?
            If this was the doctrine, the U.S wouldn't have to go through the ball busting policy of OPEC in the 70's and later.
            Moreover, the countries "attacked" wouldn't have the level of independence and would cooperate much more with the U.S than they do, for instance, on the Israeli issue.

            I still remember the invasion of Iraq into Kuwait and the horror those people showed as opposed to the relief when the U.S forces came for their rescue. Why don't you ask the Shiite Iraqis and the Kurds if they want another dictator instead of the U.S presence.

            How in hell can you compare the U.S interventions to the Soviet rule on eastern Europe or China over Tibet?
            Do you think the South Korean would want the U.S forces to leave? how about the Japanese?

            The U.S in general was traumatized by Pearl-Harbor as the failure of the policy of minding its own business failed on its face both by Roosevelt until that point and Chamberlain.

            When you judge the U.S on day to day actions, it's easy to blame the U.S for innocent people are guaranteed to get hurt but on a longer term scale, this policy is better than none.

          • aliko the other

            The U.S. and the British achieved what George Keenan called "veto power" by backing client states in the middle east, in order to assure access to cheap oil. The fact that the nations of the region finally said "enough" in the 1970s merely demonstrates the limitations to the U.S. approach to the middle east at the time.

            I would gladly ask many Kurds the question you raise. Unfortunately, thousands were killed by Saadam when that monstrous thud was taken off the U.S. list of "States Sponsoring Terrorism" in the early 80s. That was Reagan's decision, and it was done in order to provide Saadam with chemical and biological weapons in his ware against Iran. (Incidentally, when Saadam was tried and hung, the principle charges were for gassing the Kurds in 1982 — a practice Saadam carried out with the gas provided to him by his friends in Washington.)

            I'd also ask many Shiite Iraqis. But, alas, thousands were slaughtered by Saadam in the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War — even though these same Shiites pleaded with Washington to not back a defeated Saadam. (As you may recall, Bush I decided not to remove the tyrant from power because he preferred a weak Iraq under a tyrant rather than a possible Shiite alliance between Iraq and Iran.)

            I'd also ask many Guatemalans, Chileans, Argentians, Indonesians, Haitians, El Salvadorans, Columbians, and the like . . . But also, they too are dead . . . thanks to our government's preference for right-wing dictatorships and military rule — a practice that long pre-dated the "commies" (see invasion of the Phillipines in the 1890s).

            As for Pearl Harbor, it was a military base on an island that was, quite frankly, simply grabbed by the U.S. without any pretense as to who happened to be living there. Again, you can like that or hate it, but let's at least have the honesty to call a spade a spade.

            Finally, the proposition that "this policy is better than none" is nonsensical. No one is proposing "no" policy. How about: independence?

          • aliko

            What on earth are you talking about: "The fact that the nations of the region finally said "enough" in the 1970s merely demonstrates the limitations to the U.S. approach to the middle east at the time. "

            Israel didn't just give up about 70% of its area for peace but went so far it kept the cancerous Gaza strip that belonged to Egypt until 67', only 10 years before the beginning of the peace talks so get your history straight. The U.S pushed for the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country as it created a new ally and client for U.S weapons.

            If Reagan didn't support Iraq at that point, Iran would have been a huge superpower by now, being the number one oil country if you remember that there are so many Shiites in Iraq who would have gladly support Iran's ambition and its charismatic lunatic Khomeini.

            I admit I don't have much knowledge about South America but I personally know one Auschwitz survivor who told me that bombing would have been regarded as rain in drought.

            "As for Pearl Harbor, it was a military base on an island that was, quite frankly, simply grabbed by the U.S. without any pretense as to who happened to be living there. Again, you can like that or hate it, but let's at least have the honesty to call a spade a spade. " – The past of this island has nothing to do with the sudden attack by Japan. Are you a student of Zinn, trying to find faults with the U.S policy? I guarantee there are to be found but you're welcome to provide an example of a power that had better performance on this planet.

            "Independence"? Take Haiti for example in America that you know better – do you want to leave them alone just for the sake of their independence? or is it the U.S independence you worry about so you want to extend no effort beyond its borders?
            The fact is you show no deep thinking beyond shallow name dropping and generic accusations. The U.S, as I wrote before, had an independent policy until Pearl Harbor. It was so independent that it didn't help Britain in it's worst hour. So independent that it didn't care about Czechoslovakia or Poland. It failed because the process didn't stop there. The policy of the U.S is stopping processes before they make a large scale difference like the Iran-Iraq war or, as I'm sure is the case, with South American stability.
            Again, it's not like localized mistakes aren't made but on the larger scale, it's a life saver for people who were about to be ruled by either communists or dictators. Maybe you don't appreciate your freedom enough to recognize it.

        • Sam

          "To let a country that sent hundreds of thousands of children to battle in the Iran-Iraq war, supports suicide bombings and have a large force of suicide bombers is exactly the reason why nuclear bomb at their hands is a disaster"

          yawn. a nuclear bomb in anybody's hands is a disaster. Only someone who has never seriously contemplated the horrifyingly destructive effects of a nuclear bomb could think otherwise.

          But if the U.S. permits itself to possess hundreds of nuclear weapons, and to have actually used such weapons, isn't it the height of hypocrisy to insist that other nations do not also possess the same right? Isn't it obvious that every country "claims" that its weapons are solely for defense? How is the U.S. any different, particularly since it presently leads the world in foreign military interventions in the 20th century? If you love America so much, why do you sit idly by and allow its people to by exploited by fear and its own government?

          • aliko

            "yawn. a nuclear bomb in anybody's hands is a disaster. Only someone who has never seriously contemplated the horrifyingly destructive effects of a nuclear bomb could think otherwise."

            Anybody's hands? really? how about India, England, France? China? other than in WW2, where did you see anyone who didn't hold openly genocidal intentions use nuclear weapons?

            There's a difference between any country and a country who's leaders have genocidal and expansion ideas as Iran or Nazi Germany did. The fact you can't see the difference should make you reread history books. I'd start with "Inside the 3rd reich" by Speer just to get a glimpse of the mindset of the Iranian leadership as well as others. To confuse the U.S military interventions with the 3rd reich's or the Soviets is way too distorted for debate here.

          • aliko of late

            "other than in WW2, where did you see anyone who didn't hold openly genocidal intentions use nuclear weapons?"

            eh? could you please rephrase?

            Elsewhere . . .

            You make a typical elementary error in logic. The fact that the Nazis or the Russians or Satan happens to embody the supreme evil in the world in now way mitigates against the danger of placing nuclear weapons into the hands of less vile powers.

            The proposition that Iran has "genocidal and expansion ideas" is sheer propaganda.

            In any event, the point is to be responsible for the predictable consequences for your own actions, and by extension, the actions of the country to which you belong and to which you have some means of effecting policy. It is all fine to sit here and decry the imagined "threat" of official enemies. Every superpower does that. And it is not difficult to find real and imagined threats in the world. But Americans are first and foremost responsible for what their own gov't and leaders do. We are not primarily responsible for what other gov'ts do.

            Thus, all this noise about how terrible Stalin was, how evil Hitler was, how ruthless Vlad the Impaler was, and so on is simply a distraction. To repeat: you are responsible as an American citizen to what the U.S. gov't does around the world; you are NOT responsible for what other leaders of other countries do.

          • aliko

            I'll rephrase for you: Can you name a country that ever had nuclear weapons as well as genocidal intentions?

            "The proposition that Iran has "genocidal and expansion ideas" is sheer propaganda. " – I can show you the facts that say it's a real threat, what can you show me it's not?
            I have all the quotes since Khomeini, track record in world terror, their financing of Hezbollah and Hamas who have similar aspirations, the financing and influence over extreme forces in all the Sunni countries to overthrown them and lastly, as the list is much longer, I can show you their best friends – the North Koreans.

            "Thus, all this noise about how terrible Stalin was, how evil Hitler was, how ruthless Vlad the Impaler was, and so on is simply a distraction. To repeat: you are responsible as an American citizen to what the U.S. gov't does around the world; you are NOT responsible for what other leaders of other countries do. "

            Distraction? for most of the world's population, what you call distraction is real and in their faces. Leaders around the world can and do affect not just their population when they make extreme decisions so the question is not IF to intervene but when.

            The U.S isn't just another country – it's the world on a smaller scale, given its population. Given this fact and its track record, the world is better off with the U.S intervention than without.

    • Martin

      By conservative estimates, there are roughly 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, about 20% of the world population of humans. According to an article published in The American Conservative, less than 1% of that population may fairly be described as "radical". Among that 1%, a tiny fraction are committed to violence as a means for political change. Among that tiny fraction, very few have expressed an endorsement of practicing "genocide" against all non-Muslims.

      In short, the proposition that there exists "Muslim genocidal intentions" is so grossly exaggerated and overblown as to not even reach the laugh meter. Those kind of propositions do a terrible disservice to the 1.19 billion human beings in the world — most of them children, women, elderly, farmers, etc. — who just so happen to be Muslim.

      Please: THINK, then post. Otherwise, you are just making the conservative right look like a bunch of freakin' hysterical nutcases. We don't need that!

      • aliko

        Pick your most advanced Muslim country, read their education system books and then make an opinion. The same post your wrote can be written about Germany and Japan in the 30's and I know well just by my family experience how that ended.

        Just do your research in "moderate" countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and then post your liberal BS. There will always be individuals who will act differently as there are in any community but policies can't overlook the masses that just happened to include the elite in many cases – the academy and media.

        Maybe it's convenient for you to deny but as far as sane Israelis are concerned, 48' and 67' wars began as genocidal attempts towards Israel by its Muslim neighbors. This fact is hardly discussed for political reasons but the truth remains.

        • aliko the original


          Nice attempt at back-peddling, but no dice. YOU are the one that made the absurdly overblown generalization about "Muslim genocidal intentions". You were called out on it. You respond by ignoring the fact that your origin statement was overstated at best and misleading. You then fall back into the tired cliche, "but what about the nazis? what about japan?"

          The problem is you have completely bought into this Clash of Civilizations nonsense. The U.S. gov't doesn't give a damn about whether you are Muslim (for decades, its biggest allies and largest recipients of military aid have been Muslim countries). So stop trying to misdirect the issues.

          By the way, what is an "education system book"?? for that matter, what is your point?

          • aliko

            It seems that for the likes of you, history is like clay you can cut, dismiss, reshape and assimilate what's convenient.
            The lessons learned by WW2, 48' and 67' as well as the books given to children in elementary schools all over the Muslim world are more than enough to reach my conclusion unless of course, you have a mental condition or hidden hate agenda which is obvious with your case.

            The Saudis are just as dangerous as the Iranian if you monitor closely their monetary activities, the organizations they support, their media and again, their schools. Their doctrine is still Jihad, only a more sneaky one.

            When you teach small children that a certain type of people are animals and devils that should be destroyed and when they get older, you dismiss the existence of their history then later when they're old enough to serve in the army, it's easy to march them on to commit genocide, a concept which is as old as Islam itself.

            Maybe you're a Muslim, maybe just too dumb but my people's history and my family's experience taught me this lesson the hard way.

          • aliko the victim

            Well, I'd like to respond, but you present no argument. You simply make a statement. Thanks for trying.

          • aliko

            I can bring a horse to water but can't make it drink.

  • jbtrevor

    I shudder to think what a "marvelous" world would look like to Zinn; ours is awesome!

  • Robert

    Zinn is a traitor to this country and to the truth. He intended the libel of America and accomplished it. He could not have done this alone. He needed the help of a fundamentalist marxist academia.

    Medieval religious fundamentalism has evolved. Cultural, political and economic marxism is the new and malignant religion. Like all religions it possesses a specific dogma, (State ownership of property and the right to think), a language of excommunication, (Reactionary. Counter Revolutionist, Fascist), a punishing censorship of speech (the prohibitions of political correctness) and exile or destruction of those who will not subscribe to its tenets. Zinn, of course, was one of its high priests.

    That he could praise Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Peoples Republic, that together by murder, imprisonment and starvation snuffed out one hundred million human lives, should be enough to place Zinn in the same rogues gallery as as these renowned killers of innocent men, women and children. That he is revered in this country, reveals the irrationality of millions and their murderous faith in a totalitarian religion.

    Condemn his book for the abomination it is; and join with me as I piss on his grave.


    • George M


      You are passionate. But you do not persuade. Not surprising. You provide no evidence in support of your propositions — which (incidentally) without more, stand as little more than proposed self-identical truisms, void of explanatory force. Please get your time machine and punch in "Age of Reason". We'll leave the lights on for you.

      • Robert

        I think you should turn the lights on in your own mind. Its darkness is stygian. Your ignorance of rhetoric is pathetic for one who seeks to mount his ideas in an "Intellectual" style. I am certain I cannot persuade you. Neither can I persuade a stone. But this: I do provide evidence.

        In principles that predate the American Constitution, truth may and must be tested against the bias, prejudice and interest of the speaker. In a court of law, before a jury for example, the witness is never permitted to testify without subjecting himself to cross examination.

        The purpose of cross examination is to discover evidence of bias, prejudice or interest that would impeach the witnesses' objectivity the weight or pursuasivness of what he says, or simply that he is not worthy of belief.

        You say that I present no evidence; and yet Zinn praised Noreiga who imprisoned, tortured and executed 10,000 of his citizens. The Black Book of Communism documents in painful detail Stalin and Mao's slaughter of millions. This is called evidence. How may a man who worships killers be a credible critic of American history. Come, think. and join with me. I am not done pissing on his grave.

        • George M

          What you say is not responsive. You are the one who set forth the initial proposition. You were asked to provide evidence. You did not do so. Instead, you simply presented some conclusion that you had drawn (based on, no one knows what).

          The two sentences you now provide ("Zinn praised Noriega") lacks a proper reference and is completely devoid of any context. (It is also lacking any proper reference. Please point us to your source.) Regardless, even assuming what you say is true, it is perfectly possible that Zinn "praised" Noriega's conduct only with respect to some particular event.

          The reference to the "Black Book", etc. is also completely out of any meaningful context. Please provide a specific reference to any argument made by Zinn where he worships Stalin's conduct of slaughtering millions. If possible, cite the title and page number. That way we can review your evidence and respond meaningfully.

          If I were to adopt your "reasoning", I could just as easily state that "Ronald Reagan praised Botha's brutally repressive apartheid South Africa, which slaughtered, imprisoned, tortured and executed 10,000 of its citizens." Even if such a proposition where true, how would that observation specifically respond to the arguments presented by Reagan in, say, an essay on The Effects of Military Keynsianism Under Conditions of Economic Protectionism"? In truth, they would not.

          What is missing from all of this is a specific effort on your part to point to a particular text, and to discuss how and why it is inaccurate, insufficient, misleading, etc.

          We are still waiting.

          • ROBERT

            Dear George M.

            Then wait. Or better still get thee to a library. Select a book on evidence and look up bias and prejudice. You will fined me confirmed; it is evidence. However, I'm not going to write a research paper for one whose first expression of reason is sarcasm. But this finally, You ask for a text. I give you Zinn's History. I give you also his reputation. Reputation too, as a matter of law, is evidence; Both his book and reputation stink to high heaven. But to catch the smell you must read the book.

            I offer it to prove his bias and prejudice, indeed his hate. The evidence is his words and the baleful image he portrays of a good people and a good country. He paints an image of an America that is racist, oppressively capitalist, sexist, and avaricious. I see not much that is good in Zinn's America. I do not at all see the America in which I was born. I do not see the good this America has done. But I'm not going to read the book to you; read it yourself. You might also read the author of this piece we read today. It too is proof of what I have writ.

            And this too, I was born and live in this America. She is not perfect by any means, but the great majority of the people I know are good. You are good, I am certain, if a bit rough. So are the people who write this blog. Our Government, sadly, is in many ways corrupt. What Zinn says contains pieces of the truth amplified to the grotesque. But the America he portrays, as vile as he says that it is, does not hold a candle to the national monstrosities about which Zinn writes what, not a critical word.

            Among men of excellent reputation, the owner of this web page, himself a Jew,and intelligent men who have read his History and other works say of Ziin he hated Jews. I take his word for this; It confirms my experience and like bias and prejudice, it too is evidence. You may not wish it so but there it is; you may not give it great weight; that is your right. But it is pure invention to say that it is not evidence or that I have not given evidence of what I have writ.

            That said, your last missive was better. I see in it a decent search for truth; and that is good even if your first missive was by far too cute. But you want a better grasp of evidence, its weight and, indeed, an understanding of what it is. But then, all that is needed is a good book. I say this without sarcasm; it will do you good.

            At last. Enough or Too Much. But it has been fun dear George M: I wish you well. Good day. Good luck.

            Best Regards Robert.

          • Robert

            You still have not pointed to anything specific.

            You say "I give you Zinn's History". Okay. What page are you looking at? Is there a specific argument that he makes that you wish to discuss?

            You say, "the evidence is his words." Well . . . which words? Be specific.

            I think you are confusing "America" as a cultural entity with "the specific policies carried out by specific people within various branches of the U.S. government."

          • Robert

            "Select a book on evidence and look up bias and prejudice. You will fined me confirmed; it is evidence."

            I want evidence in support of your propositions regarding the veracity of Zinn's work. I am not interested in evidence impeaching Zinn's character for truthfulness (not that you have provided any).

    • Pete

      By the way, the proposition that there exists some "fundamentalist marxist academia" is pretty laughable. There over 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. Of these schools, roughly 98% of the curricula consist of courses that are non-controversial and largely technical training in the fields of mathematics, biology, engineering, the medical sciences, business administration, marketing, advertising, computer-related sciences, management, trades, etc. Of the tens of thousands of courses offered at American universities each semester, very, very few have anything to do with "marxism". Indeed, I am not aware of a single economics department in the country that teaches "marxist" economic theory. If such a course exists, it is surely dwarfed by thousands of courses that teach conventional capitalist economic theory and practice.

      Set your coordinates: Planet: Earth; Time: 02.02.2010 A.D.

      • robert

        Pete. My coordinates are ok. And really, ad hominem attacks really get us nowhere. The rest of your comment makes sense.

        However, you may wish to take a look at David H's latest book regarding marxist courses. They are listed there. Marxist ideology, however, is not limited to courses of that name. Furthermore, the damage marxist theory has done is ongoing. One need only look to the misery and starvation of the North Koreans, or the island prison that is Cuba. Both of course are marxist states as they always come to be.

        There is a great article by the way in this morning's Town Hall.com by an Hispanic author, I cannot now just recall his name. His column tells that in the Marxist paradise that is Cuba, the punishment for telling a joke about Fidel is 18 months in prison. The same punishment is meted out for buying milk on the black market, unauthorized fishing and a dozen or more other contrived crimes.

        Communist China still has its gulags and like Stalin who on taking power destroyed 250 Greek Orthodox monastaries, destroyed nearly that number in Tibet.

        The American Welfare State drinks deeply from the Marxian well. I would refer you to Hayeks Road to Serfdom. He makes the point that following the 20th century horrors of Marxism, the theories of Marxism were subsumed into a more gentle word, "The Welfare State." It is however going in precisely the same direction.

        • pete

          Yeah, yeah. I've read Horowitz, and Hayek, and von Mises and the rest.

          Look, no one here (at least not me) is saying that Cuba is a paradise. Of course it is unjust to imprison someone for telling a joke about Castro. Of course Stalin's soviet union was a criminal nightmare.

          But what the heck does that have to do with anything!?!

          The idea that "the American Welfare State drinks deeply from the Marxian well" may pass muster on wacky radio call-in shows, but it is laughable by any informed standard. I seriously doubt that 99% of these people out there in cyberspace have really even read Marx (the guy did write quite a bit, you know).

          At any rate, the U.S. economy (indeed, the entirety of modern "capitalism" since the 18th century) has operated through a combination of liberalization and protectionist measures. Every modern Anglo-European country operates though the use of state measures that monitor, control, regulate and respond to market forces. That hardly makes any of them "marxist". The U.S. gov't is no different. To take a single example, Reagan implemented protectionist measures in the early 80s to forestall the competitive advantages that undercut U.S. markets at the time. Nixon dismantled the Breton Woods System when it became clear that it would no longer allow for a favorable advantage to U.S. investors. The public in the U.S. underwrites huge private contractors through defense spending. The public also provides a huge subsidy to the auto industry via funding of state and interstate highways.

          These are just a few examples. But one could go on for days.

          Now, you can like this state of affairs or you can hate it. But it hardly suffices to simply scream "marxist marxist!!" at every turn.

          p.s. Isn't a core principle of a marxist-leninist state the idea that there should emerge a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Where, exactly, is this "proletariat" in the U.S.? And how, exactly, is it planning to implement its "dictatorship"? And where is all the discussion in the "marxist" gov't about dialectical materialism and the like?

    • Guest

      didn't realize the "right to think" was dogma but ok

  • BS1977

    After the earthquake in Haiti the United States, despised by that pile of garbage, Zinn, sent in hundreds of millions of dollars in medical aid, food, water, emergency equipment, rescuers…plane after plane, hospital ships and thousands of personnel. Zinn's favored communists from China sent a measly one million dollars. After the tsunami that devestated Asia, the US and Australia came to the rescue. China didn't do anything. Zinn despised America and saw only failure, colonialism, selfishness and cruelty…he never saw the generosity, the goodness, the freedom, the self expression and inventiveness of its people. He was a narrow man with a chronic neuroses….he seemed to worship Marxism, collectivism and communism, never admitting how horrible life was for people forced to live under these systems. By the way, FPM is getting so saturated with leftist trolls and wack jobs like Eerie Steve, I understand many conservatives have dropped away, disinterested in posting on this site anymore.

    • Truthteller

      But put that in perspective. Ever since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. has asserted the right to influence in the region, and nowhere more than Haiti where the U.S. has intervened dozens of times (recently kidnaping and removing Aristid to implement an 'honest' govt, and yet we all know about the rampant corruption which continues to fester there). The U.S. should be applauded for its relief efforts – but it has to be seen as the other side of the coin of more 'nefarious' interdictions in the region.

      • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

        You know how they executed people in Haiti? They would fill a tire with petrol, hang it on your next and set it on fire.

        What? Do you think no human is an animal, or that human animals can build and run societies? Haiti without America is hundreds of thousands of Carl Panzrams with BTK leading them. Watch Gang Nation sometime to see what we are dealing with.

        • Steve2

          The fact that some thugs in Haiti engage in "necklacing" is in no way responsive to the observation that the U.S. has "intervened" dozens of time in Haiti for reasons of undermining independence.

          You seem to believe that the U.S. interventions in Haiti are motivate by the U.S. gov'ts love of the Haitian people. You, my friend, are living in a dream world.

    • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

      lol like sausage but don't want to see it made, eh?

    • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

      Actually I agree with you. This site needs a smiley campaign or a social network or something. I have petitioned Mr. Glasov and Mr. Horowitz numerous times but they seem rather busy.

    • Tom Smith

      America destroyed the democratically elected government of Haiti and mericilessly and brutally looted it economically for years. Read a book.

  • Alvin

    BS1977 — It is precisely because of people like Zinn that the U.S. gov't provides any humanitarian assistance at all the devestated regions around the world. Indeed, the mantra for the right-wing nationalist isolationist has been, for years, "let the rest of the world take care of its own problems."

    Buzz words like "Marxism, collectivism and communism" are so tired and stale. For 40 years we were told that U.S. was in some great battle against the monster of Soviet Communism. Fine. The Soviet Union is gone. The Berlin Wall is gone. Communism is dead. Capitalism is globally triumphant. So, for people to carry on as if "marxism" poses some terrible, deadly threat to our very existence is, well, sort of silly.

    Incidentally, we are all still waiting for a specifically supported argument (not talking points) explaining how Zinn's work is in some way incorrect or wanting. So far, all I see in the above comments is a bunch of screaming and whining and name-calling.

    • USMCSniper

      Ahhh … Alvin of the chipmonks spwws forth his regurgitated babblespeak from his favorite Marxist professor. Both of you are too stupid to even suspect you are stupid.

    • Steve-o

      Well, Alvin, let me remind you that our government in 1791 sent $millions in relief aid to the Haitian revolution, and in 1812 to Venezuela for earthquake relief. I didn't know that Zinn was that old!

  • BS1977

    For a vision of what Zinn's ideal world would look like, read 1984 by Orwell, or visualize living in the North Korean insect hive, or be an indentured worker in China under Mao….or try Burma or Pol Pot's "pure communism" of Cambodia's nightmare period. Zinn is given far too much attention as a "scholar" or "historian"—he was a propagandist, a chronic distortionist and fool.

    • William

      Again, sheer proposition, unsupported by an evidence or reasoned analysis. Please locate a time machine and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

      • Truthteller

        Not only move into the 21st Century, but do a little research on the $85 million support by the U.S. for Pol Pot, even under Carter but primarily under Reagan. Pol Pot was being sheltered by the U.S. in Thailand, and traveled extensively using a first-class helicopter provided by the U.S. (somewhat ironic for a regime that opposed urbanization and accompanying industrialization to the extent that it did). Furthermore, look at the figures for Cambodians killed by illegal, secret airstrikes under Nixon.

  • Pete

    BS1977 wrote: "Zinn . . . never say the generosity, the goodness, the freedom, the self expression and inventiveness of [America's] people."

    Nothing could more readily demonstrate a complete and utter ignorance of Zinn's work than the above quotation. Even the most cursory reading of his work (pick any, but let's take "A People's History . . " as an example) instantly shows that the goodness, generosity, self-expression and inventiveness of America's people is at the heart and soul of America. That is WHY it is called a PEOPLE's history! It is the history of what real, ordinary people did to make this country great — farmers, working class people, immigrants, woman, political activists, anti-imperialists, etc.

    • Steve-O

      I've read a couple dozen pages of Zinn's history of America: to read any more of it, someone would have to flog me… no, I take that back, I would prefer being flogged to reading another single sentence of his nihilistic and distorted fairy tale. Too bad for you Pete, that you have swallowed the kool aide.

  • Robert


  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Bonnie_ Bonnie_

    Zinn lived his life as an America-hating Marxist. He lived long enough to see the Marxist dream of a Socialist America dashed to death in Massachusetts. I hope he died knowing that his life's work was an utter failure.

    I hope to visit his grave someday. I will lay flowers on his grave…and a copy of "Atlas Shrugged." And then I will walk away laughing.

  • Patriot Warrior

    He was a big mouth marxist hypocrite . He had the choice during his lifetime to to move to China, Cuba,or the Soviet Union and live in the communist utopia that he extolled. But he didn't have the guts to do it. He stayed right here and took advantage of the Liberty, Freedom , U.S.Constitution, Declaration of Independance and the capitalist free market system that he loved to hate . It would be an honor to urinate on his grave.

    • Patriot warrior


      marxist marxist marxist.

      Did I say he was a marxist?

      Oh yeah, and he was a marxist. and a bad man.

      • guest

        Again no proof, its understandable that with no legitimate argument against a man speaking the truth you can only come up with whatever you think comes close. Its obvious which side you stand on this issue because on all these posts the worst thing anyone could call him is a marxist. As long as your just making things up to try and insult him why not call him a capatilist, that would be much more offensive to his memory

    • True Patriot Warrior

      Of Course, of course anyone that doesn't support our corrupt capitalist system is a marxist and/or communist. He was born here and wanted to see us change from a dehumanizing money hungary cesspool to a place of actual freedom and liberty. So its no wonder he stayed in this country and its people like me that are glad that he did. Just because mommy and daddy provided too much for you to know the actual value of a dollar doesn't mean you have to embrace capitalism so.
      p.s. it would be an honor to urinate in your blind eyes since you aren't using them for any good anyways

  • gpcase

    Too many historians have lost site of the larger context in which the West has evolved. Europeans and the more primitive cultures with whom they came into conflict shared many things in common. They were expansionist and territorial, engaged in warfare and diplomacy, and practiced slavery. They did this to improve their share of scarce resources in an unforgiving world. One might say that the "white tribe" was victorious over the "red tribe", which seems to be a pattern when advanced civilizations come into conflict with more primitive ones. What sets the Europeans apart is that they were entering the Enlightenment period where individual freedoms, were beginning to replace aristocratic privilege. This was due in large part because the economy was becoming more free, particularly the institution of private property. A socialist economy would lead us back down the Road to Serfdom (F.A. Hayek). Zinn and others on the Left who share this fatal conceit, that they know what's best and would enforce their preferences upon everyone else, would reverse these freedoms and thus destroy the very foundation of a free society.

    • VN Vet

      The 'Road to Serfdom' is a must read. I think another is Thomas Sowell's: Conquests and Cultures.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/lovesjeeves lovesjeeves

      Excellent commentary and reading suggestions….! Bravo!

      • Lovesthewoosters

        particulary if one has a taste for rat poison.

  • robert

    While Marxism destroyed the Soviet Union, it is still alive and well in the Soviet Federation. Putin for example has ordered the rehabilitation of Stalin in Russian schools. He is now characterized as a political saint, who alone was responsible for the defeat of Hitler. Not mentioned much is the Soviet/Stalin pact, or his order for the execution of 50,000 polish people at Katyn or of his intentional starvation of six million kulaks ("Capitalist" farmers distinguishes as such because they owned a cow or two). Every now and then Russians stumble on another of his mass graves.

    Cultural Marxism is still taught at many universities, and infiltrates the thinking of "leftists."
    I do not include in this criticism Constitutional or Classic liberals. It was the American leftist who joined the American Communist Party not conservatives. The cold war, in which American prevailed, was condemned by this same left.

    Bias, Prejudice and Interest is, as a matter of law, evidence, in America, in ancient Greece, Rome of course, and in all the Western world today. Bias and Prejudice is particularly crucial evidence as its exposure by cross examination or as here by thought and debate, shines the light of truth upon what is said.

    There is nothing mysterious about evidence of bias. We look for it every day.

    An example. Were you a Jew accused of murder in the Germany of World War II, would you want an anti semite to be your judge? I would think not. But why? Because you see evidence of a dangerous bias in his vile prejudice. Because the verdict would not be based on the evidence but on his hatred of your race. Knowing all this would you look for more evidence.

    The theme of the poorly footnoted "People's HIstory" is pure hate. While there is truth in it to be sure (what nation is without its crimes) Zinn filters out the good. He does this in service not of the truth but the incubation and spreading of his hate.

    Zinn is dead. So is Stalin and Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and Hitler. He loved them all. Good riddance.

    • I am Robert

      A man talking to his sandwich.

  • PAthena

    Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky project on to others their own faults and desires. They are tyrannical men, would-be tyrants. Look at how Chomsky has treated his critics. (See THE ANTI-CHOMSKY READER.)

  • trickyblain

    As a history major, specializing in America's colonial/revolutionary period, I needed to take a lower division course, so I choose the cheap alternative – a general course at the local junior college. The professor was a hippie-type, grey-breaded Vietnam vet. On the first day, he held up a copy of People's History, and informed the class, most of whom had little or no background in history studies, that this book was the only history we needed to know.

    As a read, I found it one-sided and almost clownish in it's crudity compared with the more unbiased, but elite-focued, works I was used to researching. While Zinn's conclusions were seldom outright false, they neglected any perspective. The exams required students to basically regurgitate Zinn's words in essay form. As a hot-shot upper-division student in a lower division class, I would write out thorough answers – many times pages long, to questions like "Explain the reasoning behind the movement for breaking away from England." When I got the first exam back, I was shocked to learn that I received my first "F" in history – ever.

  • trickyblain

    ….I confronted the prof, saying that my answers were indeed correct. He wrote one sentence on a piece of paper – "the rise of a profitable economy" – and told me that this was the only correct answer. The next exam had exactly the same questions as the first. I refused to regurgitate his stock answers, wrote generally what I had before and subsequently received an "F." This continued all though the course – until I finally sold out on the final and gave the prof his answers so I could salvage a final grade of "C" – my lowest in college. And as a result, I was not the least a fan of Howard Zinn.

  • trickyblain

    Now, as an old man of 37, I see Zinn in a different light. What he wrote was not "evil" or malicious – it was in fact a relatively accurate representation, albiet through a very narrow lens. People's History was Zinn's attempt at leveling the field, and when devoured and digested along with a wide range of other, more traditional, historical perspectives — it is very insightful. The out-of-context, cherry-picked "quotes" in this article are, in true FPM style, misleading (i.e., the quote about Cuba's suppression was in comparison to red China’s worse record, which Zinn was criticizing).
    The problem with my history course was not Zinn, but how Zinn's book was used as an "end-all, be all" by a stupid, unscrupulous professor. In the world of the anti-ideologue, Zinn's work brought balance to a narrow, jingoistic knowledge base. And, if they make to effort to take in all points of view, students are the better for his contributions.
    Apologies for the long-winded comment, but this article, silly as it is, brought back memories…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      You will have to compromise your beliefs and values more than with one professor, if you are seeking a career in academia.

      In my own case, I had to become a "stealth conservative" from the moment I entered Princeton, until I gained tenure at the university in which I taught. Once tenured, I could "let the badger out". My courses and seminars were full of people who wanted to hear a different perspective than under other professors.

      The truly chilling thing about Dr. Zinn's history of the United States is when it is required in high schools. I want to see objectivity in a textbook about history. When Leftist propaganda masquerading as "history" is presented to young people as definitive, it makes me angry.

      • trickyblain

        Can you point me to an objective history textbook? Most, if not all, deal in a specific area (military, political), thereby leaving out huge sections of history. The area of Zinn's American history is "folks who got the shaft."

        But I agree and that was part of my point – it should not be a sole textbook, especially at the high school level. Zinn knew this — he didn't call his book "A Definitive History of the United States" for a reason. It brought a different perspective — while biased, it is factual.

        Zinn is not reponsible for the actions of inept professors.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

          You're a history major, so I'm assuming that you've read multiple history texts, including those covering American history. Historians, like the news media, are not completely objective.

          My method of assessing the objectivity of any history textbook is to read the section detailing the end of the Vietnam War. I've read a couple of fairly objective accounts of that "ending" is several textbooks.

          In one, I read one of the most outlandish accounts that talked about the "military defeat of US forces", followed by the two Vietnams "peacefully sitting down together to discuss how they would re-unify" the country. Nothing about the disasters suffered by the NVA or about the destruction of the VC in 1972-73. Nothing about the fact that North Vietnam didn't even have a single SAM to fire by the end of 1972. Nothing about the blockade and mining of their ports, or the annihilation of their military production infrastructure. Nothing about the betrayal of the South Vietnamese in 1975 by the US Congress, in violation of US law (the Paris Peace Accords). Nothing.

          I'm not opposed, in general principle, to a different perspective on history, as long as the other perspectives are taught. For example, Dye & Zeigler's "The Irony of Democracy" is an excellent American national government text that takes a very uncommon view of American government, that is, that democracy exists in America by controlling the extent of democracy, with the leaders of society being composed mainly of elites. I don't completely disagree with this view, nor do I endorse it. It is simply a different view.

          I do disagree with Dr. Zinn's assessment of American history as bigoted, racist, homophobic, ad infinitum et ad nauseum, though I recognize the suffering of some people in American history. But Dr. Zinn profited greatly by the freedoms this country offered to untold millions throughout US history, and he could have been less actively hostile to his own country.

      • BilltheButcher

        So, in other words, it is "objective" to exclude Zinn's approach to history, because Zinn's approach seeks to contribute to the conventional, canonical history typically taught in American schools for the greater part of the 20th century.

        . . . . uh . . . ok.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/QSuzy QSuzy

    Zinn is right about some nasty events in our short history such as the slaughter of Indians and slavery. He is correct that we spend way too much on war weapons. Zinn should have added that we too have a nasty habit of getting involved in wars that are not wars of self-defense but are about spending billions and trillions in tax-payer funds to invade nations in order to forcefully convert them to be just like us and then whine and blame our fellow citizens because we're in a deep recession with heavy job losses. (continued in next post)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/lovesjeeves lovesjeeves

      Most nations of the world have engaged in nasty wars and slavery. America however, has most remarkably done more than any other to correct its past, and notably within a mere couple of centuries. Any history which would not clearly illuminate that is lacking. Rather than saying what Zinn should have added, a better course of action would be pointing out his fallacies which have corrupted the thinking of too many.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/QSuzy QSuzy

        That's your opinion, stated intelligently and I appreciate your good criticism. However, due to this new system, I neither have the time nor can I put all of Zinn's fallacies into a comment.

      • VN Vet

        Also a country that built into its Constitution the elements to eventually erradicate slavery.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/QSuzy QSuzy

    Unfortunately, the leaders in both parties want health care for all Iraqis and Afghanis as well as new roads, houses, new hospitals, schools, libraries and so on and so forth. Our leaders seem to forget that we were not invited to either of those nations. These two invasions and possibly Yemen will be added to the list, are the arrogant and violent actions of supremacist leaders and their supremacist followers. And that is our tragedy. The result of which will be an even worse recession, even an economic depression.

    The rest of Zinn's philosophy is wrong. They are no innocent non-whites or whites in this nation. In his rantings about capitalism, is Zinn suggesting communism is better? What is his proof?

    Says Perazzo, "Indeed, long before the first Europeans arrived in the New World, an elaborate slave-trading network had developed among the Indians of the Northwest coast, where slaves constituted as much as 10 to 15 percent of some tribes’ populations." I think this is bull and would like to see his evidence.

    • SuzyQ

      The fact that slave trading existed in north America before the European conquest is important to know. But to observe as much in this context is akin to a 5-year accused of stealing crying, "but so-and-so does it too!!!""

    • SuzyQ

      Try this thought experiment. Suppose Obama declares a state of national emergency, declares, martial law, suspends the constitution and instructs the U.S. military to enforce a police state — all under the pretense that the U.S. is threatened by outside enemies ("terrorists", "marxists", "global economic chaos"; "martians"). Suppose that despite several years of resistance and a mountain of political prisoners, U.S. citizens cannot overthrow the tyrant. Now suppose that Iraq invades the U.S. under the pretext of ousting the Obama tyrant, but with the real goal of seeking to establish a permanent military base in north america, or alternatively, a weakened, demilitarized client state gov't in the U.S. Suppose Iraqi forces capture and kill Obama and engage in a long drawn-out war with the U.S. military, who claim to be protecting the U.S. from a foreign invasion. The war goes on for 10 years. Millions of American civilians are made refugees. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed; even more are wounded. Factions seeking to seize power in the U.S. emerge — militia-types; minutemen; political factions of one stripe or another with support from sectors of the military. Trillions of dollars of infrastructure are destroyed.

      Would you agree or disagree that under this hypothetical Iraq's invasion is wrong and it should be made to pay reparations for the destruction its invasion wrought?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/QSuzy QSuzy

        I neither agree or disagree because your fairy-tale is just that.

        • SuzyQ

          evasive and cowardly. One needs proceed no further than than the pomade in your hair to ascertain the depth of your character.

          Your comment, which was unsolicited, opened the door to the question. You duck and run for cover like the liberal hack you are. Please, stop embarrassing us Conservatives and real Americans with your hypocrisy.

      • LucyQ

        You want to continue playing silly mind games. I can't think of a more stupid policy than the Bush/Obama policy of super-arming the 'good' Iraqis to kill the bad Iraqis. Ditto for the Afghanis and ditto for Yemem. It's almost as stupid as when Reagan armed Pakistan with nukes. Maybe you're so smart, you can enlighten me as to why this Bush/Obama policy is a good one and tell me why you think that our soldiers being shot, crippled and killed by our own weapons that we gave to the Ishmaels is such a great policy?

  • Richard Gardner

    Those who despise Howard Zinn engage in name calling–hardly an act of objective
    criticism. Why not accept the doctrine of objectivity, rationale dissent, and critical
    thinking. All historical interpretation is from a partticular point-of-view. Those who engage in name calling expose their own particular points of view.They hate Howard Zinn and his interpretation of history. Their hate blinds them to an objective, rational, critic of the particular point of view Professor Zinn puts forth.
    Richard Gardner, Ph. D.

  • deathinjune

    wow… where are the adults? was this comment forum taken over by babbling retarded 10 year olds?

    • another


      I mean, "YES"!

    • trickyblain

      New to this forum? These are the permanant residents.

  • Seek

    "Who controls the past controls the future" — V.I. Lenin

    Howard Zinn, to our great regret, knew this all too well.

  • MT1952

    Another useful idiot bites the dust!

  • rob

    Right about now, Hitler has Zinn bent over and is having his filthy way with him/

    • bor

      as he will with you when u go to burn, only i bet zinn tastes better than you

  • Marco

    Before I make some comments 1) I am NOT NOT NOT a conservative. I am of the Left, but not as far left as the idiotic Zinns or Chomskys of the world.

    OK, now listen to this nonsense from Zinn's "A People`s History of the USA", in the chapter on Wrld War 2: "World War 2 was a war against an enemy of unspeakable evil. Hitler`s Germany was extending totalitarianism, racism, militarism,and over aggressive warfare beyond what an already cynical world had experienced. And yet, did the governments conducting this war- England, the United States, the Soviet Union- represent anything significantly different, so that their victory would be a blow to imperialism, racism,totalitarianism, militarism in the world?" Well ,we know his answer to that rhetorical question. No!! there was NO significant moral difference between the Allies and the Axis. In other words Roosevelt=Churchill=deGaulle=Stalin=Hitler=Mussolini= Tojo. That's Howard Zinn for you! Incredibly insensitive! (To be continued) Marco Ermacora

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/lovesjeeves lovesjeeves

    Zinn remains dangerously and sadly influential. Recently, more than a few "reasonable" people who stated that America's Founding Fathers were basically a bunch of self interested business people whose goal was to perpetuate their individual wealth. Such comments demonstrate no interest or awareness of the tremendous courage required by our Founting Fathers whose lives were constantly at risk. Nor do they appreciate the selfless quest they engaged in creating a document to illuminate enduring truths and principles far more important than the pursuit of the acquisition of unlimitedly inconsequential wealth. One need only to take a serious look at the U.S. Constitution, that which our current President shamelessly criticizes, to clearly see it reflects the most noble of human endeavors in human history.

  • Marco

    Here are some comments about Zinn that I left at "The Nation" : " I am afraid I can`t share the enthousiasm about Howard Zinn. Here was a perfect example of a loony Leftist. In his book "A People's History of the US", he poses the rhetorical question as to whether there was or was not a moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis during World War2. We know what his answer was.Instead of clearly backing the Allies, a backing they deserved despite the gruesome excesses of Dresden and Hiroshima, Zinn points to ignorant obscure anarchist and pacifist sects as apparently being loci of sanity in an insane world. Hardly. If pacifists had run Allied policy, the Nazis and their allies would have taken over the world. So, no, I ain't no friend of Howard Zinn and his ignorant insensitive ilk.These same people, most of you reading this (at The Nation), are the same insensitive ignoramuses who did not back Clinton and NATO on Kosovo, a just war against Serbian genocidal fascism. "

    Marco Ermacora Montreal, Quebec

    • VN Vet

      I forgot to say, that as usual europe punted.

    • VN Vet

      The Serbs; who had just recently gained the upper hand on the Islamic genocidal fascists in a battle that had gone back and forth over the centuries (maybe since the Crusades). In aligning ourselves with the Islamists, over the Christians, we also aligned ourselves with Osama bin Laden who at the time was there leading Islamic forces against the Serbs. If there was a job to be done in Kosovo, it was first the duty of europe to take care of. Of course Osama eventually paid us back for our intervention and help there. This was also known as Klinton's 'wagging the dog' war.

      • pete

        get a job.

  • Big Elk

    Good riddance to Zinn; I pray his soul rots in hell for all eternity. Howard Zinn was a liar and just another crooked, sefl-sanctimonious two-bit commie rat bastard. Just the kind of American-hating miscreant that a university in Massatwoshits would hire and keep on its staff. I have to wonder how many hours a week did zinn actaully teach, or was he a one book wonder, who got a free ride for the trash he wrote. I read zinn's crap, and crap it is. I intend to discover whether the local school board is foisting zinnshit on unsuspecting and innocent high school children and will agitate, in true community organizer fashion, to have any and all zinnshit banned. True Americans need to have it out with the commie democRATS and zinn wanabes. Vote democrats out of office in 2010, and put them in prison in 2012. Take back America for Americans.

  • Guest

    Marxists are amoralists and can justify anything (war, enslavement, genocide) for the greater good. And they eat their young ( Abortion).

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      This is true. I can give citations, if you like …

    • Guest

      without abortion their will still be abortion just not as safe or legal. also the whole overpopulation issue, why doesn't any conservative retard seem to realize that. also all the evils you described don't even measure up with the unspeakable carnage and nasty human deeds perpetuated by capitalists and their unending hunger for paper money.
      p.s. its called Greater good for a reason

  • Robert

    Here is a quote from Roger Kimball's column in National Review on line.

    A People’s History of the United States was published, the historian Oscar Handlin wrote a devastating review of the book for The American Scholar (which was still a respectable magazine).
    “It simply is not true,” Mr. Handlin noted,

    that “what Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.” It simply is not true that the farmers of the Chesapeake colonies in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries avidly desired the importation of black slaves, or that the gap between rich and poor widened in the eighteenth-century colonies. Zinn gulps down as literally true the proven hoax of Polly Baker and the improbable Plough Jogger, and he repeats uncritically the old charge that President Lincoln altered his views to suit his audience. The Geneva assembly of 1954 did not agree on elections in a unified Vietnam; that was simply the hope expressed by the British chairman when the parties concerned could not agree. The United States did not back Batista in 1959; it had ended aid to Cuba and washed its hands of him well before then. “Tet” was not evidence of the unpopularity of the Saigon government, but a resounding rejection of the northern invaders.

  • Robert

    Dear Mr. Gardner: I have read here a number of columns angry but objective in their criticism of Zinn. Their criticism was directed precisely to Zinn's patent abuse of Objectivity. Rationale dissent may be passionate or arise from anger where the insult to reason and truth, and the libel of one's country and ancestors is so dishonest and vindictive. That we respond with anger to an American history written from the sewer is more a virtue than a vice. We are not blind. We point out his rank historical subjectivism. It is Zinn that was blinded by a hatred of all things American. That his book is popular says much about the degradation of the American Academia. I react with anger for example at Iranian constructions of history that deny the existence of Hitler's orchestration of the slaughter of Jews. I look to Iran's close cooperation with Hitler during WWII and wonder at their objectivity. I believe their denial arises from a profoundly ugly bigotry.

    So it is with Zinn. While he hid the same species hatred in the guise of historical construction, his book is one loud shriek of hate. That it provokes anger in some is a sign or rationality. It is an appropriate response to historical trash.

    Just now I posted a summary of his work from an article written by Roger Kimball on NRO in which he quotes the historian Oscar Handlin. His summary is objective. It condemns' Zinn's work for what it is: a view from an intellectual latrine.

    A People’s History of the United States was published, the historian Oscar Handlin wrote a devastating review of the book for The American Scholar (which was still a respectable magazine).
    “It simply is not true,” Mr. Handlin noted,

    that “what Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.” It simply is not true that the farmers of the Chesapeake colonies in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries avidly desired the importation of black slaves, or that the gap between rich and poor widened in the eighteenth-century colonies. Zinn gulps down as literally true the proven hoax of Polly Baker and the improbable Plough Jogger, and he repeats uncritically the old charge that President Lincoln altered his views to suit his audience. The Geneva assembly of 1954 did not agree on elections in a unified Vietnam; that was simply the hope expressed by the British chairman when the parties concerned could not agree. The United States did not back Batista in 1959; it had ended aid to Cuba and washed its hands of him well before then. “Tet” was not evidence of the unpopularity of the Saigon government, but a resounding rejection of the northern invaders.

  • Amy

    I am uncertain what the critique of Zinn is here. That highlighting the plight of the oppressed, exploited, and discriminated against is "un-American"? Certainly, no one holds that solely focusing on elite success is "American."

  • Richard Gardner


    Professor Zinn did not hate all things American. He held high regard for the farmer's movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the movement of women to gain the right to vote, and yes even the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Dissent is clearly not un-American– whether from the right, the left. History, as Professor Zinn clearly demonstrated, is full of examples of people struggling against oppression, exploitation, and discrimination. I think these struggles have resulted in a better America–not perfect but better. To deny this is to deny the truth. We may interpret history from a different perspective, but our disagreements can be civil. Something that I clearly see lacking in most of the posted comments hereon. Re-read them, and I think you will agree. Thank you.


  • USMCSniper

    Okay Howard Zinn didget one thing right that he published about two months ago where he wrote:

    "I think people are just dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is shallow and going to be a mediocre president — which means, in our time, a very dangerous president."

    Npw that is right on!

  • Tresco

    I grunt on his grave.

  • BS1977

    There once was a man named Zinn
    Who was lost in a terrible Spin
    With Mao he was tight
    He thought the Left was Right
    So he went off to the Looney Bin

  • timeklek

    Zinn was just another Globalist, NWO Proponent working toward "The Agenda….."

  • cedarstrip

    When Zinn chose to write about atrocities committed against the Indians there was plenty of material to choose from. Of course, it wasn't one sided any more than today's conflicts. However, it seems evident that as long as Europeans were flooding to America the conflicts were inevitable. Also inevitable that the Indians would ultimately lose.

    Zinn was an "open borders" proponent. "If you don't have a vision, for instance, of a world without national boundaries, you are not in a position to really evaluate very specific things, like should Congress pass this immigration law, or should we pass that immigration law, should we restrict immigration this much or immigration that much. But if you have that vision of the kind of world that you want, then it becomes clear what your attitude has to be towards immigration, which is people should be able to move: there shouldn't be such a thing as a foreigner, an alien, an immigrant."

    How would Zinn have advised the Indians regarding the arriving Europeans?

  • http://forum.developers.facebook.com/profile.php?section=personality&id=267340minmax_bound=true Lorene Brathwaite

    Wish I had some more information on this. Any sources you would like to advise?

  • luthersetzer

    Visit http://www.facebook.com/HowardZinnsThesesAreFeces for more opportunities to dump on Howard Zinn.

  • OMGO

    I tried to read Mr. Zinn’s screed when it first came out. One of the most boring, poorly researched and poorly written diatribes I have ever picked up. But as long as it provides idiots like Zinn’s fans with claims to feed their hatred, I guess quality of research and writing doesn’t matter.

  • Jones

    Zinn’s writings are enlightening.

  • http://www.itecode.com eerie Steve

    Oh yeah, PR 10 !!!! Frontpagemag.com #1 !!!