Howard Zinn Dead At 87
Tweet
Howard Zinn, the Boston University historian and political activist who was an early opponent of US involvement in Vietnam and a leading faculty critic of BU president John Silber, died of a heart attack today in Santa Monica, Calif, where he was traveling, his family said. He was 87.
25 Responses to “Howard Zinn Dead At 87”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Here’s an extended interview he did http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMt7cFFKPeM
This man is a hero to me.
He will surely be missed. RIP. The last time I felt this type of loss was with the death of James Baldwin.
Myopic would be the most charitable description of Zinn’s ability to describe history. Marxist apologist would be a more accurate definition. He gave voice to the marginalized at the expense of the truth. Very popular on the left.
“He gave voice to the marginalized at the expense of the truth.”
Marginal people have stories to tell too and often their own truths.
I taught a few chapters of _A People’s History_ to high school kids. They definitely appreciated reading material that wasn’t interested in toeing the “Rah-rah” triumphalism of some American history textbooks. Although I do think the books have gotten better over the past decades in no small part do to Zinn’s work.
Rest in peace.
To say Zinn gave voice to the marginalized at the expense of the truth is to have not read his most important book: “A People’s History of the United States.” It is the best footnoted, documented piece of historical research that you could find. In his personal life, Zinn was somewhat of a leftist populist. I am to the left of his views (Marxist), however his historical research is impeccable and very important. The amused observer is not very amusing.
Shorter AO: Taino Indians and Ludlow miners weren’t real Americans.
He gave voice to the marginalized at the expense of the truth.
Perhaps you could elaborate on Mr. Zinn’s offenses against Truth?
There are lies of ommission and lies of comission. I’ve read Zinn’z epic revisionist history a number of times. He specializes in lies of omission.
His primary motivation was political change not historical record. Footnotes and a scholarly approach are what differentiates his propaganda and that of Oliver. Framing a story for political advantage.
Only rich white men can be historical actors. To write other communities into history by suggesting that they too helped shaped the course of this country, is to omit the pivotal role that rich white men played in writing them out in the first place.
He had a pessimistic view of this country and was a classic blame America first kind of guy. To believe he gave or was even interested in an accurate or balanced view of historical events is to participate in self delusion.
I note that Jaim believes truth is relative which taken to it’s logical conclusion means it can’t exist at all.
Marginal people have stories to tell too and often their own perception of the truth.
That statement stands on a little firmer ground.
You’re sad little loser, Amused, who spends his days whining about all the people you believe who made your life so shitty and inconsequential.
Zinn was most definitely not a pessimist:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040920/zinn
fafaroo,
Do you believe in unicorns and magic fairy dust too?
So you prefer a pessimistic view of this country?
“I note that Jaim believes truth is relative which taken to it’s logical conclusion means it can’t exist at all.”
Never took a philosophy class, did you?
Truth is relative to a number of factors including perspective and language. It isn’t that there’s no truth, it’s that there are multiple truths.
Here, let’s start with this one that would be right up Zinn’s alley: By the standards of late 18th century law and custom, the Founding Fathers of America would be considered to have been just as bad as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are today.
Discuss.
As I said, Jaim believes the truth to be relative. His philosophy is that of a relativist coupled with a bit of idealism. I am more of the school of realism and a wee bit of a pragmatist.
Which doesn’t even come close to addressing his proposition but gosh you sure did get to use those big, important words you got off your calendar last week.
fafaroo,
LOL, go back to the unicorns and pixie dust, that’s about your speed.
He had a pessimistic view of this country and was a classic blame America first kind of guy.
We’re not blaming America, we’re blaming conservatives (mainly because they’re the ones responsible). The fact that you equate yourselves to America only further entrenches yourself into your delusional arrogance.
I studied with noted Pragmatist Richard Rorty. Philosophical pragmatism is arguably much closer to my “relativist” view than your — ahem — “realist” view, a term which doesn’t hold any water in philosophical terms.
But just as I eagerly await your views on American history I will now ask you for a list of philosophical papers and books you’ve had published by reputable, accredited sources. And I’m still waiting to hear who pays you for your acute insights into these issues.
To get back to Zinn, _A People’s History_ was intentionally written as a laymen’s text, not a heavy-duty historical thesis filled with footnotes. That was kind of the point, and it’s not uncommon. A lot of historians enjoy toning down the academic research in order to write something that’s accessible to people who don’t have PhD’s.
But here’s another question you will refuse to answer AO: Did Columbus and his men cut off the arms of the Arawak natives on Barbados when they didn’t manage to bring them enough gold, or didn’t they?
Discuss.
I happened to have been in a Zinn class in my days at BU. He was a pompous ass. Rather condescending, and insistant that his perspective was the only viable one. Couldn’t wait to get out.
In other words, you failed the class. Most teachers have to be the authority in order to give out grades. Any specific examples of why he was a poor representative of civil liberties?
Realism can always provide credible links. Ideologues provide nothing but polemic and the occasional link to other polemics.
Amused, you said Zinn “had a pessimistic view of this country.”
But he clearly had faith in mankind’s capacity for good and a faith, born out by history, that justice can triumph against the most seemingly impossible odds if people are willing to act on their beliefs and persevere. This, of course, goes for Americans and America. He had a faith in the people of this nation to move the reality of their country closer to the ideals of its founding in their pursuit of social, political and economic justice for everyone. That’s a pretty optimistic view of this country, I would say.
When shown this fact of Zinn’s world view, you dismiss it as “unicorns and pixie dust.”
So which is it, is Zinn pessimistic about this country or overly optimistic?
IMO many famous academics are assholes. I’m sorry to hear he was a dick, but that doesn’t take away the importance of his work.