Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2010 Articles 
Sunday, February 21 2010

Imagine that I offered to give you a tour of Walt Disney World.  Having never been there - but having heard much about it - you excitedly accept the offer.  But when we went, imagine that I only showed you the insides of the port-o-potties that sit along the back edge of the park's property, and then urged you to conclude that Disney World was one disgusting destination.  Honest and fair of me?

Welcome to the Howard Zinn method of teaching American history.  About a month ago, this Marxist storyteller (too many people insult the field of history by conferring upon him the inappropriate and undeserved title of historian) died, leaving behind a legacy of contempt, fraud, and a herd of acolytes sure to carry on his life-long crusade of rewriting the pages of this country's story.

My genuine opposition to Zinn's work is not based in his zealous anti-American bias.  It is rooted primarily in his blatant anti-intellectualism that is so often glossed over by adoring crowds of media and entertainment types who share his contempt for America.

I first encountered Zinn's magnum opus, A People's History of the United States, when I was a first year American history teacher.  A friend had recommended that I read the book, "for a different perspective."  Admittedly, I struggled at first to even take it seriously.  What kind of a history text has no documentation and footnotes?  What kind of American history text leaves out Washington's Farewell Address and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, leaves out the moon landing and D-Day, leaves out Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers...but makes plenty of room for Joan Baez and the Berrigan brothers?  This had to be a joke - some sort of parody, right?

On that count, I was in many ways correct.  Regarding Zinn's work as a chronicle of American history is indeed a cruel joke - one that is being played on the minds of countless young Americans across the country.  For despite the fact that the Marxist Zinn admits, "There is no such thing as pure fact...I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle," countless high schools and universities (including Indiana University, Penn State, the University of Colorado-Boulder, etc.) require students to read his fairy tales for completion of some courses.

The hatred Howard Zinn holds for his country (he rails, as any true Marxist does, against the evils of the American capitalist system...yes, the same one that made him very wealthy and allowed him to live a life of privilege) pales in comparison to the contempt he holds for responsible historical research.

Zinn sees both the writing and teaching of history not as what it is: a noble profession bearing responsibility to transmit an accurate retelling of past events to new generations, but rather as a weapon to use in advancing a social and political agenda.  Announcing that "objectivity is impossible...and it is also undesirable," Zinn attempts to absolve himself of any duty to accurately portray the events of the past.  As author Dan Flynn points out, what results is the worst kind of revisionism that only the ignorant or indoctrinated could embrace:

Maoist China - the most murderous state in human history - is praised as the closest thing to a "people's government" China has known; the oppressive Sandinistas in Nicaragua were "welcomed"; Castro's Cuba "had no bloody record of suppression"; the American revolution was a clever trick by the Founders to ensure oppression of Americans; emancipation of the slaves was motivated only by greed; America, not Japan, was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And of course this is only the beginning.  Zinn's pathetic retelling of the settler/Indian disputes would be embarrassing to the point of laughter if it were not for the fact that this pseudo-history is being taught as fact to countless students.

Following its initial printing, respected historian Oscar Handlin dismantled Zinn's book in a review as being "deranged...fairy tales."  Yet, regardless of his shoddy methodology, apparently non-existent research, and glaring bias, Zinn has become a cultural hero for the American left.  They see his as the voice that gives historical justification to what they have always believed about America: that she is a force for wickedness and evil, a country that should be ashamed of itself.

Perhaps the real shame we should feel is that people like Zinn can still find such success in using the openness, opportunity and freedom that this country provides to belittle it.  Upon his passing, it is important to remind ourselves that America is far greater than Howard Zinn, and her inspiring story overwhelms the feeble attempts of radical ideologues like him to erase or dismantle it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  15 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Howard Zinn: WWII Veteran, Active participant in the Civil Rights Movement,went to Viet Nam with Father Daniel Berrigan and negotiated the release of 3 downed airmen,professor at both Spelman College and Boston University for over 30 years, author of 24 books...... Peter Heck: School Teacher,Republican Proselytizer.......I think thats enough said.
Posted by yeahthatbarry on 02/23/2010 19:41:21
I guess when you don't want to attack the message, attacking the messenger works just as well. Or not.
Posted by peterheck on 02/24/2010 13:33:28
Well said, isnt that what the original article was about, attacking the messenger? Far be it for someone to write a little history from the point of view of the people who actually fought and struggled for it. All history is not George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. History is made by the people who live it, not just those who take credit for it. Why is it wrong for a coal miner or a factory worker or a soldier to have their voice heard? Because we wouldnt want a history book to ever have a voice of dissent in it. Were it not for voices of dissent the civil right moevement wouldnt exist, the labor movement wouldnt exist, the womens sufferage movement in the U.S and so on. Lets not glorify those folks. We dont want people getting ideas.
Posted by yeahthatbarry on 02/24/2010 13:56:11
Howard Zinn was the bomb! How can you say his book was anything but accurate? He didn't rely on old greybeard sources, he went out and got the truth from the People!!! Truth from the People for the People!!! Anyone who says history is just what The Man says it is, is a Fascist! Viva El Zinn!
Posted by PinkoKitty on 02/24/2010 16:02:45
Whoa...don't put words in my mouth. The concept of letting dissenting voices be heard is not what I was objecting to. But suggesting, as Zinn did, that those are the voices that truly define us is preposterous. The problem with Zinn was he focused on the coal miners and factory workers who shared his antipathy for America and made theirs the "people's" voice. What about the other miners and factory workers? Add to that the complete fabrications that often littered his retelling of events that didn't fit his template if told correctly and you get why I'm anti-Zinn. He disgraced the field not because he wanted to let dissent be heard, but because he made stuff up.
Posted by peterheck on 02/25/2010 13:19:15
yeahthatbarry writes, "Far be it for someone to write a little history from the point of view of the people who actually fought and struggled for it. All history is not George Washington and Abraham Lincoln." Right - because those guys didn't know what it was like to actually fight and struggle for the cause. They didn't suffer or sacrifice - Washington wasn't at Valley Forge, Lincoln didn't get shot in the head. Good call, Barry. Put down the Zinn.
Posted by Jonas on 02/25/2010 13:21:23
Jonas, I hope you note that Washington didn't lose any digits while sitting by the fire at Isaac Pott's home in Valley Forge, and proper history acknowledges that Mrs. Washington came and entertained officer's wives. Lincoln suffered greatly over the division of the union, but given that he was a self-made man who carried a $5 USC given to him by a freed slave he met after the liberation of Richmond, he'd probably commend Zinn's work.
Posted by PinkoKitty on 02/25/2010 16:32:08
Heck, regardless of your opinion of the man, it is in utterly poor taste to attack someone who just passed away (you did the very same thing with Ted Kennedy). Such behavior speaks volumes of one's character. Do better.
Posted by Kevin on 03/15/2010 22:14:41
Nice try, Kev. This column was published nearly a month after Zinn died. And it attacked his horrendous methodology. Unless you see calling him a Marxist an attack - it's what he was. And could you provide an example of how I attacked Ted Kennedy? If not, perhaps you should retract that accusation. Baseless accusations speak volumes about one's character, you know.
Posted by peterheck on 03/16/2010 14:48:09
There is a clear pejorative tone to your account of both Zinn and his work. Considering the man just passed away, your words are in very poor taste. Provide me with an archive of past shows and articles you've posted, and I'll be glad to provide an example of your negative words regarding Kennedy. No baseless accusations here. Where do YOU get off accusing others of baseless accusations??? You've created a whole radio show that consists of not much more than baseless accusations and shallow generalizations.
Posted by Kevin on 03/16/2010 20:19:01
So I'll take that as a "No, I'm unable to provide any examples...but I'm sure you did...that's just like you!" Oh, followed up with more baseless accusations. Pretty solid, overall. But I'm glad you're a listener! (By the way, you're commenting on the very site that has all of my articles posted...so feel free to look around for the Kennedy attack)
Posted by peterheck on 03/17/2010 09:56:01
You should take it as more of a, "You fill the airwaves with misinformation, distortions and opinions poorly dressed as fact. Then make the shows unavailable and all linked articles unavailable to those who call you out later and accuse those people of making baseless accusations." I'm not talking about OPINION COLUMNS you have written (they are NOT articles). I'm talking about the rubbish you post to the front page of your show's website. Where can I find an archive of those? Where can I find an archive of your past shows? Then I'll be happy to provide examples.
Posted by Kevin on 03/17/2010 18:54:00
Ah, I see. I had always regarded those as "captions" and not articles. Sorry. Unless you've captured screen shots of each of those pages, I'm afraid I can't help you with archives. And unfortunately we only have the bandwidth to save up to 3 weeks worth of audio. I do have CDs and paper files though...but I doubt you or I either really care enough to go through those. If I really did attack Ted, and it upset you so badly, why didn't you say something then? I never heard anything like that from anyone. I guess I just wonder why you would accuse me of attacking him if you didn't have an example in mind. And, I'm sorry that I evidently make you so angry...it's really not my intent.
Posted by peterheck on 03/17/2010 20:40:26
Hey Kevin, in case you were unaware, Peter's show is an "opinion show." Duh. It's a show where he comments on news of the day and gives a conservative perspective. Do you really have a problem with people you disagree with voicing their opinions? I thought that attitude is what you folks always tried to accuse the right of having? You know, tolerance for thee, but not for me. If you want to dispute Peter's opinions then do it. But to this point, all you've done is throw an online temper tantrum and made yourself look, well, like a liberal.
Posted by GD on 03/17/2010 20:47:05
Peter Heck, as one of your "psycho fans" who listens to you regularly, I DO remember what you said the week Ted Kennedy died! You said...NOTHING! I remember this because you read an email from someone asking you why you hadn't commented, and you made a remark that you didn't have extraordinarily complimentary things to say about the man or his career and so now was not the time to comment on it! I DO REMEMBER THAT! So there you go, Kevin. Looks like it was a "baseless accusation" after all. Don't expect an apology though, Peter. This Kevin guy is a smear merchant, pure and simple. The fact that he's having verbal diarrhea here is just a sign you're doing something right, buddy.
Posted by GD on 03/17/2010 20:54:19

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here