Reply #24

In the discussion thread: Lies the Debunkers Told Me: How Bad History Books Win Us Over [View all]

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 05:28 AM

hfojvt (31,313 posts)

24. I would say that his description of King Phillip's war, to cite one example

is a lie - or several lies. Some lies of commission, and some lies of omission.

Zinn - "The English found their excuse, a murder which they attributed to Metacom, and they began a war of conquest against the Wampanoags, a war to take their land."

So to read that, and only that about King Phillip's war is to imagine that the Wampanoags are there in present day Windham County, Connecticut. The English blame him for the death of Sassamon and proceed to invade Windham County so they can take that land.

Other than the details of Sassamon and Windham County (which I have made up to simplify the tale - the point is there is Wampanoag territory and the English invade it ("begin a war of conquest"), that is basically how Zinn describes it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

40 replies	Author	Time	Post
Lies the Debunkers Told Me: How Bad History Books Win Us Over [View all]	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	OP
This won't go well, but it is hard to read Zinn with	cthulu2016	Jul 2012	#1
I completely agree	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#2
The Article, Though, Sir, Is Still an exercise In False Equivalency	The Magistrate	Jul 2012	#3
agreed	cthulu2016	Jul 2012	#5
Just finished reading the article, and was about to post this same point.	Egalitarian Thug	Jul 2012	#7
true and	arely staircase	Jul 2012	#20
my thoughts exactly	Douglas Carpenter	Jul 2012	#39
It's more polemic than history honestly	Spider Jerusalem	Jul 2012	#6
What a ridiculous article!	Nostradammit	Jul 2012	#4
The article is all blovation	cthulu2016	Jul 2012	#8
Zinn's sin is writing from the wrong perspective. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	Jul 2012	#9
Writing from a single perspective is "polemic"	bhikkhu	Jul 2012	#16
That wasn't the purpose of the article	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#10
Citing 'Reason', sir?	The Magistrate	Jul 2012	#18
reason magazine is great	arely staircase	Jul 2012	#21
The purpose was quite plainly to draw a false equivalency, as others have pointed out.	Egalitarian Thug	Jul 2012	#22
HNN's gotten pretty vile in the last year	Posteritatis	Jul 2012	#11
All of a sudden?	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#12
There's always been a bit of a slant, but I did see a sudden, very sharp swerve.	Posteritatis	Jul 2012	#17
Gosh, historians have their points of view?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jul 2012	#13
There's historiography and then there's lying	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#14
One of my history profs said to History majors that studying history is a sure way to cynicism.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jul 2012	#15
As the Man Said, Sir	The Magistrate	Jul 2012	#19
I would say that his description of King Phillip's war, to cite one example	hfojvt	Jul 2012	#24
Anyone who bases all their knowledge on one book is a lost cause	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#27
but in this incident, it is not the right direction	hfojvt	Jul 2012	#33
I've got a quote here from a book you may be familair with...	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#35
oh no, not the alarms	hfojvt	Jul 2012	#38
Actually, Zinn's talking about the war	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#40
Exactly. nt	raouldukelives	Jul 2012	#34
I wrote this about Zinn's first chapter	hfojvt	Jul 2012	#23
Thanks for that	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#25
Interesting that the article plays off the name of James Loewen's book	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#26
I finally sat down to read Zinn about 10 years ago, threw it away after 3 chapters	1-Old-Man	Jul 2012	#28
Consider the source of this squirt at Zinn. George Mason U is a nutter butter factory	leveymg	Jul 2012	#29
This thread leads credence	melm00se	Jul 2012	#30
Sadly true	salvorhardin	Jul 2012	#32
This is babble.	bemildred	Jul 2012	#31
It's safe to dismiss people who claim to be "objective" as liars	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#36
Dumb liars.	bemildred	Jul 2012	#37

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.