General Discussion

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

31. This is babble.

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:06 AM

Jul 2012

There is no such thing as objective history, there is well supported historical interpretation and political drivel pulled out of some guy's ass. Zinn makes clear his slant, but he does not lie; Barton on the other hand pretends he is being "objective"; as do the writers of the OP who are grinding their own axe, the entire purpose of the OP seems to be to discredit Zinn using Barton as a bludgeon. It is an old political technique but it has nothing to do with history.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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